This ain't Boeing very well: Starliner's first crewed flight canceled yet again Days after saying it remained on track for the first crewed Starliner flight next month, NASA and Boeing have scrapped their July launch plan to give them "time to address recent emerging issues." The grounding is due to tape Boeing used on Starliner to protect wires from chafing and its flammability risk, as well as trouble …
Woah! Don't be going implying that the worlds most successful rocket company might know what it's doing.
How will any of us more knowledgeable commentards get hired to fix it when it goes wrong?
Sure, Space X has launched more orbital rockets than anyone else, has the longest streak of launches without incident, double that of anyone else. Has returned America a domestic ability to get humans into orbit, but lets just ignore all of that in the face of Musk.
The obvious way to destroy a launch pad on the Moon is to replace a ~200t Starship with a fully fuelled 5000t Starship + Superheavy stack and multiply the Moon's gravity by 6.
For some reason NASA do not hire random people from the internet to review proposals - although to be fair they did hire Boeing to implement one version of Commercial Crew.
"THe entire starship to land on the moon or Mars thats incompetancy."
You know that huge Starship that blew up? You might have missed it, but that was a two stage vehicle. Hard to believe, I know, vut clearly you missed all the early test launches of the upper stage Starship and are clearly under the impression that the big launch you saw was a single big rocket. It seems like an obvious mistake to make since clearly all those previous lunar Apollo missions never used separate stages either. The entire Saturn V went all the way to the Moon. I have no idea why there's no film of that landing on the Moon back then instead of those grainy black & white images of a spidery little lander thingy.
It was the one with all the strings. Still more convincing performances than UFO mind.
While I agree with you, Blue Origin seem to be playing their cards very close to their chest. We rarely hear much about them. So far as I'm aware, they produced a sub-orbital tourist ride and launched a couple of test rockets that didn't go anywhere near space but did land successfully.
I'm sick and tired of your throwing MY money away on a company who doesn't know shit from Shinola about how to engineer ANYthing.
Put us all out of our misery and kill the program. Do NOT wait ANY longer.
Do it now.
------------------------------------
"Reader--imagine yourself a US congressman. Now imagine yourself a blithering idiot...but I repeat myself."--Mark Twain
"Our freedoms, our possessions, and our money are never in more danger than when Congress is in sesion."--Will Rogers
This program is accomplishing exactly what Congress intends it to. That being "spend federal money in all the districts." These programs require so many compromises to "spread out the money" that problems like this are inevitable. And NASA has to take the black eye even though their hands are tied.
" accomplishing exactly what Congress intends it to. That being "spend federal money in all the districts." "
Surely it would be far more efficient, instead of spending the money for each and every large project in as many different districts as possible, to focus each large project on a few districts in a way that every district is getting a lot of action from one or two projects, rather than some action from every project??
Washington - where even the corruption is inefficient!!!
That this project was designed as a bailout of Boeing and all of the other old guard defense/space contractors.
Some of the Military and NASA leadership have identified it as a hedge to keep them going long enough for more than one of the new players to demonstrate a working and viable system. Some have just pointed out the mountains of pork being spread around to ensure that it is hard to cancel.
As a rocket, it's an expensive failure, but they can probably make it work if they have too. So if the other players make it to the finish line quick enough they can cancel the remaining flights, but otherwise NASA has the option to keep Boeing's space division afloat. They make other stuff the military actually likes, like the X-37B. So like the $5,000 toilet seats of yesteryear, all this eye-watering money we are spending is probably trickling into all sorts of other things.
That said you may agree that it would probably be better to pay someone else to build all this stuff for a fraction of the cost. At this point holding Boeing accountable, or trying to fix it would cost more that the whole starliner/ULA/Artemis program combined, and probably fail with little result. I for one expect companies like Blue Origin to be just as bad in a few years, but having more than one or two players that are viable will help drive costs down if we can at least clean up the industry enough for proper competition.
“So like the $5,000 toilet seats of yesteryear”
A relative of mine was a career DoD logistics officer. What they say about that is that, when a commercial plane crashes, the toilet seat breaks off and kills someone. Lots of people actually survive military plane crashes, though, and that’s down to things like the toilet seat being properly secured.
(And it was never as high as $5,000)
Many people don't understand how high-spec things need to be for use in military and aerospace environments. You don't build (non-homebrew) jets and rockets with bolts purchased in bulk from Marks & Spencer. The bolts need to be properly specified, tested, and documented. That takes time and money. It's also why "counterfeit" aircraft parts are such a big safety problem.
@Richard 12: "Boeing really do have no idea whatsoever how to manage a project anymore."
Anonymous Coward: "this project was designed as a bailout of Boeing"
We want a space engineering firm that is optimized for making rockets fly, instead of one that is optimized for getting bailouts when the rockets don't fly.
Thought it was postponed and not cancelled?
Cancelling this will be bigger news. Postponement is pretty much not unexpected from Boeing currently.
And there are rumours that they may have to cancel eventually if they don't want to lose a bunch more money.
Happens when it's a fixed price contract, unlike the cost plus contracts they are used to.
Given the reliability of the Falcon 9, the last in flight/payload delivery failure was on 28 June 2015 (flight number 19 over 200[1} launches ago) with 27 ISS supply missions and 10 crewed missions I don't know if we really need a second crewed launch system any more. This seems to be especially true since Boeing can't seem to provide one any time in the near future anyway and of course SpaceX provides the service for a lot less money per launch. One has to wonder where the Starship program would be if NASA had given the money it gave to Boeing[2] to SpaceX for the Starship program instead. At least Boeing is having to pay for the cost overruns. With 1 billion USD (and counting) of their own money down the hole one has to wonder if Boeing can ever break even on this disastrous project.
1. This does not include 6 successful Falcon Heavy launches.
2. Almost(?) twice as much as it gave to SpaceX.
Boeing got the Commercial Crew contract before Falcon 9 existed, let alone Starship so congress could not have funded Starship instead of Starliner. One of the main reasons CC exists because Boeing's lobbyists gave it a flavour of legitimacy by offering to bid on it. Betting on new space back then was demonstrably a huge risk because the other CC contract recipient (Rocketplane Kistler) went bankrupt before delivering.
Continuing with Boeing is currently up do Boeing. If they cancel then all their lobbyists will be busy avoiding paying back previous CC awards instead of brining in new money. I am confident Boeing will give Starliner sufficient funding to show the appearance of progress until the lobbyists can do their job.
That means there is plenty of time for an alternative to appear. Dream Chaser has Commercial Resupply Services 2 funding. If NASA spot that Soyuz can abort even when launched inside a fairing they might decide the same is possible for Dream Chaser and give Sierra Space a chance to bid on Commercial Crew. Eventually Starship will land enough times that NASA will have the confidence to put people inside. There is no way congress will fund that after (by their standards) the enormous cock-up of letting SpaceX get funding for Artemis HLS.
A more congress acceptable plan would be a new shuttle derived launch vehicle to send Orion to the ISS. Just imagine the re-election campaign funding such a project would achieve.
"Boeing got the Commercial Crew contract before Falcon 9 existed, let alone Starship so congress could not have funded Starship instead of Starliner."
First successful Falcon 9 flight 4 June 2010. "Starting with a 2012 announcement of plans to develop a rocket with substantially greater capabilities than SpaceX's existing Falcon 9" Wikipedia.
Commercial Crew Contract awarded to Boeing 18 Dec 2015.
Just thought I'd clear that time line up for you.
The Dream Chaser is a long way off from being accepted for human use. I am actually excited about this project and hope it succeeds. However it does not have anywhere near the cargo capacity of the Starship. Certainly not enough to do anything beyond carry passengers and cargo to a space station, ISS or commercial. It will require super heavy lifters like the Starship and SLS block whatever (sorry, I haven't kept up with the various versions of SLS) to build those space stations and go beyond.
It will be interesting to see if the Starship will be ready for a moon landing when everything else is in place. I won't underestimate SpaceX (despite Elon) so at this point I give it a 50/50 chance. Of course the landing target date keeps getting moved out too so maybe 75/25. Can't wait for the next experimental Starship launch to see how much, if any improvements have been made. I already know they will be using better Raptor engines and hopefully a better launch pad.
CC & CRS contracts were awarded based on reviews of designs created by the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which started in 2006. Boeing's first CC payday for CCDev 1 was in 2010 but they only got that because they got their foot in the door with COTS. Falcon 1's first successful flight was 2008-09-27. When SpaceX got into COTS they looked just as risky as RpK. It was lazy of me not to mention COTS.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I know Crew Dream Chaser is wishful long term thinking on my part. Boeing's current performance suggests there is time and Sierra Nevada could last that long because of their CRS-2 contract.
The price of SLS is sufficient to sink any commercial project. Only Artemis and LOP-G have budgets unconstrained by the need for a valid business plan. Commercial stations will be launched by Starship[1] or possibly New Glenn - if Blue learn how to make more than two BE-4 engines per year.
The next Starship launch date probably depends on certifying an upgraded flight termination system. SpaceX have already blown up a spare starship on the ground to see if the bigger explosives are sufficient to the task. Much work has already been done on the launch pad. SpaceX had pieces of a giant upside down shower head ready before they dug the crater to put it in. Pilings have been driven deep into the ground to stop it from being blown away and parts of the water supply have been spotted at the construction site. I think we will see static fire tests late this month ready for a launch late next month - if the FTS is certified. I still have no idea if Starship or SLS is the long pole for the Moon landing. SpaceX have a long way to go and Boeing are outstanding at manufacturing delays. The real limit is probably how slowly congress funds Artemis. With a bit of help from lobbyist diverting funds to side projects, the first Artemis landing can easily be delayed until 2030.
[1] Axiom plan to start their station as extensions to ISS and split off when the have enough pieces to be independent. The pieces are small enough to launch with a Falcon but SpaceX currently gives customers the option to upgrade to a Starship for the same price. As AxH1 launches NET 2025 Axiom could go either way.
1) Diversity - you don't want a potential single point of failure (remember how long the shuttle was unavailable after each accident).
2) Cost - SpaceX are already a lot cheaper per seat than Boeing or Russia, but the costs would probably be lower (without reducing safety) with competition ("real", commercial completion though).
The tape wasn't tested for flammability until "late in the process,"
WTF? How could something even be specced for use in a spacecraft if its properties weren't clearly known beforehand? Sounds more like they found a last minute need for a fix, and sent Bob to rummage in his junk box. You wouldn't do that for a plane, let alone a spacecraft, what sort of clowns run Boeing these days?
I read that and couldn’t understand how it happened.
Surely the materials used will be tested and certified, therefore if you need some tape you just get it from the stores where a certified pack of rolls is located. It sounds like they ran out and just nipped down to screwfix (or local equivalent) and asked for some generic tape.
You could do a SpaceX: buy cheap stuff, do some really expensive tests an see what survives.
I am sure Boeing used to do something similar until they built up a database of parts and materials qualified for space flight. With that database in hand, Boeing could save money by picking parts off the list suitable for a communications satellite and avoid the expense of testing for a capsule with a defective life support system that fills the cabin with one atmosphere of pure oxygen. (Under normal conditions, the tape is very fire proof but things get more difficult when you plan for other parts of the system failing.)
All in management with some people in production phases making their own localised decisions to stay on schedule, avoiding the time consuming approval process for what they see as a trivial matter.
(anecdotal from someone involved) An aircraft manufacturer once had production people decide on the spot to replace an approved aluminium bonding process with rivets because it was quicker and because they had recently been involved in wartime manufacturing where such things were tolerated. The effect of the decision was catastrophic.
One of the causes of the Comet 1 disaster, according to a TV documentary I saw once. Surrounding the windows with rivets made them an awful lot like the easy-tear perforations on postage stamps.
For a one-off job, you're right, you don't need a second source.
But NASA want flights to ISS (& the Moon) to be a more regular occurence. And if you're going to be buying more than a couple of something, you really don't want to be held to ransom by a sole-supplier. (If you're in the UK just take a glance at Motorola & the Airwave debacle. El Reg passum)
Or Intel and AMD - with Intel having to give a licence to x86 to AMD so that IBM will award the CPU contract to Intel.
Big organisations / governments sometimes try to get a second source supplier, in case the primary supplier can't perform.
So presumably Boeing was the primary (and legacy) and SpaceX was the secondary supplier. And when Boeing, the primary supplier could not perform, NASA is not stuck waiting cos SpaceX could perform.
I believe the tape is quite adequately non-flammable on outer surfaces - It was implemented to prevent chafing of wires from the outside, to maintain the integrity of the wires, and to not go whoomph if you put a match to it - even in oxygen rich environments - it passes those tests.
Someone, somewhere, asked the question - "what happens when the wires chafe from the inside?" The answer was: 'possible spitzensparken, which could possibly ignite the adhesive on the inside'
Oh crap. But possible, not probable right?
'We gave it a try'
aaand?
'it went whoomph...'
Oh crap..
Now, as anyone who has had to do it will tell you, that's a total stripdowm of an auto to get the wiring loom out. Honestly, for a spaceship (or capsule) you'd be as well just building another one, if it is deemed a potentially fatal flaw.
As for the chutes - you toss your plastic soldier & parachute out the bedroom window all day, and see what configurations work. Or in this case - drop your capsule from an expensive height, until you are satisfied - the operative word being 'expensive'
Cheaper to model, and then say 'Oops' later.
With an obvious psychopath running SpaceX it does make sense. I do acknowledge the quality of Falcon launchers but Elon did not seem that eccentric a few years ago, comparing to recent months. However, the bean-counter run Boeing seems not to be the best alternative possible. Maybe even the worst.
In terms of NASA buying from SpaceX, SpaceX is becoming "too big to fail", at least until others catch up. If US Gov thinks Musk is becoming a liability by sticking his oar too far into SpaceX day to day operations instead of leaving Shotwell to carry on running it well, they have "National Security" options they can pull to keep him out of it. Although I doubt it would get that far, I'm sure there will be "Red teams" looking at possible scenarios of what cold happen and what the solutions could be. This outsourcing national pride, not just the book keeping for some Government department.
"The need to constantly delay Starliner's flights over safety issues isn't likely to reassure test flight crew Sunita "Suni" Williams and Barry "Butch" Wilmore"
Would it be more reassuring to do a test flight on a platform that has delays due to fixes applied to the flaws found in ground testing, or to rush the flight onto an not-fully-ground-tested platform??
The point is the flaws they're finding are obvious ones that should have been found years back in its development.
We were only a month away from a crew demo launch, you shouldn't be finding the wiring in the capsule is a major fire risk and the parachutes could fail at this stage. If it hadnt been for a sticky valve they could already have launched and then encountered these issues in a real mission, which would have been disastrous.
So what are the really obscure problems,like how the timing error caused it to burn all its fuel or the hidden problems, they havent found yet ?
That's the worry going forward with this design,we dont know theyve got all the bugs out of it.
It is worth noting that when the original contracts were let to Boeing and SpaceX, the Boeing CEO dismissed SpaceX. His 'We'll beat them by over a year to a first flight.' or a statement to that effect, was laughable then, and it's hysterical now. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Boeing are living off the profits off 737/777/787 maintenance sales and legacy F/A18, F15 and F22 contracts. Noting that the 15 and 18 is coming up to 50 years now, so, anyone responsible for detail design LONG gone. Even the F22 is about 30 years old too.
If F/A XX goes to Boeing then something has gone very, very wrong in procurement land.
I would imagine as there are apparently hundreds of feet of cable bundles that need the tape to be replaced - and none of it easily accessible - that major disassembly of the spacecraft will be required.
That is going to take a long time, many months.
So late 2023 or early 2024 for the flight.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
