Skip to main content

The surprise is not that Boeing lost commercial crew but that it finished at all

"The structural inefficiency was a huge deal."

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/the-surprise-is-not-that-boeing-lost-commercial-crew-but-that-it-finished-at-all/?utm_brand=arstechnica&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social

The surprise is not that Boeing lost commercial crew but that it finished at all

Ars Technica
in reply to Ars Technica

Paul Tourville
Paul Tourville
• •
I kinda feel like Starliner is Sheldon knocking on Penny's door, and she opened it before he could get out the third knock-knock-knock-Penny. Apart from the /possibility/ (what are the odds of needing a second "crewed flight test"?) of having a "second source," I really don't see any point in Starliner. Boeing blew it. Starliner is years behind (in operational experience and improvements based on it), far more expensive to fly, and seems like a much more limited spacecraft.
in reply to Paul Tourville

Hank G ☑️
Hank G ☑️
•
Boeing has got lots of problems across their entire company in terms of quality problems, etc. There needs to be a reckoning with them. At the same time relying on one vendor for our entire space needs is ludicrous. I said it when it was ULA. I'm saying it now that it is SpaceX. At least in the ULA era we had the Russians as a backup plan. That isn't tenable any longer. Having a single vendor is doubly problematic when that vendor is being helmed by a psychotic drug addicted megalomaniac like Elon Musk. Oh and that person has dictator for life powers at that company by nature of his stock holdings. NASA and other government agencies should continuing working on funding additional providers the same way they did SpaceX in its early days.
in reply to Hank G ☑️

Paul Tourville
Paul Tourville
• •
@hankg I agree that there should be a second source, but I think relying on Boeing for it is insane. Boeing has spent the last 20+ years cost-cutting its way into irrelevance. The only thing Boeing has going for it now is that it is essentially the only game in town for commercial aircraft and one of only three big players in space and defense. They've mortgaged themselves into dominance through acquisition in a field where engineering and fabrication are king.
@Hank G ☑️
in reply to Paul Tourville

Hank G ☑️
Hank G ☑️
•
I agree. I wouldn't trust Boeing to do anything right at this point. Until there is a major shake up there they should be under intense regulatory and legal scrutiny.
in reply to Hank G ☑️

Robert Thau
Robert Thau
• •
@hankg @TaoBear ULA still exists, and they still have government contracts -- a few. And Blue Origin has been promising great things for years, and the government keeps saying it'll be delighted to work with them as soon as they can get so much as a crushed tin can into orbit. But right now, neither can deliver at a price, or honestly a launch rate, that matches SpaceX -- and it's far from clear that the government can create vendors that can just by throwing money around.
@Hank G ☑️ @Paul Tourville
in reply to Robert Thau

Paul Tourville
Paul Tourville
• •
@rst @hankg ULA is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. To say ULA still exists, but can't match SpaceX seems to be to saying "ULA is just about done" without actually saying it. Blue Origin... well... Let me know when that tin can makes orbit. Right now, nobody can match SpaceX's cost to orbit or launch cadence. That doesn't mean nobody else should try, but it seems to mean the legacy players are, to be kind, on the back foot.
@Hank G ☑️ @Robert Thau
in reply to Paul Tourville

Hank G ☑️
Hank G ☑️
•
SpaceX wouldn't exist without getting billions in government startup funds and preference selection on flights in order to create more market forces in the launch sector. The same has to be done now that they are the big vendor. And no, them doing the loss leader thing so they can have monopoly control over the sector to then stick it to everyone else shouldn't fly at all under any circumstances.
in reply to Hank G ☑️

Robert Thau
Robert Thau
• •

@hankg @TaoBear ? SpaceX is charging *less* than everybody else, and if they were ever doing it as a loss leader, they no longer are; cost savings for reusability are real. They were also the low bidder on most of the government business they got, which hardly seems like a subsidy.

What's really striking is how government efforts elsewhere to jump-start competition -- the ESA's Themis project, for example -- seem to be completely stuck in the mud. This stuff isn't easy.

@Hank G ☑️ @Paul Tourville
in reply to Robert Thau

Hank G ☑️
Hank G ☑️
•
Cost savings aren't as much as claimed. The whole point of the maneuver is to charge less until you are the only one left in the market and then no one has anywhere else to go. They already pull that shit around skirting environmental regulations and such. It would only be worse in a single vendor environment. Not even the USSR had a sole launch vendor. We never have. We should never no matter how benevolent people think Musk is, all evidence to the contrary.
in reply to Paul Tourville

Robert Thau
Robert Thau
• •
@TaoBear @hankg ULA still has an active launch manifest going out a few years. "On the back foot" seems about right, but they're well enough wired in to DOD and Congress that as long as they *can* launch goverment payloads, they'll have as many as they can handle. It's just that that... isn't very many.
@Hank G ☑️ @Paul Tourville
in reply to Ars Technica

Aaron DeVries
Aaron DeVries
• •
I'm torn between liking Starliner a lot but also hating Boeing as a company. Kind of like how I like Crew dragon and the idea of Starship, but SpaceX has been so soured for me I can't enjoy anything they do fully.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Ars Technica

Andy Fletcher
Andy Fletcher
• •

This story mirrors the issues Boeing have had in the airliner industry. Mentour Now has just done a really good video on the structural airliner division issues.

The short summary is you don't run a business which has 15 year project development cycles solely on the basis of quarterly profits announcements and get rid of divisions which make key parts of your core product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCbHpJShoXk


Boeings Downfall - “Greed is Good” the McDonnell Douglas Merger

Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ https://nordvpn.com/mentournow It's completely risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌--------------------...
YouTube
in reply to Ars Technica

jcriecke
jcriecke
• •

lol at Boeing saying “you can’t expect a program designed like this to succeed” to excuse their failure while SpaceX already succeeded at it.

There are huge structural problems in the US market, stock buybacks and monopolies being two of them. It’s led to industry that has eaten itself and can’t respond to markets.

in reply to Ars Technica

Mind Dilation
Mind Dilation
• •

" ... moving away from engineers in key positions to MBAs, and much more led to Boeing's downfall."

yep. seen that before.

in reply to Ars Technica

Chuck LeDuc Díaz
Chuck LeDuc Díaz
• •
that's a much more complicated way of saying "management fucked it up".
in reply to Ars Technica

Forrest
Forrest
• •
"I pray this is a successful test flight without issue," a phrase once never imagined being said about a Boeing product.
⇧