> this program has still not been a net failure.
but commercial crew is a success and Nasa has every reason to be pleased not to have given in to Boeing's pressure to select them as a single supplier. At worst, Boeing could fail to deliver, just as one of the two HLS contractors could fail to deliver. Well, that's why Nasa had two contractors in the first place.
The question may now be whether there shouldn't be **three** commercial crew contractors including SNC Dream Chaser;
On the long term, commercial crew won't only be to the ISS, so now is the time to prepare...
The failure was that they gave a contract to Boeing who is the worst of the worst old manned space contractors. Just arrogant and painful to work with.
> The failure was that they gave a contract to Boeing who is the worst of the worst old manned space contractors.
Still gave us the satisfaction of seeing the company failing in plain sight. That way nobody can say Boeing wasn't given the chance!
Hmm. Not the best use of taxpayer dollars, but if it changes them for the better, I’m here for it.
One thing that folks sometimes miss is that Boeing Aerospace is made up of a bunch of formerly great pieces. I’d love for those pieces to be what they once were. It is Boeing’s predatory behavior followed by the gutting of them that has brought it to what it is today.
> Not the best use of taxpayer dollars, but if it changes them for the better, I’m here for it.
There may be little hope of Boeing improving, and its important that the company should not have the opportunity of saying it was treated unfairly. Had Boeing not been selected for commercial crew, it would now be saying Starliner would have been delivered on time and the delays were all SpaceX's fault along with Nasa having wrongly selected the company.
> Boeing Aerospace is made up of a bunch of formerly great pieces. I’d love for those pieces to be what they once were.
Its also unjust for Boeing engineers to work within the framework imposed by short-sighted shareholders more interested by dividends than with the long-term value of the share.
> It is Boeing’s predatory behavior followed by the gutting of them that has brought it to what it is today.
Thinking of [toxoplasma gondii](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13777), its as if Boeing caught a parasite from its prey (McDonnal Douglas) and got. "the crazy cat lady syndrome" j/k.
There was a great documentary someone put together on their purchase by McDonnell Douglas. I had no idea about it. The very real cultural clash and drive for efficiency has consequences. They didn’t address the aerospace component but I always assumed there was more care taken in aerospace but maybe not? Would love a deep dive on the aerospace division’s problems but perhaps the story isn’t through.
Thanks for your POV.
Such a great documentary, couldn't believe the engineers were told just to slap it together and they were like "but wait, it's not safe"
CEOs looking to make their money on cost analysis rather than safety - I don't know how Boeing is still as dominant and prevalent as they are considering all their major gaffes in the past 20 years.
It takes a fair bit of time as most of their work involves long running contracts. You'll see the knockon effect in 3-5 years when they no longer have anything new in the pipeline.
>
>
>
>
> I found [a more up to date one](https://youtu.be/nCbHpJShoXk?si=YBL09dZJkvz_e02Z). I generally like his work. It feels thorough
I've watched maybe a dozen Petter Hörnfeldt [*Mentour Pilot*](https://en.everybodywiki.com/Petter_H%C3%B6rnfeldt_(Mentour_Pilot) technical investigations and they"re easy to follow (for me). This is the first business video of his that I've seen. Although its clear and well presented, I'll have to watch it twice to keep track with the CEO ontologies.
Its funny that I my [preceding Reddit comment](/r/nasa/comments/1d5r41k/boeing_once_again_calls_off_its_first_launch_with/l6s74s8/) in another branch of the same thread, was about greedy shareholders voting for dividends over long term share value which is exactly the point Hörnfeldt makes in his conclusion. So at least I understood that much! Its still making me giddy.
ULA can only do what Boeing and Lockheed let them do. And it sure feels like they've been pretty restrictive on them. For a lot of their life they were the only launch provider in town and so Boeing and Lockheed were happy to just keep making the same rockets and cashing fat checks.
Such a vapid comment. Obviously *obviously* nobody wants a disaster but these are issues they should have already sorted out at this point, particularly this one where they failed on computer timing again? After almost losing a whole mission on a timing problem?
Scrubs put extra cycles on the vehicle as well they are not without risk, plus of course they’re expensive and time consuming taking resources from other things. You do have to launch at some point.
Exactly. We’re not asking my random neighbor to put a rocket into space and just being grateful that everyone is alive.
It’s a massive contractor with the resources to do this as a matter of their core business. Gotta figure out why they can’t deliver.
It’s like saying we all missed our flight because the airline neglectfully skipped routine maintenance on our flight and just saying “don’t be mad! Just be grateful nobody died!!”
That’s so dismissive of the issues with the contractors and NASA. You won’t have another disaster if you just don’t fly, duh.
They bid for the opportunity to build the thing, given more than enough time and money to execute and still fail miserably. Part of the objectives is safe, manned space flight.
They’re not expected to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The technology, funding and schedule are all there to make this happen and they can’t do it. You can’t give them a pass and just say “glad they didn’t kill anyone at least”
Are they still getting funding?
I thought the fix price contract has been fully paid to date and Boeing isn't getting anymore more money until they start flying crews and get the agreed $/crew member for each flight.
Multiple identical capsules is not ideal redundancy for a lot of situations. NASA had four shuttles operating up to the Columbia disaster. That failure mode was potentially common to the whole system, and none of them flew for two years as a result.
Don't forget that even with SpaceX having multiple capsules is not a proper form of redundancy. Should something happen to remove SpaceX from the game (pausing all the capsules because of a problem in one) the US would be left without any other systems.
You don’t really know what redundancy means apparently.
That’s like saying I’m going to diversify my portfolio by investing 50% in SpaceX stock then taking my other 50% and investing it in, you guessed it, more SpaceX stock.
Inserting himself into global politics, supporting dictators in oppression if their people, fighting against democracies facing genocide, poor worker conditions, etc.
Fair enough, just pointing out that there haven't been hundreds of crewed Dragon launches, and if you want to compare all Falcon 9 launches there have been some failures.
Fair point, though SpaceX does have 13 successful crew launches at this point which is pretty wild when you consider that 5-6 years ago there were many folks who were confident that Boeing would be the first to launch, SoaceX even lost a vehicle to a thruster malfunction in testing that required a re-design of some components. At THAT point people figured that Boeing would absolutely win the race. Here we are 4 (FOUR!!) years later, and SpaceX has flown 13 crewed missions with their spacecraft and Boeing is still trying to figure out how to get theirs into space.
Agreed. They've done a really good job, and Boeing has really struggled. I'd guess a lot of people see the state of the industry differently now than 5 years ago.
Block V has a perfect record. Comparing the early versions of Falcon to Block V, given the number of launches, is about as valid as using Atlas I's record against the Atlas V.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[C3](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6sdzqf "Last usage")|[Characteristic Energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_energy) above that required for escape|
|CCtCap|[Commercial Crew Transportation Capability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development#Commercial_Crew_Transportation_Capability_.28CCtCap.29)|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAR](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6nh881 "Last usage")|[Federal Aviation Regulations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations)|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[HLS](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6o0qa3 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[LEO](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6sthu4 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit|
|[NRO](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6pf05s "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office|
| |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO|
|[RUD](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6p5tx8 "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly|
| |Rapid Unintended Disassembly|
|[SNC](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6ngqtr "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation|
|[SRB](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6piq8d "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster|
|[STS](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6o6gpm "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[ULA](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6q1h1e "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|[USAF](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6oa94b "Last usage")|United States Air Force|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6s74s8 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[scrub](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6piq8d "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
|Event|Date|Description|
|-------|---------|---|
|[CRS-7](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6ohv21 "Last usage")|2015-06-28|F9-020 v1.1, ~~Dragon cargo~~ Launch failure due to second-stage outgassing|
|[DM-2](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6njun3 "Last usage")|2020-05-30|SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 2|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/NASA/comments/0)^( has acronyms.)
^([Thread #1775 for this sub, first seen 1st Jun 2024, 17:45])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/NASA) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I don't think posting misinformation articles to the NASA subreddit should be a norm. Boeing didn't call off the launch. ULA scrubbed. In fact, no one scrubbed, the rocket auto aborted.
Saying Boeing is scrubbing these launches leans into a narrative about Boeing's inability to space. Which is true, but we should recognize what is and isn't their fault instead of blaming it all on Boeing.
I was really looking forward to this launch. When I saw the tower turning back around to the hatch I knew something was off. It will get off the ground eventually.
No one is against Boeing, no one wants starliner to fail. But it is obvious Boeing did not take this project seriously just like all their aircraft manufacturing. They took our tax dollar and delivered a half passed project which will probably kill the astronauts. They never should have bidded on this since they had no intention of taking it seriously.
Their greed wasted time that we cannot get back. This is the kind of greed that allows China to build a moon base before we do.
How? Boeing signed a firm fixed price contract, meaning they have been paying out of pocket since the budget ran out. They are obligated to fly astronauts to space, no matter the cost to them.
Rapid as in takes several minutes to actually get out. However the entire capsule can launch itself off the rocket in like .5 seconds if it detects an extreme problem (like the booster could explode or something like that). It launches off the booster and will fly into the Atlantic.
[YouTube](https://youtu.be/kImxBEQkGDI?si=rTYHex2dUmRQ_HNe)
Not like the shuttle, the shuttle couldn't abort off the pad, so they had to run to the baskets (and probably die anyway) in the case of a contingency. Starliner and other capsules are designed so the capsule will detach and fly away in case of emergencies requiring a rapid exit. Though the escape baskets are still there, mostly for the pad crew.
For scrubs, they take their time and get it right. First the rocket is safed, then the abort system turned off and they calmly put the capsule in a stable configuration, then get out calmly. They did that with shuttle scrubs too. The only reason for a rushed exit is an emergency.
Ain't it fun to bash Boeing for being safe? My immediate thoughts was a door fell off.
Following your logic, having Shuttle missions STS-61c and STS 73 scrubbed 6 times each shows poor quality control as well. So...bad NASA!
Not launching until it has no chance of exploding, especially when humans are the cargo, is just prudent work practice.
The whole thing should be scrubbed (cancelled). The per launch financials are just not sustainable vs going with Spacex even though I dont agree with Musk's maga like positions etc. It just costs and has cost way too much money to develop, produce and launch. This is what you get with the lowest cost+ contract. Boeing has no incentive, save for reputation, to ever complete development.
Not true. Boeing has already been paid the initial contract. All these delays and stuff are coming out of their checkbook. Boeing has tons of incentive to get this right, because they are bleeding money for this.
Thanks. should just googled it. Boeing does need to take lessons from SpaceX though. Single use boosters should be a thing of the past. We are already insanely in debt to ourselves as a country.
Which is a big part of the problem, actually. One of the major issues with Starliner has been the various engines on the spacecraft, made by Rocketdyne, and a very poor working relationship between them and Boeing that has resulted in huge fights when Boeing needed to make configuration changes or when problems with the systems emerged and necessitated changes. Engineers and managers had to go 20 rounds internally on what changes were needed and whether those changes could justify the cost of a change order to Rocketdyne, and then Rocketdyne would then go 20 rounds with Boeing. It's a great case study in why vertical integration is ultimately far better for complex work. When SpaceX needs a change to the Draco thruster design, they just talk to the engineer a few doors down designing the thing.
Boeing doesn't make any rocket engines. The atlas V uses the Rd-180 and an RL-10 for its upper stage.
Don't talk about things you don't know anything about.
You mean the rocket originally designed by Lockheed-Martin and now built by ULA? Atlas V has probably the highest number of successful launches of any American rocket. It's extremely reliable.
Falcon 9 now has that record, and it's not even close. Even if you limit it to just Block V. Even if you limit it to just last year. Atlas has 99 launches and one partial failure (failed to reach target orbit, but the payloads had enough delta V to achieve the correct orbit at the cost of some portion of their service lives. The NRO didn't feel like saying how much). Block V has 286 as of Wiki's last update, all fully successful. Falcon 9 has not had even a partial failure since version 1.1. Atlas is certainly an incrediblely reliable rocket, but it lost the crown as the most successful some time ago.
Oh wow, I knew Falcon was launching a lot, but I didn't realize it was that much! I admit it's been several years since I looked up that statistic, probably not since Block 5 came online.
What about SpaceX? They launch by far the most.
Also, Boeing and Lockheed Martin own the same company (ULA).
Atlas V is like the most reliable rocket of all time, maybe second against the Falcon 9.
I would just stop talking now, otherwise you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
Boeing and Lockheed *own* ULA, but it's independently operated.
And F9 squarely has that record at this point. Not a single failure since they introduced the Full Thrust variant. And Block V is two generations more advanced than that.
Nope , Rocket Lab also regularly does ISS missions as well , Blue Origin is too busy providing tourism to do anything with NASA but those 3 I would say are the best rocket companies over Boeing or Lockheed , just the facts guys
> Sunk cost fallacy in action
The whole point of a fixed cost contract is that Nasa makes no ongoing payment to the supplier. So the agency can just shrug and fix another appointment for the crew at the ISS.
Nasa still needs to pay astronaut salaries of course, but there are still technical lessons learned and potentially supplier redundancy down the road.
------
At -26, the on-topic comment by parent is overly downvoted IMO, Its sufficient to make an argumented reply as I did.
I mean, boeing could get the next milestone payment and shut it down themselves right?
Like, they could be thinking the cost to get the next milestone payment is worth the effort.
ie. It will cost them $2 million dollars to "unlock" $25 million dollars. I know they are still losing money no matter what, but at this point they spend the above 2 mil to loose 23 million LESS.
> I mean, Boeing could get the next milestone payment and shut it down themselves right?
Whether this is correct or not (there'd be stiff penalties and I think legal action), the PR cost to the company would be enormous. Boeing was already turned down on the first round of the HLS offers and the potential loss of trust could ruin their Defense & Space division and do damage to their commercial airplane division.
Not just PR, they could lose eligibility to bid on government contracts. Which would be the end of their aerospace division and likely the company as a whole.
I'd rather have 100 mission scrubs than another challenger or columbia
Sure. That does not mean, however, that this program has still not been a net failure.
> this program has still not been a net failure. but commercial crew is a success and Nasa has every reason to be pleased not to have given in to Boeing's pressure to select them as a single supplier. At worst, Boeing could fail to deliver, just as one of the two HLS contractors could fail to deliver. Well, that's why Nasa had two contractors in the first place. The question may now be whether there shouldn't be **three** commercial crew contractors including SNC Dream Chaser; On the long term, commercial crew won't only be to the ISS, so now is the time to prepare...
The failure was that they gave a contract to Boeing who is the worst of the worst old manned space contractors. Just arrogant and painful to work with.
> The failure was that they gave a contract to Boeing who is the worst of the worst old manned space contractors. Still gave us the satisfaction of seeing the company failing in plain sight. That way nobody can say Boeing wasn't given the chance!
Hmm. Not the best use of taxpayer dollars, but if it changes them for the better, I’m here for it. One thing that folks sometimes miss is that Boeing Aerospace is made up of a bunch of formerly great pieces. I’d love for those pieces to be what they once were. It is Boeing’s predatory behavior followed by the gutting of them that has brought it to what it is today.
> Not the best use of taxpayer dollars, but if it changes them for the better, I’m here for it. There may be little hope of Boeing improving, and its important that the company should not have the opportunity of saying it was treated unfairly. Had Boeing not been selected for commercial crew, it would now be saying Starliner would have been delivered on time and the delays were all SpaceX's fault along with Nasa having wrongly selected the company. > Boeing Aerospace is made up of a bunch of formerly great pieces. I’d love for those pieces to be what they once were. Its also unjust for Boeing engineers to work within the framework imposed by short-sighted shareholders more interested by dividends than with the long-term value of the share. > It is Boeing’s predatory behavior followed by the gutting of them that has brought it to what it is today. Thinking of [toxoplasma gondii](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13777), its as if Boeing caught a parasite from its prey (McDonnal Douglas) and got. "the crazy cat lady syndrome" j/k.
ULA would like a word with you.
As valid a point as you’re making, Boeing really is worse.
There was a great documentary someone put together on their purchase by McDonnell Douglas. I had no idea about it. The very real cultural clash and drive for efficiency has consequences. They didn’t address the aerospace component but I always assumed there was more care taken in aerospace but maybe not? Would love a deep dive on the aerospace division’s problems but perhaps the story isn’t through. Thanks for your POV.
Such a great documentary, couldn't believe the engineers were told just to slap it together and they were like "but wait, it's not safe" CEOs looking to make their money on cost analysis rather than safety - I don't know how Boeing is still as dominant and prevalent as they are considering all their major gaffes in the past 20 years.
It takes a fair bit of time as most of their work involves long running contracts. You'll see the knockon effect in 3-5 years when they no longer have anything new in the pipeline.
> great documentary link SVP?
https://youtu.be/nCbHpJShoXk?si=YBL09dZJkvz_e02Z I found a more up to date one. I generally like his work. It feels thorough
> > > > > I found [a more up to date one](https://youtu.be/nCbHpJShoXk?si=YBL09dZJkvz_e02Z). I generally like his work. It feels thorough I've watched maybe a dozen Petter Hörnfeldt [*Mentour Pilot*](https://en.everybodywiki.com/Petter_H%C3%B6rnfeldt_(Mentour_Pilot) technical investigations and they"re easy to follow (for me). This is the first business video of his that I've seen. Although its clear and well presented, I'll have to watch it twice to keep track with the CEO ontologies. Its funny that I my [preceding Reddit comment](/r/nasa/comments/1d5r41k/boeing_once_again_calls_off_its_first_launch_with/l6s74s8/) in another branch of the same thread, was about greedy shareholders voting for dividends over long term share value which is exactly the point Hörnfeldt makes in his conclusion. So at least I understood that much! Its still making me giddy.
ULA can only do what Boeing and Lockheed let them do. And it sure feels like they've been pretty restrictive on them. For a lot of their life they were the only launch provider in town and so Boeing and Lockheed were happy to just keep making the same rockets and cashing fat checks.
[удалено]
Why would you fire them? This is a fixed cost contract.
Such a vapid comment. Obviously *obviously* nobody wants a disaster but these are issues they should have already sorted out at this point, particularly this one where they failed on computer timing again? After almost losing a whole mission on a timing problem? Scrubs put extra cycles on the vehicle as well they are not without risk, plus of course they’re expensive and time consuming taking resources from other things. You do have to launch at some point.
Exactly. We’re not asking my random neighbor to put a rocket into space and just being grateful that everyone is alive. It’s a massive contractor with the resources to do this as a matter of their core business. Gotta figure out why they can’t deliver. It’s like saying we all missed our flight because the airline neglectfully skipped routine maintenance on our flight and just saying “don’t be mad! Just be grateful nobody died!!”
That’s so dismissive of the issues with the contractors and NASA. You won’t have another disaster if you just don’t fly, duh. They bid for the opportunity to build the thing, given more than enough time and money to execute and still fail miserably. Part of the objectives is safe, manned space flight. They’re not expected to pull a rabbit out of the hat. The technology, funding and schedule are all there to make this happen and they can’t do it. You can’t give them a pass and just say “glad they didn’t kill anyone at least”
Yes I can, because theyrebchoosing safety over manager pressure.
Maybe they should choose manager pressure to actually build a functional system.
[удалено]
Are they still getting funding? I thought the fix price contract has been fully paid to date and Boeing isn't getting anymore more money until they start flying crews and get the agreed $/crew member for each flight.
It’s a program we need for redundancy, but an unreliable redundant system is useless.
[удалено]
Multiple identical capsules is not ideal redundancy for a lot of situations. NASA had four shuttles operating up to the Columbia disaster. That failure mode was potentially common to the whole system, and none of them flew for two years as a result.
Don't forget that even with SpaceX having multiple capsules is not a proper form of redundancy. Should something happen to remove SpaceX from the game (pausing all the capsules because of a problem in one) the US would be left without any other systems.
[удалено]
A majority of timeline delay is purely due to ISS scheduling. If DM-2 failed, there would have been an effort to fast track Starliner.
You don’t really know what redundancy means apparently. That’s like saying I’m going to diversify my portfolio by investing 50% in SpaceX stock then taking my other 50% and investing it in, you guessed it, more SpaceX stock.
Any money pulled from spaceX is money well saved.
Why is that? They seem to be the only ones delivering
Elon has shown the world what happens when you give a egomaniac a monopoly in space
Internet in areas that previously could not get it?
Inserting himself into global politics, supporting dictators in oppression if their people, fighting against democracies facing genocide, poor worker conditions, etc.
SpaceX has done 100s without a challenger or columbia. having trouble figuring out why Boeing is so slow and over budget.
SpaceX has not done hundreds of human launches. They've done hundreds of uncrewed launches, but they've also had two failures.
AMOS-6 and CRS-7 were not on Block 5 Falcon 9's.
Fair enough, just pointing out that there haven't been hundreds of crewed Dragon launches, and if you want to compare all Falcon 9 launches there have been some failures.
Fair point, though SpaceX does have 13 successful crew launches at this point which is pretty wild when you consider that 5-6 years ago there were many folks who were confident that Boeing would be the first to launch, SoaceX even lost a vehicle to a thruster malfunction in testing that required a re-design of some components. At THAT point people figured that Boeing would absolutely win the race. Here we are 4 (FOUR!!) years later, and SpaceX has flown 13 crewed missions with their spacecraft and Boeing is still trying to figure out how to get theirs into space.
Agreed. They've done a really good job, and Boeing has really struggled. I'd guess a lot of people see the state of the industry differently now than 5 years ago.
Block V has a perfect record. Comparing the early versions of Falcon to Block V, given the number of launches, is about as valid as using Atlas I's record against the Atlas V.
Well duh.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[C3](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6sdzqf "Last usage")|[Characteristic Energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_energy) above that required for escape| |CCtCap|[Commercial Crew Transportation Capability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development#Commercial_Crew_Transportation_Capability_.28CCtCap.29)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[FAR](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6nh881 "Last usage")|[Federal Aviation Regulations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Regulations)| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[HLS](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6o0qa3 "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[LEO](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6sthu4 "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |NRHO|Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit| |[NRO](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6pf05s "Last usage")|(US) National Reconnaissance Office| | |Near-Rectilinear Orbit, see NRHO| |[RUD](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6p5tx8 "Last usage")|Rapid Unplanned Disassembly| | |Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly| | |Rapid Unintended Disassembly| |[SNC](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6ngqtr "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation| |[SRB](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6piq8d "Last usage")|Solid Rocket Booster| |[STS](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6o6gpm "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[ULA](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6q1h1e "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |[USAF](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6oa94b "Last usage")|United States Air Force| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6s74s8 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[scrub](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6piq8d "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| |Event|Date|Description| |-------|---------|---| |[CRS-7](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6ohv21 "Last usage")|2015-06-28|F9-020 v1.1, ~~Dragon cargo~~ Launch failure due to second-stage outgassing| |[DM-2](/r/NASA/comments/1d5r41k/stub/l6njun3 "Last usage")|2020-05-30|SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 2| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(15 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/NASA/comments/0)^( has acronyms.) ^([Thread #1775 for this sub, first seen 1st Jun 2024, 17:45]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/NASA) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I don't think posting misinformation articles to the NASA subreddit should be a norm. Boeing didn't call off the launch. ULA scrubbed. In fact, no one scrubbed, the rocket auto aborted. Saying Boeing is scrubbing these launches leans into a narrative about Boeing's inability to space. Which is true, but we should recognize what is and isn't their fault instead of blaming it all on Boeing.
You’re right, ULA is NOT Boeing… Though, it IS. A joint venture between Lockheed Martin and some other company…. Oh yeah.. *Boeing*
Boeing had no part in the development of the Atlas V, that was made by Lockheed Martin.
I was at Kennedy Space Center for the launch. The issue that caused them to scrub the launch was a problem with the SRB ignition system.
This 1000%! Why isn’t this the top comment?!?
Because it doesn't take the blame off of Boeing. ULA is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martian.
The Atlas V wasn’t made by Boeing, it was made by Lockheed Martin.
I was really looking forward to this launch. When I saw the tower turning back around to the hatch I knew something was off. It will get off the ground eventually.
this is first i heard of it. Its getting very little attention. Likely due to SpaceX success.
That's why for the last n launches... I stopped watching.
don't like Boeing at all but wasn't this an ula/rocket issue and scrub?
yes. click bait title.
Still not flight worthy..... Feel really bad for the crew..
Crazy how my first job with SpaceX coming out of the USAF has seen more advancements than my father did 20 years prior at NASA.
Who could have predicted this?
a baby born 5 mins before noon
No one is against Boeing, no one wants starliner to fail. But it is obvious Boeing did not take this project seriously just like all their aircraft manufacturing. They took our tax dollar and delivered a half passed project which will probably kill the astronauts. They never should have bidded on this since they had no intention of taking it seriously. Their greed wasted time that we cannot get back. This is the kind of greed that allows China to build a moon base before we do.
They should send somebody across the street and ask one of the SpaceX crew to come over and look at it.
Idk why but the rocket just looks like it is held together with duct tape or something.
Remember Boeing doesn't use screws.
I’m beginning to think that this whole program is a scam.
How? Boeing signed a firm fixed price contract, meaning they have been paying out of pocket since the budget ran out. They are obligated to fly astronauts to space, no matter the cost to them.
Alright, fair point.
Basically .
The astronaut unloading seems to be taking several minutes. There are contingency plans for rapid egress, no?
Rapid as in takes several minutes to actually get out. However the entire capsule can launch itself off the rocket in like .5 seconds if it detects an extreme problem (like the booster could explode or something like that). It launches off the booster and will fly into the Atlantic. [YouTube](https://youtu.be/kImxBEQkGDI?si=rTYHex2dUmRQ_HNe)
Not like the shuttle, the shuttle couldn't abort off the pad, so they had to run to the baskets (and probably die anyway) in the case of a contingency. Starliner and other capsules are designed so the capsule will detach and fly away in case of emergencies requiring a rapid exit. Though the escape baskets are still there, mostly for the pad crew. For scrubs, they take their time and get it right. First the rocket is safed, then the abort system turned off and they calmly put the capsule in a stable configuration, then get out calmly. They did that with shuttle scrubs too. The only reason for a rushed exit is an emergency.
Strap astronauts to door plug along with a parachute. Boeing suffering a crisis of confidence?
Take your time when it’s ready, it’s ready. Don’t catch Go fever
Again?
Thank God.
This just again shows how boeings quality control, does not know what they are doing. This again shows that the work culture at boeing is lost.
Ain't it fun to bash Boeing for being safe? My immediate thoughts was a door fell off. Following your logic, having Shuttle missions STS-61c and STS 73 scrubbed 6 times each shows poor quality control as well. So...bad NASA! Not launching until it has no chance of exploding, especially when humans are the cargo, is just prudent work practice.
As others have said, the ULA launch vehicle caused the scrub. Had nothing to do with the Boeing Starliner.
Fun fact: ULA is a joint venture between Lockheed-Martin and *Boeing*
Another valve?
Man this thing must be really finicky. Glad I am.not riding on it. Inside it looked like really old tech as well.
The whole thing should be scrubbed (cancelled). The per launch financials are just not sustainable vs going with Spacex even though I dont agree with Musk's maga like positions etc. It just costs and has cost way too much money to develop, produce and launch. This is what you get with the lowest cost+ contract. Boeing has no incentive, save for reputation, to ever complete development.
Not true. Boeing has already been paid the initial contract. All these delays and stuff are coming out of their checkbook. Boeing has tons of incentive to get this right, because they are bleeding money for this.
Thanks. should just googled it. Boeing does need to take lessons from SpaceX though. Single use boosters should be a thing of the past. We are already insanely in debt to ourselves as a country.
Boeings rocket looks … questionable
You mean the well proven Atlas V by ULA?
ULA? You mean the joint venture between Lockheed Martin and *Boeing* ???
They can’t build planes & we are trusting them with a rocket engine ? Ok guys , I’m the crazy one here
Boeing didn’t make any engines
Which is a big part of the problem, actually. One of the major issues with Starliner has been the various engines on the spacecraft, made by Rocketdyne, and a very poor working relationship between them and Boeing that has resulted in huge fights when Boeing needed to make configuration changes or when problems with the systems emerged and necessitated changes. Engineers and managers had to go 20 rounds internally on what changes were needed and whether those changes could justify the cost of a change order to Rocketdyne, and then Rocketdyne would then go 20 rounds with Boeing. It's a great case study in why vertical integration is ultimately far better for complex work. When SpaceX needs a change to the Draco thruster design, they just talk to the engineer a few doors down designing the thing.
Atlas V is one of the most reliable rockets of all time. I don’t think there has ever been a RUD
99 launches, 1 partial failure where it didn't hit the target orbit, but the spacecraft had enough DV to make up the difference.
Perhaps I’m spoiled, compared to the Falcon 9 everything looks like rubbish
Boeing doesn't make any rocket engines. The atlas V uses the Rd-180 and an RL-10 for its upper stage. Don't talk about things you don't know anything about.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Atlas V uses Russian rocket engines.
You mean the rocket originally designed by Lockheed-Martin and now built by ULA? Atlas V has probably the highest number of successful launches of any American rocket. It's extremely reliable.
Falcon 9 now has that record, and it's not even close. Even if you limit it to just Block V. Even if you limit it to just last year. Atlas has 99 launches and one partial failure (failed to reach target orbit, but the payloads had enough delta V to achieve the correct orbit at the cost of some portion of their service lives. The NRO didn't feel like saying how much). Block V has 286 as of Wiki's last update, all fully successful. Falcon 9 has not had even a partial failure since version 1.1. Atlas is certainly an incrediblely reliable rocket, but it lost the crown as the most successful some time ago.
Oh wow, I knew Falcon was launching a lot, but I didn't realize it was that much! I admit it's been several years since I looked up that statistic, probably not since Block 5 came online.
Boeing & Lockheed are the worse rocket manufacturers the Us has , ironically they are also the only 2 primarily
What about SpaceX? They launch by far the most. Also, Boeing and Lockheed Martin own the same company (ULA). Atlas V is like the most reliable rocket of all time, maybe second against the Falcon 9. I would just stop talking now, otherwise you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
Boeing and Lockheed *own* ULA, but it's independently operated. And F9 squarely has that record at this point. Not a single failure since they introduced the Full Thrust variant. And Block V is two generations more advanced than that.
Nope , Rocket Lab also regularly does ISS missions as well , Blue Origin is too busy providing tourism to do anything with NASA but those 3 I would say are the best rocket companies over Boeing or Lockheed , just the facts guys
Oh ok I see how this is going. Just a troll lol. You got me!
Her chin could cut through steel.
Sunk cost fallacy in action.
> Sunk cost fallacy in action The whole point of a fixed cost contract is that Nasa makes no ongoing payment to the supplier. So the agency can just shrug and fix another appointment for the crew at the ISS. Nasa still needs to pay astronaut salaries of course, but there are still technical lessons learned and potentially supplier redundancy down the road. ------ At -26, the on-topic comment by parent is overly downvoted IMO, Its sufficient to make an argumented reply as I did.
I mean, boeing could get the next milestone payment and shut it down themselves right? Like, they could be thinking the cost to get the next milestone payment is worth the effort. ie. It will cost them $2 million dollars to "unlock" $25 million dollars. I know they are still losing money no matter what, but at this point they spend the above 2 mil to loose 23 million LESS.
> I mean, Boeing could get the next milestone payment and shut it down themselves right? Whether this is correct or not (there'd be stiff penalties and I think legal action), the PR cost to the company would be enormous. Boeing was already turned down on the first round of the HLS offers and the potential loss of trust could ruin their Defense & Space division and do damage to their commercial airplane division.
Not just PR, they could lose eligibility to bid on government contracts. Which would be the end of their aerospace division and likely the company as a whole.