Boeing on Wednesday reported a $257 million charge in the second quarter for its Starliner astronaut spacecraft program, bringing the program's to-date overrun costs to $1.5 billion as delays continue.
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 20087 Post Likes: +19836 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
It’s a concerning situation. This is a fixed bid contract. Boeing isn’t getting more money from NASA to offset their losses, it’s coming off the balance sheet. So build a flawed spacecraft that starts eating into profits to fix. Repeat a couple of times until every spacecraft you build, even if operational, puts you deeper into the red. How much are you going to spend to make sure that it is 100% mission ready?
Or are you going to try to squeak by with the least capital outlay possible?
I would not fly on Starliner if you paid me, and I have a feeling there are astronauts who feel the same way.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
I would not fly on Starliner if you paid me, and I have a feeling there are astronauts who feel the same way.
On the other hand, SpaceX was the low bidder, by quite a bit.
The amount of money SpaceX has SAVED the US government by providing satellite, cargo, and human launch capability is staggering, probably paid for the JWST with the savings over the "traditional" aerospace contractors.
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 20087 Post Likes: +19836 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
I would not fly on Starliner if you paid me, and I have a feeling there are astronauts who feel the same way.
On the other hand, SpaceX was the low bidder, by quite a bit.
I’d be concerned if it wasn’t so thoroughly proven at this point. It’s still space flight, and is inherently dangerous, but I would fly on a Dragon tomorrow, vs Starliner; never.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
I’d be concerned if it wasn’t so thoroughly proven at this point.
That is the fundamental difference between SpaceX and Boeing, SpaceX accepts failure as the natural part of the development process which ironically leads to better reliability later.
Boeing tries to avoid failure with exhaustive engineering and analysis which costs a great deal more than shooting off test rockets and ultimately they fail anyway.
SpaceX failed a lot in the early days. The first successful landing of a Falcon 9 booster was on the 20th flight.
Joined: 04/26/13 Posts: 20087 Post Likes: +19836 Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Boeing tries to avoid failure with exhaustive engineering and analysis which costs a great deal more than shooting off test rockets and ultimately they fail anyway.
Except that this is a past tense situation.
Boeing used to use exhaustive engineering to get it right the first time. The reason that they are currently "failing anyway" is because they have allowed that to slip. They either no longer have the necessary engineering talent to produce a working vehicle on the first try, or they are not funding their work adequately.
Boeing used to be able to produce vehicles that worked "out of the box". Now they find themselves iterating unintentionally and at great expense.
_________________ My last name rhymes with 'geese'.
Joined: 09/02/11 Posts: 1366 Post Likes: +1381 Location: N Alabama
Aircraft: 1968 B55
Username Protected wrote:
NASA and Boeing planning for the first crewed launch of Starliner for May 6th.
Don’t forget to bolt the door on.
You joke, but the hatch bolts were a big part of what killed Grissom, White, and Chafee in the Apollo 1 fire. They couldn't open the hatch quickly enough to get out.
I’d be concerned if it wasn’t so thoroughly proven at this point.
That is the fundamental difference between SpaceX and Boeing, SpaceX accepts failure as the natural part of the development process which ironically leads to better reliability later.
Boeing tries to avoid failure with exhaustive engineering and analysis which costs a great deal more than shooting off test rockets and ultimately they fail anyway.
SpaceX failed a lot in the early days. The first successful landing of a Falcon 9 booster was on the 20th flight.
Mike C.
SpaceX was also doing something no one thought possible.
As far as risk aversion goes, it's interesting that Boeing's Starliner will be launched on Russian rocket motors.
SpaceX was also doing something no one thought possible.
Incorrect.
NASA’s DC-X Clipper demonstrated a successful launch & landing 22.3 years prior to Falcon.
While the project was cool and represented truly great engineering talent, the DC-X never went to space nor dabbled in the stresses of stage separation, entries, and then landing....The fact that NASA canx'd after a fairly minor issue early on in the program speaks to a widely held belief that reusable rockets would never be economically viable much less launch humans to space as well as be used 20+times.
The fact that NASA canx'd after a fairly minor issue early on in the program speaks to a widely held belief that reusable rockets would never be economically viable ...
Incorrect. Not NASA; Clipper was a Pentagon (SDI) program. The (Pentagon) SDI funding was exhausted.
Those “widely held beliefs” were those of the pols, their appointees and the usual K Street bandits.
NASA circled their horses and promised their favorite horse: Senator Lockheed’s VentureStar X-33 vehicle. Another episode of over-promised & under-deliver.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
