27 ms·

NASA says Boeing Starliner astronauts may fly home on SpaceX in 2025

417 points by lode 2y ago

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Responsive FOIA emails and related artifacts are going to be a treat when this is wrapped up.
hodgesrm 2y ago
Who is the alternative vendor for travel to low earth orbit after SpaceX? It is not going to be Boeing from the look of things.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  At this rate SpaceX will have two certified manned launch vehicles (Crew Dragon, Starship) by the time any other providers have a functioning platform. (yes it will be years before Starship is human-certified... but Starliner has already had MORE years)
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    And Starship is already putting in some work for the lunar lander variant of the Starship. Sure, launching humans from the moon has different requirements and contingency plans than launching them from earth, but having a lunar lander ready in ~2027 is going to make it a lot easier to then human-rate it for earth-based launches.
  - verzali 2y ago
    Starship won't work for the ISS, it is just too big and will create all sorts of control issues if it does dock.
    - Narishma 2y ago
      Isn't the ISS approaching its end of life anyway?
- psunavy03 2y ago
  Sierra Nevada?
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    [Assuming that you're referring to Sierra Space and their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser#Crewed_version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser#Crewed_version] Note that the Crew version still seems to be aspirational. And the base-model Cargo version isn't exactly flying in the fast lane, either - "[first] demonstration mission is planned for launch no earlier than 2025." And note that it took SpaceX almost 10 years to go from Demo-1 of their Cargo Dragon to Demo-1 of their Crew Dragon.
  - FrameworkFred 2y ago
    Stuck Rocket IPA w/ mostly Apollo and Atlas hops, but a bit of a Cluster addition at flame out...and, this time, no Challenger or Columbia
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Well played . . .
  - __d 2y ago
    Sierra's Dream Chaser Cargo System variant was due to launch on the second Vulcan test flight this year, but it was recently announced that it wouldn't be ready for that. It's now vaguely scheduled for 2025. The crew version of Dream Chaser is kinda on hold as they try to get the cargo version flying (they say they're still working on it, but I guess the cargo version is first priority): it'll take a bunch of work to get it completed and certified, but it should be less than starting from scratch. Once flying, they've got a NASA contract to run 6 resupply missions to the ISS (assuming they can get it flying in time before ISS is deorbited), plus a single flight contract with the UN (!) Both Dream Chaser and Starliner are proposed as crew transports for Blue Origin's Orbital Reef station.
- mrpippy 2y ago
  If Boeing wants out after this debacle, maybe Blue Origin would be interested in buying the program/IP? Starliner is launching on ULA rockets (Atlas today, Vulcan likely in the future) anyway, and BE is rumored to be purchasing them too.
  - thedman9052 2y ago
    ULA is one thing, they are highly successful and established. Starliner is a lemon. I think it would be better for them to develop a capsule based on their own New Shepard vehicle.
    - __d 2y ago
      I think it's mostly a question of how NASA assesses the vehicle: is it going to be an endless series of patches on a fundamentally flawed base? Or is it somewhere over 50% done, with some software cleanup, thruster fixes, and some decent QA and then good to go? Rejigging New Shepard with appropriate docking, heat shielding, maneuvering thrusters, life support, power, cooling, etc, etc, etc, is a huge project. Certainly it's a head start, but I think it'd be a ground-up redesign with that as experience and maybe a starting point for beefed-up parts.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  2010 article, "6 Private Companies That Could Launch Humans Into Space": <https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans-space.html https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans...> That lists SpaceX, Orbital Sciences (since merged into Northrup Grumman), Blue Origin (which remains suborbital, though the orbital New Glenn is due for launch this year and Blue Moon is in development), Bigelow Aerospace (defunct), SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada Corporation (active, but struggling?), and Virgin Galactic (suborbital space tourism). Wikipedia has a maintained list of current private spaceflight ventures, principally SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab*, Virgin Galactic, Axiom Space*, and Sierra Space. (Starred are additions to the space.com article's list). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight>
- thedman9052 2y ago
  Lockheed has Orion, they could modify it for Vulcan or Falcon. Overkill for LEO but at least it's functional. Realistically NASA will have to go through another round of requests for proposal, though I don't know how much interest there will be after Boeing's troubles and with ISS disposal looming.
  - verzali 2y ago
    I've seen papers outlining an Orion docking to the ISS. It was considered as part of the conops back when Orion was part of Constellation rather than Artemis. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025134/downloads/20070025134.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025134/downloads/20...
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Right now, without further development time? Russia.
- __d 2y ago
  Boeing has a decision to make: keep investing in Starliner, or cut the program now, and avoid having to do a bunch of rework to fix it plus at least one more test flight (and possibly two?) on their own dime. It's not really clear (to me) how likely either of those outcomes is right now. IF they drop it, then I would expect NASA to run a new commercial crew program. They need redundancy, and they don't want to be running the development process themselves. Dream Chaser Space System (their crewed variant) is almost certainly the best-placed candidate to win an award from that program: they have an almost-flying cargo variant that was originally designed to be human rated, and existing plans to complete the crewed variant. SpaceX might get some money for Starship, although I would expect NASA to try to write the rules such that they're not eligible. While having two options from a single company is better than just one, a fully-independent option would be better. Blue Origin has some experience with the New Shepard capsule, and is working on their Blue Moon lander: I expect that they would cobble together a proposal, and perhaps between their previous experience in losing bids due to over-pricing, and NASA's experience with Starliner's fixed-price failure, the price might end up somewhere in the middle? Maybe Northrop-Grumman would propose a Cygnus-derived vehicle? It'd need a human-rated launcher -- Dream Chaser would likely be using Vulcan, and Falcon9 is a dependency on SpaceX. NG would probably like to use its own Antares 330 booster, but then they'd be running both a crew vehicle and a booster program which is a lot of money and risk. It's not entirely implausible that someone buys Starliner from Boeing, and attempts to complete the development (if Boeing gives up). Blue Origin is possibly the most likely candidate? They have Jeff's cash mountain, and a kinda compatible "old space" culture -- if Boeing is willing to sell it at a reasonable price, it's possibly a cheap way to get 80% of the way there? Given the results from this commercial crew round (a likely 50% success), funding two programs with the expectation of one success seems reasonable. Whether they are able to get commercial interest in a fixed-price award like last time is an open question, as is who might apply. Interesting times.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > Boeing has a decision to make: keep investing in Starliner, or cut the program now They can't cut the program. They are contracted to NASA. If they try to bail out, they'll be breaching a major federal government contract, which could have serious negative consequences for their ability to win future federal contracts – not just NASA, but more importantly the Pentagon too. If Boeing really wants out, the only plausible way is they convince NASA management to cancel the contract. That way Boeing can officially claim that they performed adequately, and the cancellation was due to NASA's own decision, not their own failures.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
notfried 2y ago
I know it is a privilege and a rare opportunity to go into space, but it strikes me as something that should be compensated for at higher than the going rate of astronaut salaries of $100-$150K/year. They overpay for every bolt but count the pennies when it comes to the salaries.
- addaon 2y ago
  The compensation they offer doesn’t seem to interfere with their ability to get the candidates they want. Why spend more?
- walrus01 2y ago
  Your average astronaut can easily walk into a $300k/year management job in some aerospace or technology related industry a short time after "retiring", on the other hand. Higher profile ones even more so.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  We spoke to a former cosmonaut in HFT. He was doing well. Moved here to the US, though.
  - nsxwolf 2y ago
    We? HFT?
    - 100721 2y ago
      HFT is usually high frequency trading in tech and business communities. Not sure if that's what the above poster means.
- Max-q 2y ago
  The opportunity to go to space is worth so much that I think they would get qualified people to do it for free, maybe even pay to have the job. So I don't think there is a need to pay more than a regular "good salary". I would gladly have done it for $100k.
- 2y ago
Zealotux 2y ago
Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? I can't imagine Boeing saving face after that.
- Max-q 2y ago
  I would be willing to bet quite much on cancellation.
- mrpippy 2y ago
  After all this, even in the best case (Starliner returns successfully with Butch and Suni), it’s hard to see that NASA would consider it vetted and ready for an operational (non-test) flight. They still haven’t figured out a root cause for the thruster failures, and they won’t be getting the faulty flight hardware back to examine it. Is Boeing willing to put substantial engineering time into fixing/re-designing the thrusters, and then flying another 2-person test flight? I guess we’ll find out soon…
- o23jro2j3 2y ago
  I think you're grossly underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done. They could kill everyone on board ISS and crash six more planes and the US government would continue to bank roll them for years to come.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done You’re spitballing. Starliner was pushed by NASA, not electeds. Boeing is currently in the shitter with the public and thus the Congress. Even if you’re cynical beyond evidence, the hypothesis doesn’t hold: Boeing’s competitors are deep pocketed and connected too.
    - lostemptations5 2y ago
      "competitor" (-s) no?
groby_b 2y ago
Boeing's basically a defunct company at this point, no? (Yes, there are still outstanding contracts, carriers don't like mixed fleets, etc, but... in terms of quality I can't see anybody saying "Yeah, Boeing, we're going there, that's the best you can buy")
- wongarsu 2y ago
  Boing won't be allowed to fail until there's another American company building large passenger aircraft at scale.
  - kotaKat 2y ago
    Airbus Alabama laughs off in the distance.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      For defense purposes, it's desirable to have both the facilities and the full organizational hierarchy under direct legal jurisdiction.
- thedman9052 2y ago
  On the defense side, Boeing may be "too big to fail". After the the post Cold War consolidation, losing any of the big 5 USG contractors (Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics) would blow a huge hole in the industry. It's likely they'll be kept afloat with token contracts until they can get it back together. On the commercial side, Airbus is the only real alternative. I'm sure this is great for them but realistically how much of Boeing's market share could they scale up to fill? Embraer doesn't do large jets and the other manufacturers are Russian and Chinese.
- tim333 2y ago
  They have a new CEO who's going to try to fix things. I wish him luck.
mtalantikite 2y ago
Imagine going to space for what you think is 8 days and Boeing messes up so bad you get stuck there for like 8 months instead. Maybe really cool, but maybe a nightmare?
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  Reminds me if Gilligan's Island ...a three hour tour...
  - m463 2y ago
    I remember the episode where a space capsule flew over the island. They wrote SOS in big letters, but somehow Gilligan managed to mess things up and it became SOL. Of course one of the astronauts was named Sol and saw his name on the island as a tribute...
- enraged_camel 2y ago
  Going out on a limb here but astronaut training involves being prepared (physically, mentally and otherwise) for all eventualities, including delays like this probably. Sucks for their families though.
- kotaKat 2y ago
  And not to forget, they traveled up without their personal clothing or handpicked hygiene items. They had to give those up for parts to repair the toilet on the ISS and are using the station's stocked contingency supplies. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/05/31/nasa-astronauts-launch-boeing-starliner-space-station-iss-ula-atlas-v-cape-canaveral/73923358007/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/0...
  - lysace 2y ago
    There's no unmanned supply mission planned before they get to go home?
    - 2y ago
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
The article is paywalled ... Does it say why such a long delay?
- lode 2y ago
  Here is the full article - sorry about that, should have used this link. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/science/boeing-starliner-nasa-spacex.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE4.4dLi.tfxxouIIw3Er&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/science/boeing-starliner-...
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    Thanks! The reason sounds like a combination of cost cutting and perhaps face saving - combining the "rescue" return with a half-crew next scheduled Dragon trip. I've got to assume there's a faster contingency plan for a real emergency - that SpaceX could scramble a Dragon launch almost immediately if they had to?
jeffwask 2y ago
I wonder if the astronauts are upset at being stuck or excited by the extra time in space they otherwise may have never got.
- urda 2y ago
  I imagine it could be exciting, extra time in orbit a place so few humans have been. But it's likely overshadowed by the concerns and fears building from the possible return trip.
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    I imagine they vastly prefer returning on a flight-proven Crew Dragon over being the first crew ever to return on Starliner. Especially with all the Starliner issues so far.
- _joel 2y ago
  I'd imagine they'd revel at the opportunity for more time, generally.
  - jeffwask 2y ago
    That's how I'd feel. Kinda like startup life it's a chance to maybe do something you otherwise wouldn't
- BatFastard 2y ago
  Do they have any assignments or tasks? Boredom is my version of hell.
  - jeffwask 2y ago
    I'd bet there's always some set of experiments queued up, maintenance, etc.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    By every account I've heard, keeping the ISS going is seriously laborious for its crew. And both astronauts have previously done regular ISS missions, to quickly get back up to speed.
grendelt 2y ago
But they're totally not "stuck" right, Boeing PR?
- TMWNN 2y ago
  NASA is in on the denial, too. As late as July 28, flight director Ed Van Cise explicitly denied that the Starliner crew was stuck or stranded. <https://x.com/Carbon_Flight/status/1817754775196201035 https://x.com/Carbon_Flight/status/1817754775196201035>. Even if one quibbles about whether "stranded" applies in this situation (I believe that it does <https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ekicol/not_stranded_in_space_how_nasa_lost_control_of/lgm9fcb/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ekicol/not_stranded...>), "stuck" definitely does.
api 2y ago
[flagged]
- thedman9052 2y ago
  It's a fixed price contract, they've been paying for Starliner out of their own pocket for a long time now, not to mention any penalties NASA will levy.
- Mistletoe 2y ago
  They spent $100B in the last decade buying back their own stock. Imagine if some of that went to this issue instead. Or making sure bolts were tight on doors.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
fabian2k 2y ago
I still find it hard to believe that the current Starliner doesn't have the ability to undock automatically without humans on board. The first test flight was able to do that.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Supposedly that's a "it's currently running which version of the software?" issue: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-confirms-slip-of-crew-9-launch-to-late-september-for-flexibility/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-confirms-slip-of-...
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  Surely you've taken out a feature in software and then later regretted it
  - fooqux 2y ago
    Sure, but I've also never worked on any software directly responsible for the lives of human beings (as far as I know, anyway). I would like to think I'd operate a little differently if I were.
    - rvnx 2y ago
      It depends I think ? See for example how Boeing works with the airplanes ( https://theprint.in/world/boeing-engineers-blame-cheap-indian-software-for-737-max-problems/256999/ https://theprint.in/world/boeing-engineers-blame-cheap-india... ) At the end, I wouldn't be surprised if ChatGPT writes parts of critical code in some companies. Just it would be very problematic to say it and nobody has interest into revealing that.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  I wonder if NASA were aware, or is it possible that they just assumed the demonstrated capability was there, and Boeing never told them this Starliner didn't have it ?! I'd like to think NASA would consider all contingencies, but the Challenger O-ring disaster showed they can be as incompetent as Boeing themselves.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/4lmfu https://archive.is/4lmfu>
temp_account_32 2y ago
https://archive.is/4lmfu https://archive.is/4lmfu
zeristor 2y ago
Binliner
trebligdivad 2y ago
Listen to the actual conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/DYPL6bx87yM?si=W5UzfyiYzPX3KgGr https://www.youtube.com/live/DYPL6bx87yM?si=W5UzfyiYzPX3KgGr IMHO summarising it like the title is a little unfair; yes they're making provision for use of Dragon; but they haven't made any decision yet. The thing that seems to have confused them is that all the Starliner thrusters are working in their tests - given their idea of some teflon deformation somewhere, I think they thought they'd still be problematic, which is making them wonder if the teflon thing is the full story?
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  It's not unfair given the information provided in this conference that was new. The dialog on conferences has shifted such that the main piece of news is that they may fly home on the Dragon.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  It seems it'd be a massive reputational risk to NASA to bring them back on Starliner, just in case anything does go wrong. Given all the deliberations, NASA is going to be seen as at least 50% to blame if they make the wrong decision.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    Everyone closely involved with making the decision will be well aware that the subsequent inquiry, and quite a bit of the public's reaction, will be personally brutal if they opt for Starliner and it fails catastrophically, no matter how small the odds seemed at the time.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Being unable to deal with risk means the end of the space program.
      - colordrops 2y ago
nerdjon 2y ago
Glad that we finally got confirmation of the speculation that I saw on Ars last week that they are exploring using SpaceX. I honestly can't imagine the conversations happening privately with the Astronauts. You know the problems this thing is happening but apparently you may still fly on it. Like I get that space travel is still risky, even if SpaceX seems to make it look trivial at times, but it seems like an unecessary risk. Assuming the Starliner can be on autopilot and bring itself home, let it do that to confirm if things are indeed working. Worst case you loose a vehical, but 2 people were not killed in the process. The only thing that really surprised me is the 2025 timeline. I figured they would prefer to move some things around than wait that long?
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > Assuming the Starliner can be on autopilot Apparently it can't. Idk if it's missing software, or missing hardware, though I'm gleaning from other comments here that it's software (thus presumably fixable).
  - blankx32 2y ago
    NASA have since clarified its software-parameterization not software that would need to be changed for uncrewed undock and return
    - cryptonector 2y ago
      That seems like a simpler problem to solve.
jmartin2683 2y ago
If your company hires more scrum masters and project managers than engineers, this is where you’re heading.
- htrp 2y ago
  I never understood why companies adopted diamond shaped org charts where middle management out-numbered people doing the work
  - grecy 2y ago
    Because middle management convinced them it was a good idea to do so!
notact 2y ago
After all of their technical failures, and known cultural problems leading to them, I am astonished Boeing has the nerve to insist it is safe. Seems like they are betting the whole space business farm on astronauts not dying on the way down.
- sealeck 2y ago
  Because law & PR 101 says you should never make a statement to the effect of "so um we may have sent some people into space on a rocket we knew wasn't safe and it's going to be a bit hard to get them down safely". A statement like that can end your career Micheal.
Aardwolf 2y ago
Too bad they can't just parachute down...
- jakeinspace 2y ago
  With a really big parachute, you could I suppose. Although it would need to survive getting peppered with high velocity debris, and have a way of opening up without sufficient air drag.
  - Aardwolf 2y ago
    But would there be risk of burning in the atmosphere?
    - jakeinspace 2y ago
      Yes, you would burn up because after the chute slows you down just a little bit, you’ll quickly smash into the atmosphere at a fairly steep angle. One way you might be able to avoid burning up is by firing a rocket downwards to slow your fall while dragging the giant (like, tens of square km) parachute behind you to reduce velocity. Then, maybe, it would be possible to reenter at a gentle speed, eventually shutting off the rocket entirely. Of course, this would probably require something close to a weightless and infinitely strong chute.
- __d 2y ago
  In the 1960's (I think?) NASA did studies on various emergency situations in preparation for the post-Apollo space stuff that never happened. I remember a zippered inflatable sphere that could be used to EVA a person between vehicles, and I think there was an inflatable cone-shaped reentry device that got out of orbit, and down to a reasonable altitude, before being discarded and the person used a parachute for landing. A quick search turns up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rescue_Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rescue_Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracone
IAmNotACellist 2y ago
Remember this was called a conspiracy theory when people immediately said that, now it's just true. They tried to drip-feed this information to soften the blow I guess. In fact, the first people to say that the extension in space was indicative of a serious problem and that Boeing's PR was BS were right, yet they were attacked.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  After the 737MAX debacle, with Boeing blaming the pilots for the crashes, how could anyone possibly trust Boeing's PR?
GMoromisato 2y ago
I listened to the whole conference and here's my impression: 1. NASA manager Steve Stich said there's a relatively wide "band of uncertainty" in how risky a Starliner return is. Some (many?) NASA engineers are at the high end of the band and are advocating a return on Dragon instead. Boeing is obviously at the low end of the band and thinks it is a low risk. The problem is, the data doesn't rule out either side of the band. So they are trying to get more data to narrow the uncertainty (in either or both directions). [Interestingly enough, the data from the White Sands testing made them more worried because it revealed the Teflon seal deformation.] But my sense is that if they don't narrow the uncertainty (i.e., convince the NASA engineers) then they will very likely choose a Dragon return. That is, it sounds like if nothing changes, the astronauts are coming down on Dragon. 2. Stich said they need to decide by mid-August, in order to have time to prepare the Crew-9 launch for Sept 24th. So we'll know by then. 3. They emphasized that (a) the thruster problems are all fixable (given time), and (b) that even if Starliner returns without a crew, they will have learned enough from the test to potentially certify the capsule for regular service. This is probably the only way they'll be able to keep Boeing as a provider. A redo of this mission would cost Boeing half a billion dollars, easy. And since the contract is fixed-price, this would just add to Boeing's losses. So I expect they will certify Starliner even if it comes down without a crew. 4. In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. If Starliner were the only vehicle available, NASA and the astronauts would absolutely take the small risk and come down with a crew. But since Dragon is available, I think NASA is thinking, "why take the risk?" 5. There's a huge difference between how NASA engineers and lay people look at this issue. Many people (particularly on Twitter) have a binary safe/not-safe view of the situation. Either Starliner is safe or it is not. Either the astronauts are stranded or they are not. But the engineering perspective is all about dealing with uncertainty. What is the probability of a bad result? Is the risk worth the reward? Even worse, everything is a trade-off. Sometimes trying to mitigate a risk causes an unintended effect that increases risk (e.g., a bug fix that causes a bug). I don't envy the engineers, either at NASA or at Boeing.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > I don't envy the engineers, either at NASA or at Boeing. When I worked at Boeing, I talked with my lead engineer about this. He said there were indeed some excellent engineers who could not live with the possiblity of making a mistake. Boeing would find jobs for them that were not safety critical, like design studies of new aircraft. There they could be productive without the stress. Personally, I found the stress to be motivating. It meant I was doing something that mattered.
tibbydudeza 2y ago
Why can't they deorbit Starliner and let it land in the ocean without the astronauts ???. If nothing happens then great rather than killing off the entire program with fatalities. I know the flight control software is not designed for this but surely somebody must have thought of this scenario ???.
- __d 2y ago
  They probably can. NASA is worried about the thruster issue meaning that they lose control of the vehicle as it undocks and moves away from the ISS, leading to a collision. I guess that's independent of crew being on board. But also ... the current Starliner software doesn't support an automated (uncrewed) undock. The previous one did, but some code and/or configuration changes are required to enable this on the current vehicle. NASA has said that making the changes to enable this will take about a month (including QA).
  - e_y_ 2y ago
    In the press conference, they said the collision risk can be avoided by undocking the Starliner and then letting it float away to a safe distance before starting up the thrusters.
- smallerize 2y ago
  Boeing deleted that part of the firmware and it will take months to reload it. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-significantly-delay-the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-signifi...
siddarthd2919 2y ago
What happens to the Boeing stuff that isn't making its way back? Space junk?
me_here_alone 2y ago
This is not NASAs first time dealing with this type of scenario. The crew of Skylab 3 had thruster issues in their Apollo command module. NASA actually redesigned an Apollo capsule to seat 5 in a return to earth. It went so far as the rescue crew starting to seriously train for a launch. In the end they found workarounds for the issue and brought them home normally. http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylabrescue.html http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylabrescue.html
- TMWNN 2y ago
  The rescue kit built for Apollo during Skylab, while a precedent, is not a complete one. Apollo was the only vehicle available in that situation, so if the CSM already at Skylab couldn't be used, the rescue CSM had to launch. There are alternatives to (say) squeezing in more than four people into Crew Dragon.
  - radicaldreamer 2y ago
    In case of a true emergency, would squeezing two people into one seat be that dangerous? (As in, is the safety envelope of the vehicle tied to weight in each seat?)
    - wil421 2y ago
      What about duct taped to the floor?
    - mlyle 2y ago
      In an off-nominal re-entry, the people can be subjected to 9G's for a sustained time, and impulses much larger than this. As a result you really want to be in a proper seat.
gomijacogeo 2y ago
Will their existing suits work on SpaceX or will SpaceX-compatible suits need to be flown up? If the latter, I wonder what the odds are of a suit-related problem (e.g. doesn't fit, won't seal, etc).
- cobbaut 2y ago
  No, they will need suits from SpaceX that fit.
Reason077 2y ago
"If it's Boeing, you're not going (home)" ?
carlivar 2y ago
They have enough food to stay that long?
- ljlolel 2y ago
  Shipments on dragons are safe and work fine
  - 38 2y ago
    This is a normal sentence with no double meaning
firesteelrain 2y ago
This is the same scenario people on here said wouldn’t happen. Shocking.
big-green-man 2y ago
And they're still trying to play this down like it's not a total disaster. Who even buys corporate speak anymore?
dankwizard 2y ago
That's going to be detrimental to their health long term.
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  People have stayed much longer on the ISS.
  - eru 2y ago
    Yes, and that was bad for their long term health.
baxtr 2y ago
Better see that it’s not a Boeing, even if you’re going to space now!?
allie1 2y ago
Much safer to stay away from Starliner. I’d even avoid a Boeing airplane on their commercial flights home.
blindriver 2y ago
Unless the Boeing CEO and their children fly back down in the Starliner along with the astronauts, I don’t think anyone else should risk their lives on it.
- st_goliath 2y ago
  Sure, that worked just brilliantly over at OceanGate
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    That one was the exception to the rule. The vast majority of CEOs aren't actually that dumb and reckless with their own lives, just greedy and sociopathic.
    - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      Both Bezos and Branson stepped on board their respective spaceships as well.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Those spaceships weren't as obviously stupid as OceanGate's sub. Also, those two aren't typical CEOs either, they're a bit more like OceanGate's CEO: they're ones who built their company from the ground up, and have some kind of strong drive to be the next Howard Hughes or something and be a leader in some revolutionary thing (spacecraft in their case, submarines in OceanGate's). Boeing's CEO is not like these men. He's just a typical CEO who didn't build the company, and is just a temporary hired gun really, like most of them.
        yard2010 2y ago
        Let's take a moment to appreciate the stupidity. Of course it's not nice to be a cpt. Hindsight. But he tried to build a sub in a... Sub-optimal shape (non-spherical), used inappropriate tools (wireless PS controllers? Wireless? Really?) and the most important idiotic mistake, after all these somewhat accepted mistakes - HE DIDN'T TEST IT. From what I read he just wasn't into testing. It baffles me the level of stupidity a human can reach with no consequences from the society, what so ever. He is just a small example! I don't have enough space to write here all the CURRENT people who are literally running the world and are being proud to be stupid in public. How stupidity became a commodity?
SillyUsername 2y ago
International Space Station so why not charter a Soyuz?
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  They would end up landing in Russia; with tensions between Russia and the west rising (i.e. the US supplying weapons to the country Russia is at war with at the moment), this isn't ideal. I mean it's an option for sure and in case of emergency it won't really matter whose return pods they use, but it seems they prefer not to.
  - SillyUsername 2y ago
    Seems a bit of a ground control trust issue given there are 2 Russians up there at the moment, I wonder how they are intended to return at a future date.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Russian cosmonauts already regularly fly on SpaceX missions [1], and Americans also regularly fly on Soyuz missions. [2] The entire point of science cooperation, sports, and the like is to rise above politics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_fl... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions
    - zo1 2y ago
      And yet here we have this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/why-was-russia-banned-from-the-olympics/ar-BB1qJNS0 https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/why-was-russia-banned...
- andyjohnson0 2y ago
  Because there's no need.
skc 2y ago
There are a surprisingly large number of people who believe that space doesn't exist and that all such expeditions are faked. I sometimes wonder what goes through their heads when they read stories such as this one. What exactly is in it for Boeing, NASA and Space-X to fake all of this?
- mopenstein 2y ago
  I'm no conspiracy theorist but, if it's fake, the money is still real. Redistributing billions of dollars to the elite heads of the illuminati under the cover of socalled "space exploration".
croes 2y ago
Too late to shorten Boeing?
rouanza 2y ago
Starliner needs to autonomously perform a few missions before risking human lives.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  It's launched on the Atlas V. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V > After 87 launches, in August 2021 ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired, and all 29 remaining launches had been sold. As of July 2024, 15 launches remain. Production ceased in 2024. IIRC they only have enough reserved Atlas V to fulfill all the manned missions they promised to NASA, so there is no room unmanned for test. (And that's a huge problem!)
- falcor84 2y ago
  Boeing should spend some time solely in the private sector and get its shit together, before applying for any more government contracts.
unreal37 2y ago
What's fascinating to me is how they're going to call this a success when the mission is over. I get that there are things that you can only test in space, and so they are testing. But if these astronauts get back, does Boeing then get certified to carry astronauts into space regularly from a successful test? I should listen to the conference but how would they define the whole mission successful?
multimoon 2y ago
There has to be a lot of egos tied up in this thing for them to still be stuck there. NASA delayed SpaceX’s next mission to give them more time to try to fix Starliner - and then use SpaceX as a backup to bring the astronauts home. After the first month they should’ve had SpaceX go and get them. Elon would’ve probably done it for free to publicly humiliate Boeing for fun. SpaceX’s craft is far cheaper and does the same thing except it actually works and has worked fine and time again.
giantg2 2y ago
Airbus, SpaceX, Lockheed... Is there anyone not eating Boeing lunch at this point?
- hersko 2y ago
  In all fairness, SpaceX is eating everyones lunch right now.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Yeah, but I'm pointing out that a company with multiple sectors is looking weak in basically all of them. Even the military contracts they win have increasingly been money losers.
m3kw9 2y ago
What a complete f-up boeing has been
m3kw9 2y ago
With that much experience under their belt, they may just get a job to work there at the new station buildup
bparsons 2y ago
I get the sense that Boeing is in true panic mode. They are spinning the media very hard to try and give off a "everything is fine" vibe.
ninjagoo 2y ago
Looks like the problems at Boeing Aerospace run a bit deeper than 'disagreements' with NASA Engineers, as some here are wont to project in discussions today. [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a-new-report-finds-boeings-rockets-are-built-with-an-unqualified-work-force/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a-new-report-finds-boe...
marze 2y ago
Building functioning thrusters should be a routine task, these are used on many spacecraft all the time. But rockets are hard. SpaceX blew up a capsule on the test stand, due to an issue with the propulsion system (thrusters). The only way they will risk astronaut lives and various reputations allowing them to return on the Boeing capsule is if they are 100% certain of a positive outcome. There are no rescue vessels in space right now, so even a minor problem can be deadly. It seems unlikely at this point 100% certainty will be reached. And I'm sure NASA is very annoyed that the capsule isn't configured to do an unmanned return. Boeing needs to upload and test software for unmanned return, otherwise it is stuck there until they have those issues worked out (1 of only 2 docking ports perhaps?).
gumby 2y ago
What is the crew up to on the station? Have they been assigned work to do since they are up there already and are rated astronauts, or are they just hanging around idle as supernumeraries? I would hate to be in the latter camp and I imagine the kinds of people who take that kind of job would be like that too.
- Bayko 2y ago
  Bud imagine chilling in a space station and watching Netflix. I dunno about you, but me? I would enjoy that life
  - gumby 2y ago
    I can't just sit around while others are working. I don't think it would be any different in zero G.
- BHSPitMonkey 2y ago
  They are both seasoned NASA astronauts who have done 6-month stints aboard the ISS before (Butch once, Suni twice). They know how to be useful and NASA has indicated that they've been working up there.
  - gumby 2y ago
    That's pretty great to know, thanks.
neonate 2y ago
https://archive.ph/Rt6QJ https://archive.ph/Rt6QJ
cmpalmer52 2y ago
There was an AI picture someone made of a typical person from Huntsville, Alabama. It showed an ~60 yo guy with glasses and a NASA shirt. Someone on the local subReddit said, “You’re looking at the world expert on the maximum bend radii of avionics wiring harnesses and conduits and he’d be happy to talk to you about it.” Funny, but it made me think that the engineering shops around here are full of people like that with similar, hard earned, expertise in aerospace engineering and design and they’re all retiring or retired. What percentage of this expertise did they pass along to the younger engineers? I’m sure they tried, but maybe 50-60%? We know that everything doesn’t get written down (hence the reverse engineering of the Apollo systems). And the stuff that does get written down doesn’t have the experience that created the document. Remembering a failed vacuum experiment with some adhesive which led to “You must use <some different adhesive>” isn’t going to prevent some bean counter in the future saying, “Why don’t you use <failed adhesive>? It’s cheaper and seems to have the same specs.” Or, for avionics harnesses, “There’s enough room. Just make it fit!” All of that to say, Boeing ain’t what it used to be. And I know people who have worked there in recent years and they say the same.
- Arrath 2y ago
  I think loss of institutional knowledge is a huge problem across all sectors of the economy. In my niche of specialty construction engineering I saw it get exacerbated by the Great Recession, companies froze hiring and laid folks off from the bottom up, while retaining senior people. Who are now or have already retired, without a younger cadre to have absorbed their knowledge and carry it on.
  - cmpalmer52 2y ago
    Yes, we see that, too, in the natural gas industry. The old engineering guys are retiring and being replaced by technicians who can implement a design, but not design something new. One of the reasons our firm provides engineering services through contracts to smaller utilities. But even the larger utilities are losing institutional knowledge, largely due to replacing engineers with techs, many of whom are field guys with no engineering training.
dotBen 2y ago
I have a ton of issues with Elon, and growing, on his social and political views, BUT... ...when you look at the zero-to-one of standing up Tesla and SpaceX from nothing, he's achieved something quite amazing - twice. Boeing has over a century of engineering experience and it has experienced more problems and more delays getting Starliner into operation than SpaceX did with Dragon. Both Tesla and SpaceX have demonstrated fresh thinking, new ideas and new approaches to tired and incumbent thinking in both the automotive and aeronautical industries. While also getting the basics right. People bitch about panel gaps in Model 3's but Model 3s and Ys are actually the safest cars the EPA has ever tested in their class. I think Boring Company is a bit silly and I'm not sure Elon can apply his thinking to X, but I wonder if we'll see similar performance to Tesla and SapceX from Neuralink. I hold $TSLA and I would hold SpaceX if I could obtain some, I don't have any interest in holding $BA
juanani 2y ago
[dead]

417 points by lode 2y ago

Responsive FOIA emails and related artifacts are going to be a treat when this is wrapped up.

Who is the alternative vendor for travel to low earth orbit after SpaceX? It is not going to be Boeing from the look of things.

bpodgursky 2y ago
At this rate SpaceX will have two certified manned launch vehicles (Crew Dragon, Starship) by the time any other providers have a functioning platform. (yes it will be years before Starship is human-certified... but Starliner has already had MORE years)
- wongarsu 2y ago
  And Starship is already putting in some work for the lunar lander variant of the Starship. Sure, launching humans from the moon has different requirements and contingency plans than launching them from earth, but having a lunar lander ready in ~2027 is going to make it a lot easier to then human-rate it for earth-based launches.
- verzali 2y ago
  Starship won't work for the ISS, it is just too big and will create all sorts of control issues if it does dock.
  - Narishma 2y ago
    Isn't the ISS approaching its end of life anyway?
psunavy03 2y ago
Sierra Nevada?
- bell-cot 2y ago
  [Assuming that you're referring to Sierra Space and their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser#Crewed_version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser#Crewed_version] Note that the Crew version still seems to be aspirational. And the base-model Cargo version isn't exactly flying in the fast lane, either - "[first] demonstration mission is planned for launch no earlier than 2025." And note that it took SpaceX almost 10 years to go from Demo-1 of their Cargo Dragon to Demo-1 of their Crew Dragon.
- FrameworkFred 2y ago
  Stuck Rocket IPA w/ mostly Apollo and Atlas hops, but a bit of a Cluster addition at flame out...and, this time, no Challenger or Columbia
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Well played . . .
- __d 2y ago
  Sierra's Dream Chaser Cargo System variant was due to launch on the second Vulcan test flight this year, but it was recently announced that it wouldn't be ready for that. It's now vaguely scheduled for 2025. The crew version of Dream Chaser is kinda on hold as they try to get the cargo version flying (they say they're still working on it, but I guess the cargo version is first priority): it'll take a bunch of work to get it completed and certified, but it should be less than starting from scratch. Once flying, they've got a NASA contract to run 6 resupply missions to the ISS (assuming they can get it flying in time before ISS is deorbited), plus a single flight contract with the UN (!) Both Dream Chaser and Starliner are proposed as crew transports for Blue Origin's Orbital Reef station.
mrpippy 2y ago
If Boeing wants out after this debacle, maybe Blue Origin would be interested in buying the program/IP? Starliner is launching on ULA rockets (Atlas today, Vulcan likely in the future) anyway, and BE is rumored to be purchasing them too.
- thedman9052 2y ago
  ULA is one thing, they are highly successful and established. Starliner is a lemon. I think it would be better for them to develop a capsule based on their own New Shepard vehicle.
  - __d 2y ago
    I think it's mostly a question of how NASA assesses the vehicle: is it going to be an endless series of patches on a fundamentally flawed base? Or is it somewhere over 50% done, with some software cleanup, thruster fixes, and some decent QA and then good to go? Rejigging New Shepard with appropriate docking, heat shielding, maneuvering thrusters, life support, power, cooling, etc, etc, etc, is a huge project. Certainly it's a head start, but I think it'd be a ground-up redesign with that as experience and maybe a starting point for beefed-up parts.
dredmorbius 2y ago
2010 article, "6 Private Companies That Could Launch Humans Into Space": <https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans-space.html https://www.space.com/8541-6-private-companies-launch-humans...> That lists SpaceX, Orbital Sciences (since merged into Northrup Grumman), Blue Origin (which remains suborbital, though the orbital New Glenn is due for launch this year and Blue Moon is in development), Bigelow Aerospace (defunct), SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada Corporation (active, but struggling?), and Virgin Galactic (suborbital space tourism). Wikipedia has a maintained list of current private spaceflight ventures, principally SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab*, Virgin Galactic, Axiom Space*, and Sierra Space. (Starred are additions to the space.com article's list). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight>
thedman9052 2y ago
Lockheed has Orion, they could modify it for Vulcan or Falcon. Overkill for LEO but at least it's functional. Realistically NASA will have to go through another round of requests for proposal, though I don't know how much interest there will be after Boeing's troubles and with ISS disposal looming.
- verzali 2y ago
  I've seen papers outlining an Orion docking to the ISS. It was considered as part of the conops back when Orion was part of Constellation rather than Artemis. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025134/downloads/20070025134.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20070025134/downloads/20...
cryptonector 2y ago
Right now, without further development time? Russia.
__d 2y ago
Boeing has a decision to make: keep investing in Starliner, or cut the program now, and avoid having to do a bunch of rework to fix it plus at least one more test flight (and possibly two?) on their own dime. It's not really clear (to me) how likely either of those outcomes is right now. IF they drop it, then I would expect NASA to run a new commercial crew program. They need redundancy, and they don't want to be running the development process themselves. Dream Chaser Space System (their crewed variant) is almost certainly the best-placed candidate to win an award from that program: they have an almost-flying cargo variant that was originally designed to be human rated, and existing plans to complete the crewed variant. SpaceX might get some money for Starship, although I would expect NASA to try to write the rules such that they're not eligible. While having two options from a single company is better than just one, a fully-independent option would be better. Blue Origin has some experience with the New Shepard capsule, and is working on their Blue Moon lander: I expect that they would cobble together a proposal, and perhaps between their previous experience in losing bids due to over-pricing, and NASA's experience with Starliner's fixed-price failure, the price might end up somewhere in the middle? Maybe Northrop-Grumman would propose a Cygnus-derived vehicle? It'd need a human-rated launcher -- Dream Chaser would likely be using Vulcan, and Falcon9 is a dependency on SpaceX. NG would probably like to use its own Antares 330 booster, but then they'd be running both a crew vehicle and a booster program which is a lot of money and risk. It's not entirely implausible that someone buys Starliner from Boeing, and attempts to complete the development (if Boeing gives up). Blue Origin is possibly the most likely candidate? They have Jeff's cash mountain, and a kinda compatible "old space" culture -- if Boeing is willing to sell it at a reasonable price, it's possibly a cheap way to get 80% of the way there? Given the results from this commercial crew round (a likely 50% success), funding two programs with the expectation of one success seems reasonable. Whether they are able to get commercial interest in a fixed-price award like last time is an open question, as is who might apply. Interesting times.
- skissane 2y ago
  > Boeing has a decision to make: keep investing in Starliner, or cut the program now They can't cut the program. They are contracted to NASA. If they try to bail out, they'll be breaching a major federal government contract, which could have serious negative consequences for their ability to win future federal contracts – not just NASA, but more importantly the Pentagon too. If Boeing really wants out, the only plausible way is they convince NASA management to cancel the contract. That way Boeing can officially claim that they performed adequately, and the cancellation was due to NASA's own decision, not their own failures.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

notfried 2y ago

I know it is a privilege and a rare opportunity to go into space, but it strikes me as something that should be compensated for at higher than the going rate of astronaut salaries of $100-$150K/year. They overpay for every bolt but count the pennies when it comes to the salaries.

addaon 2y ago
The compensation they offer doesn’t seem to interfere with their ability to get the candidates they want. Why spend more?
walrus01 2y ago
Your average astronaut can easily walk into a $300k/year management job in some aerospace or technology related industry a short time after "retiring", on the other hand. Higher profile ones even more so.
renewiltord 2y ago
We spoke to a former cosmonaut in HFT. He was doing well. Moved here to the US, though.
- nsxwolf 2y ago
  We? HFT?
  - 100721 2y ago
    HFT is usually high frequency trading in tech and business communities. Not sure if that's what the above poster means.
Max-q 2y ago
The opportunity to go to space is worth so much that I think they would get qualified people to do it for free, maybe even pay to have the job. So I don't think there is a need to pay more than a regular "good salary". I would gladly have done it for $100k.
2y ago

Zealotux 2y ago

Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? I can't imagine Boeing saving face after that.

Max-q 2y ago
I would be willing to bet quite much on cancellation.
mrpippy 2y ago
After all this, even in the best case (Starliner returns successfully with Butch and Suni), it’s hard to see that NASA would consider it vetted and ready for an operational (non-test) flight. They still haven’t figured out a root cause for the thruster failures, and they won’t be getting the faulty flight hardware back to examine it. Is Boeing willing to put substantial engineering time into fixing/re-designing the thrusters, and then flying another 2-person test flight? I guess we’ll find out soon…
o23jro2j3 2y ago
I think you're grossly underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done. They could kill everyone on board ISS and crash six more planes and the US government would continue to bank roll them for years to come.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done You’re spitballing. Starliner was pushed by NASA, not electeds. Boeing is currently in the shitter with the public and thus the Congress. Even if you’re cynical beyond evidence, the hypothesis doesn’t hold: Boeing’s competitors are deep pocketed and connected too.
  - lostemptations5 2y ago
    "competitor" (-s) no?

groby_b 2y ago

Boeing's basically a defunct company at this point, no? (Yes, there are still outstanding contracts, carriers don't like mixed fleets, etc, but... in terms of quality I can't see anybody saying "Yeah, Boeing, we're going there, that's the best you can buy")

wongarsu 2y ago
Boing won't be allowed to fail until there's another American company building large passenger aircraft at scale.
- kotaKat 2y ago
  Airbus Alabama laughs off in the distance.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    For defense purposes, it's desirable to have both the facilities and the full organizational hierarchy under direct legal jurisdiction.
thedman9052 2y ago
On the defense side, Boeing may be "too big to fail". After the the post Cold War consolidation, losing any of the big 5 USG contractors (Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics) would blow a huge hole in the industry. It's likely they'll be kept afloat with token contracts until they can get it back together. On the commercial side, Airbus is the only real alternative. I'm sure this is great for them but realistically how much of Boeing's market share could they scale up to fill? Embraer doesn't do large jets and the other manufacturers are Russian and Chinese.
tim333 2y ago
They have a new CEO who's going to try to fix things. I wish him luck.

mtalantikite 2y ago

Imagine going to space for what you think is 8 days and Boeing messes up so bad you get stuck there for like 8 months instead. Maybe really cool, but maybe a nightmare?

iancmceachern 2y ago
Reminds me if Gilligan's Island ...a three hour tour...
- m463 2y ago
  I remember the episode where a space capsule flew over the island. They wrote SOS in big letters, but somehow Gilligan managed to mess things up and it became SOL. Of course one of the astronauts was named Sol and saw his name on the island as a tribute...
enraged_camel 2y ago
Going out on a limb here but astronaut training involves being prepared (physically, mentally and otherwise) for all eventualities, including delays like this probably. Sucks for their families though.
kotaKat 2y ago
And not to forget, they traveled up without their personal clothing or handpicked hygiene items. They had to give those up for parts to repair the toilet on the ISS and are using the station's stocked contingency supplies. https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/05/31/nasa-astronauts-launch-boeing-starliner-space-station-iss-ula-atlas-v-cape-canaveral/73923358007/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/0...
- lysace 2y ago
  There's no unmanned supply mission planned before they get to go home?
  - 2y ago

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago

The article is paywalled ... Does it say why such a long delay?

lode 2y ago
Here is the full article - sorry about that, should have used this link. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/science/boeing-starliner-nasa-spacex.html?unlocked_article_code=1.BE4.4dLi.tfxxouIIw3Er&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/science/boeing-starliner-...
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  Thanks! The reason sounds like a combination of cost cutting and perhaps face saving - combining the "rescue" return with a half-crew next scheduled Dragon trip. I've got to assume there's a faster contingency plan for a real emergency - that SpaceX could scramble a Dragon launch almost immediately if they had to?

jeffwask 2y ago

I wonder if the astronauts are upset at being stuck or excited by the extra time in space they otherwise may have never got.

urda 2y ago
I imagine it could be exciting, extra time in orbit a place so few humans have been. But it's likely overshadowed by the concerns and fears building from the possible return trip.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  I imagine they vastly prefer returning on a flight-proven Crew Dragon over being the first crew ever to return on Starliner. Especially with all the Starliner issues so far.
_joel 2y ago
I'd imagine they'd revel at the opportunity for more time, generally.
- jeffwask 2y ago
  That's how I'd feel. Kinda like startup life it's a chance to maybe do something you otherwise wouldn't
BatFastard 2y ago
Do they have any assignments or tasks? Boredom is my version of hell.
- jeffwask 2y ago
  I'd bet there's always some set of experiments queued up, maintenance, etc.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  By every account I've heard, keeping the ISS going is seriously laborious for its crew. And both astronauts have previously done regular ISS missions, to quickly get back up to speed.

grendelt 2y ago

But they're totally not "stuck" right, Boeing PR?

TMWNN 2y ago
NASA is in on the denial, too. As late as July 28, flight director Ed Van Cise explicitly denied that the Starliner crew was stuck or stranded. <https://x.com/Carbon_Flight/status/1817754775196201035 https://x.com/Carbon_Flight/status/1817754775196201035>. Even if one quibbles about whether "stranded" applies in this situation (I believe that it does <https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ekicol/not_stranded_in_space_how_nasa_lost_control_of/lgm9fcb/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ekicol/not_stranded...>), "stuck" definitely does.

api 2y ago

[flagged]

thedman9052 2y ago
It's a fixed price contract, they've been paying for Starliner out of their own pocket for a long time now, not to mention any penalties NASA will levy.
Mistletoe 2y ago
They spent $100B in the last decade buying back their own stock. Imagine if some of that went to this issue instead. Or making sure bolts were tight on doors.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

fabian2k 2y ago

I still find it hard to believe that the current Starliner doesn't have the ability to undock automatically without humans on board. The first test flight was able to do that.

bell-cot 2y ago
Supposedly that's a "it's currently running which version of the software?" issue: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-confirms-slip-of-crew-9-launch-to-late-september-for-flexibility/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-confirms-slip-of-...
throwawaymaths 2y ago
Surely you've taken out a feature in software and then later regretted it
- fooqux 2y ago
  Sure, but I've also never worked on any software directly responsible for the lives of human beings (as far as I know, anyway). I would like to think I'd operate a little differently if I were.
  - rvnx 2y ago
    It depends I think ? See for example how Boeing works with the airplanes ( https://theprint.in/world/boeing-engineers-blame-cheap-indian-software-for-737-max-problems/256999/ https://theprint.in/world/boeing-engineers-blame-cheap-india... ) At the end, I wouldn't be surprised if ChatGPT writes parts of critical code in some companies. Just it would be very problematic to say it and nobody has interest into revealing that.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
I wonder if NASA were aware, or is it possible that they just assumed the demonstrated capability was there, and Boeing never told them this Starliner didn't have it ?! I'd like to think NASA would consider all contingencies, but the Challenger O-ring disaster showed they can be as incompetent as Boeing themselves.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Archive / paywall: <https://archive.is/4lmfu https://archive.is/4lmfu>

temp_account_32 2y ago

https://archive.is/4lmfu https://archive.is/4lmfu

zeristor 2y ago

Binliner

trebligdivad 2y ago

Listen to the actual conference: https://www.youtube.com/live/DYPL6bx87yM?si=W5UzfyiYzPX3KgGr https://www.youtube.com/live/DYPL6bx87yM?si=W5UzfyiYzPX3KgGr IMHO summarising it like the title is a little unfair; yes they're making provision for use of Dragon; but they haven't made any decision yet. The thing that seems to have confused them is that all the Starliner thrusters are working in their tests - given their idea of some teflon deformation somewhere, I think they thought they'd still be problematic, which is making them wonder if the teflon thing is the full story?

philipwhiuk 2y ago
It's not unfair given the information provided in this conference that was new. The dialog on conferences has shifted such that the main piece of news is that they may fly home on the Dragon.
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
It seems it'd be a massive reputational risk to NASA to bring them back on Starliner, just in case anything does go wrong. Given all the deliberations, NASA is going to be seen as at least 50% to blame if they make the wrong decision.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  Everyone closely involved with making the decision will be well aware that the subsequent inquiry, and quite a bit of the public's reaction, will be personally brutal if they opt for Starliner and it fails catastrophically, no matter how small the odds seemed at the time.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Being unable to deal with risk means the end of the space program.
    - colordrops 2y ago

nerdjon 2y ago

Glad that we finally got confirmation of the speculation that I saw on Ars last week that they are exploring using SpaceX. I honestly can't imagine the conversations happening privately with the Astronauts. You know the problems this thing is happening but apparently you may still fly on it. Like I get that space travel is still risky, even if SpaceX seems to make it look trivial at times, but it seems like an unecessary risk. Assuming the Starliner can be on autopilot and bring itself home, let it do that to confirm if things are indeed working. Worst case you loose a vehical, but 2 people were not killed in the process. The only thing that really surprised me is the 2025 timeline. I figured they would prefer to move some things around than wait that long?

cryptonector 2y ago
> Assuming the Starliner can be on autopilot Apparently it can't. Idk if it's missing software, or missing hardware, though I'm gleaning from other comments here that it's software (thus presumably fixable).
- blankx32 2y ago
  NASA have since clarified its software-parameterization not software that would need to be changed for uncrewed undock and return
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    That seems like a simpler problem to solve.

jmartin2683 2y ago

If your company hires more scrum masters and project managers than engineers, this is where you’re heading.

htrp 2y ago
I never understood why companies adopted diamond shaped org charts where middle management out-numbered people doing the work
- grecy 2y ago
  Because middle management convinced them it was a good idea to do so!

notact 2y ago

After all of their technical failures, and known cultural problems leading to them, I am astonished Boeing has the nerve to insist it is safe. Seems like they are betting the whole space business farm on astronauts not dying on the way down.

sealeck 2y ago
Because law & PR 101 says you should never make a statement to the effect of "so um we may have sent some people into space on a rocket we knew wasn't safe and it's going to be a bit hard to get them down safely". A statement like that can end your career Micheal.

Aardwolf 2y ago

Too bad they can't just parachute down...

jakeinspace 2y ago
With a really big parachute, you could I suppose. Although it would need to survive getting peppered with high velocity debris, and have a way of opening up without sufficient air drag.
- Aardwolf 2y ago
  But would there be risk of burning in the atmosphere?
  - jakeinspace 2y ago
    Yes, you would burn up because after the chute slows you down just a little bit, you’ll quickly smash into the atmosphere at a fairly steep angle. One way you might be able to avoid burning up is by firing a rocket downwards to slow your fall while dragging the giant (like, tens of square km) parachute behind you to reduce velocity. Then, maybe, it would be possible to reenter at a gentle speed, eventually shutting off the rocket entirely. Of course, this would probably require something close to a weightless and infinitely strong chute.
__d 2y ago
In the 1960's (I think?) NASA did studies on various emergency situations in preparation for the post-Apollo space stuff that never happened. I remember a zippered inflatable sphere that could be used to EVA a person between vehicles, and I think there was an inflatable cone-shaped reentry device that got out of orbit, and down to a reasonable altitude, before being discarded and the person used a parachute for landing. A quick search turns up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rescue_Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Rescue_Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracone

IAmNotACellist 2y ago

Remember this was called a conspiracy theory when people immediately said that, now it's just true. They tried to drip-feed this information to soften the blow I guess. In fact, the first people to say that the extension in space was indicative of a serious problem and that Boeing's PR was BS were right, yet they were attacked.

shiroiushi 2y ago
After the 737MAX debacle, with Boeing blaming the pilots for the crashes, how could anyone possibly trust Boeing's PR?

GMoromisato 2y ago

I listened to the whole conference and here's my impression: 1. NASA manager Steve Stich said there's a relatively wide "band of uncertainty" in how risky a Starliner return is. Some (many?) NASA engineers are at the high end of the band and are advocating a return on Dragon instead. Boeing is obviously at the low end of the band and thinks it is a low risk. The problem is, the data doesn't rule out either side of the band. So they are trying to get more data to narrow the uncertainty (in either or both directions). [Interestingly enough, the data from the White Sands testing made them more worried because it revealed the Teflon seal deformation.] But my sense is that if they don't narrow the uncertainty (i.e., convince the NASA engineers) then they will very likely choose a Dragon return. That is, it sounds like if nothing changes, the astronauts are coming down on Dragon. 2. Stich said they need to decide by mid-August, in order to have time to prepare the Crew-9 launch for Sept 24th. So we'll know by then. 3. They emphasized that (a) the thruster problems are all fixable (given time), and (b) that even if Starliner returns without a crew, they will have learned enough from the test to potentially certify the capsule for regular service. This is probably the only way they'll be able to keep Boeing as a provider. A redo of this mission would cost Boeing half a billion dollars, easy. And since the contract is fixed-price, this would just add to Boeing's losses. So I expect they will certify Starliner even if it comes down without a crew. 4. In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. If Starliner were the only vehicle available, NASA and the astronauts would absolutely take the small risk and come down with a crew. But since Dragon is available, I think NASA is thinking, "why take the risk?" 5. There's a huge difference between how NASA engineers and lay people look at this issue. Many people (particularly on Twitter) have a binary safe/not-safe view of the situation. Either Starliner is safe or it is not. Either the astronauts are stranded or they are not. But the engineering perspective is all about dealing with uncertainty. What is the probability of a bad result? Is the risk worth the reward? Even worse, everything is a trade-off. Sometimes trying to mitigate a risk causes an unintended effect that increases risk (e.g., a bug fix that causes a bug). I don't envy the engineers, either at NASA or at Boeing.

WalterBright 2y ago
> I don't envy the engineers, either at NASA or at Boeing. When I worked at Boeing, I talked with my lead engineer about this. He said there were indeed some excellent engineers who could not live with the possiblity of making a mistake. Boeing would find jobs for them that were not safety critical, like design studies of new aircraft. There they could be productive without the stress. Personally, I found the stress to be motivating. It meant I was doing something that mattered.

tibbydudeza 2y ago

Why can't they deorbit Starliner and let it land in the ocean without the astronauts ???. If nothing happens then great rather than killing off the entire program with fatalities. I know the flight control software is not designed for this but surely somebody must have thought of this scenario ???.

__d 2y ago
They probably can. NASA is worried about the thruster issue meaning that they lose control of the vehicle as it undocks and moves away from the ISS, leading to a collision. I guess that's independent of crew being on board. But also ... the current Starliner software doesn't support an automated (uncrewed) undock. The previous one did, but some code and/or configuration changes are required to enable this on the current vehicle. NASA has said that making the changes to enable this will take about a month (including QA).
- e_y_ 2y ago
  In the press conference, they said the collision risk can be avoided by undocking the Starliner and then letting it float away to a safe distance before starting up the thrusters.
smallerize 2y ago
Boeing deleted that part of the firmware and it will take months to reload it. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-significantly-delay-the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-signifi...

siddarthd2919 2y ago

What happens to the Boeing stuff that isn't making its way back? Space junk?

me_here_alone 2y ago

This is not NASAs first time dealing with this type of scenario. The crew of Skylab 3 had thruster issues in their Apollo command module. NASA actually redesigned an Apollo capsule to seat 5 in a return to earth. It went so far as the rescue crew starting to seriously train for a launch. In the end they found workarounds for the issue and brought them home normally. http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylabrescue.html http://www.astronautix.com/s/skylabrescue.html

TMWNN 2y ago
The rescue kit built for Apollo during Skylab, while a precedent, is not a complete one. Apollo was the only vehicle available in that situation, so if the CSM already at Skylab couldn't be used, the rescue CSM had to launch. There are alternatives to (say) squeezing in more than four people into Crew Dragon.
- radicaldreamer 2y ago
  In case of a true emergency, would squeezing two people into one seat be that dangerous? (As in, is the safety envelope of the vehicle tied to weight in each seat?)
  - wil421 2y ago
    What about duct taped to the floor?
  - mlyle 2y ago
    In an off-nominal re-entry, the people can be subjected to 9G's for a sustained time, and impulses much larger than this. As a result you really want to be in a proper seat.

gomijacogeo 2y ago

Will their existing suits work on SpaceX or will SpaceX-compatible suits need to be flown up? If the latter, I wonder what the odds are of a suit-related problem (e.g. doesn't fit, won't seal, etc).

cobbaut 2y ago
No, they will need suits from SpaceX that fit.

Reason077 2y ago

"If it's Boeing, you're not going (home)" ?

carlivar 2y ago

They have enough food to stay that long?

ljlolel 2y ago
Shipments on dragons are safe and work fine
- 38 2y ago
  This is a normal sentence with no double meaning

firesteelrain 2y ago

This is the same scenario people on here said wouldn’t happen. Shocking.

big-green-man 2y ago

And they're still trying to play this down like it's not a total disaster. Who even buys corporate speak anymore?

dankwizard 2y ago

That's going to be detrimental to their health long term.

bufferoverflow 2y ago
People have stayed much longer on the ISS.
- eru 2y ago
  Yes, and that was bad for their long term health.

baxtr 2y ago

Better see that it’s not a Boeing, even if you’re going to space now!?

allie1 2y ago

Much safer to stay away from Starliner. I’d even avoid a Boeing airplane on their commercial flights home.

blindriver 2y ago

Unless the Boeing CEO and their children fly back down in the Starliner along with the astronauts, I don’t think anyone else should risk their lives on it.

st_goliath 2y ago
Sure, that worked just brilliantly over at OceanGate
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  That one was the exception to the rule. The vast majority of CEOs aren't actually that dumb and reckless with their own lives, just greedy and sociopathic.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Both Bezos and Branson stepped on board their respective spaceships as well.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Those spaceships weren't as obviously stupid as OceanGate's sub. Also, those two aren't typical CEOs either, they're a bit more like OceanGate's CEO: they're ones who built their company from the ground up, and have some kind of strong drive to be the next Howard Hughes or something and be a leader in some revolutionary thing (spacecraft in their case, submarines in OceanGate's). Boeing's CEO is not like these men. He's just a typical CEO who didn't build the company, and is just a temporary hired gun really, like most of them.
      - yard2010 2y ago
        Let's take a moment to appreciate the stupidity. Of course it's not nice to be a cpt. Hindsight. But he tried to build a sub in a... Sub-optimal shape (non-spherical), used inappropriate tools (wireless PS controllers? Wireless? Really?) and the most important idiotic mistake, after all these somewhat accepted mistakes - HE DIDN'T TEST IT. From what I read he just wasn't into testing. It baffles me the level of stupidity a human can reach with no consequences from the society, what so ever. He is just a small example! I don't have enough space to write here all the CURRENT people who are literally running the world and are being proud to be stupid in public. How stupidity became a commodity?

SillyUsername 2y ago

International Space Station so why not charter a Soyuz?

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
They would end up landing in Russia; with tensions between Russia and the west rising (i.e. the US supplying weapons to the country Russia is at war with at the moment), this isn't ideal. I mean it's an option for sure and in case of emergency it won't really matter whose return pods they use, but it seems they prefer not to.
- SillyUsername 2y ago
  Seems a bit of a ground control trust issue given there are 2 Russians up there at the moment, I wonder how they are intended to return at a future date.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Russian cosmonauts already regularly fly on SpaceX missions [1], and Americans also regularly fly on Soyuz missions. [2] The entire point of science cooperation, sports, and the like is to rise above politics. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_flights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_fl... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions
  - zo1 2y ago
    And yet here we have this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/why-was-russia-banned-from-the-olympics/ar-BB1qJNS0 https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/why-was-russia-banned...
andyjohnson0 2y ago
Because there's no need.

skc 2y ago

There are a surprisingly large number of people who believe that space doesn't exist and that all such expeditions are faked. I sometimes wonder what goes through their heads when they read stories such as this one. What exactly is in it for Boeing, NASA and Space-X to fake all of this?

mopenstein 2y ago
I'm no conspiracy theorist but, if it's fake, the money is still real. Redistributing billions of dollars to the elite heads of the illuminati under the cover of socalled "space exploration".

croes 2y ago

Too late to shorten Boeing?

rouanza 2y ago

Starliner needs to autonomously perform a few missions before risking human lives.

gus_massa 2y ago
It's launched on the Atlas V. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V > After 87 launches, in August 2021 ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired, and all 29 remaining launches had been sold. As of July 2024, 15 launches remain. Production ceased in 2024. IIRC they only have enough reserved Atlas V to fulfill all the manned missions they promised to NASA, so there is no room unmanned for test. (And that's a huge problem!)
falcor84 2y ago
Boeing should spend some time solely in the private sector and get its shit together, before applying for any more government contracts.

unreal37 2y ago

What's fascinating to me is how they're going to call this a success when the mission is over. I get that there are things that you can only test in space, and so they are testing. But if these astronauts get back, does Boeing then get certified to carry astronauts into space regularly from a successful test? I should listen to the conference but how would they define the whole mission successful?

multimoon 2y ago

There has to be a lot of egos tied up in this thing for them to still be stuck there. NASA delayed SpaceX’s next mission to give them more time to try to fix Starliner - and then use SpaceX as a backup to bring the astronauts home. After the first month they should’ve had SpaceX go and get them. Elon would’ve probably done it for free to publicly humiliate Boeing for fun. SpaceX’s craft is far cheaper and does the same thing except it actually works and has worked fine and time again.

giantg2 2y ago

Airbus, SpaceX, Lockheed... Is there anyone not eating Boeing lunch at this point?

hersko 2y ago
In all fairness, SpaceX is eating everyones lunch right now.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Yeah, but I'm pointing out that a company with multiple sectors is looking weak in basically all of them. Even the military contracts they win have increasingly been money losers.

m3kw9 2y ago

What a complete f-up boeing has been

m3kw9 2y ago

With that much experience under their belt, they may just get a job to work there at the new station buildup

bparsons 2y ago

I get the sense that Boeing is in true panic mode. They are spinning the media very hard to try and give off a "everything is fine" vibe.

ninjagoo 2y ago

Looks like the problems at Boeing Aerospace run a bit deeper than 'disagreements' with NASA Engineers, as some here are wont to project in discussions today. [1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a-new-report-finds-boeings-rockets-are-built-with-an-unqualified-work-force/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/a-new-report-finds-boe...

marze 2y ago

Building functioning thrusters should be a routine task, these are used on many spacecraft all the time. But rockets are hard. SpaceX blew up a capsule on the test stand, due to an issue with the propulsion system (thrusters). The only way they will risk astronaut lives and various reputations allowing them to return on the Boeing capsule is if they are 100% certain of a positive outcome. There are no rescue vessels in space right now, so even a minor problem can be deadly. It seems unlikely at this point 100% certainty will be reached. And I'm sure NASA is very annoyed that the capsule isn't configured to do an unmanned return. Boeing needs to upload and test software for unmanned return, otherwise it is stuck there until they have those issues worked out (1 of only 2 docking ports perhaps?).

gumby 2y ago

What is the crew up to on the station? Have they been assigned work to do since they are up there already and are rated astronauts, or are they just hanging around idle as supernumeraries? I would hate to be in the latter camp and I imagine the kinds of people who take that kind of job would be like that too.

Bayko 2y ago
Bud imagine chilling in a space station and watching Netflix. I dunno about you, but me? I would enjoy that life
- gumby 2y ago
  I can't just sit around while others are working. I don't think it would be any different in zero G.
BHSPitMonkey 2y ago
They are both seasoned NASA astronauts who have done 6-month stints aboard the ISS before (Butch once, Suni twice). They know how to be useful and NASA has indicated that they've been working up there.
- gumby 2y ago
  That's pretty great to know, thanks.

neonate 2y ago

https://archive.ph/Rt6QJ https://archive.ph/Rt6QJ

cmpalmer52 2y ago

There was an AI picture someone made of a typical person from Huntsville, Alabama. It showed an ~60 yo guy with glasses and a NASA shirt. Someone on the local subReddit said, “You’re looking at the world expert on the maximum bend radii of avionics wiring harnesses and conduits and he’d be happy to talk to you about it.” Funny, but it made me think that the engineering shops around here are full of people like that with similar, hard earned, expertise in aerospace engineering and design and they’re all retiring or retired. What percentage of this expertise did they pass along to the younger engineers? I’m sure they tried, but maybe 50-60%? We know that everything doesn’t get written down (hence the reverse engineering of the Apollo systems). And the stuff that does get written down doesn’t have the experience that created the document. Remembering a failed vacuum experiment with some adhesive which led to “You must use <some different adhesive>” isn’t going to prevent some bean counter in the future saying, “Why don’t you use <failed adhesive>? It’s cheaper and seems to have the same specs.” Or, for avionics harnesses, “There’s enough room. Just make it fit!” All of that to say, Boeing ain’t what it used to be. And I know people who have worked there in recent years and they say the same.

Arrath 2y ago
I think loss of institutional knowledge is a huge problem across all sectors of the economy. In my niche of specialty construction engineering I saw it get exacerbated by the Great Recession, companies froze hiring and laid folks off from the bottom up, while retaining senior people. Who are now or have already retired, without a younger cadre to have absorbed their knowledge and carry it on.
- cmpalmer52 2y ago
  Yes, we see that, too, in the natural gas industry. The old engineering guys are retiring and being replaced by technicians who can implement a design, but not design something new. One of the reasons our firm provides engineering services through contracts to smaller utilities. But even the larger utilities are losing institutional knowledge, largely due to replacing engineers with techs, many of whom are field guys with no engineering training.

dotBen 2y ago

I have a ton of issues with Elon, and growing, on his social and political views, BUT... ...when you look at the zero-to-one of standing up Tesla and SpaceX from nothing, he's achieved something quite amazing - twice. Boeing has over a century of engineering experience and it has experienced more problems and more delays getting Starliner into operation than SpaceX did with Dragon. Both Tesla and SpaceX have demonstrated fresh thinking, new ideas and new approaches to tired and incumbent thinking in both the automotive and aeronautical industries. While also getting the basics right. People bitch about panel gaps in Model 3's but Model 3s and Ys are actually the safest cars the EPA has ever tested in their class. I think Boring Company is a bit silly and I'm not sure Elon can apply his thinking to X, but I wonder if we'll see similar performance to Tesla and SapceX from Neuralink. I hold $TSLA and I would hold SpaceX if I could obtain some, I don't have any interest in holding $BA

juanani 2y ago

[dead]