Hacker News Reader

Comment by Joeri | Hacker News Reader

If they're cost-plus contracts, then it just means SpaceX can build capsules at nearly half the cost of Boeing.

"Unlike previous phases of NASA’s commercial crew program, which used funded Space Act Agreements that provided greater flexibility, the CCtCap awards are fixed-price contracts."

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41891nasa-selec...

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?

The 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.

That'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.

Its 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.

If they both succeed and NASA wants a third, SpaceX would seem to be sitting pretty.

If they both do not succeed and we assume that SpaceX reached too far, then NASA still looks like the good guy because they gave them a shot.

It's hard to find prices for Atlas, even more so for the so-far-unflown dual engine Centaur version which CST-100 uses, but it's clear that it's a lot more expensive than a Falcon 9.

It's not a cost-plus contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com