Spaceflight

782 readers

35 users here now

Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.

All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).

Other related space communities:

Related meme community:

[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

threelonmusketeers

[email protected]

As NASA increasingly relies on commercial space, there are some troubling signs (arstechnica.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/spaceflight

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't actually completely disagree with you. I think there are some products and services that should absolutely be fixed price, like launching a rocket for the 400th time, but venturing into truly uncharted and groundbreaking R&D can't just be fixed price.

I think SLS and ML-2 should be closer to the predictable and firm fixed price end of the spectrum. Dragon, Starliner, and lunar landers are somewhere in the middle. Space nuclear plants or something would be on the cost plus side.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Is there some mechanism of hitting a halfway point between a cost plus and a fixed price contract? Is there some way to get some of the benefits of both fixed price and cost plus contracts?

Maybe cost plus with a maximum price that’s well over expected but in the same order of magnitude? That’s the most common contract model I’ve used in software development. Basically, you’ll pay me by the hour up to a maximum.