https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/boeing-s-starliner-losses-total-1-5-billion-with-nasa-astronauts-still-waiting-to-fly/ar-AA1eojtc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fbf7c43d0abd4bad938576ae891fea87&ei=65

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.

And SpaceX just keeps on launching.

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.

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.

Mike C.

On the other hand, SpaceX was the low bidder, by quite a bit.

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.

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.

NASA and Boeing planning for the first crewed launch of Starliner for May 6th.

I am … skeptical.

Via con dios.

Don’t forget to bolt the door on.

Don’t forget to bolt the door on.

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.

Incorrect.

DC-X Clipper demonstrated a successful launch & landing 22.3 years prior to Falcon.

Incorrect.

NASA’s DC-X Clipper demonstrated a successful launch & landing 22.3 years prior to Falcon.

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.