/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12407271

>>12235132
>Today's scientists may be over conservative in their predictions—and over pessimistic about what man can accomplish
Describes the aerospace industry as a whole perfectly. They're so worried about what's necessary to stay afloat that they ignore what more they can do.

>>12078219
>I can forgive NASA for wanting to stick with the same contractors to make congress happy... but instituting cost-plus contracting has been the death of any expectation to keep on a schedule.
You can't have the old contractors without the cost-plus. NASA pulled them in with cost-plus in the first place during Apollo. At the time it was necessary because everything was new and risky at the time. Now, when the science and technology becomes more established then cost-plus is a detriment, but NASA couldn't one day just say "okay! we'll stop with the cost-plus" because then every large contractor will throw a fit and threaten economic instability until they get what they want. A solution would be to pick the contractors who don't do this once the old ones left, but during the 60s there was no one else to pick. So, NASA was stuck with them.

>>12057806
>That's cost plus for you.
A grave sin upon good management.

>>11983781