> For example, Boeing Defense’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS)—which NASA uses to measure contract cost and schedule progress ... has been disapproved by the Department of Defense since 2020. Officials claim this precludes Boeing from reliably predicting an EUS delivery date.
Interesting that instead of commenting on engineering or technology issues, this is basically NASA bureaucrats complaining about Boeing bureaucrats' procedures. The whole SLS program is so bureaucratized it's amazing they can get anything of the ground, and not surprising that Space X is beating them in performance and cost by 3X.
Just read a little farther, here are some comments on technical issues:
>“According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. “The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”
Fair enough and thanks for pointing that out. Even that focuses on "adhere to NASA requirements" rather than "will it work". In between there's stuff like:
> DCMA also found that Boeing personnel made numerous administrative errors through changes to certified work order data without proper documentation
and
> Some technicians reported they had to hunt through layers of documentation to identify required instructions and documentation of work history and key decisions related to the hardware
It sounds like the focus is more on making documents and reading documents and complying with documents than "will this thing fly?"
It's the OIG, the government's auditors. They're not equipped to make engineering decisions, but they are experts at seeing whether that policies ostensibly written by engineers are being followed.
I feel that in this situation the balme is valid. Engineering was spot on until management threw it out the window as something in the way for making money.
They wanted to make things for sales, not for use. Usability is the side effect for sellable for them apparently: sometimes happen, sometimes not. While they were pushing on with sell sell sell sell sell, sell nooow! Instead of making something that is needed and is usable, so people would want to buy.
Interesting that instead of commenting on engineering or technology issues, this is basically NASA bureaucrats complaining about Boeing bureaucrats' procedures. The whole SLS program is so bureaucratized it's amazing they can get anything of the ground, and not surprising that Space X is beating them in performance and cost by 3X.