The future of Boeing's crewed spaceflight program muddy after Starliner's return(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The future of Boeing's crewed spaceflight program muddy after Starliner's return
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/the-future-of-boeings-crewed-spaceflight-program-is-muddy-after-starliners-return/
48 comments
So despite getting 61% more money for the project, they not only failed to achieve what SpaceX did with less money but actually lost another $1.6b on top of it while still failing to achieve the necessary result.
Boeing just seems to be really, really bad at this.
Boeing just seems to be really, really bad at this.
> Boeing just seems to be really, really bad at this.
Boeing isn't contracted for results, it's contracted to disperse pork (aka jobs and money) across the districts of politicians who vote for earmarked NASA funds.
Boeing isn't contracted for results, it's contracted to disperse pork (aka jobs and money) across the districts of politicians who vote for earmarked NASA funds.
Normally you’re supposed to make money off of pork though.
Those jobs and money buy houses and put kids through college, despite not delivering astronauts safely.
Ultimately, it's what we collectively decided is more important.
Ultimately, it's what we collectively decided is more important.
Sounds like broken window fallacy to me. We pay for projects with the expectation that they will not provide value, but somebody gets paid. That’s the same as breaking windows across town so some people can get paid to fix them
The value they provide is continuous employment, research and development of technologies that have military applications, local industry development, and, eventually, space exploration.
This is why NASA has offices and hires manufacturing all over the country.
This is why NASA has offices and hires manufacturing all over the country.
The communities where Boeing employees live did indeed make money.
Eh, I don’t think thats true either. Here in Washington it’s not exactly secret Boeing is trying to hollow out their local workforce.
Unless you’re at the executive level, Boeing is “heads we win, tails you lose.”
Unless you’re at the executive level, Boeing is “heads we win, tails you lose.”
Will someone think of the share-holders?!
What about the tax payer? I don’t want a space program that soaks billions of dollars and doesn’t actually deliver on anything. If we are going to have the fed boost job figures by funding large projects then there’s dozens of other things they could invest the money in that will provide actually valuable assets.
I’d love to have a viable national space program. The current program has helped advance us so much and an effective program would be a huge boon for society. However this $4b was clearly wasted, and we need to spend our money with companies that deliver results. I just wish there were more companies delivering on their promises in the space industry.
I’d love to have a viable national space program. The current program has helped advance us so much and an effective program would be a huge boon for society. However this $4b was clearly wasted, and we need to spend our money with companies that deliver results. I just wish there were more companies delivering on their promises in the space industry.
The future in doubt should be the one of Boeing's C-suite and board.
They just recently replaced their CEO.
Something tells me it wasn't directly just CEO telling everybody to ignore any concern, fake safety reports. Yes he is ultimately responsible, but at 1-2 levels below him are actually more responsible for setting culture and controls in given department, something proper investigation can easily uncover.
He would need to fire at least 30% of the staff to make a difference. You can't fix the rot that started with the McDonald Douglas purchase by changing one person.
I struggle to conceive of the sheer number of working professionals in our global economy right now that have received an irreversible taint from the corporate piracy era. This is going to take a couple generations to fully go away I suspect, and of course that assumes that it ever does since unqualified MBA holders are still being hired and still running profitable enterprises into the fucking ground left and right.
> It was not immediately clear why the Boeing officials declined to participate. Shannon in particular is well-loved at the space agency, and the long-term press corps appreciates his candor.
That's probably the reason why Boeing pulled him out of the press conference right there...
That's probably the reason why Boeing pulled him out of the press conference right there...
Why did they wait so long to make the decision to not use the Starliner for the return? Seems like an obvious choice, if the thrusters on the ship aren't functioning properly and we've got a well tested alternative ready to go in SpaceX.
NASA wanted to understand if the malfunctioning thrusters could operate within a margin error for safety. Boeing spent a month running a study that produced non-definitive answer as to the root cause of the problem. Had Boeing definitively demonstrated the root cause of the thruster issue NASA probably would have sent the Astronauts home on Starliner. It’s not that NASA necessarily thought that Starliner was unsafe. It’s more like they lack confidence that Boeing actually understands the problem.
To be entirely fair to Boeing, while it’s too bad they do not understand the problem, props to them for admitting that.
Or at least, realizing that saying it’s totally safe only to have the thing explode would cause irreparable reputational harm.
Or at least, realizing that saying it’s totally safe only to have the thing explode would cause irreparable reputational harm.
Just seems weird they aren't getting picked up until February. Oh well, I guess from the astronauts' perspective this is sorta great because you spend your whole life preparing for this one great moment in your career and to get to stay up there for longer can't be a terrible thing.
It landed safely, the astronauts would have been fine returning on Starliner. Given the absurd number of thrusters that Starliner has, it's still safe with a couple thrusters missing. So the question was "is it safe enough"? It's a hard judgement call. They made the right call, and making it at the last minute while waiting for more data from tests both on the ground and in space was also the right call IMO.
[deleted]
NASA obviously needs a new, reliable horse in this race.
If only the development of Sierra Space's Dream Chaser wasn't moving at a snail's pace. (That project started back in 2004; they're currently hoping for the first test flight, of an unmanned cargo version, to happen in 2025.)
If only the development of Sierra Space's Dream Chaser wasn't moving at a snail's pace. (That project started back in 2004; they're currently hoping for the first test flight, of an unmanned cargo version, to happen in 2025.)
I love how Bezos' company is never mentioned in these discussions. Seriously, why is he not competing in this space?
They skipped the small/midsized orbital rocket stage and went straight to a huge orbital launch system which has been in development for a long time and is still unproven.
New Shepard, their suborbital demonstrator, had it’s first flight 9 years ago. They could quickly prove themselves, but such a long period in development without successful orbital launches destroyed the hype.
New Shepard, their suborbital demonstrator, had it’s first flight 9 years ago. They could quickly prove themselves, but such a long period in development without successful orbital launches destroyed the hype.
Right, but they've sued NASA over not receiving bids that SpaceX won, so they clearly "feel" like they should be in the running. Seems like if they were so desperate to win bids, they should be challenging Boeing. Clearly, I'm not privy to internal NASA discussions on awarding bids, but at this point, there has to be serious discussions on looking for another vendor as Boeing is just not reliable and shows no signs of improving. If I were part Bezos' entourage, I'd have a crew capsule design ready to go to approach NASA with. The time has never been more ripe for a spoiler to enter the discussion.
They have won other government contracts so they are in the running, I’m just talking about how the public feels.
As to moon missions, building a capsule from scratch would take at least 5 years and more likely a decade plus a few billion dollars at this point. Putting another company in charge of Boeing’s operations could be viable, but having a 3rd party show up just doesn’t seem viable on any kind of reason timescale.
As to moon missions, building a capsule from scratch would take at least 5 years and more likely a decade plus a few billion dollars at this point. Putting another company in charge of Boeing’s operations could be viable, but having a 3rd party show up just doesn’t seem viable on any kind of reason timescale.
There isn't really a need for a competitor to Starliner or even Crew Dragon, because they were both designed for LEO re-entry.
Crew Dragon in particular was overbuilt for LEO so that it can be used multiple times. While lunar re-entry is indeed possible, the vehicle wasn't designed for more than a one off mission.
The missing link is a low cost reusable crew vehicle designed for carrying people between LEO and NRHO/LLO. Basically a competitor to Orion.
While it is true in theory that a Starship could carry people to the moon and land them directly on the surface, the return trip isn't that easy and basically boils down to a second starship picking up astronauts from NRHO.
Crew Dragon in particular was overbuilt for LEO so that it can be used multiple times. While lunar re-entry is indeed possible, the vehicle wasn't designed for more than a one off mission.
The missing link is a low cost reusable crew vehicle designed for carrying people between LEO and NRHO/LLO. Basically a competitor to Orion.
While it is true in theory that a Starship could carry people to the moon and land them directly on the surface, the return trip isn't that easy and basically boils down to a second starship picking up astronauts from NRHO.
>I love how Bezos' company is never mentioned in these discussions.
This is a good point. Not much is said about Blue Origin. Perhaps because they're overshadowed by SpaceX? But Bezos is launching rockets.
* Their New Glenn rocket is reusable and can launch 45 tons, focusing on the commercial satellite launch market. First launch in Spring of '25.
* New Shepard is more like a tourist transport, delivering passengers to the edge of space. They have completed 26 missions so far.
* They're working on Blue Moon, which is a lunar lander designed to be part of Nasa's Artemis program.
Here's a video of Bezos talking about (and showing) the first New Glenn rocket being prepared for launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8SlfmpKM4
Disclaimer: I don't work for Bezos PR. I know very little about Blue Origin except what I learned from that video and what I got from ChatGPT.
This is a good point. Not much is said about Blue Origin. Perhaps because they're overshadowed by SpaceX? But Bezos is launching rockets.
* Their New Glenn rocket is reusable and can launch 45 tons, focusing on the commercial satellite launch market. First launch in Spring of '25.
* New Shepard is more like a tourist transport, delivering passengers to the edge of space. They have completed 26 missions so far.
* They're working on Blue Moon, which is a lunar lander designed to be part of Nasa's Artemis program.
Here's a video of Bezos talking about (and showing) the first New Glenn rocket being prepared for launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8SlfmpKM4
Disclaimer: I don't work for Bezos PR. I know very little about Blue Origin except what I learned from that video and what I got from ChatGPT.
Did Blue Origin manage to reach orbit already?
They are usually ignored because they seem to be at least a decade away from any practical application, and kept being that decade away for at least the last entire decade. But if this changed, than yeah, people should stop ignoring it.
They are usually ignored because they seem to be at least a decade away from any practical application, and kept being that decade away for at least the last entire decade. But if this changed, than yeah, people should stop ignoring it.
They have launched New Shepard 26 times, carrying passengers just above the Kármán line, which is about 62 miles above earth.
The rocket in the video I linked to is New Glenn (a heavy payload rocket) and its first launch will be in Spring 25
The rocket in the video I linked to is New Glenn (a heavy payload rocket) and its first launch will be in Spring 25
To be fair, they are working on a lot of the advanced problems before they get the basics. So they may be closer to a practical application than it looks.
But they didn't get the basics. Getting high up into space is much, much easier than reaching orbit. To the point it's a qualitatively different problem.
But they didn't get the basics. Getting high up into space is much, much easier than reaching orbit. To the point it's a qualitatively different problem.
which is about 62 miles above earth
But 'reaching orbit' isn't really about height, its more about speed
But 'reaching orbit' isn't really about height, its more about speed
Yes. The point being they don't have a orbital vehicle yet
Their pace significantly accelerated since the original tweet where they showed a fully assembled pathfinder vehicle on the launch pad. Before that tweet I thought Blue Origin was way behind. Now they are at most a year away from having a successful rocket and two years away from a moon landing with their prototype MK1 moon lander. At the current pace it is not unthinkable that Artemis 3 and 5 could happen a year apart.
Blue Origin is not building a crew launch system and New Glenn will not fly until next year, and won’t carry humans for the foreseeable future.
Why Sierra Space vs Blue Origin ?
Apples and oranges. Sierra is making a reuseable orbiter which needs a launcher and is pretty agnostic which one. Blue is making an orbital launcher but doesn't have a orbital spacecraft.
Pretty much.
With both more time and vastly more money than Sierra, BO has yet to reach orbit with anything. Medium lift rockets are not particularly scarce...vs. there's only one decent non-Russian, non-Chinese manned orbital vehicle. And it took even SpaceX almost a decade to go from Cargo Dragon to Crew Dragon.
With both more time and vastly more money than Sierra, BO has yet to reach orbit with anything. Medium lift rockets are not particularly scarce...vs. there's only one decent non-Russian, non-Chinese manned orbital vehicle. And it took even SpaceX almost a decade to go from Cargo Dragon to Crew Dragon.
OK, but surely NASA would like multiple suppliers for all components, and the launcher is the hard part, so Blue Origin seem closer to being a (single vendor) alternative to SpaceX. They were also tendering for the Artemis moon landing vehicle.
I'm not sure the launcher is the hard part. Heat shield tiles and re-entry seem to be much harder problems.
Boeing Starliner had no trouble launching, returning on the other hand was risky.
SLS worked flawlessly, but the returning Orion capsule's heat shield was severely damaged and the heat shield does not appear to be safe enough for crewed missions.
Starship's super heavy booster landed as planned, but the upper stage got damaged during re-entry and just barely managed to perform a landing.
STS/The space shuttle disaster was caused by damage from the launch, but arrived safely in LEO. The catastrophic loss occured during re-entry.
Boeing Starliner had no trouble launching, returning on the other hand was risky.
SLS worked flawlessly, but the returning Orion capsule's heat shield was severely damaged and the heat shield does not appear to be safe enough for crewed missions.
Starship's super heavy booster landed as planned, but the upper stage got damaged during re-entry and just barely managed to perform a landing.
STS/The space shuttle disaster was caused by damage from the launch, but arrived safely in LEO. The catastrophic loss occured during re-entry.
> The NASA officials at the press conference said they were confident that Boeing would continue despite losing at least $1.6 billion so far on the fixed-price contract and facing more losses amid investigations into the thruster failures on Starliner's latest flight. But there were no Boeing officials to ask. In the immediate aftermath of the landing, the company issued a short statement that included this noncommittal comment about its plans: "We will review the data and determine the next steps for the program."
From the article, it seems like the implication is that the program is under review from the Boeing side and not the Nasa side.