Boeing Starliner

TomcatViP said:
That´s why ppl onboard could have passed the right information. this is all about having test pilots....
Click to expand...
Unless they were going to get out and take apart the dog houses (and they weren't), not sure what you would expect them to glean that wasn't already documented.
 
TomcatViP said:
That´s why ppl onboard could have passed the right information. this is all about having test pilots....
Click to expand...

It's a hand-off process. There's no appreciable data the crew could have provided from sitting inside the capsule.


TomcatViP said:
Transparency is absolutely preferable but, as a corollary, it also exposes managerial decision to unnecessary pressures and counter productive incentives. Some points are meant to be discussed collegially.
Rationally NASA couldn´t have denied Boeing the manned return if there was not the public opinion in their motives.
Click to expand...

That's why I talked about internal transparency. Within NASA there seems to have been a free exchange of opinions and data. And it seems like the decision changed based on data (the White Sands test results) that was not public until after the decision was made, so I'm not sure how public pressure was decisive.
 
TomcatViP said:
I wonder if there isn´t a potential to go to court. That´s a question that, as I see, should be discussed.

I imagine Butch or Sunita filling a complaint after their return. The only thing that they would need is an incident on the ISS, some physical impact for the longer stay or a slight divergence in the vehicle optimal return flight.
Click to expand...
There is no case.
 
US Government? NASA? Those who gave Boeing the contract to design and build Starliner in the first place.
 
FighterJock said:
US Government? NASA? Those who gave Boeing the contract to design and build Starliner in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thing is, Boeing was given a fixed-prife contract. They've already spent much more than the government gave them and the government isn't giving them any more money, so where is the damage to the govt? I'm 100% sure the contract is structured so that technical failure of the project already falls on Boeing.

If Boeing fails to provide the actual Crew flights it is obligated to, they will probably not get paid more money, but there likely won't be any costs to the Govt that they could try to recover.
 
Debatable.

We will see what happens next but it would foolish to think that Starliner is out. And that means NASA and the US gov would probably have to pay for another flight unless Boeing throw in the towel for the bad publicity, or argue of an unfair process, something that would be a valid point for litigation.

At the end, this was an expensive PR show for NASA to posture as the people in the know that do the right thing.
- In the know: hard to argue given the lack of anticipation of all the problem they faced and the lack of readiness of the equipment and schedule
- Do the right thing: The decision process was completely corroded by the media exposure and "proved" irrational.
 
Last edited:
1635yankee said:
Boeing has repeatedly demonstrated that its management cannot be trusted to do so.
Click to expand...

Purge the current senior Boeing management (And also purge the McDonnell Aircraft corporate influence too) and make sure their replacements have an engineering background NOT more glorified bean-counters running the show.
 
I am left wondering what it is that drives Boeing to continue with its coffers-draining Starliner project, and which criteria drove the selection of the sitting board of directors.

Would anyone please care to enlighten me?
 
Arjen said:
I am left wondering what it is that drives Boeing to continue with its coffers-draining Starliner project, and which criteria drove the selection of the sitting board of directors.

Would anyone please care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
If I understood it correctly, they would lose even more money if they broke the contract right now. When commercial crew contracts were awarded in 2014, NASA promised to buy at least two flights from each; and if Boeing managed to get Starliner to work properly, they would at least got those two flights ordered (which would reduce net loss). But if Boeing pull out right now, NASA would pay them nothing - and they would stuck with total loss of more than 1,5 billions.
 
The Space Bucket has a video out about a closer look at the Starliner's return to Earth:


By now Starliner is back on the ground and on its way to Boeing Facilities in Florida for inspection and refurbishment. This comes after a successful undocking and reentry of the capsule and a landing at White Sands.
Click to expand...
However, as revealed in the post-landing teleconference, there were a few issues that arose during the return including multiple thruster failures and even a new problem that popped up with the navigation system. This puts the company in an even more difficult position as they decide what to do going forward. Here I will go more in-depth into the landing, some of the issues they experienced, the next steps, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/a-closer-l...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...w&q=https://thespacebucket.com/&v=71YUGJ_CU_U
Click to expand...
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex https://www.youtube.com/c/SpaceX
NASA - / @nasa https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLA_DiR1FfKNvjuUpBHmylQ
Boeing - / @boeing https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9IEkprr46ScglWU79HF5qQ
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:31 - Overheating Thrusters
3:44 - Starliner's Future
Click to expand...
 
TomcatViP said:
- Do the right thing: The decision process was completely corroded by the media exposure and "proved" irrational.
Click to expand...
Boeing's or NASA's? In either case, blaming "the media" for management errors is classic scapegoating.
 
Arjen said:
I am left wondering what it is that drives Boeing to continue with its coffers-draining Starliner project, and which criteria drove the selection of the sitting board of directors.

Would anyone please care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
They are on contract to provide 6 flights to the ISS. They have to finish the contract.
 
Arjen said:
I am left wondering what it is that drives Boeing to continue with its coffers-draining Starliner project, and which criteria drove the selection of the sitting board of directors.

Would anyone please care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
Technologically utterly uninformed and uninterested corporate greed? Just speculating for an extremely close personal friend of mine here...
 
Byeman said:
They are on contract to provide 6 flights to the ISS. They have to finish the contract.
Click to expand...
@Byeman, is NASA contractually on the hook for six operational flights or is this structured as a sort of limited IDIQ? What if Boeing reflight delays cause NASA to be unable to manifest six operational Starliner flights before ISS deorbit?

I wonder what Boeing's ETC for the program is looking like now. At what point Boeing's overruns will exceed the costs of walking away from the contract (notwithstanding the PR costs as well poisoning their relationship with NASA)?
 
1635yankee said:
Boeing's or NASA's? In either case, blaming "the media" for management errors is classic scapegoating.
Click to expand...
Not my intend. I understand that Boeing and NASA are stack with engineers that understand that a lack of corrosion proofing is only the result of a design deficiency, like not selecting the appropriate material and/or right procedures.
Here, I see NASA a bit too prone to stand in front of the media. They could probably have acted differently, in particular by taking the appropriate measure to segregate communication with decisions.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
If Boeing fails to provide the actual Crew flights it is obligated to, they will probably not get paid more money, but there likely won't be any costs to the Govt that they could try to recover.
Click to expand...
Except for hiring SpaceX to replace the crew flights...

Byeman said:
US government has no case for a suit. It can't get money back from Boeing.
Click to expand...
You just gave the US.gov a case for a suit:
Byeman said:
They are on contract to provide 6 flights to the ISS. They have to finish the contract.
Click to expand...
What happens when Boeing is incapable of delivering those remaining flights before ISS deorbit?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except for hiring SpaceX to replace the crew flights...


You just gave the US.gov a case for a suit:

What happens when Boeing is incapable of delivering those remaining flights before ISS deorbit?
Click to expand...
no, NASA has made progress payments for those missions for work done up to certain milestones. Because it is completed milestones, there is no money to sue for. Pay as you go. The contract is back loaded and a lot of the money is paid at later milestones. NASA would use money set aside for Boeing for SpaceX.
 
Arjen said:
I am left wondering what it is that drives Boeing to continue with its coffers-draining Starliner project, and which criteria drove the selection of the sitting board of directors.

Would anyone please care to enlighten me?
Click to expand...
I imagine what is left of corporate pride and maintaining the Boeing legacy as one of the few big names left in the game.
If you are the new management, this and the MAX are the two projects you want to quickly turn around and point to as a corporate redemption arc. Coming in as the new guy and saying, "Yeah, Starliner is borked beyond fixing. We quit" is probably not the reassuring message you want to send to the board/shareholders (or NASA, for that matter). They'll want to right the ship and point to the experience as a bellweather. "See? We're back".

You can also easily read the tea leaves at NASA, and how badly they want another launch vehicle in the quiver. They want you in the game, and that is guaranteed revenue if you can get it to work.

Let's say Boeing has lost $2 billion on Starliner over the last fourteen years. That's big money (for me and you), but Boeing did just under $75 billion in revenue last year and has over $500 billion on backlog. They hold ~$12 billion in securities. That's after the MAX debacle. A few hundred million in losses a year for Starliner is a decimal point at that scale.

Those numbers are revenue, not profit -- they are losing money. But the money they are losing this year total is around $1.6 billion. The company can continue losing $2 billion a year for a decade, probably longer, with that sort of revenue and holdings. They badly need some wins under their belt for the shareholders, though.
Starliner is a prestige project. Always has been. MAX is far more important to the bottom line, but those are the two big projects to fix in the public's eyes, so I imagine they want to do that to build confidence.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The government always chooses the best option
Click to expand...
Relevant question is, what is the specific definition of 'best option' which is in operation with each specific choice?

As an aside, I wonder why images of Finnish Brewsters and Soviet P-39 in action were not employed?
 
Ruh-roh. From the article linked below (assuming that it is accurate):

"The capsule didn't fare much better following undocking procedures on Friday. One of its 12 control jets on the crew module — a different set unrelated to the other malfunctioning service module thrusters — failed to ignite. And a glitch caused the spacecraft's navigation system to go down briefly during reentry as well.

"It's still unclear whether Boeing will try to launch its plagued Starliner again. Analysts suggest the aerospace giant may dump the entire project, which has already lost the company well over a billion dollars, instead.

"It’s unclear if or when the company will have another opportunity to bring astronauts to space," Bank of America aerospace and defense analyst Ron Epstein told the New York Times. "We would not be surprised if Boeing were to divest the manned spaceflight business."
Click to expand...

Left unsaid is whether the RCS thruster failed outright, or underperformed and was disabled by the FCS (as occurred on the "three SM RCS thrusters"; those software lockouts were reset). On the bright side, they have some hardware to look at.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/starliner-new-problems-return-earth
 
Wow, things are moving fast. It has not been that long since the dodgy Starliner landed back on Earth and already NASA and Boeing are preparing to move ahead with further development of the capsule. Let's wait and see if Boeing can stop future leaks from happening again.
 
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg firer Ted Colbert head of Boeing's defense, space and security unit.
because his role in Starliner program.

Source
www.freepressjournal.in

Just Weeks After Starliner Fiasco, Boeing Kicks Out Space Unit CEO Ted Colbert

Boeing's Starliner is being blamed for situation of NASA astronauts Sunita Williams and Butch Wilmore who are now stranded aboard International Space Station (ISS). What was initially supposed to be an eight-day mission has now got extended by several months. President and ceo of Boeing's...
www.freepressjournal.in www.freepressjournal.in
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom