3 ms·

NASA is to blame for their part as responsible steward of public funds. The agency has bent over backwards, to a fault, to hand a contractor a cherry deal, pap

NASA is to blame for their part as responsible steward of public funds. The agency has bent over backwards, to a fault, to hand a contractor a cherry deal, papered over quality issues, performed dubious acceptance testing, made them look good for PR spinning all the failures, all while paying double vs the other (successful) vendor. All government procurement is fraught with industry and political pressure which looks like it happened here, yet again. Lest it looks like a one time thing, have a look at the OIG report about the SLS program perforance from Boeing, in a disastrous condition.

SoftTalker 2y ago
The thing about reality is that it always exposes PR spin, cheating, and fraud, eventually. Often disastrously. A lesson that seems difficult to learn, for some reason.
Analemma_ 2y ago
All this is true, but NASA at least deserves some credit for finally moving to fixed-price contracts instead of just shoveling endless dollars at their contractors for nothing to get done. The fact that Boeing is so dysfunctional that they can't deliver anything on fixed-price contracts is their fault, not NASA's, and they will have to either shape up or exit the sector.
gamblor956 2y ago
The agency has bent over backwards, to a fault, to hand a contractor a cherry deal, papered over quality issues, performed dubious acceptance testing, made them look good for PR spinning all the failures, all while paying double vs the other (successful) vendor. Yes, we know NASA has been propping up SpaceX, but how does that relate to Boeing? Oh wait, NASA has been doing the same thing with Boeing that is has been doing with SpaceX? Giving both companies the opportunity to redeem themselves from (sometimes explosive) unexplained errors while paying them hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do all of it? It's almost as if NASA is trying to create a launch industry instead of a launch monopoly controlled by an erratic individual who has no issues with just randomly blowing stuff up because he feels like it.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > NASA has been doing the same thing with Boeing that is has been doing with SpaceX No. SpaceX delivered. And SpaceX hasn’t been called out in a NASA OIG report as having mismanaged a critical programme (SLS Block 1B) [1]. > as if NASA is trying to create a launch industry instead of a launch monopoly Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked. (Zero redundancy given its dependence on a deprecated launch vehicle.) [1] https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pd...
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    SpaceX delivered. Eventually. Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do. Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked. Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX. If Elon were sane, this wouldn't be necessary, but right now he's inflaming race riots in Europe.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > SpaceX delivered. Eventually. At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew. > Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do With infinite time and resources anyone can. As the OIG’s report spells out, Boeing’s mismanagement is material and unusual. It’s wild to ignore that to justify a false equivalence. > Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship. There is nothing Boeing is working on that challenges SpaceX launch monopoly. Starliner doesn’t challenge Dragon’s monopoly because it only has seven launches left in its lifecycle. (Again, I’m ignoring that it does not work.) I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it. Continuing to bet on Boeing cements SpaceX’s lead.
rbanffy 2y ago
> All government procurement is fraught with industry and political pressure which looks like it happened here, yet again. In an ideal world, NASA would be immune from political pressures the same way the military, which are equally ineffective, seem to be.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rbanffy 2y ago
> as responsible steward of public funds. They can’t. They are under political pressure from Congress. Which, in part, is a good thing because it makes NASA into a technology development government agency that creates jobs in sometimes unlikely places and trains people on skills that are very valuable in other fields.

SoftTalker 2y ago

The thing about reality is that it always exposes PR spin, cheating, and fraud, eventually. Often disastrously. A lesson that seems difficult to learn, for some reason.

Analemma_ 2y ago

All this is true, but NASA at least deserves some credit for finally moving to fixed-price contracts instead of just shoveling endless dollars at their contractors for nothing to get done. The fact that Boeing is so dysfunctional that they can't deliver anything on fixed-price contracts is their fault, not NASA's, and they will have to either shape up or exit the sector.

gamblor956 2y ago

The agency has bent over backwards, to a fault, to hand a contractor a cherry deal, papered over quality issues, performed dubious acceptance testing, made them look good for PR spinning all the failures, all while paying double vs the other (successful) vendor. Yes, we know NASA has been propping up SpaceX, but how does that relate to Boeing? Oh wait, NASA has been doing the same thing with Boeing that is has been doing with SpaceX? Giving both companies the opportunity to redeem themselves from (sometimes explosive) unexplained errors while paying them hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to do all of it? It's almost as if NASA is trying to create a launch industry instead of a launch monopoly controlled by an erratic individual who has no issues with just randomly blowing stuff up because he feels like it.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> NASA has been doing the same thing with Boeing that is has been doing with SpaceX No. SpaceX delivered. And SpaceX hasn’t been called out in a NASA OIG report as having mismanaged a critical programme (SLS Block 1B) [1]. > as if NASA is trying to create a launch industry instead of a launch monopoly Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked. (Zero redundancy given its dependence on a deprecated launch vehicle.) [1] https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pdf https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pd...
- gamblor956 2y ago
  SpaceX delivered. Eventually. Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do. Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked. Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX. If Elon were sane, this wouldn't be necessary, but right now he's inflaming race riots in Europe.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > SpaceX delivered. Eventually. At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew. > Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do With infinite time and resources anyone can. As the OIG’s report spells out, Boeing’s mismanagement is material and unusual. It’s wild to ignore that to justify a false equivalence. > Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship. There is nothing Boeing is working on that challenges SpaceX launch monopoly. Starliner doesn’t challenge Dragon’s monopoly because it only has seven launches left in its lifecycle. (Again, I’m ignoring that it does not work.) I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it. Continuing to bet on Boeing cements SpaceX’s lead.

rbanffy 2y ago

> All government procurement is fraught with industry and political pressure which looks like it happened here, yet again. In an ideal world, NASA would be immune from political pressures the same way the military, which are equally ineffective, seem to be.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rbanffy 2y ago

> as responsible steward of public funds. They can’t. They are under political pressure from Congress. Which, in part, is a good thing because it makes NASA into a technology development government agency that creates jobs in sometimes unlikely places and trains people on skills that are very valuable in other fields.