House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars

Lawmakers also appear to like cost-plus contracts.

Read the whole story

 

[Agitation]

Can someone please explain this to me?

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

How does the US retaining full ownership = cost-plus?

 

[Agitation]

Can someone please explain this to me?

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

How does the US retaining full ownership = cost-plus?

If I understand contracts & IP... I am not a lawyer.

Cost plus means the US Gov is paying for all research, and acquires ownership of any IP thereby generated.

Fixed cost means the contractor does the research, acquires ownership of the IP, to which the government gets to license at a pre-negotiated rate.

That's not necessarily correct. The IP can remain the possession of the company doing the work or the government as contracted. For the SLS core, NASA is doing the engineering and Boeing the construction. The IP remains with the government. However, no sane private enterprise would agree to manufacture someone else's not-yet-complete design at a fixed price. Cost-plus contracts were developed so the government could shoulder the risks for uncertain endeavors. Which is why buying the next round of SLS cores on a cost-plus basis is so ironic. Said manufacturing shouldn't be uncertain after you've already built two or three.

Thank you. That makes sense. This was possibly explained in an article I missed, but "cost-plus" seems to have been framed here at Ars as little more than a handout, and while that may be the case in this instance --or in many instances -- it's good to know that it does have a legitimate function in allowing the government to own the IP.