Hacker News Reader

Comment by amacbride | Hacker News Reader

...by a little bit (mostly due to Boeing's greater familiarity with NASA paperwork requirements.)

"Based on NASA's "schedule risk analysis" from April, the agency estimates that Boeing will reach this milestone sometime between May 1, 2019, and August 30, 2020. For SpaceX, the estimated range is August 1, 2019, and November 30, 2020. The analysis' average certification date was December, 2019, for Boeing and January, 2020, for SpaceX."

View on HN

Based on the linked GAO report, it doesn't even seem like the "little bit" is justified, nevermind the headline that Boeing is in any way meaningfully "ahead". The point of the GAO report is not to assess Boeing's and SpaceX's progress, but to assess NASA's ability to manage the project and its contractors.

From page 10:

> Boeing and SpaceX continue to make progress developing their crew transportation systems, but both contractors have further delayed the certification milestone to early 2019. These changes have occurred as the contractors continue to work to aggressive schedules, and they have had to delay key events regularly. Further delays are likely as the Commercial Crew Program’s schedule risk analysis shows that the certification milestone is likely to further slip.

> In addition, as of mid-June 2018, NASA officials told us that these dates may change soon but that both contractors have not yet provided official updates to their schedules to NASA...While NASA has begun to discuss potential options, it currently does not have a contingency plan for how to ensure an uninterrupted presence on the ISS beyond 2019*

A better headline would be:

NASA can't tell how late Boeing and SpaceX will be with commercial crew

Also probably because "Boeing asked for, and got, 50 percent more funding for the same task" [0]. Despite the mythical man month, 50% more funding on a 5/6 year (current estimate) project can pay your way ahead of the competition on almost any project (that is a really really long time!).

Considering the timeline difference is only 10% (6 months spacex is behind based on 5 year delivery), I would expect Boeing to be much further ahead of spacex than they currently are.

Sounds like spacex will be the real winner in the end IMO due to future contracts as a 50% savings ($1.6 Billion in this case [1]) to wait 10% more time is totally worth it in almost every case.

[0]: from the article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/nasa-commercial-crew...

[1]: https://qz.com/266665/the-us-will-spend-6-8-billion-hiring-b...

SpaceX, on the other hand, is pouring a lot of their own money into shared systems used by the contract. On the third hand, SpaceX is developing both the rocket and capsule, whereas Boeing is using an off-the-shelf ULA vehicle. Boeing's is expendible, SpaceX is making theirs reusable.

Really, it's apples to oranges.

Put like that the fact they are a couple of months behind on an estimate is a massive win for spacex

Yes, but I'd agree with the headline even if it wasn't supported by the article. If I were a betting man I'd place better odds on Boeing making the deliverable date (or slipping by less) than SpaceX. Boeing has a tendency to promise something reasonable, and so long as there's no requirement creep, deliver more or less on schedule. SpaceX has a history of promising the impossible, then actually delivering on it many years late. Based on that alone I'd rather place money on Boeing delivering on time than SpaceX, as much as I really do love SpaceX.

> NASA's "schedule risk analysis"

Last time I looked at this, the firms set their own milestones. So for one, Boeing's milestone deliverable was a PowerPoint presentation; SpaceX's was a crew abort demonstration.

Welcome to the world of government contracting where success depends much more on your ability to work the system then your ability to deliver anything.

>> the world of government contracting

After watching the documentary on the joint strike fighter competition I just think of Boeing as a lobbying organization that happens to make planes.

If you're in the business of making and selling airliners, that's what you have to be. It's why Airbus needed government money to get started: it wasn't just the money they needed, they needed expert diplomats to have some skin in the game for the launch of a credible competitor in that sector to the US manufacturers.

Boeing in the UK has an interesting reputation right now: they were involved in the MoD's bungling of an upgrade to Chinook firmware [1], and stepped in to pick up a contract worth hundreds of millions to basically make some small changes, run the compiler, and put the result on the machines.

The MoD were so embarrassed they basically let Boeing bully them into becoming a full stack outsource service provider on these things. Boeing now run full-page adverts in various news magazines (The Week, The Economist, etc.), explaining why they are so important to the UK and how much they love to "invest" in the UK around the Chinooks.

Eight machines that have opened the door to Boeing being a very central part of the MoD, British Army and RAF for the foreseeable future...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jun/04/military.defence

In their defense aerospace is a sector where governments and state-linked mega-corps are probably the largest customer base, especially for high-end gear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com