4 ms·

Boeing doesn't know what's failing with the thrusters. They haven't been able to give NASA a root cause so even though they got 4 of the 5 anomalous thrusters w

Boeing doesn't know what's failing with the thrusters. They haven't been able to give NASA a root cause so even though they got 4 of the 5 anomalous thrusters working again, who knows what could fail on the return flight. Boeing should bail and NASA will grumble at the sunk cost of their failed pursuit of redundancy but everyone will be better off. When the ISS had at least 10 years left, paying the increasing costs for Boeing's failures might have been worth it. With only about 5 years left now for crew transport, SpaceX can build one or two more Crew Dragons and cover the load with a vehicle that's well-proved and far less costly than Starliner. If Boeing is forced to re-do this test, if NASA calls CFT a failure and Boeing has to eat the cost of re-doing it, I think Boeing bails. The 5 flights they might still get paid for wouldn't be worth it after the cost of another test. If NASA has the astronauts return on Dragon, Starliner is cooked regardless of what Boeing wants and Boeing wears that black eye for NASA and even some of its DOD supporters. I think Boeing wants out and NASA's trying to hold onto them. This test isn't about Starliner so much as it is about how NASA and Boeing wind down this program.

verzali 2y ago
I've heard Boeing has been looking for a way out for a while now and it's NASA that is pushing them to go ahead with Starliner. A lot of people at NASA don't like relying on SpaceX for everything. Also it's not really certain the ISS will actually be terminated in 2031, NASA has said it could probably be extended, and in theory the plan is then to switch to private stations, which a capsule like Starliner would be able to serve.
- saturn8601 2y ago
  >A lot of people at NASA don't like relying on SpaceX for everything. Can you blame them? Just today it came out Musk was funding an organization that had set up fake voter registration websites in swing states to collect voter data. In EVs there are many options to avoid Musk and his products. In Space there is nothing. Wonder if it would be possible to create a new space entity: you take half the funds given to Boeing's program, stand up new company and poach SpaceX employees with extremely aggressive offers. He has nothing without his employees's sacrifices. Its amazing that he manages to retain such great talent while continually treating them like crap(from everyone I spoke to and read about it is true).
  - p51-remorse 2y ago
    So if Musk isn’t special, he just happened to start successful business in the two hardest categories possible? Regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at something. It’s not grifting; there are plenty of people good at that who couldn’t possibly hit this level of success.
    - FDAiscooked 2y ago
      Granted, but I view SpaceX as being Gwynne Shotwell's company since a few years, not Musk's, who seems busy trolling people on Twitter. Shotwell's been the one running the business.
      - TMWNN 2y ago
        Musk is, and remains, both CEO and chief engineer of SpaceX. According to Isaacson's biography, Musk is the person who suggested and, against considerable opposition from his engineers, insisted on Starship switching to stainless steel instead of carbon fiber.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Musk is also spread very thinly across several large companies (SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter), a number of smaller ventures, and shitposting on Twitter. As a part-time CEO, he probably deserves part-time credit. (I am 100% a SpaceX fan, personally. Whatever it is that has made it work.)
    - antifa 2y ago
      > he just happened to start successful business *buy pre-existing companies
      - TMWNN 2y ago
        SpaceX is 100% founded by Musk. Tesla was four guys with the brand name and nothing else when Musk came along six months after founding. Given that Musk was the first large outside investor and invested in/joined the company four years before Roadster (which he heavily participated in designing) deliveries began, I don't think it's unreasonable to call him a founder even aside from such being legal fact.
skissane 2y ago
> Boeing doesn't know what's failing with the thrusters. They haven't been able to give NASA a root cause so even though they got 4 of the 5 anomalous thrusters working again, who knows what could fail on the return flight. Apparently, the root cause is thermal overheating due to a design flaw in the thruster enclosure ("doghouse"), where the design provides insufficient cooling. [0] The problematic thrusters are all in the same area, which is likely the worst affected by the overheating. Boeing can't explain exactly why this particular thruster within that area failed permanently and the other four only failed intermittently, but when you are pushing a system to its thermal limits, it is expected that the outcome will be less than completely deterministic. And of course, Boeing wouldn't be eager to give the root cause as "our design is flawed and we didn't do adequate pre-flight testing to pick up on it, and our thermal analysis was flawed too". Much better to say "we still don't know". > Boeing should bail and NASA will grumble at the sunk cost of their failed pursuit of redundancy but everyone will be better off. Boeing can't bail. If they break the contract, it will be a black mark on their federal contracting record, which will harm their ability to win new contracts – not just with NASA, but more importantly with the Pentagon, which is where the real money is for Boeing. That said, if Boeing really wants out, they will likely lobby to have NASA terminate the contract "for the convenience of the government" – so officially it is NASA who is cancelling it, with the result that Boeing's federal contracting record remains clean on paper. [0] https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-iss-hot-fire-reentry-preparation https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-iss-hot-fire-reentry-...
EasyMark 2y ago
There’s no way they can’t figure out what went wrong if they splash down the module. There is a lot of value in redundancy, especially with Musk being so erratic on the way he runs his companies, nothing to say he won’t take his eye off twitter and place it on spaceX again.

verzali 2y ago

I've heard Boeing has been looking for a way out for a while now and it's NASA that is pushing them to go ahead with Starliner. A lot of people at NASA don't like relying on SpaceX for everything. Also it's not really certain the ISS will actually be terminated in 2031, NASA has said it could probably be extended, and in theory the plan is then to switch to private stations, which a capsule like Starliner would be able to serve.

saturn8601 2y ago
>A lot of people at NASA don't like relying on SpaceX for everything. Can you blame them? Just today it came out Musk was funding an organization that had set up fake voter registration websites in swing states to collect voter data. In EVs there are many options to avoid Musk and his products. In Space there is nothing. Wonder if it would be possible to create a new space entity: you take half the funds given to Boeing's program, stand up new company and poach SpaceX employees with extremely aggressive offers. He has nothing without his employees's sacrifices. Its amazing that he manages to retain such great talent while continually treating them like crap(from everyone I spoke to and read about it is true).
- p51-remorse 2y ago
  So if Musk isn’t special, he just happened to start successful business in the two hardest categories possible? Regardless of what you think about him, he’s good at something. It’s not grifting; there are plenty of people good at that who couldn’t possibly hit this level of success.
  - FDAiscooked 2y ago
    Granted, but I view SpaceX as being Gwynne Shotwell's company since a few years, not Musk's, who seems busy trolling people on Twitter. Shotwell's been the one running the business.
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      Musk is, and remains, both CEO and chief engineer of SpaceX. According to Isaacson's biography, Musk is the person who suggested and, against considerable opposition from his engineers, insisted on Starship switching to stainless steel instead of carbon fiber.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Musk is also spread very thinly across several large companies (SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter), a number of smaller ventures, and shitposting on Twitter. As a part-time CEO, he probably deserves part-time credit. (I am 100% a SpaceX fan, personally. Whatever it is that has made it work.)
  - antifa 2y ago
    > he just happened to start successful business *buy pre-existing companies
    - TMWNN 2y ago
      SpaceX is 100% founded by Musk. Tesla was four guys with the brand name and nothing else when Musk came along six months after founding. Given that Musk was the first large outside investor and invested in/joined the company four years before Roadster (which he heavily participated in designing) deliveries began, I don't think it's unreasonable to call him a founder even aside from such being legal fact.

skissane 2y ago

> Boeing doesn't know what's failing with the thrusters. They haven't been able to give NASA a root cause so even though they got 4 of the 5 anomalous thrusters working again, who knows what could fail on the return flight. Apparently, the root cause is thermal overheating due to a design flaw in the thruster enclosure ("doghouse"), where the design provides insufficient cooling. [0] The problematic thrusters are all in the same area, which is likely the worst affected by the overheating. Boeing can't explain exactly why this particular thruster within that area failed permanently and the other four only failed intermittently, but when you are pushing a system to its thermal limits, it is expected that the outcome will be less than completely deterministic. And of course, Boeing wouldn't be eager to give the root cause as "our design is flawed and we didn't do adequate pre-flight testing to pick up on it, and our thermal analysis was flawed too". Much better to say "we still don't know". > Boeing should bail and NASA will grumble at the sunk cost of their failed pursuit of redundancy but everyone will be better off. Boeing can't bail. If they break the contract, it will be a black mark on their federal contracting record, which will harm their ability to win new contracts – not just with NASA, but more importantly with the Pentagon, which is where the real money is for Boeing. That said, if Boeing really wants out, they will likely lobby to have NASA terminate the contract "for the convenience of the government" – so officially it is NASA who is cancelling it, with the result that Boeing's federal contracting record remains clean on paper. [0] https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-iss-hot-fire-reentry-preparation https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-iss-hot-fire-reentry-...

EasyMark 2y ago

There’s no way they can’t figure out what went wrong if they splash down the module. There is a lot of value in redundancy, especially with Musk being so erratic on the way he runs his companies, nothing to say he won’t take his eye off twitter and place it on spaceX again.