Great article on how Boeing has failed

DeadStick said:
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

So it's more than a little disingenuous to say the agency that took us from blowing up monkeys on launchpads to walking on the moon in a decade is not capable of learning fast. It's more that they have had both hands chained behind their backs compared to the days when NASA's budget was a blank check and comparing them against private companies still free to operate the way NASA used to.
Click to expand...

and musk decided to rush their rocket and launch on 4/20 for the lols...which blew up. I think a lot of high companies succeed despite him.

Starliner launch
 
Domenick said:
In 2010 Boeing began its CST-100 program, a commercial crewed capsule program financed mostly by Boeing. In 2014, NASA choose Boeing's the CST-100 (rebranded to Starliner) and SpaceX's Dragon as the USA's solution to crewed space access. At that time, I believe NASA wanted its eggs in more than one basket--not a bad idea. Mr. Musk developed his basket years ahead of Boeing who had a head start, while Boeing followed the typical government contract timeline of slow development, cost overruns, and delays.

At least that is my recollection, and I admit to being a fan of SpaceX.

One important difference between a risk-taker like Musk and the standard military-industrial complex, is Musk wasn't afraid to fail where only hardware was at risk. Falcon failed many times, and each time, Mr. Musk took it as a learning experience. Boeing was terrified of a PR disaster, and even so, OFT-1 launched into the wrong orbit and never docked with the space station. The capsule was recovered successfully. Remember too, in less time than Boeing developed the Starliner crew capsule, Musk expanded the Falcon launch system, and developed a Dragon cargo module and a Dragon Crew module.

I'll be watching the Starliner crewed launch this evening at 10:35 pm EDT. NASA TV. Space.com has a link.
Click to expand...
Or will you. They must’ve done a door check.

www.12news.com

Boeing calls off its first astronaut launch because of valve issue on rocket

It would've been the first flight of Boeing’s Starliner capsule with a crew on board.
www.12news.com www.12news.com
 
To be fair, the failed oxygen relief valve was not part of Boeing's Starliner. It was part of the upper stage of the Atlas V launch system by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I believe the "upper stage" refers to the Centaur booster.
 
DeadStick said:
I was saying the exact opposite, actually. The US space program was horribly bungled at first when it was managed by the military and it gave the USSR a huge head start.
Click to expand...

You are overlooking the advantages the USSR had in the beginning, immediately following WWII. The early USSR lifting capability was significantly higher than what the US had... right out of the gate. At a gross level, while the US had more of the scientists, the USSR had more of the technicians. The US had to learn how to build the larger engines, how to make the great designs actually work, etc.
 
Bob Noel said:
You are overlooking the advantages the USSR had in the beginning, immediately following WWII. The early USSR lifting capability was significantly higher than what the US had... right out of the gate. At a gross level, while the US had more of the scientists, the USSR had more of the technicians. The US had to learn how to build the larger engines, how to make the great designs actually work, etc.
Click to expand...
Grabbing a few key Germans didn’t hurt.
 
Domenick said:
To be fair, the failed oxygen relief valve was not part of Boeing's Starliner. It was part of the upper stage of the Atlas V launch system by United Launch Alliance (ULA). I believe the "upper stage" refers to the Centaur booster.
Click to expand...

True, but since Boeing half owns ULA........ :cool:
 
DeadStick said:
I was saying the exact opposite, actually. The US space program was horribly bungled at first when it was managed by the military and it gave the USSR a huge head start.
Click to expand...
A bit more nuanced than that.

The military actually had a rocket ready to go before the Russians. But Ike wanted it to be a civilian effort, so he held them back. Only after the public outcry of being beaten did he let the military and Von Braun use their hardware to launch.

And the Russians had larger rockets, not because they were better rocket builders, but from necessity. Their warheads were not as advanced and we much heavier and larger than those in the US. Thus they had to build larger lift rockets.
 
WDD said:
True, but since Boeing half owns ULA........ :cool:
Click to expand...
Good catch. I didn't know. ULA's board of director consists of three from Boeing and three from Lockheed.
Valve must have been sourced from Spirit.
 
Domenick said:
Good catch. I didn't know. ULA's board of director consists of three from Boeing and three from Lockheed.
Valve must have been sourced from Spirit.
Click to expand...

Well, they say it's a valve issue. I think that's NASA's stock answer, sorta like the NTSB and carb ice. More likely the astronauts heard the latest news about Boeing and said "Let me outta here!"
 

Starliner mission scrapped; FAA to investigate 787s​


 
Article is long on style and short on substance. Best read in bed.
 
DeadStick said:
The thing is, SpaceX is private. When they blow up a Falcon, Musk doesn't have the CEOs of Blackrock and Vanguard screaming on the phone about their ROI. When Boeing has a billion-dollar setback, there are 30 Senators demanding public hearings to know why their taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

So it's more than a little disingenuous to say the agency that took us from blowing up monkeys on launchpads to walking on the moon in a decade is not capable of learning fast. It's more that they have had both hands chained behind their backs compared to the days when NASA's budget was a blank check and comparing them against private companies still free to operate the way NASA used to.
Click to expand...
Elon only owns half of SpaceX. He has big institutional investors too. The reason why he gets away with running the company the way he does is because it sets aggressive goals and meets them.
 
After a couple of rescheduled launch dates, they are now in a delay of undetermined length. Today’s problem is a helium leak in the Starliner propulsion system.

Can you imagine being selected to be an astronaut, spend years of training, and then be assigned to the Starliner? You might retire / age out without ever getting into space.
 
I believe it was Alan Shepard, the USA's first man in space, who was once asked, "What's were you thinking when sitting atop the Redstone Rocket waiting for liftoff?"
Sheppard responded, "That every part was made by the lowest bidder."
 
Domenick said:
I believe it was Alan Shepard, the USA's first man in space, who was once asked, "What's were you thinking when sitting atop the Redstone Rocket waiting for liftoff?"
Sheppard responded, "That every part was made by the lowest bidder."
Click to expand...

Imagine today the terror of stepping over a Boeing logo as you enter the spacecraft.....
 
Another day, another Starliner launch scrub.

At this point if you really wanted to get it into space maybe stick it on a Falcon or Falcon Heavy.
 
I saw this in the comments section:

They are renaming it from “Starliner” to “Scrubliner”.
 
Last edited:
ULA/Boeing has been trying and failing for a year or more to launch just this one rocket. SpaceX has launched a dozen crew missions, plus sending up a dozen satellite launches every month. Why is there such a chasm between success and failure?
 
ateamer said:
ULA/Boeing has been trying and failing for a year or more to launch just this one rocket. SpaceX has launched a dozen crew missions, plus sending up a dozen satellite launches every month. Why is there such a chasm between success and failure?
Click to expand...
Free market competition to some degree I guess. One is better than the other. Although in the normal market the buyer would only buy the better product. Why we are putting more money into this doesn’t make sense. It’s sunk costs you wont ever recover. It will never become so much cheaper per lb into orbit X number of flights vs Space X to make it a better ROI.
 
ateamer said:
ULA/Boeing has been trying and failing for a year or more to launch just this one rocket. SpaceX has launched a dozen crew missions, plus sending up a dozen satellite launches every month. Why is there such a chasm between success and failure?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't blame ULA. The Atlas V has something like a 99% success rate. It's pricier per launch than SpaceX, but has a good track record. The Boeing payload on the other hand...
 
Some interesting facts about the Atlas V. The main booster engine is made in Russia.
It is a capable launch system with a good record, but it's old tech and philosophy. Everything but the payload becomes junk.
Even the Vulcan Centaur, scheduled at some point to replace the Atlas V, becomes junk in just a few minutes. It does ditch the Russian engine though.
Fingers crossed for 05 June.
 
At what point do they decide to return them on a Dragon and bring the starliner back by remote?

Also, didn’t they outsource the service module to another contractor? Or was that the one for Orion?

Edit- it was Orion that uses the European built service module.
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
Some interesting facts about the Atlas V. The main booster engine is made in Russia.
It is a capable launch system with a good record, but it's old tech and philosophy. Everything but the payload becomes junk.
Even the Vulcan Centaur, scheduled at some point to replace the Atlas V, becomes junk in just a few minutes. It does ditch the Russian engine though.
Fingers crossed for 05 June.
Click to expand...
Yep, the RD-180s on Atlas V are Russian-made and Russia will (obviously) no longer service the remaining rockets in U.S. inventory. Also why National Security Space Launch Phase III was so important to award - they added Blue Origin as a launch provider there in order to continue to move away from Atlas reliance.
 
Cannot believe the gaslight. Boeing says these guys aren’t stranded on the ISS. I guess it is just an unexpected vacation in space?

www.flyingmag.com

Starliner Astronauts Prepare for Extended ISS Stay

NASA and Boeing representatives on Friday said the crew will not return until additional testing, which may take weeks, is complete.
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com
 
It wouldn’t be surprising if on every Space Station mission there is a contingency plan that includes a problem with the return vehicle requiring the trip to be extended. The astronauts probably go up knowing that the mission could be weeks longer than planned. Every time we take off in our planes, it’s with the understanding that a divert might happen due to a squawk or an overnight turns into a couple days due to weather. Same thing in space, right? Just on a grander scale.
 
ateamer said:
It wouldn’t be surprising if on every Space Station mission there is a contingency plan that includes a problem with the return vehicle requiring the trip to be extended. The astronauts probably go up knowing that the mission could be weeks longer than planned. Every time we take off in our planes, it’s with the understanding that a divert might happen due to a squawk or an overnight turns into a couple days due to weather. Same thing in space, right? Just on a grander scale.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that they have approximately six months of supplies. If Musk hasn't rescued them by then, they default to Donner Party rules.....
 
The column the Accounts forgot to account for was the Credibility column. It used to by everyone went to Boeing because they were the experts and they were trusted as the experts. The thing the 737 Max issues revealed was that Boeing could no longer be trusted as an airplane manufacturer (for whatever the reasons that led to that) and needed oversight. Following issues and investigations only re-enforced the belief they can't be trusted. They had previously been trusted to do things right and had a lot of capital in that trust, i.e. freedom and low cost to do things correctly. Now they need to re-earn (purchase) that Credibility and that will take a long time and a lot of money.
Trust is easy to lose and hard to re-earn.



Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top