jayhulbert
Trying to sell the space launch business while their brand new capsule has left two astronauts stuck at the ISS for an extended period of time is maybe not the best business move they could make.
1 reply
Trying to sell the space launch business while their brand new capsule has left two astronauts stuck at the ISS for an extended period of time is maybe not the best business move they could make.
1 reply
I believe I read that NASA has the final say in the capsule return. While not a good look for either company, putting people into space is still very technically difficult. Add to that the bureaucracy of a very large company in a highly regulated activity the outcome does not surprise me.
1 reply
And this is why our nation is so very deep in debt. Space activities should have been privatized just after the moon landings. No government funding, period. Whatever is of value, free markets will determine.
1 reply
They can claim that the capsule is barely used.
Considering how little of the federal budget goes into NASA funding, this is not the reason we are so far in debt as a nation. However, if Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin are planning to build and support a private space station, that is pretty well what you are advocating for free markets in space.
1 reply
Yes, NASA had the final say on flying the Challenger space shuttle in cold weather.
NASA listened to maker of booster rockets, whose decision making process was a good example of group think and voting by people without qualifications, and of fallacious reasons…
(Only one executive in the room had technical qualifications.
Many in the room gave irrelevant points, some points were just pulled out of thin air.)
NASA obscured risk from pilots by taking the problem off its list of top concerns, because a fix had been decided on - but until it was implemented the risk remained.
1 reply
And geometry of joints in the booster was fundamentally flawed, combustion pressure reduced compression on o-rings.
Like Boeing with MCAS no one thought it through from basics. Unlike Boeing, NASA had an up-to-date safety analysis.
Fundamental question is who is paying for the space jaunts.
Isn’t NASA paying?
All that has changed is a layer of integration, which is now performed by private companies who are taking more of the economic risk but far from all of it.
1 reply
It depends on what you are talking about. SpaceX is a commercial rocket launch company that pays their own bills. NASA gave them seed money, but SpaceX translated it into a full commercial space business. At this point NASA jsut pays for room at the top for their satellites, just like any other company wanting to go into space. Yes, NASA pays to use Dragon as a Space Uber, but that goes to the need for crewing ISS and that is a different discussion.
Boeing Starliner is a fixed cost program that at this point they are losing MASSIVE amounts of money, thus why they want to get out of the business. They cannot build a safe capsule on a budget, they cannot seemingly help build a rocket, that was cost plus so them pulling out of the space business is no real loss by know.
NASA, despite the SLS has gotten way more ROI from what we as tax payers send on space then many other government programs. NASA has helped push the edges of space exploration, studies of our own planet that helps us understand it better, and going way back, helped push much of the computer technology we take for granted today.
Boeing is like the dead beat uncle that keeps coming around begging for money because…I use to be great…but now is pathetic. Time for NASA to cut off the spigot. Politicians can move pork to other companies that area actually doing much better Space then Boeing.
2 replies
But NASA spends your tax money, if you pay taxes to US federal government.
Hmm, Sierra Space is a good fit. If Boeing unloads its Starliner program with Sierra Space, it could help solve some of the problems Starliner has faced, like delays and high costs. Sierra Space could bring in new skills and resources, making the program stronger. This would let Boeing focus on what it does best (no pun), while Sierra Space would get new technology to boost its own projects. Together, they could become a stronger competitor to SpaceX and bring more innovation to the space industry.