3 ms·
I'm basically curious what incentivizes NASA to put that much money into the Boeing option. Is SpaceX' design too radical and unproven, making a backup option a
by sho_hn 12y ago
I'm basically curious what incentivizes NASA to put that much money into the Boeing option. Is SpaceX' design too radical and unproven, making a backup option a good idea even if the backup is more expensive? Are there political implications in play, like keeping Boeing's workforce employed?
What's the big picture?
- Afforess 12y agoThe big picture is that NASA has created competition in the commercial space market. If either of the parties fail to live up to their obligations, NASA has a backup. If both succeed, all the better for NASA. Competition is good.
- sho_hn 12y agoThat's true; looking at it terms of supporting industry-wide infrastructure it does seem more sensible than throwing everything behind one vendor. Edit: Comment 8326972 by terravion also suggests picking a single winner wasn't an option, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the issue of the relative award magnitudes.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- XorNot 12y agoIts not the money you spend today, its the money you spend tomorrow: we need manned transport to LEO today. But depending who wins, it will determine what it costs tomorrow.