2 ms·

That might be the case, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can turn a bigger profit by making your rockets reusable. Boeing isn't even just a "leg

That might be the case, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that you can turn a bigger profit by making your rockets reusable. Boeing isn't even just a "legacy defense contractor"--a massive part of their business is commercial airliners. That hasn't gone well for them either lately. I think the more reasonable explanation for Boeing is that they already have access to ULA's proven launch vehicles, so designing a new one just for Starliner wasn't necessary. I think Boeing just chose a more conservative strategy while SpaceX managed to out-innovate them.

zxcmx 6y ago
Yes, and that NASA expected this from them, that is, they were expected to be a credible, reliable-but-expensive (and not particularly innovative) option.
jdm2212 6y ago
> Boeing just chose a more conservative strategy That's the legacy defense contractor strategy -- deliver something that checks off the boxes on the government requirement list at an exorbitant price. It's a very conservative strategy; lots of money, no risk. The problem is that at some point SpaceX started landing rockets and the formerly safe strategy became extremely risky because Boeing/ULA not only has a competitor, the competitor is cheaper. But getting a fat, lazy organization to innovate and compete is hard even when facing an existential threat, and Boeing/ULA have not (yet?) managed that transformation. They've known it's necessary for years [1] but haven't been able to change course. [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/ula-executive-admits-company-cannot-compete-with-spacex-on-launch-costs/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/ula-executive-admits...