5 ms·

I do not know the details of their contracts, but assuming these are cost-plus contracts then it may be fair to equate structural dysfunction to intent.

jaggederest 2y ago
The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that. This is part of the reason why the new era of firm, fixed price contracts at NASA is so important. And why it's so troubling that NASA is having difficulty transitioning SLS contractors to such contracts for later (Artemis V+) rockets.
  - wmf 2y ago
    Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price. NASA just needs to drop them.
    - nradov 2y ago
      That sounds good, until it leaves NASA entirely dependent on SpaceX as a single supplier. For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts.
      - wmf 2y ago
        Sierra and Blue Origin are coming.
      - nordsieck 2y ago
        > For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts. Northrup Grumman seems to be doing a pretty good job with Cygnus. And ULA seems to be doing alright with NSSLv2 (although it sounds like they may have had to give up a launch or two due to Vulcan delays).
      - Gud 2y ago
        No, but there will be. Besides SpaceX there is also Rocketlab who has a CEO rocket nerd in charge.
        kaliqt 2y ago
        So that's two nerds total.
        Ajedi32 2y ago
        Stoke Space also has a pretty huge rocket nerd at the helm[1]. And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever). The industry has been flourishing lately, though (with the possible exception of Blue Origin) it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9, let alone Starship. [1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/
        nordsieck 2y ago
        > And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever) Ever since Bezos installed David Limp as CEO, it seems like they've been able to ship stuff. It's hard to know if he was set up for success by his predecessor, but their older no press policy prevented anyone from knowing it, or if he changed the company culture for the better. Regardless, it appears like Blue Origin is likely to launch New Glenn this year. Or, at least the DoD thinks it's likely enough that they agreed to onramp Blue Origin to NSSLv3 (pending a successful launch). > it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9 I don't think it'll be that long. * Blue Origin's New Glenn should launch in 2024-2025. * RocketLab's Neutron should launch in 2025-2027. * Relativity's Terran R should launch in 2026-2028. That's remarkably soon. Of course, as you point out, Starship should be operational quite soon. It'll be exciting to see how things shake out. My personal opinion is that SpaceX will move to payload based pricing, somewhat akin to their current rideshare pricing. I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but something like $10m + $3m/tonne. That way they can compete for smaller payloads while also being paid appropriately for launching really heavy stuff. However it ends up, I'm sure pricing will be heavily influenced by the competition when it comes out.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price Starliner is fixed cost.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - thanksgiving 2y ago
        > Starliner is fixed cost. It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost? Just from pop culture, isn't starliner that thing that leaves people stranded for a year after making them shed "excess" baggage for a supposedly weeklong(?) trip? Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner > Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion in budget overruns on the Starliner project which has been marred by delays, management issues and engineering challenges. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost? “Will never adopt” and is failing to adopt and adapt to are miles apart.
nradov 2y ago
These are not cost-plus contracts for the most part. Boeing has incurred huge losses on fixed-price contracts with NASA. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma...

jaggederest 2y ago

The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that.

nordsieck 2y ago
> The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that. This is part of the reason why the new era of firm, fixed price contracts at NASA is so important. And why it's so troubling that NASA is having difficulty transitioning SLS contractors to such contracts for later (Artemis V+) rockets.
- wmf 2y ago
  Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price. NASA just needs to drop them.
  - nradov 2y ago
    That sounds good, until it leaves NASA entirely dependent on SpaceX as a single supplier. For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts.
    - wmf 2y ago
      Sierra and Blue Origin are coming.
    - nordsieck 2y ago
      > For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts. Northrup Grumman seems to be doing a pretty good job with Cygnus. And ULA seems to be doing alright with NSSLv2 (although it sounds like they may have had to give up a launch or two due to Vulcan delays).
    - Gud 2y ago
      No, but there will be. Besides SpaceX there is also Rocketlab who has a CEO rocket nerd in charge.
      - kaliqt 2y ago
        So that's two nerds total.
        Ajedi32 2y ago
        Stoke Space also has a pretty huge rocket nerd at the helm[1]. And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever). The industry has been flourishing lately, though (with the possible exception of Blue Origin) it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9, let alone Starship. [1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/
        nordsieck 2y ago
        > And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever) Ever since Bezos installed David Limp as CEO, it seems like they've been able to ship stuff. It's hard to know if he was set up for success by his predecessor, but their older no press policy prevented anyone from knowing it, or if he changed the company culture for the better. Regardless, it appears like Blue Origin is likely to launch New Glenn this year. Or, at least the DoD thinks it's likely enough that they agreed to onramp Blue Origin to NSSLv3 (pending a successful launch). > it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9 I don't think it'll be that long. * Blue Origin's New Glenn should launch in 2024-2025. * RocketLab's Neutron should launch in 2025-2027. * Relativity's Terran R should launch in 2026-2028. That's remarkably soon. Of course, as you point out, Starship should be operational quite soon. It'll be exciting to see how things shake out. My personal opinion is that SpaceX will move to payload based pricing, somewhat akin to their current rideshare pricing. I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but something like $10m + $3m/tonne. That way they can compete for smaller payloads while also being paid appropriately for launching really heavy stuff. However it ends up, I'm sure pricing will be heavily influenced by the competition when it comes out.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price Starliner is fixed cost.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - thanksgiving 2y ago
      > Starliner is fixed cost. It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost? Just from pop culture, isn't starliner that thing that leaves people stranded for a year after making them shed "excess" baggage for a supposedly weeklong(?) trip? Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner > Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion in budget overruns on the Starliner project which has been marred by delays, management issues and engineering challenges. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost? “Will never adopt” and is failing to adopt and adapt to are miles apart.

nradov 2y ago

These are not cost-plus contracts for the most part. Boeing has incurred huge losses on fixed-price contracts with NASA. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma...