> Johnson's opposition was not a huge surprise. Last year, she and then-US Representative Kendra Horn issued a joint statement expressing concerns about NASA's plans to rely on a "commercial" provider for a lunar lander. NASA wanted to issue a fixed-price contract for the lander instead of a cost-plus contract. NASA explained that it had used fixed-price contracting as part of its Commercial Crew program, and it proved to be a cheaper and faster method. The agency seemed justified in this, as SpaceX Crew Dragons now safely ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
> However, many in Congress have opposed this approach. They cite a desire for NASA to have more "oversight" over these contracts as a rationale for favoring cost-plus contracts. Yet an often unstated rationale likely has more sway over Congress. Under a cost-plus contract, Congress retains some control over who gets space jobs and in which states. Under fixed-price contracts, these decisions are left up to the contractors themselves.
> After Congress appropriated so little funding for a lander in last year's budget, NASA said, 'Fine, we'll take the lowest cost option,' which was SpaceX.
1 comment
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 12.9 ms ] thread> However, many in Congress have opposed this approach. They cite a desire for NASA to have more "oversight" over these contracts as a rationale for favoring cost-plus contracts. Yet an often unstated rationale likely has more sway over Congress. Under a cost-plus contract, Congress retains some control over who gets space jobs and in which states. Under fixed-price contracts, these decisions are left up to the contractors themselves.
> After Congress appropriated so little funding for a lander in last year's budget, NASA said, 'Fine, we'll take the lowest cost option,' which was SpaceX.