3 ms·

This seems a bit odd in comparison to how the Apollo program worked with private contractors - each contractor was assigned a specific task, e.g. "Boeing was re

This seems a bit odd in comparison to how the Apollo program worked with private contractors - each contractor was assigned a specific task, e.g. "Boeing was responsible for designing and producing the Command and Service Module", etc. https://apollo11space.com/apollo-program-and-private-companies/ https://apollo11space.com/apollo-program-and-private-compani... Generally the competition and the bid takes place before the awarding of the government contract, doesn't it? This is rather like having two companies build competing bridges and then deciding which one to use after both are built, or am I missing something? I suspect the Bezos lobbying machine had a hand in this decision: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/king-hill-how-amazon-jeff-bezos-made-washington-second-home-n1033296 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/king-hill-how... > "There are a lot of opportunities for influence once you get your own people insinuated into the elite clubs, schools, and other social venues in D.C."

jvanderbot 3y ago
Oh now that SpaceX won we're back to asking for old school single-performer contracts and redundancy is bad?
appointment 3y ago
Having two suppliers for critical services has been common practice where possible for NASA and USSF for quite some time now. Commercial Resupply (SpaceX and OSC/NG), Commercial Crew (SpaceX and Boeing), National Security Space Launch (SpaceX and ULA),
- ren_engineer 3y ago
  >quite some time not exactly an endorsement for NASA considering how little they've accomplished in recent decades. To me it makes sense to focus on funding the R/D "primitives" for space technology rather than funding essentially duplicate projects reinventing the wheel. That's what worked for Apollo, the new strategy has been a colossal failure and SpaceX alone has hiding a lot of NASA's flaws
wmf 3y ago
This is rather like having two companies build competing bridges and then deciding which one to use after both are built, or am I missing something? If the bridges have a high chance of multi-year delays (ahem Starliner), that's exactly what you should do.

jvanderbot 3y ago

Oh now that SpaceX won we're back to asking for old school single-performer contracts and redundancy is bad?

appointment 3y ago

Having two suppliers for critical services has been common practice where possible for NASA and USSF for quite some time now. Commercial Resupply (SpaceX and OSC/NG), Commercial Crew (SpaceX and Boeing), National Security Space Launch (SpaceX and ULA),

ren_engineer 3y ago
>quite some time not exactly an endorsement for NASA considering how little they've accomplished in recent decades. To me it makes sense to focus on funding the R/D "primitives" for space technology rather than funding essentially duplicate projects reinventing the wheel. That's what worked for Apollo, the new strategy has been a colossal failure and SpaceX alone has hiding a lot of NASA's flaws

wmf 3y ago

This is rather like having two companies build competing bridges and then deciding which one to use after both are built, or am I missing something? If the bridges have a high chance of multi-year delays (ahem Starliner), that's exactly what you should do.