15 ms·

Boeing Starliner updates: Spacecraft flies into wrong orbit, jeopardizing test

136 points by mzs 7y ago

growlist 7y ago
Whoops
thrower123 7y ago
The hits keep coming. Did they outsource their navigation code on this project to the lowest bidder too?
dopylitty 7y ago
I bet they regret installing MCAS on the rocket.
- jlv2 7y ago
  People keep making that "joke" thinking it's funny.
exrook 7y ago
More information from Jim Bridenstine's (NASA Administrator) twitter[1]: Update: #Starliner had a Mission Elapsed Time (MET) anomaly causing the spacecraft to believe that it was in an orbital insertion burn, when it was not. More information at 9am ET: Because #Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control. This precluded @Space_Station rendezvous. We are getting good burns and are elevating the orbit of the spacecraft. There will be a press conference on NASA TV[0] at 9:30am ET (29 minutes from now) Also some speculation from Scott Manley[2][3] that the spacecraft may have fired it's engines 90 degrees from prograde during orbital insertion, based on mission control displays seen during the launch livestream [0] https://www.nasa.gov/live/ https://www.nasa.gov/live/ [1] https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208022591027462151 https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/120802259102746215... [2] https://twitter.com/DJSnM https://twitter.com/DJSnM [3] https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120 https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120
- bad_alloc 7y ago
  Am I understanding this correctly?: A timer error caused the vehicle to use too much fuel? No error from the ULA rocket?
  - sq_ 7y ago
    According to space Twitter, yes, that is correct. Atlas and Centaur both performed nominally. Edit: looks like Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) has confirmed that Atlas and Centaur performed well [0] [0] https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      ULA remains expensive, slow moving, but very reliable. It seems like they have a healthier engineering culture than Boeing.
      - phonon 7y ago
        ULA is a JV between Lockheed and Boeing though?
        fgonzag 7y ago
        Maybe they have have actual Lockeed Engineers managing the JV, instead of Boeing's Financeers.
        JshWright 7y ago
        Yes, but it's pretty solidly firewalled off from both.
        AWildC182 7y ago
        They have their own separate team, the companies just have stakes in it.
      - AWildC182 7y ago
jacquesm 7y ago
That is a very expensive mistake, but it could have been a lot worse, at least they made it to orbit. The orbit reached is a stable one and if it were a crewed mission at least at this point in time the crew would be fine. If they can't reach the ISS (which is what it looks like right now) they'll have to deorbit a bit sooner, there is a lot of money riding on them making it down in one piece, if they fail at that then you may want to trade in some (more) of your Boeing stock. It's been a very tough year for Boeing, and SpaceX makes it all seem so easy that you tend to forget this stuff is very hard and that success is not at all guaranteed.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > SpaceX makes it all seem so easy To be fair, their version of this capsule blew up rather dramatically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg After that exact capsule had visited the ISS, incidentally, which must've caused a little butt-clenching at NASA.
  - css 7y ago
    > 176x144@10fps MMS quality video of the SpaceX Crew Dragon anomaly Is this a covertly taken video? Why so low quality?
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Yes, it was a leak, from a NASA employee/contractor. https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo.html https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo...
    - sq_ 7y ago
      If I remember correctly, it was cell phone video taken by someone in the control room at the time of the test.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - 7y ago
astannard 7y ago
If ever a company was in need of some good PR this would be it. Maybe they can still pull this one off?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That very much depends on how much fuel remains.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    They've announced it won't be going to the ISS. Not enough fuel; mission failure.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      So, let's see how they bring it down. That will be one way to save some face here.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Yeah. It'd be a really bad time for them to misplace a parachute pin again. https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-abort-parachute-anomaly/ https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-abor...
LatteLazy 7y ago
Between this and the 737 Max fiasco(s), I'm surprised the stock price is so healthy...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Boeing might as well be the textbook definition of "too big to fail". It'll never go bankrupt - the US government wouldn't permit that to happen.
  - joering2 7y ago
    What? What do you base that on? Banks may be too big to fail because single bank can affect millions of lives, I doubt you can say the same about one of few plane competitors. Otherwise we could apply your logic to every fortune 500 corp.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Boeing makes and maintains the Pentagon's ICBMs, tankers, fighters, bombers, satellites, launch vehicles, etc. It's one of the country's most critical national security assets. It also singlehandedly makes up about a half a percent of GDP. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-us-gdp-if-production-is-halted-jp-morgan.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-us...
    - thrower123 7y ago
      They are half of the DoD's aerospace contracts. That's the reason.
    - Luc 7y ago
      I don't think it's that crazy actually. In some far future scenario one could see Boeing going into bankruptcy protection (a lot would need to happen to get to that point), after which the healthy parts like the defense related divisions could be spun off into a new company. I don't think it's likely, but it doesn't seem impossible.
  - kortilla 7y ago
hurricanetc 7y ago
Keep in mind Boeing was awarded $1.7 billion more than SpaceX.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  On the bright side, they can ask for more now.
- sq_ 7y ago
  And will be charging ~$90 million per seat versus SpaceX's $55 million per seat or the Russian Soyuz's $84 million per seat. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-bo...
- neaanopri 7y ago
  To be fair, Boeing is developing a new capsule, while SpaceX is making Dragon 2, drawing on the legacy of Dragon 1, which they were awarded at least $1B for. This sort of issue would have shown up on the first Dragon 1 flight if SpaceX had it.
  - hurricanetc 7y ago
    The total amounts awarded to each company still differ by nearly $2 billion. I cannot imagine how much more Boeing would cost if they weren’t forced to compete with SpaceX. I wonder how much further along SpaceX might be if they were able to ripoff NASA and the federal government the same way Boeing is able to.
  - hgoel 7y ago
    As if Boeing of all companies doesn't have any experience whatsoever working on crewed capsules?
ryanmercer 7y ago
Oof, Boeing can't catch a break. Still, even if it borked this is still a fairly monumental step in the development. Getting stuff into space isn't all that easy and there's a lot that can go wrong even if you successfully launch something, I'm sure they'll gather a ton of actionable data and fix it in the next attempt.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Boeing can't catch a break... I'm not so sure luck had much to do with this.
ape4 7y ago
I guess "Rosie" the dummy is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter
- randrews 7y ago
  Probably a reference to Rosie the Robot, from the Jetsons.
  - FlyingAvatar 7y ago
    It's Rosie the Riveter. It's dressed up like her, apparently.
    - andyjohnson0 7y ago
      Yes, "she" wears a red headscarf similar to the "We Can Do It" WW2-era poster: https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/12/20/meet-rosie-boeings-first-anthropometric-starliner-commander/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/12/20/meet-rosie-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:We_Can_Do_It!_NARA_535413_-_Restoration_2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:...
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Off topic, but some of those photographs are stunning
  - CamelCaseName 7y ago
    Wow, they really are. I think they are colorized. Here one comparison of the original [0] (taken in the 30s/40s!) in comparison to the image on Wikipedia [1] [0] http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/ http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:ConsolidatedWomenWorkers.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:...
    - 7y ago
gt565k 7y ago
More options are better than just NASA. SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin maybe in the future. It'll be good for space travel and the space economy.
- _verandaguy 7y ago
  NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those other companies to build its projects.
  - kome 7y ago
    I feel like this idea of creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money. NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I am not American, so: not my money, not my country. I have no say in it... But I wonder if I am the only one to think like that.
    - CrazyStat 7y ago
      >NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. No way. NASA is subject to the political whims of two branches of government. The executive branch is looking for short term wins and the legislative branch is looking for jobs in their districts. The private market has introduced great innovations that are significantly driving down the cost of going to space.
      - kome 7y ago
        but to be fair, those companies are subject to political whims as well, as they are mostly paid with public money. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angel... The only difference is that public money now is financing private companies...
        CrazyStat 7y ago
gpm 7y ago
There have been two public full scale tests of this spacecraft. A pad abort test (launch the abort system from the ground to make sure it can escape a launch vehicle failure) and this. In the pad abort test a parachute failed, this wouldn't have been a deadly failure since the remaining parachutes are sufficient, but it is pretty damn concerning. Now this test suffered a major failure too. This does not bode well for the reliability of this vehicle.
- mzs 7y ago
  This wouldn't have been deadly either, the craft would now land instead of reaching ISS.
  - gpm 7y ago
    Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    They claim they could have made the ISS, but I find that hard to believe.
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      Because you're better informed than the NASA Administrator, or because it's easy to be cynical on the internet?
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        Because not getting to the ISS would mean a mission failure of a much worse kind than temporarily being stuck in the wrong orbit. If astronauts were on board (which they are not, I know) that would mean no relief and a complete loss of mission, if they could make it to the ISS then that would be 100% mission success in spite of being stuck for a while.
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      The specific claim seems to be that if the capsule were manned, the crew could have intervened, when the problem was first detected, to correct the error. With no crew aboard, ground control was unable to make the correction because, at precisely that time, the vehicle was in a dead zone between communications satellites. It is not entirely clear to me whether this would have been the chosen course of action had it been manned, or whether it is merely being presented in support of the statement that it would not have created a dangerous situation.
jtdev 7y ago
Would be interesting to see a comparison of project management approaches at SpaceX vs. Boeing. I suspect that Boeing has far more antiquated, politically motivated cruft scattered throughout.
- jessant 7y ago
  I recently watched this video comparing the philosophies of the two companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3KNmQ_IysU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3KNmQ_IysU
  - 83457 7y ago
    Boeing not Blue Origin but still an informative video
- aglavine 7y ago
  From what I've read it is analog to Waterfall (Boeing) vs. Agile (SpaceX)
  - mattrp 7y ago
    I was just about to write something similar - the reason nasa projects fail is because they refuse to allow for iteration. Every flight from the first flight must be flawless. Look at Spacex ... they iterate just fine for their own private fleet but the minute they start work with nasa they grind to a a slow pace.. boeing, bless their poor hearts, grew up on the nasa pork so they aren’t structured to iterate if they wanted to... like a declawed cat who has never been outdoors pretending to be fierce, they thrive on the impression that what they are doing is space exploration. And now when it’s starting to become real... oops...
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      > the reason nasa projects fail is because they refuse to allow for iteration Could this be a relic of the era when we needed people in the spacecraft? As far as I'm aware, SpaceX has never had manned flights - a catastrophic explosion is momentary bad press, but they can continue on. Every time someone died in NASA it was a real tragedy. Plus every NASA launchpad explosion is more obviously "wasted" tax payer money.
sorenn111 7y ago
Engine stall on a Boeing product because of an incorrect sensor reading? Where have I heard that before...
- jsight 7y ago
  This line would be funnier if you dropped the word engine. I am not aware of another Boeing product where an incorrect sensor caused an "engine" stall.
  - Causality1 7y ago
    Pretty sure the engines on those planes stalled when they hit the ground.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      No, they were destroyed. If the engines stalled mid-flight resulting in a crash, I would see your point, slightly. It wasn’t the engines (Boeing doesn’t make engines). It was MCAS.
      - growlist 7y ago
        I think it's possible that they were in a state of stall for an infinitely small moment of time before they were obliterated. They definitely came to a halt, which is another meaning for stall.
        GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        Complete asinine logic. It does not matter one bit if they technically stalled for 20 milliseconds between making initial ground contact and disintegrating into 10000+ pieces. The root cause is kinetic energy -- slamming into the ground at 600mph nearly vertical. Everything else is just logical-masturbation.
        infinitelysmall 7y ago
stevespang 7y ago
Just like the 737 MAX, an accident waiting to happen with loss of life . . . .
themgt 7y ago
Boeing's explanation is that the flight automation software runs on some sort of "timer" and the timing apparently wasn't configured correctly, so Starliner thought it was at a different part of the mission and did the wrong burns. Astonishing to me they make it sound like it runs like an independent stopwatch and not kept in sync with the actual IRL mission parameters in a more direct/continuous way. They're talking about the automation handover between the launch vehicle to the spacecraft, and on Starliner "clearly the time got messed up" ... "the spacecraft was not on the timer we expected it to be on"
- lokedhs 7y ago
  Running it on a timer actually works quite well. I don't know how this particular system actually works, but for example the Saturn V launch vehicle handled the initial navigation for several minutes from takeoff by executing previously calculated commands based on launch time, weather conditions etc. Also, if I have understood things correctly, the lunar lander used a timer based approach to keep the rotation of the vehicle aligned with the surface of the moon as it orbited. Since the orbital dynamics are very well understood and there really isn't anything that can affect the motion of the spacecraft other than engine burns, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to make it more complicated.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    When in stable orbit, I buy that argument. But many things can go slightly wrong when firing all engines fighting your way up the atmosphere.
    - lokedhs 7y ago
      That is true. In the Saturn V case, the guidance computer checked the actual location of the spacecraft and issued corrections that had accumulated due to precisely that.
    - rory096 7y ago
      Atlas V burn was nominal, this error didn't happen until the capsule was out of the atmosphere.
bilekas 7y ago
> Mr Bridenstine suggested that had astronauts been aboard they could have been able to correct the fault and successfully get the craft to the space station. Its really unfortunate to hear this news as its not easy to gt these things off the ground. (pun very much intended) Hopefully it doesn't take too long for another attempt if any.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That is somewhat hard to believe. Boeing/NASA have everything to gain by showing that they really had that capability and if they don't then I'm going to assume that they can't.
moron4hire 7y ago
Any space mission that doesn't end in "boom" is a success.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  There is an old pilots' joke that any landing after which you can walk is good, if the aircraft can be used again it is excellent...
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    And they're planning on reusing the capsule after it lands in White Sands according to the press conference.
airstrike 7y ago
As a friend put it, I guess Boeing proves that whole saying “Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you’ll land among the stars” is actually just LEO.
soapboxrocket 7y ago
So this gives me an idea: Orbital repair and tow company. Anyone wanna join my new company Triple Orbit?
- kilroy123 7y ago
  Not sure if you're joking but this is the exact startup I'm going to create.
  - soapboxrocket 7y ago
    It was half in jest. I worked on a cubesat in college, with the long term goal of the project to build networks of service satellites (imaging, repair, repositions, refuel...). I'd love to chat about the idea in more depth with you, it's defiantly plausible and with the increased rate of launch it could be a great business.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  If you're interested in sucking on the government teat, email DARPA-SN-19-29@darpa.mil and tell them you're interested in the on-orbit satellite servicing competition. The deadline might've already passed to enter, but it's worth a shot.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Aaron_Putnam 7y ago
Interesting it doesn't mention the test dummy was modeled after Rosie the Riveter, and they are all feminist power for the flight, going so far as to pose for this photo: https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1207977494277738496&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wusa9.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fnation-world%2Fboeing-to-test-launch-astronaut-capsule-friday-morning%2F507-662727e0-a622-41ec-a08c-0c47042e0947 https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?r...

136 points by mzs 7y ago

growlist 7y ago

Whoops

thrower123 7y ago

The hits keep coming. Did they outsource their navigation code on this project to the lowest bidder too?

dopylitty 7y ago

I bet they regret installing MCAS on the rocket.

jlv2 7y ago
People keep making that "joke" thinking it's funny.

exrook 7y ago

More information from Jim Bridenstine's (NASA Administrator) twitter[1]: Update: #Starliner had a Mission Elapsed Time (MET) anomaly causing the spacecraft to believe that it was in an orbital insertion burn, when it was not. More information at 9am ET: Because #Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control. This precluded @Space_Station rendezvous. We are getting good burns and are elevating the orbit of the spacecraft. There will be a press conference on NASA TV[0] at 9:30am ET (29 minutes from now) Also some speculation from Scott Manley[2][3] that the spacecraft may have fired it's engines 90 degrees from prograde during orbital insertion, based on mission control displays seen during the launch livestream [0] https://www.nasa.gov/live/ https://www.nasa.gov/live/ [1] https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208022591027462151 https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/120802259102746215... [2] https://twitter.com/DJSnM https://twitter.com/DJSnM [3] https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120 https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120

bad_alloc 7y ago
Am I understanding this correctly?: A timer error caused the vehicle to use too much fuel? No error from the ULA rocket?
- sq_ 7y ago
  According to space Twitter, yes, that is correct. Atlas and Centaur both performed nominally. Edit: looks like Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) has confirmed that Atlas and Centaur performed well [0] [0] https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    ULA remains expensive, slow moving, but very reliable. It seems like they have a healthier engineering culture than Boeing.
    - phonon 7y ago
      ULA is a JV between Lockheed and Boeing though?
      - fgonzag 7y ago
        Maybe they have have actual Lockeed Engineers managing the JV, instead of Boeing's Financeers.
      - JshWright 7y ago
        Yes, but it's pretty solidly firewalled off from both.
      - AWildC182 7y ago
        They have their own separate team, the companies just have stakes in it.
    - AWildC182 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

That is a very expensive mistake, but it could have been a lot worse, at least they made it to orbit. The orbit reached is a stable one and if it were a crewed mission at least at this point in time the crew would be fine. If they can't reach the ISS (which is what it looks like right now) they'll have to deorbit a bit sooner, there is a lot of money riding on them making it down in one piece, if they fail at that then you may want to trade in some (more) of your Boeing stock. It's been a very tough year for Boeing, and SpaceX makes it all seem so easy that you tend to forget this stuff is very hard and that success is not at all guaranteed.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> SpaceX makes it all seem so easy To be fair, their version of this capsule blew up rather dramatically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg After that exact capsule had visited the ISS, incidentally, which must've caused a little butt-clenching at NASA.
- css 7y ago
  > 176x144@10fps MMS quality video of the SpaceX Crew Dragon anomaly Is this a covertly taken video? Why so low quality?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, it was a leak, from a NASA employee/contractor. https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo.html https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo...
  - sq_ 7y ago
    If I remember correctly, it was cell phone video taken by someone in the control room at the time of the test.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 7y ago

astannard 7y ago

If ever a company was in need of some good PR this would be it. Maybe they can still pull this one off?

jacquesm 7y ago
That very much depends on how much fuel remains.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  They've announced it won't be going to the ISS. Not enough fuel; mission failure.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    So, let's see how they bring it down. That will be one way to save some face here.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Yeah. It'd be a really bad time for them to misplace a parachute pin again. https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-abort-parachute-anomaly/ https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-abor...

LatteLazy 7y ago

Between this and the 737 Max fiasco(s), I'm surprised the stock price is so healthy...

ceejayoz 7y ago
Boeing might as well be the textbook definition of "too big to fail". It'll never go bankrupt - the US government wouldn't permit that to happen.
- joering2 7y ago
  What? What do you base that on? Banks may be too big to fail because single bank can affect millions of lives, I doubt you can say the same about one of few plane competitors. Otherwise we could apply your logic to every fortune 500 corp.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Boeing makes and maintains the Pentagon's ICBMs, tankers, fighters, bombers, satellites, launch vehicles, etc. It's one of the country's most critical national security assets. It also singlehandedly makes up about a half a percent of GDP. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-us-gdp-if-production-is-halted-jp-morgan.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-us...
  - thrower123 7y ago
    They are half of the DoD's aerospace contracts. That's the reason.
  - Luc 7y ago
    I don't think it's that crazy actually. In some far future scenario one could see Boeing going into bankruptcy protection (a lot would need to happen to get to that point), after which the healthy parts like the defense related divisions could be spun off into a new company. I don't think it's likely, but it doesn't seem impossible.
- kortilla 7y ago

hurricanetc 7y ago

Keep in mind Boeing was awarded $1.7 billion more than SpaceX.

ceejayoz 7y ago
On the bright side, they can ask for more now.
sq_ 7y ago
And will be charging ~$90 million per seat versus SpaceX's $55 million per seat or the Russian Soyuz's $84 million per seat. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-bo...
neaanopri 7y ago
To be fair, Boeing is developing a new capsule, while SpaceX is making Dragon 2, drawing on the legacy of Dragon 1, which they were awarded at least $1B for. This sort of issue would have shown up on the first Dragon 1 flight if SpaceX had it.
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  The total amounts awarded to each company still differ by nearly $2 billion. I cannot imagine how much more Boeing would cost if they weren’t forced to compete with SpaceX. I wonder how much further along SpaceX might be if they were able to ripoff NASA and the federal government the same way Boeing is able to.
- hgoel 7y ago
  As if Boeing of all companies doesn't have any experience whatsoever working on crewed capsules?

ryanmercer 7y ago

Oof, Boeing can't catch a break. Still, even if it borked this is still a fairly monumental step in the development. Getting stuff into space isn't all that easy and there's a lot that can go wrong even if you successfully launch something, I'm sure they'll gather a ton of actionable data and fix it in the next attempt.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Boeing can't catch a break... I'm not so sure luck had much to do with this.

ape4 7y ago

I guess "Rosie" the dummy is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter

randrews 7y ago
Probably a reference to Rosie the Robot, from the Jetsons.
- FlyingAvatar 7y ago
  It's Rosie the Riveter. It's dressed up like her, apparently.
  - andyjohnson0 7y ago
    Yes, "she" wears a red headscarf similar to the "We Can Do It" WW2-era poster: https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/12/20/meet-rosie-boeings-first-anthropometric-starliner-commander/ https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/12/20/meet-rosie-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:We_Can_Do_It!_NARA_535413_-_Restoration_2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:...
52-6F-62 7y ago
Off topic, but some of those photographs are stunning
- CamelCaseName 7y ago
  Wow, they really are. I think they are colorized. Here one comparison of the original [0] (taken in the 30s/40s!) in comparison to the image on Wikipedia [1] [0] http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/ http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:ConsolidatedWomenWorkers.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:...
  - 7y ago

gt565k 7y ago

More options are better than just NASA. SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin maybe in the future. It'll be good for space travel and the space economy.

_verandaguy 7y ago
NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those other companies to build its projects.
- kome 7y ago
  I feel like this idea of creating a private market for space exploration is a huge waste of public money. NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. I am not American, so: not my money, not my country. I have no say in it... But I wonder if I am the only one to think like that.
  - CrazyStat 7y ago
    >NASA worked better when produced everything in-house. No way. NASA is subject to the political whims of two branches of government. The executive branch is looking for short term wins and the legislative branch is looking for jobs in their districts. The private market has introduced great innovations that are significantly driving down the cost of going to space.
    - kome 7y ago
      but to be fair, those companies are subject to political whims as well, as they are mostly paid with public money. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angel... The only difference is that public money now is financing private companies...
      - CrazyStat 7y ago

gpm 7y ago

There have been two public full scale tests of this spacecraft. A pad abort test (launch the abort system from the ground to make sure it can escape a launch vehicle failure) and this. In the pad abort test a parachute failed, this wouldn't have been a deadly failure since the remaining parachutes are sufficient, but it is pretty damn concerning. Now this test suffered a major failure too. This does not bode well for the reliability of this vehicle.

mzs 7y ago
This wouldn't have been deadly either, the craft would now land instead of reaching ISS.
- gpm 7y ago
  Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  They claim they could have made the ISS, but I find that hard to believe.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Because you're better informed than the NASA Administrator, or because it's easy to be cynical on the internet?
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Because not getting to the ISS would mean a mission failure of a much worse kind than temporarily being stuck in the wrong orbit. If astronauts were on board (which they are not, I know) that would mean no relief and a complete loss of mission, if they could make it to the ISS then that would be 100% mission success in spite of being stuck for a while.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    The specific claim seems to be that if the capsule were manned, the crew could have intervened, when the problem was first detected, to correct the error. With no crew aboard, ground control was unable to make the correction because, at precisely that time, the vehicle was in a dead zone between communications satellites. It is not entirely clear to me whether this would have been the chosen course of action had it been manned, or whether it is merely being presented in support of the statement that it would not have created a dangerous situation.

jtdev 7y ago

Would be interesting to see a comparison of project management approaches at SpaceX vs. Boeing. I suspect that Boeing has far more antiquated, politically motivated cruft scattered throughout.

jessant 7y ago
I recently watched this video comparing the philosophies of the two companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3KNmQ_IysU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3KNmQ_IysU
- 83457 7y ago
  Boeing not Blue Origin but still an informative video
aglavine 7y ago
From what I've read it is analog to Waterfall (Boeing) vs. Agile (SpaceX)
- mattrp 7y ago
  I was just about to write something similar - the reason nasa projects fail is because they refuse to allow for iteration. Every flight from the first flight must be flawless. Look at Spacex ... they iterate just fine for their own private fleet but the minute they start work with nasa they grind to a a slow pace.. boeing, bless their poor hearts, grew up on the nasa pork so they aren’t structured to iterate if they wanted to... like a declawed cat who has never been outdoors pretending to be fierce, they thrive on the impression that what they are doing is space exploration. And now when it’s starting to become real... oops...
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    > the reason nasa projects fail is because they refuse to allow for iteration Could this be a relic of the era when we needed people in the spacecraft? As far as I'm aware, SpaceX has never had manned flights - a catastrophic explosion is momentary bad press, but they can continue on. Every time someone died in NASA it was a real tragedy. Plus every NASA launchpad explosion is more obviously "wasted" tax payer money.

sorenn111 7y ago

Engine stall on a Boeing product because of an incorrect sensor reading? Where have I heard that before...

jsight 7y ago
This line would be funnier if you dropped the word engine. I am not aware of another Boeing product where an incorrect sensor caused an "engine" stall.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Pretty sure the engines on those planes stalled when they hit the ground.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    No, they were destroyed. If the engines stalled mid-flight resulting in a crash, I would see your point, slightly. It wasn’t the engines (Boeing doesn’t make engines). It was MCAS.
    - growlist 7y ago
      I think it's possible that they were in a state of stall for an infinitely small moment of time before they were obliterated. They definitely came to a halt, which is another meaning for stall.
      - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
        Complete asinine logic. It does not matter one bit if they technically stalled for 20 milliseconds between making initial ground contact and disintegrating into 10000+ pieces. The root cause is kinetic energy -- slamming into the ground at 600mph nearly vertical. Everything else is just logical-masturbation.
      - infinitelysmall 7y ago

stevespang 7y ago

Just like the 737 MAX, an accident waiting to happen with loss of life . . . .

themgt 7y ago

Boeing's explanation is that the flight automation software runs on some sort of "timer" and the timing apparently wasn't configured correctly, so Starliner thought it was at a different part of the mission and did the wrong burns. Astonishing to me they make it sound like it runs like an independent stopwatch and not kept in sync with the actual IRL mission parameters in a more direct/continuous way. They're talking about the automation handover between the launch vehicle to the spacecraft, and on Starliner "clearly the time got messed up" ... "the spacecraft was not on the timer we expected it to be on"

lokedhs 7y ago
Running it on a timer actually works quite well. I don't know how this particular system actually works, but for example the Saturn V launch vehicle handled the initial navigation for several minutes from takeoff by executing previously calculated commands based on launch time, weather conditions etc. Also, if I have understood things correctly, the lunar lander used a timer based approach to keep the rotation of the vehicle aligned with the surface of the moon as it orbited. Since the orbital dynamics are very well understood and there really isn't anything that can affect the motion of the spacecraft other than engine burns, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to make it more complicated.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  When in stable orbit, I buy that argument. But many things can go slightly wrong when firing all engines fighting your way up the atmosphere.
  - lokedhs 7y ago
    That is true. In the Saturn V case, the guidance computer checked the actual location of the spacecraft and issued corrections that had accumulated due to precisely that.
  - rory096 7y ago
    Atlas V burn was nominal, this error didn't happen until the capsule was out of the atmosphere.

bilekas 7y ago

> Mr Bridenstine suggested that had astronauts been aboard they could have been able to correct the fault and successfully get the craft to the space station. Its really unfortunate to hear this news as its not easy to gt these things off the ground. (pun very much intended) Hopefully it doesn't take too long for another attempt if any.

jacquesm 7y ago
That is somewhat hard to believe. Boeing/NASA have everything to gain by showing that they really had that capability and if they don't then I'm going to assume that they can't.

moron4hire 7y ago

Any space mission that doesn't end in "boom" is a success.

ReptileMan 7y ago
There is an old pilots' joke that any landing after which you can walk is good, if the aircraft can be used again it is excellent...
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  And they're planning on reusing the capsule after it lands in White Sands according to the press conference.

airstrike 7y ago

As a friend put it, I guess Boeing proves that whole saying “Shoot for the moon, even if you miss you’ll land among the stars” is actually just LEO.

soapboxrocket 7y ago

So this gives me an idea: Orbital repair and tow company. Anyone wanna join my new company Triple Orbit?

kilroy123 7y ago
Not sure if you're joking but this is the exact startup I'm going to create.
- soapboxrocket 7y ago
  It was half in jest. I worked on a cubesat in college, with the long term goal of the project to build networks of service satellites (imaging, repair, repositions, refuel...). I'd love to chat about the idea in more depth with you, it's defiantly plausible and with the increased rate of launch it could be a great business.
Rebelgecko 7y ago
If you're interested in sucking on the government teat, email DARPA-SN-19-29@darpa.mil and tell them you're interested in the on-orbit satellite servicing competition. The deadline might've already passed to enter, but it's worth a shot.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Aaron_Putnam 7y ago

Interesting it doesn't mention the test dummy was modeled after Rosie the Riveter, and they are all feminist power for the flight, going so far as to pose for this photo: https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1207977494277738496&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wusa9.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fnation-world%2Fboeing-to-test-launch-astronaut-capsule-friday-morning%2F507-662727e0-a622-41ec-a08c-0c47042e0947 https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?r...