-
#820
by
DanClemmensen
on 04 Jun, 2023 15:02
-
... what would be the feasibility of Boeing putting Starliner up for sale to a third party to cut losses?
My understanding (no expert and no inside info):
Starliner is a liability, not an asset. Boeing has a contractual obligation to NASA to provide CFT plus six additional flights, all for fixed prices. Boeing cannot transfer this obligation without NASA approval. Somehow splitting Starliner off into a separate entity ("selling" it) does not cut the losses. Boeing would need to pay a third party probably a lot of money to incur this obligation.
-
#821
by
JEF_300
on 04 Jun, 2023 15:12
-
... what would be the feasibility of Boeing putting Starliner up for sale to a third party to cut losses?
My understanding (no expert and no inside info):
Starliner is a liability, not an asset. Boeing has a contractual obligation to NASA to provide CFT plus six additional flights, all for fixed prices. Boeing cannot transfer this obligation without NASA approval. Somehow splitting Starliner off into a separate entity ("selling" it) does not cut the losses. Boeing would need to pay a third party probably a lot of money to incur this obligation.
Which is certainly not totally impossible. I can imagine an outside scenario where Blue Origin or ULA's new mystery owner would be willing to incur such liabilities with minimum payment. But no, it doesn't seem likely.
-
#822
by
joek
on 04 Jun, 2023 15:44
-
Which is certainly not totally impossible. I can imagine an outside scenario where Blue Origin or ULA's new mystery owner would be willing to incur such liabilities with minimum payment. But no, it doesn't seem likely.
Agree unlikely unless a lot of stars alinged very quickly. The patient appears to be hemorrhaging and doubt anyone other than Boeing is in a position to save it--at least in a time frame that matters for CCP/ISS missions.
-
#823
by
deltaV
on 04 Jun, 2023 16:45
-
Anyone thinking about acquiring the Starliner program would need to ask the question of what ails Starliner and whether its problems would continue under new management. If the problem is just Boeing executives cutting costs too much that's straightforward to fix. But if there's a fundamental problem with the design or with the corporate culture that's harder to fix. Or maybe the problem is Boeing's finance-centered executives failed to attract the best employees, and it's really hard to convert mediocre employees into great employees.
-
#824
by
clongton
on 04 Jun, 2023 17:02
-
Or maybe the problem is Boeing's finance-centered corporate culture failed to attract the best employees, and it's really hard to convert mediocre employees into great employees.
The employees at Boeing are very good at what they do. To place them and the word "mediocre" in the same sentence is a disservice to them. The problem is not the employees, it's Boeing Corp's lack of commitment to the Starliner program and the employees who work on it. They don't get the support, financial and otherwise, they need to do the job they are capable of doing. It's Boeing's ingrained commitment to sucking on the government teat rather than the excellence that USED TO be the hallmark of the company. Corporate greed has destroyed a once great company and demoralized a skilled, dedicated and unique workforce.
-
#825
by
JAFO
on 04 Jun, 2023 18:09
-
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."? Probably will never happen, both for political and practical reasons, I can't imagine wanting to go back to relying on the Russians for a backup.
Ok, I know it's overkill, but if they did decide to kill Starliner, could they use Orion as a backup to Dragon? Or does it have to launch on Areas V/SLS?
-
#826
by
kevinof
on 04 Jun, 2023 18:15
-
Orion/SLS is not an alternative given the availability of it (or lack of) and lots more reasons. Russians as a backup but then given the frequency of Dragon flights whats the chance it would be stood down for > 6 months in the event of a failure? It’s a well proven booster/vehicle.
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."? Probably will never happen, both for political and practical reasons, I can't imagine wanting to go back to relying on the Russians for a backup.
Ok, I know it's overkill, but if they did decide to kill Starliner, could they use Orion as a backup to Dragon? Or does it have to launch on Areas V/SLS?
-
#827
by
DanClemmensen
on 04 Jun, 2023 19:20
-
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."?
NASA is under no obligation to offer Boeing any additional "kill fee". More the other way around: Boeing is obligated honor their contract. If they do not complete a milestone, they don't paid. If they cannot fly a mission, they should be obligated to repay NASA the $300 million they demanded and received in 2019, which was supposed to be an incentive to ensure timely completion of the CFT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program#FundingAs a taxpayer, I suspect it would be better to just allow Boeing to walk away without trying to recover that money, but also as a taxpayer I would oppose giving them any more.
-
#828
by
joek
on 04 Jun, 2023 19:46
-
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."?
NASA is under no obligation to offer Boeing any additional "kill fee". More the other way around: Boeing is obligated honor their contract. If they do not complete a milestone, they don't paid. If they cannot fly a mission, they should be obligated to repay NASA the $300 million they demanded and received in 2019, which was supposed to be an incentive to ensure timely completion of the CFT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program#Funding
As a taxpayer, I suspect it would be better to just allow Boeing to walk away without trying to recover that money, but also as a taxpayer I would oppose giving them any more.
We do not have visibility into what those payments might be. What milestone payments have been made (subject to claw-back)? Unknown. What contingent payments have been made (potentially subject to claw-back, aka "interim" or "finance" payments)? Unknown.
Details are buried in contracts of which we have no public visibility. Feel free to speculate, but realize that is all it is: spleculation.
-
#829
by
king1999
on 04 Jun, 2023 20:26
-
Or maybe the problem is Boeing's finance-centered corporate culture failed to attract the best employees, and it's really hard to convert mediocre employees into great employees.
The employees at Boeing are very good at what they do. To place them and the word "mediocre" in the same sentence is a disservice to them. The problem is not the employees, it's Boeing Corp's lack of commitment to the Starliner program and the employees who work on it. They don't get the support, financial and otherwise, they need to do the job they are capable of doing. It's Boeing's ingrained commitment to sucking on the government teat rather than the excellence that USED TO be the hallmark of the company. Corporate greed has destroyed a once great company and demoralized a skilled, dedicated and unique workforce.
While I understand your respect for Boeing employees, I think "mediocre" is the right term. The initial software issues and the latest flammable cloth issue, were engineering problems and you can't just attribute 100% to corp culture or financial support.
-
#830
by
deltaV
on 04 Jun, 2023 20:48
-
Or maybe the problem is Boeing's finance-centered corporate culture failed to attract the best employees, and it's really hard to convert mediocre employees into great employees.
The employees at Boeing are very good at what they do. To place them and the word "mediocre" in the same sentence is a disservice to them. The problem is not the employees, it's Boeing Corp's lack of commitment to the Starliner program and the employees who work on it. They don't get the support, financial and otherwise, they need to do the job they are capable of doing. It's Boeing's ingrained commitment to sucking on the government teat rather than the excellence that USED TO be the hallmark of the company. Corporate greed has destroyed a once great company and demoralized a skilled, dedicated and unique workforce.
I agree that Boeing's problems started at the top with corporate greed. I can't prove it but I guess that Boeing has probably lost more excellent employees to SpaceX due to Boeing's corporate greed than SpaceX has lost excellent employees to Boeing for SpaceX's flaws such as poor support for work-life balance.
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."?
If Boeing wants out NASA should demand that Boeing repay enough money so that NASA can afford to buy another commercial crew provider without any additional taxpayer expenditures. This wouldn't fully make NASA whole since it would delay the backup that NASA contracted for but it seems like a reasonable compromise. Actually it may be better for NASA to allow Boeing to contract with Sierra Space and/or Blue Origin to take over their obligations under the contract, which if legal could be a lot faster than NASA starting a new competition to replace Boeing. Either way would probably cost Boeing more than fulfilling the contract would so I'd expect Boeing will eventually fulfill its current contract.
-
#831
by
Vettedrmr
on 04 Jun, 2023 21:17
-
The employees at Boeing are very good at what they do. To place them and the word "mediocre" in the same sentence is a disservice to them. The problem is not the employees, it's Boeing Corp's lack of commitment to the Starliner program and the employees who work on it.
Sadly, I think the excellence of Boeing Space's engineers has to be called into question; quality engineers won't stay around in an environment that you quite accurately portray on the Starliner program. Not that they can't recover, but it's not just top management.
-
#832
by
DanClemmensen
on 04 Jun, 2023 22:04
-
If Boeing wants out NASA should demand that Boeing repay enough money so that NASA can afford to buy another commercial crew provider without any additional taxpayer expenditures. This wouldn't fully make NASA whole since it would delay the backup that NASA contracted for but it seems like a reasonable compromise. Actually it may be better for NASA to allow Boeing to contract with Sierra Space and/or Blue Origin to take over their obligations under the contract, which if legal could be a lot faster than NASA starting a new competition to replace Boeing. Either way would probably cost Boeing more than fulfilling the contract would so I'd expect Boeing will eventually fulfill its current contract.
NASA has no specific need for a backup to Crew Dragon except to support ISS. ISS will be decommissioned in about seven years. An alternative to Starliner (probably) cannot become operational in less than 4 years. Starliner won't become operational until August 2024 at the earliest and it now may be delayed even further, I don't see why we need to spend money on a backup that will only cover a very narrow gap.
ISS was run using Soyuz exclusively from 2011 until 2020, i.e., longer than the worst-case remaining life of ISS. The probability that Crew Dragon will be grounded for very long is now quite low and is decreasing.
If non-ISS customers for Starliner or a Starliner alternative want to pay, then by all means let them do so. Not NASA.
-
#833
by
deltaV
on 04 Jun, 2023 23:35
-
Sadly, I think the excellence of Boeing Space's engineers has to be called into question; quality engineers won't stay around in an environment that you quite accurately portray on the Starliner program. Not that they can't recover, but it's not just top management.
I'm sure there are many high quality engineers on the Starliner program, especially ones who joined Boeing back when it was a better company and don't want to move to another city for family reasons. My claim is only that Boeing's poor culture has probably reduced the
average quality of Boeing's engineers enough to make acquiring them all significantly less attractive.
NASA has no specific need for a backup to Crew Dragon except to support ISS. ISS will be decommissioned in about seven years. An alternative to Starliner (probably) cannot become operational in less than 4 years. Starliner won't become operational until August 2024 at the earliest and it now may be delayed even further, I don't see why we need to spend money on a backup that will only cover a very narrow gap.
ISS was run using Soyuz exclusively from 2011 until 2020, i.e., longer than the worst-case remaining life of ISS. The probability that Crew Dragon will be grounded for very long is now quite low and is decreasing.
If non-ISS customers for Starliner or a Starliner alternative want to pay, then by all means let them do so. Not NASA.
If Boeing cancels the contract I think you're right that NASA should pass on ISS crew launch redundancy - a redundant provider would cost many billions and provide only a few years of redundancy. However if NASA is the one initiating the cancellation NASA would probably get much less money back from Boeing and more years of redundancy would be at stake since Starliner would probably be ready years sooner than any non-SpaceX replacement so I think NASA shouldn't initiate cancellation.
-
#834
by
deadman1204
on 05 Jun, 2023 02:00
-
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."? Probably will never happen, both for political and practical reasons, I can't imagine wanting to go back to relying on the Russians for a backup.
Ok, I know it's overkill, but if they did decide to kill Starliner, could they use Orion as a backup to Dragon? Or does it have to launch on Areas V/SLS?
Huh? Its a fixed cost contract. NASA doesn't pay until Boeing hits a milestone. Why would NASA pay boeing for NOT doing its work?
NASA is not "paying boeing" currently while waiting. If Boeing takes another 10 years to get to the launch pad, it costs nasa $0. Many people seem to fail to realize its milestone based. Once a milestone is hit, boeing gets paid some money. The next milestone is the crewed test launch.
-
#835
by
DanClemmensen
on 05 Jun, 2023 02:52
-
What is the latest date for CFT that would still allow NASA to reasonably launch Starliner-1 in August 2024?
-
#836
by
zubenelgenubi
on 05 Jun, 2023 03:04
-
What is the latest date for CFT that would still allow NASA to reasonably launch Starliner-1 in August 2024?
Given the news of June 1, could Starliner-1 be delayed beyond the NET August 2024 ISS Commercial Crew flight slot?
Is it NASA Commercial Crew best practice that there be approximately 6 months after Starliner CFT for engineering analysis and paperwork?
That is, could the NET August 2024 launch slot become Dragon Crew-9, and Starliner-1 launches NET early 2025? So, decision point circa February 2024?
-
#837
by
DanClemmensen
on 05 Jun, 2023 03:25
-
What is the latest date for CFT that would still allow NASA to reasonably launch Starliner-1 in August 2024?
Given the news of June 1, could Starliner-1 be delayed beyond the NET August 2024 ISS Commercial Crew flight slot?
Is it NASA Commercial Crew best practice that there be approximately 6 months after Starliner CFT for engineering analysis and paperwork?
That is, could the NET August 2024 launch slot become Dragon Crew-9, and Starliner-1 launches NET early 2025? So, decision point circa February 2024?
I was wondering if NASA needs to make the decision earlier than that to allow for appropriate crew training and assignment. Of course, they might do training ans assignment for both spacecraft. That allows the latest possible decision, but it will disrupt the lives of one of the two crews. I have zero insight into this, which is why I asked.
-
#838
by
SoftwareDude
on 05 Jun, 2023 08:46
-
With the track record of SpaceX/Dragon, I wonder if there would ever come a point where NASA or Boeing says "Let's just give Boeing a kill fee and stop work on this."? Probably will never happen, both for political and practical reasons, I can't imagine wanting to go back to relying on the Russians for a backup.
Ok, I know it's overkill, but if they did decide to kill Starliner, could they use Orion as a backup to Dragon? Or does it have to launch on Areas V/SLS?
Huh? Its a fixed cost contract. NASA doesn't pay until Boeing hits a milestone. Why would NASA pay boeing for NOT doing its work?
NASA is not "paying boeing" currently while waiting. If Boeing takes another 10 years to get to the launch pad, it costs nasa $0. Many people seem to fail to realize its milestone based. Once a milestone is hit, boeing gets paid some money. The next milestone is the crewed test launch.
NASA people work with Boeing, plus NASA says they have additional people from the ASAP working with Boeing. People cost money.
-
#839
by
Nomadd
on 05 Jun, 2023 09:34
-
Part of management is obviously getting the right engineers in place. But part of being an engineer, which seems to be sorely lacking, is standing up to management. The 747 would never had been built if Sutter hadn't risked his job half a dozen times by refusing to go along with bad management decisions.