
Internally, NASA believes Boeing ahead of SpaceX in commercial crew - okket
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/nasa-commercial-crew-analysis-finds-boeing-slightly-ahead-of-spacex/
======
hinkley
There are a lot of big organizations that seem to understand something that
few of us in the software industry ever did:

When you have one vendor they have no reason to give you any special
attention. They are min-maxing you against all of their other customers and if
you aren’t about to either Give them more money or take it away you fade into
the background.

If you have two vendors, they have to pay attention. They have to and get to
stay engaged.

If SpaceX is ahead or Boeing is ahead doesn’t matter. What matters if SpaceX
is still at the table. If they drop to third or fourth place then they have a
real problem.

NASA doesn’t want to give all their contracts to one vendor, and neither
should we. That makes things easy this year but fattens then for the
slaughter.

As long as Boeing is getting some noteworthy fraction of the contracts they
stick around as a goad for SpaceX to try harder. And SpaceX does the same for
Boeing.

~~~
ryanmercer
>If SpaceX is ahead or Boeing is ahead doesn’t matter. What matters if SpaceX
is still at the table.

Not only that but SpaceX is delivering commercial payload after commercial
payload to orbit while still TESTING new stuff on their rockets while they do
all the planning for ITS/BFR... how many launches has Boeing been doing while
designing SLS?

~~~
bikezen
That may be useful for stuff you can afford to lose, but during the same
period how many spacecraft have Boeing lost.

When a mission takes a decade to plan a build, you go with the launch vehicle
most likely to get you to destination successfully. Fail rates matter
immensely. You don't want a launch vehicle iterating on your launch.

~~~
civilitty
Whether or not NASA (and by extension Boeing) can afford to lose a mission
isn't dependent on how much it costs but on public relations and legislation.

Money has diminishing returns when it comes to mission success rates. A common
ballpark example I've heard from JPL PMs: you can spend $500 million on one
launch with a 95% chance of putting one satellite in orbit - or - you could
spend $250 million per launch on two launches, each with a 80% chance of
putting up one satellite. The probability of getting at least one satellite in
orbit with the latter scenario is ~96%, higher than than the $500mil/launch
option, with an 80% chance of saving 25-75% of the budget for the second
launch (depending on scheduling and staff retention costs for that mission).

The problem with the latter option is that the public is swayed more by the
absolute number of failures rather than the percentage, especially since
NASA's missions usually draw a lot of global publicity. This kind of public
pressure effects legislators and eventually starts changing the "cost-benefit"
analysis agencies like NASA do until they're chosing the one launch option
every time.

The SLS is inseparable as a project from NASA as far as the public is
concerned. Even though SpaceX is also heavily funded by NASA historically,
Musk's cult of personality has largely saved them from feeling the kind of
public pressure NASA has had to deal with in their usual missions. That
ability to experiment without PR consequences is invaluable but we'll have to
see whether their failure rate is big enough to scare away NASA for manned
missions.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
The numbers are even better than you're throwing out there. Gotta keep in mind
two big factors. A lot of the cost in these missions is not just the satellite
hardware but the R&D costs. And the second is that launches are insured, so
you'd need to compare the relative rate of insurance more than the expected
value of _fail rate x satellite cost_. I have no idea on insurance costs for
e.g. SpaceX vs Boeing launches but I'd be quite surprised if they're not
extremely comparable.

But yeah, I think you're really hitting at the heart of the problem that's
going to become even more troublesome once we start putting people on Mars.
There are a practically unlimited number of ways for something to go wrong.
And even if we do everything we possibly can, we're still playing an odds game
with extremely high stakes. A sensationalizing media and an ill informed
public creates a nasty mix for issues like this.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Insurance doesn't matter for this tradeoff, except maybe in the very short
term. If they fly with a high failure rate, their insurance price will go up.
At their price point, insurance companies pay attention.

~~~
cm2187
I assumed the parent meant that you don't get the benefit of a lower failure
rate until insurers have noticed a pattern of lower failures, so for rare
launches you might not achieve a financial benefit.

------
amacbride
...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."

~~~
mrep
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...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/nasa-commercial-
crew-analysis-finds-boeing-slightly-ahead-of-spacex/)

[1]: [https://qz.com/266665/the-us-will-spend-6-8-billion-
hiring-b...](https://qz.com/266665/the-us-will-spend-6-8-billion-hiring-
boeing-and-spacex-to-build-new-spacecraft/)

~~~
garmaine
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.

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

~~~
garmaine
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.

------
saulrh
I'm still impressed that SpaceX, with <20 years of experience, is even in the
same ballpark as Boeing and its 101 years.

~~~
mcguire
Check out how many of the Space X team have experience leading government
space contractors. ([https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/space-
exploration-te...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/space-exploration-
technologies/current_employees/current_employees_image_list#section-current-
team)). They're not going in raw.

------
dsfyu404ed
Having worked at one of Boeing's competitors (not in this specific industry
but a similiar one) I think I'd rather sit on top of the rocket built by the
big, old, slow defense contractor. I'd hard to overstate how much
consideration of making sure edge cases (for both hardware and software) don't
kill people is baked into the culture at these companies.

As a taxpayer I think the rocket that moves fast and breaks things is just
fine for nonhuman cargo.

~~~
avmich
There were recently a discussion about NASA insisting in loading propellants
when crew is already onboard, and opponents pointing out that it increases the
duration of crew sitting in the capsule during a dangerous process of fueling.

It could be a lot of consideration, but if some important area is overlooked,
then it's no guarantee safety will improve over some threshold.

Similarly in Russian Soyuz-2 rocket the 2.1b variant adds about 10% of payload
- but uses a much more stressed engine on the upper stage. That's the reason
Russians don't want to use that variant for manned flights - even though there
were lots of flights and rockets with engines like that certified for manned
flights.

~~~
taneq
> even though there were lots of flights and rockets with engines like that
> certified for manned flights

In the end, a certification doesn't actually mean the rocket won't explode,
just that it hasn't so far. For manned missions, certification is necessary
but arguably not sufficient.

------
neonate
The GAO report this is based on:
[https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf](https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf).

------
lukeify
I find it hard to treat news published by Eric Berger as objective, sadly. He
receives special treatment from SpaceX & Elon—for example, its arguable he
only had permission to interview Musk and attend the launch of FH from 39A
precisely because his articles mainly cast a positive light—and in turn, this
clouds his objectiveness when it comes to such reporting. It's quite a shame.

~~~
yashevde
If this allegation were true, it would definitely render the journalist
unreliable and ethically compromised. But, this article is in favor of Boeing,
not SpaceX, so I'm wondering what you're trying to say..?

------
Daycrawler2
I didn't know that Soyuz flights are scheduled to stop in 2019. I'm not
optimistic at all about all that. Manned missions are a whole new level, a
level where a single failure could mean the end the road either for SpaceX or
Boeing's space department. If I were to put my tinfoil hat on, I would even
suggest that Russia managed to deal the end of the Soyuz contracts for when
USA is ready to launch their own manned flights, but not reliably so,
therefore increasing the probability of them having an accident and looking
weak.

------
hector_ka
Sigh. [http://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-completes-thermal-vacuum-
te...](http://spacenews.com/crew-dragon-completes-thermal-vacuum-tests-ahead-
of-first-test-flight/)

~~~
rory096
This is for certification, not demonstration missions. That capsule is
scheduled for the unmanned DM-1 flight, after which will be the manned DM-2
flight, at which point SpaceX will submit its data for final certification in
advance of operations flights.

As an aside, the author (Eric Berger) is in no way biased against SpaceX -
he's one of the most overtly pro-SpaceX journalists around.

------
peter303
President Bush promised a shuttle replacement by 2014 when he canceled the
shuttle.

~~~
vkou
Obama cancelled Constellation, then backed the SLS disaster, and told everyone
NASA will be going to Mars in 2030.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that NASA will not be going anywhere
outside LEO in 2030.

If we are really lucky, it would stop with the manned space expedition charade
entirely, and do something useful with those billions of dollars, for a
change. Probes, robotics, ecosystem study.

~~~
ISL
If we are to leave the planet eventually, some level of skill at keeping
people in space is essential.

(N.B. I'm a scientist who would _love_ more dedicated robotic missions. Human
spaceflight is important, too.)

~~~
vkou
If, instead of sending 12 people to the moon, we took that money, and worked
on sending hundreds of robots to the moon...

We'd probably have more then zero people on the moon today. And better robots.
Or, at least, more than six people in space.

~~~
avmich
> We'd probably have more then zero people on the moon today.

Unfortunately the opposite could also be true - loss of interest to space
research, because, hey, they don't make anything perceivable...

In the awesome game "Bazz Aldrin's Race Into Space" if both (human) players
try to perfect the technology, to avoid costly failures with human flights and
stop flying for a while, at some point budgets get slashed and the game stops.
I suspect it could be a possibility in the real world. Fortunately, by now we
both depend on space enough and have enough technology to keep flying.

~~~
vkou
The benefit of using robots is that failures are less costly, and that you
don't have to stop flying if a mission fails.

~~~
avmich
Robots do have a lot of benefits in space. Lots of them weren't obvious in
1950-s, but robots came a long, long way since then.

So apparently did manned spaceflight. Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen, Ansari,
Simonyi, Garriot, Laliberte flights demonstrate it's much more within reach
now than before. Same could be said regarding private makers of rockets,
spacecrafts and even space stations. Not only we see the push to increase the
new industry, with new services to humanity and new taxes to governments -
we're actually learning to do things in the environment (the learning itself
happens there) which is quite different from where we evolved in.

And when we talk about actually living in space - including doing really
complex things, like unexpected actions across the specter of what might be
needed when you're actually trying to be successful for long periods of time -
many robotics specialists, last time I've checked, admit that human flights
are actually less costly than robotic ones. In other words, if you want to
have a big enough exploration program for space, you ought to include people
into that.

Fortunately flying to space becomes easier as we learn more.

------
diakritikal
Forgive my ignorance on the subject but how can Boeing be ahead if they don't
have any rockets?

~~~
Sharlin
SpaceX has no human-rated launch vehicle either as of now. But this article is
about the spacecraft, SpaceX's Dragon 2 and Boeing's Starliner, not the launch
vehicles. The Starliner is to be compatible with multiple launchers, including
human-rated variants of Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9.

------
timb07
Is the Boeing team that worked on the schedule for the 787 Dreamliner involved
in this schedule?

------
vectorEQ
so many billions wasted just because they don't want to play along with russia
:')

------
stcredzero
This headline is another example of biased news pushing a narrative.

~~~
abadaba
Not disagreeing with you, just genuinely curious: how is this headline biased?

Do you mean that the margins are thinner than one might expect by reading it?

~~~
stcredzero
The margins are meaningless at this point.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510611](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510611)

