3 ms·

There are good reasons that those contracts aren't that harsh. There aren't a lot of contractors able to bid on these jobs at all in the first place. If the gov

There are good reasons that those contracts aren't that harsh. There aren't a lot of contractors able to bid on these jobs at all in the first place. If the government forces them to shoulder all the considerable risk, there either won't be any bidders, or after winning some contracts and blowing them there won't be any contractors left standing. And "total mission success" isn't the only goal of these programs. Progress in manufacturing and engineering is a considerable factor. Governments, like big banks, are better at taking on risk than most businesses or individual persons. That's how health care works in most civilized countries, disaster relief and other things. And expensive space programs had to be started by governments because they were too risky with too little benefit, and in some respects this is still the case.

panick21_ 4y ago
Yeah for what did we consolidate the whole industry into a few giants like NG, LM and Boeing when you can not then ask them to shoulder some risk? > And "total mission success" isn't the only goal of these programs. Progress in manufacturing and engineering is a considerable factor. This is such a copout and nonsense. The idea that SLS does anything for 'progress in manufacturing and engineering' is a bad senator talking point with essentially no relevant for the real world. In fact, giving money to innovative space companies would achieve those things far better. > Governments, like big banks, are better at taking on risk The whole point of SLS was that it was low risk legacy technology. SLS is the EXACT LITERAL opposite of what you suggest, its low-risk incredibly conservative with minimal technological advancement.
- everforward 4y ago
  > Yeah for what did we consolidate the whole industry into a few giants like NG, LM and Boeing when you can not then ask them to shoulder some risk? Up until recently, there was no profit motive to create private rockets, so the government was the only source of work on rockets. The government doesn't need that many rockets, so it's not shocking that there are a small number of contractors. And no, you can't just force them to shoulder risk. They're private companies that aren't contractually obligated to accept other contracts. If we wanted someone we could force risk onto, we would need a public entity that designs and manufactures the rockets. Or rather, I guess we could legislatively force them to accept the risk, but I would expect private capital to flee, so it would become a de facto public organization.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Ironically there were far more contractors in the past. Just look at the journey COTS, form Orbital -> Orbital ATK -> NG. > Up until recently, there was no profit motive to create private rockets Had the government not artificially pushed Shuttle, there would actually have been a quite large commercial market. A US launch vehicle could very much have competed against Ariane 3 and Soyuz. > And no, you can't just force them to shoulder risk. Rocket launches in the 90s were not some crazy future risk. Doing a COTS style program for rockets was 100% viable. > If we wanted someone we could force risk onto, we would need a public entity that designs and manufactures the rockets. No you only need a public entity willing to buy a a lot of launches.

panick21_ 4y ago

Yeah for what did we consolidate the whole industry into a few giants like NG, LM and Boeing when you can not then ask them to shoulder some risk? > And "total mission success" isn't the only goal of these programs. Progress in manufacturing and engineering is a considerable factor. This is such a copout and nonsense. The idea that SLS does anything for 'progress in manufacturing and engineering' is a bad senator talking point with essentially no relevant for the real world. In fact, giving money to innovative space companies would achieve those things far better. > Governments, like big banks, are better at taking on risk The whole point of SLS was that it was low risk legacy technology. SLS is the EXACT LITERAL opposite of what you suggest, its low-risk incredibly conservative with minimal technological advancement.

everforward 4y ago
> Yeah for what did we consolidate the whole industry into a few giants like NG, LM and Boeing when you can not then ask them to shoulder some risk? Up until recently, there was no profit motive to create private rockets, so the government was the only source of work on rockets. The government doesn't need that many rockets, so it's not shocking that there are a small number of contractors. And no, you can't just force them to shoulder risk. They're private companies that aren't contractually obligated to accept other contracts. If we wanted someone we could force risk onto, we would need a public entity that designs and manufactures the rockets. Or rather, I guess we could legislatively force them to accept the risk, but I would expect private capital to flee, so it would become a de facto public organization.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Ironically there were far more contractors in the past. Just look at the journey COTS, form Orbital -> Orbital ATK -> NG. > Up until recently, there was no profit motive to create private rockets Had the government not artificially pushed Shuttle, there would actually have been a quite large commercial market. A US launch vehicle could very much have competed against Ariane 3 and Soyuz. > And no, you can't just force them to shoulder risk. Rocket launches in the 90s were not some crazy future risk. Doing a COTS style program for rockets was 100% viable. > If we wanted someone we could force risk onto, we would need a public entity that designs and manufactures the rockets. No you only need a public entity willing to buy a a lot of launches.