Boeing's Imaginary Space Program
Keith’s note: This appears at the bottom of the newsletter that Boeing pays Politico to put out weekly: “A message from The Boeing Company: Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg asserted, “It’s the only rocket being built that has the capacity to go back to the moon and then go to Mars.” With 9.2 million pounds of thrust, there’s no questioning the physical power behind the Space Launch System. The opportunities for exploration it will offer are even more undeniable. By rocketing into space, we will unlock clues about our place in the universe, spawn brand new innovations that will improve life back on Earth, all while inspiring the next generation of scientists, engineers and explorers. That’s the true power of the Space Launch System.”
Where do I start? No one knows exactly when an SLS will actually fly. But it will not have the “capacity to go back to the moon and then go to Mars” since NASA is going to do all of the Moon and Mars stuff via the Deep Space Gateway thing.They are not sending SLS to Mars. SLS can send stuff to the Moon (but not as much as NASA had originally planned). Under NASA’s current architectures (pick any one you want) things are going to be put together near Earth or the Moon before they go to Mars. When they will go to Mars – well (again) pick any one of them. It looks like it will be the mid-2030s.
But wait: You could assemble a human Mars mission using existing Falcon Heavy rockets at a fraction of the cost of using SLS rockets. But there is no need for that since SpaceX plans to start its self-funded BFR Mars program in 2022. Even if they are delayed they will get people and things to the Martian surface well before any of Boeing’s SLS hardware will. And, of course, Boeing is not sending a damn thing to Mars or the Moon. NASA is. And if NASA did not pay Boeing to do this then they would be building combat aircraft instead. But Boeing keeps wanting everyone who reads their newsletter to think that they have their own space program when in fact they have none.
Boeing’s Misleading Anti-SpaceX Pro-SLS Facebook Ad Campaign, earlier post
Well, since we are being honest, SpaceX wouldn’t be doing the things they are doing as quickly, if at all, if NASA wasn’t providing money and a business case to them either. Not saying Boeing isn’t painting an overly rosely view of their world either but they both only able to do what they are doing because of NASA providing the means and reason for them to…
OK, please tell us all how much money NASA is giving SpaceX? Specifically, how much are they investing BFR? Its easy for people with fake user names to make these claims.
There’s no doubt that SpaceX owes NASA many debts (mostly in kind and by way of inspiration) but whatever their magnitude they pale into nothing compared to the SLS boondoggle (not to mention the absurd cost of Orion, or NASA’s support of Boeing’s Starliner (no element of which has flown except with parachutes attached, in comparison with *routine* Dragon flights).
Keith, I don’t plaster my name across the internet but my first name is Chris if that helps. NASA has given billions to the commercial crew and cargo programs. SpaceX has benefitted from both. Profits from those endeavors have made it possible to persue BFR. I’m not saying SLS hasn’t taken longer than it should nor cost more than it should, but to say SpaceX would be in the position it is today without those NASA contracts is ignoring how they funded their solvency as a company and allowed them to move as rapidly as they did. Lockheed and Boeing basically extort billions from the taxpayers through their cost plus contracts but even Musk admits they would not have been able to finish the falcon 9 and dragon without getting the commercial cargo contract and without that and commercial crew, we wouldn’t even be talking about the BFR.
Show me where NASA is funding BFR. NASA provided commercial contracts to SpaceX to develop a cheaper alternative to cargo resupply and crew transport for ISS. NASA never asked SpaceX to make things reusable. NASA never asked SpaceX to find other customers. NASA never asked SpaceX to fly huge rockets to Mars. Your logic is apparently along the lines of saying that anything SpaceX ever does is due to NASA money. The billions of dollars of private investment and the overwhelming number of launches that are fully funded by non-NASA commercial customers is apparently unimportant. But even if this success is due totally to NASA funding, take every penny SpaceX got. Now tell me how many SLS launches that would buy – and factor in all development costs.
Show me where I said they were? I said the funding to develop falcon and dragon and the profits generated from the commercial crew and cargo programs made them solvent enough and gave them the practical experience needed to begin to develop BFR. I never said NASA was funding BFR directly.
Well then why even reply to a post about BFR?
I was merely providing a counterpoint to: “And if NASA did not pay Boeing to do this then they would be building combat aircraft instead.”
Its a non sequitor, if NASA and DoD weren’t handing out very profitable contracts, no one would be in this business. That not a jab at SpaceX or any other commercial partner, it is just reality. I’m not arguing with your basic premise that Boeing would be better off getting their own technical and fiscal affairs in order before worrying about their public affairs, it is just that the above quote doesn’t strongly support that arguement.
You are confusing the difference bewteen a commercial product that has a handy government contract, and a development funded purely for a government contract.
SLS is the latter. So was Boeing contribution to EELV. SpaceX, otoh, wanted to develop a commercial launcher, NASA-COTS was a handy, and yes timely, customer, but it’s not why they exist.
It’s the difference between Boeing’s civil aircraft arm and their military arm. One side is more than happy to sell aircraft to government buyers, but the other exists solely for government contracts.
Failing to understand that difference is why we so often send good money after bad.
The term you are looking for is “anchor tenant.” If you want to do something, but need to get enough money to make it happen, it really helps if you have a known and sizable customer. I’m currently in an airport which would never have been built, if United hadn’t committed to making it a hub once it was built. But United didn’t pay to build the airport. They just promised to use it.
NASA and commercial supply for ISS are the anchor tenant for the Falcon 9. They didn’t pay (much) for the rocket development; their promise to pay to use it was their real contribution.
NASA did not give any money to fund Falcon 9.
Well technically they did, for v1.0 in December of 2008, though it wasn’t given, it was awarded, with the expectation it would be used to develop a launch vehicle and accompanied cargo vehicle.
BUT the contract was for the dragon capsule.
And a means to get said capsule to the ISS, while not specifically for Falcon 9, the money awarded did go into developing the launch vehicle as well. Splitting hairs on it I know, but the argument can easily be made that NASA funded the development of F9 v1.0 for, by NASA’s own estimates, at least an order of magnitude less than it would have costed NASA to do it and certainly not to the extent some imply, development of the Falcon 9 vehicle after v1.0 was funded internally
“NASA has given billions to the commercial crew and cargo programs. “
Wrong. NASA is not “giving’ money to anyone. They are BUYING something. That something is a product called a M I L E S T O N E each milestone has to be completed on the company’s own dime until NASA is satisfied. Only then do they can paid for completing the product, The Milestone. Why is NASA buying milestone products? Each product is an assurance to NASA that the underlying company can develop and build what they say they can.
The federal government ordered a federal agency NASA to acquire both product and a service that DID NOT EXIST.
Would you spend billions on a product that didn’t exist because the government MIGHT buy it from you? No sane company would. So NASA used SAA’s and milestones to not only get the non existent service into production but also to buy that operational service.
No GIVING money to anyone. BUYING non existent products and services.
No, commercial crew is being run much closer to a traditional NASA program, hence the cost. It wasn’t meant to be, it was supposed to operate like COTS, much closer to a pure service contract. It’s a shame. (But even the new CRS contract has gone wrong, to the point of demanding specific versions of the Dragon capsule. Forcing SpaceX to keep two production lines open, for fewer launches.)
It is my understanding that all but the very last contract was done like COTS with SAA’s and milestones. It was Shelby that kept pushing to make it a more traditional FAR development contract and moved it that way for the last contract.
It’s about blatantly FALSE Boeing SLS claims; not NASA funding!
Keith’s take is dead on.
So when does Boeing pay off some congressmen to come up with a law as a way to ban BFR? Some legislation stipulation that rockets must use certain propellants or be built to certain specifications. At some point paid ads aren’t going to be enough to stop progress.
No one can lobby like Boeing… #truth They splash the cash and make the rounds regularly.
Don’t worry, the forces of Old Space are already working on it.:-)
https://www.theverge.com/20…
Why it’s time to study how rocket emissions change the atmosphere
by Loren Grush
May 31, 2018, 1:01pm EDT
“Every time a rocket launches, it produces a plume of exhaust in its wake that leaves a mark on the environment. These plumes are filled with materials that can collect in the air over time, potentially altering the atmosphere in dangerous ways. It’s a phenomenon that’s not well-understood, and some scientists say we need to start studying these emissions now before the number of rocket launches increases significantly.”
“Right now, Ross estimates that rocket launches around the world inject 10 gigagrams, or 11,000 tons, of soot and alumina particles into the atmosphere each year. But that number could be going up. SpaceX has vowed to increase the number of launches it does each year, and numerous other companies are going to start launching their own vehicles soon. What kind of impact that will have on the atmosphere is unclear. “
We must save the ozone! Ban the BFR! Ban the New Glenn!
This article also states:
“Rockets that run on solid propellants produce a higher amount of alumina particles, a combination of aluminum and oxygen that is white and reflective. Most orbital rockets don’t run on solid propellants these days, though some launch companies like the United Launch Alliance do add solid rocket boosters to vehicles to give them extra thrust. Meanwhile, rockets that run on liquid kerosene, a type of refined oil, produce more of the dark soot particles, what is known as black carbon. Kerosene is used as a propellant for rockets such as ULA’s Atlas V and SpaceX’s Falcon 9.”
So why not include SLS and Atlas V with your rocket ban to save the ozone?
Blasphemy! A true environmentalist would not need to ask a question like that!
It is because those rockets are used by NASA for noble Old Space causes like understanding global warming and finding ecosystems beyond Earth to protect. They aren’t going to be used to loot the Solar System or to pollute it by sending used cars into space! (LOL)
You can be more creative than that, and the lobbyists probably will be.
If launches are bad for the upper atmosphere, then clearly, reducing the number of launches reduces the problem. Therefore, we absolutely must fly a very small number of super-heavy rockets. Say one a year putting over 150 tonnes in low Earth orbit. The idea of flying half a dozen, 25-tonne-to-LEO missions, with assembly and/or fuel transfer on orbit, is obviously bad for the environment.
Admittedly, that logic doesn’t bare close inspection. But that’s true of just about anything a lobbyist says. And it’s perfect justification for an SLS-based architecture over a multiple Falcon launch alternative.
True, but the Ozone and sonic booms were enough to kill the American SST, it will do the same for Point-to-point eroding one set of markets for it.
Would argue that the oil crisis and bad business models and the loss of magical thinking were the real culprit for the SST demise. Concorde labored on because it was too far gone and the cancellation clauses were too punitive: Neither France nor Britain trusted the other not to bail. Hence they were left with a beautiful white, swanlike, elephant. The sonic boom laws were just a rump legacy, a holding pattern. Had the SST gained traction they would have been evolved and operational compromises reached. No business case could be made for three hour transcontinentals at ten times the cost of a six hour bunt. Especially when you factored in the on-ground handling delays. Door to door medium hop flights have been repeatedly demonstrated to be longer now than in the pre-jet age. Boeing won the bet on more passengers than faster flight times, in spite of itself. Plus ca change.
For a three versus six hour trans-Atlantic flight, I might agree. But I think you can make a business case for a seven versus fourteen hour flight on routes like Chicago to Tokyo. It isn’t clear if there is enough demand to justify a new and novel aircraft, but it’s plausible enough that it would be worth looking into.
None of the SSTs had that sort of range. Think they were about max 2/3s of that.Not sure about the new ones.
BFR will run on methane, no?
And love the emissions from those wonderful SRBs !!
In response to CA:
Keith – “Chris” cannot. It is fair to look at this: Commercial Market Assessment for Crew and Cargo Systems Pursuant to Section 403 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267).
Scroll through the bottom on page 40 or “Appendix B”
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/…
“SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.”
So for $390 million or about a quarter of one year’s funding of SLS we got two rockets (Falcon 1 and Falcon 9), Dragon v1, Kestrel, Merlin, and MVac.
SpaceX then reinvested its profits back into the F9, Dragon, and Dragon v2. Combined with its CRS 1 & 2 contracts at roughly ~$2.3 billion they successfully developed first stage re-usability (landing on a boat (or the shore)). SpaceX is now marketing their launch service and taking those profits and putting it into BFR/BFS.
The SpaceX hate is real. There is a reason SpaceX is the #1 Disruptor Company of 2018.
Why punish real success? You know when someone is doing something you think is impossible just get the hell out of our way.
Remember, the most dangerous of any position to be in the Beltway is between a government contractor and the cost plus contracts they are getting from the government. They will do everything and anything thing to keep the money flowing. If you think this is bad wait until you see the attacks that will be made against BFR once it starts flying.
Boeing’s real handicap probably has less to do with money as with the fact they do not seem to be able to think outside the box; they introduce nothing new. Space X has relegated Boeing and every other rocket developer to the dustbin of history. We’ll see how far SLS gets (Orion too). My guess is they will never fly certainly not in their upgraded configuration. And as far as Boeing’s claims about going to the Moon or Mars; both of those landings, at least using Boeing’s and NASA’s rocket and capsule are so far off, there is no point in making a point of it-not now; maybe in another decade?
I’d start with “inspiring the next generation of scientists, engineers and explorers.” I get the impression that Boeing (and others) think something needs to be big, expensive and impressive to “inspire” people. If someone got the costs of spaceflight down to a sustainable level (e.g. where a lunar station with a few astronauts would cost about what the US Antarctic program costs), I guess that would make it dull, uninteresting and uninspiring.
The way to inspire the youth of America to study STEM fields is to create exciting jobs in them like SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing, like NASA used to do during Apollo. The best engineers fresh out of school don’t want to spend their first jobs designing viewgraphs for rockets that never fly.
Yes, if it is about science only like Antarctica it will be too dull to inspire the majority of the kids. But make it about developing new space industries that will create new billionaires, like Silcon Valley, and they will be very inspired!
I may have been thinking of the S in STEM. A geology student could be inspired by the opportunity to do field work on the Moon, just as engineers would be inspired by actually building rockets rather than viewgraphs or others would be inspired by the opportunity to earn billions.
My point was about the showy and impressive things, which make good media stories. Some people take that to be the definition of inspiring. I disagree because I think the opportunity for real, tangible work is more inspiring that work on a more impressive project which may never produce results.
I have to agree that NASA is n9t a place I would recommend for today’s STEM graduates at least not those with an interest in human space flight. There is no NASA human spaceflight program. There is an ISS the NASA managers are trying to trash, and besides we only fly less than a handful of US astronauts on it each year. There is no place for the future. The program he become far too politically managed with large numbers of narcissistic less than competent NASA leaders. I definitely recommend new graduates go to the commercial start ups like Space X, or the large old space companies that are well diversified into other industries. NASA is no longer worth the pain. I feel bad saying this, but there is no correction in sight..
Whatever. I work with some of the best and brightest coming out of school.
That’s my experience as well; many of the young people I meet are enviably bright, educated, and ready for the future.
Weigh that against what I see in the bigger world, though. Pointing to recent elections is too easy, if demonstrative; I simply experience lots of folks with very little education or love of education. A disdain for braininess, too.
Or, possibly, the wrong sort of education. I’m all for learning and remembering facts and details, but I think many schools get lost in that. And in emphasizing the idea that the material is absolutely true because it comes from an authority figure. A little more emphasis on how to put ideas together and reach logical conclusions (or decide for yourself whether or not an authority figure’s statements make sense) would be nice.
A shameless plug, but a manuscript that completely covers this entire topic: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
NOTHING is more inspirational than watching a rocket take off.
Paper rockets don’t come close.
Paper rockets don’t compare to real ones. But, in terms of inspiration, how does one really big, real rocket launch every other year compare to a smaller one once a month? At some point the launches become routine and that isn’t (in my opinion) inspirational. At that point, the destination and the work at the destination are what needs to be inspirational. But ULA or SpaceX can’t provide that. In the same way climbing Mt. Denali is a big deal, but when it comes to getting to the base of the mountain? The flight on Alaskan Air and the rental car trip aren’t exactly in the same league.
Spaceflight is exciting, but not exciting enough for taxpayers to pay for it. Enen the second human Moon landing attracted far less notice than the first. To be sustainable, human spaceflight must provide practical benefits that exceed its cost.
I agree, but I guess I keep focusing on the “exceed its cost” part. Science for the sake of science is a benefit, and one people will pay for. So is just going somewhere because you feel like it (even vicariously, using unmanned spacecraft.) The trick is getting the costs down, to the point where those benefits are affordable and sustainable. But then it isn’t quite as impressive.
I remember a student visiting my lab, as a perspective graduate student. She was _very_ impressed we had built one of the instruments on the Cassini spacecraft. The fact that we’d just flown our second, very successful, scientific CubeSat totally failed to impress her. She just said, “So what, everyone’s flying CubeSats.” That’s my point; if it’s cheap enough to be sustainable, it’s something anyone can do (well, almost anyone), and then it isn’t novel enough to impress people.
They can’t provide it, but the lower cost can help facilitate it. Also, more frequent launches means that more destinations are being reached…putting more skin in the game.
I should also note that our educational system is adaptive. School counselors will eventually be pointing out the various layers of careers that STEM from this growth.
Big, expensive projects can be impressive, but they have to actually get built and fly. Talk is cheap; well actually it isn’t cheap, its a waste, and particularly not impressive if they never fly and have no goals for the long term.
Actually, from a career point of view, that isn’t necessarily the case. If you manage a program which brings in hundreds of millions and looks like it will continue to do so for a decade, it looks _very_ impressive on your annual performance reviews. It also looks very impressive to your friends and family, that you’re someone who the government trusts with such important work (since people often confuse value with cost.)
Kill. SLS. Now.
Almost every big aerospace program, public or private, had missed their estimated launch dates by years (at the exception of Apollo Program but with an huge effort like spending the equivalent of 5% of yearly federal budget or 1% of the GDP, remembering that if it was today it would represented almost 200 billions as US FY2018 budget will be some at $4.000 Billions this year…). In the US, you can remember Space Shuttle program, F-35, Boeing 787, etc… In Europe, we had A-380 plane, Cargo Air-plane Atlas, Galileo network, etc…
Even is SpaceX is ten years late and BFR costs twice what they think it will cost they will still have people and hardware on Mars years before NASA does at a fraction of the cost.
Keith,
At the risk of giving my colleagues at Boeing a heart attack, I do think someone should point out that Boeing is investing signfiicant IR&D and perhaps cash in XS-1 (or whatever DARPA has renamed it). And they’ve invested some in commercial crew. So let’s acknowledge and praise Boeing when they act more innovatively.
But you are correct re SLS and its schedule to Mars and the rest.
NASA could have started flying Orion missions on FH now if they hadn’t slowed it down with ESA involvement and underfunding to throw $ at SLS. Lockheed Martin’s own “steppingstones” plan in 2009-2010 laid out ways to fly exploration missions in cislunar space BEFORE a super heavy lift rocket would be completed.
Ultimately, until Congress rewards (and punishes) NASA for actually carrying out exploration (or failing to do so), instead of just “working on it”.
– Jim
The topic here is SLS. I don’t think that “whataboutism” is a valid defense for the high cost, delays, and projected low flight rate for SLS.
Excuse me, but I wasn’t engaging in “whataboutism” and I explicitly didn’t defend or excuse them on SLS. (read my 2nd paragraph again).
I simply pointed out that Boeing can do programs in a more cost-constrained and commercial-like way. The question is whether or not the government is willing to give up enough control to do that. Clearly on heavy lift, the government and its Congressional stakeholders are not.
That raises an interesting question about Boeing. How different are their various divisions? Do they have one or several “institutional cultures”? Does the part of Boeing which builds the 787 do things in the same way as the part of Boeing involved in building SLS?
I know Lockheed Martin’s divisions do things in different ways. That’s a preservation of the Lockheed Missiles and Space and Martin Marietta institutional cultures, despite the fact that they merged decades ago. I also know that SwRI’s various divisions are very different, and even branches within a single division can be, well, divisive.
So, does the fact that one part of Boeing does things in a “cost-constrained and commercial-like way” prove that all parts of Boeing do so?
If their commercial aircraft used a cost plus model they would be out of business. The same for the group that build comsats for sale. The different units have very different cultures in order to survive.
Sorry about that.
I think for the case of SLS it’s difficult to say how much of the cost and delays are due to the way NASA is running the program (i.e. heavy handed “oversight”) and how much is due to how this part of Boeing is running the program. The Exploration Upper Stage, in particular, seems to be quite behind schedule. The absence of the EUS greatly limits the capability of the first version of SLS.
Would Boeing build SLS without NASA money? No. Is SpaceX building BFR without NASA money? Yes.
Would Boeing even build the Delta IV heavy Phase II without NASA funding? No ..
I don’t believe the current Falcon Heavy has the capability for TLI for the current Orion/Service Module design. That’s either a feature or a bug, depending on an individual’s position on SLS and SpaceX. If SLS is cancelled, Orion should be cancelled too, perhaps must be cancelled. But then you have to deal with the Lockheed and NASA Orion stakeholders in addition to the Boeing and NASA SLS stakeholders. NASA’s Beyond Earth Orbit human exploration situation is a mess.
Yes, and no, mostly no; Zubrin has an interesting piece on using SX tech to get to the moon. It has some obvious issues, but throw weight isn’t one of them.
http://spacenews.com/op-ed-…
Zubrin does not show his work. Note that he proposes Dragon vehicles, not Orion. What can Dragon Heavy, as Musk describes it today, throw to lunar space? Musk isn’t saying. I repeat that I seriously doubt the current Falcon Heavy design cannot throw the current Orion/Service Module to lunar space.
Zubrin showed enough of his work to convince me, especially since I’ve done similar estimates and gotten similar results. Specifically, a Falcon Heavy could put a viable lunar lander into a low Earth orbit along with enough on orbit propulsion to get it to the lunar surface (and back.) That on orbit propulsion would be customer provided, so SpaceX wouldn’t, strictly speaking, be doing it. But the numbers do show that a Falcon-launched lunar mission is viable.
I am not disputing the possibility of a lunar exploration plan using Falcon Heavy as the main launch vehicle, I am only pointing out that I seriously doubt the current Falcon Heavy can send the current Orion to lunar space.
And it’s easy to say use a Dragon instead…as long as you aren’t responsible for designing and qualifying a lunar space environment-capable Dragon.
PS: I am not an Orion fanboy. Far from it. Simply trying to point out issues.
The basic problem with the Orion is that it is so massive. One of the presentations on the LOP-G illustrated this by noting a docked Orion will increase the mass of the stack by about a third. The mass of the Orion CSM is at 26 tons comoared to 7 tons for the Dragon2. But then that is not surprising since it’s basic purpose was to justify the SLS.
To be fair, the Orion crew module is only 8.5 tonnes, and the Dragon 2 would need a service module to make it comparable the the full Orion CSM. But 15.4 tonnes for the Orion service module does make me think there is room for improvement.
That apparently includes 8.6 mt of propellant, leaving a still considerable 6.8mt of structure, consumables for the Orion, etc. The Dragon has fairly limited consumables so a lunar mission that involves a prolonged stay on the surface might need something else.
It seems likely to me that a new lunar landing vehicle with larger cargo volume would be needed, although the Dragon propulsive landing system might be more than sufficient oin lunar gravity.
Well, given that the current Orion doesn’t exist, I agree it would be hard for a Falcon Heavy to send it to the Moon. A key issue is what the service module ends up looking like. The current design, provided by ESA, is only the baseline for the first two flights and it isn’t clear what will happen after that. But the numbers don’t look bad: If (and only if) you add a hydrogen/oxygen kick stage as part of the payload, the Falcon Heavy could get the Orion crew module and some sort of service module to the Moon. That does require two major, additional hardware elements: The kick stage and a post-ESA service module. But the basic idea is plausible.
An interesting article just came out:
https://www.thestreet.com/o…
I totally disagree with this article. There is no way SpaceX and Boeing would ever get along well enough to cooperate on a space venture. One of the two companies would have to take leadership for it to work, and neither one wold ever want to cede leadership to the other. Given what they have done all by themselves, SpaceX would very much deserve to take the lead, and Boeing is far too arrogant for that to happen. By the same token, why should SpaceX take orders from a company that has done absolutely nothing in the area of rocket stage reuse?
I say let’s let SpaceX about 5 years to see how BFR turns out. If it turns out HALF as good as Elon Musk is billing it, SpaceX won’t need Boeing at all.
I think you’re right about the impracticality of a partnership, but for the wrong reasons. It isn’t about corporate ego, at least not directly. It’s about the whole philosophy of how they do things, or the “institutional culture.” Boeing does things in a certain way, and that way is very deeply ingrained. SpaceX does things in a very different way, and that more-or-less defines the company (or the whole “New Space” industry.)
Boeing isn’t going to change; the people in charge don’t see a reason to do so, and they probably couldn’t overcome the social inertia even if they wanted to. SpaceX isn’t going to change, because it would be contrary to everything which makes them successful. (Probably. I’ve heard similar things said about Orbital, back when they were first rolling out the Pegasus, but they’ve changed. Also similar comparisons about Ball Aerospace a few decades ago compared to today.)
Given those disparate ways of doing business, the idea of a close partnership just isn’t viable.
Orbital did have a great deal of promise as an early “new space” firm, but they were assimilated by “the NASA”. Resistance is fulitle if you spend enough time being a Government contractor and that is what happened to Orbital.
I would put it out there for consideration that Boeing here is suffering a little from tall poppy syndrome. You cannot blame them for exploiting a broken procurement culture, they are in the business of shareholder value after all, or being the program of record. No matter how unlovely that program is. I am not saying I am a fan but back in the day I received a subcontractor RFP pack from the big B. Their standards document was massive and dated back to the ’20s. While it is an impressive legacy it is also a massive millstone that SpaceX does not have. It will in the end but not yet.
The heart knows what it wants; this is why we see “notional”, and accept it.
Or you can play it the other way. Earlier this week, I heard a couple of excellent presentation by someone from Oxford Space Systems. (I’m not endorsing their products, but the delivery was probably the winner for the whole conference.) He made the point, repeatedly, that “this is not aspirational” followed by “we’ve actually done it” or “we’re actually doing it.” In a world where everyone else is talking about what they hope to do and when they hope to do it, you can really impress people with actual results delivered on time.
I guess I’m a cynic. When I read something “outside my knowledge base”, I assume the authors are just as biased and working on as many dubious assumptions, as the people in my own field.
This is nothing more than preventive medicine by Boeing’s Marketing Department. It’s not aimed at anyone here, but rather at inoculating low-information Congressmen who will cast future votes on SLS funding against any understanding that SLS is a useless (and potentially very embarrassing) boondoggle.
“But isn’t Boeing going to beat SpaceX to Mars with SLS?” may seem – is – idiotic, but it also may sway a few vital votes if (when) SLS gets into actual trouble.
You’re describing “big lie” propaganda. Constant repetition of a good sound bite, without any proof or evidence (or even despite the facts). Done right, it turns into something people believe because “everyone know that.”