Boeing's Starliner Losses Top $2 Billion (spacenews.com) 36
After a $523 million charge on its CST-100 Starliner program in 2024, Boeing's total losses on the commercial crew vehicle now exceed $2 billion -- and there's still no clear timeline for its next flight. SpaceNews reports: In the company's 10-K annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Feb. 3, Boeing said it took $523 million in charges on Starliner in 2024. The company blamed the losses on "schedule delays and higher testing and certification costs as well as higher costs for post certification missions."
The company had reported a $125 million charge in the second quarter and a $250 million charge in the third quarter. The company warned Jan. 23 it would take an additional loss in the fourth quarter but did not disclose a figure when it released its financial results five days later. The annual loss implies a $148 million loss in the fourth quarter.
The $523 million in charges is the most Boeing has recorded in a single year on Starliner, exceeding $489 million it reported in 2019. The company's cumulative charges on Starliner are now just over $2 billion. "Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods," the company stated in the 10-K filing.
The company had reported a $125 million charge in the second quarter and a $250 million charge in the third quarter. The company warned Jan. 23 it would take an additional loss in the fourth quarter but did not disclose a figure when it released its financial results five days later. The annual loss implies a $148 million loss in the fourth quarter.
The $523 million in charges is the most Boeing has recorded in a single year on Starliner, exceeding $489 million it reported in 2019. The company's cumulative charges on Starliner are now just over $2 billion. "Risk remains that we may record additional losses in future periods," the company stated in the 10-K filing.
NASA is going to save them (Score:3)
NASA is going to save them with the money they will make with a Twitch stream,see previous article on the front page:
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
But to be serious: NASA's funding is currently being micromanaged by the CEO of their direct competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that's why they are looking for additional streaming revenue on social media. -)
Re: NASA is going to save them (Score:2)
I think the "their" in the above is "Boeing."
Re: (Score:1)
But to be serious: NASA's funding is currently being micromanaged by the CEO of their direct competitor.
Thank goodness for such a serious informed take! It fully explains Boeings little missteps! SpaceX technology is absolute fascist junk in comparison. Give Boeing a few more billion without strings attached - using a standard proven "cost plus" contract - and we'll soon have a winner! Let the adults take charge!
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that I think Boeing should be destroyed as a long standing monopoly poisoning the aerospace industry and one of the worst players in the military industrial complex does not mean I think the current obviously corrupt blight acting as the center of mass in the federal government is a good thing.
Why don't Boeing do their own development? (Score:2)
And they have done that, almost.
But AFAICT they have not even attempted to go beyond that. To make designs and even prototypes for a better Starliner 2, to invest their shareholders money in future vehicle development so that they have something to offer to NASA or other customers.
Is that not a bit short-sighted, given what their greatest competitor has done?
What *have* they done to show NASA that Boeing has better knowhow than other companies to make them wo
Re: Why don't Boeing do their own development? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why don't Boeing do their own development? (Score:5, Informative)
They are done. Same as with so many other companies including some of the big tech ones. It's not that the leadership is dumb or are only beancounters, it's not that there are no resources available, it's not that there are no smart people in the company, it's not that there are no ideas. It's just such a massive organization that any movement they make hurts. Any innovation they make get lost in the mountains of red tape. They don't have the energy for a new race, they are just done.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. The problem with Boeing is the MBAs and suits in charge put profits above engineering. They don't care about the longevity or success of projects. As long as the bottom line keeps increasing all is good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What innovation?
Boeing didn't do basic testing to ensure the clock on Starliner was tracking properly for the first failed flight.
They used flammable wire insulation that never should have made it near the capsule.
The parachute system had weaknesses that basic engineering practices should have caught.
And then there are the thruster problems. They caused a delay of the second test flight and a switch to a different capsule- and they still couldn't get them sorted.
You can't innovate if you can't even get basi
Re: (Score:1)
WRONG! Leon has a 1000 IQ and designed the entire thing before breakfast while riding to work in his fully self driving car powered by a background process in his frontal cortex via a neuralink chip while he played hardcore PoE2 in the back seat. LEON SKUM IS THE FUTURE!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense.
"That's how SpaceX does their thing. The hard work of their tech came from NASA and they've just been tweaking it here and there."
Nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, one of the 19-year-old kids he has rooting around our banking system right now doesn't know how to parse Json. The best and brightest people. The b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't understand how to do discussion.
Or how to google "Commerical Crew Program".
Re: (Score:3)
Like the man said, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table"
Re: (Score:2)
But again thou shalt not speak ill of thy Lord and Savior Elon. Especially since his bots are still floating around this website even after all these years. You'd think he'd have given up but I guess when you have unlimited money you can do things like pay people to troll websites that are long since irrelevant and pay them to boo
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you can't since you just pulled that shit out of thin air and is/was completely wrong so "Nonsense." is all that is needed there.
The reason Boeing is failing is that SpaceX designed there system from the ground up without NASA and it shows in the Falcon 9 launch cadence verses whatever Boeing is not doing. The days of big Aerospace riding NASA's coattails is over not only for them but for NASA as well as they are not even close to what they used to be ether.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic science research is ludicrously expensive and very often does not pay off for decades. Companies rely on the government to do that work using our taxpayer dollars because no company on earth is goi
Re: (Score:2)
That's how SpaceX does their thing. The hard work of their tech came from NASA and they've just been tweaking it here and there.
I'm no fan of Elon, but... what, exactly, was the NASA designed predecessor of Falcon 1 that SpaceX has "tweaked here and there?" Falcon 9? Starship? Merlin? Kestrel? Raptor?
You responded to the other guy for not citing sources when he said you were wrong, but you're the one making the claims, so [citation needed]. Personally, I think you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how SpaceX does their thing. The hard work of their tech came from NASA and they've just been tweaking it here and there.
Boeings having a hard time because SpaceX got an early lead by getting all the best engineers, who wanted to work for Musk because of his tech mystique. That might change here with how controversial he's become though. But he's got enough cash he can probably do the nVidia thing and just throw money at all the best engineers. There aren't that many of them after all. It's literally rocket science.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin have 10x the number of engineers at SpaceX. This isn't about engineering talent, it is about project goals, corporate culture, government funding, scope creep, development approach, and mismanagement. SpaceX has done a lot more than "tweaking" to make a reliable reusable 1st stage and to catch Starship with chopsticks. They attract talent because their culture allows rapid development through iterations and learning from failure. It's pretty exciting stuff. I doubt anybody is l
Re: (Score:2)
What happens in big companies is working on the IRAD team is an engineering perk and cronyism and all the large-corporation dy
Re: (Score:2)
Make the ceo pay (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Plutoblaspheme! Dump it on the plebeians.
Bear in mind the following (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a company that, for the last 25 years, has been focusing on the numbers next quarter. .
People say this as if it's a damning indictment again Boeing when pretty much every large company is run this way, including Boeing's competitors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Shareholder Value Über alles is pretty much the standard for every publicly held company. Boeing is not alone in this. Every criticism leveled at Boeing's methods... outsourcing, overreliance on MBA's, cost-plus accounting... every one of these things is standard practice for every large public company. Most of these
they're just too dumb (Score:2)
to lie down
BigCo Management (Score:2)
I suspect more could have been done by making an independent startup funded by Boeing, based on the startup concepts of Space X, with specifically hired and dedicated crew in the design, engineering & systems management phase.
When there are "too many fingers in the pot" the stew gets contaminated.