Jump to content

Guardian

Members
  • Posts

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Guardian

  1. Everyone, try this link for the article: https://everything-voluntary.com/school-is-for-wasting-time-and-money When I left school, I joined the Jaycees. There I met and quickly befriended a guy, who was less than five years into the financial services industry. He had attended a prep school and then an elite university. We spoke often over the next ten years before I aged out of the organization. One of his sayings was, "if you do nothing, one thing is for certain, nothing will happen [i.e., you will merely continue to be acted upon by the circumstances of life]." Another observation he relayed was how few "well educated" young people from top colleges were succeeding in his industry. His explanation was that being an "A" student was sometimes indicative of nothing more than one's ability to follow instructions and regurgitate information. However, it says little about one's capacity to think independently and assess real world situations. This is not to say that learning how to follow instructions and meet deadlines are not critical to success. They absolutely are. But to achieve greater success, there must be more. I remember my first day of high school English class. The instructor stood before us and admitted, I really cannot teach any of you to write well. He went on to say, if you want to be an excellent writer you should make a lifelong commitment to reading. Read everything you can get your hands on. Start by reading what you enjoy, to develop your comprehension and speed, then branch out from there. Most people do not regularly read books and serious articles. When I say most people, I am referring to those within my sphere, meaning specialists, attorneys and organizational leaders. This is why statements of work do not make sense. This is why the highest paid people have others writing for them. But it's not just that people in today's professional workforce cannot write. They cannot read, or will not take the time. So much so that DOD is teaching its most highly graded employees to ask their questions in the first sentence of their correspondences and to limit emails to no more than a few sentences. It seems that reading to the end of a paragraph or two has become too much for the modern workforce. But, you might take exception, we are all so busy. What is it we are so busy doing? What is it that is distracting us? We hear the term "high level" all the time. What does this term really mean?
  2. @Vern Edwards I likely could not, nor would I seek to. I had an opportunity earlier this year to visit Montpelier, home to James Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the "Father of the Constitution." While there, our tour guide offered up some interesting points. At an early age, Madison left Virginia to attend Princeton University. There he became the prized pupil of John Witherspoon, a native born Scot, who was strongly influenced by the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment. Madison was affected by his professor's teachings, so much so that historical scholars attribute many of our Constitution's ideals to those compelling that European event. At the foundation was the disruptive belief that rights were not bestowed by kings or governments. Rather, they were preordianed by a natural order or Divine Providence. Yes, there are countless kinks in our historical fabric, as we are all aware. Regardless, there has never been anything like the American experiment. These principles of inalienable rights are what led us from a national capital paved with mud as the Capitol dome was being framed, to developments in science that landed men on the moon about one hundred years later. Can I define "objective truth"? Probably not. Did I offer a sublunary example? Yes, I believe so.
  3. @amazedbygrace86 With all due respect, I would regard such a postulation an opinion.
  4. "It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action (for even if they consider how things are, practical men do not study the eternal, but what is relative and in the present). Now we do not know a truth without its cause; and a thing has a quality in a higher degree than other things if in virtue of it the similar quality belongs to the other things as well (e.g. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the cause of the heat of all other things); so that that causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must be always most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth." [Metaphysics by Aristotle, Book II, Part 1; as translated by W. D. Ross; http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/metaphysics.html]
  5. @Vern Edwards I am not sure I can define objective truth adequately. As @WifWaf expressed in his recent post discussing the concept of via negativa, I am more inclined to identify what an objective truth is not than what it might be. If I had to make an imperfect attempt at defining the term, I would start by identifying two of its core characteristics, i.e., that which is external to us and unchanging. I can still recall my senior year at a parochial high school three decades ago. Our philosphy instructor required us to submit an end of the semester paper describing the Buddha as we understood him. I remember struggling with my classmates to elucidate something worthy of a preponderantly weighted written assignment, based upon our reading and in class discussions. On the due date of the assignment, one student laid his paper on the instructor's desk, a single page with two written words, "Buddha is." This same classmate was accepted to and graduated from Yale University. He became a teacher and has travelled the world as an instructor in several countries. When I consider objective truth relative to subjective truth, I think of Plato's allegory of the cave: Imagine a number of people living in an underground cave, which has an entrance that opens towards the daylight. The people have been in this dwelling since childhood, shackled by the legs and neck, such that they cannot move nor turn their heads to look around. There is a fire behind them, and between these prisoners and the fire, there is a low wall. Rather like a shadow puppet play, objects are carried before the fire, from behind the low wall, casting shadows on the wall of the cave for the prisoners to see. Those carrying the objects may be talking, or making noises, or they may be silent. What might the prisoners make of these shadows, of the noises, when they can never turn their heads to see the objects or what is behind them? [from Plato's Republic]
  6. "How can we make group decisions if we are all working with different information, backgrounds and biases?... When it comes to determining the truth, what's more reliable, ambiguity or unanimity? Strangely enough, sometimes the closer your get to total agreement, the less trustworthy a result becomes." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8132998-in-a-grove
  7. Vern, you literally had me digging through boxes in the closet to find my books. Because of that I found my Management Concepts "Principles of Federal Appropriations Law" binder, which I was missing (completely unrelated, but so glad to have found it). I also found my woodworker's model of Camden Yards encased in bubble wrap. How apropos. Per Black's, "guarantee" is only defined as a noun, specifically, "[o]ne to whom a guaranty is made." So then, I looked below that to the term "guaranty," which, as a verb (as I applied the word), is defined as follows, "[t]o undertake collaterally to answer for the payment of another's debt or the performance of another's duty, liability or obligation. As a noun, it is defined as "[a] collateral agreement for performance of another's undertaking." The Oxford Dictionary defines the verb form of "guarantee" as "[providing] a formal assurance or promise, especially that certain conditions shall be fulfilled related to a product, service, or transaction." By this definition, a "proposal" (if we interpret the term to mean an "offer" subsequently met by acceptance and legal consideration) can be said to guarantee a specific level of performance or outcome. Therefore, I think I understand the point of your question and its lesson. Because without acceptance and legal consideration, we would not have a binding contract. But if we are to consider the guaranty or guarantee as a promise in conjunction with offer and acceptance, then I would say my original assertion is incorrect, that is, the promise is in fact a guarantee by the offeror of its future success, to which the Government may rightly hold them. If I may, please allow me to frame it as follows. I recently conducted a debriefing. The unsuccessful offeror stated that they should have received an acceptable rating for the factor of key personnel because their proposed KP met all of the RFP's requirements for that factor. I responded that while that may be true, they did not demonstrate as much in their submitted proposal. We went through the KP resume in comparison to the Government's minimum qualification requirements. I asked the contractor representative, "where herein do you demonstrate to the Government that your proposed member of key personnel meets our stated requirements?". They confessed that although the individual they proposed had the necessarily qualifications, they now understood their mistake was in their failure to demonstrate it to the agency. With that, I made the point that there is a clear difference between one's ability to meet the Government's stated requirements and demonstrating as much in a proposal or offer.
  8. The modal verb "will," representing the future tense, is defined by at least one source as "expressing inevitable [adj., certain to happen; unavoidable] events." The contents of proposals can portend, but never guarantee, success. Aside from the fact that the above sentence is atrociously written, how can anything expressed in a proposal ensure a certain level of performance? Proposals demonstrate. That is all they do. They guarantee nothing and may not be accurate. This is yet another worrisome indication that those currently at the higher echelons of contracting and policy making continue to lack command of the fundamentals. In 2016, first basemen Chris Davis signed a seven-year, $161M contract with the Baltimore Orioles. "Crush" Davis was offered this fabulous sum of money based on his exceptional past performance, having ranked 2nd in the American League the previous season in RBIs with 117 and leading MLB in home runs (47). Two years before that, he led the majors in home runs (53), RBIs (153) and total bases (370). His performance after the signing of his contract in 2016 never again came remotely close to his achievements in the previous three years. In 2020, he batted a league low .115 with one RBI and no home runs. From 2016 through his early retirement in 2021, he recorded an unimpressive .196 overall batting average. Baltimore owed Davis $17M for the 2022 season, not to mention, significant deferred payments through 2037. Ergo, past performance or demonstrated qualifications can never guarantee that the awardee will exceed anything "to the considerable advantage of [the contracting party] during contract performance."
  9. @WifWaf This resonates with me considerably with where I am in my career right now. Most people know about the famous Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson. If people haven't read it, they should. I read it about ten years ago, but can remember significant parts of it well. It unfolds as a saga of sorts, with Jobs as an illustrative antihero. In the preface, Isaacson described the beginnings of the book something like this. Jobs approached him saying I will give you the first opportunity to write a biography about me. Isaacson replied something to the effect of "and what makes you think I would want to write a book about you?", to which Jobs responded, "I'm dying." Jobs was forced out of Apple, the company he founded with Steve Wozniak. After the company floundered under the tutelage of his successors, Jobs seized upon an opportunity brought about by a significant dip in Apple's stock price to convince the board to appoint him interim CEO. He later ended up replacing that board and admitting it was he who precipitated the stock devaluation by selling over a million and a half of his own shares at once. The net result was that he regained control of the company he had co-founded, from which he had previously been ousted. Topical to this history of events is a report in the news this week that Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway announced that Apple is now their largest stock holding. The Oracle of Omaha, a nonagenarian, has put his faith and wallet in a company founded by a man who was regularly criticized for being too consumed by details and delaying projects more often than he moved them along, in essence, practicing the principles of via negativa.
  10. @Vern Edwards Understood. Thanks, Vern 🙂.
  11. @Vern Edwards Fair enough. For the record, I did tell the forum both that my understanding is that we have been following the FAR for approximately two decades and that we use non-appropriated funds. I have not worked at my current agency for that long; I provided the best information I had. @Vern Edwards Again, if you go back and read through the entire thread, you will see that I did reveal all of this. I responded to Carl, "Our agency uses non-congressionally appropriated funds. All I have gotten back from our attorney on that is that the bona fide need rule does not apply to us. But, yes I would sign off on behalf of our agency, thereby obligating funds." The latter part of that statement was tongue in cheek. The first part was sincere. I am not going to reveal at which agency I work, particularly when I am posting details about an active acquisition. Please read what I wrote again. I stated that I was not going to announce to all WIFCon registrants where I work. Does anybody else get on here and state where they work specifically? I'll end by saying that I posted the OP by trying my best to summarize the details. By all accounts, my policy and legal departments tell us that we follow the FAR. As questions were asked of me, I readily disclosed that my agency does not use appropriated funds, but that we apply the FAR. I was not sure if we were an NAFI when you first used the term in this thread. Just afterwards, I called my mentor at DoD and he and I spent part of an evening going over GAO cases related to NAFIs. You are right, I could have been clearer. I am devoted to words and language; I always have been. But the street runs both ways. I spend hours throughout the day writing to attorneys, directors and technical advisors, only to find that they seem not to have read what I wrote them. I am flawed, but I seek to refine my skills every day. I have scars and I've been knocked down plenty of times, but I keep getting back up and trying again. With each subsequent attempt, I try to do better than I did before.
  12. @formerfed We are definitely an NAFI that operates with independent funding. I sincerely hope you are pulling my leg, Vern. I think you are. I definitely value your advice and feedback. @joel hoffman I tried to provide every bit of information practicable to make the situation clear. I thought that posters could remain largely anonymous and not disclose the specific agency for which they work. Partly this is based on the need to keep certain information about active acquisitions private to promote fairness in the process, etc. I did not intend to waste anybody's time.
  13. @joel hoffmanI could have told the gurus where I work, but I wanted to make it interesting. With a little detective work, based on the clues I provided, it would not be that difficult to find out. @C Culham Yes, we have adopted the related supplements of our parent agency through CFR. My understanding is that when confronted with particularly challenging situations, we resolve to do what is in our best interest, cherry-pick the regulations we choose to apply and document the file. It's not always easy to get clear answers from those tasked with advising on these matters. People tend to have an aversion to the perpetual "gadfly." It's always, "just get it done; it's Q4 [etc.]" That logic is less than sound; we are always busy. Too busy for change or to educate ourselves, but always enough time to suffer the pain and ineffectiveness of repeating wrongful or less than optimal ways.
  14. @formerfedAre you sure about that? At least one of the agencies you mentioned above is not subject to apportionment for purposes of 31 U.S. Code Chapter 15 or any other provision of law, but rather has authorization under its own chapter of a separate title. Their funds, derived from certain fees, "shall not be construed to be Government funds or appropriated monies...." @Vern EdwardsNotwithstanding my response to formerfed above, the NAFI for which I work, has adopted the FAR as a matter of policy.
  15. @C Culham I found the following definition for "Non-appropriated Funds": "Non-Appropriated Funds refer to revenue earned by government departments, organizations or agencies by means other than taxation. For instance, the State Department charges for passports and then uses the earnings for other purposes. These funds are known as non-appropriated. Many government entities earn revenue and use those non-appropriated funds to pay for employee salaries and other expenses that are not explicitly authorized in Congress’s Budget. There is more leeway regarding how Non-Appropriated funds can be used." By this definitition our funds are non-appropriated, as they are agency-generated by the fees paid to it, rather than from taxation. I think so. From discussions from our bureau chief, our agency has been "following" the FAR on its own accord for about two decades. My solicitation and award for these vouchers incorporate FAR part 12 provisions and clauses, and concepts. Again, I think so. When making purchase on behalf of the Government, I try to begin firstly by reducing the scenario to that of something I might otherwise be seeking to buy for myself and my family. I start by applying common sense, and "prudent" decision making, i.e., beginning with the simple and moving outwardly toward the complex, as necessary. For example, I own a property in another city, which I rent. I pay an HVAC company a fixed amount in full at the beginning of each year for what they term, a "maintenance policy." I usually call them in the spring and fall to schedule their technician to come out to check the A/C compressor and furnace, respectively. More often then not, they give each component a clean bill of health, and I schedule with them again the following season. However, if any of the system's components outside the "major components," e.g., compressor motor, are in need of repair, then they fix them upon request under the specific terms of the policy. If the heart of the unit (major component) dies, then I decide whether it is more sensible to purchase an entirely new unit, or have them replace that major part, which the "maintenance policy" does not cover. The policy includes other terms and conditions, which entitle me to some discount off their list price for parts and labor, that is, if a major repair of an excluded item needs to be made.
  16. @formerfed Perhaps I am, which I why I brought these questions to WIFCon. I can tell you that we purchase certain subscriptions for our libraries, e.g., Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, etc. We pay for these upfront. Also, most if not all of the software "maintenance" we renew on a yearly basis is paid for upfront, much like a magazine subscription. We refer to it as software maintenance, but it includes continued subscription to the term licenses for certain software, as well as access to technical support, which is a service of sorts, but packaged and represented as a product that may be paid for in advance. Also, my market research led me to the Government's regular practice of buying training vouchers (as you so aptly pointed out), for which we pay in advance. Certainly, I have enough precendent related to our buying within the commercial marketplace to document the file and justify a decision to pay for the vouchers upfront. Again, the most appropriate anology I could think of is going to Costco and buying a $100 gift card for future theatre visits at the "discounted" price of $80. Ordinarily you drive to the cinema, walk up to the window, pay for your ticket and go in to watch the movie. Under the gift card model, you buy based on an expectation that you will visit the movies in the future. I am convinced that the keys to success are curiousity and good mentorship. Many of you on this forum are mentors to me and may not even know it. You are mentoring me even when I do not reply. I spoke to my uncle this weekend who is a biblical scholar to some degree. He gave me this verse from Matthew: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like [a] child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Another favorite of mine has been attributed to Josh Billings and Mark Twain in several variations. It was used in the 2015 film "The Big Short," displayed as follows before the the opening scene: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
  17. Vern, I spoke to counsel for their legal department this afternoon; she confirmed that these vouchers are not considered commercial items per se, as there is not an associated EULA or standard terms and conditions. Typically, the developer (contractor) works with individual agencies to devise language on a case by case basis that apply to the redemption of the vouchers, predicated on the agency's unique requirements. I agree that the ingredients in the cake are commercial items, but the cake itself is not. You are the first to make this observation and still some are telling me that these vouchers are commercial items.
  18. Vern, to the contrary, the quote that I received indicates that "services are billed up front and in full." This is why I was equating them to "gift cards." We pay for them when we buy them, but I suspect they are subject to particular exclusions. Moreover, these vouchers expire "within one year." I presume the vendor means within one year of purchase, but the language is ambiguous. Yes, as we have offer, acceptance and consideration, the purchase of these vouchers would establish a contract. Our agency uses non-congressionally appropriated funds. All I have gotten back from our attorney on that is that the bona fide need rule does not apply to us. But, yes I would sign off on behalf of our agency, thereby obligating funds. It would obligate the Government in a less than favorable manner insofar as I can judge. Ambiguity of course tends to go in favor of the interpreter. If the Government describes neither a general nor specific scope for these services, and no one has sent me the seller's terms and conditions, then I would think it is equivalent to the Government obligating funds, paying invoices before performance and acceptance and hoping for the best. I appreciate the information Carl sent concerning VMware vouchers, but those are not an equivalent comparison. Firstly, VM vouchers are bought in specific dollar amounts redeemable or exchangeable at the list prices for services in the manufacturer's catelog. These voucher are defined in hours; I have no labor categories with minimum qualifications to compare them, nor do I have a general or specific scope for the services other than "consulting services for [manufacturer's] items." JI, essentially yes to your question, only the reseller has language within their quote stating that it is strictly up to the manufacturer whether they choose to accept the voucher for redemption.
  19. Vern, that makes two of us. I do not understand very well either. The requisition package is thin and I am not getting adequate responses to my questions to the program office and vendor. I looked at a previous order another CO signed for these vouchers last year and there is little to nothing in the award or file describing what they are. To make matters worse, the quatities were not even stated correctly. Insofar as I can glean, we buy these vouchers, the unit of measure for which is "EA (each)." Individual vouchers "entitle" the Government to 50 hours of future work from an IT consultant certified by the applications developer. The applications on which they would be working were purchased through another contract. Otherwise, nobody had described to me what the work is. The COR tells me the vouchers expire after one year and are redeemable for work on proprietary applications as needs arise over the next twelve months. I used the anology of a "gift card" to our legal department, but was scolded by the attorney and told that comparison was "not helpful." He went on to say that my anology made no sense to him. I discussed it with another attorney at DoD, who is a friend and mentor to me. He said that my anology made perfect sense and could not understand why our agency attorney would respond that way. My mentor said that most of what procurement attorneys do day-to-day is read GAO cases and other legal precedents and draw analogies.
  20. I received a brand name requirement for vouchers for professional services. Each voucher is good for a set number of hours. No statement of work was included in the requirements package. The market research estimates submitted by the program office have language to the following effect: "...[Vouchers] to be applied towards future work. Must be scoped by [the contractor] and completed within one-year. Not subject to acceptance." I inquired as to what the contractor meant by the last statement; the program office responded that because we are purchasing vouchers for future work on our network applications, it was within the contractor's discretion to determine for what specific work the Government may redeem the vouchers. "Not subject to acceptance," means that the Government's attempt to use or redeem a voucher for performance of brand name professional services may be rejected by the contractor if they determine that the requested work in not within the scope of the vouchers. I requested a copy of the terms and conditions for these vouchers, but to date have only received a "license agreement" for the associated applications we are leasing on a term basis. The T&Cs I received mention nothing of vouchers. I sent this matter over to our legal department for a determination of legal sufficiency and/or for them to identify legal risks. Part of the response I received is as follows: "I am not seeing where the contractor is determining the specific scope of the effort after the award." Such a response may be due to the fact that I cannot ascertain that the contractor has provided us with any formal terms and conditions for these vouchers. There are a whole host of other questions and concerns that arise from this requirement and the commercial item as it is being offered. Foremost, I disagree with our legal department when they say that the contractor is not attempting to determine the specific scope of the effort after purchase. Moreover, I am reluctant to sign any award for which the Government does not provide a requirements statement. By all indications, we are seeking to purchase services.
  21. @Vern Edwards We have been imploring our business units to set up IDIQ contracts for these types of services. LH and T&M contracts are addressed in part 12, 16 and 32 (the latter for non-commercial application ). Beyond what may be found there, I have read a world of literature about contract types. The information needed to do this job is not overly complicated. The tough part is the people and the detective piece. If there is something you feel I am missing, then by all means suggest some reading, but I highly doubt you will recommend anything that is going to be all that eye opening to me at this point. I have been on this forum reading your posts, articles and explanations of T&M and LH contract types for over a decade. I have read your books and those which you have co-authored with colleagues. What is it you think I don't understand? I admitted to you above that it was not the correct way to do a staff augmentation contract or many other actions for that matter. The simple fact is that quite a few HCAs and those in management push ways of doing things and for those of us who are incessantly "curious" and read outside of work, we long ago stopped being aghast at how ignorant they are concerning matters of contract procedure. Some of the best baseball managers either never played or failed to get out of triple-A. Perhaps they are great managing teams and spreadsheets, knowing who to put in and when to accomplish winning seasons. But they get out of their players' way and let them perform.
  22. I can offer my best conjecture as an practitioner. The overwhelming bulk of these IT professional services with accompanying requirements statements being done on a labor-hour (or time-and-material) basis are for staff augmentation ("butts [bodies] in seats"). The SOWs or PWSs (take your pick--they qualify as neither strictly speaking) are intentionally loosely-worded dribble, meant to give the requiring offices as much latitude as possible for future scope determinations, to allow for regular supplemental agreements W.S. They are often structured as an amalgam of individual tasks, e.g., task 001, task 002, task 003, that may or may not have some broad interrelation. The tasks do not have definable outcomes, such as build the 27-story building to local code. Because agencies are structuring these labor-hour and T&M efforts as orders (off larger contracts and agreements) that are twelve month base periods with let's say four one-year options exercisable per the authority of the -9 clause (for what have been rightly determined severable services), they tend to establish individual ceilings for the base and each option. Add further complication in that separate components tend to "pool" their individual buckets of money for each task; sometimes you might even have three or more funding accounting strings for a single task, e.g., task 001, "consulting services for ISS." How then do you set ceilings even for individual years in spite of the FAR's requirement that a ceiling need only be set for the total contract, when the money is coming from an array of treasure chests within a given year or worse yet, a given CLIN/task? Before everyone starts clamoring how wrong this is and how this should be done as an FFP contract type or not at all, understand that this is ubiquitous. I know, your minds are overflowing with questions. But, please read my descriptive narrative a second time and substitute whatever facts suit your fancy. Everything you need to know has been provided. I am but the messenger here. Having been at several major agencies as a CO with unlimited warrants, I can tell you that this is the "new new." If I did not have thick skin, I would not have selected a career, in which I spend all day telling mature children why they can't do what they want and grading/marking up their work. Related careers where the skills of a seasoned CO might come in handy include auditor, underwriter, code compliance and enforcement, and university lecturer and professor.
  23. Has the Government determined the services to be commercial or non-commercial?
  24. Author and IT consultant Cliff Berg opines: "...[T]he existing government-funded space exploration ecosystem, which includes the long entrenched aerospace contractors, don’t really want to do anything new — they just want to keep reinventing the same old things, to keep the money flowing to them but with minimal risk, because mission risk translates into funding risk, and there is less risk in doing things you have already done. And now SpaceX has ruined things for them. Now they have to actually try things they have not done before. Suddenly everyone is talking about rockets that can land and be reused; and suddenly there is talk of going back to the Moon, and even going to Mars. Other nations have reignited their own programs, because no one wants to be left behind." SpaceX's Use of Agile Methods. "SpaceX’s approach to building something new is to break the problem down into a series of smaller problems, and solve them individually. For example, the Starship will need to be able to dock in orbit with another Starship and transfer fuel. To figure out how to do that, SpaceX has signed a contract with NASA to develop the technique. NASA would like to learn how to do that as well, so it is a win-win. To look at this through an Agile lens, each problem solved is a “minimum marketable feature” — one that can be used and reused for many of its future products. SpaceX did not invent that approach: NASA used it to get to the Moon. NASA did not start out building a moon rocket. They started with Mercury, to learn how to get to orbit and back reliably. Then they shifted to the Gemini program, through which they perfected the ability to dock in space and do spacewalks. Apollo was next. What SpaceX has done is systematize the approach and use it for all of the systems that they create."
×
×
  • Create New...