4 ms·
If NASA had done that for commercial resupply or commercial crew, they would have spent more for less. Because they instead competed pre-buying launches, essent
by greglindahl 10y ago
If 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.