3 ms·
Obviously 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
by Ajedi32 3y ago
Obviously 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.