Boeing Starliner

TomS said:
There's no way that would be faster to design and adequately test than adjusting and testing the old unmanned software and pushing that back up to the capsule.
Click to expand...
The unholy mess that is Agile Development/Extreme Programming has a nasty habit of fouling things up by the numbers and then some, though.
 
TomcatViP said:
Perhaps that´s the source of the problem: too much conversation...

Last but not least, this incident should raise the issue that the on-going massification of Space, even at an early age, can not be done safely sending up there only Scientists, pilots or tourist. It´s past time we have fixers, welders and other individuals with an appropriate industrial background on orbit.
Those would have certainly helped here.

Repeating myself, similarly, the first thing that should land on the Moon that time with Artemis... Is a CAT.
Click to expand...
Summon the beamjacks!
 
TomcatViP said:
@edwest4 : pardon me if I missed something but how is this is related to Starliner?
Click to expand...

It's about Boeing management and bad decisions, along with having less than the best on staff. If something bad happens in the air or in space and it's about Boeing, it all goes together. There's no point in sticking to this topic without looking at the whole picture. Now, imagine being the CEO of Boeing. Bad decisions were made, but you will step down at the end of the year and walk away with millions of dollars. Is that the right reward for doing things badly?
 
I guess my hot take is that even if butch and suni died on starliner it shouldn't be the end of the program, just like dragon shouldn't be ended if there was a fatal accident. Space is hard and not for the faint of heart.

Also it doesn't even cost NASA much at this point since it's fixed price, so why stop? The logic behind "pulling the plug on starliner" just seems incredibly backward and why we can't have nice thing

(Just to make it clear, I’m in favour of the safest option for Their return, I’m just saying a worst case hypothetical)
 
Last edited:
from the Daily Hopper on X
GVDR5UjWAAAH2U8
 
Forest Green said:
www.spacewar.com

NASA to make decision on Starliner astronauts by end of month

Washington DC (UPI) Aug 14, 2024 - NASA plans to make a final decision by the end of this month on how the space agency will bring two Boeing Starliner astronauts, who have been stranded on the International Space Station since June, back to Earth.
www.spacewar.com
Click to expand...
www.theregister.com

NASA pushes Starliner decision to the end of August

When is a mishap not really a mishap?
www.theregister.com www.theregister.com

From earlier this month:
www.theregister.com

Boeing takes another $125M hit thanks to Starliner

Perhaps those thrusters actually burn dollars after all
www.theregister.com www.theregister.com
 
$125 million dollar hit for Boeing due to Starliner? That is a lot of money for Boeing to lose. Ouch!!
 
FighterJock said:
By the end of the month? :eek:
Click to expand...
They are going to give Boeing every chance to pull it's own balls from the fire before they are going to give SpaceX the opportunity to rub their nose in it.
There is also the consideration that the decisions they are making now aren't just about retrieving the two astronauts, but could affect the entire program in Congress. I suspect they'd prefer to have the Starliner option, even if it is still (despite the years and money) clearly not ready for primetime.
I think the only sane decision right now is to deorbit autonomously and send them back on Dragon. There are a lot of reasons to avoid that if possible if you are a government entity who depends on Congress for its program money. They are a political entity being put in a position to shoot one of its own two horses. It will not be an easy decision for the bureaucrats, and each of them will want their own butts covered and own say heard.
 
_Del_ said:
They are going to give Boeing every chance to pull it's own balls from the fire before they are going to give SpaceX the opportunity to rub their nose in it.
There is also the consideration that the decisions they are making now aren't just about retrieving the two astronauts, but could affect the entire program in Congress. I suspect they'd prefer to have the Starliner option, even if it is still (despite the years and money) clearly not ready for primetime.
I think the only sane decision right now is to deorbit autonomously and send them back on Dragon. There are a lot of reasons to avoid that if possible if you are a government entity who depends on Congress for its program money. They are a political entity being put in a position to shoot one of its own two horses. It will not be an easy decision for the bureaucrats, and each of them will want their own butts covered and own say heard.
Click to expand...

Short-term profits are god. If things go badly, oh well...
 
Boeing's new CEO seems to be making 'intelligent' noises, speaking to the affronted engineers' irate unions and sub-contractors.

But, short of back-clawing a heap of stock options and other bonuses 'earned' by his hapless predecessors and their benighted boards, what then ?

Returning HQ to within spanner-throw of the Seattle 'Works' might work...

Having the board members endure a comprehensive account of how badly and why Brewster failed might help, too. ..

If they do not learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it, but worse, much worse.

Except, this time, the benighted board members might find themselves pulling straws for a jump-seat on next Starliner, along with those subordinates responsible for Boeing's toxic culture and gross failures of QA/QC...
 
You need to have some people who are focused on profit; engineers are great, but without profit (even a small one) a company won’t run for long. Hobby shops that run at a loss and then close benefit no one. The part that’s a problem is the shortsightedness, not the profit.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
You need to have some people who are focused on profit; engineers are great, but without profit (even a small one) a company won’t run for long. Hobby shops that run at a loss and then close benefit no one. The part that’s a problem is the shortsightedness, not the profit.
Click to expand...
The managers having an engineering background model worked well for Boeing until the merger with MDC.
 
siegecrossbow said:
That’s why you have to hit them where they hurt the most. Millions of dollars in severance package for disgraced CEO to quit… what a sick joke.
Click to expand...

That's why these golden parachute packages need to end and there should be severe financial penalties for senior managers who screw things up.

martinbayer said:
The managers having an engineering background model worked well for Boeing until the merger with MDC.
Click to expand...

That's the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's influence, I do not understand why McD senior managers were allowed to take over Boeing as it was them who ruined Boeing.
 
Looking more broadly, I'd say that the widespread problem is the misconception that executives are a fungible commodity so that companies try to curate boardrooms of star executives irrespective of their origins and relevance of their experience. Stock markets and financial commentators have obsessively promoted this ideology. The attitudes, skills and experience used to sell baked beans might be applicable to selling shampoo too but attempting to transfer those into aviation is a bridge too far where concerns that are trivial on one field become critical in another.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
That's the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation's influence, I do not understand why McD senior managers were allowed to take over Boeing as it was them who ruined Boeing.
Click to expand...
Even by the time I joined Boeing in August 1998, the saying in a former Rockwell campus in SoCal was that McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's own money. I've heard this saying repeated countless times over the past few decades, and each time it made a little more sense to me.
 
Consolidation across industries is occurring in the U.S., not just in aerospace. So-called "hedge funds" are made up of people looking for the next thing to acquire. It's not about making a quality product. It's just about money. Once you become rich, the next person steps in line, and the already rich keep getting richer. The problem, denied by the wealthy, is the sky is not the limit. There is a (gasp) limit to growth in any industry. So, to get into that industry may require paying more than desired, but once a foot in the door is achieved, it's judged to be worth it. For example, a candy maker paid $30 billion to acquire another snack food maker. It's a trend that needs limits. Google may be broken up since it achieved a monopoly in search.
 
Interestingly, the way ISS receive its orbital crew might now be questioned. Instead of docking directly to the core modules, why not having a "docking pad" remotely positioned away from the main station at the end of a beam. Then a rail mounted airlock (inflatable?) is driven to the docking ship, cargo and astronauts are transferred before the moving airlock is brought back to the core ISS module.
- Mechanically sizing the docking beam would mean that no exaggerated stress are transferred to the ISS.
- Length of the docking beam would provide an ample volume for a safe and simple arrival trajectory
- The absence of gravity would make that beam lighter enough to be ferried as an add-on payload
-The number of crew and cargo modules docked at a single time would be greatly expanded

Etc...

240821_a.jpg
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Interestingly, the way ISS receive its orbital crew might now be questioned. Instead of docking directly to the core modules, why not having a "docking pad" remotely positioned away from the main station at the end of a beam. Then a rail mounted airlock (inflatable?) is driven to the docking ship, cargo and astronauts are transferred before the moving airlock is brought back to the core ISS module.
- Mechanically sizing the docking beam would mean that no exaggerated stress are transferred to the ISS.
- Length of the docking beam would provide an ample volume for a safe and simple arrival trajectory
- The absence of gravity would make that beam lighter enough to be ferried as an add-on payload
-The number of crew and cargo modules docked at a single time would be greatly expanded

Etc...

View attachment 737656
Click to expand...
Because it adds more complexity and risk and doesn't add anything positive.
A. A frangible connection is something you don't want on pressurized crew systems
b. The translating airlock is nothing but a death trap. So many things can go wrong. And what provides a habitable environment in it?
C. Docking to the beam is going to introduce torsion loads into the connection to the ISS, no matter what size it is. It will react like a diving board. And docking will rotate the ISS.
d. How does the beam provide a " safe and simple arrival trajectory"? The approach is from the
e. Absence of gravity does not change the mechanical requirements and reduce the mass of the beam.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom