101–110 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atlas V is also a ULA rather than a Boeing rocket. I'd be much more eager to trust my life to a ULA space vehicle than a Boeing one.
ULA is half Boeing
This comment is your regularly scheduled reminder that they were supposed to be the safe option. The people who'd come in clutch when SpaceX failed (and it was assumed in certain quarters that SpaceX would fail to deliver on time). They were paid 2x more than what NASA paid SpaceX. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing... RIP Boeing.
Boeing has offices in nearly every congressional district, and has been openly bribing congress for decades. They will never fail, experience hardship, or suffer consequences for anything so long as the current republic stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX has a fail safe where the human capsule can eject, I hope Boeing also have this
They have a very similar system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Pad_Abort_Test
It is exciting to me to see a company that is willing to spend $billions$ on research and allow it to continue when it is doesn't lead to immediate profits and any visible gains. It is depressing to work for a company that seems immune to wasting $billions$ and countless human resources wandering around lost. When there are no consequences for failure there can be an amazing culture of innovation. There can also be a…
And the are continuing to build it not because of innovation but rather because it would be an utter and complete embarassment for them to give up. They would lose all credibility as a space contractor and would have little chance to ever bid for another big NASA project again.
> Because Starliner was funded by NASA through a fixed-price contract, as part of the Commercial Crew program, Boeing is responsible for any cost overruns and financial losses due to delays. Given Boeing’s history here this feels like the right kind of contract for this sort of work. Ensures all incentives are aligned
The current NASA administrator, a bureaucrat who grew up during the Bush Cost+ era, is actually opposed to fixed-price contracts because they only save a lot of taxpayer money and might not actually help us get deliverables faster.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/nasa-chief-says-cost...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objective reality seems to be that SpaceX's first (successful) crewed flight (to the ISS) was completed a bit over 3 years ago now. And SpaceX is well into its 6th operational NASA ISS mission since then. Vs. Boeing still has not finish assembling a Starliner capsule that meets NASA's safety spec's. Right now, "speculation" is saying that Boeing will ever successfully fly a Starliner mission.
So money claw back and hand it to SpaceX?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objective reality seems to be that SpaceX's first (successful) crewed flight (to the ISS) was completed a bit over 3 years ago now. And SpaceX is well into its 6th operational NASA ISS mission since then. Vs. Boeing still has not finish assembling a Starliner capsule that meets NASA's safety spec's. Right now, "speculation" is saying that Boeing will ever successfully fly a Starliner mission.
So money claw back and hand it to SpaceX?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current NASA administrator, a bureaucrat who grew up during the Bush Cost+ era, is actually opposed to fixed-price contracts because they only save a lot of taxpayer money and might not actually help us get deliverables faster.
There is a different perspective on that from large acquisitions around firm fixed price contracts. If you're doing some low risk building, say a 10 mile road on flat ground with known soil, replacing a previous road, that is well-known to current specs with set-in-stone requirements (no pun intended) it is easy to pitch that firm fixed price because the contractor will know exactly what to do, and there are 20 road…
Whoever it was in NASA that got that into the contract deserves a promotion
