3 ms·

This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blu

This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...

reissbaker 5y ago
Redundancy for NASA funded projects makes sense, and it's how we regained the ability to launch human crewed rockets from US soil: Boeing wanted to be the sole contract, and has bungled their launch projects, and it was due to NASA also contracting SpaceX that we've had any successful launches. When SpaceX was recently awarded a sole contract, plenty of people — including here on HN — howled that NASA was letting SpaceX turn into a monopolist like Boeing tried to become. NASA has historically chosen multiple providers for redundancy, and the SpaceX sole contract was a unique departure due to NASA lacking sufficient funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lu... The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.
- cholantesh 5y ago
  'neutrality' is a mirage, but WaPo isn't known for it, either, and in this context it's an especially egregious choice
  - reissbaker 5y ago
    Okay, here's CBS saying the same thing: NASA always wanted two contracts, and was forced to give up on redundancy on the lunar lander due to their budget getting slashed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contract-to-build-moon-lander-for-nasas-artemis-program/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contrac... "Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other. But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024. Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise." Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.

This seems like an oligarchy to me https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-senate-bailout/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/25/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-s...

reissbaker 5y ago

Redundancy for NASA funded projects makes sense, and it's how we regained the ability to launch human crewed rockets from US soil: Boeing wanted to be the sole contract, and has bungled their launch projects, and it was due to NASA also contracting SpaceX that we've had any successful launches. When SpaceX was recently awarded a sole contract, plenty of people — including here on HN — howled that NASA was letting SpaceX turn into a monopolist like Boeing tried to become. NASA has historically chosen multiple providers for redundancy, and the SpaceX sole contract was a unique departure due to NASA lacking sufficient funding. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lu... The Intercept isn't exactly known for... neutral... reporting.

cholantesh 5y ago
'neutrality' is a mirage, but WaPo isn't known for it, either, and in this context it's an especially egregious choice
- reissbaker 5y ago
  Okay, here's CBS saying the same thing: NASA always wanted two contracts, and was forced to give up on redundancy on the lunar lander due to their budget getting slashed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contract-to-build-moon-lander-for-nasas-artemis-program/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-wins-2-9-billion-contrac... "Agency managers originally hoped to award follow-on HLS contracts to two of the companies to encourage competition and protect against the possibility of major problems or delays that might affect one company but not the other. But Congress only allocated $850 million in NASA's fiscal 2021 budget for lander development, about one quarter of the amount the agency said it needed to have a new vehicle ready by 2024. Given the available money and projected future spending, NASA "down selected" to a single contractor — SpaceX — deciding the California rocket builder offered the most attractive combination of cost, technology and management expertise." Neutrality may always have some element of manufacture, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to intentionally trying to generate partisan outrage. This isn't a "bailout fund for Jeff Bezos" — word-for-word quote from the headline of the Intercept article! — it's just NASA continuing to try to get budget for the projects it wanted all along, so it can have redundant contractors like it did with the commercial crew program and avoid getting stuck with monopolist pricing (and monopolist poor performance) like it nearly did with Boeing.