NASA, with the tampons.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This is for stuff going on a literal space ship. I’m sure procurement was super strict on there.

    Imagine getting some defective stuff (or even worse, stuff contaminated with bacteria or something like that).

    I don’t think they’d just let some intern tun over to the local walmart and grab supplies from there for supplies for the space shuttle.

    • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I suspect the strictness isn’t with the procurement process where a contracting officer defines very specific criteria in compliance with acquisition regulations and submits the process to competitive bids. The strictness is in the mission parameters where NASA’s ownership of the thing has already been established, but the NASA employees in a strict hierarchical decisionmaking process need to justify why a thing that NASA already owns should be included in the packing list on a mission.

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        In the end, same result. I guess it would be much harder to get a pack of stuff from Walmart onto a mission than something from a certified supplier who has a datasheet and certifications for the item. And having to order 100pcs of a very cheap product even though less would have sufficed isn’t a good reason to instead have to certify tampons of unknown origin manually.

        Just launching the space shuttle costed $24mio per flight (in 1977 money), so saving a dollar or two by buying fewer tampons was clearly not a priority.