SpaceX was barely done bolting its launch tower together when it
stacked its mega rocket on a launch platform still hot from the welding
a couple days ago. Cowboy, perhaps.

SpaceX delivered Dragon 1 quickly. Dragon2 had some delays, but nothing
very dramatic, and they even had time to do cosmetic stuff like
futuristic interior and fashionable launch/entry suits.

Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner and SLS are taking years to get their act
together.

What intrigues me is that when you have a narrow window to launch to
Mars, Vulcan, Jupiter or other celestial body, NASA magically launches
on time. But for certain projects like SLS, it seems like interminable
delays.

Are these "make work" projects and NASA/politicians have no
incentive/intention to have deliverables because those are not critical
and prefer to stretch the pork $ over as many years as possible for job
creation purposes ?

Or is Boeing/ULA truly incapable of delivering Starliner or SLS?

Going forward, does this mean that whenver NASA needs something actually
done, it will go to SpaceX, and any work handed off to Boeing/ULA is
just the result of lobbying with no deliverables expected?

If there is a competitive bid with both Boeing and SpaceX winning
separate COTS contracts (eg Dragon/Starliner) does this now mean that
NASA will base its mission plans on SpaceX hardware because it is the
one that delivers while it will ignore Boeing from critical plath
planning because it can't expect deliverables from them?

In article <fVcPI.1622$805.1341@fx43.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
says...
>
> SpaceX was barely done bolting its launch tower together when it
> stacked its mega rocket on a launch platform still hot from the welding
> a couple days ago. Cowboy, perhaps.
>
>
> SpaceX delivered Dragon 1 quickly. Dragon2 had some delays, but nothing
> very dramatic, and they even had time to do cosmetic stuff like
> futuristic interior and fashionable launch/entry suits.
>
> Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner and SLS are taking years to get their act
> together.
>
>
> What intrigues me is that when you have a narrow window to launch to
> Mars, Vulcan, Jupiter or other celestial body, NASA magically launches
> on time. But for certain projects like SLS, it seems like interminable
> delays.

ULA, and now Falcon, launch interplanetery probes. That's why they
generally launch on time.

> Are these "make work" projects and NASA/politicians have no
> incentive/intention to have deliverables because those are not critical
> and prefer to stretch the pork $ over as many years as possible for job
> creation purposes ?
>
> Or is Boeing/ULA truly incapable of delivering Starliner or SLS?

SLS is cost plus, so little incentive there.

Starliner is fixed price, so Boeing doesn't collect money until they
reach certain milestones. I believe that they get a payout with a
successful uncrewed test flight to ISS.

> Going forward, does this mean that whenver NASA needs something
actually
> done, it will go to SpaceX, and any work handed off to Boeing/ULA is
> just the result of lobbying with no deliverables expected?

No. Government contracts are competitively bid.

> If there is a competitive bid with both Boeing and SpaceX winning
> separate COTS contracts (eg Dragon/Starliner) does this now mean that
> NASA will base its mission plans on SpaceX hardware because it is the
> one that delivers while it will ignore Boeing from critical plath
> planning because it can't expect deliverables from them?

No. Government contracts are competitively bid.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On 2021-08-06 13:11, Jeff Findley wrote:

> ULA, and now Falcon, launch interplanetery probes. That's why they
> generally launch on time.

Yes, but how come ULA can launch on time when it counts, but stretch
project indefinitely for others (giving impression they are unable to do
space stuff).

> No. Government contracts are competitively bid.

RFPs acan be shaped to favour the company with the larger lobbying budget.

JF Mezei is guilty of <fVcPI.1622$805.1341@fx43.iad> as of 8/6/2021
8:52:42 AM
> SpaceX was barely done bolting its launch tower together when it
> stacked its mega rocket on a launch platform still hot from the welding
> a couple days ago. Cowboy, perhaps.
>

Fit check.

S20 spent an hour on top, with 6 engines installed, then rolled back to
the nursery.

One of S20 or B4 is likely to move to Pad B for a little thrust
simulator exercise.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

In article <1oiPI.9021$Fx8.8782@fx45.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
says...
>
> On 2021-08-06 13:11, Jeff Findley wrote:
>
> > ULA, and now Falcon, launch interplanetery probes. That's why they
> > generally launch on time.
>
> Yes, but how come ULA can launch on time when it counts, but stretch
> project indefinitely for others (giving impression they are unable to do
> space stuff).

They're beholden to their parent companies, so only the things that the
parent companies approve of goes forward.

> > No. Government contracts are competitively bid.
>
> RFPs acan be shaped to favour the company with the larger lobbying budget.

When there is clearly more than one launch provider that's reliable,
that would be quite difficult to pull off and still remain within the
limits of US laws and US government procurement rules.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Thus spake JF Mezei:

> SpaceX delivered Dragon 1 quickly. Dragon2 had some delays, but nothing
> very dramatic, and they even had time to do cosmetic stuff like
> futuristic interior and fashionable launch/entry suits.
>
> Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner and SLS are taking years to get their act
> together.

Doing the suits was a whole different line on the GANTT charts, running
in parallel.

Even Elon notes that developing Dragon and developing Starship are very
different ... with people on board from the beginning, you can't be
blowing things up. Also, Dragon is smaller than CST100, with about
half the crew, which obviously means that the propulsion system has to
be bigger.

Where Boeing most obviously screwed things up was in software quality
control, which is part of what bit them with the 737Max.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

On Monday, Snidely yelped out that:
> Thus spake JF Mezei:
>
>> SpaceX delivered Dragon 1 quickly. Dragon2 had some delays, but nothing
>> very dramatic, and they even had time to do cosmetic stuff like
>> futuristic interior and fashionable launch/entry suits.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner and SLS are taking years to get their act
>> together.
>
> Doing the suits was a whole different line on the GANTT charts, running in
> parallel.
>
> Even Elon notes that developing Dragon and developing Starship are very
> different ... with people on board from the beginning, you can't be blowing
> things up. Also, Dragon is smaller than CST100, with about half the crew,
> which obviously means that the propulsion system has to be bigger.

Now that's an example of clear writing. /Starliner's/ propulsion
system has to be bigger.

> Where Boeing most obviously screwed things up was in software quality
> control, which is part of what bit them with the 737Max.
>
> /dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

JF Mezei noted that:
> SpaceX was barely done bolting its launch tower together when it
> stacked its mega rocket on a launch platform still hot from the welding
> a couple days ago. Cowboy, perhaps.
>
> Dragon2 had some delays, but nothing
> very dramatic, and they even had time to do cosmetic stuff like
> futuristic interior and fashionable launch/entry suits.

"On 20 April 2019, the Crew Dragon capsule used in the Demo-1 mission
was destroyed in an explosion during static fire testing at the Landing
Zone 1 facility.[70][71] "

(Wikipedia, of course, which notes that this delayed the in-flight
abort test and first crewed launch.)

These may also have been a valve issue, although as Chris Gebhardt at
NSF says, "I'd rather have Starliner's valve problem".

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

Snidely is guilty of <mn.352c7e589118751b.127094@snitoo> as of 8/6/2021
10:04:30 PM
> JF Mezei is guilty of <fVcPI.1622$805.1341@fx43.iad> as of 8/6/2021 8:52:42
> AM
>> SpaceX was barely done bolting its launch tower together when it
>> stacked its mega rocket on a launch platform still hot from the welding
>> a couple days ago. Cowboy, perhaps.
>>
>
> Fit check.

Oooh, you've passed up the chance point out that it was also a sordid
photo op!

-d

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013