It’s crazy that when NASA signed a contract with Boeing in 2014 the ISS was scheduled to be de-orbited by the end of this year.
RocketHawk401 on
The contract itself was of middling success, it birthed a successful vehicle.
Boeing has proven itself to be an utter joke of a company. Not for the plug or even Starliner itself, but for their demonstrated ineptitude at even refining a mature concept and design. Starliner is a glorified and improved Apollo in concept; a gimme in terms of engineering. And Boeing lost that race, badly, to an upstart. How can Boeing credibly claim to develop an actual revolutionary product (say, a military space vehicle with independent travel capability) when they can neither build to their core competencies nor extrapolate from mature designs and well-understood technologies?
enzo32ferrari on
I posted this elsewhere but it’s applicable here:
Boeing in its current form is and will be unable to compete in the burgeoning commercial space market.
Starliner is the obvious example but Boeing also owns 50% of ULA. ULA had a lot of great ideas but Boeing (and Lockheed who owns the other 50%) did not have the vision, execution, or risk appetite to unlock that equity to fund development with venture capital to let ULA develop technologies beyond launch.
If they’re unable to see the market potential even with ULA chomping at the bit to develop Centaur into a capable in space tug vehicle then they’re not gonna see the other opportunities much less be able to execute on them.
kenypowa on
I don’t know how trustworthy this article is, considering it’s written by a war criminal.
5 Comments
Well yeah… it’s their money they’re spending now
It’s crazy that when NASA signed a contract with Boeing in 2014 the ISS was scheduled to be de-orbited by the end of this year.
The contract itself was of middling success, it birthed a successful vehicle.
Boeing has proven itself to be an utter joke of a company. Not for the plug or even Starliner itself, but for their demonstrated ineptitude at even refining a mature concept and design. Starliner is a glorified and improved Apollo in concept; a gimme in terms of engineering. And Boeing lost that race, badly, to an upstart. How can Boeing credibly claim to develop an actual revolutionary product (say, a military space vehicle with independent travel capability) when they can neither build to their core competencies nor extrapolate from mature designs and well-understood technologies?
I posted this elsewhere but it’s applicable here:
Boeing in its current form is and will be unable to compete in the burgeoning commercial space market.
Starliner is the obvious example but Boeing also owns 50% of ULA. ULA had a lot of great ideas but Boeing (and Lockheed who owns the other 50%) did not have the vision, execution, or risk appetite to unlock that equity to fund development with venture capital to let ULA develop technologies beyond launch.
If they’re unable to see the market potential even with ULA chomping at the bit to develop Centaur into a capable in space tug vehicle then they’re not gonna see the other opportunities much less be able to execute on them.
I don’t know how trustworthy this article is, considering it’s written by a war criminal.