Great article on how Boeing has failed

Domenick said:
...I admit to being a fan of SpaceX.

One important difference between a risk-taker like Musk and the standard military-industrial complex, is Musk wasn't afraid to fail where only hardware was at risk. Falcon failed many times, and each time, Mr. Musk took it as a learning experience.
Click to expand...
Fail fast, learn faster.

The SpaceX process works.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Fail fast, learn faster.

The SpaceX process works.
Click to expand...
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

So it's more than a little disingenuous to say the agency that took us from blowing up monkeys on launchpads to walking on the moon in a decade is not capable of learning fast. It's more that they have had both hands chained behind their backs compared to the days when NASA's budget was a blank check and comparing them against private companies still free to operate the way NASA used to.
 
DeadStick said:
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.
Click to expand...
...and this is why the capitalist approach always is more effective than a government controlled command economy.
 
StraightnLevel said:
...and this is why the capitalist approach always is more effective than a government controlled command economy.
Click to expand...
Was NASA using a capitalist approach when they beat the USSR to the moon even after our original military-run space program let them get a huge head start? I would say they used a science and engineering approach, backed up by the full force of the U.S. treasury. They weren't building to a customer's specs or trying to hit some investors plan.
 
Yes private companies built products for the government, who spent public tax dollars to fund it with no concern for profitability. Not exactly the plot of Atlas Shrugged, is it?

Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave if people really this that is what capitalism is.
 
DeadStick said:
Was NASA using a capitalist approach when they beat the USSR to the moon even after our original military-run space program let them get a huge head start? I would say they used a science and engineering approach, backed up by the full force of the U.S. treasury. They weren't building to a customer's specs or trying to hit some investors plan.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, sure, the USA had a huge head start. Let's see, the USSR orbited the first satellite, the first man in space. Oh and until around the time of Saturn boosters, the USSR had a higher, much higher throw weight... didn't they?

But, sure, NASA had a huge head start.

:rolleyes:
 
The moon landing was like winning WWII. Won the war/race by brute spending force and industrial capacity pushing the technology to and beyond its limits. The Apollo 1 fire is a stark reminder of just how much it was being pushed.

It was what was needed to win the race, but it was not sustainable.

Apollo wasn't close to being efficient, but it wasn't supposed to be. Work was spread across the country to get politicians on board, get lots of area of the country involved, etc.

Another data point. The SLS or whatever it is called now was mandated by congress to use parts of the old shuttle rocket system in part to involve various congressional districts in the contracting. It's using the old Apollo contracting and management style. And its cost is outrageous, has flown once, and will soon be eclipsed by the Starship at a fraction of the cost.
 
DeadStick said:
I would say they used a science and engineering approach, backed up by the full force of the U.S. treasury.
Click to expand...
And a pre-existing profit-making industrial base, run and staffed by people who wanted to (and did) put money in their own pockets by being faster than more effective than other bidders. And that extended down several tiers of subcontracting.
 
DeadStick said:
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

So it's more than a little disingenuous to say the agency that took us from blowing up monkeys on launchpads to walking on the moon in a decade is not capable of learning fast. It's more that they have had both hands chained behind their backs compared to the days when NASA's budget was a blank check and comparing them against private companies still free to operate the way NASA used to.
Click to expand...

and musk decided to rush their rocket and launch on 4/20 for the lols...which blew up. I think a lot of high companies succeed despite him.

Starliner launch
 
Domenick said:
In 2010 Boeing began its CST-100 program, a commercial crewed capsule program financed mostly by Boeing. In 2014, NASA choose Boeing's the CST-100 (rebranded to Starliner) and SpaceX's Dragon as the USA's solution to crewed space access. At that time, I believe NASA wanted its eggs in more than one basket--not a bad idea. Mr. Musk developed his basket years ahead of Boeing who had a head start, while Boeing followed the typical government contract timeline of slow development, cost overruns, and delays.

At least that is my recollection, and I admit to being a fan of SpaceX.

One important difference between a risk-taker like Musk and the standard military-industrial complex, is Musk wasn't afraid to fail where only hardware was at risk. Falcon failed many times, and each time, Mr. Musk took it as a learning experience. Boeing was terrified of a PR disaster, and even so, OFT-1 launched into the wrong orbit and never docked with the space station. The capsule was recovered successfully. Remember too, in less time than Boeing developed the Starliner crew capsule, Musk expanded the Falcon launch system, and developed a Dragon cargo module and a Dragon Crew module.

I'll be watching the Starliner crewed launch this evening at 10:35 pm EDT. NASA TV. Space.com has a link.
Click to expand...
Or will you. They must’ve done a door check.

www.12news.com

Boeing calls off its first astronaut launch because of valve issue on rocket

It would've been the first flight of Boeing’s Starliner capsule with a crew on board.
www.12news.com www.12news.com
 
To be fair, the failed oxygen relief valve was not part of Boeing's Starliner. It was part of the upper stage of the Atlas V launch system by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I believe the "upper stage" refers to the Centaur booster.
 
Bob Noel said:
oh yeah, sure, the USA had a huge head start. Let's see, the USSR orbited the first satellite, the first man in space. Oh and until around the time of Saturn boosters, the USSR had a higher, much higher throw weight... didn't they?

But, sure, NASA had a huge head start.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I was saying the exact opposite, actually. The US space program was horribly bungled at first when it was managed by the military and it gave the USSR a huge head start.
 
DeadStick said:
I was saying the exact opposite, actually. The US space program was horribly bungled at first when it was managed by the military and it gave the USSR a huge head start.
Click to expand...

You are overlooking the advantages the USSR had in the beginning, immediately following WWII. The early USSR lifting capability was significantly higher than what the US had... right out of the gate. At a gross level, while the US had more of the scientists, the USSR had more of the technicians. The US had to learn how to build the larger engines, how to make the great designs actually work, etc.
 
Bob Noel said:
You are overlooking the advantages the USSR had in the beginning, immediately following WWII. The early USSR lifting capability was significantly higher than what the US had... right out of the gate. At a gross level, while the US had more of the scientists, the USSR had more of the technicians. The US had to learn how to build the larger engines, how to make the great designs actually work, etc.
Click to expand...
Grabbing a few key Germans didn’t hurt.
 
Domenick said:
To be fair, the failed oxygen relief valve was not part of Boeing's Starliner. It was part of the upper stage of the Atlas V launch system by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I believe the "upper stage" refers to the Centaur booster.
Click to expand...

True, but since Boeing half owns ULA........ :cool:
 
DeadStick said:
I was saying the exact opposite, actually. The US space program was horribly bungled at first when it was managed by the military and it gave the USSR a huge head start.
Click to expand...
A bit more nuanced than that.

The military actually had a rocket ready to go before the Russians. But Ike wanted it to be a civilian effort, so he held them back. Only after the public outcry of being beaten did he let the military and Von Braun use their hardware to launch.

And the Russians had larger rockets, not because they were better rocket builders, but from necessity. Their warheads were not as advanced and we much heavier and larger than those in the US. Thus they had to build larger lift rockets.
 
WDD said:
True, but since Boeing half owns ULA........ :cool:
Click to expand...
Good catch. I didn't know. ULA's board of director consists of three from Boeing and three from Lockheed.
Valve must have been sourced from Spirit.
 
Domenick said:
Good catch. I didn't know. ULA's board of director consists of three from Boeing and three from Lockheed.
Valve must have been sourced from Spirit.
Click to expand...

Well, they say it's a valve issue. I think that's NASA's stock answer, sorta like the NTSB and carb ice. More likely the astronauts heard the latest news about Boeing and said "Let me outta here!"
 

Starliner mission scrapped; FAA to investigate 787s​


 
Article is long on style and short on substance. Best read in bed.
 
DeadStick said:
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

So it's more than a little disingenuous to say the agency that took us from blowing up monkeys on launchpads to walking on the moon in a decade is not capable of learning fast. It's more that they have had both hands chained behind their backs compared to the days when NASA's budget was a blank check and comparing them against private companies still free to operate the way NASA used to.
Click to expand...
Elon only owns half of SpaceX. He has big institutional investors too. The reason why he gets away with running the company the way he does is because it sets aggressive goals and meets them.
 
Lindberg said:
Elon only owns half of SpaceX. He has big institutional investors too. The reason why he gets away with running the company the way he does is because it sets aggressive goals and meets them.
Click to expand...
He owns 54% of SpaceX and the next largest investor is Fidelity at 10%. So he gets his way running the company the way he wants because even if every single other investor on his board of directors disagrees with him, he still has the power to overrule them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top