The fiasco continues.
But hey, let’s keep giving them billions of taxpayer dollars for a launch system that is behind schedule and that no one needs except Boeing and its pet Congresspeople.
[Update a few minutes later]
More from Eric Berger.
[Update a while later]
This seems relevant: Our crisis of institutional incompetence. Fortunately, SpaceX doesn’t suffer from this. Yet.
[Update mid morning]
Thoughts on Boeing and the defense implications from Jared Isaacman.
Some additional context: the headlines of stranded astronauts are unfair and misleading, but not necessarily clickbait, as I think the public has a genuine interest in the situation. My comments on Starliner are based entirely on what is in the public domain and has been… https://t.co/KDPd7yjMJS
— Jared Isaacman (@rookisaacman) August 10, 2024
And yes, it is probably the most consequential safety decision NASA has made since Columbia.
[Late-morning update]
Has NASA’s safety culture changed since Columbia?
[Afternoon update]
The fall of Boeing is complete.
Oh, I don’t know. I think that they still have some room below.
The agency, though, rejected a fourth recommendation, which called for financial penalties for Boeing’s noncompliance with quality controls. “NASA interprets this recommendation to be directing NASA to institute penalties outside the bounds of the contract,” wrote Cathy Koerner, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in the agency’s response to the report.
Correct! It’s Cost Plus not Cost Plus/Minus…
Nice one
That’s the problem with competence, when it shows up you question what you have been basing your hopes upon.
Sad fact is, Elon is not there yet and if some get their way, he will not. And if Spacex stumbles, this ugly Boeing pos may have to fly.
“When it comes to defense programs, there is not a SpaceX alternative to keep the big contractors in check.”
I’ve heard a number of people echoing this. We should all want a healthy Boeing that is capable and competent. Similar situations exist throughout our national defense industries. Perhaps NASA’s embrace of a dual track system between traditional contractors and fixed price contracts to encourage new entrants should be adopted outside of NASA.
Keep the pork flowing while raising up competitors. The Navy could start with multipurpose tenders, rolos, icebreakers, and prepositioning ships with options for militarization.
Looking at things from a different angle, how much extra work is getting done on ISS with the additional two crew? How does this fit in to the arguments being made not so long ago to increase crew size?
“But hey, let’s keep giving them billions of taxpayer dollars for a launch system that is behind schedule and that no one needs except Boeing and its pet Congresspeople.”
No one needs it, except NASA and the Artemis program, no big deal.
SLS and Orion are the US’s only ticket to cislunar crew transport for the forseeable future (much to the dismay of the anti public space program crowd), and nobody else (other than the Chinese) is making a rocket capable of getting the same tonnage to trans lunar injection, not even as much as the interim Block 1 vehicle, let alone being crew rated while doing so.
But sure, no one needs it, same bunk talking points since 2010…
You don’t even know what “crew rated” means.