4 ms·

> It has failed essentially every qualification test in various ways. [...] Their first automated mission to the ISS completely failed and did not make it to t

> It has failed essentially every qualification test in various ways. [...] 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 I don't follow spaceflight news in any great depth - but doesn't SpaceX also have a rocket thingy that keeps exploding? Isn't "just launch over and over until it stops exploding" the way rockets are made these days?

FactolSarin 2y ago
That's SpaceX's philosophy, but Boeing operates on a measure-twice build-once philosophy where everything is supposed to be close to perfect in the first place.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  But it's not close enough to perfect and they didn't factor a failure into the costs. So now there's pressure in not doing a second trial run that may or not be perfect because they don't want to lose money. Not only that but it's year later than planned and has failed most of its tests. And even if everything had worked as planned it would have lost money. It's really not a very successful philosophy anymore.
tim333 2y ago
Different types of tests. The SpaceX ones were mostly supposed to do that.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  How do you know what kind of test it was supposed to be?
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    You follow the news and the public statements on the goals of the test? SpaceX isn't exactly tight lipped about their philosophy and what they hope to learn from each test.
    - HWR_14 2y ago
      Can you share an example of a pre-launch announcement so I know what they hope to learn? I haven't seen anything about any upcoming test's goals as they approach, but I also don't know where I would look.
      - tim333 2y ago
        Dunno about that exactly but Everyday Astronaut youtube has a lot of stuff. Here on the early starship strategy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM6WqjJCKQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM6WqjJCKQo
      - dotnet00 2y ago
        Usually on SpaceX's X or Musk's X, for example: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1762237289231757406 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1762237289231757406 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798692089766805813 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798692089766805813 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1792629142141177890 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1792629142141177890 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1783929534955589885 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1783929534955589885 Or SpaceX's summaries for after the test: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... There also tend to be good articles from dedicated space reporters like Eric Berger, Stephen Clark or Michael Shaetz: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/we-know-starship-can-fly-now-its-time-to-see-if-it-can-come-back-to-earth/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/we-know-starship-can-f... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/spacex-starship-fourth-test-spaceflight.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/spacex-starship-fourth-test-... https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-video-teases-potential-starship-booster-catch-on-next-flight/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-video-teases-po... The "mainstream" reporting on these tends to be pretty awful and a glaring display of Gell-Mann Amnesia, but the more popular space journalists tend to be pretty good. I provided specific examples because there are also "journalists" known for intentionally distorting the facts to prop up their biases. The goals for the next flight test seem to be to try to catch the booster (if they can get the necessary regulatory clearances) and to try to perform a controlled reentry of Starship again, this time with an upgraded heat shield to hopefully take less damage than the previous attempts. It'll end up being mainly a control systems and shield material test since future prototypes which are already being built have changes to the fin locations which also mitigate some of the heat shield issues seen in the previous test. There's also talk of towing it to Australia after splashdown to study (also depends on if they can get the necessary regulatory clearances). I wouldn't be surprised if the goals change though, I feel like they might decide to do another simulated catch over water for the booster (since while it was technically successful in IFT-4, one engine did blow up), and similarly I doubt they'll have the clearances to tow the ship to Australia as fast as they'd like.
  - macksd 2y ago
    SpaceX is pretty open about optimizing for many iterations, a bit like the philosophy in software of shipping an MVP to get user feedback sooner for future iterations. Boeing has an established culture that's more like traditional waterfall development. When you watch their launches, they have tiers of objectives that get less and less likely to succeed - they plan to push even if failure is likely tlso they can learn from both their successful objectives and the eventual failure.
ekimekim 2y ago
The issue is that you don't normally let humans on them until you've proven they don't explode. If Boeing had followed each of those incidents with a re-do where everything went perfectly, it wouldn't be a problem.
fckflorida 2y ago
[dead]
NoahKAndrews 2y ago
It's a different philosophy. Starship (the in-development SpaceX rocket) has taken the "test as fully as you can add often as you can" route, and no people will be getting on it until it's reached a high level of reliability. Starliner was not developed that way at all. It was supposed to be developed with much more up-front work to make sure that it would work correctly out of the gate. All of the mentioned Starliner tests were certification tests, whereas all of the Starship tests so far have been 100% expected to fail in some way, but with a more ambitious goal about how far it gets.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Putting this more bluntly: Starship: "We expect this to fail, but we will learn valuable lessons." -> Fails -> "That was fun! Next!" Starliner: "We expect this to succeed." -> Fails. "Well, shit." Fundamentally different engineering and design philosophies.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    It's not a difference in philosophies, it's different stages of development and testing. Starship and Starliner are very different things. Starship is the launch vehicle and a novel one (as in, it's not just a rebuild of an existing system, it's got new components and design elements). The failures we've seen so far were all, to some extent, expected though the particular modes of failure may not have been anticipated. They were launched with the intent of discovering the failure modes and responding to them with changes to design and manufacturing. Starliner is now where Dragon Crew was with DM-2. Both tested with uncrewed flights and various test scenarios before their crewed flights. DM-2 and this flight are flights where nothing should go wrong. Failure, or critical failures at least, are unanticipated events. Otherwise you wouldn't be putting people in them yet (both vehicles are capable of operating autonomously, there's no reason to put a person in them if you aren't confident in the vehicle). The same philosophy applies to both Dragon Crew and Starliner at this stage.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Completely different case, though most reporting doesn't make that clear. The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. Seeing how and why it explodes is pretty much the purpose of launching it!
- supportengineer 2y ago
  I could say the same thing about software
- skissane 2y ago
  > The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Saturn I (Block 1): Oct 27, 1961 (SA-1; only 1st stage active, 2nd and 3rd stage were present but disabled) Saturn I (Block 2): Jan 29, 1964 (SA-2; only 1st and 2nd stage active; 3rd stage was present but disabled) Saturn IB: Feb 26, 1966 (AS-201; first Saturn 1 flight with all 3 stages active) Saturn V: Nov 9, 1967 (Apollo 4) Space Shuttle: Apr 12, 1981 (STS-1, Columbia) Atlas V: Aug 21, 2002 Falcon 9: Jun 4, 2010 (Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit test; the first stage disintegrated on re-entry, but that's irrelevant to success of the payload) Falcon Heavy: Feb 6, 2018 (test flight; center core recovery failed, although again that arguably doesn't count) Vulcan Centaur: Jan 8, 2024 (Peregrine lunar lander; the lander failed, but for reasons unrelated to the launch vehicle) Indeed, I'd even say the norm is for success on first flight. And even when they do fail, most of the time it is a partial failure not a complete RUD – e.g. Delta IV Heavy's first flight reached orbit, but a lower orbit than planned; Ariane 6 reached the desired orbit, but the second stage failed to relight a second time for its deorbit burn. What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel – deliberately flying very early in development, when failure is more likely than success. This is different from traditional launch vehicle design process, in which you spend years doing extensive on-the-ground analysis, simulation and component testing, resulting in a high probability of success on the very first flight. I think a lot of people are being misled into thinking SpaceX's way of doing things is the industry norm, when it isn't. Conversely, many other people misunderstand that SpaceX is intentionally doing something different, and are judging Starship's (expected) failures by the standards of earlier programs in which they aren't expected (failure after years of exhaustive on-the-ground development is a sign either of incompetence or really bad luck).
ranger207 2y ago
Yes, SpaceX has a rocket that keeps exploding, which is their new in development rocket Starship. They don't use Starship to launch people yet though; they use their much more reliable Falcon 9 instead. Blowing up rockets while they're in development is fine; blowing up rockets that have people on them is less fine. Boeing's Starliner should not have carried people until all its developmental problems were resolved
inglor_cz 2y ago
"Isn't "just launch over and over until it stops exploding" the way rockets are made these days?" If the cargo was a bunch of rocks and Boeing paid for the launch, you would have been right. But this was a manned mission ordered by the US government. At this phase of development, nothing should be left to chance.
wkat4242 2y ago
> I don't follow spaceflight news in any great depth - but doesn't SpaceX also have a rocket thingy that keeps exploding? In fact even the rocket that Dragon launches on has a long history of explosions. First in the launches, then in the landings that resulted in some very spectacular booms. One time it landed perfectly upright, engines shut off, and one of the landing feet collapsed, causing it to fall over and BOOM. That was so funny :) But now it has had a huge run of successful launches. I think it's a better approach because material science does not always behave exactly like the mathematical models. And space is one area where the margins of failure are extremely low.

FactolSarin 2y ago

That's SpaceX's philosophy, but Boeing operates on a measure-twice build-once philosophy where everything is supposed to be close to perfect in the first place.

wkat4242 2y ago
But it's not close enough to perfect and they didn't factor a failure into the costs. So now there's pressure in not doing a second trial run that may or not be perfect because they don't want to lose money. Not only that but it's year later than planned and has failed most of its tests. And even if everything had worked as planned it would have lost money. It's really not a very successful philosophy anymore.

tim333 2y ago

Different types of tests. The SpaceX ones were mostly supposed to do that.

HWR_14 2y ago
How do you know what kind of test it was supposed to be?
- dotnet00 2y ago
  You follow the news and the public statements on the goals of the test? SpaceX isn't exactly tight lipped about their philosophy and what they hope to learn from each test.
  - HWR_14 2y ago
    Can you share an example of a pre-launch announcement so I know what they hope to learn? I haven't seen anything about any upcoming test's goals as they approach, but I also don't know where I would look.
    - tim333 2y ago
      Dunno about that exactly but Everyday Astronaut youtube has a lot of stuff. Here on the early starship strategy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM6WqjJCKQo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM6WqjJCKQo
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      Usually on SpaceX's X or Musk's X, for example: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1762237289231757406 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1762237289231757406 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798692089766805813 https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798692089766805813 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1792629142141177890 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1792629142141177890 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1783929534955589885 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1783929534955589885 Or SpaceX's summaries for after the test: https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4 https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... There also tend to be good articles from dedicated space reporters like Eric Berger, Stephen Clark or Michael Shaetz: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/we-know-starship-can-fly-now-its-time-to-see-if-it-can-come-back-to-earth/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/we-know-starship-can-f... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/spacex-starship-fourth-test-spaceflight.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/spacex-starship-fourth-test-... https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-video-teases-potential-starship-booster-catch-on-next-flight/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/spacex-video-teases-po... The "mainstream" reporting on these tends to be pretty awful and a glaring display of Gell-Mann Amnesia, but the more popular space journalists tend to be pretty good. I provided specific examples because there are also "journalists" known for intentionally distorting the facts to prop up their biases. The goals for the next flight test seem to be to try to catch the booster (if they can get the necessary regulatory clearances) and to try to perform a controlled reentry of Starship again, this time with an upgraded heat shield to hopefully take less damage than the previous attempts. It'll end up being mainly a control systems and shield material test since future prototypes which are already being built have changes to the fin locations which also mitigate some of the heat shield issues seen in the previous test. There's also talk of towing it to Australia after splashdown to study (also depends on if they can get the necessary regulatory clearances). I wouldn't be surprised if the goals change though, I feel like they might decide to do another simulated catch over water for the booster (since while it was technically successful in IFT-4, one engine did blow up), and similarly I doubt they'll have the clearances to tow the ship to Australia as fast as they'd like.
- macksd 2y ago
  SpaceX is pretty open about optimizing for many iterations, a bit like the philosophy in software of shipping an MVP to get user feedback sooner for future iterations. Boeing has an established culture that's more like traditional waterfall development. When you watch their launches, they have tiers of objectives that get less and less likely to succeed - they plan to push even if failure is likely tlso they can learn from both their successful objectives and the eventual failure.

ekimekim 2y ago

The issue is that you don't normally let humans on them until you've proven they don't explode. If Boeing had followed each of those incidents with a re-do where everything went perfectly, it wouldn't be a problem.

fckflorida 2y ago

[dead]

NoahKAndrews 2y ago

It's a different philosophy. Starship (the in-development SpaceX rocket) has taken the "test as fully as you can add often as you can" route, and no people will be getting on it until it's reached a high level of reliability. Starliner was not developed that way at all. It was supposed to be developed with much more up-front work to make sure that it would work correctly out of the gate. All of the mentioned Starliner tests were certification tests, whereas all of the Starship tests so far have been 100% expected to fail in some way, but with a more ambitious goal about how far it gets.

Dalewyn 2y ago
Putting this more bluntly: Starship: "We expect this to fail, but we will learn valuable lessons." -> Fails -> "That was fun! Next!" Starliner: "We expect this to succeed." -> Fails. "Well, shit." Fundamentally different engineering and design philosophies.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  It's not a difference in philosophies, it's different stages of development and testing. Starship and Starliner are very different things. Starship is the launch vehicle and a novel one (as in, it's not just a rebuild of an existing system, it's got new components and design elements). The failures we've seen so far were all, to some extent, expected though the particular modes of failure may not have been anticipated. They were launched with the intent of discovering the failure modes and responding to them with changes to design and manufacturing. Starliner is now where Dragon Crew was with DM-2. Both tested with uncrewed flights and various test scenarios before their crewed flights. DM-2 and this flight are flights where nothing should go wrong. Failure, or critical failures at least, are unanticipated events. Otherwise you wouldn't be putting people in them yet (both vehicles are capable of operating autonomously, there's no reason to put a person in them if you aren't confident in the vehicle). The same philosophy applies to both Dragon Crew and Starliner at this stage.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Completely different case, though most reporting doesn't make that clear. The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. Seeing how and why it explodes is pretty much the purpose of launching it!

supportengineer 2y ago
I could say the same thing about software
skissane 2y ago
> The first time you build a physical rocket and test sending it up, it's almost certain to fail. That's not true. Many launch vehicles have succeeded on their first flight: Titan II: Apr 8, 1964 (Gemini 1) Saturn I (Block 1): Oct 27, 1961 (SA-1; only 1st stage active, 2nd and 3rd stage were present but disabled) Saturn I (Block 2): Jan 29, 1964 (SA-2; only 1st and 2nd stage active; 3rd stage was present but disabled) Saturn IB: Feb 26, 1966 (AS-201; first Saturn 1 flight with all 3 stages active) Saturn V: Nov 9, 1967 (Apollo 4) Space Shuttle: Apr 12, 1981 (STS-1, Columbia) Atlas V: Aug 21, 2002 Falcon 9: Jun 4, 2010 (Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit test; the first stage disintegrated on re-entry, but that's irrelevant to success of the payload) Falcon Heavy: Feb 6, 2018 (test flight; center core recovery failed, although again that arguably doesn't count) Vulcan Centaur: Jan 8, 2024 (Peregrine lunar lander; the lander failed, but for reasons unrelated to the launch vehicle) Indeed, I'd even say the norm is for success on first flight. And even when they do fail, most of the time it is a partial failure not a complete RUD – e.g. Delta IV Heavy's first flight reached orbit, but a lower orbit than planned; Ariane 6 reached the desired orbit, but the second stage failed to relight a second time for its deorbit burn. What SpaceX has been doing with Starship is very novel – deliberately flying very early in development, when failure is more likely than success. This is different from traditional launch vehicle design process, in which you spend years doing extensive on-the-ground analysis, simulation and component testing, resulting in a high probability of success on the very first flight. I think a lot of people are being misled into thinking SpaceX's way of doing things is the industry norm, when it isn't. Conversely, many other people misunderstand that SpaceX is intentionally doing something different, and are judging Starship's (expected) failures by the standards of earlier programs in which they aren't expected (failure after years of exhaustive on-the-ground development is a sign either of incompetence or really bad luck).

ranger207 2y ago

Yes, SpaceX has a rocket that keeps exploding, which is their new in development rocket Starship. They don't use Starship to launch people yet though; they use their much more reliable Falcon 9 instead. Blowing up rockets while they're in development is fine; blowing up rockets that have people on them is less fine. Boeing's Starliner should not have carried people until all its developmental problems were resolved

inglor_cz 2y ago

"Isn't "just launch over and over until it stops exploding" the way rockets are made these days?" If the cargo was a bunch of rocks and Boeing paid for the launch, you would have been right. But this was a manned mission ordered by the US government. At this phase of development, nothing should be left to chance.

wkat4242 2y ago

> I don't follow spaceflight news in any great depth - but doesn't SpaceX also have a rocket thingy that keeps exploding? In fact even the rocket that Dragon launches on has a long history of explosions. First in the launches, then in the landings that resulted in some very spectacular booms. One time it landed perfectly upright, engines shut off, and one of the landing feet collapsed, causing it to fall over and BOOM. That was so funny :) But now it has had a huge run of successful launches. I think it's a better approach because material science does not always behave exactly like the mathematical models. And space is one area where the margins of failure are extremely low.