Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday April 10 2020, @10:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-reap-what-you-sow dept.

New document reveals significant fall from grace for Boeing's space program

[A] new document released by NASA reveals the broader scope of Boeing's apparent decline in spaceflight dominance. The "source selection statement" from NASA explains the space agency's rationale for selecting SpaceX over three other companies—Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Sierra Nevada Corporation—to deliver large supplies of cargo to lunar orbit. NASA announced its selection of SpaceX for this "Gateway Logistics" contract in late March. The selection document says that SpaceX provided the best technical approach and the lowest price by a "significant" margin.

This lunar cargo contract is essentially the third in a series of three "commercial" contracts NASA has offered to buy services at a fixed price over the last dozen years. First came cargo delivery to low-Earth orbit. Final selections for that program were SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, a company now owned by Northrop Grumman, in 2008. Second came crew delivery to low-Earth orbit in 2014. The final selections were SpaceX and Boeing, with its now-troubled Starliner spacecraft.

When comparing the selection rationale for the 2014 commercial crew contracts with the rationale for the recent Gateway logistics contract, the perception of Boeing's offering could not be more stark. In 2014, Boeing was very much perceived as the gold-standard—expensive, yes, but also technically masterful. In 2020, the company was still perceived as expensive but not ultimately worthy of consideration.

[...] Six years later, the perception of Boeing's bid for the lunar cargo contract is much changed. Of the four contenders, it had the lowest overall technical and mission suitability scores. In addition, Boeing's proposal was characterized as "inaccurate" and possessing no "significant strengths." Boeing also was cited with a "significant weakness" in its proposal for pushing back on providing its software source code.

Due to its high price and ill-suited proposal for the lunar cargo contract, NASA didn't even consider the proposal among the final bidders. In his assessment late last year, NASA's acting chief of human spaceflight, Ken Bowersox, wrote, "Since Boeing's proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration."

Previously: NASA Picks SpaceX for Lunar Missions

Related: Boeing to Launch Starliner Spacecraft for Second Go at Reaching the ISS after First Mission Failed


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Friday April 10 2020, @11:30PM (1 child)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Friday April 10 2020, @11:30PM (#980938) Journal

    Efficiency used to be a good thing.
    Then "cheaper"
    Then "cheapest"

    Good is not cheap
    Good code
    Good systems
    Good engineering
    All these cost .. Lots. So once the "cheaper is better" types are in managemnent, eventually, things go wrong, and, people die.

    Share dividends and director bonuses are possibly directly counter to good practices

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by esperto123 on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:06PM

    by esperto123 (4303) on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:06PM (#981093)

    The thing is that, right now, boeing is expensive and NOT good.
    I think most people can understand that on a situation where anything that goes wrong can cause great financial losses or loss of life being expensive is a good trade of for being better, but boeing now is just expensive, they have being ridding on momentum of decades ago, and the "new" project/products have not the same standards, while pretty much everyone else got better.