SpaceX has already sent multiple crews to the ISS. Boeing is delayed and overbudget. Boeign has had a long series of problems including setting the system clock wrong.
Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing.
That would cost NASA a lot more money than continuing.
The contract is task order based. Boeing (and SpaceX) get paid for reaching some milestones, but mostly for launching the actual operational missions, of which Boeing is currently contracted for 6. Boeing had to front the development money for the system, and then gets paid back when they actually fly. This is in contrast with the traditional cost+ contracting, where Boeing just tallies costs and gets paid that plus a fixed profit margin.
At this point, Boeing has reached all the milestones and gotten paid for them, but hasn't flown any of the operational missions, and has spent billions more than they've been paid to develop the system. If NASA cancels now without a clear reason listed in the contract, Boeing has a clean case for contract violation against them, and can sue for the spent development money. Delays are not an appropriate reason, so long as Boeing isn't unduly endangering the crew they can just keep trying. But they are not getting paid any money from NASA for any of this, every day that the program continues but they are not launching the actual paid 6 missions, they are just wasting their own money.
I guess Boeing would have to do the math and figure out that paying SpaceX for 6 ISS missions is a cheaper way of fulfilling the contract?
The reason not to do that is that as stated above, most of the money in the contract is in those operational missions. Even if the contract will lose them money in total, if they think it will cost less to complete starting from right now than what those 6 pay out, it will make economical sense to keep trying.
And besides, the purpose of aerospace spending on human spaceflight isn't just for the purpose of human spaceflight, but also for related capabilities.
And in any case Russia's entire space program is at risk of going under given the budget issues they're going to be dealing with.
Not quite. Results aside, the idea is that the government wants multiple sources for access to orbit. This isn't so much about competition but rather about having options. I have no idea if there are other political elements to this at all.
And so, ULA gets funding because they represent that other potential option. They can be as inefficient and slow as they want because, in a sense, their metric is to exist as backup. And, for backup to exist, you have to fund it not just to have things designed and built. You have to use these things despite cost and performance issues for readiness considerations.
Conceptually, it makes sense. The execution, in my opinion, is seriously lacking in many ways.
* Nov 2022 - Chosen as reserve ESA astronaut
* Jun 2023 - Chosen for Ax-3 mission using SpaceX Crew Dragon
* Jan 2024 - Flies to ISS