Starliner fails key NASA mission

they will still get to test it in a landing. It just burned fuel while stuck in an undefined state loop. Unfortunately, there's not enough fuel left to do the orbit change necessary.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer is likely going to pay for another test flight. because Boeing is too big to fail. no matter hi often they do it..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
defaultluser said:
they will still get to test it in a landing. It just burned fuel while stuck in an undefined state loop. Unfortunately, there's not enough fuel left to do the orbit change necessary.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer is likely going to pay for another test flight. because Boeing is too big to fail. no matter hi often they do it..
Click to expand...

Only a few companies in the world can actually engineer a space capsule. Just for national security sake, I'm good with footing the bill. No Christmas Ham for you, starving homeless person.
 
Mega6 said:
Only a few companies in the world can actually engineer a space capsule. Just for national security sake, I'm good with footing the bill. No Christmas Ham for you, starving homeless person.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's going to be TWO Christmas hams, because their only other competitor costs half the price per-flight.

If you're going to cost 90 million per-person on Starliner, you'd better have a tried-and true software test program. Space-X is doing it for half that, and hasn't had a software bug in years. Given the number of critical software errors recently at Boeing, it may take more than just two expensive test flight to get things sorted. NASA will continue to pay for Boeing's management mistakes, without any real consequences for the giant (e.g. no audits like they forced SpaceX to undergo)
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
Actually, it's going to be TWO Christmas hams, because their only other competitor costs half the price per-flight.
Click to expand...
Nasa is doing two equal paths to make sure this gets done, should one fail. So.. good call.

defaultluser said:
If you're going to cost 90 million per-person on Starliner, you'd better have a tried-and true software test program. Space-X is doing it for half that, and hasn't had a software bug in years. Given the number of critical software errors recently at Boeing, it may take more than just two expensive test flight to get hings sorted.
Click to expand...
Price is secondary to success when developing technology that has far reaching national security concerns.
 
Also, spacex performed a ground test of the Dragon capsule and it exploded, so.. not so successful on that end yet either. I would suggest that is a more worrisome failure than a mission clock that could have been set by an Astronaut had it been manned.
 
defaultluser said:
they will still get to test it in a landing. It just burned fuel while stuck in an undefined state loop. Unfortunately, there's not enough fuel left to do the orbit change necessary.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer is likely going to pay for another test flight. because Boeing is too big to fail. no matter hi often they do it..
Click to expand...

isn't that a several billion dollar screw up though?
 
To bad Rosie couldn't flip the 'System Clock to Aux' switch.

Assuming they don't have any more major faults, they should get the capsule back for a complete bug hunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mega6
like this
I have not read any specifics on the Starliner failure. I =have= read many accounts of Boeing's failures with the 737 MAX. At this point, the management of Boeing is past the point of needing to be fired.

Boeing may have the engineering and manufacturing capabilities to achieve great things. They certainly don't have the management capability oriented to support such achievements.
 
No doubt space is exceptionally hard, but Boeing's mis-management has already got hundreds of people killed and will continue to do so if they don't get their act together.
 
erek said:
isn't that a several billion dollar screw up though?
Click to expand...
It's in the tens of millions, it has to autonomously dock to the IIS as part of the trials. So it's another launch. Plus - they still need to find the bug in the mission clock and fix it.
 
longblock454 said:
No doubt space is exceptionally hard, but Boeing's mis-management has already got hundreds of people killed and will continue to do so if they don't get their act together.
Click to expand...
I believe Civil Aviation with poorly trained pilots, as well as Boeing's poor design all played a role in the 737 debacle. A literal "flip of the auto-trim disable switch" would have saved two planes.
 
[QUOTE
erek said:
isn't that a several billion dollar screw up though?
Click to expand...

You''re thinking of SLS (Space Launch System), not Commercial Crew. Compared to that trashfire, Starliner is simple and cheap.

But if Boeing has so many trash fires to it's name, perhaps it's time to run them, through the FTC monopoly Trash Compactor.? It's the only way to trim the size/cost of your trash fires down to anywhere near their competitors :rolleyes:

Remember when we actually had working regulations for big industry (including enforcement?) in this country? hasn't been a priority since the Clinton admin. The areo industry obviously is failing to self-regulate. while no empowered government entities hold a company like Boeing responsible for anything,
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
It's in the tens of millions, it has to autonomously dock to the IIS as part of the trials. So it's another launch. Plus - they still need to find the bug in the mission clock and fix it.
Click to expand...

Actually, docking with ISS on autopilot is not a requirement. They can go ahead and do that on the next crewed test flight no problemo.
 
Verado said:
Actually, docking with ISS on autopilot is not a requirement. They can go ahead and do that on the next crewed test flight no problemo.
Click to expand...
Got it good point. but the mission clock mystery has to be tracked and fixed. It’s another test launch. Not manned.
 
I'm still surprised by the kinds of bugs that make it into mission-critical systems.

Decades of attempts to improve code generation, and while using machine-learning to debug stuff alongside advancements in automated testing are both becoming more prevalent, it's almost like approaches to such problems are buggy by default.
 
defaultluser said:
Unfortunately, the taxpayer is likely going to pay for another test flight. because Boeing is too big to fail. no matter hi often they do it..
Click to expand...
Well didn't NASA give them a fuck ton of cash to build a direct to orbit ship only to have Boeing say "not feasible because tech doesn't exist".

Also recall a few zeroes given to them on a check to build a super conducting disc or something to test some principle of gravity lessening or someshit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top