4 ms·

If we set aside the EUV tech comparisons you were making, then sure, competitive awards make a ton of sense. The thing is, this is how many grant agencies usual

If we set aside the EUV tech comparisons you were making, then sure, competitive awards make a ton of sense. The thing is, this is how many grant agencies usually work (unless they get some weird overrides from congress or the occasional failure of the competitive system (a.k.a. market failure?)). > My proposal is simple. Put a $2B RFP out for a 9 arc second telescope if that is what is needed, perhaps 10 $1M proposal awards, down select to 3 $20M awards for further work, then down select to 1 or 2 $1B-$2B awards depending on where the bidding comes in. Payment as delivery is met. This is actually how grant agencies like the NSF, NIH, DARPA, NASA, etc do it. Maybe not the exact parameters, money amounts, and specs you mentioned, but pretty much the exact overall process. Sure, "grant writing" expects a particular writing style depending on agency, and academic accolades are part of the (I would say reasonable) signaling of who is competent. But these proposals do indeed bubble up after competitions between many different teams, and nothing stops a startup or a hard-tech conglomerate in another field from putting in a proposal.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
But it's not actually how they do it. Payment is based on COST incurred, not delivery. Or expenditure to a limit regardless of outcome. For Webb we have this: "All told, NASA has spent about $9.7 billion on the project, which has been delayed by more than six years in the past decade. That's in stark contrast to estimates for the project when it was approved, when it was meant to cost $1 billion to $3.5 billion and launch sometime between 2007 and 2011, according to the GAO report." Can I ask who is footing the bill if this was payment as delivery was met? Oh right, because it's not. The only recent efforts towards fee for service were the HLS award and some of the commercial crew program work. Interestingly, the women heading that up (Kathy - very successful) appears to have been sidelined from directing new space development for someone from old space / old boys network. We really do need a fresh start - the more I poke at this the worse it looks.
- krastanov 5y ago
  With these complaints and suggestions, I can mostly agree, and do support evolution in this direction with whatever voice I have.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago

But it's not actually how they do it. Payment is based on COST incurred, not delivery. Or expenditure to a limit regardless of outcome. For Webb we have this: "All told, NASA has spent about $9.7 billion on the project, which has been delayed by more than six years in the past decade. That's in stark contrast to estimates for the project when it was approved, when it was meant to cost $1 billion to $3.5 billion and launch sometime between 2007 and 2011, according to the GAO report." Can I ask who is footing the bill if this was payment as delivery was met? Oh right, because it's not. The only recent efforts towards fee for service were the HLS award and some of the commercial crew program work. Interestingly, the women heading that up (Kathy - very successful) appears to have been sidelined from directing new space development for someone from old space / old boys network. We really do need a fresh start - the more I poke at this the worse it looks.

krastanov 5y ago
With these complaints and suggestions, I can mostly agree, and do support evolution in this direction with whatever voice I have.