[HN Gopher] Starliner Is Such a Disaster That Boeing May Cancel ...
___________________________________________________________________
Starliner Is Such a Disaster That Boeing May Cancel the Entire
Project
Author : jawns
Score : 74 points
Date : 2024-08-27 20:47 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (futurism.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (futurism.com)
| pie420 wrote:
| Can we cancel Boeing as a company? Fire all of the C-suite, break
| up space, commercial airline, and defense businesses into
| separate corporations
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Agreed. Yes, we have national security interests in having the
| capability to build airplanes, etc., but there must be a way to
| maintain that capability without permanently giving one company
| and its executives the right to mismanage unlimited amounts of
| money. Maybe some more flexible mechanism that can handle
| networks of smaller companies achieving the same end result.
| smileson2 wrote:
| Isn't that sort of distributed setup what caused this in the
| first place?
|
| Boeing got addicted to cutting and outsourcing to improve the
| stock same shit that kills every bigco
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| No it's the other way around. The Boeing we have today is
| the result of mergers. For example McDonnell Douglas that
| built the f-18 amongst other things was acquired in 1996.
| rbanffy wrote:
| They merged the companies, but outsourced component
| manufacturing to the lowest bidder and didn't bother to
| check the lowest bidder was actually delivering what was
| needed.
| floatrock wrote:
| The popular story is when Boeing merged with McDonnell
| Douglas in the late 90's, Boeing's engineering-driven
| culture was replaced with the more financialization-driven
| culture from McDonnell execs.
|
| The 737-MAX saga was kinda the culmination of when profit-
| motivated shortcuts bump up against realities of
| engineering safety margins. I'm sure everyone has their
| campfire variation on this, tons has been written about it.
|
| So yeah on the financial shenanery, but more
| culture/people-in-charge than conglomeration-megacorp per-
| se.
| yfw wrote:
| If you consider it national interest, why as the biggest
| shareholder and bagholder do you not have board members that
| veto actions that are profitable but bad for national
| interest?
| rbanffy wrote:
| Some congresscritter will scream "communism".
| striking wrote:
| Boeing is a key part of the military-industrial complex and has
| very close ties to the US government (the movement of people
| between the two groups is especially interesting). "Too big to
| fail" might not accurately describe it. "Too connected to
| fail", maybe?
| partiallypro wrote:
| Boeing, even without the military connection, is one of the
| more important companies in the US for exports. They are also
| too big to fail. It's very much in the national interest for
| them to right the ship. The same is true of Intel. Their
| domestic fabs are -very- important to NatSec.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Maybe "Too strategic to fail"
| baq wrote:
| MBAs extracted all value for the shareholders and now only the
| husk remains. Mission accomplished, onto the next.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| I can't see why you're being downvoted.
|
| The unfortunate reality is that those who implement policies
| that produce short term gain but long term costs that strike
| after they have moved on look better than those who actually
| look to the long haul.
| OrigamiPastrami wrote:
| Why solve a problem for real when pretending to solve it is
| so much more profitable?
| FredPret wrote:
| Boeing shareholders haven't earned a proper return in half a
| decade, but the idiots kept voting in the same blockhead of a
| CEO. Serves 'em right.
|
| Shareholders are almost always best served by a product-first
| CEO who maximizes the long-term value proposition of the
| company.
| Alupis wrote:
| Under what authority would US Government use to "Fire all the
| C-suite" and break Boeing into pieces?
|
| You not liking a company doesn't mean the federal government
| gets to nuke it from orbit...
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| They can't per say fire them. But they could start cancelling
| contracts if they think Boeing isn't going to deliver. And
| they can break up the company into smaller ones to foster
| competition this has happened in the past in other
| industries.
| lukan wrote:
| In the name of national security they could nationalize
| Boeing and then fire anyone they want. But this is a pretty
| big hammer, that comes at a price (and who really believes,
| the government will be more efficient at running Boeing?)
| yfw wrote:
| Nationalize it and replace the board. Imagine the govt as an
| activist investor if the profit driven investors are more
| keen to scrap it for profits.
| xnyan wrote:
| Something like the Defense Production Act alone technically
| gives the government the authority to control civilian
| production in virtually any way if it meets a standard based
| on criticality to national defense (not hard to imagine the
| argument for boeing).
|
| Using that power requires political support from the
| legislature and courts, I don't think we're there today, but
| if for example a critical fighter jet (or some other high
| visibility project) went south, boeing has been shitting the
| bed hard enough to support federal intervention.
| Alupis wrote:
| Which defense projects is Boeing lacking on?
|
| If anything, it seems their defense projects are the most
| competent side of present-day Boeing.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Details being classified can be part of that. It's not in
| the Us's best interest to advertise the shortcomings of
| their own weapons.
|
| That said, everyone the US would rather not know about
| does probably does.
| Alupis wrote:
| Classified? We see their products every day... with a few
| exceptions, darn near every aircraft the US military
| flies today was designed, maintained, built or led by
| Boeing and/or it's affiliates. Their coverage spans
| drones, aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, rockets and more.
|
| The civilian side of Boeing almost doesn't even need to
| exist.
|
| So we're going to lambast the entire company because one
| arm has stumbled with two projects recently... ?
|
| Perhaps we should nationalize and shut down Google
| because Gemini hasn't turned out to be that great.
| Animats wrote:
| That was done, by executive order during wartime, to some
| underperforming manufacturing companies during WWII. Here's
| that story, by the Navy admiral who personally led the
| takeover of the plants.[2] The Navy fired the C-suite of the
| Los Angeles Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, at 10 AM on
| December 8, 1943, for incompetence. "Mr. McCoomb was informed
| that he, Mr. Alfred F. Smith, and the comptroller, Mr.
| Beeman, were informed that they were no longer on the payroll
| of the plant". Eventually the Government had to settle up
| with the stockholders, but the C-suite people were gone.
|
| [2] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006391265
| &vi...
| Alupis wrote:
| Are you proposing the federal government invoke The War
| Powers Act or The Defense Production Act and seize all of
| Boeing's production assets? During peacetime? Over
| engineering failures in the civilian sector? Does anybody
| actually believe that would fly in court?
|
| That's some high-grade fantasy...
| rbanffy wrote:
| Well... you can always invade someone and end these
| inconveniences of peacetime. Venezuela has a lot of oil
| very close to the US and recently disagreed with the US
| government about who was elected for their president.
|
| The US has invaded countries for less.
| Animats wrote:
| Not for trouble on the civilian side of Boeing. How are
| things going on the miilitary side?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| And how well the weapons systems work??
| rbanffy wrote:
| Expensively.
| robotnikman wrote:
| Take it private and remove the incentives of having to appease
| shareholders over everything else
| yfw wrote:
| Start a new company and hire all the engineers. Not like we
| need any of the C staff to make it function. There's plenty you
| can do, the obstacle is regulatory capture rather than lack of
| options
| ghaff wrote:
| Why would I want to hire all the engineers? Surely at least
| some share the blame. I don't really agree with you in
| general, but if I were starting a new company I'd probably be
| pretty selective about hiring Boeing engineers if I really
| thought it were a pervasive company culture problem.
| yfw wrote:
| Why is that your point of contention? If the goal is to
| have Boeing provide engineering capacity without all the
| cost cutting drama, all I'm suggesting is a change of
| governance.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Diversity is their strength today. It used to be engineering.
| mullingitover wrote:
| If we do, and SpaceX takes its place, it's only a matter of
| time before SpaceX ends up in with the exact same problems.
| It's not fair to compare the two companies on an apples to
| apples basis, as the rules they operate under may as well be
| from different planets.
|
| Boeing's problems come from the regulatory environment and
| congressional horse trading that created it. SpaceX doesn't
| have these constraints _for now_ , but the moment SpaceX
| replaces Boeing all that scrutiny and backroom dealing that
| created Boeing will start to carry over.
| nickff wrote:
| The title (and premise) of this post are entirely based on a
| Bloomberg piece
| (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-
| ce...), with nothing but fluff added.
| plumeria wrote:
| However, this source is not paywalled.
| tithe wrote:
| To bypass the Bloomberg paywall in Chrome, add a dot after
| the TLD: https://www.bloomberg.com./news/articles/2024-08-25/
| boeing-c...
| cwillu wrote:
| I get a paywall with or without the dot.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Regardless of sourcing, this is the kind of article that gets
| people talking, and can be self-fulfilling.
|
| I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized
| shareholders, in continuing the losses.
|
| Starliner isn't fully reusable, so unlikely to ever be really
| profitable. It is a very poor start to any wider space
| ambitions.
|
| If I was Boeing's CEO, I would have confidentially got the
| conversation rolling too. But this is off the record, deep
| background. No attribution on those statements, please!
| rbanffy wrote:
| > Starliner isn't fully reusable
|
| Neither is Dragon. Upper stage and service module are
| discarded. Only the booster and the capsule are reusable.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Starliner is a capsule/service module, not a rocket.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Capsule is reusable, service module isn't, the same as
| Dragon.
| bartkmq wrote:
| I watched the NASA press conference, where the decision was
| announced, and Bill Nelson said that the new Boeing CEO promised
| him he will work with NASA to keep Starliner flying.
|
| It will require quite a significant investment to fix the
| project, while Boeing is already loosing money on this fixed
| price contract.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Why create a round trip space craft, when you can build and
| discard two one-way craft for twice the price?
|
| (At first I didn't think this could really work, until I realized
| the second craft could have been towed up by the first.)
|
| Incredible kudos to SpaceX, when you consider its comparable
| competitors repeatedly fumble (Boeing), move slow (Blue Origin),
| lost their edge (Russia), fidget spinner themselves out of
| relevance (ULA, Arianespace, Orbital Sciences), whiffed (Sea
| Launch), or very "successfully" build, launch and discard
| fortunes (er, flights) for the purpose of justifying those same
| flights (er, fortunes) (NASA).
|
| Kudos to China too for some prolonged and relatively rapid
| progress. It will be interesting to see how that progress
| continues given the "Coolish War" we are now in.
| fredgrott wrote:
| only one problem with that narrative....
|
| SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing....
|
| Its a repeat of the space shuttle argument...which failed
| dramatically bigger in both costs and human deaths.
| schiffern wrote:
| >the same exact cost overruns
|
| Tell me when SpaceX had to repeat an entire ISS test flight
| on their own dime because the first one was such a disaster?
|
| Boeing charged twice as much as SpaceX,[1] but at the time it
| was justified because Boeing was considered the "safe"
| option. How times change!
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-
| more-f...
| Nevermark wrote:
| > SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing
|
| Numbers?
|
| Boeing's partially accounted for cost overruns are quite hard
| to read. Their meter needs a pause button.
|
| Anyway, the relevant issue is _net cost_. SpaceX is currently
| going deeply negative unbounded. I.e. net profitable for
| customer launches.
| glzone1 wrote:
| Except crew dragon is half the price and has flown
| repeatedly.
|
| SpaceX absolutely has had lots of test failures - they've
| probably blown up more rockets then many recent players - but
| their cadence is super quick, and their cost per item far far
| lower and they seem to be able to fix stuff.
| Alupis wrote:
| Do we actually _know_ , as fact, that SpaceX is making a
| profit on these flights?
| asadotzler wrote:
| The current contract charges NASA about $280 million per
| Crew Dragon mission. The F9 costs SpaceX about $20
| million to launch, so as long as refurbishing a Dragon
| costs less than $260 million dollars, yes, SpaceX is
| making a profit on these flights.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Somebody does, but it's a private company, so, private
| books, so the general public doesn't know.
|
| You can do some napkin math and guess that their flights
| for NASA are profitable, along with all the other
| commercial work they do. We don't know if SpaceX as a
| whole is profitable, but, I'd assume it's not given how
| heavily they're into R&D at this point. What is
| reasonably certain is that they likely will be profitable
| once they're not spending crazy amounts of money on
| development if their cost per kg is actually realized.
| Alupis wrote:
| Right, so the point was all this handwaviness about how
| bloated Boeing's costs are in this space are just wild
| guesses at what SpaceX's might be.
|
| For all anyone actually knows, Elon is willing to lose a
| ton per launch just to gain mindshare, kill the
| competition, and become the only game in town. You know,
| the Amazon playbook.
|
| For all anyone knows, the Boeing quotes are reasonable
| and SpaceX's are unsustainable. Nobody actually knows...
| yet so many are willing to confidently assert SpaceX is
| obviously cheaper.
|
| > What is reasonably certain is that they likely will be
| profitable once they're not spending crazy amounts of
| money on development
|
| This is a space race. The day when SpaceX no longer needs
| to spend "crazy amounts of money on development" may
| never actually come.
| rst wrote:
| Also, some of this is accounted for by a difference in
| development philosophy. The typical NASA project tests
| finished designs to make sure that they'll work. SpaceX
| frequently (currently for Starship) tests half-finished
| designs because they want to know how they will fail, for
| future revision. (Example: between starship flight tests 1
| and 2, the whole staging method changed; forward fins are
| being relocate on Starship starting, I think launch after
| next to reduce heating in reentry, etc.)
|
| They do tests on production vehicles too, e.g. the static
| fires that precede just about every launch, but those
| aren't directly comparable to the stuff they deliberately
| blow up to see how that happens.
| teamonkey wrote:
| In an ideal world NASA would also do this (see the Apollo
| program). The optics of a government program 'failing'
| are so spectacularly bad they simply cannot afford to do
| this.
| DennisP wrote:
| Since SpaceX is a private company, neither of us knows how
| much SpaceX spent internally on their fixed-price contract.
|
| What we do know is that NASA awarded contracts to both
| companies in 2010. Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their
| first crewed flight in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS
| half a dozen times.
|
| NASA paid SpaceX the originally agreed amount of $3.1 billion
| for six flights, and SpaceX seems happy to continue the
| arrangement. Boeing has spent $6.7 billion so far.
|
| https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-
| more-f...
| asadotzler wrote:
| >Crew Dragon worked perfectly on their first crewed flight
| in 2020, and has taken astronauts to ISS half a dozen
| times.
|
| 9 times so far, and it'll be 10 times in about a month.
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| ...knock on wood...
| Diederich wrote:
| > SpaceX has had the same exact cost overruns as Boeing....
|
| Why do you believe this is the case?
| asadotzler wrote:
| No they have not.
|
| SpaceX received fixed price contracts at lower prices than
| Boeing's and then delivered on those contracts, ferrying 7
| full crews and one test crew to and from ISS with an 8th full
| crew about to return and a 9th soon launching, all with no
| additional charges.
|
| Boeing has charged hundreds of millions above and beyond the
| fixed price contract and has yet to deliver and return
| astronauts from ISS on a single completed mission.
| trust_bt_verify wrote:
| I don't understand why those who praise space-x also take the
| time to bad mouth nasa. They are basically teammates here.
| Space-x has done some great things (kudos to Shotwell) but they
| did it on the shoulders of nasa and government funding, and
| that's ok too.
| lumost wrote:
| SpaceX's finances are also largely unknown, they could be
| burning more money than NASA on experimental flights.
| 7e wrote:
| This. Elon's entire MO is to lose more money than
| competitors, then raise more in the markets. Rise, repeat,
| claim successes, when in reality competitors just aren't
| willing to lose that much money bootstrapping. SpaceX is no
| different.
| nopzor wrote:
| while it's true that spacex is a private company, it's
| widely known that they are highly profitable. they have
| many institutional investors, and a long line of people
| that would love to be on their cap table.
| d_silin wrote:
| Fascinating how Elon is now "He Who Must Not Be Named"
| villain.
|
| Every single success and victory that SpaceX achieved, from
| the fourth flight of Falcon-1 to the latest Starship test
| flight bears his name too.
| pirate787 wrote:
| Objectively, he's the greatest entrepreneur in American
| history.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think you mean "In my opinion, subjectively..."
| Nevermark wrote:
| NASA does amazing things.
|
| The SLS just isn't one of them. It is a temporary
| Frankenstein resulting from the complications of adapting to
| a sudden uptick in private space transit, while necessarily
| maintaining congressional demand/funding continuity. A
| special dance well known for not being strictly reality
| based.
|
| So my criticism of SLS isn't criticism of NASA leadership. I
| cannot imagine how difficult their job is. The nature of the
| beast is some waste is unavoidable.
|
| In the meantime, lots of NASA projects are stellar.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Some more discussion:
|
| _NASA 's Starliner decision was the right one, but it's a
| crushing blow for Boeing_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41346778
|
| _Boeing employees 'humiliated' that upstart rival SpaceX will
| rescue astronauts_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41353404
| rbanffy wrote:
| Could be worse. It could be a Soyuz.
| lpribis wrote:
| The Soyuz-MS which is currently on its 15th successful launch
| (prior to that had 1 abort without injury)? Versus Starliner
| which has ostensibly failed 2 out of it's 3 orbital flights
| to date, not to mention being scrubbed on the pad for
| critical valve issues and failing to open 1 out of 3
| parachutes on its debut launch.
|
| I know which one I'd rather get into.
| ratg13 wrote:
| Are we sure the Starliner can make it back?
|
| Aren't there some questions about its capabilities because they
| seemed unable to do certain unmanned tests and there was
| speculation that they may have removed some of the autonomous
| software capabilities.
|
| Has this been disproven?
| jfengel wrote:
| No, they're not sure, which is why they're not putting people
| on it.
|
| It cannot currently get back on its own, but the capability
| exists. It's a software fix. They will try, which might even
| work. If it does it might even salvage the project. If it
| doesn't...
| rdtsc wrote:
| Link to the OIG report https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pd... for SLS Block 1B
|
| > According to DCMA officials, this is a high number of CARs
| [Corrective Action Requests] for a space flight system at this
| stage in development and reflects a recurring and degraded state
| of product quality control.
|
| > Quality control issues at Michoud are largely due to the lack
| of a sufficient number of trained and experienced aerospace
| workers at Boeing
|
| If this was to be a "jobs" program more than anything, I guess
| that makes sense. They just added more "jobs" but never actually
| bothered to train anyone. Doesn't Boeing worry how this looks on
| them? I would be terribly embarrassed if I was anywhere adjacent
| to that team's leadership.
|
| Searching for "Principles" brigs us to this page
| https://www.boeing.com/sustainability/values
|
| First item "Start with engineering excellence. A strong
| engineering foundation enables us to build and maintain our
| products with safety, quality and integrity in the factory and in
| service. Our customers expect it. That's why we will always take
| the time to get the engineering right".
|
| Well, they failed their very first principle, didn't they. At
| least don't put it right at the top, hide it down at the bottom
| to at least avoid being accused of hypocrisy.
| philipov wrote:
| > Well, they failed their very first principle, didn't they.
|
| Because the 0th principle is "Maximize short-term profits;
| disregard all other directives."
| rbanffy wrote:
| That was the principle they inherited from McDonnell Douglas.
| sir-dingleberry wrote:
| > Instead, NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams -- who
| flew up on the troubled capsule -- will get a ride on board
| SpaceX's Crew Dragon in February.
|
| That's...a long way away.
| rbanffy wrote:
| It's like a road trip to the coolest place in the solar system
| (for them) that gets unexpectedly extended.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I hope they don't cancel, instead, identify how to make things
| better. Iterate, learn, improve.
| commercialnix wrote:
| SpaceX values meritocracy first and foremost. Boeing, not so
| much. One of these companies has a very bright future.
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams...will get a
| ride [back] on board SpaceX 's Crew Dragon in February. It's an
| extremely unfortunate development for Boeing_
|
| That's not an unfortunate development at all. The decision to not
| risk human lives is based on what's already happened, it's not a
| new happening. If Starliner comes back successfully/safely, that
| will be a plus, and if it doesn't, that will be a new minus.
| khaki54 wrote:
| My understanding was that this was a firm fixed price contract,
| not a cost contract. Boeing can't just cancel the contract once
| they are underwater, it would defeat the purpose of FFP which is
| to shift risk to the contractor. The government can and will
| demand specific performance. Usually with FFP the contractor will
| outline ALL assumptions made which the government will clarify
| and agree to. The contractor will price all of that out, apply a
| risk multiplier 1.5x - 2.0x and target a 30% margin on all of
| that. FFP contracts typically have the highest potential for
| profit vs. 'cost plus' contracts.
| Nevermark wrote:
| NASA loses money and time waiting and helping Boeing to
| perform. And then they get minimal performance, given the
| program and company's now chronic underperformance.
|
| Meanwhile, SpaceX provides a solid tested path forward. Despite
| the single sourcing.
|
| I see a negotiated retreat, favorable to all parties. Likely in
| some incremental way to minimize attention and backlash. I.e.
| delay, study, delay, negotiate, delay, close up shop.
|
| Parterships operating under a legal gun don't really operate.
| And are not conducive to safety concerns.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Boeing can walk at any time. NASA cannot. Boeing has been paid
| for what they've delivered (plus some nice bribes to keep
| trying) and not for what they have not delivered so they an
| walk today if they want. NASA cannot walk though and would not.
| plopz wrote:
| Has anyone done the analysis on looking at the checks NASA is
| writing compared to the total contract price to know how
| front-loaded or how much money is still remaining in the
| contract? That seems like the easiest way to figure out
| whether its worth it for them to continue or not.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| I really, really hope Boeing doesn't cancel Starliner. Trading a
| public space monopoly for a private one would be a huge net
| negative for the country.
|
| The SpaceX leadership has goals that can be opaque and need not
| align with NASA's. Recently, in the context of X and Tesla,
| they've bordered on deranged and even anti-American.
|
| If Boeing can get out of the learning phase, even as an imperfect
| company, it can provide a most valuable service even if its
| platform is nominally second best.
| 627467 wrote:
| It is depressing that the only option is to keep throwing money
| at an sclerotic, extractive, incomponent player. How pro-
| american has boeing been in the past 20 years really?
| asadotzler wrote:
| Boeing isn't the only possible competitor to Crew Dragon, but
| even it it were, the ISS is dead in 5 years, so who really
| cares about a short-term Dragon monopoly. Focus on the future
| and stop throwing good money after bad with Boeing and over the
| ancient ISS which is about 85% of the way to incineration.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| Well it's the work of the present. Those who survive the
| present will build the future. Any steady state scenario with
| one company getting more than 40% of the contracts is
| fundamentally worse than in-housing at NASA.
| TinkersW wrote:
| Boeing isn't in a learning phase... more of a how much can we
| underpay our employees and how many cheap subtractors can we
| get away with phase. Also starliner would not be "nominally"
| second best, but truly second, or perhaps third best if other
| options come around(dreamchaser).
|
| Musk may be huffing the right wing nonsense too much, but I
| don't know if he has actually done anything anti-
| american(though supporting someone as obviously corrupt as
| Trump could be considered so I suppose), much of the headlines
| about him appear to be clickbait nonsense.
|
| SpaceX can't do jack shit without Gov approval, so it wouldn't
| really matter if they had ulterior motives.
| cameldrv wrote:
| I don't think there's a real danger of a true monopoly. There
| are a number of other options:
|
| 1. Orion -- heavier than Dragon so you need a bigger rocket,
| but it should be able to dock with the space station, and it's
| already flown uncrewed
|
| 2. DreamChaser -- Currently being developed uncrewed, but it
| was originally supposed to fly with crew, and Sierra says they
| still want to do a crewed version. It's been moved to Cape
| Canaveral and is supposed to fly next year.
|
| 3. Blue Origin is rumored to be back working on some sort of
| orbital capsule.
|
| Capitalism doesn't work if you don't let companies that aren't
| delivering fail. IMO what's probably happened at Boeing's space
| division is that they're not able to recruit and retain top
| people anymore given the explosion of new space companies.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Blue Origin was started before SpaceX and they still haven't
| delivered much. What are they doing?
| enriquec wrote:
| X and Tesla are some of if not the most pro-American values
| companies in the world. Sorry if freedom of speech offends you
| but that definitely puts you at odds with the American Founders
| and myself - an American.
| Havoc wrote:
| Would be a pity - maybe they can run cargo missions with it
| instead for a while?
|
| But yeah just keeps pointing to the same issue: pervasive culture
| problems. Can't fix that by cancelling projects
| rbanffy wrote:
| Who said that "if you are going through hell, keep going"?
|
| I wonder if Boeing has the resources to keep going until they
| fix themselves.
| jmyeet wrote:
| First, I don't understand why the two astronauts are going to be
| stranded for months. After the Columbia disaster, NASA adopted a
| policy where another Shuttle could be scrambled if a rescue
| mission as required. Shuttles took a lot of processing between
| missions. Replacing tiles, inspecting engines, that sort of
| thing. The report after Columbia showed that it might have been
| possible to scramble another Shuttle but the timeline was super
| tight. NASA decided not to repeat that mistake.
|
| So here we are where an 8 day mission turns into a 6 month
| mission because NASA (via SpaceX )doesn't have a backup? How did
| that happen?
|
| It's also worth noting that Crew Dragon can be configured for 6
| passengers. NASA uses a 4 passenger configuration because there's
| simply no need for a 6 person configuration... except for now.
|
| It may actually end up being cheaper for Boeing to simply return
| the money (or negotiate a partial return) and throw up the white
| flag. Boeing is in such a terrible state. It's simply coasting on
| earlier successes and airlines being locked in to the 737 type
| rating.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Because they're not "stranded" they're just doing a slightly
| extended otherwise normal mission rather than a brief test
| mission. There's no problem with that.
|
| There is no emergency here. There's no need to scramble
| anything so they will ride home on February having spent 8
| months up sharing a Dragon ride down with a crew that spent 6
| months up. No big deal. The ISS crew appreciates the extra help
| around the shop right now. Butch and Suni want to be in space
| -- that's why they're astronauts, so they're not suffering. The
| only people suffering are their families and Boeing
| stockholders.
|
| Dragon cannot be configured with 6 seats. The 7 seat
| configuration was rejected by NASA because of g-forces and the
| vehicles are now solidly 4 seaters and you certainly can't add
| two more seats to the Crew Dragon that's already up there so
| you wait on the next one to arrive on its regular schedule
| minus two of its crew so Suni and Butch can use those seats.
| Also, they need to send up Dragon suits as the Starliner suits
| can't be plugged into Dragon so even if they sat on the floor
| of the already up there Dragon for the ride home, they still
| couldn't jack in and that's only going to happen if there's a
| genuine emergency -- which there is not.
|
| You make a lot of seemingly confident, but wrong assertions
| here. I suggest moderating that certainty until you know more
| about the subject.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| I hope they sell the program to Blue Origin, or Sierra, or really
| anyone who will take it
| rqtwteye wrote:
| After seeing what they are doing with their commercial planes and
| now Starliner I can't even imagine how screwed up the defense
| projects are. The NASA stuff is in the public so there is some
| accountability. Defense on the other hand is done in secret and
| everybody from Pentagon procurement people down to the defense
| contractor have every incentive and the ability to cover up
| problems.
| cwillu wrote:
| https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Problem-of-Defense-Economics
| explains some of how it got like that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-27 23:01 UTC)