3 ms·

The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX. SpaceX has already sent multiple crews to the ISS. Boeing is delayed and overbudget. Boeign has had a long ser

The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX. SpaceX has already sent multiple crews to the ISS. Boeing is delayed and overbudget. Boeign has had a long series of problems including setting the system clock wrong. Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing.

ethagknight 2y ago
Competition is good, unfortunate that NASA picked a know abuser of govt contracting for the competitor.
- dylan604 2y ago
  It takes more than one to compete though. Right now, we have one and only one that actually works, and then some people floundering around taking government funding to do nothing really to justify anything.
- delfinom 2y ago
  NASA has no choice. Boeing is a political requirement.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Northrup would also have been a politically feasible choice.
readams 2y ago
53 people across 13 launches for SpaceX
sandis 2y ago
The idea wasn't to have them compete. The idea is to have "dissimilar redundancy", so that the US still would have a human-rated launch system with the ability to go to the ISS in case one of them gets grounded for whatever reason.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  While that seems prudent, at the same time for how many years have we been beholden to russian launches because we didn’t have an american system at all after the shuttle? Seems like the sky didn’t fall during that time despite only one launch system we had to go to Kazakhstan to borrow. Kind of hard to justify the cost to the tax payer when the benefit they get is effectively zero since no new capabilities are present really: we could launch people to iss before and we can do that now too.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Given today's political climate, that seems extremely risky, especially since Russia has already officially announced the intent to discontinue cooperating with the ISS program And besides, the purpose of aerospace spending on human spaceflight isn't just for the purpose of human spaceflight, but also for related capabilities.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Right, I forget we still burn billions on that nuclear arsenal capable of glassing the planet in a half hour should some 75 year olds in dc decide that is prudent.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        Yes but before you get too snarky, we also do other things like provide free navigation services and weather forecasts.
  - dralley 2y ago
    The cost, politically and otherwise of relying on the Russians now is much higher than it was 15 years ago. And in any case Russia's entire space program is at risk of going under given the budget issues they're going to be dealing with.
- geertj 2y ago
  Yes, also referred to as “Assured Access.”
TMWNN 2y ago
By contrast, Marcus Wandt of Sweden: * Nov 2022 - Chosen as reserve ESA astronaut * Jun 2023 - Chosen for Ax-3 mission using SpaceX Crew Dragon * Jan 2024 - Flies to ISS
Tuna-Fish 2y ago
> Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing. That would cost NASA a lot more money than continuing. The contract is task order based. Boeing (and SpaceX) get paid for reaching some milestones, but mostly for launching the actual operational missions, of which Boeing is currently contracted for 6. Boeing had to front the development money for the system, and then gets paid back when they actually fly. This is in contrast with the traditional cost+ contracting, where Boeing just tallies costs and gets paid that plus a fixed profit margin. At this point, Boeing has reached all the milestones and gotten paid for them, but hasn't flown any of the operational missions, and has spent billions more than they've been paid to develop the system. If NASA cancels now without a clear reason listed in the contract, Boeing has a clean case for contract violation against them, and can sue for the spent development money. Delays are not an appropriate reason, so long as Boeing isn't unduly endangering the crew they can just keep trying. But they are not getting paid any money from NASA for any of this, every day that the program continues but they are not launching the actual paid 6 missions, they are just wasting their own money.
- mjevans 2y ago
  It's sort of like a game of chicken in that respect... I guess Boeing would have to do the math and figure out that paying SpaceX for 6 ISS missions is a cheaper way of fulfilling the contract?
  - Tuna-Fish 2y ago
    They don't even have to do that. As I understand it, they freely have the option to keep the money paid for them so far and just inform NASA that they are not flying the 6 operational missions, and shut it down. The reason not to do that is that as stated above, most of the money in the contract is in those operational missions. Even if the contract will lose them money in total, if they think it will cost less to complete starting from right now than what those 6 pay out, it will make economical sense to keep trying.
- 29athrowaway 2y ago
  Thanks for the clarification here. Now it makes more sense.
robomartin 2y ago
> The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX. Not quite. Results aside, the idea is that the government wants multiple sources for access to orbit. This isn't so much about competition but rather about having options. I have no idea if there are other political elements to this at all. And so, ULA gets funding because they represent that other potential option. They can be as inefficient and slow as they want because, in a sense, their metric is to exist as backup. And, for backup to exist, you have to fund it not just to have things designed and built. You have to use these things despite cost and performance issues for readiness considerations. Conceptually, it makes sense. The execution, in my opinion, is seriously lacking in many ways.
ericcumbee 2y ago
Boeing was supposed to be the safe pick and spaceX the risky one that might not pan out.

ethagknight 2y ago

Competition is good, unfortunate that NASA picked a know abuser of govt contracting for the competitor.

dylan604 2y ago
It takes more than one to compete though. Right now, we have one and only one that actually works, and then some people floundering around taking government funding to do nothing really to justify anything.
delfinom 2y ago
NASA has no choice. Boeing is a political requirement.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Northrup would also have been a politically feasible choice.

readams 2y ago

53 people across 13 launches for SpaceX

sandis 2y ago

The idea wasn't to have them compete. The idea is to have "dissimilar redundancy", so that the US still would have a human-rated launch system with the ability to go to the ISS in case one of them gets grounded for whatever reason.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
While that seems prudent, at the same time for how many years have we been beholden to russian launches because we didn’t have an american system at all after the shuttle? Seems like the sky didn’t fall during that time despite only one launch system we had to go to Kazakhstan to borrow. Kind of hard to justify the cost to the tax payer when the benefit they get is effectively zero since no new capabilities are present really: we could launch people to iss before and we can do that now too.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Given today's political climate, that seems extremely risky, especially since Russia has already officially announced the intent to discontinue cooperating with the ISS program And besides, the purpose of aerospace spending on human spaceflight isn't just for the purpose of human spaceflight, but also for related capabilities.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Right, I forget we still burn billions on that nuclear arsenal capable of glassing the planet in a half hour should some 75 year olds in dc decide that is prudent.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      Yes but before you get too snarky, we also do other things like provide free navigation services and weather forecasts.
- dralley 2y ago
  The cost, politically and otherwise of relying on the Russians now is much higher than it was 15 years ago. And in any case Russia's entire space program is at risk of going under given the budget issues they're going to be dealing with.
geertj 2y ago
Yes, also referred to as “Assured Access.”

TMWNN 2y ago

By contrast, Marcus Wandt of Sweden: * Nov 2022 - Chosen as reserve ESA astronaut * Jun 2023 - Chosen for Ax-3 mission using SpaceX Crew Dragon * Jan 2024 - Flies to ISS

Tuna-Fish 2y ago

> Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing. That would cost NASA a lot more money than continuing. The contract is task order based. Boeing (and SpaceX) get paid for reaching some milestones, but mostly for launching the actual operational missions, of which Boeing is currently contracted for 6. Boeing had to front the development money for the system, and then gets paid back when they actually fly. This is in contrast with the traditional cost+ contracting, where Boeing just tallies costs and gets paid that plus a fixed profit margin. At this point, Boeing has reached all the milestones and gotten paid for them, but hasn't flown any of the operational missions, and has spent billions more than they've been paid to develop the system. If NASA cancels now without a clear reason listed in the contract, Boeing has a clean case for contract violation against them, and can sue for the spent development money. Delays are not an appropriate reason, so long as Boeing isn't unduly endangering the crew they can just keep trying. But they are not getting paid any money from NASA for any of this, every day that the program continues but they are not launching the actual paid 6 missions, they are just wasting their own money.

mjevans 2y ago
It's sort of like a game of chicken in that respect... I guess Boeing would have to do the math and figure out that paying SpaceX for 6 ISS missions is a cheaper way of fulfilling the contract?
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago
  They don't even have to do that. As I understand it, they freely have the option to keep the money paid for them so far and just inform NASA that they are not flying the 6 operational missions, and shut it down. The reason not to do that is that as stated above, most of the money in the contract is in those operational missions. Even if the contract will lose them money in total, if they think it will cost less to complete starting from right now than what those 6 pay out, it will make economical sense to keep trying.
29athrowaway 2y ago
Thanks for the clarification here. Now it makes more sense.

robomartin 2y ago

> The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX. Not quite. Results aside, the idea is that the government wants multiple sources for access to orbit. This isn't so much about competition but rather about having options. I have no idea if there are other political elements to this at all. And so, ULA gets funding because they represent that other potential option. They can be as inefficient and slow as they want because, in a sense, their metric is to exist as backup. And, for backup to exist, you have to fund it not just to have things designed and built. You have to use these things despite cost and performance issues for readiness considerations. Conceptually, it makes sense. The execution, in my opinion, is seriously lacking in many ways.

ericcumbee 2y ago

Boeing was supposed to be the safe pick and spaceX the risky one that might not pan out.