NASA gives Falcon 9 thumbs-up to launch Crew-9 NASA will be launching a crew atop a Falcon 9 in the coming weeks as the SpaceX workhorse returned to flight with three Starlink launches over the weekend. Steve Stich, NASA's Commercial Crew Program manager, said that the plan was to launch no earlier than August 18, although the launch window stretched into early September …
The time to do that was long ago. At this point, they might as well fix the last couple of issues, and enjoy the benefits of having redundancy of ISS crew transportation. Even Boeing can't string it out much longer before delivering a fully working vehicle.
Is it Boeing, or is it their subcontractor Rocketdyne?
This post has been deleted by its author
For mercy's sake, take the Boeing Starliner project out behind the barn and put it out ofitsour misery. — FTFY
Well, there was considerable schadenfreude value in the ultra slow-motion Starliner debacle, but certainly not enough to justify the price tag.
No, keep it going. Boeing are on a fixed price contract so have to carry the can for any changes. If they eventually get it to work, they will compete with Crew Dragon, so manned launches will have some competition. Either that, or Boeing carry out their contracted launches then scrap it themselves.
> they will compete with Crew Dragon
What competition? Starliner will complete the 6 contracted ISS missions planned since 2011 and then be scrapped.
NASA isn't about to buy more, no one else wants it and even if they did there are no more Atlas V rockets to fly it on once those 6 missions are completed.
Walker went on to explain that the line was redundant and could simply be removed – a design change that has already been tested at the company's McGregor facility.
Keep something that's redundant? Something like a redundant angle-of-attack sensor? Surely no need for that — just ask Boeing.
Redundancy is designed into things like airliners and spacecraft for a reason.
If there's no sensors, you know you don't know the value.
When you've got one sensor, you can't tell if its broken so you don't know whether you know the value.
When you've got two sensors, if one of them is broken you know you don't know the value.
When you've got three or more sensors, if one of them is broken you know which one and the value.
> Keep something that's redundant?
In this case, the sensor hasn't been used for the majority of Falcon 9 second stages - it was only fitted at the request of a previous customer, according to Walker.
SpaceX haven't been using data from this redundant sensor.
"Keep something that's redundant? Something like a redundant angle-of-attack sensor? Surely no need for that — just ask Boeing"
From other, more complete explanations, it seems in this case it was an extra sensor added for a specific customer payload, so not "redundant" in that it's there to replicate and confirm sensor conditions, but redundant in the sense that it has no current use. On the other hand, a sensor for a specific customer payload really ought not be in other vehicles, just the ones where it's needed, so there's a process issue at SpaceX that should have noted a redundant component and not included it in other vehicles. Maybe they planned to a "BMW heated seats charge" for future customers? We don't use this sensor, but it is fitted in every vehicle, so if you want to use it on a mission that will $$$ extra please to have it enabled.
"because redundant means necessary."
Yes, it does...and no, it doesn't. That's why i was careful to define two different meanings of "redundant" in my comment which, in effect, mean the opposite of each other and demonstrates why context is important.
"The overall sequence is to undock and bring Butch [Wilmore] and Suni [Williams] home on Starliner..."
Does this mean management are fully confident Starliner can get back down safely while using dodgy thrusters? I wouldn't blame Butch and Suni if they requested an extra Crew Dragon / Soyuz be sent to give them a lift home.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
