Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing Developments

[mongo]

With the obligatory "I hope Boeing checked the door bolts" childishness in the comments. This is a cost-plus contract, so the execs are undoubtedly telling their people to go slow, be thorough, and be scrupulous about all safety checks. Twice. Why not; taxpayers are footing the bill. Well most of it. Apparently we're spending a tad more than we're bringing in. Don't let the 6.3% number in this link fool you; in 2023, outlays exceeded revenues by 38%.

The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office

The federal deficit in 2023 was $1.7 trillion, equal to 6.3 percent of gross domestic product.

www.cbo.gov

Starliner is fixed price. Boeing is taking a beating on it.
$1.5 billion in losses as of July last year.

Boeing records more losses from Starliner delays

 

[JB47394]

Starliner is fixed price. Boeing is taking a beating on it.
$1.5 billion in losses as of July last year.

Boeing records more losses from Starliner delays

Oops. Wrong spacecraft. I was thinking of Orion (which is a Lockheed Martin contract to boot). That's cost-plus. It's so shocking to think that Starliner is only going to the ISS after all this time. This is why I keep harping on prestige. Orion is the prestige project, not Starliner.

 

[Grendal]

 

[Grendal]

 

[Grendal]

 

[scaesare]

Quick note this is scheduled for Monday May 6 at 6:30 PM (EDT)

 

[Electroman]

They are actually sending humans on this ? wow !

 

[JB47394]

They are actually sending humans on this ? wow !

I can't imagine that they'd actually do this, but imagine NASA dropping an email to Gwynne suggesting that it would be helpful if she could consider what it would take to launch a Dragon on short notice.

 

[scaesare]

Yeah, that struck me as "Wow, people?" too... but figured I had just been ignorant of long-standing plans...

 

[ecarfan]

Eric Berger.The surprise is not that Boeing lost commercial crew but that it finished at all

In hindsight, it seems obvious that the strain of operating in a fixed-price environment was the fundamental cause of many of Boeing's struggles with Starliner and similar government procurement programs

Devastating analysis of Boeings many failures in developing Starliner. Boeing’s aerospace division simply does not know how to work in a fixed price contract environment. And last June the Boeing CEO said:

“That fixed-price development world has to stop. It just doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for us, and it doesn’t work for our customers in my not-so-humble opinion.”

Not-so-humble indeed. Apparently as long as he is CEO, Boeing will refuse to bid for any future NASA fixed price contract offers, admitting that it simply cannot compete unless the government wants to continually shovel money in its direction.

 

[scaesare]

Berger also refers to the change that's gone on at Boeing since the merger with McDonnell Douglas:

The institutional failures that led to these twin tragedies are well explained in a book by Peter Robison, Flying Blind. Robison covered Boeing as a reporter during its merger with McDonnell Douglas a quarter of a century ago and described how countless trends since then—stock buybacks, a focus on profits over research and development, importing leadership from McDonnell Douglas, moving away from engineers in key positions to MBAs, and much more led to Boeing's downfall.

I recommend "Downfall: The Case Against Boeing" (on Netflix) if interested in some of the issues... although the focus is on the 737Max problems, it speaks to some of the corporate culture change that has taken Boeing from being an "engineering first" company to one focused on bottom line numbers...

 

[JB47394]

Apparently as long as he is CEO, Boeing will refuse to bid for any future NASA fixed price contract offers, admitting that it simply cannot compete unless the government wants to continually shovel money in its direction.

The amazing thing about this is that he would say that in public. He actually put his foot down and said "We're so ineffective as an engineering organization that we will not compete with other companies." In America. It's an indication of how polluted Boeing is by the cost-plus mindset. Their executives consider it to be the only way it can be done, and you can believe that mindset carries through the entire organization in everything they do. They have managers that believe it, engineers who are suited to it, and technicians used to operating that way. All the processes they have in place are a result of people who think that way.

This is an example of how welfare can destroy something at its very core.

Now I shall begin my rant on the insanity of corporate fiduciary duty to shareholders.

 

[scaesare]

The amazing thing about this is that he would say that in public. He actually put his foot down and said "We're so ineffective as an engineering organization that we will not compete with other companies." In America. It's an indication of how polluted Boeing is by the cost-plus mindset. Their executives consider it to be the only way it can be done, and you can believe that mindset carries through the entire organization in everything they do. They have managers that believe it, engineers who are suited to it, and technicians used to operating that way. All the processes they have in place are a result of people who think that way.

This is an example of how welfare can destroy something at its very core.

Now I shall begin my rant on the insanity of corporate fiduciary duty to shareholders.

Indeed... in essence: "If we can't have our inefficiency subsidized, we'd rather not play."

So, as I am a bit of a documentary wh0re, I'll recommend "The Corporation". (IMDB Link). It explores what has led to some amazingly contemptible choices corporations have made in the name of building shareholder value.

It speaks to a bit the genesis of the corporation as a "Legal Person", and as an entity the obligations it has to the fiduciary responsibility you mention versus the law or doing what's morally right. And the resulting situation where it's cheaper to continue paying the fines to dump toxins in the river than upgrading your factory to scrub it properly... that's the generic example, there are some specific ones in there that make you shake your head...

There's a sequel as well, good... but I don't think it was as compelling as the original.

 

[JB47394]

Indeed... in essence: "If we can't have our inefficiency subsidized, we'd rather not play."

I don't know if it's "we'd rather not play" or "we cannot play". The former is a CEO posturing in an attempt to fool politicians into resuming pork spending. The latter is a CEO sincerely declaring that he doesn't believe that aerospace is a viable business in the traditional sense of competition and profit/loss.

I'm reminded of Tesla and how they fooled everyone into believing that electric cars were straightforward to build, and that they were the inevitable future. So everyone hopped on the bandwagon. Factories were planned and laws were passed, only to find that Tesla may be the only company that can make it work as a competitive business. I hope that's not the case, but it may be so. In the exact same way, SpaceX may be the only company that can make aerospace a profitable venture. Elon may be a aberration of our times, and it may be that nobody will be able to duplicate the organizations that he has put together - and pushed almost relentlessly. It takes a hard man to make it work.

He let Tesla go on autopilot while he clowned around with social media, and the company faltered. He wasn't there to keep the tight ship that's apparently needed to keep the company viable. He returned and immediately instituted harsh cuts. That seems to be the sort of thing that's required to make these technologies viable. Just lots of brutal work in a very tough environment.

Now swing 180 degrees to consider Boeing, which is run not by a driven technologist but by suits who have their eye on upgrading their beach house or just keeping up with the Joneses (a Welsh name, oddly enough). One is driving innovation in the society while the others are leeches on the society.

And we argue over whether we need immigrants.

 

[scaesare]

Yup... yup.

I guess when I say "rather not play", it's with the idea that it can be done, it just takes somebody who's willing to kill the sacred cow and recognize the old way of doing things may not continue on, and there's a need to re-invent the company to be competitive... after all, other humans are doing it, so it can be done, it just takes a lot of hard work, often involving significant housecleaning.... Thus, many companies would rather delay and obfuscate as long as possible and milk the situation for as long as they can.

Often, by the time they are done doing that and the execs retire on their beach, it's too late to change and the company adds it's name to the list with the likes of Kodak and Xerox on it...

 

[JB47394]

after all, other humans are doing it, so it can be done

But only by those other humans, which is my point. Boeing lacks the capacity to do what SpaceX is doing at a fundamental level.

As a thought experiment, turn over Boeing's aerospace division to Elon. What would Elon do with the existing assets of that organization? How many employees would remain? How many facilities would be left standing? How much process would be retained? How many programs would continue?

 

[scaesare]

But only by those other humans, which is my point. Boeing lacks the capacity to do what SpaceX is doing at a fundamental level.

As a thought experiment, turn over Boeing's aerospace division to Elon. What would Elon do with the existing assets of that organization? How many employees would remain? How many facilities would be left standing? How much process would be retained? How many programs would continue?

Yeah... for Boeing to pivot that radically, it would likely need to be gutted from the top down... they'd in essence be a new company with the same name...

 

[Ben W]

I'm reminded of Tesla and how they fooled everyone into believing that electric cars were straightforward to build, and that they were the inevitable future. So everyone hopped on the bandwagon. Factories were planned and laws were passed, only to find that Tesla may be the only company that can make it work as a competitive business. I hope that's not the case, but it may be so. In the exact same way, SpaceX may be the only company that can make aerospace a profitable venture. Elon may be a aberration of our times, and it may be that nobody will be able to duplicate the organizations that he has put together - and pushed almost relentlessly. It takes a hard man to make it work.

To be clear, Tesla didn't turn its first annual profit until 18 years after its inception (2003-2021), and 13 years after its first car deliveries (2008). By comparison, Lucid delivered its first cars in 2021; to match Tesla's record they would only have to be profitable by 2032. Expecting other EV companies to go from startup to profitable on a much faster timeline that Tesla is an unrealistic and unfair expectation. But I do expect other EV companies to eventually become profitable and successful.

Tesla took a huge gamble on high-performance pure EV's (not golf carts) being viable, and they succeeded. They are currently taking a similarly huge gamble on pure-vision L4 autonomy, the success of which is yet to be determined. SpaceX took an equivalently huge gamble on booster reusability, which also succeeded wildly, and it seems inevitable that full reusability (Starship) will also succeed. It is Elon's willingness to take these huge gambles, combined with the resultant first-mover advantage, that have allowed his success; no one else has both of these qualities, particularly not Boeing.

He let Tesla go on autopilot while he clowned around with social media, and the company faltered. He wasn't there to keep the tight ship that's apparently needed to keep the company viable. He returned and immediately instituted harsh cuts. That seems to be the sort of thing that's required to make these technologies viable. Just lots of brutal work in a very tough environment.

Elon's (mis)management of Tesla over the past couple years has been exceedingly painful to watch. The board and other execs have somewhat been able to keep his worst impulses in check, although the recent Supercharger layoff debacle (don't get me started) seems to have broken through that thin veil of protection. I'm also extremely concerned about Tesla's ability to bridge the gap between now and when they will be able to flip the switch on L4 Autonomy / Robotaxi, which I don't expect to happen until at least 2030, probably 2032-2034. SpaceX has one way or another managed to avoid such problems; they seem to have a clear path to remain and become incredibly successful, and I look forward to watching that continue!

 

[MP3Mike]

To be clear, Tesla didn't turn its first annual profit until 18 years after its inception (2003-2021), and 13 years after its first car deliveries (2008). By comparison, Lucid delivered its first cars in 2021; to match Tesla's record they would only have to be profitable by 2032. Expecting other EV companies to go from startup to profitable on a much faster timeline that Tesla is an unrealistic and unfair expectation. But I do expect other EV companies to eventually become profitable and successful.

When most people are referring to that they are referring to "gross profit" on the vehicles sales, which Tesla has been positive on since they started selling vehicles. Lucid hasn't gotten to that point, and there is no way they can become profitable overall until way after they start selling vehicles for a "gross profit." (Rivian is in the exact same situation, though it looks like they might turn it around faster than Lucid.)

 

[Electroman]

To be clear, Tesla didn't turn its first annual profit until 18 years after its inception (2003-2021), and 13 years after its first car deliveries (2008). By comparison, Lucid delivered its first cars in 2021; to match Tesla's record they would only have to be profitable by 2032. Expecting other EV companies to go from startup to profitable on a much faster timeline that Tesla is an unrealistic and unfair expectation. But I do expect other EV companies to eventually become profitable and successful.

Apples to Oranges. How? When Tesla started this EV "thingy" in 2003, I am sure 90% of Americans did not know what an EV was. Even when I bought my first Tesla in 2014, many people asked me, "what do you mean this thing does not need gas?". Tesla built this market and a craze for EVs from scratch. There were no suppliers. No cell manufacturers, no battery manufacturers. L2 charging was introduced only in 2011. L3 charging was a joke. EV buyers were considered hippies and greenies.

Fast forward to 2024. There is a whole eco system built for long distance travel with ease. Plenty of suppliers including cells and batteries. There is a 'glut'. Battery costs have come down from $400/kWh to now around $80/kWh. And Lucid can easily piggy back on Tesla's superchargers and not even worry about long distance travel for their customers. So they better turn a profit soon, otherwise the Chinese will eat them up. Trade protections are no protection.