[HN Gopher] Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew...
___________________________________________________________________
Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in
sight
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 210 points
Date : 2023-07-26 15:50 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| LorenDB wrote:
| Or, as The Register likes to call it, the Calamity Capsule.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| > Because Starliner was funded by NASA through a fixed-price
| contract, as part of the Commercial Crew program, Boeing is
| responsible for any cost overruns and financial losses due to
| delays.
|
| Given Boeing's history here this feels like the right kind of
| contract for this sort of work. Ensures all incentives are
| aligned
| constantcrying wrote:
| Fixed price contracts can be quite a problem in high risk
| projects.
|
| The issue is that incentives absolutely aren't aligned. The
| moment Boeing thinks it has achieved a certain part of the
| contract but NASA does not you have a huge problem on your hand
| where one side will try to get work done for free and the other
| has absolutely zero interest as they are not getting paid.
|
| If cost overruns are too great Boeing might also (depending on
| the contract) choose to withdraw, as the continuing development
| cost will be greater than any penalties from the contract.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Hey, we're finally getting some of those lucrative tax breaks
| back in the form of watching Boeing suffer!
| kawehjr wrote:
| The current NASA administrator, a bureaucrat who grew up during
| the Bush Cost+ era, is actually opposed to fixed-price
| contracts because they only save a lot of taxpayer money and
| might not actually help us get deliverables faster.
| pavon wrote:
| That wasn't the NASA Administrator, Bill Nelson. It was Jim
| Free, Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems
| Development[1]. Nelson has been a surprisingly strong
| supporter of fixed-price contracts, given his background.
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/weirdly-a-nasa-
| officia...
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| There is a different perspective on that from large
| acquisitions around firm fixed price contracts.
|
| If you're doing some low risk building, say a 10 mile road on
| flat ground with known soil, replacing a previous road, that
| is well-known to current specs with set-in-stone requirements
| (no pun intended) it is easy to pitch that firm fixed price
| because the contractor will know exactly what to do, and
| there are 20 road building companies that could do the work.
|
| Now, building an advanced spacecraft with a host of
| uncertainties in a vastly more complex environment that may
| require novel technologies development and a great deal of
| engineering is very different if you want to pitch that firm
| fixed price because the contractor perspective is that is
| very risky, and there are likely going to be changing
| requirements.
|
| The contractors will want to make the Govt pay for that risk,
| since they are on the hook for it. All risk is on the
| contractor. The contractor will also fight for $ for every
| changing requirement.
|
| By comparison, in a time & materials contract, the risk is on
| the government, and changing requirements don't matter much,
| if you change them, risk is still on the government.
|
| This explains why firm-fixed price is not always the best
| approach, and sometimes time & materials contracts may make
| for a more economical acquisition approach - because risk and
| changing reqs can translate into dollars.
| hinkley wrote:
| You can't even get your plumber to tell you how much it's
| going to cost to get your toilet working smoothly again.
| And you want to get to the moon on a fixed budget? (Which
| will also require a toilet).
|
| Software has the same problems. An unreasonable expectation
| of being able to predict the future (except the bits they
| don't want you to know about), and a lot of whining when we
| run into unexpected issues.
| ta1243 wrote:
| > And you want to get to the moon on a fixed budget?
| (Which will also require a toilet).
|
| Didn't last time
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/poop-space-revisited-
| apo...
| somewhat_drunk wrote:
| >(Which will also require a toilet).
|
| Haha, nice.
| FreshStart wrote:
| It's fixed price as long as it is fixed price territory.
| Extras are billable by the hour..
| panick21_ wrote:
| Those poor defense contractors. For once not able have the
| governemnt pay for their incompetence. My heart bleeds for
| the poor souls.
| arijun wrote:
| My brief search indicates that is wrong:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/nasa-chief-says-
| cost...
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Boeing has its own incentive to deliver quickly though in
| this case. The incentive is that SpaceX is absolutely eating
| their lunch at this game
| acchow wrote:
| Wish municipal contracts could be done this way
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| >Because Starliner was funded by NASA through a fixed-price
| contract, as part of the Commercial Crew program, Boeing is
| responsible for any cost overruns and financial losses due to
| delays.
|
| Whoever it was in NASA that got that into the contract deserves a
| promotion
| 51Cards wrote:
| "...and the second problem came with hundreds of feet of P-213
| glass cloth tape inside the spacecraft found to be flammable."
|
| How does the craft get built and you just discover this now?
| shmoe wrote:
| If it's Boeing, it ain't going.
| freeopinion wrote:
| It is exciting to me to see a company that is willing to spend
| $billions$ on research and allow it to continue when it is
| doesn't lead to immediate profits and any visible gains.
|
| It is depressing to work for a company that seems immune to
| wasting $billions$ and countless human resources wandering around
| lost.
|
| When there are no consequences for failure there can be an
| amazing culture of innovation. There can also be a dumbfounding
| culture of negligence and mismanagement. Sometimes we only
| distinguish between the two based on survivorship bias.
| panick21_ wrote:
| This is the opposite. Because Boeing has no culture of
| innovation, their capsule was conservative in every choice.
| Slow development, bad software practices, lots of established
| slow contractors. That why it is expensive and behind schedule.
|
| And the are continuing to build it not because of innovation
| but rather because it would be an utter and complete
| embarassment for them to give up. They would lose all
| credibility as a space contractor and would have little chance
| to ever bid for another big NASA project again.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Good read on the decline and fall of Boeing:
| https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-flying-blind-by-peter-ro...
| balozi wrote:
| Sometimes the profits are found in product development, instead
| of product delivery.
| dfgssdfgsdfg wrote:
| Ironically it looks like Boeing's stock soared today on some
| positive news about aircraft sales
| Animats wrote:
| There's no market. Private manned launches have been on Space-X's
| price list for years. Anybody buy one yet?
| bradyd wrote:
| Yes, they've had 3 so far and have at least 4 more planned.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_fl...
| Animats wrote:
| Right, billionaire space tourism is a thing.
| arijun wrote:
| The contract is with NASA, any private launches would just be a
| cherry on top.
| uristohkrat wrote:
| Inspiration 4 was a private mission. Polaris is a series's of
| private missions. I believe Axiom is also considered private,
| might be wrong on that.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| This is I am sure a stupid question but is that a lot? In the
| context of building a new rocket system?
|
| Allegedly the development of the F35 cost about $35 billion
| according to one 2020 study. (Which I think was estimated at the
| start to about $400 million in non-inflation adjusted dollars)
|
| If I look at it through that frame, spending $1.1B on developing
| a rocket seems ok (I Know they are not done so the cost will keep
| rising)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| While there are concerns with the bidding process, I think this
| is a pretty big "nothing", in the grand scheme.
|
| There is some pretty horrific anti-Boeing spin.
|
| > Throughout this spring, NASA and Boeing had been working toward
| a July launch date of the spacecraft, which will carry two
| astronauts for the first time.
|
| > Asked whether Starliner might be able to launch this year,
| Stich did not offer a concrete timetable. "We're not really ready
| to talk about a launch opportunity yet," he said. "We're going to
| work the technical issues first, and then we'll sit down with the
| Boeing team when the time is right and pick a launch target."
|
| Reasonable and responsible as a response. However, Ars spins that
| response into:
|
| > Such an answer suggests that Starliner's launch on an Atlas V
| rocket ... may very well slip into 2024.
|
| I mean, a few month delay on _a brand new space vehicle_ isn 't
| "OMG, Boeing failed!"
|
| But even that is not enough: Ars doubles down, and now NASA's
| refusal to provide a concrete updated launch date means not only
| is it "[slipping] into 2024", but apparently almost to 2025:
|
| > Given the ongoing delays, it is now possible that Crew-9 flies
| next fall, before Boeing's first operational mission,
| Starliner-1.
|
| Which is hilarious (ambiguity about launches) as NASA doesn't
| even know when in 2024 (except that it will be _at least_ Spring)
| Crew-EIGHT will launch... (and neither NASA nor SpaceX itself has
| made any communication on Crew-9 launch timeframes.)
|
| All 100% speculation. The "ongoing delays" in this context are
| "in June, Boeing announced that it would push back the July
| launch".
|
| I also question Ars' framing of this as "losing money"... it's
| R&D expenditures.
|
| Ars (and its Space editor, Eric Berger, who has written books
| about SpaceX) are pretty heavy proponents of SpaceX (which I
| generally am too, despite being less enthusiastic about its
| leader), and this article just reeks of subjective opinion, more
| so than objective neutrality.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Objective reality seems to be that SpaceX's first (successful)
| crewed flight (to the ISS) was completed a bit over 3 years ago
| now. And SpaceX is well into its 6th operational NASA ISS
| mission since then.
|
| Vs. Boeing still has not finish _assembling_ a Starliner
| capsule that meets NASA 's safety spec's. Right now,
| "speculation" is saying that Boeing will _ever_ successfully
| fly a Starliner mission.
| FreshStart wrote:
| So money claw back and hand it to SpaceX?
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| Probably blue origin. NASA wants more than one supplier,
| for as much as possible.
| rst wrote:
| Blue Origin is another company that talks a good game,
| but they've yet to put anything in orbit. If NASA is
| casting about for a second supplier, there were other
| rejected bidders on the current human space transport
| contracts (e.g., Sierra Space's Dream Chaser, still under
| development in a cargo variant) which seem less risky.
| ericcumbee wrote:
| At this point it is probably going to be a human rated
| Dream chaser. they were the 1st looser in the original
| commercial crew contract. They seem to be on track for a
| test launch later this year for Commercial Resupply.
| bell-cot wrote:
| IANAL...but I'd give 100:1 odds that the NASA/Boeing
| contract does not give Uncle Sam the power to do that.
| briffle wrote:
| > I mean, a few month delay on a brand new space vehicle isn't
| "OMG, Boeing failed!"
|
| > But even that is not enough: Ars doubles down, and now NASA's
| refusal to provide a concrete updated launch date means not
| only is it "[slipping] into 2024", but apparently almost to
| 2025:
|
| A few month delay? It was originally supposed to fly in 2017.
| with Crews in 2020.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And SpaceX Crew-1 was originally supposed to fly in November
| 2016, and was then delayed a year, and then another two
| years, and then another year, finally flying in November
| 2020.
| tekla wrote:
| It was delayed the same amount of time as Starliner
| initially. Now Dragon is operational, and Starliner still
| isn't done with the final design/assembly of it.
| adolph wrote:
| > > Such an answer suggests that Starliner's launch on an Atlas
| V rocket ... may very well slip into 2024.
|
| > I mean, a few month delay on a brand new space vehicle isn't
| "OMG, Boeing failed!"
|
| _Atlas V . . . is America 's longest-serving active rocket. In
| August 2021, ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired, and
| all 29 remaining launches had been sold.[ As of 10 November
| 2022, 19 launches remain._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The Atlas V has absolutely nothing to do with the launch
| delay.
|
| The "brand new space vehicle" is the Starliner.
|
| > that there were two serious issues with Starliner. One of
| these involved the "soft links" in the lines that connect the
| Starliner capsule to its parachutes, and the second problem
| came with hundreds of feet of P-213 glass cloth tape inside
| the spacecraft
| Symmetry wrote:
| Atlas V is also a ULA rather than a Boeing rocket. I'd be
| much more eager to trust my life to a ULA space vehicle
| than a Boeing one.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > trust my life to a ULA space vehicle than a Boeing one
|
| So it gets 50% of your trust, then?
|
| > The company, which is a joint venture between Lockheed
| Martin Space and Boeing Defense, Space & Security, was
| formed in December 2006.
| Symmetry wrote:
| Oh, I know. And I continue to be amazed at how much
| healthier of an engineering culture ULA has than Boeing
| for just that reason. It would be one thing if it split
| off before the "out-sourced profits" era at Boeing. I'm
| not familiar with how the amalgamation happened, though.
| tekla wrote:
| ULA is half Boeing
| panick21_ wrote:
| Yeah but Boeing brought the Delta into the marriage and
| LM brought Atlas. Pretty clear who brought to good stuff.
| adolph wrote:
| > The Atlas V has absolutely nothing to do with the launch
| delay.
|
| _Boeing announced in May 2016 that their first crewed
| flight would be delayed to 2018 due to issues related to
| Starliner 's Atlas V N22 launch vehicle._ [0]
|
| Starliner's problem isn't delays--it is a failed program.
| The only thing delayed is terminating the program and
| selling those high value but soon to depreciate Atlas V
| boosts to something worth doing. (7 of 29 remaining Atlas V
| (as of 2022) are allocated to Starliner. To get past 7
| requires a whole new integration/test/certification for
| Starliner.)
|
| _Each contract required four successful demonstrations to
| achieve human rating for the system: pad abort, uncrewed
| orbital test, launch abort, and crewed orbital test._ [0]
| Test Boeing [1] SpaceX [2]
| pad abort 2019-11-04 2015-05-06
| uncrewed orbital test 2022-05-19 2019-03-08
| launch abort N/A 2020-01-19
| crewed orbital N/A 2020-08-02
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2
| imglorp wrote:
| July CST-100 issues, announced right before a CREWed
| mission: * parachute "load limit data
| wasn't correct and restest showed failure at a loading
| point" * wiring tape "flammable and will need to be
| replaced" * thrusters again: "Boeing also found
| more valve problems on the Crewed Flight Test capsule, as
| they were getting ready to load propellants onboard."
|
| These are all serious human safety issues; any could be
| fatal. If I worked at NASA, I'd ask for gold plated
| resolution of these before an astronaut goes near CST-100.
|
| source: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/06/twis-202306
| 02/#more-...
| mattashii wrote:
| Atlas V is indeed an old launch vehicle. Starliner, however,
| is a brand-new (kinda) space vehicle. It still has to pass
| crewed validation.
|
| Kinda new, because it has seen 2 flights, of which 1 a
| mission failure (failed to insert into target orbit due to
| software issues, several other issues identified hours before
| a potential hard mission failure), and the other an uncrewed
| test flight.
| housemusicfan wrote:
| > this article just reeks of subjective opinion, more so than
| objective neutrality
|
| The comments section of any Ars Starliner article is a must-
| read for me. These guys were devout Boeing haters and would
| endlessly praise SpaceX - that is, until Elon become public
| enemy #1 last year and they suddenly and abruptly shifted their
| hate and derision the other way. Not a single independent
| thought on that entire forum, unless you sort by most critical
| and painstakingly weed through the hidden comments. The
| articles are crafted to be red meat for their core readership.
| At least The Register is unashamedly a tabloid and doesn't
| pretend they're not. Interesting to see how they spin this.
| evandale wrote:
| The haters don't want to admit space flight is really really
| hard and Elon, excuse my language, fucking nailed it.
|
| Richard Branson is a billionaire who tried to do spaceflight
| long before Elon and Virgin Galactic hasn't launched anything
| useful (before SpaceX) as far as I know. If someone thinks a
| suborbital flight is impressive I highly recommend them to
| play KSP and find out how easy that is compared to getting
| into orbit.
|
| edit: they have reached orbit; I stopped following Virgin
| after it became clear they can't do the job
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LauncherOne
|
| So many people want to erroneously believe Elon is some child
| with the mental capacity of a 3 year old with access to
| billions of dollars because they don't want to like him or
| give him credit for anything.
|
| It takes more than a pile of money to run a successful space
| program and how nobody can see that by now is beyond me.
| usrusr wrote:
| It's quite sad to see the public perception of spaceflight
| getting ruined by making sure that everybody's first
| association upon hearing the name of the most awesome
| rocket company is "Spacetwitter".
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > So many people want to erroneously believe Elon is some
| child with the mental capacity of a 3 year old with access
| to billions of dollars because they don't want to like him
| or give him credit for anything.
|
| I think the contrast between Musk's SpaceX and Twitter
| experiences is largely down to whether the organization
| grew up around Musk. SpaceX has an immune system built up
| for the nutty stuff, from Gwynne Shotwell on down. Twitter
| got thrown into the deep end with zero staff powerful
| enough or with the experience to do the post-idea cleanup
| work.
|
| It's a huge mistake to say "Elon had nothing to do with
| SpaceX's success". It's also a huge mistake to say
| "SpaceX's success means Musk's Twitter plans are good".
| dotnet00 wrote:
| I think saying that SpaceX is somehow "containing" the
| nutty stuff in a way that Twitter is not isn't all that
| accurate.
|
| SpaceX does tons of nutty stuff, some of it turns out to
| be good, and that's how they have their 10+ year
| technology lead on most of the world. In the early days
| this was stuff like using shears to roughly trim an
| engine bell in the field.
|
| Nowadays it's stuff like attempting to catch rockets with
| giant arms to avoid putting landing legs on them,
| stacking satellites held together with a simple bar and
| just spinning to release, replacing the concrete
| underneath the launch pad with a giant water cooled steel
| plate to deal with the effect of the engine exhaust and
| so on.
|
| SpaceX as an organization encourages some amount of nutty
| creativity since, especially in aerospace, a lot of dumb
| sounding but potentially good ideas tend to get shot down
| because the old guys are used to doing things a certain
| way.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There's a vast spectrum of nuttiness available. I don't
| think you see SpaceX successful without the Gwynne
| Shotwell sort of characters involved; I think Twitter
| lacks such a role.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Ah yes, I agree on that. I think even Elon kind of
| admitted how she was important for that.
|
| IIRC when FH had turned out to be harder than expected
| and not really all that useful due to F9's increased
| performance, Elon had wanted to cancel it, but Gwynne
| insisted that it stay because they had already sold it to
| customers and dropping projects like that would be bad
| for business.
| panick21_ wrote:
| You are mixing up Virigin Galactic and Virgin Orbit. One is
| suborbital tourism, the other is sat launch. VO is
| bankroupt. VG has raised so much money from clueless
| investors that they are not quite bankroupt yet.
| evandale wrote:
| My only point was it takes more than a billionaire with a
| dream to create a space program. VG is a complete failure
| from a getting into space perspective, I don't care how
| much money investors have given to them. They don't have
| anything unique or worth mentioning.
|
| How Branson shuffles money around between VG and VO is
| irrelevant if the goal is getting into space and the name
| of the company matters even less.
| ktpecot wrote:
| Well Starliner was originally contracted to be certified in
| 2017. So a few month slip on top of the 5+ year slip already
| maybe justifies some of the skepticism from ARS
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Would be nice to see some of that skepticism applied to
| Crew-1, when it slipped 4 years, but Ars treated SpaceX
| announcements as gospel truth.
|
| Hell, the launch article for Crew-1
| (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/weather-
| permitting-t...) literally _did not once_ mention that that
| launch was delayed, let alone 3 separate year+ delays. Just
| about SpaceX "saving" NASA from "wandering around in the
| wilderness with no access to space".
| ktpecot wrote:
| Given that starliner is still not operational and the
| situation in Russia the description seems pretty on point
| to me?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| So does, "Announced in 2012 to be launched in November
| 2016, the program suffered numerous delays until four
| years after the initial launch date, it's taking off..."
|
| > and the situation in Russia
|
| Presumably you mean the Ukraine invasion, which had zero
| bearing on this, given that it happened nearly a year and
| a half later...
| ktpecot wrote:
| I mean I guess you are correct it was late but it was
| still first relative to Boeing. So the timeline warranted
| less emphasis then say now when Boeing is delayed 3 plus
| years on top of that.
|
| I'm not sure how you can say the Ukraine invasion has
| zero bearing on the "NASA...having no access to space".
| Given starliner is a dumpster fire and NASA would not be
| able to reliably count on Soyuz for access to ISS, it was
| a remarkably prescient statement. Even if Russia hadn't
| invaded in 2020 it was obvious that NASA having its own
| capability to get to ISS was a strategic priority, that
| was only achieved by SpaceX.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| In 2022?
| tekla wrote:
| Except Crew-1 Happened in 2020, Staliner-1 has been delayed
| until probably late 2023, 2024. Demo-1 Happened before
| OFT-1. They both started at similar times and also their
| delayed missions were delayed by similar amounts initially.
| By all accounts, Starliner is behind is every possible way
| with much greater funding than SpaceX.
|
| SpaceX is at Crew 7, Starliner isn't even close to
| Starliner-1
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > By all accounts, Starliner is behind is every possible
| way with much greater funding than SpaceX.
|
| That's only true if you assume SpaceX strictly allocated
| budgets per program and that no revenue from their other
| missions have gone to the crewed flight programs.
|
| I'm not saying Spaceliner is a success, or that there are
| arguments to be made about each company's approach (you
| could argue that while Boeing's approach seems relatively
| glacial, Boeing also has far fewer smoking craters and
| damaged barges than SpaceX).
|
| None of that removes the fairly evident bias that Ars can
| be counted on to spin anything SpaceX in a positive
| manner (a la ignoring years of delays to talk of SpaceX
| saving the day for NASA, while a refusal to commit to a
| launch date following a just discovered issue for Boeing
| immediately implies more years of delays).
| panick21_ wrote:
| Sure its startup SpaceX that has massive amount of money
| from other programs that the can smash into Dragon. Its
| not like the were not also working on 5 other development
| projects at the time.
|
| It Eric Berger, not "Ars". And he absolutly did report on
| all the SpaceX delays. After the testing explosion he
| even said SpaceX might be behind. Stop spreading your
| conspircy threory nonsense.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| [flagged]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > completely neglects to mention any delay whatsoever
| when talking about the Crew-1 launch
|
| The Crew-1 delay was three _years_ ago. Why would he
| mention it in this article?
|
| > spins a lack of a confirmed updated launch date less
| than three weeks after discovery of issues into a delay
| that will approach 2025
|
| Reasonable, given how it's gone so far. They've _yet
| another_ parachute issue, and accidentally used
| "hundreds of feet" of flammable tape.
|
| > "perhaps even after Crew-9", which is hilarious given
| that even Crew-8 doesn't have a launch date other than
| towards the middle of next year, and Crew-7 is currently
| facing new delays
|
| Crew-9 in 2024 is hardly an unreasonable assumption.
| Crew-8 is scheduled NET February 2024, not "middle of
| next year". Crew-7 is facing a two _day_ delay, because
| of another launch. https://www.space.com/spacex-
| crew-7-astronaut-launch-delay-a...
|
| Pretending that's relevant in assessing Starliner's
| _multi-year_ delays is nutty.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The idea that for the rest of history, SpaceX Crew-1
| delay has to be brought when talking about Starliner is
| nonsense. Its not bias. It common sense for a short
| update article like this.
|
| > less than three weeks after discovery of issues
|
| It has been much longer then 3 weeks.
|
| > which is hilarious
|
| Eric Berger has a very good track record when talking
| about delays. He usually has information from inside the
| industry. I'm gone go with they guy that has predicted
| correctly over and over and over again the last 10 years.
|
| I don't really care if you think it's 'hilarious'.
|
| Dragon is on regular cadence, short term delays of one
| doesn't necessarily even mean that the launches after
| that will be delayed to.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > (you could argue that while Boeing's approach seems
| relatively glacial, Boeing also has far fewer smoking
| craters and damaged barges than SpaceX).
|
| Yet SpaceX is still cheaper despite those damaged barges
| and craters. And that's really all there is to those, a
| cost element. It would be different if they had left
| smoking corpses but they haven't.
|
| They do really do something right.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I mean, a few month delay on a brand new space vehicle isn't
| "OMG, Boeing failed!"
|
| The hubub is not about the few more months of delay just
| anounced.
|
| The starliner and the dragon 2 started development around the
| same time to deliver about the same thing. The first crewed
| dragon 2 launched in 16 November 2020. It is not about the
| months of delay, but the years.
| Retric wrote:
| Those were largely delays in funding (4+ years) not just the
| actual program. "In July 2010, Boeing stated that the capsule
| could be operational as early as 2015 _with sufficient near-
| term approvals and funding."_
|
| "On _September 16, 2014,_ NASA chose Boeing (Starliner) and
| SpaceX (Crew Dragon) as the two companies to be funded to
| develop systems to transport U.S. government crews to and
| from the International Space Station."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Scroll down to the "testing" bit.
|
| The pad abort test resulted in a parachute not working -
| they forgot a pin. https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-
| blamed-for-boeing-pad-abor...
|
| The first orbital test failed to reach the ISS because it
| accidentally burned too much propellant. A second error
| nearly made it burn up on reentry and had to be fixed in
| orbit.
|
| The second orbital test failed to launch because the
| craft's valves couldn't handle humidity (despite being
| designed to launch from Florida). When it finally went
| (after a complete rebuild of those valves), multiple
| thrusters from two different systems failed in orbit.
|
| The third orbital test - the first crewed - has been now
| indefinitely delayed.
|
| It is _well_ behind schedule.
| Retric wrote:
| You're skipping over the bit where "After analysis and
| corrective actions it was launched on May 19, 2022, and
| completed a successful mission to the ISS, clearing the
| way for the crewed flight test."
|
| They had an initial failure, and 1 delayed but successful
| mission. The 3rd mission is again delayed, that's fairly
| normal for manned spacecraft. Rocket science is hard,
| news at 11...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The second mission had to be _added_ due to the first 's
| failures. (https://spacenews.com/boeing-to-fly-second-
| starliner-uncrewe...) It wasn't originally in the
| schedule. (SpaceX, by comparison, flew crew on their
| second test flight.)
|
| And again, Starliner's third attempt is now indefinitely
| delayed for a rebuild of critical systems.
|
| "largely delays in funding not just the actual program"
| is simply not the truth.
| Retric wrote:
| SpaceX's dragon had test failures slow things doing
| remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scz-fFZT-
| dI
|
| > is simply not the truth.
|
| Funding represents significantly more than 4 years of
| delays, just using their initial announcement date let
| alone when funding was actually provided. That's just
| simple math.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > SpaceX's dragon had test failures
|
| There's a major difference between internal tests
| intended to discover problems and "we think everything's
| good, NASA, can we send it to the ISS?" tests intended to
| show everything's working.
|
| > Funding represents significantly more than 4 years of
| delays
|
| Sure. Add on additional years worth of failed tests on
| the actual production vehicle and you get the $1.1B in
| the article. Boe-OFT was now nearly four years ago.
| Retric wrote:
| They were only different in how expensive they were to
| conduct. NASA, SpaceX, and Boeing all expected these
| tests to have a significant risks, which is why they
| where unmanned.
|
| The entire point of spending that much money was to
| discover problems. As to your "sure" if admit Boeings
| delays are less than half of total delays, that sounds
| like you agree with me.
|
| Anyway, Dragon 2 as an iteration of an existing platform
| was by far the lower risk option. But, that's a
| completely separate question.
| pavon wrote:
| Yes, the Commercial Crew funding was spread out over more
| years than NASA wanted due to insufficient budget from
| Congress, which delayed both SpaceX and Boeing. But Boeing
| has had 3 more years of delays on top of that due to bad
| engineering.
| legitster wrote:
| SpaceX is the only organization in the industry that
| prioritizes speed. For the regulators and the other players,
| they are all pretty happy to do things at their own pace and
| speed.
| freeopinion wrote:
| By "other players" do you mean the incumbents? Parties with
| existing revenue streams and contracts stretching out years
| without any performance requirements?
|
| Anybody who is guaranteed a job with a decent salary for
| life and a great retirement plan is not incentivized to
| perform except by some personal drive. Anybody who wants
| onto the gravy train is motivated to do whatever work it
| takes to get a seat at that table. And they are motivated
| to do it as fast as possible.
|
| It is not wrong to prioritize safety over speed. But you
| can use the safety excuse to drag things out for as long as
| people are willing to pay you without producing results.
| While space travel risks involve the obvious threat to
| human life, those risks can be generalized like any other
| risk. Usually, the lower the risk, the lower the reward.
| Unless there is something interfering. Interference that
| manipulates the risk/reward ratio often has the smell of
| corruption in the minds of many people.
| bradyd wrote:
| But the regulators have certified SpaceX's Crew Dragon.
| legitster wrote:
| Sure. But they are waiting on contracts to do anything.
| tekla wrote:
| Yes, that is how Commercial Crew works. They get paid to
| send people to the ISS
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Berger has a pretty good record with the estimated NETs. There
| have been several cases of him stating that a launch has been
| pushed back with a bunch of public pushback from others, only
| for him to turn out to have been pretty close.
| signatoremo wrote:
| Boeing was awarded the crew contract at the same time as SpaceX
| in 2014. The first crew mission was Dragon in May 2020. Fast
| forward 4 years, seven NASA and three private crews have flown
| on Dragon. None on Starliner. Can you say with a straight face
| that it isn't a serious delay? A few months, really?
|
| Keep in mind that Boeing was awarded $4.2B, compared to $2.9B
| for SpaceX, for the same number of flights. Not to mention that
| NASA was accused of favor treatment for Boeing during the
| development phase - See _What we found_ section of [0]
|
| > Which is hilarious (ambiguity about launches) as NASA doesn't
| even know when in 2024 (except that it will be at least Spring)
| Crew-EIGHT will launch... (and neither NASA nor SpaceX itself
| has made any communication on Crew-9 launch timeframes.)
|
| Such is an ignorant take. The rotation of ISS mission is
| currently 6 months, so there are always two missions a year, in
| the Spring and the Fall, barring extraordinary circumstance
| such as with Soyuz MS-10. Crew-8 will fly in the Spring, to be
| followed by the first Starliner operational flight. However if
| Starliner upcoming test flight continue to be delayed it's
| entirely possible that Crew 9 will fly instead.
|
| > I also question Ars' framing of this as "losing money"...
| it's R&D expenditures.
|
| It's not Ars' framing. It's common knowledge - [1], and
| reported by Boeing itself - [2]
|
| _Boeing on Wednesday reported a $257 million charge in the
| second quarter for its Starliner astronaut spacecraft program,
| bringing the program's to-date overrun costs to $1.5 billion as
| delays continue.
|
| The aerospace giant blamed the charge on its decision last
| month to indefinitely delay the first crewed Starliner launch._
|
| > and this article just reeks of subjective opinion, more so
| than objective neutrality.
|
| The article is very short. Everyone should read and judge for
| themselves. I think it's mostly matter of fact without
| sensational takes. Can't say the same about your post (horrific
| anti-Boeing/reeks/hilarious).
|
| [0] - https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf [1] -
| https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/boeing-has-lost-1point5-bill...
| [2] - https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2023-07-26-Boeing-Reports-
| Secon...
| areoform wrote:
| This comment is your regularly scheduled reminder that they were
| supposed to be the _safe_ option. The people who 'd come in
| clutch when SpaceX failed (and it was assumed in certain quarters
| that SpaceX would fail to deliver on time). They were paid 2x
| more than what NASA paid SpaceX.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing...
|
| RIP Boeing.
| notquitehuman wrote:
| Boeing has offices in nearly every congressional district, and
| has been openly bribing congress for decades. They will never
| fail, experience hardship, or suffer consequences for anything
| so long as the current republic stands.
| ecshafer wrote:
| All of the big defense contractors do this, it's kind of
| astounding. Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. their offices are spread
| out over the country to give enough coverage in congressional
| districts where no one will be willing to kill funding for a
| project at the risk of their local plant closing.
| owlninja wrote:
| Also the contracts the big companies have with vendors
| across the country. They still purchase a large portion of
| their parts and talking to congress members about the jobs
| a program creates in their district is a strong data point.
| jjordan wrote:
| You don't need to tear down the Republic, but you do need to
| elect representatives that can somehow stand against the
| relentless current of lobbyists jockeying for appropriations.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| That means campaign funding from a different source.
|
| Which means overruling _Citizens United_ and campaign
| funding reform.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| What you say is true but now they do have some competition
| from SpaceX. If we make other companies that can compete with
| Boeing we can at least have price competition which is really
| the only thing that is needed.
|
| Boeing though has so many government contracts that are used
| so often for other projects you can't shut down so you are
| correct.
| Laremere wrote:
| This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I
| hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare
| that has been avoided because Russia can't use cutting off
| access to the ISS as a bargaining chip.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| One of the effects of the invasion was that the Antares
| rocket stopped being viable.
|
| Antares used a pair of Russian RD-181 engines. The first
| stage was built in Ukraine (Dnipro). This sort of cooperation
| is basically dead.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| I've been wondering, with the rocket science knowledge the
| Ukraine has, are they not capable of designing and building
| mid-rage missiles for their military, or is that just a
| much longer process?
| gpm wrote:
| They have been doing this
|
| https://www.eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms-ukraine-says-
| it-...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/09/its-simple-
| and...
|
| Surface to air:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/07/24/the-
| ukraini...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The Hrim-2 missile (hrim/hrom/grom is Slavic for
| _thunder_ ) may be precisely that.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2
| dotnet00 wrote:
| They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip
| since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising.
| They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until
| Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took
| a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia
| would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up
| later this decade.
|
| What gets in the way is that the US has several replacement
| space station programs in the works while Russia knows very
| well that they almost definitely can't get a comparable
| replacement station up with how hollowed out their industry
| is.
|
| Plus, since the start of the war, NASA has been investigating
| options for taking over the tasks the Russian side of the
| station handles with the various supply vehicles just in
| case.
| SEJeff wrote:
| IIRC, NASA and SpaceX are working on a study to see if
| Dragon can do station keeping for this exact reason. NASA
| is doing a great job hedging their bets in a very tricky
| political climate.
| adolph wrote:
| > half the station is Russian and habdles orbit raising
|
| The orbit raising has been performed by the Progress
| resupply vehicles from Russia and Shuttle and other
| vehicles from the US. As of 2018 the Cygnus resupply
| vehicle from the US was capable of performing the orbit
| raising mission.
|
| _While the Cygnus was still docked at the space station 's
| Unity module on Tuesday (July 10), the spacecraft fired its
| main engine for 50 seconds as part of a test to determine
| whether the cargo ship can be used to raise the space
| station's orbit, Frank DeMauro, Vice President of Advanced
| Programs at NGIS, told Space.com._
|
| _About the size of a short bus, the Cygnus may look puny
| compared to the ISS, which is as big as a football field.
| But its powerful Delta-V engine provided enough thrust to
| raise the space station by about 282 feet (86 meters). "The
| burn went extremely well," DeMauro said. "The spacecraft
| behaved exactly as we expected."_
|
| https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-
| orbi...
| panick21_ wrote:
| NASA replacement stations are totally underfunded by
| congress, non are close. Don't expect a solution from that
| anyime soon.
| resolutebat wrote:
| If Starship delivers even half of what they're promising,
| we'll have a bunch of commercial space stations up even
| without NASA support.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_space_st
| ati...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Building a commercial station isn't very easy. And if you
| are not investing a a couple billion your not even in the
| game.
|
| Non of those companies will invest billions on their own.
| All of those companies investment is predicated on NASA
| support.
|
| Do you really believe Northrop Grumman will invest
| billions of its own money?
|
| The Startups are to small an inexperienced.
|
| And Bezos has already said they will not do this unless
| they get NASA investment.
|
| To just link to a bunch 'commercial' stations is missing
| the point. These concept exists because NASA has
| announced they will fund multiple 'commercial' station.
| But unfortunately Congress has not given NASA the budget
| for these.
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's quite a gulf between what's promised and what's
| been tested. Despite the backfilling about just a test
| and total success there's were a LOT of big failures in
| that first launch test.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They should at the very least partner with ESA which also
| built some ISS modules.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Isn't it the Russian modules that keep leaking atmosphere?
| Maybe its time to jettison them? I honestly have no idea
| what the Russian modules are or what purposes are are
| served by them.
|
| However, that does bring to mind something I never thought
| about. There is talk of privatizing ISS since NASA doesn't
| want to continue funding it. How do you privatize something
| made by multiple nations? Or is that precisely why the
| privatization isn't taken seriously?
| kolinko wrote:
| One of the purposes of ISS, and other space programs
| (Apollo-Soyuz for example) was showcasing how nations can
| work together, and bringing hope for peace during the
| cold war. May sound naive, but that's the reason why
| nobody should be jettisoned off the space station - even
| if there are embargoes on the ground.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| > _but that 's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned
| off the space station_
|
| The PRC is banned from the ISS, due to NASA being legally
| forbidden from dealing with them.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment#History
| dylan604 wrote:
| [flagged]
| oefrha wrote:
| "I'm just trolling." Don't do that here.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's a silly comment leading into a more serious
| question. Everyone focuses on the least important part of
| the comment, and then feels self righteous
| dcow wrote:
| The edit window is still open.
| [deleted]
| dotnet00 wrote:
| There have been some incidents with Russian modules and
| spacecraft over the years demonstrating the gradual
| decline in their capability, but so far it hasn't been
| determined to br worth the effort of figuring out if the
| sides can even be disconnected anymore.
|
| The talk about private space stations isn't really about
| privatizing the existing ISS. There are private trips to
| there every once in a while (required to be led by any
| former astronaut at the ISS though).
|
| Besides that maybe you're thinking of Axiom's space
| station, which is intended to have modules docking to the
| American side of the station and gradually building off
| of it until their modules can handle being independent,
| at which point the ISS modules would be disconnected and
| deorbited, leaving their private space station on its
| own.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| There was a time when Boeing was a Washington state company,
| with a strong engineering tradition and contribution. You can
| pretty much correlate the count of failures and overruns with
| the era when the mergers and buyouts started, the engineering
| substance was diluted, and management moved "off site" to
| Chicago to be "more accessible".
|
| As a Washington state resident that used to be proud of Boeing,
| now days, I just despise them. I work with lots of fine ex
| Boeing engineers at my current place of work. I feel for all of
| the fine individuals that still work at Boeing, but other wise,
| I wish them the same death I wish on IBM now days.
|
| No "Rest In Peace" from me. More of "Don't let the door hit
| you..." feeling.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I agree with this, it is pretty stunning. Also ULA's inability
| to come up with a launch capability that is anywhere close to
| Falcon/Falcon Heavy in terms of cost and time to flight.
|
| The fascinating thing is that the lack of competition allowed
| the space launch industry to switch from "invent" mode to
| "monetize" mode way too early. It is also what makes the
| Starship work both more credible and more interesting. There
| are a _lot_ of technical problems to work through on Starship
| between now and it being as reliable as say Falcon is, but if
| (when?) they get there, the ability to put 100 tons into LEO
| for just the cost of the propellant and some depreciation on
| the vehicle? That really changes the economics of having things
| in space in a way that is hard for folks to imagine.
| SEJeff wrote:
| 150T... They have been able to crank up the power of the
| raptors per Elon.
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's also been a bit of a shift in the market for space
| launches. For the longest time there wasn't that much of a
| market for a higher volume, cheaper launcher like the Falcon
| as the number of launches were really limited to mostly
| government launches and a handful of communication
| satellites. Recently hardware has gotten much cheaper which
| combined with cheaper launches skyrockets the number of
| groups that could design and send up a payload because the
| economics on both ends finally met up.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| That was the point of Starlink.
|
| If the only _capability_ is incredibly expensive and highly
| reliable, no _demand_ that only works under cheaper and
| relaxed reliability exists.
|
| Luckily, the market's caught up pretty quickly.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| It's analogous to gigabit internet in the 90's. Why would
| anyone want that and what would you even do.
| api wrote:
| I'm sure they'll discuss that at the meeting they'll schedule
| in the next meeting scheduling meeting.
| supportengineer wrote:
| Has the scheduling meeting been approved and budgeted via all
| the proper channels?
| FreshStart wrote:
| There are always some teething problems in Gremiums of 1000
| people that need to agree unanimously.
| [deleted]
| mandeepj wrote:
| > They were paid 2x more than what NASA paid SpaceX.
|
| It's worth a case study - why didn't they try to pay Gwynne
| Shotwell 10x more + CEO role + (M\B)illions worth of stocks?
| Even if they did, why didn't she accept? She would certainly
| have turned their fortunes around.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Hasn't Gwen's main role at SpaceX been sales? Is she also the
| main force behind spaceX executing at engineering?
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Operating officer, iirc. So not necessarily engineering but
| herding cats, still impressive.
| mezeek wrote:
| To be clear to readers, the were only paid for their achieved
| milestones, which is nowhere near the full contracted amount
| since they haven't flown anyone.
|
| As for the 2x part... it's cause their bid was 2x what SpaceX
| bid itself. And both got their bids accepted.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > As for the 2x part... it's cause their bid was 2x what
| SpaceX bid itself. And both got their bids accepted.
|
| Mostly.
|
| NASA did just give Boeing extra money for some pretty dubious
| reasons.
|
| > NASA instead requested Boeing "propose prices for
| additional flexibilities to fill an anticipated crew access
| gap, including shortening its lead times for rocket and
| spacecraft production," the report states. After what OIG
| described as "prolonged negotiations," NASA agreed to pay
| Boeing an additional $287.2 million for those mission
| flexibilities.
|
| > The OIG report concluded that much of those payments were
| not necessary, since there were other methods to provide
| schedule flexibility to mitigate gaps in crew access to the
| station. The report specifically notes that, five days after
| NASA agreed to the additional payment to Boeing, the company
| submitted a proposal to NASA offering to sell five Soyuz
| seats it has acquired from Russian company RSC Energia for
| $373.5 million.
|
| > The report concluded NASA's payment of $144 million to
| accelerate the timetable for two of the four Starliner
| missions was unreasonable, and that it overspent by $43
| million when it granted Boeing authorization to proceed on
| one Starliner mission a year earlier than necessary.
|
| > OIG also criticized NASA for not giving SpaceX, the other
| company with a commercial crew contract, an opportunity for
| offering its own proposal to address any gap in crew access
| to the ISS. "In our judgment, contacting both providers would
| have been a prudent approach to maximize the Agency's options
| while also ensuring fairness," the report concluded.
|
| https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes-
| addi...
| martin8412 wrote:
| Yes, and NASA awarded SpaceX $278m in 2006 dollars from the
| COTS program when SpaceX had never even flown a rocket.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > Yes, and NASA awarded SpaceX $278m in 2006 dollars from
| the COTS program when SpaceX had never even flown a
| rocket.
|
| OK.
|
| I'm not really sure what your point is. NASA gives out
| contracts to new companies all the time. And the award
| was in a firm, fixed-price contract.
|
| The difference between that and the previous example is
| that NASA had already awarded Boeing money for CCtCap
| (the commercial crew contract). And then they just
| decided to give them more money, for what can charitably
| described as bad reasons.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| They paid them extra for "shortening lead times". Lol.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > NASA did just give Boeing extra money for some pretty
| dubious reasons.
|
| Actually, a multiple award approach for a very high risk,
| technically challenging widget makes perfect sense, and is
| the same thing seen for similarly challenging weapon
| systems e.g. the Advanced Tactical Fighter F-22 vs F-23
| https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-
| buzz/americas-f-23-ste...
|
| > The report specifically notes that, five days after NASA
| agreed to the additional payment to Boeing, the company
| submitted a proposal to NASA offering to sell five Soyuz
| seats it has acquired from Russian company RSC Energia for
| $373.5 million.
|
| This looks like Boeing was doing some horse trading that
| could have been pretty financially risky particularly
| considering the value of money.
|
| > The report concluded NASA's payment of $144 million to
| accelerate the timetable for two of the four Starliner
| missions was unreasonable, and that it overspent by $43
| million when it granted Boeing authorization to proceed on
| one Starliner mission a year earlier than necessary.
|
| Sometimes when thinking about the Industrial Base of the
| United States, there is a good rationale for keeping an
| incumbent's design & engineering capabilities active, while
| bringing competition to the table and potentially
| displacing it with a more agile competitor.
|
| If truly getting the best and most efficient designs out
| there was the true goal, there should have been more
| awards, and for funded development to enable a greater
| diversity of competitors with designs being put forth.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The Starliner was gone get built if they dropped 100M
| extra on Boeing or not.
|
| There lots of more relevant and important technologies
| that need more funding.
|
| The CommercialCrew program was not done for research, it
| was trying to solving a particular problem at the time
| and do it fast and efficently.
|
| If NASA want to spend money on more experimental human
| spaceflight, the CommercialCrew program was not the place
| to do it.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| SpaceX has a fail safe where the human capsule can eject, I
| hope Boeing also have this
| nordsieck wrote:
| > SpaceX has a fail safe where the human capsule can eject, I
| hope Boeing also have this
|
| They do.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They have a very similar system.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pad_Abort_Test
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| You know, that looks scary to be in the capsule for, but
| far less scary than the Saturn V's Apollo Pad Abort Test,
| where the rocket was ON TOP of the capsule: https://en.wiki
| pedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system#/media/Fi...
| mcpackieh wrote:
| It might seem a little sketchy but it worked well. When
| they flew it on a small rocket to test it, the rocket
| accidentally broke apart but the escape tower system then
| performed perfectly:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
| myfavoritetings wrote:
| Whether you are being pushed or pulled by a rocket
| doesn't really matter. From the inside would feel very
| similar.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| [flagged]
| b59831 wrote:
| Why is your hate boner relevant here? It's fine if you want to
| be irrational but why shout it out?
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site
| guidelines.
|
| If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email
| hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll
| follow the rules in the future. They're here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| grecy wrote:
| Elon also said the Falcon 9 would work, said it would be re-
| usable, said the Falcon 9 heavy would work, said the Model S
| would be good, said the Model 3 would be great, said the Model
| Y would be the most popular car in the world, etc. etc.
|
| Obviously he's not hitting 100%, but you can't deny his
| companies are achieving immensely more than anyone ever thought
| possible.
|
| If I could take Elon's ratio of "I said it would work vs. it's
| real and it does", I would, and so would any sane person.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| sane person here, I would only take Elon's claim that
| something would work seriously if it relied mostly on
| newtonian mechanics to verify.
|
| which model S being good, falcon 9 working etc, that is all
| it takes. basic physics napkin math.
|
| anything with nuance (self driving) or human emotions in play
| (twitter), and he is the same as any boomer uncle complaining
| about kids these days
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| > basic physics napkin math.
|
| Exactly, it's not rocket science. Oh, wait, it actually is.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Right, and you can land on the moon with basic newtonian
| mechanics. The are millions of devils in the details but
| for a person to decide how big a rocket to build and
| whether it could land vertically after a payload of X
| that needs a delta-V of Y, its easy napkin math to prove
| feasibility.
|
| Executing it is then one of the hardest things people can
| do but SpaceX had all the best people at the time.
| SEJeff wrote:
| Right, and he ballparks 250-300T in expendable mode here:
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1661441658473570304?s=4
| 6...
|
| Raptor improved thrust:
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1678276840740343808?s=4
| 6...
|
| Raptor 2 improved thrust:
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1657249739925258240?s=4
| 6...
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1661441658473570304?s=4
| 6...
|
| Love the guy or hate the guy, but on SpaceX numbers (other
| than timelines), he's been spot on.
| grecy wrote:
| > _That is all it takes. basic physics napkin math_
|
| And yet Tesla and SpaceX and now wiping the floor with
| their competitors.
|
| If it was really so "basic", why didn't those other multi-
| billion dollar companies do what Tesla and SpaceX are
| doing?
| tenpies wrote:
| > If I could take Elon's ratio of "I said it would work vs.
| it's real and it does", I would, and so would any sane
| person.
|
| I want to be optimistic too, but you're missing Falcon 9s
| worth of broken Elon promises.
|
| This isn't an exhaustive list, but certainly a more complete:
| https://elonmusk.today I recommend starting from the bottom.
|
| I'll just say that if he were a baseball player, he would be
| a pretty bad one. The odds that an Elon prediction pans out
| are fairly bad. If a bookie were available, you'd want to
| take the under on every single one.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't post this sort of unsubstantive comment to HN, and
| please avoid the flamewar style generally when posting here.
|
| You may not owe Elons better, but you owe this community better
| if you're participating in it:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882951.
| [deleted]
| evilos wrote:
| Full Self Driving is imminent and X.com is the future of
| finance!
| srameshc wrote:
| Social finance, we will all be networked and worked and
| paying each other via X ! :)
| MrOwnPut wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Since we just asked you to stop posting like this and you've
| continued to do it, I've banned the account.
|
| If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email
| hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll
| follow the rules in the future. They're here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| MrOwnPut wrote:
| Did anyone expect otherwise?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Lost, or invested? One imagines if they outright lost it and saw
| no opportunity to recoup (i.e. no longer an investment) they'd
| just end the program.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The contract doesn't permit Boeing to cancel. NASA can.
| mulmen wrote:
| How does that work? Does Boeing pay a penalty if they don't
| make progress?
| randunel wrote:
| US law allows companies to split off a subsidiary with all
| the liabilities and the main company to continue to
| function with all the assets just like before
| https://www.ltltalccommittee.org/
|
| Boeing wouldn't need to pay anything.
| humanistbot wrote:
| You cite LTL / J&J like they got away with it. It's
| currently being litigated in multiple courts, it could go
| either way: https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/artic
| les/2023-06-27/...
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| They would never get another space contract again if they
| did that, but they can see this will be a larger market
| in 30 years, so they'll lick their wounds and continue on
| commercial space projects.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > They would never get another space contract again if
| they did that
|
| People say that, but I don't think it's true. Boeing
| pulled out of the Phantom Express project seemingly
| unscathed.
|
| https://www.space.com/boeing-withdraws-darpa-military-
| space-...
| twiddling wrote:
| Depends on how good their lobbyists are.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They're also vastly different projects. Phantom Express
| was very much experimental; Starliner wasn't supposed to
| be. Part of the selling point for Boeing was "this is
| mundane stuff we already know how to do".
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| No, that is not how bankruptcy court works. The
| subsidiary needs to have enough assets to pay the
| creditors, up to the entire value of the company.
| voxic11 wrote:
| They could end the program but violating their contract
| probably costs them more than just finishing the work at a
| loss.
| mezeek wrote:
| they would have cancelled a long time ago if they could
| ragebol wrote:
| For that investment to work, they need to bring in some revenue
| as well. The ISS is scheduled to retire by 2030. Let's assume
| this capsule goes operational in 2025 and flies twice a year,
| that's 10 flights to recoup well, well over a billion by then.
| Let's say a 100 million per flight. Not sure what the contract
| is exactly, but it's not looking great.
|
| Pretty sure SpaceX is cheaper, so NASA will be the only
| customer.
| pavon wrote:
| NASA has already awarded all the ISS crew flights up through
| it's scheduled retirement in 2030. Boeing is contracted for 6
| flights, and SpaceX for 14 (including the 6 it has already
| flown). NASA hasn't published the milestone payment
| schedules, but the total contract was for $4.2 billion, so
| Boeing would have needed to budget a 26% profit margin on the
| whole endeavor to break even at this point. That wouldn't
| surprise me, but they are probably quickly reaching the point
| where they will actually be losing money.
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| NASA plans to have other places to send astronauts by then.
| The ISS will almost certainly have its life extended again
| before that though.
| TheCaptain4815 wrote:
| I truly hope this is the beginning of the end for these bloated
| "boomer defense companies".
|
| Palmer Lucky actually started a defense company after seeing just
| how inefficient and bloated those big companies were, and is
| already worth 10 billion! Highly recommend watching this
| interview he had about the future of all this.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-sD2FTjSaw
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-26 23:02 UTC)