NASA Eyes Plan to Get Boeing Back on Track as SpaceX Alternative

[jemhouston]

Thoughts and snark please

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... r-AA1Bgce6

Link only

[PLB]

I can't decide if ULA/Boeing is a modern day WPA project or just a money laundering scheme.

If we need a secondary launch capability I think NASA might be better served just selecting another start up.

Paul

[jemhouston]

I can't decide if ULA/Boeing is a modern day WPA project or just a money laundering scheme.

If we need a secondary launch capability, I think NASA might be better served just selecting another start up.

Paul

Paul, with some questions, the board default embrace the power of and.

I was thinking Blue Origin might be the way to go. We do need another way to low Earth orbit

[Nightwatch2]

I can't decide if ULA/Boeing is a modern day WPA project or just a money laundering scheme.

If we need a secondary launch capability I think NASA might be better served just selecting another start up.

Paul

At this point it’s hard to see why an alternative to SpaceX is needed. SpaceX is hitting it out of the park with reliable delivery at cost well below any competition.

If a secondary launch capability is desired, a fair and open competition should be the way to go.

Boeing, at this point, should be disqualified based on past performance

[PLB]

Another question is, just what plans does NASA have for LEO beyond 2031 when they de-orbit the ISS? I know there will always be activity there but how much of it will be manned and how much time do we have to develop that back-up capability? Also, if there's no one stranded there and needing resupply, just how acute is that need for a back up?
That article sounds like NASA is going to force feed ULA whatever it needs (more money) for 6 years of service.
Personally decommissioning the ISS in 2031 seems premature. Basically leaving manned LEO to the Chinese.

Paul

[Pdf27]

Is it a good idea? Maybe, if there is sufficient budget out there. Is it going to happen in a world where the guy who more or less owns SpaceX is being given carte blanche to go around cutting budgets? Absolutely no way, and I don't think he'd allow it even if it meant a net saving for the government TBH.

[Johnnie Lyle]

I can't decide if ULA/Boeing is a modern day WPA project or just a money laundering scheme.

If we need a secondary launch capability I think NASA might be better served just selecting another start up.

Paul

At this point it’s hard to see why an alternative to SpaceX is needed. SpaceX is hitting it out of the park with reliable delivery at cost well below any competition.

If a secondary launch capability is desired, a fair and open competition should be the way to go.

Boeing, at this point, should be disqualified based on past performance

SpaceX is effective because Musk is wielding a horsewhip to get us to Mars.

The other rocketry companies are largely content to rest on their laurels, coast, deliver a mid (at best) product to NASA for high cost. Essentially they’re the US Steels of rocketry.

So we have two concerns:

1. If Musk lets up on the whip for whatever reason at Space X, and they absorb the lack of ambition prevailing in the rest of the industry, what do we do?
2. How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

[brovane]

Another question is, just what plans does NASA have for LEO beyond 2031 when they de-orbit the ISS? I know there will always be activity there but how much of it will be manned and how much time do we have to develop that back-up capability? Also, if there's no one stranded there and needing resupply, just how acute is that need for a back up?
That article sounds like NASA is going to force feed ULA whatever it needs (more money) for 6 years of service.
Personally decommissioning the ISS in 2031 seems premature. Basically leaving manned LEO to the Chinese.

Paul

NASA is planning to hand-over LEO to commercial enterprises. They have given out some seed money to companies that are trying to build commercial space stations. NASA's plan is that they would then rent space on these space stations and either send up NASA astronauts or contract with private commercial companies for services. Bezos is really interested in Cis-Lunar space, the space between Earth and the Moon. This is a key disagreement between Bezos and Musk in the space area. Blue is developing a commercial space station called Orbital Reef. AXIOM is also developing a commercial space station and another company called Vast. Starliner is a Boeing product not a ULA product. ULA is just the launch provider.

[brovane]

I can't decide if ULA/Boeing is a modern day WPA project or just a money laundering scheme.

If we need a secondary launch capability I think NASA might be better served just selecting another start up.

Paul

At this point it’s hard to see why an alternative to SpaceX is needed. SpaceX is hitting it out of the park with reliable delivery at cost well below any competition.

If a secondary launch capability is desired, a fair and open competition should be the way to go.

Boeing, at this point, should be disqualified based on past performance

SpaceX is effective because Musk is wielding a horsewhip to get us to Mars.

The other rocketry companies are largely content to rest on their laurels, coast, deliver a mid (at best) product to NASA for high cost. Essentially they’re the US Steels of rocketry.

So we have two concerns:

1. If Musk lets up on the whip for whatever reason at Space X, and they absorb the lack of ambition prevailing in the rest of the industry, what do we do?
2. How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

Blue Origin and Rocket Labs are both ambitions they just move at a slower pace than SpaceX. They don't share the same view as Musk that employees need to work 100+ hrs a week.

My biggest concern with Musk right now and the polarization is that somebody assassinates him. The Democrats seem very content to ferment hate towards him which could result in somebody taking a shot. I really hope he has really, really good security. A lot of people are just itching to take him down.

[PLB]

How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

[Johnnie Lyle]

How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

The US Steel problem is one for any industry of national importance, not just rocketry, though.

[Poohbah]

How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

I want to capture an Earth-crossing asteroid and bring it into orbit to mine the f*** out of it.

[Johnnie Lyle]

How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

I want to capture an Earth-crossing asteroid and bring it into orbit to mine the f*** out of it.

Before or after we make it a space station at a Lagrange point?

Spatial mining and space-based industry have LOTs to recommend it, from the unique properties of space-produced items to the vastly lesser pollution involved in spaceborne industry. But we are not truly an interspatial species until we routinely send grandparents, not the elite physical specimens chosen now, into space on vacay. Bill Shatner needs to become the norm, not the exception - and I think he would be very happy to see him lose the record for the oldest human in space.

[Johnnie Lyle]

Another question is, just what plans does NASA have for LEO beyond 2031 when they de-orbit the ISS? I know there will always be activity there but how much of it will be manned and how much time do we have to develop that back-up capability? Also, if there's no one stranded there and needing resupply, just how acute is that need for a back up?
That article sounds like NASA is going to force feed ULA whatever it needs (more money) for 6 years of service.
Personally decommissioning the ISS in 2031 seems premature. Basically leaving manned LEO to the Chinese.

Paul

NASA is planning to hand-over LEO to commercial enterprises. They have given out some seed money to companies that are trying to build commercial space stations. NASA's plan is that they would then rent space on these space stations and either send up NASA astronauts or contract with private commercial companies for services. Bezos is really interested in Cis-Lunar space, the space between Earth and the Moon. This is a key disagreement between Bezos and Musk in the space area. Blue is developing a commercial space station called Orbital Reef. AXIOM is also developing a commercial space station and another company called Vast. Starliner is a Boeing product not a ULA product. ULA is just the launch provider.

% has to happen. Space traffic has to be commercialized if we’re going to make humans off-Earth sustainable.

[David Newton]

How to horsewhip the rest of the industry so they get the lead out of their ass and shift back to pushing boundaries instead of collecting checks for mid to shit?

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

I want to capture an Earth-crossing asteroid and bring it into orbit to mine the f*** out of it.

Not going to happen. Orbital physics simply doesn't allow it with the technology we've got nor with any likely technology for decades. I don't think you realise just how massive even moderately-sized asteroids are.

Besides the risks are simply huge. Have an oopsie and suddenly get a mass-extinction level impact.

[brovane]

There's the question now, isn't it? It's the bane of all government procurement. From education to the DOD. I'm not sure what the answer is but having a visionary lead the company helps. These companies need a reason of their own to want to go to space. Something besides the actual, physical act of going to space, that'll enhance their profitability. Right now that mostly seems to be in communications, but there could be other things.

I want to capture an Earth-crossing asteroid and bring it into orbit to mine the f*** out of it.

Not going to happen. Orbital physics simply doesn't allow it with the technology we've got nor with any likely technology for decades. I don't think you realise just how massive even moderately-sized asteroids are.

Besides the risks are simply huge. Have an oopsie and suddenly get a mass-extinction level impact.

You could park the asteroid in lunar orbit if there was a large concern about sending it on a trajectory headed for a Earth Intercept.

[James1978]

Cumulative losses of over $2 BILLION on Starliner!

Boeing reports Starliner losses of more than half a billion dollars in 2024
by Jeff Foust - Space News
February 3, 2025

WASHINGTON — Boeing took more than a half-billion dollars in charges on its CST-100 Starliner program in 2024, bringing its cumulative losses on the commercial crew vehicle to just over $2 billion.

In the company’s 10-K annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Feb. 3, Boeing said it took $523 million in charges on Starliner in 2024. The company blamed the losses on “schedule delays and higher testing and certification costs as well as higher costs for post certification missions.”

The company had reported a $125 million charge in the second quarter and a $250 million charge in the third quarter. The company warned Jan. 23 it would take an additional loss in the fourth quarter but did not disclose a figure when it released its financial results five days later. The annual loss implies a $148 million loss in the fourth quarter.

The $523 million in charges is the most Boeing has recorded in a single year on Starliner, exceeding $489 million it reported in 2019. The company’s cumulative charges on Starliner are now just over $2 billion. “Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods,” the company stated in the 10-K filing.

Boeing executives did not address Starliner in a Jan. 28 earnings call. Neither the company nor NASA have publicly discussed when Starliner might fly again, and whether it would be a crewed or uncrewed test flight versus an operational mission.

At a Jan. 30 meeting of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, committee members said they had been brief by NASA about the investigation into the problems Starliner experienced during the Crew Flight Test mission. While NASA reported “significant progress” on some issues, the thruster problems that eventually led NASA to bring the spacecraft back uncrewed remain unresolved.

“The details shared by NASA gave us confidence that they are focusing on the right core issues and the related path to safely flying Starliner,” Paul Hill, a member of the panel, said at the briefing, but offered no details on when Starliner might fly again.

[Micael]

The Starliner mission was a lot more dramatic than Boeing and NASA was letting on at the time, some scary stuff in this interview with the crew: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/t ... rs-failed/

[brovane]

The Starliner mission was a lot more dramatic than Boeing and NASA was letting on at the time, some scary stuff in this interview with the crew: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/t ... rs-failed/

I had no idea it was this bad.

"I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point. I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't. So there we are, loss of 6DOF control, four aft thrusters down, and I'm visualizing orbital mechanics. The space station is nose down. So we're not exactly level with the station, but below it. If you're below the station, you're moving faster. That's orbital mechanics. It's going to make you move away from the station. So I'm doing all of this in my mind. I don't know what control I have. What if I lose another thruster? What if we lose comm? What am I going to do?"

[Poohbah]

The Starliner mission was a lot more dramatic than Boeing and NASA was letting on at the time, some scary stuff in this interview with the crew: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/t ... rs-failed/

I had no idea it was this bad.

"I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point. I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't. So there we are, loss of 6DOF control, four aft thrusters down, and I'm visualizing orbital mechanics. The space station is nose down. So we're not exactly level with the station, but below it. If you're below the station, you're moving faster. That's orbital mechanics. It's going to make you move away from the station. So I'm doing all of this in my mind. I don't know what control I have. What if I lose another thruster? What if we lose comm? What am I going to do?"

At this point, someone needs to send all of C-suite guys at Boeing a wakizashi a piece, each wrapped in rice paper, with cards asking them to make appropriate use of these fine gifts...