Space Exploration

[JC5188]

No, I agree as well with the principle we possibly could have lost more people. I think Apollo 1 made us slow down just a bit and rethink a lot of items we were doing in that era. However, those lessons had been lost (or forgotten) by the time the Challenger disaster happened. Same thing to an extent with Columbia.

Regardless, NASA's budget is limited these days and we just saw the House turn down a supplemental request for the Artemis Program. Some was politics, some was because NASA didn't have their ducks in a row when they briefed the Appropriations Committee. However, I do think Jim Bridenstine put it best when he said "sometimes we move too slow and it costs more" or words to that effect.

Either way, with our history of spaceflight and the craft we've designed before, there is no reason we shouldn't have had a viable STS replacement soon after it was retired. It'll be close to nine years before humans are launched from US soil on a US designed and built craft. And, quite frankly, with their history, funding and technical know how, Boeing should have beaten the brakes off SpaceX in a human rated craft.

I tend to wonder if that $4.2 billion that was spent with Boeing might have been better put to use with SpaceX or Sierra Nevada and we could have had a working spacecraft by now.

Yeah I don’t disagree with any of what you just said.

[chuckman]

STS was designed well before the end of Apollo, they had a shuttle replacement midway through the shuttle's life.

We pay for whatever is important. Manned space flight, specially to the moon, ceased to be important.

[turnburglar]

We pay for whatever is important. Manned space flight, specially to the moon, ceased to be important.

It's only not important because no one else is doing it. If ANYONE else on the planet came up with a viable lunar return system, they could crash the global economy in a year. Boeing's SLS program was outdated when it was commissioned. I haven't looked in awhile but wasnt SLS supposed to move LESS payload than Saturn V? Nice step in the wrong direction, and it didn't even bring in the necessary innovations that both SpaceX and Blue origins and even a few other smaller companies have been able to stick. IMO SLS was Boeing's las cash cow for aerospace. They are simply not innovating like they should be, and as everyone else has pointed out; they cost BILLIONS more then the companies that are innovating. To me its just a display of how lobbyist and congress can get in bed together and ruin a perfectly good industry.

[Grand58742]

It's only not important because no one else is doing it. If ANYONE else on the planet came up with a viable lunar return system, they could crash the global economy in a year. Boeing's SLS program was outdated when it was commissioned. I haven't looked in awhile but wasnt SLS supposed to move LESS payload than Saturn V? Nice step in the wrong direction, and it didn't even bring in the necessary innovations that both SpaceX and Blue origins and even a few other smaller companies have been able to stick. IMO SLS was Boeing's las cash cow for aerospace. They are simply not innovating like they should be, and as everyone else has pointed out; they cost BILLIONS more then the companies that are innovating. To me its just a display of how lobbyist and congress can get in bed together and ruin a perfectly good industry.

Problem is, they tried to please a whole bunch of contractors and SLS isn't just being built by Boeing. It's with the ATK/Northrop (SRBs), Boeing (Core stage, Upper Stage) AND Lockheed (Orion craft). Hell, they're even bringing in Airbus for the Service Module.

In other words, quite a few Congressional districts represented. Everyone's happy...

[TehLlama]

Something Boeing didn't design or build. Inheriting a project/program can sometimes be more problematic than starting from scratch.

A bit off topic, but brain drain is something that affects many aerospace companies, when older more experienced engineers leave or retire. Smart kids can't replace experience, and sometimes it's that experience that catches the issues. There's a constant learning curve as people rotate out of programs and companies, and many companies don't have good knowledge transfer solutions that ensure enough overlap to bring the next generation of engineers up to speed.

This rocket/space stuff is risky and can be finicky, even with the best laid plans. I may seem a bit defensive of Boeing, just because I'm more familiar with the efforts that have gone into the Starliner program, but also have friends that work at SpaceX. Both cultures have their issues and there are certainly improvements that can be made. However, humans are fallible, and that's usually the common thread when failure happen. Someone missed something, a wrong decision was made etc.

The very particular windmill I intend to joust with for my career is precisely this - knowledge management in complex and cross-domain problem spaces is inherently hard, but absolutely worth it. There isn't a replacement for experience, but when you're stuck with inherently inept top level decision-making (for government programs, this means politicians) then you end up having ruinously expensive brain drain issues as a rule... and in more detail natural turnover makes it really hard.
In many regards, SpaceX got it very right that they couldn't buy enough expertise, so accepting failures and taking risks is still the fastest way to learn - that knowledge didn't originate out of nowhere anyway.


The used car analogy doesn't fit - more like trying to buy a contract to operate a cab company - except that the cabs have a multi-million part count, were conceptualized and designed before most of your workforce could commit a sentence to paper, and you're also somehow trying to please dozens of congresscritters simultaneously in order to keep operating funds coming in.

Being in this space professionally, as much as I personally feel that the 'make every district make a part' model has enormous amounts of hidden costs, particularly in aerospace where tightly coupled systems integration makes or breaks success of a project, it's not going away - but having large defense integration companies working that space comes with a massive overhead cost (traded for a bit of cash flow security for political cover), and not budgeting accordingly produces real issues.
This isn't somehow ruining an industry - this is just the way that industry is always pulled towards when there remains a fundamental need to maintain a skilled and specialized workforce that cannot be developed in a short timespan - in order to work within that requisite overhead you end up with lots of mergers, and those larger conglomerates are going to become very risk averse about funding horizons, and you end up where you are now.

[Grand58742]

In many regards, SpaceX got it very right that they couldn't buy enough expertise, so accepting failures and taking risks is still the fastest way to learn - that knowledge didn't originate out of nowhere anyway.

If memory serves, SpaceX ended up poaching a lot of talent from NASA and the "big boys" when they started since they were innovative and pushing creativity. A lot of their talent came from the "younger" ranks of ULA, Boeing, Lockheed and NASA that saw how bureaucratic the companies/NASA had become and bought into the freedom that came with "we can" instead of "no, you cannot."

They've certainly done some great things over the past decade by pushing beyond the norm and designing systems that weren't "traditionally" in the picture. Plus, Elon Musk being the driving force (I think he tends to go a bit overboard on his predictions, but they do tend to come true eventually) behind the projects helps a lot.

[Grand58742]

Something Boeing didn't design or build. Inheriting a project/program can sometimes be more problematic than starting from scratch.

A bit off topic, but brain drain is something that affects many aerospace companies, when older more experienced engineers leave or retire. Smart kids can't replace experience, and sometimes it's that experience that catches the issues. There's a constant learning curve as people rotate out of programs and companies, and many companies don't have good knowledge transfer solutions that ensure enough overlap to bring the next generation of engineers up to speed.

This rocket/space stuff is risky and can be finicky, even with the best laid plans. I may seem a bit defensive of Boeing, just because I'm more familiar with the efforts that have gone into the Starliner program, but also have friends that work at SpaceX. Both cultures have their issues and there are certainly improvements that can be made. However, humans are fallible, and that's usually the common thread when failure happen. Someone missed something, a wrong decision was made etc.

Unfortunately, there aren't enough aerospace companies around these days to seriously affect "brain drain." 30 years ago, moving from Northrop to General Dynamics because they were building something new or gave you carte blanche to create a new system is over. You really don't have a lot of choices these days, though space related companies seem to be on the rise.

Unlike a used car, there are only certain tests or check you can do on the ground to identify any issues. Testing is expensive. You're never going to identify or predict 100% of the potential problems that may come up; just the ones you think about. You really don't know what you don't know, and that's why crap happens when launching stuff into space. A better car example might be the 24 hr Le Mans race - even with all the preparation and testing that the manufacturers put into it, stuff still fails. There is only so much you can afford to test before an actual space launch. Issues that both Boeing and SpaceX have encountered is testament to the difficulty of space flight. Space history is dotted with both successes and failures.

Just because a company has been in the industry for decades doesn't mean that they'd have all issues licked. Technology constantly changes. Processes change. Manufacturing changes. People with experience retire. It's constant learning curve on ALL fronts. That's how innovation happens. If you have all problems identified, that means you've stagnated, and aren't pushing the envelope in all areas enough.

I missed your edit and this post.

I agree there are some serious issues with spaceflight as a whole as we've all seen tragedy and triumph in our lifetimes. To me, the problem stems from the fact the Constellation Program was put into development almost 15 years ago and Boeing would have been deficient had they not bid on it and had something on the drawing board as a minimum. Sure, tech/manufacturing and processes changed in that time, but overall, to me at least, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to pull out plans for such a machine, update them to the specific requirements in the RFP and put it into testing/production in a very short period of time.

And probably cheaper as well.

To me it just appears innovation isn't happening at the level it should be in the traditional big companies in aerospace. I'm sure it's happening, but only the "newer" companies are really pushing the boundaries of innovation. 10 years ago had you told Boeing, Lockheed or ULA we'd be regularly reusing the first stage of booster rockets they'd probably have chuckled before patting you on the head before sending you on your way. That's the kind of innovation they were missing. Not because it wasn't there, but because they didn't have to since there really were only two companies in the mix for it.

My opinion, of course.

[militarymoron]

TehLlama and Grand5874, good discussion and thank you for both your posts/thoughts/insights.

The aerospace 'giants' have both advantages and disadvantages over the smaller ones like SpaceX. Many aerospace smaller companies or sub-contractors are able to operate how the 'giants' used to 30 years ago - with more freedom and flexibility. In some of the big companies you can't just 'cowboy' solutions like a couple of decades ago - it's nuts how a seemingly 'simple' change can take a lot of time, people and money just to approve. Drawings have to be changed, review board meetings have to be held, every change needs to go through an approval process etc. However, I see why those things are needed; as I've seen the result of poor documentation, or when people who remember why something was changed have retired and no one else remembers.

It's more difficult to avoid the build up of bureaucracy that comes from growth than one might think. Think of any startup company that has young engineers wearing multiple hats ready to make a difference in the world. With growth comes organization, more layers, and if you don't have your own manufacturing capability; sub-contractors and vendors. SpaceX attracts a lot of really smart, young folk, but turnover is high when they start to have families and don't want to work the hours expected of them by Musk. I can see why working at SpaceX can be attractive; it's seen as cutting edge and exciting. It also has a charismatic CEO that attracts the younger folk. Boeing's Muilenburg (who is no longer CEO as of this morning) isn't that type of leader. I think that the closest thing that Boeing has to that (someone who inspires people) is Leanne Caret.

I've seen the smaller companies grow; and as as they do, eventually experience may of the same issues that the large companies have. Being more an integrator than manufacturer can bite a company in the butt; with late parts or quality issues. Sub-contractors bid low to get the jobs then can't deliver, so the prime contractor has to throw money at them or teach them how to do what they signed up to. You'd be surprised at how business is sometimes done, that defies common sense sometimes.

It doesn't surprise me that it may seem that innovation isn't happening at the big companies the same way it is at the smaller ones. Maybe you're right - the big ones have more to lose and are risk-aversive; they're not the underdogs. I just think they don't have the right leaders to change or drive the corporate culture. Working in aerospace can definitely be a bumpy ride sometimes, but you can work on some really cool stuff that makes it worthwhile.

[Grand58742]

MM, I think you used the word I was searching for yesterday in regards to Musk. He is charismatic. He certainly has the drive to make his dreams come true and brings others along with him to get it accomplished. I didn't know there was a lot of turnover in SpaceX, so lesson learned this morning.

One thing I can understand about Boeing, Lockheed, ULA and to a lesser extent Orbital ATK/Northrop is the risk analysis on such a project and bureaucratic issues that come with it. However, I do tend to think they could be more bold in terms of what they have going on, but they got "fat, dumb and happy" with being the only game in the government town for so long they feel they don't have to be innovative or look for ways of reducing cost. They were going to get the launch contracts because they were the only ones bidding.

Enter SpaceX who, again, did it faster, cheaper and with a fairly decent success rate for a relative upstart in the industry. You also have Blue Origin crashing the party as well (hopefully with the New Glenn soon) and making waves.

It's interesting to watch what's happening in the launch world in regards to new heavy lift systems. Of the four new systems, two (SpaceX and Blue Origin) have reusable components that should drive down costs over the life cycle of the system. The other two (Vulcan and Omega) don't have reusable components at the moment and will be more expensive since it is a single use system. ULA announced the SMART Reuse of the Vulcan first stage back in 2015, but not a peep since that time. Omega, save the SRBs, is entirely expendable.

One has to wonder if the newcomers in the field will end up pricing ULA out of the business if they don't evolve and adapt.

[militarymoron]

One thing I can understand about Boeing, Lockheed, ULA and to a lesser extent Orbital ATK/Northrop is the risk analysis on such a project and bureaucratic issues that come with it. However, I do tend to think they could be more bold in terms of what they have going on, but they got "fat, dumb and happy" with being the only game in the government town for so long they feel they don't have to be innovative or look for ways of reducing cost. They were going to get the launch contracts because they were the only ones bidding.

I can see why that may be the impression about the larger aerospace corporations from the outside; but all of them are fully aware that innovation is key, and that cost reduction (without compromising schedule, safety and quality) is paramount in order to stay competitive. Sometimes the focus is too much on cost reduction (to a fault IMHO); taking more risks etc, such that stuff can fall through the cracks in the push to meet schedule and budget. They may look 'fat, dumb and happy' from the outside, but talk to the people that work there and my guess is that you'll find that the message from upper management is that they need to be 'lean, innovative and competitive' in order to survive. There is no 'too big to fail', and if a company believes that, then they're not doing what is necessary to compete in the market, and they deserve to lie in the bed that they make.

I think that what SpaceX did with the Falcon9 is pretty awesome. It'll remain to be seen whether refurbishment costs can be kept under control to make it really cost-effective. There's no denying that Musk has balls, takes risks and pushes the envelope - just look at the Cybertruck. If I were a new grad, I'd want to work for an exciting company that tests the boundaries too. But, after a few years of working a LOT of unpaid overtime (expected of all SpaceX employees), I might begin to realize that a job is still just a job, and that time=money, and want to go somewhere that I'm paid for the all the time I put in. Musk is a workaholic and expects all his employees to be as well.

Found a link on glassdoor: https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Em...VW28647301.htm

It can be difficult to remain competitive and attract the best talent at the same time, and also retain them. It's a challenge that all companies will face; large or small.