-
#360
by
notsorandom
on 17 Jun, 2014 18:50
-
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
-
#361
by
rcoppola
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:02
-
Interesting that the crew access tower was only designed for CST. Although I suspect if DC is chosen, then design mods will commence soon thereafter.
Boeing has been consistent wrt their business case or lack thereof without NASA. They have always expressed skepticism of achieving commercial operations without NASA
NASA needs to down-select sooner rather then later to provide some clarity. Clearly, no immediate business case is evident that will support all 3 systems.
Full up fund 2 competitors and let's get this done.
-
#362
by
Star One
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:15
-
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
Would Boeing notice as much as a company if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
-
#363
by
IslandPlaya
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:16
-
Boeing has always been pretty honest about their bleak assessment of the business case without NASA. They are in it for the money, nothing more. That isn't a bad thing either. If we are going to have commercial space flight than companies need to be motivated for commercial and not ideological reasons.
I disagree. One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars. Of course they have to make commercial sense as an ongoing business.
That is the way we are going to have commercial spaceflight, by cutting costs to get towards their eventual goal.
Boeing needs to spend less on lobbyists and less time gouging the American people and more time putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach.
IMHO of course!
-
#364
by
edkyle99
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:33
-
Surely the other competitors will be issuing similar notices to employees. Can NASA fund more than one after this down select and still gain a crew taxi in a timely manner?
- Ed Kyle
-
#365
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:49
-
Boeing needs to spend less on lobbyists and less time gouging the American people and more time putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach.
All points are nonsense. How is Boeing gouging the American people on CST-100 or 787? Why should they be putting it's fine engineers to the task of expanding humanity's reach? Why should any company?
-
#366
by
DMeader
on 17 Jun, 2014 19:59
-
One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.
SpaceX is in the game because Elon has a boatload of money so he can build cool toys and fly rockets. Boeing is a commercial company. Since when does either have a mandate to save humanity?
-
#367
by
IslandPlaya
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:00
-
I didn't mention the 787. Maybe because of its great cost is why Boeing wants to gouge the USG (and hence people) for HSF and launches.
Jim, if I found you injured in the road I would help you. It would be of no benefit to me, however it would be the right thing to do. More so, we would both benefit subsequently.
That is why Boeing should grow a pair. Dare I say it, like SpaceX.
As always IMHO.
-
#368
by
Rocket Science
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:02
-
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldn’t be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...
-
#369
by
IslandPlaya
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:04
-
One could say that SpaceX are in the game for ideological reasons.. Colonize Mars.
SpaceX is in the game because Elon has a boatload of money so he can build cool toys and fly rockets. Boeing is a commercial company. Since when does either have a mandate to save humanity?
Who said anything about saving humanity? Or mandates?
SpaceX is a commercial company as is Boeing. One has a vision, one is about shareholders dividends.
-
#370
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:08
-
Jim, if I found you injured in the road I would help you. It would be of no benefit to me, however it would be the right thing to do. More so, we would both benefit subsequently.
That is why Boeing should grow a pair. Dare I say it, like SpaceX.
As always IMHO.
There is no one injured and hence Boeing has no obligation to help anyone. Furthermore, it is wrong for you to say that they should and impose your beliefs on them. They are free to do what they want and pursue the projects they want.
I didn't mention the 787. Maybe because of its great cost is why Boeing wants to gouge the USG (and hence people) for HSF and launches.
How is Boeing gouging the USG for HSF?
Also, HSF doesn't make enough money compared to commercial airplanes to matter.
More nonsense.
-
#371
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:11
-
one is about shareholders dividends.
That is what most companies care about.
-
#372
by
IslandPlaya
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:17
-
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
I don't know much about US politics, but it seems like there is a similar 'battle'/discussion going on there.
I enjoy our exchanges, but as my old gran used to say 'Out with the old, in with the new.'
I'm just rocket mad. I want to see new rockets and lots of them.
For that failing, you have my apologies.
-
#373
by
enkarha
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:23
-
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.
Except the Lunar module (Grumman) and now, Orion(LM).
-
#374
by
Rocket Science
on 17 Jun, 2014 20:28
-
Don’t hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history.
Except the Lunar module (Grumman) and now, Orion(LM).
Good point, I was thinking LEO ops...
-
#375
by
Prober
on 17 Jun, 2014 21:17
-
I don't think too much can be read into the WARN notices except that the people working on the CST-100 don't have immediate alternative internal job opportunities if they aren't awarded a CCtCap contract.
you can read into it the truth, the program was built on sandy soil. Remember "commercial" was to be a partner in the costs, and help carry the program. When SpaceX says the taxpayer is covering 80% of the costs of Dragon, & this announcement it just goes show the programs problems. Just saying
It also shows Boeing has little faith in Bigelow and is unwilling to continue development on the CST-100 on it's own dime. Both SpaceX and SNC have stated they will keep development going.
just posted an interview taken the last hr with Elon its in the DV2 section.
-
#376
by
rayleighscatter
on 17 Jun, 2014 21:33
-
Would Boeing notice as much as a company if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.
-
#377
by
Jim
on 17 Jun, 2014 21:51
-
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
It has nothing to do with New Space and Old Space. Spacex is an exception but all New Space companies are looking to make a buck and not expanding humanity's reach.
-
#378
by
IslandPlaya
on 17 Jun, 2014 21:52
-
New Space and Old Space...
It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.
It has nothing to do with New Space and Old Space. Spacex is an exception but all New Space companies are looking to make a buck and not expanding humanity's reach.
You are correct.
-
#379
by
Star One
on 18 Jun, 2014 06:26
-
Would Boeing notice as much as a company if they lost out here compared to say Space X?
Boeing's space operations make up less than 1% of the company's revenue. And that includes CST-100, rockets, satellites, etc.
Thanks for that, I don't think that's any bad thing here that are so diversified.