3 ms·
It probably makes more sense for the Air Force to stay away from subsidizing particular systems and just buy whatever is cheapest for a particular level of demo
by gozur88 10y ago
It probably makes more sense for the Air Force to stay away from subsidizing particular systems and just buy whatever is cheapest for a particular level of demonstrated reliability. If reusable rockets pan out economically (which looks like a pretty safe bet, at this point), that's what launch providers will build.
The problem, over the last 50 years or so, is Congress wants to dictate which companies get contracts (and subcontracts) so the right districts get jobs. If that doesn't stop the subsidization of this or that technology isn't going to make much difference.
- greglindahl 10y agoIf NASA had done that for commercial resupply or commercial crew, they would have spent more for less. Because they instead competed pre-buying launches, essentially, 2 new less-expensive launch vehicles were created. It would be smart for the Air Force to compete pre-buying heavy launches. It would remove a lot of the uncertainty in today's market.
- gozur88 10y ago>If NASA had done that for commercial resupply or commercial crew, they would have spent more for less. I don't see why you think this is true.
- greglindahl 10y agoThe numbers speak for themselves: these block buys paid for development of F9 and Antares plus their flights. ULA lost round 1 of the cargo contest and won 1/3 of the second cargo contest.
- gozur88 10y agoHow is this not covered by the statement "...just buy whatever is cheapest for a particular level of demonstrated reliability."
- greglindahl 10y agoIt makes a huge difference whether you buy 1 flight at a time, or a bunch. Which is the point I was making.