SpaceX Becomes NASA's Second-Largest Vendor, Surpassing Boeing (arstechnica.com) 55
NASA obligated $2.04 billion to SpaceX in fiscal year 2022, which ended last month, according to new federal procurement data. For the first time, the amount paid by the space agency to SpaceX exceeds that paid to Boeing, which has long been the leading hardware provider to NASA. Boeing received $1.72 billion during the most recent fiscal year, based on data first reported by Aviation Week's Irene Klotz. Ars Technica reports: The California Institute of Technology, which manages the Jet Propulsion Laboratory field center for NASA, remains the agency's No. 1 contractor, with $2.68 billion in funding. The academic institution is responsible for operating the California-based NASA field center and distributing funding for myriad robotic spacecraft missions such as Mars Perseverance and the Europa Clipper. On the one hand, the ascension of SpaceX to the No. 2 spot on NASA's contractor list represents a major shakeup in the order of things. For a long time, NASA's human spaceflight and exploration programs were dominated by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Aerojet, Northrop Grumman, and a handful of other traditional defense aerospace contractors.
However, it should come as no surprise that a company that has recently delivered the most services -- and, arguably, value -- to NASA should start to receive a large share of its contract awards. This has been most notable with SpaceX's performance on Commercial Crew, NASA's program to buy transportation services from private companies to bring its astronauts to and from the International Space Station. NASA awarded contracts to Boeing and SpaceX in 2014 to develop their spacecraft, paying Boeing about 60 percent more. At the time, it was widely believed that the traditional contractor, with this additional money, would deliver services sooner. But it was SpaceX that first flew crew to the space station in May 2020, and the company has since launched five operational missions to the orbiting laboratory. [...] Much of the funding increase for SpaceX in 2022, an increase of about $400 million over the previous year, appears to be driven by contracts for the Human Landing System as part of the Artemis Moon Program and the purchase of additional Crew Dragon missions to the space station. (Individual contracts can be found within the Federal Procurement Data System).
However, it should come as no surprise that a company that has recently delivered the most services -- and, arguably, value -- to NASA should start to receive a large share of its contract awards. This has been most notable with SpaceX's performance on Commercial Crew, NASA's program to buy transportation services from private companies to bring its astronauts to and from the International Space Station. NASA awarded contracts to Boeing and SpaceX in 2014 to develop their spacecraft, paying Boeing about 60 percent more. At the time, it was widely believed that the traditional contractor, with this additional money, would deliver services sooner. But it was SpaceX that first flew crew to the space station in May 2020, and the company has since launched five operational missions to the orbiting laboratory. [...] Much of the funding increase for SpaceX in 2022, an increase of about $400 million over the previous year, appears to be driven by contracts for the Human Landing System as part of the Artemis Moon Program and the purchase of additional Crew Dragon missions to the space station. (Individual contracts can be found within the Federal Procurement Data System).
Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Starship (Score:1, Insightful)
For the price of one throwaway SLS flight to put one vagina on the moon, Starship could take 100 there ( and bring the hot ones back ). And do it again and again and again.
Launch Artemis 1, then PULL THE PLUG on the gross wastage that is DinosaurSLS.
Re: Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Stars (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Stars (Score:5, Informative)
I just wish Bezos' efforts weren't so lame. Blue Origin is doing a very good job of demonstrating the difference between a billionaire-funded space company and a billionaire-engineer-funded space company.
Re: Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Stars (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
NASA's job must be to design and fund the cheap science missions ( no need to spend billions on weight optimisation ) to run up that road. I hope they have already planned a few, but AFAICT we haven't seen any yet.
I hope Musk doesn't get too distracted by making Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
"Blue Origin is doing a very good job of demonstrating the difference between a billionaire-funded space company and a billionaire-engineer-funded space company"
Blue Origin is demonstrating the difference between a billionaire-funded space company and a VC-funded space company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Stars (Score:4, Interesting)
Tell Boeing it has to provide service at SpaceXs price, and watch the innovation come back to Boeing.
It's not that easy. Broken engineering organisations are almost unfixable because they don't know why they are broken and normally the things they do to try to fix themselves are more of whatever they have been doing that breaks them. E.g. "focus on value" where the senior members of the company don't actually understand what is special about their own company. From what I've got by osmosis, fixing Boeing would involve undoing the whole evil that the McDonnell Douglas merger caused in which a primarily engineering culture was replaced with a back stabbing and commercial culture.
Starting a new engineering company in that kind of situation is also incredibly difficult, though maybe it's easier than fixing Boeing? The various other space ventures apart from SpaceX don't show that much hope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just about everyone in the industry knows why Boeing is going down the shitter: The merger with McDonnell Douglas was effectively a reverse acquisition, where lousy McDonnell Douglas execs ended up in charge after the merger and blew up Boeing's engineering and safety culture in pursuit of short term profits. But there is path dependence here: You can't just fix it by firing those people.
Re: (Score:2)
...and now Blue Origin has Boeing people running around.
Now there's an incredibly interesting comment. You presumably mean post MD Boeing management? not former Boeing engineers? The lesson will be interesting. I predict that if it's the former they will kill it and if it's the latter they will save it. This will be a very interesting judgement on Bezos.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's problem is it stopped being run by engineers and engineering priorities
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing's problem is it stopped being run by engineers and engineering priorities
Speaking as a person who sometimes has "engineer" in his job title and very occasionally even justified that ("an engineer is a person who can do for 50p what any fool can do for £1") I think we should be really careful about putting it about that we think that's having engineers run the company is the only way. Steve Jobs wasn't an engineer but from what I can make out he managed to make space for engineers to make sure things were done properly whilst fooling his competitors into thinking everything
Re: Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Star (Score:2)
That's a great way of explaining it. I'm not an engineer, but I know enough to built tools and speak easily with engineers. With one exception, my managers have been non-technical. So long as I can pitch to my boss, control costs, and deliver then he'll let me get on with it. He trusts my judgment on the technical side like I trust him to navigate politics and help me ensure my work is correctly focused.
I've seen what happens when a non-technical manager gets captured by engineers, being unable to steer the
Re: (Score:1)
The money for SLS was all spent on good causes, being the people that were employed.
Re:Good. Now junk SLS, plan how to best use Starsh (Score:5, Informative)
The money for SLS was all spent on good causes, being the people that were employed.
Broken window fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The money for SLS was all spent on good causes, being the people that were employed.
Broken window fallacy.
The broken window fallacy does not apply. What is really being purchased is the continued existence of the infrastructure and expertise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The traditional solution is to pay one person to dig a hole, and a second to fill it back in. Two jobs created -- plus the shovel maker! -- and they're using skills that somebody else might care about.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of thinking that will get us to the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
or the price of one throwaway SLS flight to put one vagina on the moon, Starship could take 100 there ( and bring the hot ones back ). And do it again and again and again.
Starship has to prove itself first. We're not there yet. And that first SLS flight is already a sunk cost.
Re: (Score:1)
<quote><p>or the price of one throwaway SLS flight to put one vagina on the moon, Starship could take 100 there ( and bring the hot ones back ). And do it again and again and again.</p></quote>
<p>Starship has to prove itself first. We're not there yet. And that first SLS flight is already a sunk cost.</p>
</quote>
Which is why I wrote the bit WHICH YOU CLIPPED:
"Launch Artemis 1, then PULL THE PLUG on the gross wastage that is DinosaurSLS."
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot fucked up the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
And that first SLS flight is already a sunk cost.
Tangent, I know, but every time I hear that term I can't help thinking about this line in The Good Place [wikipedia.org], Mondays, Am I Right? [fandom.com] (s4e11): :-)
Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell): Oh, I know what it was. In my defense, I didn't realize he was my boyfriend's twin until halfway into hooking up with him, and at that point, you know, it's a sunk cost.
Re: (Score:2)
For the price of one throwaway SLS flight to put one vagina on the moon, Starship could take 100 there ( and bring the hot ones back ). And do it again and again and again.
Do you always have to ruin what could be an interesting technical discussion by your need to broadcast what a disgusting misogynist you are?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always the same with you. You just can't help frequently inserting something sexist or misogynist into your posts when it has nothing to do with the subject. You have to recognize that it's pathological on your part. I'm just trying to tell you that it contributes nothing to the conversation. It's kind of weird to see everyone else just talking around it like you're the crazy racist and/or misogynist uncle who comes to thanksgiving and everyone just ignores their outbursts because they're "old and set
Re: (Score:1)
I oppose sexism and tokens, like NASA's First Vagina On The Moon and if that triggers you, TOUGH.
Go back to your safe space, you fucking hateful weirdo.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it not create any cognitive dissonance at all calling me hateful while you spew all that? We don't even disagree on the fundamental point about SLS being a waste (it's kind of obvious). For some reason you have to poison the discussion with your weird obsession that has pretty much nothing to do with the subject. Then you respond with what seems to be the go to tactic for US conservatives these days: try to turn it around on the person calling you out. If they call out your racism, call them racist. If
Re: (Score:2)
That makes you a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT, you HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
It is not a DISCUSSION, it is you being a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Want to discuss sexism ? Then do it without being a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Re: (Score:2)
You called me, QUOTE: "a disgusting misogynist", you HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
That makes you a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT, you HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
It is not a DISCUSSION, it is you being a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Want to discuss sexism ? Then do it without being a HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Causes you no cognitive dissonance whatsoever? You really are detached from reality. Can you explain what your third-grade level "girls are icky, but I want to look up their skirts" sexism actually has to do with space travel? Your behavior conjures images of either a bitter, angry incel, or possibly a bitter, angry person on the autism spectrum who had a relationship, but destroyed it and is now perpetually bitter about it ending and is convinced it was all her fault. Especially if you were married and she
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, you HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Re: (Score:2)
You're projecting your weird shit on others, you creepy stalker.
Slashdot is a forum. A lot of the same people post here repeatedly. You're one of them. It's not stalking to note that you frequently insert weird misogynist rants into your posts. If you want anonymity, post as AC. Otherwise, people are going to take note of your strange behavior.
Fuck off, you HATEFUL WOKE CUNT.
Ah, so intelligent and well reasoned. Maybe try to grow up a little bit? You make yourself sound ridiculously immature.
Re: (Score:2)
Go and get some help for your mental problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think this "I'm rubber and you're glue..." bit actually accomplishes anything. I've said it before, but it bears repeating, you come off sounding like a child when you do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it before, but it bears repeating, you're a HATEFUL WOKE STALKING WEIRDO CUNT.
Re: (Score:2)
You still sound like a child. I mean, you're very clearly autistic, but that's not really an excuse. You should still seem like you should have the basic intelligence to understand how unproductive your approach is, but you keep at it anyway. It's sort of scary to think about whether I could have ended up like you. I mean, sure I'm in a prolonged discussion thread with you, which is bad enough. It's just so bizarre how, in some of your posts you seem quite rational, then suddenly a big heap of crazy seems t
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'm bored now. You can have the last psycho word. Make sure you use lots of cod psychology and position yourself as a warrior for social justice while BEING A FUCKING NUTCASE.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it before before, but it bears repeating, you're a HATEFUL WOKE STALKING WEIRDO CUNT.
Really, am I doing weirdo things like randomly capitalizing things and writing like I have a case of coprolalia?
Okay, I'm bored now. You can have the last psycho word. Make sure you use lots of cod psychology and position yourself as a warrior for social justice while BEING A FUCKING NUTCASE.
"cod psychology"? I mean, I know that's got to be a typo, but now I'm picturing a fish on a couch. Anyway, I'm hardly being a "warrior for social justice" by pointing out that you're being a misogynist. Just identifying that you were being a jerk (and really creepy) is hardly any great feat.
It was about time (Score:2)
It was about time, NASA has been paying Boeing much more money for less, with the only excuse being that they are "experiences" and "lower risk". They gave Boeing almost twice the money for the Crew program, making SpaceX basically their backup, and the latter delivered years earlier and is now how NASA astronauts fly...
Boeing has nothing to do with the company that was unfortunately (I guess the McDonnell merger was the turning point), it is a waste of taxpayer money to keep funding them. SpaceX needs comp
100% agree (Score:3)
They need to ditch all non-reusable systems. Even a billionaire won't waste money on one-time use cars, why should taxpayers pay to throw away a rocket after a single use? Boeing, Lockheed, and other NASA contractors ran a good scam for over 60 years. If only automobile manufacturers had known government was so stupid they wouldn't have made cars reusable! Anyway, I'm not saying NASA should double down on SpaceX, but they should tell Boeing and whoever else wants to sell rockets that we're only buying reusable rockets from now on.
Re:100% agree (Score:4, Insightful)
The winning bidder will almost certainly be using reusable craft - instead of, ooh, THROWING AWAY four REUSABLE shuttle engines at $146 million each !
Re: (Score:2)
The winning bidder will almost certainly be using reusable craft - instead of, ooh, THROWING AWAY four REUSABLE shuttle engines at $146 million each !
Boeing's solution to that embarrassment is to put four reusable shuttle engines on the launch platform and leave them there forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a billionaire won't waste money on one-time use cars, ...
Sure, but how about a sink [theguardian.com]? :-)
That pun cost him [Musk] $44 billion.
-- Jimmy Fallon
Big contrast. (Score:2)
The two biggest suppliers are a company learning how to build re-usable rockets and a company who have forgotten how to build airliners.
Why SpaceX succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reading the various comments, and it's important to note why SpaceX has surpassed Boeing. It's because they weren't joined at the hip to NASA in the way Boeing was (at least far as Boeing's spaceflight division). Never forget, NASA is a government bureaucracy. That means that most any major project NASA is involved with turns into an insane political pork barrel, coupled with ridiculous demands from defense agencies like the Air Force and even CIA.
Take the Space Shuttle for example, where this and that had to be manufactured in various states across the country in order for the senators and representatives from those states to sign off on the program. Then you have additional demands placed on the design by the military and intelligence branches. Originally, the Air Force was expected to have their own fleet of Space Shuttles purely for military use!
SpaceX was able to engineer and innovate without those kinds of influences, and the results speak for themselves. It was about efficiency and profitability, both of which are low priorities for both NASA and Boeing relative to other political and safety factors.
Fortunately, it looks like SpaceX is so successful commercially that they have the income and clout independent of NASA to prevent them from ending up like Boeing. Ideally SpaceX does not even need NASA going forward, and that's how it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time, it was widely believed that the traditional contractor, with this additional money, would deliver services sooner.
I did a spit take when I read this. You got to be kidding me.
Re:Why SpaceX succeeded (Score:4, Informative)
I think your post would have more merit if Boeing was showing any competence in their Commercial Airplanes division, where they are as free to design their planes as they were for the later half of the 20th century when they were doing a stellar job.
I don't see how the multiple issues they've had with the Crew program are an issue because of NASA - at least in that program they've had to deal with the same bureaucracy as SpaceX and they were paid more at the same time. It seems more like their internal processes and engineering is at fault, similar to what has been going on at BCA and we had the MAX debacle (and the less deadly 787 issues before that).
Re: Why SpaceX succeeded (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to conciously hold the government at arm's length. That's hard to do if you (want to) see yourself as one of the Washington DC insiders club. I'm always being contacted by consultants who want to help me bid government jobs. With the requisite truck-load of compliance paperwork that goes along with it. I say, "Just grab a shopping cart, fill it and get in line like the rest of my customers do." They don't like it, but they do it. And I'm not here to make freinds. Just sell shit.
Boeing (even before McDonnell-Douglas) was always an also-ran in the eyes of Pentagon brass. "Sure, kid. We'll let you bid on the next-gen fighter contract too. Ha, ha!" Boeing always did better when they offered stuff to the government that they were good at building. Want a KC-135? No problem. But if you don't buy them, we'll just badge them as 707s and sell them to United.
Re: Why SpaceX succeeded (Score:1)
Whoever was responsible for that decision - and I suspect it was NASA - made it a dead-end project.
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle could fly unmanned. The gear and pitot tubes were only deployable manually for safety, but those wouldn't be hard to automate.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was a failure because it cost hundreds of millions of dollars per launch. They had to refurbish/manually inspect too many things in between launches. Every launch was a drama.
Re: (Score:1)
Get it now ?
oh (Score:1)
NASA needs to encourage more competition (Score:2)