The beauty of the Commercial Crew program is that the taxpayer doesn't absorb the cost overruns. The contractor does.
#SpaceX embraced competition and is now the dominant force in the space industry.
Boeing tried to act like the flaccid OldSpace company they've always been, and has had to absorb $1.4 billion in cost overruns.
@WordsmithFL Sad in a way because Space X needs competition, immo.
@JebKFan I agree, but once again Congress is to blame. Just as with the early days of commercial crew/SLS, Congress shoved OldSpace contracts down NASA's throat, claiming NewSpace companies like SpaceX were unproven and dangerous. Boeing had a "track record."
Well, the "track record" was tens of million of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions every year.
So NASA paid Boeing much more than SpaceX. SpaceX delivered a reliable product. Boeing did not. Thank you, Congress.
@WordsmithFL Well in my opinion SLS is not the worst of ideas, though. I think that NASA needs an old school rocket in case the "go fast and break stuff approach of Elon fails".
@JebKFan Other companies were supposed to be online by now -- ULA with Vulcan, Blue Origin with New Glenn.
Neither one is flying, primarily due to reliance on Blue's BE-4 engine that's years behind schedule.
There's more than one way to put stuff in space. The only reason Von Braun did the Saturn V was that we hadn't mastered rendezvous and docking. We could do #Artemis just fine with Falcon Heavy and New Glenn if Congress allowed it.
@WordsmithFL Maybe, but I prefer the old school philosophy as an alternative, considering the risks. And I think the SLS could be cheaper... if Congress accepted more rational production. But they want job programs for their states...