SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2020, @10:27PM (2 children)
This, and the 787 Max of course. This company needs new management or something, and badly. Years from now they're going to be studying how we got here from "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going". Hopefully they'll also be studying how it was turned around.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Friday April 10 2020, @11:30PM (1 child)
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
(Score: 2) by esperto123 on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:06PM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2020, @10:41PM (6 children)
For real, we are self-destructing, aren't we.
Guess we deserve what's coming to us.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday April 10 2020, @11:05PM
If SpaceX hadn't upended the launch industry with Falcon 9, things would be even worse right now.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:26AM (3 children)
Who's "we"?
While it does seem like America is self-destructing in many ways, on this front it really isn't, or at least not yet.
This story is about how Boeing, a longtime American company, is now such a sad shell of its former self that it's not even being considered for NASA's lunar mission. Instead, the competition was between three other companies: Sierra Nevada corporation (American), Orbital Sciences (owned by Northrop Grumman) (American), and SpaceX (American). And SpaceX seems to have won the competition. And this is pretty significant because, for a while, NASA was launching stuff with ULA, using *Russian* made rocket engines. But now SpaceX has revolutionized rocketry to an extent, by pioneering self-landing reusable first stages, something the incumbents (particular Boeing, IIRC) said was "completely impossible".
In short, one newer and more innovative American company is helping to nail the coffin for the decaying husk of another American company. Good riddance.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:41AM (2 children)
There's a question I haven't decided the answer to.
Is SpaceX hurting the MIC, or is SpaceX the new entrant into the MIC? In days past, it seemed that NASA only dealt with the military industrial complex. Now, SpaceX is the fair haired child. In ten years, will they still be outsiders, or will they instead shoulder their way up to the hog trough from which the MIC feeds, and take over?
And, of course, the answer to that isn't entirely dependent on Elon Musk. Stockholders and boards of directors have a voice in the direction the company takes.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday April 11 2020, @01:22AM
The U.S. government/military will insist on at least some competition. And SpaceX could get that from the likes of ULA (Lockheed+Boeing), Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and others.
SpaceX will lower its cost to launch further with fully reusable rockets. In the short term, they could increase their profit margin with Starship while still undercutting F9/FH prices. Eventually, any serious competitor will need to follow suit, although they could be a decade behind.
SpaceX cargo launches may soon cost 50% more — but it's still an offer NASA can't refuse [businessinsider.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Sunday April 12 2020, @04:47AM
Well to be fair to Boeing, they have a much more diverse product portfolio than SpaceX. SpaceX makes rockets and associated launch gear (and now a crew capsule). Boeing makes commercial airliners, gunship helicopters, fighter jets, and various other military aircraft. See here [boeing.com]. Space stuff is a small sector of their business, but it's *all* of SpaceX's business, true to their name.
So far, there's really not much of a military presence in space, mainly just spy satellites really. So sure, SpaceX could be contracted to launch spy satellites, but really anyone with launch capability can do that, just like anyone with a semi-truck can transport military cargo; it doesn't take a special kind of rocket to launch a spy satellite. SpaceX just isn't in any kind of position to start making aircraft right now, much less military aircraft, nor do I think they have any interest in doing so.
So unless the military decides to start making space stations or lunar landers or something, I don't really see SpaceX becoming "part of the MIC" like you're thinking, or the way Boeing is now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 11 2020, @02:41AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Snotnose on Saturday April 11 2020, @12:19AM (1 child)
Their bean counters couldn't make decent stuff after getting rid of all the knowledgeable engineers (read: high paid). They took over Boeing with Boeing's money, and have now run that company into the ground.
Long live the MBAs, fuck the actual people who take the hard classes required to make stuff like planes and spacecraft, ya know, work without killing people every once in a statistically irrelevant while.
I understand we're gonna have to bail these assholes out, but I sincerely hope Trump fires everyone with an MBA and gives raises to everyone with an actual engineering degree.
bwahaha, who am I kidding? Trump is going to bail out the MBAs and fire the overpaid engineers.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2020, @02:06PM
Impressive,
It is a long, hard road to kill a great company like BA.
These clowns seem to be succeeding.
A bailout seems likely, but hopefully it will be after a bankrupcy and restructuring to take out the investors and management.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2020, @02:24AM
And yet Boeing gets free money to bail it out. The taxpayers will pay for it eventually with their hard earned cash. It is probably another one of those too big to fail frauds.
I say let it fail.