This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Artemis

HLS Contract: Sore Losers In Big Aerospace

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 16, 2021
Filed under , ,
HLS Contract: Sore Losers In Big Aerospace

Coalition for Deep Space Comment As NASA Continues Path to Return to Moon
“The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (Coalition) applauds NASA for awarding a Human Landing System (HLS) contract for the Artemis program. Along with the Space Launch System, the Orion spacecraft, Exploration Ground Systems, and the Gateway, the HLS is a critical component for enabling the return of astronauts to the Moon for the first time since the Apollo era.”
Keith’s note: If you read this Coalition for Deep Space Exploration statement carefully you will see that while they “applaud NASA” on the HLS contract thing they are so small that can’t even mention or congratulate SpaceX. SpaceX is not a member of the Coalition but all of the Big Aerospace companies who lost out on this contract are members.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

9 responses to “HLS Contract: Sore Losers In Big Aerospace”

  1. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    I hope they filled their lisinopril prescriptions, their blood pressures are gonna be god-awful for a while…

  2. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    That Space X isn’t a member reminds me of the scene in Hoosiers when all the town’s fathers, etc gather in the barbershop to discuss their coaching advice to Gene Hackman and he smiles and says Good night, gentlmen”, and leaves.

  3. NArmstrong says:
    0
    0

    Space X is in the lead, world-wide, in how to do spaceflight. Thanks to their intrepid leader and their team they have caused more radical change in the last ten years than since the 1920s. No other company is even close. Besos talks a good game but has never put anything in space, let alone into orbit. The big government contractors have shown they do great making money…getting the job done is not such a certain thing. NASA has none of these problems. NASA does not make money, does not get the job done, and cannot be counted on. Maybe NASA and some of the contractors could apprentice some of their people under Space X tutelage and learn how to do the job?

    • Tom Billings says:
      0
      0

      Nothing wrong with NASA’s people. Many of the SpaceX crew came from NASA and its contractors. The difference is what is *not* there. What is not there is a corporate cultural dependence on Congress. NASA and its contractors are operating in a pre-industrial politically determined “craft-shop” resource allocation environment, no matter that they work at the cutting edge of technology.

      The most competent published definition of the continuing industrial revolution is:

      “When a society moves from allocating resources by custom and tradition (moderns read here, by politics) to allocating resources by markets, they may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution” Arnold Toynbee-1884

      SpaceX, by contrast to NASA and its contractors, under Congress, are industrializing spaceflight. The difference in productivity is as high as 50/1, without the political allocation of resources by Congress.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        I feel badly for many of the current NASA people. They have a lot of talent and capability. There is no leadership. I don’t think most of the NASA managers would be selected to manage anything in the ‘real’ world. I also don’t think there is much of a craft shop; that would imply that NASA actually produces something; I see NASA trying to act as contract managers but when the people at NASA have zero production experience its tough for them to know how to supervise and direct others who have just as little knowledge or experience.

    • ed2291 says:
      0
      0

      I agree with everything you said. We should, however, give NASA credit for making Space X the sole source for HLS. It is a bold correct decision that I did not think NASA had the brains or guts to make.

      • Zed_WEASEL says:
        0
        0

        NASA really have no other options with the budget allocated by Congress if they want to landed on the Moon in the next 10 years.

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

        Lueders knows them well. They also are in a very special point in time, after one administration and before the hand-picked administrators from the new administration take office. They are running their own shop for a few months, and it’s provided a special sort of freedom. Cheers to NASA for taking the bold move that leads toward actual progress, rather than to the umpteenth post-Apollo jobs program.

  4. Bad Horse says:
    0
    0

    Revolutions are hard. Doing things in a new way and being willing to pay for it takes guts. Bravo NASA. The others followed the Apollo model. Don’t follow the Apollo model. SpaceX is doing 21st century space flight. The others can’t or won’t.