4 ms·

Boeing over the last 10+ years always got by far the most money for every program (or were the only one selected) and the excuse from NASA is always 'they have

by nickik 7y ago

Boeing over the last 10+ years always got by far the most money for every program (or were the only one selected) and the excuse from NASA is always 'they have greater schedule certainty'. Something that never actually worked out in practice. Starliner was selected over Dream Chaser for that reason. And Dream Chaser would have been a much better selection. Boeing was also selected for Experimental Spaceplane (XSP) from DARPA and basically did nothing and dropped the program, while a company Masten Space Systems couldn't survive even while they had way more innovative technology. This human space flight stuff has the potential to cost Boeing a huge amount of credibility, they got double the money compared to SpaceX and might end up catastrophically under-delivering. They will never again be able to argue that they should be preferred based on experience.

b34r 7y ago
Between this and the 737-MAX they’re pretty much cooked. I don’t see many airlines or governments trusting them much going forward.
- magduf 7y ago
  Where are you getting that crazy idea? Why wouldn't the US government trust them going forward? It doesn't matter if they don't deliver or their planes crash and kill hundreds: what's important is that they know all the right people, and they're "too big to fail". I see no indication that the government will stop preferring them. Of course, foreign government and airlines might very well stop doing business with them, but that'll just cause the US government to prop them up even more.
  - b34r 7y ago
    Because SpaceX is delivering as promised. They’re getting the contracts going forward and ULA will be dissolved.
    - nickik 7y ago
      ULA has nothing to do with this. ULA is a launch provider that will exist for a long time yet.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "what's important is that they know all the right people, and they're "too big to fail"" Nothing is too big to fail, because as long as it's prevented from failing, the failure continues to scale up.

by nickik 7y ago

b34r 7y ago

Between this and the 737-MAX they’re pretty much cooked. I don’t see many airlines or governments trusting them much going forward.

magduf 7y ago
Where are you getting that crazy idea? Why wouldn't the US government trust them going forward? It doesn't matter if they don't deliver or their planes crash and kill hundreds: what's important is that they know all the right people, and they're "too big to fail". I see no indication that the government will stop preferring them. Of course, foreign government and airlines might very well stop doing business with them, but that'll just cause the US government to prop them up even more.
- b34r 7y ago
  Because SpaceX is delivering as promised. They’re getting the contracts going forward and ULA will be dissolved.
  - nickik 7y ago
    ULA has nothing to do with this. ULA is a launch provider that will exist for a long time yet.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "what's important is that they know all the right people, and they're "too big to fail"" Nothing is too big to fail, because as long as it's prevented from failing, the failure continues to scale up.