Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked.
Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX. If Elon were sane, this wouldn't be necessary, but right now he's inflaming race riots in Europe.
At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew.
> Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do
With infinite time and resources anyone can.
As the OIG’s report spells out, Boeing’s mismanagement is material and unusual. It’s wild to ignore that to justify a false equivalence.
> Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX
In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship.
There is nothing Boeing is working on that challenges SpaceX launch monopoly. Starliner doesn’t challenge Dragon’s monopoly because it only has seven launches left in its lifecycle. (Again, I’m ignoring that it does not work.)
I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it. Continuing to bet on Boeing cements SpaceX’s lead.
At half the cost, pretty much on time and without stranding a crew.
SpaceX lost a lot of expensive government equipment in its early days, including DoD satellites estimated to be collectively worth in the billions. (We don't know the actual value because the DoD won't say.)
With infinite time and resources anyone can.
It's a good thing the DoD was willing to keep working with SpaceX after those expensive failures. It's great to have the DoD's unlimited resources on your side even when your CEO fails a drug test that should have gotten your company barred from government contracts. (For those not in the know, Musk openly abuses marijuana, which was still illegal at the federal level in SpaceX's early days, and openly uses ketamine and other psychotropic drugs.)
In the way a rubber duck counterbalances a battleship.
Is SpaceX the rubber duck, because of all of the explosions? The Boeing is built like a battleship, and that's part of the problem: it's too complicated to diagnose from far away. Maybe if they resorted to the rubber duck method of just launching stuff and seeing what doesn't explode?
I’m not arguing we go all in on SpaceX. I’m saying we need a second space provider, and Boeing isn’t it.
Boeing is the only realistic American competitor unless Northrup and Lockheed decide to participate, but those two companies only know one way to do R&D: spend 3x your budget, then come back and ask for more. (And all of the other traditional aerospace vendors are already partnering with Boeing on this project.)
> Boeing is built like a battleship, and that's part of the problem: it's too complicated to diagnose from far away
Do you have a background in aerospace engineering?
Starliner is built by committee. There is no reason to have that many RCS thrusters on a LEO platform where you throw away the thrusters every use, other than to justify buying a lot of Rocketdyne thrusters.
> Boeing is the only realistic American competitor
They are literally trying to get out of the launch business [1]. Their only competitive advantages are government relations synergies with defence and their brand.
Boeing is a show competitor. There is zero actual threat they pose to SpaceX, partly because they can’t, mostly because they aren’t bothering to.
Boeing will deliver. Eventually. They always do.
Boeing brings nothing to the table in launch diversification. Crewliner isn’t a launch programme. It is currently the stupidest aerospace programme on the planet, and that would still be true if it actually worked.
Boeing provides a counterbalance to an Elon Musk controlled SpaceX. If Elon were sane, this wouldn't be necessary, but right now he's inflaming race riots in Europe.