Submitted by mustafar0111 t3_1208de3 in space
Comments
Skeptical0ptimist t1_jdgqclb wrote
ISS is slated to be scrapped in 2030. So we only have 7 years before Starliner can fulfill its purpose.
kielu t1_jdha7ub wrote
Damn you're right. They might fly once, twice in that window. It's mostly public funding of aerospace jobs, not much actual outcome expected
seanflyon t1_jdi3zn3 wrote
Fortunately this is a fixed price contract, so Boeing only gets paid as they meet milestones.
kielu t1_jdi4mq2 wrote
Oh, not cost plus? Well, those are not my taxes but still that setup promotes efficiency. While this is literally rocket science it is rather standard rocket science, so i don't see many reasons for unlimited funding.
Edit: fixed price is in my opinion better for this rocket. It's mostly known risks and just optimizing delivery.
Roamingkillerpanda t1_jdi609f wrote
The cost plus promotes efficiency or the fixed price?
Fixed price should be the way going forward on relatively low risk endeavors. I’ve worked contracts that were really pushing the envelope and the company management didn’t want to bid because they were concerned that they would lose money on the contract.
kielu t1_jdi6709 wrote
Fixed price does. That wasn't obvious from what i wrote?
For absolutely innovative scientific research fixed price leads nowhere. Typical example is fusion power. But this rocket? Oversimplifying: it's just bigger.
Roamingkillerpanda t1_jdi6fho wrote
Ah looks like I misread it. Totally agree then.
HolyGig t1_jdil7bm wrote
In theory there will be commercial stations at some point. I assume tourists will continue going with SpaceX due to cost and track record but NASA will still buy Starliners because they would like to keep both options. Wouldn't surprise me if Boeing threatens to axe the program after the initial contract if NASA doesn't start paying them just to maintain it
TheRealNobodySpecial t1_jdh25hn wrote
So the Stayliner has the same problems that Boeing faced with its 787…. Back in 2010!
Does that company ever learn?
rostov007 t1_jdgby4f wrote
I saw the Starliner trainer during tests at Johnson SC during a tour and Boeing was flipping their shit about us being there. Unnaturally skittish and secretive for a project that is over budget, long-delayed, and rife with issues.
I mean, thanks for Apollo but don’t act like you’ve discovered perpetual motion or anything, jeez.
iliketurbomachinery t1_jdggdtz wrote
boeing is a trash tier company, this is nothing new for them. i’ve got lots of stories about their idiocy (both on purpose and through sheer stupidity)
[deleted] t1_jdscwul wrote
[removed]
AdolescenceOfP1 t1_jdhdpyz wrote
> Unnaturally skittish and secretive for a project that is over budget, long-delayed, and rife with issues.
?
Skittish + Secretive has nothing to do with over budget, delayed, and issue ridden. All government contractors are like that, and probably for good reason. I was contracted out to Raytheon and Mitre decades ago, and they're wall-to-wall uptight about who is where. Their default stance is to keep things carefully under wraps....it's how they're trained, and it makes sense given the kinds of things they work on.
wanabeagirl t1_jdi42jd wrote
Meanwhile, SpaceX started building Starship in a bunch of tents next to a road where lots of people stop to take photographs, and over which people fly all the time to take photographs.
AdolescenceOfP1 t1_jdi9rhn wrote
That's assembly. Rostov007 was talking about testing. Besides, SpaceX doesn't have a sliver of the government contracts that Boeing does, and certainly less than a sliver of its history. How much of SpaceX are miltary contracts? Boeing does a huge amount.
Anyway, enough of this. Unsubscribing. There's a weird kneejerk positive reaction to SpaceX and similarly weird kneejerk negative reaction to other companies (and NASA) that I'm not willing to engage right now.
Unsubscribing.
wanabeagirl t1_jdidggx wrote
> That's assembly. Rostov007 was talking about testing.
Oh cut the crap. Cameras are constantly filming the Starship tests and do you have any idea how many cameras are pointed at their McGregor test site?
> Besides, SpaceX doesn't have a sliver of the government contracts that Boeing does
SpaceX actually has about the same number of government launch contracts as Boeing does (assuming you include ULA) so I'm not sure what your point is here.
> and certainly less than a sliver of its history.
That's true. SpaceX doesn't have nearly as many failures in their history as Boeing does :)
Seriously though, wtf does this have to do with anything?
> How much of SpaceX are miltary contracts? Boeing does a huge amount.
SpaceX has more military launch contracts that Boeing does since Boeing has precisely zero so what's your point?
> Anyway, enough of this. Unsubscribing. There's a weird kneejerk positive reaction to SpaceX and similarly weird kneejerk negative reaction to other companies (and NASA) that I'm not willing to engage right now.
Oh please. Boeing has been one failure after another since the MD merger. SLS is ludicrously over-budget. 787 deliveries are suspended again. The 737 Max fiasco. Starliner is a joke.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep defending a company that keeps failing, but that's something you need to figure out for yourself.
And if you want to unsubscribe, the button is over on the right :)
Apostastrophe t1_jdjp690 wrote
Oh you will be soo sorely missed oh no.
DanFlashesSales t1_jdw7cg3 wrote
Nobody cares if you leave the sub or not.
rostov007 t1_jdhmvgt wrote
> Skittish + Secretive has nothing to do with over budget, delayed, and issue ridden.
I know what you’re saying but my point is, if they had the secret sauce, protecting it makes a lot of sense.
They can’t get anything right so what are they protecting?
AdolescenceOfP1 t1_jdhphjz wrote
>They can’t get anything right so what are they protecting?
Obvious overstatement on that last sentence...I'll not even address that part further.
But as a government (space, defense) contractor, they have to have a default stance regarding IP. How do they know ahead of time what part of any project will be critical to keep secret? They don't.
rostov007 t1_jdhqeij wrote
> Obvious overstatement on that last sentence…I’ll not even address that part further.
That’s hyperbole to you pal. /s
As for the rest of your response, I should state again that I was on a public vip tour. How much can I glean from standing next to it that Space X or any other competitor couldn’t get from available photos? Or for that matter, couldn’t a Space X employee just take a public tour and steal all their IP? It’s nonsensical.
AdolescenceOfP1 t1_jdi70tk wrote
I don't think you fully grasp what can happen when you're lax with things. And the only way to not be lax with things is to make rules that apply broadly.
CurtisLeow t1_jdgnvjz wrote
It also means Starliner will be launching after the scheduled Vulcan launch. ULA is going to be doing two high profile launches within a couple months of each other.
New_Poet_338 t1_jdgsayu wrote
Wow. I am stunned. Who saw this coming? I mean it was going so well. There goes Boeing's 100% on-time delivery record. I guess nobody's perfect. (and yes /s)
DBDude t1_jdimo3b wrote
Me in 2010: "Boeing and SpaceX both unveiled their capsules. Good luck SpaceX, Boeing's going to nail crewed flight with all their experience."
Then 2014 hits, SpaceX announces Dragon 2 for crew. Boeing, where are you? Still working on it I hope.
Then 2019 SpaceX successfully tests a Crew Dragon trip to the ISS, while Boeing fails a test flight. WTF is going on?
Then 2020 SpaceX delivers crew to the ISS, and we still have no clue when Starliner will fly.
How the great have fallen.
thuneverlose t1_jdhs3ss wrote
A space capsule made by Boeing, what could possibly go wrong...
Decronym t1_jdilbw1 wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starliner|Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100|
^(3 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 15 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8721 for this sub, first seen 24th Mar 2023, 17:26])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
[deleted] t1_jdgb0kg wrote
[removed]
a_bathing_ape1999 t1_jdh0uae wrote
Just saw the article. Found the problem. They need to make it bigger.
mustafar0111 OP t1_jdg8145 wrote
Looks like the crux of it was related to concerns about the batteries. Boeing thinks they are safe, NASA doesn't.
>Boeing software engineers are running tests with Starliner's manual flight system used as a backup in case the spacecraft's automated flight software fails, Stich said.
>
>A Boeing spokesman said the focus for that testing is for "added redundancy in cases of emergency."
>
>Deliberations about mission-critical lithium ion batteries and the low chance they overheat while the spacecraft is docked to the station also took more time than expected, Stich said.
>
>In a recent pre-flight technical meeting with Boeing and NASA officials, the space station's chief safety officer and representatives from NASA's astronaut office disagreed with Boeing's plans to proceed with the mission citing concerns over the batteries, according to a person who attended the meetings.
>
>But those NASA officials eventually agreed with Boeing and others at the federal space agency that the chances of a battery mishap that would endanger the crew were low, said the person who requested anonymity to discuss preflight deliberations.
>
>Boeing also is weighing battery redesigns and a plan to add shielding in case one overheats, Stich said. SpaceX, which has already flown seven crewed missions for NASA since 2020, redesigned its spacecraft's batteries at one point, he said.