3 ms·

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

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.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew. SpaceX lost a lot of expensive government equipment in its early days, including DoD satellites estimated to be collectively worth in the billions. (We don't know the actual value because the DoD won't say.) With infinite time and resources anyone can. It's a good thing the DoD was willing to keep working with SpaceX after those expensive failures. It's great to have the DoD's unlimited resources on your side even when your CEO fails a drug test that should have gotten your company barred from government contracts. (For those not in the know, Musk openly abuses marijuana, which was still illegal at the federal level in SpaceX's early days, and openly uses ketamine and other psychotropic drugs.) In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship. Is SpaceX the rubber duck, because of all of the explosions? The Boeing is built like a battleship, and that's part of the problem: it's too complicated to diagnose from far away. Maybe if they resorted to the rubber duck method of just launching stuff and seeing what doesn't explode? I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it. Boeing is the only realistic American competitor unless Northrup and Lockheed decide to participate, but those two companies only know one way to do R&D: spend 3x your budget, then come back and ask for more. (And all of the other traditional aerospace vendors are already partnering with Boeing on this project.)
ru552 2y ago
He's probably talkin about how Boeing is multiple years late and still has a shoddy product.
imglorp 2y ago
I don't understand the venom here. SpaceX bids on contracts, does the job, and goes home, no drama. Most recently, they split a bunch of contract wins with ULA.

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.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew. SpaceX lost a lot of expensive government equipment in its early days, including DoD satellites estimated to be collectively worth in the billions. (We don't know the actual value because the DoD won't say.) With infinite time and resources anyone can. It's a good thing the DoD was willing to keep working with SpaceX after those expensive failures. It's great to have the DoD's unlimited resources on your side even when your CEO fails a drug test that should have gotten your company barred from government contracts. (For those not in the know, Musk openly abuses marijuana, which was still illegal at the federal level in SpaceX's early days, and openly uses ketamine and other psychotropic drugs.) In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship. Is SpaceX the rubber duck, because of all of the explosions? The Boeing is built like a battleship, and that's part of the problem: it's too complicated to diagnose from far away. Maybe if they resorted to the rubber duck method of just launching stuff and seeing what doesn't explode? I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it. Boeing is the only realistic American competitor unless Northrup and Lockheed decide to participate, but those two companies only know one way to do R&D: spend 3x your budget, then come back and ask for more. (And all of the other traditional aerospace vendors are already partnering with Boeing on this project.)

ru552 2y ago

He's probably talkin about how Boeing is multiple years late and still has a shoddy product.

imglorp 2y ago

I don't understand the venom here. SpaceX bids on contracts, does the job, and goes home, no drama. Most recently, they split a bunch of contract wins with ULA.