8 ms·
As usual SpaceX gets less money for more effort. And the three companies known for performing badly get the second contract.
by panick21_ 3y ago
As usual SpaceX gets less money for more effort. And the three companies known for performing badly get the second contract.
- giarc 3y ago[flagged]
- canadianfella 3y ago[dead]
- yinser 3y agoDo you want to share some evidence that that has anything to do with the federal government's decision to choose Blue Origin? Or do you want to omit you're opining without any evidence?
- alistairSH 3y agoUh, SpaceX already has a contract. They weren't part of this.
- Robotbeat 3y agoExactly. So Blue Origin winning has nothing to do with Musk running his mouth.
- giarc 3y agoYou know there is no way to provide that evidence. And therefore I think it's obviously to any reasonable reader that it's an opinion.
- yinser 3y ago[flagged]
- sillysaurusx 3y agoHN values thoughtful commentary above all else: curious conversation. I suggest re-reading the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Jerrrry 3y ago"musk bad hur dur" really curious conversation, really thought provoking
- jacquesm 3y ago39 karma 9 months old accounts should probably not speak for HN.
- Robotbeat 3y agoBut it’s absurd because SpaceX didn’t bid for this as it’s a contract for a second lander provider, spaceX is already the first.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y agoI thought alloy of prople were into conspiricies in us, so i doubt it had any consequence
- themagician 3y agoIt's risk mitigation. Elon Musk is an eccentric billionaire that gives no !@#$s. I'm not sure what evidence you need other than a million different headlines and his own Twitter account. SpaceX is a here today gone tomorrow kind of company, because it does whatever Elon Musk wants it to do. You don't want space exploration for an entire country (and to some extent—at least currently—the entire world) to rest on the whims of one man. The government often awards contracts to "backups". So NASA decided to sign a contract with a second eccentric billionaire. Lol. This is America.
- xp84 3y agoI thought JB was pretty much a garden-variety billionaire. Is there something that sets him apart from the median billionaire? Or is it just his position at/near the tippy-top of the list (can't be bothered to check his position today) that makes him seem eccentric?
- WalterBright 3y agoBezos is far beyond a garden-variety billionaire. About a 100 times beyond, in fact! And he did it riding his own coattails.
- margalabargala 3y agoI don't think there's anything except speculation here on both sides. People are speculating that the decision may have had something to do with Musk's behavior, without evidence (aside from the behavior they've seen from Musk- which may not have been taken into account). People are speculating that the decision to choose Blue Origin may not have been based on Blue Origin's actual launch capabilities, without evidence (aside from the lack of launches so far- though they could have capabilities NASA knows about but the public does not).
- Robotbeat 3y agoSpaceX didn’t even bid for this because it’s explicitly for a SECOND lander provider, ie like commercial crew NASA wants two providers. So it has literally nothing to do with Musk running his mouth and those insisting it does clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.
- the_third_wave 3y agoYes, while Bezos shakes the right hands, speaks the right words, nods to the right people to pull in $3.4 billion without needing a track record showing he'll actually deliver. There has to be an optimum somewhere between the extremes as descried in "Atlas Shrugged" but this... this is not it.
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoI once heard a quote "Better to be possibly thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt", and man oh man, does that ever apply to Musk. I once had a lot of respect for the dude, now I wonder who the actual competent players are at tesla and spacex who have actually got things done, because it's become pretty apparent the emperor has no clothes.
- totallyagr33 3y ago[flagged]
- mulletbum 3y agoAre we ignoring his acquisition of Twitter and why he had to buy Twitter even though he didn't want it?
- mrguyorama 3y agoIt's really hard to argue with people who have purposely chosen to live in a different reality
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago> I wonder who the actual competent players are at tesla and spacex who have actually got things done For SpaceX, do not wonder, this is known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Shotwell https://gizmodo.com/spacex-nasa-elon-musk-gwynne-shotwell-twitter-1849883327 https://gizmodo.com/spacex-nasa-elon-musk-gwynne-shotwell-tw... https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/gwynne-shotwell-aiming-high-taking-big-risks https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/gwynne-shotwell-aiming... https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-gwynne-shotwell-to-oversee-starship-program/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-gwynne-shotwell-to-oversee-...
- panick21_ 3y agoThe old Shotwell is the reason for all the success anti-Musk line. Classic. Never gets old. No matter that Shotwell or anybody else in the leadership of SpaceX would agree with this take. And Shotwell overseeing the Starship program is just a dumb headline. What happened is that operation in Brownsville was simply integrated into the normal SpaceX structures rather then being a somewhat parallel operation. Shotwell was very involved before and after this administrative change. Neither means that much has changed in terms of how the program is lead technically.
- dr-detroit 3y ago[dead]
- nancyhn 3y agoHe's one of the few people actually pushing humanity forward in real tangible ways, and he's the bad man because he thinks independently and challenges the official narrative? Which itself is the one spreading the most dangerous conspiracy theories and disinformation all the time. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Russiagate, Hunter Biden's laptop, lab leak hypothesis is racist and so on. The people in charge lied about all of this and more to the American people and the entire world. Why are you defending them? He points this out and stands up for free speech, which the marginalized need the most! It's the powerless who needs free speech and freedom broadly. Not the powerful. Someone that uses his wealth to accelerate sustainable energy and reusable rockets and satellite internet for Ukraine and working almost every day instead of retiring and buying mansions for himself. He could do that and would get none of this hate. Unfucking believable. He has 0 mansions and 0 yachts and removing 0 freedoms and doesn't even hoard patents with Tesla and SpaceX. He praises other competing companies for moving to electric vehicles. But oh no, he's independent (who voted for Biden, fwiw) and challenges the official narrative and occasionally says and does dumb things. Spaceman bad. As though the rest of us are all perfect and have made greater contributions to humanity and would have dedicated most of our time and resources into such projects after winning the Paypal stock lottery. You're really going along with the corporate media and other powerful interests that he's the villain and not themselves who get us into devastating wars, are actively removing our freedoms and privacy, and managing our way into debt and collapse? Get real.
- vkou 3y ago> Why are you defending them. If you're going to cherrypick (and distort) some of the worst things people on one side have said, why not cherrypick his signal amplification of insane anti-reasoning and alt-right and fascist-adjacent bullshit? Do you think that amplification is 'doing great things for the world'? Are these guys in desperate need of a platform? Why defend them?
- nancyhn 3y agoThat's a content free and meaningless response. "fascist" and "woke" are usually just shorthand for "people or viewpoints I disagree with".
- DennisP 3y agoSo why did SpaceX get a lunar lander contract before Blue Origin?
- mrguyorama 3y agoSpaceX has more success in the space game? Blue Origin is pretty sad for the money they have. It's either a piss poor engineering org or primarily a toy for Bezos.
- cubefox 3y agoTheir Artemis 3 proposal had a much lower price than the one by Blue Origin. SpaceX 2.8 billion, BO something like 8 billion if I remember correctly. SpaceX was also much more ambitious and forward looking, but I'm not sure whether NASA saw this as positive or negative.
- panick21_ 3y agoBecause their bid was better. But now BlueOrigin gets more money for a significantly worse bid. The problem I am point out here is that NASA defines a narrow set of specification and don't value anything beyond those specifications. NASA is not optimizing for the most useful money spend for the next 20 years. They define narrow specification for short term operations and only value that. So now we have something that is incredibly revolutionary and could carry humanity all over the solar system getting less money then a hacked together solution from 3 contractors who have proven to perform extremely badly on such contracts getting more money.
- vippy 3y agoIt is painfully clear that Musk isn't the brains of the operation, but the showman.
- DarmokJalad1701 3y agoIt is only "painfully clear" to those who know nothing about it. Asking anyone who worked with him says otherwise. Examples include engineers like Tom Mueller and other early SpaceX people, astronauts like Garrett Reisman and many more. Or don't believe them, watch any in-depth technical interview with him. There's three-hour long videos on Raptor engines on YouTube where he speaks off-the-cuff on in-depth details about rocket engine design and hypersonic aerodynamics, among other things.
- hersko 3y agoIt's incredible to me that people try to insist (contrary to all evidence) that a serial entrepreneur who has become the richest man on the planet somehow lucked into his success and is really just a "showman."
- WalterBright 3y agoHis contributions to human progress are incredible. Who cares what he tweets about.
- panick21_ 3y agoWhatever Musk does on twitter has nothing to with NASA being forced by congress to have a second provider for these missions.
- pirate787 3y agoSpaceX didn't compete for this contract
- Zigurd 3y agoCorrect. SpaceX already has a contract for a lunar lander.
- Rebelgecko 3y agoWhat are the differences between the HLS and SLD contracts?
- panick21_ 3y agoCorrect, but its part of a larger 'program' that NASA is conducting. And how and when how much of that money gets award to whom is very much to be questioned.
- meepmorp 3y agoPerhaps relevant: > According to Blue Origin's lunar lander head John Couluris, Blue Origin privately contributed 'well north' of the contract's $3.4 billion payout.
- ArtWomb 3y agoNot a bad way for NASA to generate revenue. License its brand to space manufacturers, who privately fund say, microgravity single-crystal silicon wafer fabs ;)
- B4CKlash 3y agoAlso relevant and stated publicly by John, Blue Origin expects to cover more than 50% of the total cost. To put this into perspective the DoD will happily invest north of $1 Trillion for a single fighter pilot development program (F-35) and I doubt Lockheed is willing to front any of that...
- the_optimist 3y agoThis is what happens when multiple influences combine to get the system completely off the rails. It is a worst-case, lowest common denominator perspective that would completely destroy society were it applied everywhere. There’s no reason to use it as a productive reference point.
- B4CKlash 3y agoI think your point is fair, but the point I'm making is that we should applaud when private industry is willing to shoulder a large proportion of the risk (vs. the traditional externalize risk, internalized profit).
- nradov 3y agoThe DoD didn't pay Lockheed Martin anywhere near $1 trillion to develop the F-35. The $1 trillion plus figures you see are for total program lifecycle cost including a lot more than just development. Back in 1996 when the DoD awarded initial JSF prototype development contracts to Boeing and Lockheed they actually prohibited those contractors from putting in their own additional funds. There were major concerns about maintaining a viable industrial base after the end of the Cold War and the DoD couldn't risk having any of their few remaining prime contractors fail.
- Lolaccount 3y agoIf I was in charge of NASA/goverment spend, I would have done the same. Support successful companies at a lower level. Encourage competitors. Cannot have just one option - especially with an owner as fickle as Musk.
- cubefox 3y agoFalcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are all but fickle. Edit: And their Dragon capsule. SpaceX has been a very reliable partner for NASA. Don't believe the anti Musk sentiments spread by far-left journalists.
- Lolaccount 3y agoFar left journalists? What? Really? The man has been flirting with antisemitism and that was just last week (I'm not Jewish btw, so this isn't personal). I cite that as an example and not one of many reasons I have to despise the current incarnation of the man. Just because NASA is his cash cow, doesn't mean they should trust him as far as they could throw him. The man has done incredible things, supported by an incredible team, but looking on from the outside ... he's just one blood sugar spike from screwing the whole thing up.
- panick21_ 3y agoMusk is so fickel, he has been the CEO of a company for 20 years with a laser focus on a single goal. So fickel. Also, you can't support companies on 'a lower level' if you want to do thing like land on the moon. The question is how could NASA budget most effectively used to turn humanity into an advanced space flight spices. The way NASA evaluated and financed these contracts is very questionable if those are the goals they had. But unfortunately their contracting is and was very restricted on a set of very particular minimum requirements. No extra money for over-achieving, even if over-achieving would have been incredibly useful. P.S: And btw, with SpaceX they are trusting a real proven space company that has man costumers, lots of revenue and so on. BlueOrigin is just a Bezos hobby project that literally depends on multiple billions a year on Bezos private money, they have basically no revenue and want have for years.
- Ajedi32 3y agoObviously the second choice is going to be a worse deal, otherwise it would have been the first choice instead. I agree it does seem kinda backwards that SpaceX gets paid less for a better proposal, but it's kind of a natural consequence of how the bidding and selection process works.
- hackernewds 3y agoWait why is that necessary?
- cubefox 3y agoThey made a second bidding round where SpaceX wasn't allowed to bid because they already have contracts for earlier Artemis missions.
- wmf 3y agoObviously the second-lowest bidder will have a higher price than the lowest bidder. Arguably a second-price policy would be fair in this case but it may not be legal for NASA to award any more money than necessary.
- panick21_ 3y agoIts not that obvious. It all depends on how you do the selection and how you value the selection. SpaceX will have a huge payload capability that NASA didn't bid for. And therefore SpaceX gets no money for it. This is just how NASA choose to do this. They could have instead award contracts sized based on the capability both long and short term a projects add to NASA plans.
- vlovich123 3y agoYou could maybe run a Vickrey auction style auction.
- themgt 3y agoOne way to think about it is Starship is designed to be a generic space ship/lander like a 747, and SpaceX HLS contract is an agreement to build some modified 747s off the assembly line for this specific NASA purpose (along with tanker/etc that were already planned). Whereas the Blue Origin's proposal is more of a purpose-built lunar lander + tug vehicle. So the pricing may actually make sense for all parties involved. It is interesting that BO plans to launch this on New Glenn but aren't going the Starship route of just landing New Glenn's upper stage on the Moon directly (even though with Jarvis it's intended to land on Earth?). But for NASA's purposes hedging on a more traditional lander might be preferable anyway.
- cubefox 3y agoBut NASA gets a lot more future benefit from Starship tech, whereas the BO solution is completely useless for Mars, or really anything involving a larger crew. So the pricing makes not much sense. Of course this is an incredibly minor problem compared to the vast amounts of money that are wasted on SLS instead of being invested in private rockets.
- panick21_ 3y agoThis is kind of the issue here. NASA doesn't really have a long term strategy. The want to achieve X and then make everybody bid on X. Then Y and so on. They don't say 'in 30 years we want to be able to do X, what are the steps we need to take'. SpaceX has that approach luckily they can get some money from NASA to further that program.