3 ms·
Did you actually read the link you posted? It discusses a failure in involving designing and communicating specifications, not trying to save a buck.
by tiahura 2y ago
Did you actually read the link you posted? It discusses a failure in involving designing and communicating specifications, not trying to save a buck.
- tim333 2y agoAh right you are. I got my links muddled. I was kind of thinking of this one that had the "Boeing didn't want to pay vendors for design changes" idea. I'm not sure that's proven though. https://x.com/theJordanNoone/status/1823421499686183220 https://x.com/theJordanNoone/status/1823421499686183220
- skissane 2y agoSee this from Eric Berger: > "Boeing and Rocketdyne more or less hated one another," one person involved in the test told Ars. "Everyone was in super-defensive mode even before this happened. It had been classified as a risk, but the two sides weren’t talking openly and honestly about it." > What was the source of the animosity? After Boeing selected Rocketdyne, according to sources, it asked for changes to some system specifications. This prompted Rocketdyne to ask for a change order fee, as is customary in government contracts. That infuriated Boeing, which thought it had a partnership with Rocketdyne, but the latter company saw itself as a contractor. As a result, the Boeing and Rocketdyne teams were effectively walled off from one another and did not iterate together toward a more effective propulsion system. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/the-surprise-is-not-that-boeing-lost-commercial-crew-but-that-it-finished-at-all/3/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/the-surprise-is-not-th...