The problem is that the customer doesn't want to buy astronaut seats, but to buy whole spacecraft specially designed according to its guidelines.
The customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 04/10/2018 10:06 amThe customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.That is true but when given a choice a vendor will avoid an obstreperous customer in the future.If that vendor achieves a compelling enough competitive posture then that problem customer willhave a lot more reason to deal on the vendor's terms than vice versa.
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.
The Mission operations patch for the Orbital Flight Test has been revealed. Boeing Mission Operations (MO) continues to prepare to fly the first #Starliner test flight later this year for @BoeingDefense. As part of our prep, we’ve created our MO patch for that Orbital Flight Test (OFT) mission.
Quote from: kevinof on 04/09/2018 06:34 pmOk fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis. So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies. Just kind of lost it's spark for me.That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.All courtesy of NASA.But I digress.
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis. So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies. Just kind of lost it's spark for me.
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything. It's a joint venture essentially. We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward. But these are not "NASA" spaceships.
Things are really 🌟 coming together 🌟 for the #BoeingSpace team! Coming up, we'll test fire 🔥🔥🔥🔥 this vehicle's @AerojetRdyne engines with partner @ULALaunch to prove #Starliner can swiftly carry astronauts to safety in the unlikely event of a launch vehicle emergency.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 04/10/2018 08:53 pmThere's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants. If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget. However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear.
Quote from: clongton on 04/10/2018 09:07 pmQuote from: rayleighscatter on 04/10/2018 08:53 pmThere's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants. If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget. However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear. Were you just intending to insult public sector workers as a whole with this post, as speaking from the public sector in the U.K. I assure you we get plenty done in spite of commentary from those who actually know nothing about we do and just believe the media.
Quote from: Star One on 04/11/2018 04:08 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/10/2018 09:07 pmQuote from: rayleighscatter on 04/10/2018 08:53 pmThere's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants. If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget. However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear. Were you just intending to insult public sector workers as a whole with this post, as speaking from the public sector in the U.K. I assure you we get plenty done in spite of commentary from those who actually know nothing about we do and just believe the media.Hell no. I'm talking about the way NASA does business. Just look at the record. EVERY project NASA has done for decades has come in way over budget, far behind schedule or both. More than just a few spent hundreds of millions if not billions and then were cancelled. Most government bureaucracies have similar records. It's not the public sector workers at all. AFAIK they're great. It's the way their employers do business. It's the very definition of inefficiency.My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.
My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.
Quote from: clongton on 04/11/2018 06:48 pmMy experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.I agree, working on facilities for NASA and DOD projects. It's not the employees. Its congress (both parties) not carrying if anything gets done as long as money is flowing into the right hands.NASP, X-33, Constellation, just name one.The length of time it's taking to make SLS is simply embarrassing.
EVERY project NASA has done for decades has come in way over budget, far behind schedule or both.
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything. It's a joint venture essentially. We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward. But these are not "NASA" spaceships. But on another note, why does SpaceX once again creep in to a CST-100 thread?And CST-100 will be first to ISS. :-)
Quote from: chipguy on 04/09/2018 05:33 pmQuote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.Its almost the same as the other spacecraft. People are more excited for a certain company's hype.
Quote from: Ike17055 on 04/01/2018 04:52 pmWhile I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.
Quote from: ReturnTrajectory on 04/11/2018 02:22 amNASA does not have "veto" capability over anything. It's a joint venture essentially. We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward. But these are not "NASA" spaceships. But on another note, why does SpaceX once again creep in to a CST-100 thread?And CST-100 will be first to ISS. :-)Well it's not that simple. NASA provided requirements, the partners provided designs and have to complete design Verification Closure Notices. Through that, and other mechanism, NASA can "veto" anything by saying "we won't sign that". Now, there are mechanism to resolve differences if say the partner fights andsays "well it IS meeting requirements...". But if NASA really, really doesn't want something it has many ways to not approve it.