25 ms·
"NASA gave Boeing $2 billion more than they gave SpaceX." I saw this argument in a lot of places. Comparisons like this doesn't have a point without context. A
by tzfld 7y ago
"NASA gave Boeing $2 billion more than they gave SpaceX."
I saw this argument in a lot of places. Comparisons like this doesn't have a point without context. And with the context it's not something that you may want to suggest.
Edit: In a nutshell, the starting point is not the same. Crew Dragon is derived from the cargo Dragon created for COTS years ago. The Starliner was made from scratch just for the crew transportation program.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Miraste 7y agoThis is not a substantive comment. What context do you think justifies Boeing's higher price here?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoExcept that Boeing's justification is that they are a "legacy" contractor needing more funding because of their bureaucracy. One which doesn't seem to add much value.
- hurricanetc 7y agoI fail to see the distinction or the point you are trying to make with it. Boeing was awarded 50% more than SpaceX. If Boeing had to start from scratch why would NASA even bother?
- nickik 7y agoThis is pretty much nonsense. Crew Dragon is a huge step from Cargo Dragon and its not like Boing has never before had money from the government to develop stuff like that. The reason that Boeing gets more money is that companies could set their own price, and Boeing was very confident that they would be selected whatever the price. And this came true, they set their price 1.5 billion higher then Sierra Nevada and got selected anyway.