8 ms·

Quick note: Boeing got the big bucks at $5B or so for their crewed services because they have the "better" more reliable design. SpaceX only got $3B or so. B

Quick note: Boeing got the big bucks at $5B or so for their crewed services because they have the "better" more reliable design. SpaceX only got $3B or so. Boeing running roughly 60%+ more per seat as well. So a real accomplishment so far for SpaceX to pull this off.

thePunisher 6y ago
But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want. Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.
- ghostpepper 6y ago
  I wonder if the layoffs announced this week will affect those programs.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    Probably not. They have been transferring workers from the programs where contracts are slow (commercial airlines) to those with more steady revenues (DoD contracts) to minimize layoffs. I haven't read up on the newest wave of Boeing layoffs yet.
    - aerospace_guy 6y ago
      Incorrect. The layoffs were primarily in the commercial division, and the defense is primarily untouched.
      - thephyber 6y ago
        That's what I meant to say (with the additional info that Boeing claims they laid off fewer workers from the commercial division because the company claims some of them were transferred to defense). I'm sorry if my wording was confusing.
- monocasa 6y ago
  I think it's more that the DoD props up Boeing in any way they can, from sweetheart contracts like this, to trade policies designed to destroy competition (the Bombardier thing), to outright industrial espionage of other firms (the leaks of Airbus's foreign negotiations). Edit: Changed Embraer to Bombardier thanks to emiliobumachar's friendly reminder.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Not like Airbus’s hands are clean. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2019/december/united-states-wins-sixth-time https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...
    - monocasa 6y ago
      The WTO is run by a very specific brand of economists that don't see the value in a country subsidizing an industry to maintain local expertise in that industry. I for one disagree pretty heavily with this ruling.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nradov 6y ago
        The WTO is run by bureaucrats who enforce the terms of the membership agreement. If national governments think it's important to subsidize local industries then they should negotiate agreements to allow for that. Don't blame the WTO.
        monocasa 6y ago
        That has the effect of cutting yourself off from more or less all trade. The WTO leaves you with three options as not the US. 1) Capitulate and lose about any industries as the efficiencies of scales of the US economy steam rolls any industries they don't explicitly prop up in your country (the Israel model if you're lucky, the African model if you're unlucky). 2) Cut yourself off from essentially all global trade (the North Korea model) 3) form a large enough economy that you can flaunt more and more of the WTOs rules because what are they going to do? (The Chinese and EU model).
- Ankaios 6y ago
  NASA recently selected three teams to start development of new human lunar landers. Boeing's proposal was not one of the three selected.
fhdhfhfh 6y ago
ff
lmilcin 6y ago
If I heard correctly, SpaceX got less because they were already running regular resupply missions to ISS and not because they had "worse, less reliable design".
- philwelch 6y ago
  Also because it costs less when you can reuse the booster rocket.
  - rrmm 6y ago
    Did they ask for less?
    - snoshy 6y ago
      Yes, SpaceX did request less funding than Boeing for this program.
  - Teever 6y ago
    And now you know why Boeing never bothered to develop reusable rockets.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      No, that doesn't make sense. SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets, even with lower prices, because their costs are lowered by a much greater proportion thanks to reusability. Also, Boeing doesn't make mistakes as the result of some bizarre conspiracy that turns out to benefit them in the end. Most of Boeing's mistakes hurt Boeing.
      - jdm2212 6y ago
        > SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets What I've always heard is the legacy defense contractors are used to cost-plus contracts where you don't make bigger profits by reducing costs. They sometimes don't adapt well to firm-fixed-price contracts because changing the organizational culture takes ages. And also the reality is that they can keep raking in money anyway -- Boeing is in fact collecting more cash than SpaceX, so it's not even clear the incentives have changed that much.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
SpaceX had a pretty different record wrt reliability back in 2014. And to be fair I think it's more likely that Boeing was competing against Sierra Nevada, not SpaceX
natch 6y ago
> they have the "better" more reliable design. It’s easy to claim that vapor is better. Making it into non-vapor, not so easy. I do see that you at least put “better” in quotes... good call.
nickik 6y ago
This is very wrong. The Commercial Crew contract started with NASA providing guidelines of what they wanted. Multible companies could give a suggestion of their design and how much it would cost. The two best of those were suggested. The amount of money was not assigned based on their evaluation what was better, that is absolutely not the case. Rather they selected 2 proposals that had the best combination based of factors, including cost, design, program reliability and so on. So Boeing was luck that their (at that point) high status got them selected over the cheaper bid of Sierra Nevada (who tried to fight the choice). So its not like they first selected the two companies and then assigned them money based on how good their designs were.

thePunisher 6y ago

But Boeing is forever crooning: "Yeah, but we put a man on the Moon." So NASA will lick their boots anytime and pay them whatever they want. Off course, if Boeing messes up again, the carpet will be pulled from under their feet.

ghostpepper 6y ago
I wonder if the layoffs announced this week will affect those programs.
- thephyber 6y ago
  Probably not. They have been transferring workers from the programs where contracts are slow (commercial airlines) to those with more steady revenues (DoD contracts) to minimize layoffs. I haven't read up on the newest wave of Boeing layoffs yet.
  - aerospace_guy 6y ago
    Incorrect. The layoffs were primarily in the commercial division, and the defense is primarily untouched.
    - thephyber 6y ago
      That's what I meant to say (with the additional info that Boeing claims they laid off fewer workers from the commercial division because the company claims some of them were transferred to defense). I'm sorry if my wording was confusing.
monocasa 6y ago
I think it's more that the DoD props up Boeing in any way they can, from sweetheart contracts like this, to trade policies designed to destroy competition (the Bombardier thing), to outright industrial espionage of other firms (the leaks of Airbus's foreign negotiations). Edit: Changed Embraer to Bombardier thanks to emiliobumachar's friendly reminder.
- aksss 6y ago
  Not like Airbus’s hands are clean. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2019/december/united-states-wins-sixth-time https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-...
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The WTO is run by a very specific brand of economists that don't see the value in a country subsidizing an industry to maintain local expertise in that industry. I for one disagree pretty heavily with this ruling.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - nradov 6y ago
      The WTO is run by bureaucrats who enforce the terms of the membership agreement. If national governments think it's important to subsidize local industries then they should negotiate agreements to allow for that. Don't blame the WTO.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        That has the effect of cutting yourself off from more or less all trade. The WTO leaves you with three options as not the US. 1) Capitulate and lose about any industries as the efficiencies of scales of the US economy steam rolls any industries they don't explicitly prop up in your country (the Israel model if you're lucky, the African model if you're unlucky). 2) Cut yourself off from essentially all global trade (the North Korea model) 3) form a large enough economy that you can flaunt more and more of the WTOs rules because what are they going to do? (The Chinese and EU model).
Ankaios 6y ago
NASA recently selected three teams to start development of new human lunar landers. Boeing's proposal was not one of the three selected.

fhdhfhfh 6y ago

lmilcin 6y ago

If I heard correctly, SpaceX got less because they were already running regular resupply missions to ISS and not because they had "worse, less reliable design".

philwelch 6y ago
Also because it costs less when you can reuse the booster rocket.
- rrmm 6y ago
  Did they ask for less?
  - snoshy 6y ago
    Yes, SpaceX did request less funding than Boeing for this program.
- Teever 6y ago
  And now you know why Boeing never bothered to develop reusable rockets.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    No, that doesn't make sense. SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets, even with lower prices, because their costs are lowered by a much greater proportion thanks to reusability. Also, Boeing doesn't make mistakes as the result of some bizarre conspiracy that turns out to benefit them in the end. Most of Boeing's mistakes hurt Boeing.
    - jdm2212 6y ago
      > SpaceX can achieve much higher profit margins by reusing rockets What I've always heard is the legacy defense contractors are used to cost-plus contracts where you don't make bigger profits by reducing costs. They sometimes don't adapt well to firm-fixed-price contracts because changing the organizational culture takes ages. And also the reality is that they can keep raking in money anyway -- Boeing is in fact collecting more cash than SpaceX, so it's not even clear the incentives have changed that much.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

SpaceX had a pretty different record wrt reliability back in 2014. And to be fair I think it's more likely that Boeing was competing against Sierra Nevada, not SpaceX

natch 6y ago

> they have the "better" more reliable design. It’s easy to claim that vapor is better. Making it into non-vapor, not so easy. I do see that you at least put “better” in quotes... good call.

nickik 6y ago

This is very wrong. The Commercial Crew contract started with NASA providing guidelines of what they wanted. Multible companies could give a suggestion of their design and how much it would cost. The two best of those were suggested. The amount of money was not assigned based on their evaluation what was better, that is absolutely not the case. Rather they selected 2 proposals that had the best combination based of factors, including cost, design, program reliability and so on. So Boeing was luck that their (at that point) high status got them selected over the cheaper bid of Sierra Nevada (who tried to fight the choice). So its not like they first selected the two companies and then assigned them money based on how good their designs were.