[fgonzag]

I'm starting to believe it'd be cheaper to just start out the same project with 2 or 3 companies, and then just keep the be st performing one and dump the other two as soon as its clear that one will be finishing the project in time and within budget. That would only double the cost (if you dump early enough) of a govt project, and since most projects seem to have a budget overrun much larger than that, it'd actually end up cheaper.

Companies with no competition and a guaranteed contract will never deliver the goods.

[pavon]

That is exactly what NASA did for Commercial Crew. The started out awarding 5 contracts, then at each stage down-selected to 4,3, and finally 2 suppliers, Boeing and SpaceX. Also commercial crew contracts are fixed-price, pay-for-performance, not the standard cost-plus contracts. So Boeing won't get a dollar to repeat this test; they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

[ceejayoz]

> Also commercial crew contracts are fixed-price, pay-for-performance, not the standard cost-plus contracts. So Boeing won't get a dollar to repeat this test; they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.

LOL. Boeing knows how to handle minor obstacles like that.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes-addi...

"NASA paid Boeing nearly $300 million more than originally planned in its commercial crew contract in part because of agency concerns that the company might drop out of the program, a new report claims."

[njarboe]

SpaceX also has a contract with NASA to build a rocket and spaceship for astronauts to get to the space station. It has passed its last big test recently. If there are no further delays, NASA will be using it in a few months.

[wmf]

I've seen that done with DARPA contracts but I wonder if it just incentivizes contractors to back-load all the overages.