<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat<br><br><b><o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…Ah, the usual generics. I was hoping you had some evidence to the specific rumor I'd been hearing that they decided that another public test, any time soon, ran a risk of a rapid unscheduled disassembly, coupled with clouds of orange-hot expanding gas where it is not supposed to be, pictures of which might lead some in Congress to decide the program has finally concluded, and reallocate budget to make it so.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ja, the usual generics lead to risk of the classic RUDE, and Boeing cannot risk even one of those. It causes too much risk to their other lines of business, specifically the passenger aircraft. The young upstarts are expected to have RUDEs, but Boeing cannot afford even one.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It has been clear for a long time that a launch company that specializes in a specific segment of the market can make that specific segment go. Boeing has been given what amounts to government subsidies for their launch business in exchange for spreading their subcontracts everywhere, to every state, to use those funds as a de facto welfare system.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Adrian note the contrast with how Elon Musk is doing his launcher business. His subcontractors are all right there in central Florida. The Spacex guys can go on travel to subcontractors by car, get the business done, get back home that evening, get back into the office until quitting time. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The majors waste way too much time travelling, too much time on inherent inefficiencies associated with that, then they build designs that are too traditional because they use safety margins dictated to them by external influences such as military specs. Meanwhile, Musk is landing boosters on their feet with dignity, the way the controls decades have wanted to do it for decades.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You hit it right on with that notion that Boeing cannot risk a RUDE. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>