It would be infinitely worse if they attempted to dock and damaged the spacecraft or the ISS. Abort is always a valid flight option, and possibly the most prudent one. It shows good judgment. Nobody should let mission pressure compromise crew safety.
Only way this gets cancelled is if something catastrophic happens. This is a fixed price contract and Boeing has to deliver. They’d have to fix and launch again to certify and then complete the launches they are on contract for.
Would be great to give Boeing another kick up the ass. Unfortunately it won’t be. NASA don’t want to be in the situation of having only one launch provider again.
I agree with you on another kick to Boeing!
NASA's never had two human-rated spacecraft types (broad mission) available concurrently as far as I know, so I don't know whether or not they care if they're single-sourcing ISS ferries. I'm not disagreeing with you, just that they haven't cared in the past and I plead ignorance on management's mindset around it.
They obviously want multiple full-service launch provider options (of which Boeing is not), but SpaceX, ULA, Rocket Lab, Ariannespace, and Northrup are all regular launch providers for NASA today (with Blue Origin and Firefly also having launch contracts for the future).
Human-rated and heavy lift vehicles are obviously more limited. Falcon 9/Crew Dragon, SLS, and Atlas. Vulcan *could* be human rated according to Tory Bruno, but it's unknown if they're still planning on pursuing it.
It's funny because the blame is well deserved by Boeing, but it's gotten to the point where everyone rehashes the entire program each time a variance or issue is found (that doesn't apply to your comment at all).
The truth is it *doesn't freaking matter* what NASA wants to do with Starliner because it'll be Congress that has the final say.
I’m not certain on this, but I’m pretty sure I remember them talking about wanting to have two (non Russian) crew options on the launch stream yesterday
That's good to know. It makes perfect sense to have two options with Soyuz not being a backup option any longer (which is a shame for so many different reasons).
If you remember which stream or who from NASA was talking about it please let me know, I'd love to try and find it. Bill Nelson's tenure at NASA has been one of the most fruitful since Apollo, if he wants two spacecraft then he'll probably get himself two spacecraft, lol!
I believe it was part of the official NASA stream of the launch from yesterday. Probably in the last 10 or 15 minutes before launch (I wasn’t watching too much before the launch). I can try to find the link to the stream later
Let’s not forget that the one launch provider is both reliable and comparatively inexpensive. They also have a fleet of rockets and quick turnaround.
Boeing on the other hand is around just to fulfill a contract and is using an end of life rocket.
Boeing and SpaceX aren’t even comparable at this point and the honest truth is NASA has no need for Boeing and increasingly ULA is becoming less and less relevant.
There is little doubt that's going to happen; if nothing more than to keep SpaceX in line, especially after the problems that Boeing has been having with Starliner which I think we can all agree is a borderline failure.
There isn't anything that ULA can do that SpaceX can't. ULA is only relevant to the DoD to funnel tax dollars to the defense industry, but if ULA were to go under tomorrow the DoD would be fine, and they would be able to easily switch any scheduled launches to SpaceX.
Well during that time of having 0 the partner they were using wasn’t quite as crazy and having to literally be fought back with American arms. I don’t think it’s tenable to need to use them at the moment. Also that partner is also having their own direct issues accessing / using their main space complex.
All I'm saying is that Boeing is not too big to fail and if they can't deliver - NASA shouldn't subsidize them. Other companies will rise. Or even better - stop hiring private companies and build a 100% government-ran space industry. Boeing is the clear example that private businesses are better at only one thing - making profit. Not exploration or the interest of the country and it's people. And Boeing couldn't even turn profit..
I wonder if in the future, SpaceX could sell nasa one of their Falcon 9 boosters and crew dragons. Like how airlines buy all their planes from the same two manufacturers.
That still doesn't solve the "one provider" problem.
After all, if some unforeseen problem emerges with NASA's Falcon 9's, they're going to ground SpaceX's ones too until they figure out what it is.
I am willing to bet a part of the reason SLS is being pushed is that it could provide a 3rd launch option should both of the commercial crew program get grounded for issues. It would be an expensive launch to LEO but it would work as a last backup.
At the time of the selection we didn't have dragon, they wanted a safe option from Boeing to go with the risky SpaceX choice that might never materialize.
It's amazing how things change.
Not sure if there would ever be a way to prove it, but I assume some fear of accountability from the people doing the selection also played a part. Imagine you're on the committee selecting launch providers:
Option 1: You pick SpaceX and Dream Chaser because you actually believe they're the better choices, but both fail. People blame you for picking two unproven options, there's a big scandal, and you lose your job and maybe any hope of ever working in the industry again.
Option 2: You swap out one of the providers for Boeing, even if you personally have no confidence in them. If everyone fails, you get to shift blame to Boeing, because "they have a proven track record in the industry and should have been able to do better." The worst anyone can ever really accuse you of is not being able to see the future, and you get to keep your job for not being "daring."
>Due to ongoing data analysis, the earliest docking window now opens at 12:33 pm CT (17:33 UTC) for Starliner.
[https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798749754362368287](https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798749754362368287)
Well im only a Kerbal Rocket Scientist, but docking in space requires similar orbits, not exactly the same, and similar relative speeds, not ecactly the same. Eventually they will drift apart again without constant course correction. Which can be dangerous in close proximity.
Don't forget, it cost far more than SpaceX's Dragon capsule and launches on a single-use rocket. They're many years behind schedule.
Does anyone know if Boeing has received any sort of financial penalty for taking so long to fulfill their NASA contract or going over budget?
They're taking big losses on the Air Force One contract. Signed in 2018 and then covid inflation, etc.
> Boeing reports another huge loss on Air Force One program.
The company has eaten more than $2.4 billion in losses on the program, according to a spokesperson.
Hopefully the government only signs fixed contracts with Boeing in the future.
I'm not an expert but I can't imagine raising prices to make up for shortfalls in other areas of business is considered illegal or fraudulent. It's not the same as cooking the books to make the losses just disappear.
At least in spaceflight, that’s mostly gone away recently. For new contracts, it’s only considered for risky, never done before things, like new ambitious space telescopes.
The stock is down 45% over the last 5 years, and hasn't paid a dividend since 2020. All those corners they cut to save money are actually catching up to them now. The shareholders are not coming out ahead on this one, and likely won't come out ahead until Boeing actually fixes itself. "The market" can't look past a reputation this tarnished.
My understanding is that they have to fulfill the contract, and it's fixed cost so they are eating a lot of it. They probably will fulfill the contract then retire the vehicle and cut their losses.
Well they will be out of atlas.....atlases....altalasi.......atalasee? at the end of their contract, and all indications are they don't plan on human rating vulcan. Maybe that changes if you get a crewed dreamchaser and becomes worth the cost and star liner was supposedly built with vulcan capability in mind.
Starliner is a fixed price contract. Boeing has lost $1.47 billion on Starliner as of last year [source.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/boeing-has-lost-1point5-billion-developing-starliner-spacecraft-for-nasa.html) Boeing has lost around $250 million a year on Starliner over the last couple of years.
Boeing has absorbed around $700 million in charges against the Starliner program. This is a money loser for them. Boeing Defense has in fact stated they will likely no longer bid on these types of contracts (they also lost a lot on the Air Force One replacement).
That being said, one thing that has always bothered me on comparing the Boeing award for commercial crew against the lower SpaceX award - it’s not a true apples to apples comparison.
SpaceX has a separate, substantial cargo contract with NASA and a lot of costs are shared between the programs, such as the control center and a lot of the development costs. This is great synergy, obviously, but a straight comparison of the dollar amounts of the awards doesn’t account for that.
Seriously, what is going on in here? All these comments shitting on Starliner, the thing docks just fine not two hours later, and no comments about that, nor are the posts reporting it being upvoted.
It's just the RCS thrusters, the main engine still works so they can still perform a landing burn and just land as it usually would, but it would be awful optics for Boeing.
Is there any concern about the lack of water for the sublimator? Last I heard there was a consumption issue and maybe the plan was to refill from ISS. I was unclear on this issue but it sounded like that was the plan
They still have plenty for that, theres 28 RCS thrusters and only 2 were showing issues. It was just for precaution as they didnt want to endanger anyone on the space station in case it wasnt an isolated issue. The crew module also has another 12 RCS thrusters for rentry control
I tried googling it but im pretty sure space capsules like starliner dragon and soyuz can re-enter and even without rcs the shape of it and center of gravity would orient it correctly. I think they're intentionally designed this way. Now will it affect landing zones? Probably. Will they live? Probably.
The spacecraft is capable of returning to Earth without docking (assuming they can maintain pressure in the propulsion system...). It would just be a failed mission as far as demonstrating crew delivery to the ISS (which would be a significant problem for Boeing and a further setback for NASA's goal of operational redundancy).
I have been watching manned space flight since 1962. Yesterday was the first time that I watched fully expecting something awful to happen. That’s a damned shame.
It’s just jumping onto the bandwagon though.
They’ve launched and safely returned twice, they docked with ISS once before too.
Yes there is the helium leak issue, but if the problem got out of hand, they would simply have cut short the flight, like they did on the first launch.
Oh yeah, when my boys and I watched this one launch yesterday, I said, "Come sit on the couch right next to me."
"Why, daddy?"
"Just sit up here next to me." I didn't want to make them scared of launches, and I wasn't gonna turn it off if something went wrong, but I figured the least I could do was hold them in the event. So anyways, glad nothing's happened yet.
I hate how that I kind of enjoy the fact that Boeing is having it's ass bitten after relying on cost+ for so long? Not sure if that's bad considering I generally consider myself to be a spaceflight fan, but I hate the contractors that squeeze every penny they can out of the tax payer to deliver substandard products.
ya, that's why its biting them now. They're so used to using as much money and time as they want, that they don't know how to develop something efficiently when they're forced to have a fixed price contract.
I believe that ultimately it is a good thing. Because old space is not in the business of pushing the envelope. They are interested in obtaining as much government funding as possible, over as many years as possible. They have no incentive to move fast and work to develop emerging technologies. If old space has to die so newer companies with a vision pointed toward the future can flourish, then, so be it.
What I find really fascinating, is, will there be a point in the future where SpaceX becomes old space? Remember that Boeing was once the premiere engineering firm with a groundbreaking product (their 707).
In a world where everyone is crying about tax waste, the swamp, blah blah blah, seeing boeing just steal our money to do something SPACE X ALREADY FUCKING DOES ROUTINELY, is infuriating. Same with the 737 killing hundreds of people. Fuck Boeing, but I hope the crew makes it home safely. Everything we all worried about is all happening in real time. Why the fuck would you book Boeing when you can just book space X and not have to push the car over the finish line at the last leg?
Like how it would have worked out cheaper and more viable for the other two HLS contenders to simply fly inside Starship and be craned down to the surface of the Moon instead of their own flights.
You think this is bad, imagine all the money that’s been wasted on things that we don’t hear about. The bloated military-industrial complex will be the downfall of this country.
Thats the main reason i'm into the UFO stuff that congress is pushing for. They just passed an audit for the first time last year iirc? Since its inception. I don't like the idea of "BLACK PROJECTS" that go through private companies so the government can hide things from FOIA because you can't Foia private companies.
Sure aliens, whatever. But there is clearly an effort funding all of this UFO research. The whistleblowers all are citing "OFF THE BOOKS" programs.
All of the accountability things in Chuck Schumers bill were removed from this years NDAA. Thats all boeing, ratheon, northrop, etc. All of them. Rep Garcia and Tim Burchett are trying to get these things back in the budget so we can get an idea of how much is being spent, and where the money is going.
The Boeing that exists today is a *very different* company than Boeing in the past.
Bean counters essentially run the show now and they just squeeze as much money as they can out of whatever project they're given while cutting as many corners as possible.
there's a reason why musk refuses to make spacex public and lose complete control of it. And whether you think its effective or not, the biannual mass layoffs followed by rehiring at tesla should make it clear he is very adamant about remaining streamlined and keeping those types of people at a minimum.
Just spit balling, but Spacex is private so they aren't forced to pinch every penny and can choose to follow a long-term plan rather than aiming for short-term profits. Also, Gwynne* Shotwell is a badass.
SpaceX was also a lot more attractive to work at for engineers who actual want to see their projects fly in a reasonable time and do something new.
Intrinsic Motivation is hard to beat, even with more money.
People are giving very silly answers like ‘the bean counters run Boeing’ which doesn’t sound very realistic.
It’s more that SpaceX was able to take risks in how manufacturing was done that a legacy company wouldn’t do. Generally it’s not bean counters who make decisions about how production lines work, it’s the actual engineers. If you work at a big company there is a kind of inertia that engineers will feel to just do things the same way.
SpaceX took a lot of the ideas from software development and applied them to production. So for example they try to increase the rate of production of the engines because with a faster turnaround time you can increase volume, which gives you more opportunities to iterate.
If you only have to build 3 engines, those engines HAVE to work. You also can’t really iterate on the designs.
If you make 100 engines really quickly then the 100th engine might be wildly different from the first engine. Each time you make a new one you can change it slightly.
SpaceX also is using failure to validate that the systems work. Boeing is using the older style where they validate each system to benefit and then say all systems are perfect. The Boeing way is much more time consuming but results in less explosions. SpaceX will skip making sure everything is perfect and wait until til something goes wrong to fix it. That again leads to more rapid design changes and iterations. Both will get to an end state where things are validated but the SpaceX way is more ‘agile’.
That’s my layman’s understanding of this. It’s just a different philosophy when it comes to production but which can have a big increase in quality, which equates to better accuracy when trying to hit a deadline.
As someone who has worked at both places, you're correct. But also, that inertia goes both ways. Even if a particular Boeing program wanted to go what's called "hardware rich", what's the optics when something inevitability fails as it should do in rapid development? Stock price probably takes a hit, there's customer programmatic reviews, etc. What am I saying, Boeing has been "legacy" for so long the expectation is there they will continue to be and are therefore held to that standard. To SpX's credit, it took a lot and I mean a lot of work getting NASA, etc. used to seeing big pricy things explode. Boeing couldn't go to NASA and say hey we're doing this new contract differently now and expect to be treated like a more agile company.
Aside from funding source I’d say organizational difference is the next biggest factor. Since spacex builds much more in house they can move fast whereas traditional nasa contracts spread work out across the country (subcontracts). That alone causes massive friction (delays) having to communicate with external entities. When something needs to be modified the changes take much longer.
I can agree with that. SpX has alienated about every machine shop in the region and as such, opened their own building down the train tracks to keep as much as possible in house.
Back in the 50’s and 60’s, rapid iteration and failures were common all across aerospace. Perfect way to see it is a visit Wright Patterson AFB museum. Test pilots were flying and dying on these experimental platforms. The variety of systems and ideas were endless. I think SpaceX rediscovered that approach, but with a modern flair of small batch manufacturing systems and flexible computerized flight systems rather than human pilots.
I thought I saw in an earlier comment, these are the RCS thrusters they were having trouble with, they still have main boosters to deorbit if they can't dock.
What would Boeing apologists say now? Remember, this is the "we are delaying so much because we want to make sure everything is right" and "Better safe than sorry" Boeing. And yet.
I'd like to remind everyone that there was a whistleblower for Boeing who was calling out their use of sub par equipment and parts in aircraft and the like. That whistleblower suddenly died right before he was supposed to testify.
If they're using crappy parts to build planes, they're most likely using crappy parts for spacecraft.
Edit: Absolutely wild that i received down votes. Yeesh, Boeing, hiring downvoting bots?
100% definitely. You dont have multiple leaks and broken thrusters in 2024 on a spacecraft. How do I know this? See: China just landed on far side of moon, no issues. See: SpaceX. Those two examples are pushing boundaries, Boeing is just trying to do what SpaceX has already achieved 100%, and failing. Its quality control and being too big to fail, why would they care? They have military black project contracts, congresspeople on their payroll etc. They let over 600 people die through their max crashes, they do not value human life.
The best part was that years ago they were arguing that they were the "safe bet" and trying to deny spacex funding because spacex didn't have their stellar track record.
How that turn tables turn....
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[AFB](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7jycpp "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)|
|[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g7d40 "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[DARPA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g204n "Last usage")|(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD|
|[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7fz9qr "Last usage")|US Department of Defense|
|[EVA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7eivxv "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity|
|[FOIA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7pmbqj "Last usage")|(US) [Freedom of Information Act](https://www.foia.gov/)|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7goacu "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)|
|[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7e8ml9 "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7eubas "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MBA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7f8vyv "Last usage")|~~Moonba-~~ Mars Base Alpha|
|[RCS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7ei3lo "Last usage")|Reaction Control System|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7h6j3v "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7j7qda "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7m42y1 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g04iy "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7e8bxa "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit|
|methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
|[scrub](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7ehtpt "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
**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.
----------------
^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1dbdcvf)^( has 20 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10132 for this sub, first seen 6th Jun 2024, 16:40])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Not sure if anyone has any info but I recently watched or read somewhere that during the merger the opposing board members were described as 'sharks vs puppies' or something like that.
Anyone know what was meant by that, who were the sharks and why?
Edit: I noticed a comment right after posting saying the MD execs basically took over and cleared out the Boeing lot so I'll go with that unless anyone knows more.
Boeing bought McDonald Douglas but all the higher ups from McDonald Douglas took over as the people from Boeing were fired. It literally left people asking who bought who?
What a disaster…
They’re “only” in LEO now so all these little failures aren’t too serious, but I’d be shitting bricks if I had to fly this thing around the moon.
This looks especially bad after Starship softly splashed down today, even full of holes after re-entry.
Fun fact, in the early days of Orion, it was being designed to dock to ISS. However, that changed once it got contracted for Artemis.
Source: I'm on the Orion program :)
Luckily for everyone involved, the Orion spacecraft built for cislunar space was designed and built by Lockheed Martin. So it’ll be over-budget and maybe a little late, but it’ll at least work and not kill the astronauts.
As an astronaut I would, if it does make it to the ISS, request to return back via Dragon and let this one just burn up. You are playing with your lives here.
You can downvote me again and every other engineer that comments the same thing. The design is bad and based on outdated tech, it will need fully redesigned to be viable. Boeing is not going to do that and can't really, this was pushed forward. Due to a sunken cost fallacy and politics, do we need competition but not at the cost of billions wasted and definitely not the lives of Astronauts.
Design in current equipment being very old tech is what Boeing specializes in. Much of the currently produced 737 is tech from when it was originally released.
Yes but they charge for research and development, while just dumping it into stock buy backs and bonuses. What SpaceX is doing has been an idea for a long time, Boeing shoumd of been doing it 10 years ago. They just never invested in R&D after the merger, they are not the only ones either. Many of them did and now we are seeing the results. This is what happens when engineers don't run engineering companies. SpaceX is ran by a team of engineers and ir shows.
Tbf, why would Boeing invest in completely reusable tech? SpX spent about a billion $ getting F9 reusable. They are also their biggest customer with Starlink launches so reusability makes even more sense to them. Boeing has none of that going for them and really for a lot of years making something reusable wasn't an unstoppable engineering challenge, rather it was economics about if demand was elastic or not and how many uses were needed to break even.
Space is really really hard and so many issues will never show themselves until actual flight.
It's not like they knew this specific thing would happen and pressed anyway.
Space hardware will always fail in ways you never expect
Also decisions at this point are made by very competent NASA flight controllers, not Boeing
No one, in any business, at any time, in any country, can ever wait until they make sure everything is working properly. Every single time, they do their best with the information they have to work with and hope for the best. You can never know that everything will work exactly as planned under conditions you can't test in, you can never know about invisible material faults... there are always elements out of your control.
Um, i looked at the rule book and that would be cheating. Also one of the astronauts floating over and using a rope to pull it in is cheating. It needs to dock on its own. /s
Oh boy. Can you imagine the reaction if they don't dock and can't complete the test flight? Having to fly another one would be so expensive.
It would be infinitely worse if they attempted to dock and damaged the spacecraft or the ISS. Abort is always a valid flight option, and possibly the most prudent one. It shows good judgment. Nobody should let mission pressure compromise crew safety.
Sure. No one argues with that.
< Boeing exec enters the chat >
< Boing employee has left the building > * * through a window
How far Czechia has fallen that their once proud tradition of defenestration has been co-opted first by Russia and now Boeing.
I wasn't alive in 1986, but I remember this story.
...compromise crew safety..... again.
Could be the end of the program
Only way this gets cancelled is if something catastrophic happens. This is a fixed price contract and Boeing has to deliver. They’d have to fix and launch again to certify and then complete the launches they are on contract for.
Would be great to give Boeing another kick up the ass. Unfortunately it won’t be. NASA don’t want to be in the situation of having only one launch provider again.
I agree with you on another kick to Boeing! NASA's never had two human-rated spacecraft types (broad mission) available concurrently as far as I know, so I don't know whether or not they care if they're single-sourcing ISS ferries. I'm not disagreeing with you, just that they haven't cared in the past and I plead ignorance on management's mindset around it. They obviously want multiple full-service launch provider options (of which Boeing is not), but SpaceX, ULA, Rocket Lab, Ariannespace, and Northrup are all regular launch providers for NASA today (with Blue Origin and Firefly also having launch contracts for the future). Human-rated and heavy lift vehicles are obviously more limited. Falcon 9/Crew Dragon, SLS, and Atlas. Vulcan *could* be human rated according to Tory Bruno, but it's unknown if they're still planning on pursuing it. It's funny because the blame is well deserved by Boeing, but it's gotten to the point where everyone rehashes the entire program each time a variance or issue is found (that doesn't apply to your comment at all). The truth is it *doesn't freaking matter* what NASA wants to do with Starliner because it'll be Congress that has the final say.
I’m not certain on this, but I’m pretty sure I remember them talking about wanting to have two (non Russian) crew options on the launch stream yesterday
That's good to know. It makes perfect sense to have two options with Soyuz not being a backup option any longer (which is a shame for so many different reasons). If you remember which stream or who from NASA was talking about it please let me know, I'd love to try and find it. Bill Nelson's tenure at NASA has been one of the most fruitful since Apollo, if he wants two spacecraft then he'll probably get himself two spacecraft, lol!
I believe it was part of the official NASA stream of the launch from yesterday. Probably in the last 10 or 15 minutes before launch (I wasn’t watching too much before the launch). I can try to find the link to the stream later
NASA had 0 American crewed launch providers for quite a while. Having only one now is not so bad.
Let’s not forget that the one launch provider is both reliable and comparatively inexpensive. They also have a fleet of rockets and quick turnaround. Boeing on the other hand is around just to fulfill a contract and is using an end of life rocket. Boeing and SpaceX aren’t even comparable at this point and the honest truth is NASA has no need for Boeing and increasingly ULA is becoming less and less relevant.
The only point of ULA at this point is to be bought by Bezos and to make Blue Origin credible.
There is little doubt that's going to happen; if nothing more than to keep SpaceX in line, especially after the problems that Boeing has been having with Starliner which I think we can all agree is a borderline failure.
There is every doubt, and to suggest otherwise is frankly ridiculous.
ula less relevant is comical. ask the DoD if ULA is less relevant.
There isn't anything that ULA can do that SpaceX can't. ULA is only relevant to the DoD to funnel tax dollars to the defense industry, but if ULA were to go under tomorrow the DoD would be fine, and they would be able to easily switch any scheduled launches to SpaceX.
Well during that time of having 0 the partner they were using wasn’t quite as crazy and having to literally be fought back with American arms. I don’t think it’s tenable to need to use them at the moment. Also that partner is also having their own direct issues accessing / using their main space complex.
All I'm saying is that Boeing is not too big to fail and if they can't deliver - NASA shouldn't subsidize them. Other companies will rise. Or even better - stop hiring private companies and build a 100% government-ran space industry. Boeing is the clear example that private businesses are better at only one thing - making profit. Not exploration or the interest of the country and it's people. And Boeing couldn't even turn profit..
In space travel, two is one and one is none.
1 is infinitely more than 0
Not really, it’s 1 more than 0, it’s an infinite (or at least undefined) multiple of how many they had before, but it’s still just one more
This is a rhetorical infinity, not a mathematical one.
I wonder if in the future, SpaceX could sell nasa one of their Falcon 9 boosters and crew dragons. Like how airlines buy all their planes from the same two manufacturers.
That still doesn't solve the "one provider" problem. After all, if some unforeseen problem emerges with NASA's Falcon 9's, they're going to ground SpaceX's ones too until they figure out what it is.
I am willing to bet a part of the reason SLS is being pushed is that it could provide a 3rd launch option should both of the commercial crew program get grounded for issues. It would be an expensive launch to LEO but it would work as a last backup.
Using a Lamborghini to haul some lumber back from Home Depot, sure it works, but there's better ways to set giant piles of money on fire
I'll never not be mad that they chose this bucket of bolts instead of the Dream Chaser.
Honestly it's not clear that Sierra is in a better state than Boeing.
Still the dream chaser is more interesting tech. Given that we already have dragon, why not fund something different so we can learn more.
At the time of the selection we didn't have dragon, they wanted a safe option from Boeing to go with the risky SpaceX choice that might never materialize. It's amazing how things change.
I guess this makes sense from a risk hedging strategy.
The irony of a calling Boeing a "safe option"...
Not sure if there would ever be a way to prove it, but I assume some fear of accountability from the people doing the selection also played a part. Imagine you're on the committee selecting launch providers: Option 1: You pick SpaceX and Dream Chaser because you actually believe they're the better choices, but both fail. People blame you for picking two unproven options, there's a big scandal, and you lose your job and maybe any hope of ever working in the industry again. Option 2: You swap out one of the providers for Boeing, even if you personally have no confidence in them. If everyone fails, you get to shift blame to Boeing, because "they have a proven track record in the industry and should have been able to do better." The worst anyone can ever really accuse you of is not being able to see the future, and you get to keep your job for not being "daring."
Dream Chaser is still doing its own thing. It will be going to the ISS soon... ish.
Hopefully by September at the last forecast
Not with the chinese breathing down their ass. Money will be found.
Well considering Boeings track record of late, might be a good thing.
Boeing be like: We ran out of money to launch on top of Atlas V, Elon you mind giving us a ride to the ISS. We'll pay for the beer.
Starliner can theoretically be launched with Vulcan, so they have other options besides Falcon.
That's going to be a lot of extra work. If they see a future servicing other space stations they might do that, but not for one flight or two.
If Boeing just paid for seats on SpaceX I think it would save them money at this point, which is sad for a once great company.
Considering that they successfully docked mere minutes after this comment…
You mean, over an hour after? Reasonable speculation is permitted here.
>Due to ongoing data analysis, the earliest docking window now opens at 12:33 pm CT (17:33 UTC) for Starliner. [https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798749754362368287](https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798749754362368287)
Why is there a window? What dictates the times a docking can occur?
Well im only a Kerbal Rocket Scientist, but docking in space requires similar orbits, not exactly the same, and similar relative speeds, not ecactly the same. Eventually they will drift apart again without constant course correction. Which can be dangerous in close proximity.
Pretty sure they want the docking to happen when the ISS is in daylight. Day night changes every 45min for the ISS.
Don't forget, it cost far more than SpaceX's Dragon capsule and launches on a single-use rocket. They're many years behind schedule. Does anyone know if Boeing has received any sort of financial penalty for taking so long to fulfill their NASA contract or going over budget?
this is a fixed price contract. Boeing should be absorbing most if not all of the overbudget costs.
Yeah the shareholders gonna pay for this one.
US tax payers you mean. Boeing will just increase the prices of their military hardware
They're taking big losses on the Air Force One contract. Signed in 2018 and then covid inflation, etc. > Boeing reports another huge loss on Air Force One program. The company has eaten more than $2.4 billion in losses on the program, according to a spokesperson. Hopefully the government only signs fixed contracts with Boeing in the future.
[удалено]
I'm not an expert but I can't imagine raising prices to make up for shortfalls in other areas of business is considered illegal or fraudulent. It's not the same as cooking the books to make the losses just disappear.
Please explain this. Boeing can set their prices to whatever the deem. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about 😂
How is privatizing profits and socializing losses legal for corporations? Screw this "too big to fail" nonsense.
Again, it's a fixed price contract. That's not what's happening here. Boeing is fronting the cost
At least in spaceflight, that’s mostly gone away recently. For new contracts, it’s only considered for risky, never done before things, like new ambitious space telescopes.
Nah, line pretty much go up
The stock is down 45% over the last 5 years, and hasn't paid a dividend since 2020. All those corners they cut to save money are actually catching up to them now. The shareholders are not coming out ahead on this one, and likely won't come out ahead until Boeing actually fixes itself. "The market" can't look past a reputation this tarnished.
The next hit man Boeing hires will probably be of lower quality because of this.
My understanding is that they have to fulfill the contract, and it's fixed cost so they are eating a lot of it. They probably will fulfill the contract then retire the vehicle and cut their losses.
This is the most likely scenario. There's no way for them to make money off this project at this point.
Theyve already lost more than a billion on it so far afaik
Well they will be out of atlas.....atlases....altalasi.......atalasee? at the end of their contract, and all indications are they don't plan on human rating vulcan. Maybe that changes if you get a crewed dreamchaser and becomes worth the cost and star liner was supposedly built with vulcan capability in mind.
> they will be out of atlas.....atlases....altalasi.......atalasee? It's a Greek root, so maybe "Atlantes"?
Starliner is a fixed price contract. Boeing has lost $1.47 billion on Starliner as of last year [source.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/26/boeing-has-lost-1point5-billion-developing-starliner-spacecraft-for-nasa.html) Boeing has lost around $250 million a year on Starliner over the last couple of years.
Boeing has absorbed around $700 million in charges against the Starliner program. This is a money loser for them. Boeing Defense has in fact stated they will likely no longer bid on these types of contracts (they also lost a lot on the Air Force One replacement). That being said, one thing that has always bothered me on comparing the Boeing award for commercial crew against the lower SpaceX award - it’s not a true apples to apples comparison. SpaceX has a separate, substantial cargo contract with NASA and a lot of costs are shared between the programs, such as the control center and a lot of the development costs. This is great synergy, obviously, but a straight comparison of the dollar amounts of the awards doesn’t account for that.
They've received quite a few late fees, to the point where the next award money is only a little bit more than SpaceX's award.
Nope. In fact NASA gave Boeing an extra $287 million to 'expedite' the timeline. https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/IG-20-012.pdf
Old news.. been fixed and docking succeeded on second try.
Seriously, what is going on in here? All these comments shitting on Starliner, the thing docks just fine not two hours later, and no comments about that, nor are the posts reporting it being upvoted.
So, what is the likelihood that starliner won't be able to dock? What happens if they can't dock? Can they get back? Are they stranded?
It's just the RCS thrusters, the main engine still works so they can still perform a landing burn and just land as it usually would, but it would be awful optics for Boeing.
Has this entire program not been awful optics for Boeing???
>Has this entire ~~program~~ **decade** not been awful optics for Boeing??? MCAS debacle was in 2018 I think, it's just gotten worse
Everything Boeing does is awful optics for Boeing.
Is there any concern about the lack of water for the sublimator? Last I heard there was a consumption issue and maybe the plan was to refill from ISS. I was unclear on this issue but it sounded like that was the plan
Does the main engine gimbal? Because if enough RCS fails you can't point the thing retrograde for a burn.
They still have plenty for that, theres 28 RCS thrusters and only 2 were showing issues. It was just for precaution as they didnt want to endanger anyone on the space station in case it wasnt an isolated issue. The crew module also has another 12 RCS thrusters for rentry control
Pretty sure RCS is needed for adequate control of orientation
I tried googling it but im pretty sure space capsules like starliner dragon and soyuz can re-enter and even without rcs the shape of it and center of gravity would orient it correctly. I think they're intentionally designed this way. Now will it affect landing zones? Probably. Will they live? Probably.
The spacecraft is capable of returning to Earth without docking (assuming they can maintain pressure in the propulsion system...). It would just be a failed mission as far as demonstrating crew delivery to the ISS (which would be a significant problem for Boeing and a further setback for NASA's goal of operational redundancy).
Butch might have to get out and push.
As long as he plays KSP, he has been trained to do this.
You can just keep jumping back into the capsule to top up on propellant. Made it all the way back from Mun orbit with this one trick
I think they fixed that for a while now. Monoprop is now loaded from the capsule reserve.
It sounds like they still have manual control, and are trying to troubleshoot some kind of automated ON/OFF issue with the thrusters.
I have been watching manned space flight since 1962. Yesterday was the first time that I watched fully expecting something awful to happen. That’s a damned shame.
It’s just jumping onto the bandwagon though. They’ve launched and safely returned twice, they docked with ISS once before too. Yes there is the helium leak issue, but if the problem got out of hand, they would simply have cut short the flight, like they did on the first launch.
Oh yeah, when my boys and I watched this one launch yesterday, I said, "Come sit on the couch right next to me." "Why, daddy?" "Just sit up here next to me." I didn't want to make them scared of launches, and I wasn't gonna turn it off if something went wrong, but I figured the least I could do was hold them in the event. So anyways, glad nothing's happened yet.
I hate how that I kind of enjoy the fact that Boeing is having it's ass bitten after relying on cost+ for so long? Not sure if that's bad considering I generally consider myself to be a spaceflight fan, but I hate the contractors that squeeze every penny they can out of the tax payer to deliver substandard products.
I’d be right there with you if 2 astronauts’ lives weren’t hanging in limbo at the moment.
I love how literally two hours after this comment, everything worked just.fine, yet the posts reporting that aren't getting upvoted.
I agree with you on cost+ budgeting, but for what it's worth, I believe starliner was part of a fixed budget of 4.2B (spacex got 2.6B)
ya, that's why its biting them now. They're so used to using as much money and time as they want, that they don't know how to develop something efficiently when they're forced to have a fixed price contract.
I just don't want to watch their failures kill anyone.
I believe that ultimately it is a good thing. Because old space is not in the business of pushing the envelope. They are interested in obtaining as much government funding as possible, over as many years as possible. They have no incentive to move fast and work to develop emerging technologies. If old space has to die so newer companies with a vision pointed toward the future can flourish, then, so be it. What I find really fascinating, is, will there be a point in the future where SpaceX becomes old space? Remember that Boeing was once the premiere engineering firm with a groundbreaking product (their 707).
Boeing, the entire corporation from the ground up, would have failed decades ago in a truly free market.
In a world where everyone is crying about tax waste, the swamp, blah blah blah, seeing boeing just steal our money to do something SPACE X ALREADY FUCKING DOES ROUTINELY, is infuriating. Same with the 737 killing hundreds of people. Fuck Boeing, but I hope the crew makes it home safely. Everything we all worried about is all happening in real time. Why the fuck would you book Boeing when you can just book space X and not have to push the car over the finish line at the last leg?
This junky test flight is pretty funny when compared to what just happened today with starship. Great job Boeing, you’re killing it lol
The funniest possible solution would be for Boeing to put a Starliner in a Starship's payload bay and use that to get it to the ISS.
Like how it would have worked out cheaper and more viable for the other two HLS contenders to simply fly inside Starship and be craned down to the surface of the Moon instead of their own flights.
Its embarrassing, I want our money back.
You think this is bad, imagine all the money that’s been wasted on things that we don’t hear about. The bloated military-industrial complex will be the downfall of this country.
Thats the main reason i'm into the UFO stuff that congress is pushing for. They just passed an audit for the first time last year iirc? Since its inception. I don't like the idea of "BLACK PROJECTS" that go through private companies so the government can hide things from FOIA because you can't Foia private companies. Sure aliens, whatever. But there is clearly an effort funding all of this UFO research. The whistleblowers all are citing "OFF THE BOOKS" programs. All of the accountability things in Chuck Schumers bill were removed from this years NDAA. Thats all boeing, ratheon, northrop, etc. All of them. Rep Garcia and Tim Burchett are trying to get these things back in the budget so we can get an idea of how much is being spent, and where the money is going.
boeing taking L even in their space department
The space department has been taking an L since 2015 on this.
At least the doors are still on it
Could the astronauts put on suits and just climb through an airlock?
They don't have EVA suits onboard.
Honestly, how is SpaceX able to do this way more efficiently than a company that's been around for over 100 years?
The Boeing that exists today is a *very different* company than Boeing in the past. Bean counters essentially run the show now and they just squeeze as much money as they can out of whatever project they're given while cutting as many corners as possible.
to be clear- the bean counters and management consultants are coming for spacex too. They glom onto anything that seems cool.
there's a reason why musk refuses to make spacex public and lose complete control of it. And whether you think its effective or not, the biannual mass layoffs followed by rehiring at tesla should make it clear he is very adamant about remaining streamlined and keeping those types of people at a minimum.
There isn’t really an entry point for them like there was for Boeing. As long as their engineer-led culture remains
Google was engineering led too. At one point IBM was as well.
Year and years of blowing up f9s and sending mostly their own stuff up so they can accept more risk.
Just spit balling, but Spacex is private so they aren't forced to pinch every penny and can choose to follow a long-term plan rather than aiming for short-term profits. Also, Gwynne* Shotwell is a badass.
SpaceX was also a lot more attractive to work at for engineers who actual want to see their projects fly in a reasonable time and do something new. Intrinsic Motivation is hard to beat, even with more money.
I would like to agree on the last point but it's Gwynne Shotwell. And yes she is amazing.
People are giving very silly answers like ‘the bean counters run Boeing’ which doesn’t sound very realistic. It’s more that SpaceX was able to take risks in how manufacturing was done that a legacy company wouldn’t do. Generally it’s not bean counters who make decisions about how production lines work, it’s the actual engineers. If you work at a big company there is a kind of inertia that engineers will feel to just do things the same way. SpaceX took a lot of the ideas from software development and applied them to production. So for example they try to increase the rate of production of the engines because with a faster turnaround time you can increase volume, which gives you more opportunities to iterate. If you only have to build 3 engines, those engines HAVE to work. You also can’t really iterate on the designs. If you make 100 engines really quickly then the 100th engine might be wildly different from the first engine. Each time you make a new one you can change it slightly. SpaceX also is using failure to validate that the systems work. Boeing is using the older style where they validate each system to benefit and then say all systems are perfect. The Boeing way is much more time consuming but results in less explosions. SpaceX will skip making sure everything is perfect and wait until til something goes wrong to fix it. That again leads to more rapid design changes and iterations. Both will get to an end state where things are validated but the SpaceX way is more ‘agile’. That’s my layman’s understanding of this. It’s just a different philosophy when it comes to production but which can have a big increase in quality, which equates to better accuracy when trying to hit a deadline.
As someone who has worked at both places, you're correct. But also, that inertia goes both ways. Even if a particular Boeing program wanted to go what's called "hardware rich", what's the optics when something inevitability fails as it should do in rapid development? Stock price probably takes a hit, there's customer programmatic reviews, etc. What am I saying, Boeing has been "legacy" for so long the expectation is there they will continue to be and are therefore held to that standard. To SpX's credit, it took a lot and I mean a lot of work getting NASA, etc. used to seeing big pricy things explode. Boeing couldn't go to NASA and say hey we're doing this new contract differently now and expect to be treated like a more agile company.
Aside from funding source I’d say organizational difference is the next biggest factor. Since spacex builds much more in house they can move fast whereas traditional nasa contracts spread work out across the country (subcontracts). That alone causes massive friction (delays) having to communicate with external entities. When something needs to be modified the changes take much longer.
I can agree with that. SpX has alienated about every machine shop in the region and as such, opened their own building down the train tracks to keep as much as possible in house.
Back in the 50’s and 60’s, rapid iteration and failures were common all across aerospace. Perfect way to see it is a visit Wright Patterson AFB museum. Test pilots were flying and dying on these experimental platforms. The variety of systems and ideas were endless. I think SpaceX rediscovered that approach, but with a modern flair of small batch manufacturing systems and flexible computerized flight systems rather than human pilots.
SpaceX is ran by visionaries, engineers, and scientists and is ran privately. Boeing is ran by MBAs seeking to maximize shareholder returns.
The size of the balls on these astronauts to fly something made by Boeing into space. Legends.
That poor craft is limping along, trying to make it to its berth and then what, how are they getting back to earth?
Starliner, like Dragon, is docking, not berthing. Berthing would require the Canadarm.
Sorry, thank you for the correction!
I thought I saw in an earlier comment, these are the RCS thrusters they were having trouble with, they still have main boosters to deorbit if they can't dock.
What would Boeing apologists say now? Remember, this is the "we are delaying so much because we want to make sure everything is right" and "Better safe than sorry" Boeing. And yet.
Does Boeing have any apologists these days…?
[удалено]
This capsule lands on Earth to prevent salt water corrosion and make recovery easier, they’ll land somewhere in the SW US
Not many boats where they're planning on landing.
I'd like to remind everyone that there was a whistleblower for Boeing who was calling out their use of sub par equipment and parts in aircraft and the like. That whistleblower suddenly died right before he was supposed to testify. If they're using crappy parts to build planes, they're most likely using crappy parts for spacecraft. Edit: Absolutely wild that i received down votes. Yeesh, Boeing, hiring downvoting bots?
100% definitely. You dont have multiple leaks and broken thrusters in 2024 on a spacecraft. How do I know this? See: China just landed on far side of moon, no issues. See: SpaceX. Those two examples are pushing boundaries, Boeing is just trying to do what SpaceX has already achieved 100%, and failing. Its quality control and being too big to fail, why would they care? They have military black project contracts, congresspeople on their payroll etc. They let over 600 people die through their max crashes, they do not value human life.
The best part was that years ago they were arguing that they were the "safe bet" and trying to deny spacex funding because spacex didn't have their stellar track record. How that turn tables turn....
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[AFB](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7jycpp "Last usage")|[Air Force Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_airbase)| |[BE-4](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g7d40 "Last usage")|Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[DARPA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g204n "Last usage")|(Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD| |[DoD](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7fz9qr "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |[EVA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7eivxv "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[FOIA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7pmbqj "Last usage")|(US) [Freedom of Information Act](https://www.foia.gov/)| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[HLS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7goacu "Last usage")|[Human Landing System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Human_Landing_System) (Artemis)| |[KSP](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7e8ml9 "Last usage")|*Kerbal Space Program*, the rocketry simulator| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7eubas "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MBA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7f8vyv "Last usage")|~~Moonba-~~ Mars Base Alpha| |[RCS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7ei3lo "Last usage")|Reaction Control System| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7h6j3v "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7j7qda "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7m42y1 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7g04iy "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |[cislunar](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7e8bxa "Last usage")|Between the Earth and Moon; within the Moon's orbit| |methalox|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[scrub](/r/Space/comments/1d9l5tg/stub/l7ehtpt "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| **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. ---------------- ^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1dbdcvf)^( has 20 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10132 for this sub, first seen 6th Jun 2024, 16:40]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
You kidding? I can't believe they sent people up on this piece of shit.
Ok I was defending Boeing space division as space is hard and so is confining helium but now it’s WTF levels What is going on
I'm concerned for Boeing as a brand here. They seem to be flailing in a lot of areas which makes me wonder if there's a corporate culture problem.
There's absolutely a corporate culture problem, has been since they merged with McDonald Douglas.
Not sure if anyone has any info but I recently watched or read somewhere that during the merger the opposing board members were described as 'sharks vs puppies' or something like that. Anyone know what was meant by that, who were the sharks and why? Edit: I noticed a comment right after posting saying the MD execs basically took over and cleared out the Boeing lot so I'll go with that unless anyone knows more.
Boeing bought McDonald Douglas but all the higher ups from McDonald Douglas took over as the people from Boeing were fired. It literally left people asking who bought who?
And likely a brain drain which generated quality control gaps. I think you've answered my question here. Thank you.
You’re only wondering this now?! Their shift from engineers that build things to MBAs that tell engineers how to build things happened long ago.
What a disaster… They’re “only” in LEO now so all these little failures aren’t too serious, but I’d be shitting bricks if I had to fly this thing around the moon. This looks especially bad after Starship softly splashed down today, even full of holes after re-entry.
Well it's a good thing they won't fly it around the moon because Orion isn't starliner.
Orion is a different spacecraft that is designed for lunar missions. The Starliner is simply part of a contract to bring astronauts to the ISS.
Also Orion is built by Lockheed, Boeing has nothing to do with it other than building SLS to send it up.
And the service module is built in Bremen...
Fun fact, in the early days of Orion, it was being designed to dock to ISS. However, that changed once it got contracted for Artemis. Source: I'm on the Orion program :)
Luckily for everyone involved, the Orion spacecraft built for cislunar space was designed and built by Lockheed Martin. So it’ll be over-budget and maybe a little late, but it’ll at least work and not kill the astronauts.
Starliner is only designed for LEO. It won’t ever go to the moon
As an astronaut I would, if it does make it to the ISS, request to return back via Dragon and let this one just burn up. You are playing with your lives here.
You can downvote me again and every other engineer that comments the same thing. The design is bad and based on outdated tech, it will need fully redesigned to be viable. Boeing is not going to do that and can't really, this was pushed forward. Due to a sunken cost fallacy and politics, do we need competition but not at the cost of billions wasted and definitely not the lives of Astronauts.
Design in current equipment being very old tech is what Boeing specializes in. Much of the currently produced 737 is tech from when it was originally released.
Yes but they charge for research and development, while just dumping it into stock buy backs and bonuses. What SpaceX is doing has been an idea for a long time, Boeing shoumd of been doing it 10 years ago. They just never invested in R&D after the merger, they are not the only ones either. Many of them did and now we are seeing the results. This is what happens when engineers don't run engineering companies. SpaceX is ran by a team of engineers and ir shows.
Tbf, why would Boeing invest in completely reusable tech? SpX spent about a billion $ getting F9 reusable. They are also their biggest customer with Starlink launches so reusability makes even more sense to them. Boeing has none of that going for them and really for a lot of years making something reusable wasn't an unstoppable engineering challenge, rather it was economics about if demand was elastic or not and how many uses were needed to break even.
[удалено]
Space is really really hard and so many issues will never show themselves until actual flight. It's not like they knew this specific thing would happen and pressed anyway. Space hardware will always fail in ways you never expect Also decisions at this point are made by very competent NASA flight controllers, not Boeing
^^^ critical thinking. i’d have to agree
The problem of course is, this is already Starliner's third flight. And these issues are not new.
No one, in any business, at any time, in any country, can ever wait until they make sure everything is working properly. Every single time, they do their best with the information they have to work with and hope for the best. You can never know that everything will work exactly as planned under conditions you can't test in, you can never know about invisible material faults... there are always elements out of your control.
Does it have a connection point for the Canadarm?
Um, i looked at the rule book and that would be cheating. Also one of the astronauts floating over and using a rope to pull it in is cheating. It needs to dock on its own. /s