3 ms·
> NASA did just give Boeing extra money for some pretty dubious reasons. Actually, a multiple award approach for a very high risk, technically challenging widg
by OrvalWintermute 3y ago
> NASA did just give Boeing extra money for some pretty dubious reasons.
Actually, a multiple award approach for a very high risk, technically challenging widget makes perfect sense, and is the same thing seen for similarly challenging weapon systems e.g. the Advanced Tactical Fighter F-22 vs F-23
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-23-stealth-fighter-vs-the-lethal-f-22-raptor-who-14461 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-23-ste...
> The report specifically notes that, five days after NASA agreed to the additional payment to Boeing, the company submitted a proposal to NASA offering to sell five Soyuz seats it has acquired from Russian company RSC Energia for $373.5 million.
This looks like Boeing was doing some horse trading that could have been pretty financially risky particularly considering the value of money.
> The report concluded NASA’s payment of $144 million to accelerate the timetable for two of the four Starliner missions was unreasonable, and that it overspent by $43 million when it granted Boeing authorization to proceed on one Starliner mission a year earlier than necessary.
Sometimes when thinking about the Industrial Base of the United States, there is a good rationale for keeping an incumbent's design & engineering capabilities active, while bringing competition to the table and potentially displacing it with a more agile competitor.
If truly getting the best and most efficient designs out there was the true goal, there should have been more awards, and for funded development to enable a greater diversity of competitors with designs being put forth.
- panick21_ 3y agoThe Starliner was gone get built if they dropped 100M extra on Boeing or not. There lots of more relevant and important technologies that need more funding. The CommercialCrew program was not done for research, it was trying to solving a particular problem at the time and do it fast and efficently. If NASA want to spend money on more experimental human spaceflight, the CommercialCrew program was not the place to do it.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago> If NASA want to spend money on more experimental human spaceflight, the CommercialCrew program was not the place to do it. SpaceX has been built on launch contracts displacing ULA. It is clear that the longterm for SpaceX, and their competitors, is going way past mere launch services (as complex as those are) to cis-lunar and interplanetary missions. Getting a healthy ecosystem with robust competitors is just the start. NASA and peer govt organizations are looking for partners on this, since companies are expected to bring their own funding to bear too. https://www.space.com/nasa-funding-moon-power-exploration-tech-july-2023 https://www.space.com/nasa-funding-moon-power-exploration-te...
- panick21_ 3y ago> SpaceX has been built on launch contracts displacing ULA. No. The CRS missions were displacing Arianespace. The CommercialCrew flights were displacing Russia. Commercial came from Proton, Soyuz and Ariane 5. Only military came from ULA. > NASA and peer govt organizations are looking for partners on this, since companies are expected to bring their own funding to bear too. Yes, its called the Clips program. IT shouldn't be part of CC.