Boeing Won't Build CST-100 On Its Own
Boeing Preparing Layoff Notices in Case of Commercial Crew Loss, SpaceNews
“Hoping for the best, but preparing for defeat, Boeing will send out about 215 potential layoff notices to employees currently working on its NASA CST-100 Commercial Crew program. The 60-day notices, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), are due to be distributed on June 20 to about 170 employees in Houston and 45 in Florida in case Boeing is not selected for an upcoming Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract, Boeing spokesman Adam Morgan told SpaceNews.”
Keith’s note: So much for any thought that Boeing was ever interested in investing any significant company funds for their CST-100.
Interesting but far from an unexpected development.
In truth, I can understand Boeing’s approach. They are in this program to provide a service to NASA however it is surprising that they actually entered when:
1. They were not going to treat it as a competition.
2. They would have known upfront that the outcome was not a guaranteed NASA contract but guess they ignored that aspect or perhaps believed they were a shoo-in.
3 They actually had to put some skin in the program although how much, I’m not sure other than NASA has ‘complained’ that it’s less than other competitors. Think that may be relative to the size of NASA contributions.
This also highlights significant differences between Boeing and their competitors. TTBOMK SpaceX and SN are not issuing similar notices to their employees. Why not? I’ll leave the answer to astute fellow bloggers.
Oh well.
Cheers
Its a class act. they provide notice of potential layoff even if the WARN act employee levels don’t require it. As far as skin in the game, I got to see their Structural Test Article outside of Bldg 16 awhile back. Different approach that Orion but really cool and reliable design as well.
I agree. The forward bay cover and docking tunnel arrangement like in Apollo may seem a little less space efficient but it keeps the landing hardware and parachutes neatly packaged and avoids having to have the harness running along the outside of the vehicle, and leaves more space in the aft compartment.
Looks like Boeing is playing the victim card to Bolden: pick us or else. Either that or they want Slugger Shelby to come and bat for them, as per usual.
Yep. Boeing is echoing that classic National Lampoon cover – “Buy this Magazine or We’ll Shoot this Dog!”
SN or SpaceX will hire them.
Year 2020
We just launched from Texas. Dream Chaser has just seperated from falcons main booster after already dropping a first side booster. Both stages are headed back to Texas for a soft landing.
We are headed to Robert Bigelows orbiting outpost. Ahead we can see it! Cool! Docked to the other port is Spacex’s V2. Some of us will be leaving to be the first tourists to see the “dark side lol” of the moon.
I take it that CST-100 will only fly on Atlas. Will SN be capable of flying on Falcon? I haven’t kept up but I know it was originally supposed to fly on Atlas. I wonder if the towers (either Altas’s or SpaceX’s) can be designed to accommodate their capsules plus Dream Chaser too. The crew hatches may be in different locations.
So NASA needs to be looking ahead. What is the (just to compare apples and apples) the costs per astronaut to fly on V2 vs CST-100 vs SN (on Atlas and on Falcon), not including Falcon 1st stage reusability savings?
Of course, Falcon reusability and potential increased Atlas engine costs change the metrics even further.
Perhaps Boeing and SpaceX are pointing out the obvious: The commercial crew market for CST-100 is not there on any LV–the only market is ISS HSF. Cargo/crew dragon on Falcon may be the front runner. Falcon may reduce the cost from 60 to 30M in the near term per launch. Atlas is 100M to 500M. Divide by 10..how many seats will be sold? By 10×10?
Contrast CST-100 vs SLS/Orion. CST-100 lands on land (and water if it misses its target) and stays in LEO. $M vs $B. Yet the “architecture” excludes COTS from BEO.
Perhaps they do no see a steady supply of capsules being required by the USG and do not want to provide their own skin in the game to recover the investment. Perhaps BEO has more rewards than a LEO only spacecraft with limited government funding for both the spacecraft and LV.
Perhaps its time to combine SLS/Atlas/Delta into a cheaper alternative and modify the architecture to include the ‘commercial’ alternatives?
Perhaps lol
CST-100 can fly on Falcon 9 and Boeing has stated that they may go that route to reduce costs. I believe Dream Chaser can only fly on Atlas.
I had heard that dream chaser could fly on falcon 9 but not falcon 9 R. To heavy to have enough fuel to do the return thing. But not sure?? ???
Doug you answered before fixed typo
DC definitely cannot fly on F9R, but it may be able to fly on the expendable version, depending on how heavy it actually is and how heavy the interstage it requires is. but even on F9R, if it’s at the top end of that range, it still may not be able to get to the orbital inclination of the ISS.
so it -might- need the Falcon Heavy to get to the ISS. however, in that case, the FH is massively overpowered to launch DC, so it’s possible that if they do have to launch with FH, then all 3 FH cores could be recovered.
DOUG
I have heard it suggested that Spacex could fly a version of falcon that only flies two boosters, falcon heavy minus one booster, a falcon 18 R. If this is possible, it makes all kinds of sense. How many times will Elon let a customer pay full price to sink a booster when he could have two more in the hanger ready for flight two.
Also what will follow dragon V2???
V3
V3 will carry 30 to forty people or lots of cargo. Maybe it will have wings or lifting body landing like dream chaser.
Dream Dragon 🙂
Dream Dragon would normally land on runways, but could land like Dragon V2 as well
To make commercial work we need more people in space cheaper. More seats per launch
Falcon 18 doesn’t make any kind of sense. it would just tip over due to uneven thrust. it would crash.
Just like the shuttle would tip over you can gimble engines you know or center the second stage over the two boosters.
“or center the second stage over the two boosters.”
You could except then you would need an elaborate interstage piece to join the tops of the two first stage boosters to the bottom of the second stage. The interstage piece would add weight. An interstage piece is not needed when using strap-on boosters.
Also if using two first stage boosters they both would have to stay attached for the duration of the first stage launch phase. Whereas strap-on boosters can be dropped off earlier while the core stage is still burning, saving weight.
A better idea might be to use two smaller strap-on boosters based on either Falcon 1 or Falcon 5 design.
even with gimballing the engines to the max, the center of pressure would be way too far off vertical. you’d still have severely unbalanced thrust. it would flip over and crash.
see here for more details: http://exploration.grc.nasa…
a Falcon Heavy with one side core removed would not be able to fly in a straight line, it would not be stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Look at the second one from the right.
i can guarantee you that no rocket engineer drew that. some PR guy who doesn’t know how rockets work likely drew that.
look up “center of pressure” and “center of thrust” and what they mean for rocket flight.
Wow, this thread really hits home regarding how much of a pickle DC is in for an LV. To do Falcon would require a configuration that not only isn’t man-rated, but has never flown. Can’t fly on Delta IV or IV-H because of man-rating issues. And as for Atlas, it’s in the oh-so-not-needed political football stance. I daresay there is much hand-wringing at Sierra Nevada right now.
i’ve heard speculation that (since they are collaborating with the ESA) they might launch DC on an Ariane 5
Boeing and everyone else is in it for one reason, profit, money, mulah, denero, cash, ….
I like Boeing, but here they bring the least to the table of the three competing and it looks like are willing to invest the least. It is certainly in our short term interests to fund the other two.
It is far from certain that a market exists, or will come into being, for human space flight. Musk is betting on significantly reduced prices bringing it about (and that he can significantly reduce those prices, of course).
It would have been pretty surprising for any big corporate to take such a gamble. Any exec associated with such a project would be ending their career if it failed. And arguably, they have no business risking shareholder capital.
But if Musk and the rest succeed, expect Boeing to pile in with a competent me-too offering.
Corporations risk shareholder capital all the time. The question is never risk, per se, but whether the risk is undue or not.
Your right of course. I wasn’t precise.
Doing any business entails financial risk – its unavoidable and has to be managed.
But this is avoidable, speculative business and therefore unwarranted risk (a gamble). I’m certain Boeing’s execs see it that way and that that’s what they mean when the talk about ‘closing the business case’.
I wonder what impact Elon Musk’s Dragon V2 had on that decision?
The V2 seems incredibly capable – as a lander, crew compartment, safety rocket and even Mars vehicle.
This is why there are dozens and dozens of articles written about SpaceX every month and practically none about Boeing’s thingamacallit.
I guess Boeing wasn’t really in it to win it because they only want a contract that steals tens..no hundreds..of millions away from the taxpayer. Good riddance dinosaurs.
Now be nice. To be fair I think I saw a press release just the other day about an adjustment of the torque on a nut on Orion. In a test. For a mock up. In a lower structural assembly. Where the thing connects to it’s stand. And soon they’ll publish results. There may be video too!
Very NICE Sir
Remember – Lockheed is Orion, not Boeing.
Boeing is a successful commercial public company with a BOD and investors. I would venture to guess that a review of the internal funds required to compete with SpaceX and SN while they had government money resulted in a denial by upper management. There are clearly better places to spend that level of investment that have a much higher potential payback. In general, Boeing is making the decision that they are not a commercial space company.
No great surprise – Boeing is still thinking purely of suckling from the government’s teat. The concept of taking a risk on a new product or service is something that has long vanished from the company’s philosophy.
This sure isn’t the 1960’s, when Boeing “bet the company” on the commercial 747 is it? Of course, aerospace history buffs will note that even the Boeing 747 had some of its roots in prior attempts at snagging government contracts (i.e. the CX-Heavy Logistics System which was awarded to Lockheed’s C-5 Galaxy transport).
Our traditional contractors, understandably, are having difficulty adjusting to the new world where costs are not an output, but rather an input. This is emotionally traumatizing and extremely frustrating. The response of large primes when contracts have emphasized cost as a driver, as an input into the manner of creating a space system, has always been rather dysfunctional and “non-responsive”.
PlanetSpace was a more recent example of being non-responsive back in the COTS-cargo model for ISS. NASA used to say give it a try. We’ll pay as you go along. We know you are the only one’s who can do this. The competition, if any, is merely a formality, something the procurement geeks make us waste time on. In fact, if you decide to join up and do a “non-compete” arrangement among everyone, that will save us time! That was NASA in the day…
Read between the lines of that last PlanetSpace challenge in the cargo version of events. Basically the loser was saying the lack of money on NASA’s part was not their problem! The notion was that the winner should be chosen only on technical, and the funding approach changed if need be. Look back at how USA was formed, or ULA over in DoD. Hard targets for savings and such all quickly went out the window as our suppliers decided to split the prize rather than compete.
You’ll see a lot of this—of saying the times not right, or that money driving a human spaceflight program is not the way to go, that NASA can’t will something to work or mature just by saying that’s all the funding there is. That it’s impossible to balance technical, safety and cost.
Yet now we have a recent existence proof, the development of both Falcon 9 and Antares, and Cygnus and Dragon spacecraft, on a dime as compared to traditional cost-as-an-output approaches. So, for all the trauma and frustration some of our traditional contract partners are seeing, this is the future. This is a better future than NASA commiserating for too long with them, or joining them in denial.
The NASA portfolio of SLS and Orion, alongside very different approaches to getting a ride to space, is running the ultimate fly-off. Time will tell whose frustrations were well founded, by trying and doing these diverse approaches, rather than doing nothing-and arguing forever over needing more budget.
But they do make neat looking mockups. Maybe if we send them mock money they will build a real capsule?
And of course you know the reason. Congressional idiots can’t stand for anyone to loose a government paid for job. So they are indirectly trying to apply pressure.
Dear Colleagues,
I am reminded of how different the world was in the mid-1990s when companies called Rockwell and McDonnell-Douglas were willing to invest 100s of millions to match a roughly 20% contribution from NASA to develop an RLV prototype. Both are gone now, and the companies that remain (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin) seem to see no future in commercial space transportation, but rather focus on DOD / NASA contracts. (It is a bit odd in Boeing’s case, since they have a robust commercial satellite business.)
Best…
Uh, it was MacDac’s last minute decision to NOT put any skin in the game that doomed the DCY in that competition. They were on the scrap heap and absorbed by Boeing less than a year later.
From what I’ve heard from some DC-X alumni (both Gov & old MacDAC), was that shortly after Boeing absorbed/assimalated/chewed-up-&-swallowed MD, a large amount of DC-X (& -Y) plans. test data, equipment just “vanished” (i.e., a big DELETE Key was pressed). The thought was that Boeing was being a sore-loser from the original competition and this was a form of both “not-invented-here” and “payback”.
Dear Colleagues,
First to Dennis: I was not aware that
McDonnell-Douglass decided not the put any money into the proposal. Do
you have a reference?
Second to George: I agree with the
statement. However, if Dennis is right, the real tragedy was that they
did not choose Rockwell as the next best choice (as Uwe Hueter of MSFC
believed at the time, but was not allowed to say…).
Best,
just wondering how many of those layoffs are going to be in mid and upper management
I wonder how many of these people were newly hired when they started CST-100 development.
reminds me of this comic
http://www.cartoonstock.com…
Could Boeing survive in the Real Universe of manned spaceflight without a government contract and government funding ? From the looks of it, No. It doesn’t know how to live in that ecosystem.
Even its commercial passenger airliners are somewhat subsidized by the federal government, same as Airbus and their government backers. What they can’t get subsidized, they outsource to Chinese factories … ( quote)
” China builds horizontal stabilizers, vertical fins, the aft tail section, doors, wingpanels, wire harnessesa nd other parts on the Next-737;747-8;trailing edge wing ribs;and 747-8horizontal stabilizers, vertical fins, ailerons, spoilers and in board flaps.In addition,China has an important role on the 787,building the rudder, wing-to-body fairing panels, leading edge and panels for the vertical fin, and other composite parts ” ( endquote…Boeing press release)
This CST-100 ploy is just a not-so-subtle Cheap Political Trick on Boeing’s part to pressure Washington . Perhaps the lobbyists did not succeed behind the scenes. Can’t seduce ’em all the time..
Might be a good juncture to review the fate of Lockheed’s X-33 Venture Star program for clues.
That is outsourcing at its best. The ideal business scenario is build nothing, store nothing, outsource everything, sell million copies of the same thing and charge as much as the market will stand. That’s the American business model.
P.S. while we are talking about outsourcing airplane parts – anyone notice how many of the F22 parts are outsourced and come back with multiple origination addresses blacked out?
“Build it and they will come” has never worked. Maybe Boeing is investing in the development, but only sees a payback coming from the NASA market for some time to come? As for the layoff notices, its the LAW to give them if a program in a company this size is coming to an end, not some ploy. And of course, Elon isn’t using any government money to pursue his own goals now is he?
You’re talking just for the rocket industry or human spaceflight industry, right?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to support with this, but it sounds like one that could be argued. Of course he is using government money. They are paying SpaceX for services, and paid them to help develop some of their tech (along with Orbital Sciences, Sierra Nevada, Boeing…). Most companies that provide services to the government use government money to pursue their goals.
If the price per seat can be brought down, the seats sold can be brought up. It’s the law of supply and demand. Human spaceflight will not have a viable market size until the cost of a seat to orbit is under $1M.
they only need to invoke the law if they have no intention of building the spacecraft for anything other than a big fat bloated cost plus government contract. if they really intended to find customers outside the ISS (which honestly is what 3-6 people per year so how sustainable are those flights alone for any company) then they wouldn’t have to layoff folks cause they would continue developing it if they lose the NASA seed money.
“Build it and they will come” has never worked.
This, if I may say, is precisely where the courage (aka risk taking) is missing and precisely where it is needed.
The only way large numbers will ever fly in space is if someone builds it and then they come. And large numbers – becoming a spacefaring species – is the big prize now.
A government sponsored trip to Mars for a few professional astronauts would be terrific but IMO it’s an unimaginitive goal for the US nation now. Strictly for the faint hearted.
Build it and they will come.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?
Well Boeing must be chicken.
” So much for any thought that Boeing was ever interested in investing any significant company funds for their CST-100.”
NASA noted Boeing’s refusal to provide skin in the game when CCiCap was awarded. In his explanation of his awarding the biggest amount to Boeing, Gerst did so in spite of Boeing not putting any “significant” corporate funds of its own in. NASA awarding them the largest amount – even while Boeing did not even meet one of the criteria of significant skin in the game – sent a terrible message. If NASA had followed its own rules correctly and awarded Boeing the lower score, they (Boeing) might have been given the “½” award instead of Sierra Nevada, and as a consequence Boeing might well have dropped out by now. That would have left the only truly serious (and best) contenders, SpaceX and SN.
Dave Huntsman
FWIW, I think NASA were desperate to have one of the old Big Aero companies in on Commercial Crew so they could sell the program to Congress more easily. This late in the game, with all three remaining competitors having at least rolled out engineering prototypes, it would be a lot easier for NASA to down-select to two competitors and drop Boeing on the grounds that they are not meeting the contract criteria. Shelby, et al wouldn’t be happy but it would be too late to defund the program.
NASA was paying Boeing to do two jobs:
a. develop the CST100 capsule
b. and human rate the Atlas V launch vehicle.
Sierra Nevada is not developing a launch vehicle, so it only needs a single (1/2) grant.
With CST-100 only sexy mockups and boilerplate droptests, they had little hope. It is telling that one of their partners, Bigelow Aerospace, has these fixed prices for spacex and boeing launches to the BA330 space station:
“Astronaut Flights: For countries, companies, or even visiting individuals that wish to utilize SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule, Bigelow Aerospace will be able to transport an astronaut to the Alpha Station for only $26.25 million. Using Boeing’s CST-100 capsule and the Atlas V rocket, astronauts can be launched to the Alpha Station for $36.75 million per seat.”
The Dream Chaser has been hijacked by Lockheed and will be the most expensive.
This article seems to have coalesced the pattern of enmity toward the old line stalwarts that built everything that worked way back when. Boeing realizes that the contracts will be awarded based on politics and they arent going to get anything more than a backup role. If they wait, there is the chance that SpaceX blows it and NASA will come to them quite desparate, then profits will be guaranteed. The reality is, without government money, no one is going to space. and there isnt enough money for two companies to do it, and Boeing isnt the darling of the Senate so why waste money?
If they downselect to one company and shelby forces them to go cost plus then instead of paying the seed money(what is it $800M this year for the 3 companies) and bloated cost plus contract we should just ride out the $75M a seat to the Russians because it might end up being cheaper than this version of “commercial” crew.
Hmmm… last time I looked, Boeing was the largest aerospace company in the US with a $100B market cap and competing well in the fiercely competitive commercial jetliner industry – why are so many here so sure their cautious approach is stupid?
Boeing is doing everything NASA wants or they think they want. They are based at KSC. They are using suppliers and mostly only assembly. Such as the pressure vessel is being built in one piece by Spin Cast. Other parts are coming from all over the US. NASA takes the law that they are to spend to help encourage aero-space companies as the most important thing they they do. To us it is to do most everything themselves like SpaceX as most logical and seems most cost effective. SpaceX is not at KSC. They do everything in Cal. Soon we will see which NASA thinks is more important. Cost or subsidizing small aero space. Spin Cast may not be an aero space company. They may be using there system for something else. NASA likes that all the more. And yes cast aluminum is just as strong as machined plates welded together and may be faster and cheaper.
Also the combined engine makers Aerojet and Rocketdyne are coming out with their first new engine. AR-1. A logical name. 500,000lbs thrust and will sell 2 for $23 million. Ought to work on Atlas. The engine problem may be solved.
SpaceX is not at KSC.
Yeah, they are. They have a 20-year lease on LC-39A. And they’ve been next door at Canaveral for years.
Also, the AR-1 engine is a long way from being a done deal. Exactly who is going to pay for development of a new engine is not settled nor is the nature, if any, of the competitive process by which a designer/builder is selected. I’m dubious that Aerojet-Rocketdyne will do AR-1 on their own dime. I’m equally dubious that ULA will commission them to do it on ULA’s dime. I think both organizations would be delighted to go forward with AR-1, but only if the government, in some way, picks up the tab. The Congress seems willing, but the Administration isn’t. Neither a smooth nor a straight road ahead for AR-1.
Boeing is dead weight on the Body Astronautic. It’s about time they went out of business.