13 ms·

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 St

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.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  Very interesting insight. Thank you! Right now, I’m sure Starliner engineers are under a lot of stress. But I really believe that the program will get through this and end up being successful.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    It's a bit like finals in college. I knew that without the stress from the threat of failing the finals, I wouldn't apply myself to learning the material. Stress brings out the best in people.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      It's like "angle of attack" in a wing (funnily enough, given the topic). Increasing it works up to a point (increasing lift) but at the cost of increased drag and, at a certain point, a stall. I've found myself, at different points, "coasting" (gliding) and "stalling" (pulling up too hard when I'm not in the right conditions). Long-term burnout is like being "behind the power curve" and gradually losing energy.
- stavros 2y ago
  I find the solution of giving non-safety-critical posts to the engineers that care most about safety very indicative of the culture at Boeing.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
rob74 2y ago
Even if Boeing thinks that the chance of a catastrophic failure is infinitesimally small, they probably still can't ignore what a failure would mean for their already bad reputation. So returning the capsule without a crew is probably the safer option overall: if it's ok, it can still be certified; in the unlikely chance of a failure, NASA and Boeing can at least say that they were cautious and didn't succumb to the same wishful thinking that led to the Columbia disaster - and the damage for Boeing in the public opinion would be far smaller than if human lives were lost.
- cubefox 2y ago
  You are ignoring the probabilities though. Risk is probability*potential damage amount, so the lower the probability of damage, the lower the risk. This can result in a low risk even if the potential amount of potential damage is high (when the probability is sufficiently small).
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    All predictions have a margin of error. Both "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". Given they don't really understand the cause, we're nearer the "unknown unknowns" area.
- Symmetry 2y ago
  It's better to analyze this in terms of the incentive of the particular project managers at Boeing making this decision, since Boeing itself isn't a person making decisions. They might rationally conclude that it might go well and get them promoted but if it goes badly the worst they're looking at is early retirement.
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Certifying a vehicle based on a test/qualification flight that was such a failure that it was considered too risky to let the crew fly back on the vehicle sounds about as reasonable as letting Boeing self-certify their airplane safety (instead of FAA oversight), or adding an automated nosedive-the-plane system with a non-redundant sensor just to avoid some training. Sure, it is cheap, but when, not if, it results in deaths, it will be really hard to justify why someone thought it was a reasonable choice.
- cowsandmilk 2y ago
  An unmanned flight back still significantly narrows the ban of what the risks are and if the return is successful, the returned craft will certainly be inspected in extreme detail.
  - JonChesterfield 2y ago
    The returned craft is going to be hard to reassemble from the pieces scattered across the surface of the planet, whether there were people in it or not.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      So long as the crew capsule makes it back properly, that means the service module was good enough to get the job done. They'd also have data collected during the return voyage.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      It's unlikely to actually fail, just not unlikely enough to send the astronauts in.
      - Aaargh20318 2y ago
        The problem is in the service module which will be jettisoned and burn up in the atmosphere.
boxed 2y ago
> In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2 Maybe. I don't believe that's true, but let's assume it is. They SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Of the 16 US astronauts that have died in the space program, 14 died on the shuttle which was Boeing. That, coupled with Boeings recent deterioration and demonstrated disregard for human life, makes it clear that Boeing needs to be kept on a short leash.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Boeing didn't make the space shuttle.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    Boeing did largely design build the orbiter, which is the reusable spacecraft that's commonly referred to as the space shuttle, although it was only a part of the entire space shuttle program. Both disasters though were not the fault of the orbiter but caused by failures of the boosters and tank, neither of which were built by Boeing, but these projects are supposed to be designed holistically and so I'd say all the companies involved in that project share responsibility for the shortcomings of the design.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      Rockwell International made the orbiter. Unless they were later merged into Boeing and now perhaps involved in Starliner?
      - big-green-man 2y ago
        Yeah, Rockwell was broken up and that part of the company is now Boeing Defense, although i do think Boeing was directly involved in designing of the shuttle back then. Now you've got me wondering if I'm mistaken about that.
      - skissane 2y ago
        In the early 1970s, NASA had three contractors helping it to design the Space Shuttle: Rockwell, Lockheed, and a Boeing-Grumman joint venture. So Boeing definitely played a role in designing it, although exactly how big its role was in the design, as opposed to the other contractors, I don’t know. https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/space-shuttle-program-history/ https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/... However, Boeing was not originally one of the main contractors for the actual construction/operation/maintenance of the Space Shuttle. It later became one by buying Rockwell’s space division
mattashii 2y ago
> A redo of this mission would cost Boeing half a billion dollars, easy. I imagine so indeed, not in the least because all Atlas V launch vehicles are already assigned to missions. The booster for another non-operational flight would thus have to come from either their operational missions, or they'd have to pay someone else to give up their scheduled Atlas V payload. If they fail to buy someone else's Atlas V, they'd have to integrate Starliner onto a new (i.e. non-Atlas V) human-rated launch vehicle, or they would fail to deliver the contracted 6 operational missions.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  It's doubtful they actually get awarded 6 missions before the ISS is de-orbited at the present rate.
- adolph 2y ago
  > all Atlas V launch vehicles are already assigned to . . . Amazon’s Project Kuiper comsat constellation which is targeting our first full-scale Kuiper mission for Q4 aboard an Atlas V rocket from ULA. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/inside-project-kuiper-satellite-facility-kirkland https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/inside...
  - mattashii 2y ago
    Not all are assigned to Kuiper or Starliner; one has also been assigned to Viasat, which is scheduled to launch sometime in the first half of 2025.
somenameforme 2y ago
I think many might not be aware of Starliner's sordid history. It has failed essentially every qualification test in various ways. Their pad abort test (where you simulate a launch abort while on the launch pad) resulted in only 2 of the 3 parachutes deploying in beyond optimal conditions. NASA considered that such a resounding success that they let them completely skip the far more challenging in-flight abort test. Their first automated mission to the ISS completely failed and did not make it to the station. NASA finally required a redo from Boeing and their second one did make it to the ISS, but only after experiencing widespread leaks and thruster failures literally identical to the ones that have now left these astronauts stranded. If SpaceX or another company had remotely similar results, they would never have been greenlit. For instance in spite of a flawless pad abort test, NASA required SpaceX also carry out an in-flight abort. And that's completely reasonable - you don't simply skip tests, even with optimal performance. Skipping tests following suboptimal performance is simply unjustifiable. And so I think we're largely looking at another Challenger type disaster caused by a disconnect between management (and likely political appointees) versus engineering staff, rather than inherent risk. But this is not a vessel that should have ever had a single human anywhere near it, and so their official comments (and even actions) on the situation are going to be heavily biased due to their own behaviors.
- tim333 2y ago
  Sounds like it might be better if Boeing dropped out if their thing doesn't work properly, costs much more and is mostly in there through political lobbying.
  - MPSimmons 2y ago
    I am certain that if Boeing thought that they could drop this without repercussions, they would absolutely do it.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      They said a year or two back they will refuse to take on new fixed-price contracts going forward. Apparently the only way they can be profitable is by scamming taxpayers.
HenryBemis 2y ago
> So I expect they will certify Starliner even if it comes down without a crew. Considering the 'optics' of this, I imagine they will/should certify Starliner not with or without a crew, and at least not after 'enough' time has passed for any audit to be meaningful and for Boeing to prove that they are getting things right. Imagine 'ok-ing' the Starliner, and on the very next mission, the same (or different) critical error happens. Then I bid the NASA folks who ok-ed the Starliner a good start on their next jobs. If there is one profession with zero tolerance for errors it's the 'space-stuff' because 1) good luck repairing things in space, 2) "in space no one can hear you scream" (profanities because you ended up staying x10 or x100 the time planned)(and I do understand that capacity planning, food, toilets, etc. etc. have been calculated to ensure that they won't be running out of food, toilet paper, etc.) It would be fun to have a Season 3 of Space Force, and this time instead of Malkovich yelling at Microsoft, to be yelling at Boeing!
datenwolf 2y ago
> 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. To me this gives a strong impression of history rhyming with itself. Back in the early 1980ies NASA engineers "close to the hardware" were raising warning, above warning about reliability issues of the shuttles, ultimately being overruled by management, leading to the Challenger disaster. Then in 2003 again engineers were raising warnings about heat shield integrity being compromised from impacts with external tank insulation material. Again, management overruled them on the same bad reasoning, that if it did not cause problems in the past, it will not in the future. So instead of addressing the issue in a preventative action, the Columbia was lost on reentry. Fool me once …, fool me twice …; I really hope the engineers will put their foot down on this and clearly and decisively overrule any mandate directed from management.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  If the concerns aren't addressed then there's a defined process by which the NASA Administrator (Nelson) has to sign it off. NASA has learnt from the bad days of blind Mission Management teams.
  - PopePompus 2y ago
    Nelson. The guy who thinks the far side of the Moon is in eternal darkness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZyPwCQak8&t=153s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZyPwCQak8&t=153s
    - netsharc 2y ago
      If one wants to be generous, maybe he means dark "to us" because we never see it from the earth.
      - PopePompus 2y ago
        Well, I'm reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt because he also says "we don't know what's on the back side of the Moon" despite the fact that the agency he heads mapped the far side of the Moon decades ago.
ReptileMan 2y ago
>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. Yet another Boeing vehicle to avoid ...
naasking 2y ago
Boeing has burned enough of its reputation at this point that I wouldn't trust their assessment one bit. Bringing back Starliner without the crew seems like a no-brainer, and is the only way to restore some of Boeing's credibility. So many weeks of anti-Musk cope on Twitter about this issue. People really can't think clearly even about factual issues anymore.
elif 2y ago
As a mountaineer, you play with this dichotomy safe/not-safe continuously and simultaneously.. but there comes a point sometimes where close calls add up the stammering indecision enters in, and at that point, in my opinion, you have already been defeated by the mountain. The indecision itself will consume too much of your energy and attention to perform the task even at a risk you could normally tolerate. Your judgement is too compromised to trust, and hubris and self-promising gets people killed.
verandaguy 2y ago
> 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. As much as I get that Boeing is a major launch partner for the US in general and one of the only companies competing in the crewed space in the States right now, I don't get this part. It's not NASA's job to keep Boeing in the running. It's completely up to Boeing to produce a vehicle that can safely and reliably get crews to and from orbit, and to do the appropriate amount of testing beforehand. If they can't be bothered to do that with the understanding the cost of failure, that's on them.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  It certainly is part of NASA's job to consider long term space travel needs. And supporting a competitor to SpaceX now as a long term strategic benefit has a lot of value as opposed to being held hostage to monopoly pricing in the future. Companies invest in their supply chain and invest in not being beholden to a single supplier (unless they control that supplier) all the time.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    That feels completely like an excuse used after the fact to justify keeping Boeing around rather than a principled stance, considering that NASA and Congress were pretty set on just giving Boeing the sole source contract for crew transport to the station. It's pretty well documented by Lori Garver, one of the people involved in pushing Commercial Crew, how strong the opposition was from both NASA and Congress.
    - darknavi 2y ago
      At this point it'd probably be money better spent raising up a Blue Origin commercial crew program than propping up the corpse of Boeing.
      - GolfPopper 2y ago
adolph 2y ago
> 4. In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. Wat? Have any Dragon missions encountered the number and severity of issues experienced by Starliner? Maybe they have and are not public knowledge because NASA is less than transparency about its safety predictions and findings. But until the same confidence sapping mission performance is established it is not honest to say that Starliner is held to a higher standard.
dotnet00 2y ago
I'm fairly certain that sources from NASA have said the opposite regarding scrutiny. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/boeing-starliner-nasa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/boeing-starliner-... As it turns out, the official that admitted this was the same Steve Stich. Dragon was held to a higher standard, they were the newcomers and the corrupt snakes in Congress were looking for any excuse to justify canceling commercial crew and just giving Boeing a blank check again.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  For development, you're right. I think NASA considered Boeing a known quantity and trusted them to develop Starliner, while they scrutinized SpaceX because they were worried that they were too cavalier. But I meant a higher standard for how much risk NASA is willing to take in this instance. If something had gone wrong with Dragon Demo-2, there was no other way to bring down the astronauts. They would have accepted relatively high risk because they had no choice. But with Starliner, because they have Dragon, they don't need to accept that risk. The risk NASA will tolerate is lower now, because they have an alternative. That's what I meant by a higher standard.
glzone1 2y ago
Finally a good summary. I also picked up on the potential to at least payout Boeing if starliner comes down in good order (which seemed likely). I think that solves Boeings issue and would make them relax on forcing crew. The problem here is they have a seemingly somewhat safer option going up and down regularly. That is making taking risk MUCH much harder because the downside risk (2 crew trapped in space potentially for a long and slow death) is pretty disastrous especially if a safer option was sitting right there and it turns out the decision to send them down was contract driven. Given the history of thruster issues that go way back (and keep on repeating despite "fixes") I feel like they'll collect about as much data sending starliner back uncrewed, and then they'll need to be doing fixes for things like the helium issues etc that are compounding the risks. Be great if they could do ONE uncrewed flight more trouble free before putting astro's back on, but their solution is a more expensive with longer lead times than crew dragon (the entire service module is dumped on every launch I think, the rocket is also totally dumped etc)
cameldrv 2y ago
I think it’s very unlikely that Starliner will ever fly again, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this mission. In its three flights, Starliner has had so many serious problems, it’s obvious that it hasn’t been sufficiently engineered. Why take the risk when there’s an alternative that has been essentially trouble free?
wkat4242 2y ago
> In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. That's pretty contrived. Dragon has a 'standard' of multiple successful flights. > 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. This is the problem with old space. SpaceX blows stuff up on the regular just to see what went boom. And they absorb the cost themselves. They don't fly something that has proven itself fully before. It's clear this approach works. If they can do it while not wasting billions, why can't Boeing? And "it will cost the vendor money" should really not factor into safety decisions.

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.

GMoromisato 2y ago
Very interesting insight. Thank you! Right now, I’m sure Starliner engineers are under a lot of stress. But I really believe that the program will get through this and end up being successful.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  It's a bit like finals in college. I knew that without the stress from the threat of failing the finals, I wouldn't apply myself to learning the material. Stress brings out the best in people.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's like "angle of attack" in a wing (funnily enough, given the topic). Increasing it works up to a point (increasing lift) but at the cost of increased drag and, at a certain point, a stall. I've found myself, at different points, "coasting" (gliding) and "stalling" (pulling up too hard when I'm not in the right conditions). Long-term burnout is like being "behind the power curve" and gradually losing energy.
stavros 2y ago
I find the solution of giving non-safety-critical posts to the engineers that care most about safety very indicative of the culture at Boeing.
- eqvinox 2y ago

rob74 2y ago

Even if Boeing thinks that the chance of a catastrophic failure is infinitesimally small, they probably still can't ignore what a failure would mean for their already bad reputation. So returning the capsule without a crew is probably the safer option overall: if it's ok, it can still be certified; in the unlikely chance of a failure, NASA and Boeing can at least say that they were cautious and didn't succumb to the same wishful thinking that led to the Columbia disaster - and the damage for Boeing in the public opinion would be far smaller than if human lives were lost.

cubefox 2y ago
You are ignoring the probabilities though. Risk is probability*potential damage amount, so the lower the probability of damage, the lower the risk. This can result in a low risk even if the potential amount of potential damage is high (when the probability is sufficiently small).
- HPsquared 2y ago
  All predictions have a margin of error. Both "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". Given they don't really understand the cause, we're nearer the "unknown unknowns" area.
Symmetry 2y ago
It's better to analyze this in terms of the incentive of the particular project managers at Boeing making this decision, since Boeing itself isn't a person making decisions. They might rationally conclude that it might go well and get them promoted but if it goes badly the worst they're looking at is early retirement.

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

Certifying a vehicle based on a test/qualification flight that was such a failure that it was considered too risky to let the crew fly back on the vehicle sounds about as reasonable as letting Boeing self-certify their airplane safety (instead of FAA oversight), or adding an automated nosedive-the-plane system with a non-redundant sensor just to avoid some training. Sure, it is cheap, but when, not if, it results in deaths, it will be really hard to justify why someone thought it was a reasonable choice.

cowsandmilk 2y ago
An unmanned flight back still significantly narrows the ban of what the risks are and if the return is successful, the returned craft will certainly be inspected in extreme detail.
- JonChesterfield 2y ago
  The returned craft is going to be hard to reassemble from the pieces scattered across the surface of the planet, whether there were people in it or not.
  - jjk166 2y ago
    So long as the crew capsule makes it back properly, that means the service module was good enough to get the job done. They'd also have data collected during the return voyage.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    It's unlikely to actually fail, just not unlikely enough to send the astronauts in.
    - Aaargh20318 2y ago
      The problem is in the service module which will be jettisoned and burn up in the atmosphere.

boxed 2y ago

> In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2 Maybe. I don't believe that's true, but let's assume it is. They SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Of the 16 US astronauts that have died in the space program, 14 died on the shuttle which was Boeing. That, coupled with Boeings recent deterioration and demonstrated disregard for human life, makes it clear that Boeing needs to be kept on a short leash.

HPsquared 2y ago
Boeing didn't make the space shuttle.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Boeing did largely design build the orbiter, which is the reusable spacecraft that's commonly referred to as the space shuttle, although it was only a part of the entire space shuttle program. Both disasters though were not the fault of the orbiter but caused by failures of the boosters and tank, neither of which were built by Boeing, but these projects are supposed to be designed holistically and so I'd say all the companies involved in that project share responsibility for the shortcomings of the design.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Rockwell International made the orbiter. Unless they were later merged into Boeing and now perhaps involved in Starliner?
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      Yeah, Rockwell was broken up and that part of the company is now Boeing Defense, although i do think Boeing was directly involved in designing of the shuttle back then. Now you've got me wondering if I'm mistaken about that.
    - skissane 2y ago
      In the early 1970s, NASA had three contractors helping it to design the Space Shuttle: Rockwell, Lockheed, and a Boeing-Grumman joint venture. So Boeing definitely played a role in designing it, although exactly how big its role was in the design, as opposed to the other contractors, I don’t know. https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/space-shuttle-program-history/ https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/... However, Boeing was not originally one of the main contractors for the actual construction/operation/maintenance of the Space Shuttle. It later became one by buying Rockwell’s space division

mattashii 2y ago

> A redo of this mission would cost Boeing half a billion dollars, easy. I imagine so indeed, not in the least because all Atlas V launch vehicles are already assigned to missions. The booster for another non-operational flight would thus have to come from either their operational missions, or they'd have to pay someone else to give up their scheduled Atlas V payload. If they fail to buy someone else's Atlas V, they'd have to integrate Starliner onto a new (i.e. non-Atlas V) human-rated launch vehicle, or they would fail to deliver the contracted 6 operational missions.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
It's doubtful they actually get awarded 6 missions before the ISS is de-orbited at the present rate.
adolph 2y ago
> all Atlas V launch vehicles are already assigned to . . . Amazon’s Project Kuiper comsat constellation which is targeting our first full-scale Kuiper mission for Q4 aboard an Atlas V rocket from ULA. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/inside-project-kuiper-satellite-facility-kirkland https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/innovation-at-amazon/inside...
- mattashii 2y ago
  Not all are assigned to Kuiper or Starliner; one has also been assigned to Viasat, which is scheduled to launch sometime in the first half of 2025.

somenameforme 2y ago

I think many might not be aware of Starliner's sordid history. It has failed essentially every qualification test in various ways. Their pad abort test (where you simulate a launch abort while on the launch pad) resulted in only 2 of the 3 parachutes deploying in beyond optimal conditions. NASA considered that such a resounding success that they let them completely skip the far more challenging in-flight abort test. Their first automated mission to the ISS completely failed and did not make it to the station. NASA finally required a redo from Boeing and their second one did make it to the ISS, but only after experiencing widespread leaks and thruster failures literally identical to the ones that have now left these astronauts stranded. If SpaceX or another company had remotely similar results, they would never have been greenlit. For instance in spite of a flawless pad abort test, NASA required SpaceX also carry out an in-flight abort. And that's completely reasonable - you don't simply skip tests, even with optimal performance. Skipping tests following suboptimal performance is simply unjustifiable. And so I think we're largely looking at another Challenger type disaster caused by a disconnect between management (and likely political appointees) versus engineering staff, rather than inherent risk. But this is not a vessel that should have ever had a single human anywhere near it, and so their official comments (and even actions) on the situation are going to be heavily biased due to their own behaviors.

tim333 2y ago
Sounds like it might be better if Boeing dropped out if their thing doesn't work properly, costs much more and is mostly in there through political lobbying.
- MPSimmons 2y ago
  I am certain that if Boeing thought that they could drop this without repercussions, they would absolutely do it.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    They said a year or two back they will refuse to take on new fixed-price contracts going forward. Apparently the only way they can be profitable is by scamming taxpayers.

HenryBemis 2y ago

> So I expect they will certify Starliner even if it comes down without a crew. Considering the 'optics' of this, I imagine they will/should certify Starliner not with or without a crew, and at least not after 'enough' time has passed for any audit to be meaningful and for Boeing to prove that they are getting things right. Imagine 'ok-ing' the Starliner, and on the very next mission, the same (or different) critical error happens. Then I bid the NASA folks who ok-ed the Starliner a good start on their next jobs. If there is one profession with zero tolerance for errors it's the 'space-stuff' because 1) good luck repairing things in space, 2) "in space no one can hear you scream" (profanities because you ended up staying x10 or x100 the time planned)(and I do understand that capacity planning, food, toilets, etc. etc. have been calculated to ensure that they won't be running out of food, toilet paper, etc.) It would be fun to have a Season 3 of Space Force, and this time instead of Malkovich yelling at Microsoft, to be yelling at Boeing!

datenwolf 2y ago

> 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. To me this gives a strong impression of history rhyming with itself. Back in the early 1980ies NASA engineers "close to the hardware" were raising warning, above warning about reliability issues of the shuttles, ultimately being overruled by management, leading to the Challenger disaster. Then in 2003 again engineers were raising warnings about heat shield integrity being compromised from impacts with external tank insulation material. Again, management overruled them on the same bad reasoning, that if it did not cause problems in the past, it will not in the future. So instead of addressing the issue in a preventative action, the Columbia was lost on reentry. Fool me once …, fool me twice …; I really hope the engineers will put their foot down on this and clearly and decisively overrule any mandate directed from management.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
If the concerns aren't addressed then there's a defined process by which the NASA Administrator (Nelson) has to sign it off. NASA has learnt from the bad days of blind Mission Management teams.
- PopePompus 2y ago
  Nelson. The guy who thinks the far side of the Moon is in eternal darkness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZyPwCQak8&t=153s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZyPwCQak8&t=153s
  - netsharc 2y ago
    If one wants to be generous, maybe he means dark "to us" because we never see it from the earth.
    - PopePompus 2y ago
      Well, I'm reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt because he also says "we don't know what's on the back side of the Moon" despite the fact that the agency he heads mapped the far side of the Moon decades ago.

ReptileMan 2y ago

>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. Yet another Boeing vehicle to avoid ...

naasking 2y ago

Boeing has burned enough of its reputation at this point that I wouldn't trust their assessment one bit. Bringing back Starliner without the crew seems like a no-brainer, and is the only way to restore some of Boeing's credibility. So many weeks of anti-Musk cope on Twitter about this issue. People really can't think clearly even about factual issues anymore.

elif 2y ago

As a mountaineer, you play with this dichotomy safe/not-safe continuously and simultaneously.. but there comes a point sometimes where close calls add up the stammering indecision enters in, and at that point, in my opinion, you have already been defeated by the mountain. The indecision itself will consume too much of your energy and attention to perform the task even at a risk you could normally tolerate. Your judgement is too compromised to trust, and hubris and self-promising gets people killed.

verandaguy 2y ago

> 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. As much as I get that Boeing is a major launch partner for the US in general and one of the only companies competing in the crewed space in the States right now, I don't get this part. It's not NASA's job to keep Boeing in the running. It's completely up to Boeing to produce a vehicle that can safely and reliably get crews to and from orbit, and to do the appropriate amount of testing beforehand. If they can't be bothered to do that with the understanding the cost of failure, that's on them.

HWR_14 2y ago
It certainly is part of NASA's job to consider long term space travel needs. And supporting a competitor to SpaceX now as a long term strategic benefit has a lot of value as opposed to being held hostage to monopoly pricing in the future. Companies invest in their supply chain and invest in not being beholden to a single supplier (unless they control that supplier) all the time.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  That feels completely like an excuse used after the fact to justify keeping Boeing around rather than a principled stance, considering that NASA and Congress were pretty set on just giving Boeing the sole source contract for crew transport to the station. It's pretty well documented by Lori Garver, one of the people involved in pushing Commercial Crew, how strong the opposition was from both NASA and Congress.
  - darknavi 2y ago
    At this point it'd probably be money better spent raising up a Blue Origin commercial crew program than propping up the corpse of Boeing.
    - GolfPopper 2y ago

adolph 2y ago

> 4. In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. Wat? Have any Dragon missions encountered the number and severity of issues experienced by Starliner? Maybe they have and are not public knowledge because NASA is less than transparency about its safety predictions and findings. But until the same confidence sapping mission performance is established it is not honest to say that Starliner is held to a higher standard.

dotnet00 2y ago

I'm fairly certain that sources from NASA have said the opposite regarding scrutiny. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/boeing-starliner-nasa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/science/boeing-starliner-... As it turns out, the official that admitted this was the same Steve Stich. Dragon was held to a higher standard, they were the newcomers and the corrupt snakes in Congress were looking for any excuse to justify canceling commercial crew and just giving Boeing a blank check again.

GMoromisato 2y ago
For development, you're right. I think NASA considered Boeing a known quantity and trusted them to develop Starliner, while they scrutinized SpaceX because they were worried that they were too cavalier. But I meant a higher standard for how much risk NASA is willing to take in this instance. If something had gone wrong with Dragon Demo-2, there was no other way to bring down the astronauts. They would have accepted relatively high risk because they had no choice. But with Starliner, because they have Dragon, they don't need to accept that risk. The risk NASA will tolerate is lower now, because they have an alternative. That's what I meant by a higher standard.

glzone1 2y ago

Finally a good summary. I also picked up on the potential to at least payout Boeing if starliner comes down in good order (which seemed likely). I think that solves Boeings issue and would make them relax on forcing crew. The problem here is they have a seemingly somewhat safer option going up and down regularly. That is making taking risk MUCH much harder because the downside risk (2 crew trapped in space potentially for a long and slow death) is pretty disastrous especially if a safer option was sitting right there and it turns out the decision to send them down was contract driven. Given the history of thruster issues that go way back (and keep on repeating despite "fixes") I feel like they'll collect about as much data sending starliner back uncrewed, and then they'll need to be doing fixes for things like the helium issues etc that are compounding the risks. Be great if they could do ONE uncrewed flight more trouble free before putting astro's back on, but their solution is a more expensive with longer lead times than crew dragon (the entire service module is dumped on every launch I think, the rocket is also totally dumped etc)

cameldrv 2y ago

I think it’s very unlikely that Starliner will ever fly again, regardless of the ultimate outcome of this mission. In its three flights, Starliner has had so many serious problems, it’s obvious that it hasn’t been sufficiently engineered. Why take the risk when there’s an alternative that has been essentially trouble free?

wkat4242 2y ago

> In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2. That's pretty contrived. Dragon has a 'standard' of multiple successful flights. > 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. This is the problem with old space. SpaceX blows stuff up on the regular just to see what went boom. And they absorb the cost themselves. They don't fly something that has proven itself fully before. It's clear this approach works. If they can do it while not wasting billions, why can't Boeing? And "it will cost the vendor money" should really not factor into safety decisions.