Why, exactly, is this cost-plus?
And why is it being awarded when EUS is in limbo?
That of the amounts provided for SLS, not less than $200,000,000 shall be for Exploration Upper25 Stage development: Provided further, That $592,800,000 shall be for Exploration Ground Systems, including $50,000,000 for a second mobile launch platform and associated SLS activities:
Quote from: dglow on 06/26/2019 12:26 amAnd why is it being awarded when EUS is in limbo?Didn't the Trump administration make an about-face on that once they started the whole "Moon by 2024" thing?Even if they haven't, Congress wouldn't approve of killing the EUS.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/25/2019 10:37 pmWhy, exactly, is this cost-plus?Yes, this doesn't seem like the kind of contract that should be cost-plus, since there should be very detailed specifications for this mobile launcher, and there shouldn't be any question as to how it should be built.Why isn't it a fixed-price contract?
How do you build a ML to service an upper stage that could be radically redesigned when it is funded again?
*snip*Think about how much ECLSS, habs, rovers, suits, or ISRU we could have gotten for that money.
I had thought that the EUS had been issued a stop-work order. Perhaps that was wrong or there was a follow up that I missed?
I don't know where people are getting the idea that work on the EUS has been halted.
Quote from: Lar on 06/26/2019 04:46 am*snip*Think about how much ECLSS, habs, rovers, suits, or ISRU we could have gotten for that money.None. If that money hadn't been allocated to the ML-2, then NASA wouldn't have had any of that money. The Federal "budget" isn't like a household budget, where if money is not spent on Item A, then it can then be spent on Item B. It's the other way around in the government, funding isn't distributed from a pile of money, the allocated funding creates the pile of money, which is then labeled a "budget."