5 ms·

Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon. Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient syst

Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon. Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.

PLenz 5y ago
NASA used contractors to build the equipment last time too
- adamcstephens 5y ago
  Did they pay the contractors to design it too?
Isinlor 5y ago
Because NASA is anchored by USA congress as a job creation program, not a space exploration program. Commercial Lunar Payload Services is not designed to create jobs across all USA and stretch it in infinity as is the case with SLS, so congress does not like it. That's also why they did not give the founding to make it possible to finance two services. Actually they did not give enough money even for one service and SpaceX had to agree to receive payments with delay. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...
- hackeraccount 5y ago
  This is a complete digression (feel free to downvote) but compare this to Biden's environment proposals. For Biden it's clearly - spend money to make people happy (i.e. create a zillion jobs) while saving the environment. Which is potentially great. Look at Apollo. Clearly it was sourced from all over the country in way that created jobs everywhere. Everyone was happy and we put a man on the moon. Now look at SLS. Clearly it's sourced from all over to create jobs, however it's such a good job creator - it works so well political that the politics have stopped being a parasite on the goal; instead the politics are the goal. SLS is does nothing other then spend money. There's a funny story involving corruption in 2 countries. In one the minister involved points at a bridge off in the distance and with a wink says "I got 10% of the cost of the bridge in my bank account." In the other country a ministry points to an empty space devoid of anything beyond wilderness. "Hah! I got 100% of the cost of our bridge!" Politics does get stuff moving but it needs to be a tail being wagged by a dog not the other way 'round.

Then why pay a private company? The government is a single entity that has already been to get moon. Competition is a good thing and builds more resilient systems.

PLenz 5y ago

NASA used contractors to build the equipment last time too

adamcstephens 5y ago
Did they pay the contractors to design it too?

Isinlor 5y ago

Because NASA is anchored by USA congress as a job creation program, not a space exploration program. Commercial Lunar Payload Services is not designed to create jobs across all USA and stretch it in infinity as is the case with SLS, so congress does not like it. That's also why they did not give the founding to make it possible to finance two services. Actually they did not give enough money even for one service and SpaceX had to agree to receive payments with delay. > This decision was based on NASA’s longstanding Option A acquisition strategy of making two Option A contract awards. While it remains the Agency’s desire to preserve a competitive environment at this stage of the HLS Program, at the initial prices and milestone payment phasing proposed by each of the Option A offerors, NASA’s current fiscal year budget did not support even a single Option A award. Working in close coordination with the CO, it was therefore my determination that NASA should, as a first step, open price negotiations with the Option A offeror that is both very highly rated from a technical and management perspective and that also had, by a wide margin, the lowest initially-proposed price—SpaceX. [0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-...

hackeraccount 5y ago
This is a complete digression (feel free to downvote) but compare this to Biden's environment proposals. For Biden it's clearly - spend money to make people happy (i.e. create a zillion jobs) while saving the environment. Which is potentially great. Look at Apollo. Clearly it was sourced from all over the country in way that created jobs everywhere. Everyone was happy and we put a man on the moon. Now look at SLS. Clearly it's sourced from all over to create jobs, however it's such a good job creator - it works so well political that the politics have stopped being a parasite on the goal; instead the politics are the goal. SLS is does nothing other then spend money. There's a funny story involving corruption in 2 countries. In one the minister involved points at a bridge off in the distance and with a wink says "I got 10% of the cost of the bridge in my bank account." In the other country a ministry points to an empty space devoid of anything beyond wilderness. "Hah! I got 100% of the cost of our bridge!" Politics does get stuff moving but it needs to be a tail being wagged by a dog not the other way 'round.