17 ms·
Boeing CEO Vows to Beat Musk to Mars
- krschultz 10y agoCompetition is a wonderful thing.
- secstate 10y agoIndeed. Too bad Boeing and Lockheed didn't have competition in any real sense for the past 40 years or we'd be a lot closer to Mars. Sometimes it boggles the mind how much money the gov't spends to achieve fairly pedestrian ends. Solid rocket boosters for the shuttle is a good example. Just a big kickback for the ICBM business in Colorado, no real science behind using them to put people in space :(
- raverbashing 10y agoWell, you would require a bigger main engine without the SRBs. They were also reusable. Other rockets like the Ariane 5 also use SRBs It might not have been the best solution but it was a solution
- secstate 10y agoThat's a solid point, but the Ariane 5 does not do manned flight either. SRBs are less safe than liquid fuel engines too, no way to shut SRBs down on ignition ... sweet.
- raverbashing 10y agoWelcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe (see past discussion of a Shuttle mission auto-shutdown, where the Shuttle main engines were shut down seconds before lift-off)
- messe 10y ago> Welcome to rocket science. Not all of this is 100% safe Yes, but the Shuttle was far worse than most in that regard. It's abort modes were limited at best and crazy/non-existent at worst.
- 7952 10y agoIts also that when they fail they create dangerous falling debris that could threaten the pad or an escaping crew compartment.
- Retric 10y agoYet, from 270 SRB's flights one of them failed. STS-135 included parts flown on 59 previous missions, including STS-1. The main problem was actually the weight load as the shuttle was hanging off the side.
- neuronexmachina 10y agoSRBs weren't reusable in any real sense, what was left after splashdown had to be completely disassembled, separately refurbished, and then reassembled. Using the SRBs also made operations much more expensive, since any prep work done after they were mated to the Shuttle was extremely hazardous.
- raverbashing 10y agoThe Shuttle's main engines also had to be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled, rocket engines are complicated
- hga 10y agoI've read that's in part because they were pushing the edge of the state of the art at the time they were designed, sports cars were used as an analogy. Of course, it remains to be seen if SpaceX's scheme for engine reuse will pan out.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoWhich is another way in which the Shuttle platform wasn't that much reusable. Falcon 9 and future SpaceX rockets are intended to be just refueled and relaunched, without having to disassemble the engines after every landing.
- ThenAsNow 10y ago"Had to be..." is not quite true. How the SSME/RS-25 was designed to operate and could be operated is not the same as how NASA chose to operate it. Particularly after Challenger.
- harperlee 10y agoCame here just to say this: Musk wanting to reach Mars is a wonderful thing, but that he was able to lit a fire under other people's assess has a huge multiplier effect. I would imagine other entities (even other countries) are also entering the race even if no public announcement is made.
- sunbear 10y agoBoeing certainly has the infrastructure to jump in (I'm assuming)
- drzaiusapelord 10y agoBoeing is sending astronauts to the ISS in 2018 with its CTS-100 capsule. They certainly have the space chops to be a credible competitor.
- fruktstav 10y agoHow can you say that? Cooperation is a wonderful thing. Why is it a good thing that two separate entities, with the exact same goal, are keeping secrets from each other and inhibit the development towards that goal with the only reason being ownership and the ability to withold these technologies from the public? I mean, I get that regular zombies would say that competition is good - but a programmer? Haven't you heard about open source? Geez..
- jacquesm 10y agoWhat do you think the chances are that the Boeing CEO would have said this if it weren't for Musk?
- fruktstav 10y agoI think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. Competition is such a sham, and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad, ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs.
- jacquesm 10y ago> I think that Boeing certainly would say whatever they can to make people buy their stock. They can, and this may be one of those times. But that doesn't mean it isn't driven by competition, or at least the desire to be seen to compete. > Competition is such a sham It isn't when it works. Competition is why you can afford a car, most of the stuff in your house, an internet connection and so on. In places where there is only one vendor prices are as a rule a lot higher than when multiple parties court the same group of potential customers. > and as per usual: nobody is arguing for why cooperation is bad Cooperation has it's place, nobody needs to argue why cooperation would be bad. But in the case of Boeing and SpaceX it is fair to call them competitors because they are independent entities looking to serve the same customers. And by the way, it's a false dichotomy between cooperation and competition in the case of companies one alternative to both competition and cooperation is cartel forming. > ya'll just keep spewing that corporate bs. I don't think that was called for.
- zardo 10y agoSounds like he's just saying SpaceX will fail, and NASA will go on the SLS. Bloomberg is trying to manufacture a story that isn't there.
- transfire 10y agoMy worry is that they are going to make sure SpaceX fails.
- forgetsusername 10y agoWho is "they" and how will they "make" SpaceX fail? Boeing has been in the space business for a long time. Why is the news only interesting when it involves an SV darling? Oh, the conspiracies....
- arcaster 10y agoSeems like this is a side-effect Musk intended for. Competition of this kind is always positive.
- jonlawlor 10y agoMusk is a savvy businessman before anything else. He would prefer to not have competition.
- john_mac 10y agoBy fostering a larger talent pool competition insures a dynamic long term future, lack of it it often leads to creative stagnation. This is the case in natural systems as well.
- faramarz 10y agoNot true as exemplified by his Tesla company releasing the patents to their technology. He knows he can't do it alone. He's elevating the bar for everybody.
- fruktstav 10y agoDon't you think they would get to Mars quicker if they cooperated and shared ideas and technologies instead?
- spdustin 10y agoCooperation between parties with differing goals and management styles results in design (and subsequent dismissal) by committee, whereas competition unhindered by interference from the motivated parties results in landing humans on the Moon.
- nathan_long 10y agoYes, if everyone were altruistically motivated to get humans to Mars, we would all contribute our dollars and work together to make it happen. But in the real world, a lot of people who don't care beans about Mars can still be motivated to invest in the effort by the prospect of investment gains. And those gains require for-profit competition.
- M_Grey 10y agoI see that everyone is realizing the value in this particular PR line, "Mars Ho!". Given the degree of extreme hope I see in the world of intelligent and educated people regarding this issue, I suspect it might work for a while too. At some point though, it's going to become clear that no current group has any real intentions, not to mention clear ideas, to make a Mars colony work.
- ravenstine 10y agoUnless we are fighting commies, I suspect any positive feelings from such PR will end up short-lived. I hope I am wrong, though.
- ohyes 10y agoThis is a fantastic opportunity! We could come up with the next gen bogeyman for the coming century! Guys, we've got to beat the dragon masters to Mars! There's no telling how much swooping they'll do from that high!
- bediger4000 10y agoFor better or for worse we've got "terrorists" as the boogieman for the foreseeable future. But it's a good thought. I just don't see Boeing being able to do this. They've gotten fat on US government defense dollars, they're not going to be able to do anything outside the ordinary, because they'll risk losing those sweet, sweet defense billions. That is, if they can compete with SpaceX,the Air Force will ask why ULA can't do better while it's on the Air Force nickel. That will cause Boeing to shy away from any innovation that the Air Force doesn't overpay for.
- bksenior 10y agoPlease, explain to me why your so certain these are empty statements. Im genuinely curious. If I recall correctly, the first stage of the "moon race" was more generalized, especially to the press. Also Musk himself has a pretty strong history of not sharing much of the meat of a plan till it happens.
- neuromancer2701 10y agoTo me this is just ridiculous. ULA is so far behind SpaceX. The whole Vulcan engine recovery thing just seems so likely to fail and they have to wait for the BE-3 and who knows how far out that will be.
- sobinator 10y agoI was at the event, and this 'vow' didn't really come off as a vow to beat Musk. We all know about Musk, but Muildenburg is someone worth checking out. His story is about as classic Americana as it gets. Raised in the midwest. Parents and grandparents were farmers. Trained as an engineer and then went to work for Boeing right out of school... I think he said what he said because he was just trying to share the room's enthusiasm to do big things with our future. Besides, he just might be right, so it might be worth taking a look at him.
- spdustin 10y agoSure, they could beat Musk to Mars if they succeed in lobbying congress to enact laws forcing SpaceX' accidents to be investigated by the FAA. ULA is railing over losing their exclusive USAF launch contracts and shouting down SpaceX whenever they can, it seems. How about they put their (considerable, federal) money where their mouth is and get us to Mars.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago>How about they put their (considerable, federal) money where their mouth is and get us to Mars. You're aware that SpaceX runs on a lot of corporate welfare, with SpaceX only existing because of NASA's COTS and Tesla only existing because of generous federal subsidies on electric cars and other handouts to the tune of $5b[1] and an undisclosed amount from NY state[2]. Both companies are alike and fairly dependent on the federal government, Boeing less so considering their large aircraft market. The wonderful thing about capitalism is you don't have to arbitrarily pick the "good" from the "bad." You have them compete and ideally good things come from competition. Frankly, I'm thrilled to have Boeing keeping Elon honest, and vice versa. This is the system working here. On a more personal note, I think the CTS-100 is a beautiful spacecraft and would love to see it fly in 2018. Boeing can impress if they want to. I also love the fact that my kid is going to grow up in a world with many manned spacecraft by various organizations with various goals, not just the LEO-only shuttle I grew up with. I was just telling my wife about I'd love our son to see a manned rocket launch and realized that this 'sometime in the future' trip to Cape Canaveral is only a year or two away. Same with the first SLS test launch. 2018 is going to be an incredible year for manned space programs. It blows my mind how much grousing there is on the internet regarding the US's position in space. A few years without a manned program is such a tiny price to pay for all this change and innovation. This is an incredible time to be alive for space fans. I think we're going to look back at this period with a certain level of amazement the same way my parent's generation must have seen the initial space race. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-2015... [2] http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationship-with-space-xs-elon-musk/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/23/my-love-hate-relationshi...
- jlebrech 10y agohow about beat them but not duplicate the work, let's say send a few living quarters there.
- excalibur 10y agoI support this plan. If we truly want to establish a colony, we should probably start by picking a suitable location on Mars and sending as many supplies there as possible. There is no such thing as too much food and water.
- astrodust 10y agoThe odds of these competing interests working together are about zero. Hopefully these colonies are far enough apart on the planet that their bickering won't turn into some kind of war.
- neonbat 10y agol-o-l
- xigency 10y agoTie fighters on Mars?
- the_watcher 10y agoAm I the only one who did a double take and Googled it when Boeing was described as "Chicago-based?" Maybe it's just because my parents grew up in Seattle, but I'll always associate Boeing with the Northwest.
- JoeDaDude 10y agoBoeing corporate HQ is in Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_International_Headquarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_International_Headquart...
- 6stringmerc 10y agoYup, I remember when it was a big to-do when they moved HQ to Chicago. Apparently they have a massive production facility in North Carolina that is relatively new. A certain Presidential candidate confused a lot of North Carolina employees by asserting that without change, Boeing was going to take its jobs to China, which, with a modicum of thought, sounds absolutely ridiculous on many IP and QC levels, especially in proximity to such a new facility.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cynoclast 10y agoBoeing has been feeding on the teat of the American taxpayer too long. They've gotten fat and lazy. This isn't going to happen.
- sintaxi 10y agoAgreed. They don't stand a chance really.
- WheelsAtLarge 10y agoMusk started a competition. Before Space X we would not have see this type of statement from Boeing. I hope other companies get on board. LET THE RACE BEGIN! Yea!! Love it.
- traviswingo 10y agoAll competition and politics aside, isn't this what Musk was ultimately trying to achieve? Turning this into a race to be the first one to put humans on Mars ultimately means we're jumpstarting the idea of a multi planetary species, even if it's done for the sake of competition.
- hiddenkrypt 10y agoExactly my thoughts. The headline "Boeing vows to beat Musk to Mars" literally translates to "Elon Musk wins". His whole goal in founding SpaceX was to foster competition in the stagnant space vehicle industry, just like the Tesla's purpose was to get other auto manufacturers to work on electric vehicles (and to convince consumers that EV doesn't mean it has to suck).
- serge2k 10y ago> literally translates to "Elon Musk wins". As opposed to anything else which you would also twist into Lord Elon winning.
- watty 10y agoJust because one of his goals is to drive competition into the race to mars doesn't mean it's his only goal. I don't doubt he not only wants to speed up the race to mars but wants to be known as the first.
- evo_9 10y agoI've noticed articles I regularly submit never get traction then the same article, same link, same title hits the front page. Is this something the Mods are doing? Just wondering. Case in point I submitted this article roughly 12 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12641840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12641840
- slosh 10y agoSpace Race!!! Space Race!!!
- suprgeek 10y agoLets hope that it is a promise for innovation and not a threat of dirty tricks. people should not be declaring it as some kind of "Musk victory". These guys do not play fair and have deep pockets. You can beat Musk to Mars one of two ways: 1) You innovate better/faster than SpaceX and get there sooner 2) You slow down SpaceX by legal/ political/other means until your company can get a lead. Given all the dirty tricks[1],[2] & possibly [3] that ULA (50-50 partnership Boeing & Lockheed) has played in the past, I would not put it past them to do #2. [1] https://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/04/28/spacex-protest-air-force-ula-contract.aspx https://defensesystems.com/articles/2014/04/28/spacex-protes... [2] http://spacenews.com/ula-vp-resigns-following-remarks-on-companys-competitive-position-strategy/ http://spacenews.com/ula-vp-resigns-following-remarks-on-com... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-...
- hrgeek 10y agoFirst Mercedes decided they'll be the leader in EVs, then Boeing decides they'll be first to Mars. How will Elon Musk's companies cope with so much imaginary competition? On that note, I've decided I'm going to be a billionaire. I don't know why more people don't choose that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- verelo 10y agoI cant help but think that rather than a race against each other, Boeing should be focused on just making this happens. A coalition of support across these companies (and others like Airbus) is surly better for the human race than pure capitalism, in this case.
- krupan 10y agoFor some reason us humans (speaking generally) get extra motivation out of competition. See: the previous race to the moon.
- verelo 10y agoAnd peace is boring too, so when we're not actually shooting at each other we use the economy as a weapon. This is no different, if only we could evolve to a point where we were better at working together instead of destroying each-others work, we would achieve a lot more in the short time we're on this planet. I get that this isn't reality (today), but when people make statements like that of Boeing's CEO...it just feels like we're not even trying (which i think is rather pathetic). tl;dr; Jean Luc Picard wouldn't endorse this line of reason.
- krupan 10y agoCompeting to see who can build a better rocket first isn't destroying each others work (i.e., not even close to the same as war). It seems on the surface that working together instead of competing would be more productive, but have you ever tried to work on a mega huge engineering team? It's generally not more effective than a smaller team. So why not have several relatively smaller teams working on the same thing in parallel, egging (or even cheering) each other on as they go?