NASA will fly Boeing Starliner crew home with SpaceX, Calamity Capsule deemed too risky NASA has decided the Boeing Starliner pilots stuck on the International Space Station will return to Earth in a SpaceX Crew Dragon pod next year – after the US agency's engineers could not clear the Starliner's thrusters for the return trip. To recap: Boeing flew its Starliner capsule with two pilots onboard to the orbiting …
But one must wonder what Musk's ultimate plans and benefits are. Billionaires only do things for money and the only way you're going to profit off of going to Mars is to privatize the land claim and attempt to exploit any natural resources discovered.
This means that any theoretical colonization of Mars would be by corporate fiat.
Dystopic world of Total Recall, anyone?
... Billionaires only do things for money ...
In the case of Bezos, he started BO as a tax write-off.
There's a quote that not too long ago he was pissed that BO was starting to make money and he complained that they were messing up his taxes.
(or it could be my old-greybeard mind thinking of something else)
Lots of large businesses do that - WalMart sells several lines at a loss for example for the simple (if ugly) goal of forcing all competition out of business because they can't afford to sell at a loss.
Then, when that line of goods or that business is the only game in town, they have a monopoly and can jack up prices as much as they want because people won't have a choice. It works especially well with necessity goods like foods, clothing etc.
Amazon of course have online competition with places like Alibaba, Temu, Shein etc plus traditional chains which offer online delivery, meaning it's much harder for them to drive a local grocery store out of business like WalMart did (and still does).
"... started BO as a tax write-off."
I understand that being able to write off failed ventures as a tax expense encourages risk-taking and entrepreneurship, however large corps are abusing it as a deliberate strategy. This shit needs to be limited to, say, a million or 10 million a year max, enough to give entrepreneurs and SMEs a safety net without it becoming a platform for abuse for billionaires
I worked for a company like that back in the '80s (where such shenanigans were normal, if not de rigueur). Our little company was a tax dodge for the larger company that bought us up. We landed and successfully completed a major contract that made us a boatload of money, and appeared to set up up for quite a while. Fatasses from Corporate came down, wined and dined us, professed their gratitude (and a bit of amazement) at how well we did, blah, blah, blah -- and promptly shut us down one month later.
Problem is if you impose limits like that they simply won't bother as it's not worth the overhead. They'll just funnel the profits to a tax haven instead and as a country you'll see none of the jobs or business related revenue that you would have seen had they founded their loss-maker.
It's a real pickle sometimes and there's a fine line to walk between promoting innovation and entrepreneurship vs not being a tax haven or allowing companies to run roughshod over everything which stands in their path. I don't think anyone has gotten it right yet but countries like the UK and EU are probably closest to the mark IMO.
There's no money to be made on Mars for the foreseeable future.
I think the ultimate plan and benefit is simply to be, for a while at least, the only company that can get people to Mars. There are lots of nations that want to have people on Mars, for several reasons that have nothing to do with profit, and they are going to pay SpaceX for it.
This is not nefarious in a glamorous way, but it's realistic.
There's no such thing as "universal" human rights. There are rights espoused which should be universal according to the UN, but not every country implements all of those, instead picking and choosing which ones they will and won't take.
Take the US for example - they were one of two nations (the other being Israel) in 2021 which did not agree that food is a universal human right. Seems odd, right? The thing is that would take a constitutional amendment to make it a right in the US, so they voted no.
And there are hundreds of these differences all around the world, from dictators who say that no one has any rights to countries like the US where rights are strictly defined by law and which take large legal processes to alter.
So which set of laws would you apply to Mars? The laws of the nation that sent the spacecraft? The laws of the home nation of each astronaut to themselves personally? That would mean Chinese astronauts following Chinese law whilst American ones followed American law and Russian ones followed Russian law etc. If you only apply UN laws to them then they're a) very limited and 2) not everyone agrees with them.
In short, it's all a complete mess.
OK, define those terms so we can get them approved by the other countries participating in this hypothetical mission. Especially "pursuit of happiness" - besides which, what does that have to do with a mission to Mars? These people won't be working 24/7, sure, but it's not like they can build themselves a house, start a family and pop down to Denny's for breakfast every day.
From what I understand, SpaceX was *not* a tax dodge - Musk was very concerned about the money spend and the need for contracts to continue the enterprise early on. Which is why, when Gwynne Shotwell entered the picture, he poached her tout de suite and had her go sell the Falcon I to anyone who would listen.
And Gwynne Shotwell sold it really really well... because the next thing we know, there we are. SpaceX with contracts with NASA, clients galore... making *money* ;-)
Billionaires only do things for money
What an impressively ignorant claim this is. It flies in the face of both empirical evidence and sensible conclusions drawn from any understanding of psychology and human nature. Well done!
In fact the very wealthy strongly tend over time to devote more and more of their attention to goals other than making money, such as obtaining Veblen goods and other markers of social status, engaging in idiosyncratic and vanity projects, luxuriating in material comforts, setting up and directing charitable efforts, building reputations as sages or titans of industry or whatever exercises their self-images, and so on.
Even fake billionaires (viz. Trump) often find some other realm attracts most of their energies.
Reminds me of the the old BBC Adventure Game set in space where if you lost a sort of blind game of draughts you ended up getting consumed by the vortex and walking your way back to Earth. Even as a ten year old I thought it was far fetched. Thanks 21st Century for delivering tangential dystopias based on my childhood TV habits ...
I'm pretty sure that the Chinese have the capability to reach an orbiting space station so that (along with that venerable Austin 7 of a spacecraft, the Russian "Progress") should be ample backup capability until the ISS is eventually retired.
But instead we have to waste billions upon billions just to prove that we've got what it takes, we're Number One and so on. Space -- especially manned space -- is one of those endeavors where cooperation pays dividends. Competition might be useful to spur development but not when starts to be wasteful.
"Oi, at least have the decency to read the book first."
Is the book better than the film ?
Which book ? ... I am sure there are many that fit the general idea.
Not the sort of book I read ... I tend to 'lump' this with the 'Zombie', "Horror', 'Yet another Alien Invasion', 'Planetary Disaster' etc types.
P.S.
I am a Sci-Fi fan [Real Sci-Fi, not *most* of the stuff that gets 'dumped' under the heading !!!] ...
*but* please don't mention 'StarWars' ...
read the original book to be polite to an Co-worker ...
was *not impressed* ... still not !!!
P.P.S.
Cue journey down the 'Rabbit Hole' regarding what is or is not 'Sci-Fi' & what is good IMHO !!!
:)
> *but* please don't mention 'StarWars' ...read the original book to be polite to an Co-worker ... was *not impressed* ... still not !!!
Considering "the original" (first) Star Wars book was "Splinter of The Mind's Eye" and was an Alan Dean Foster adaptation of the official sequel to the first film, before Lucas had figured out the plot for "Empire Strikes Back", there was never any reason to expect it to be any good!
As for the (eventual) novelisation of the first film: again, why expect a good read when the film was created as a visual experience? And no sane person called it SF, it was always a "fairy tale plot, In Space, with World War 1 biplane dogfights" - and was presented as such back in the 1970s.
I beg to differ.
The book I read was well *before* any film had appeared in the UK AFAIK and was called "Star Wars", no more no less.
I cannot remember who it was written by !!!
Lost in the mists of time !!!
It was actually a long time ago in a galaxy not so far, far away.... !!! :=)
[One quick google later ... It appears from vague memory to be a cover that looked like https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/7/7d/Ep4_1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20060523010908 ]
So apparently credited to George Lucas on the cover *but* written/published prior to the aforementioned "Splinter of The Mind's Eye".
[For quote from Alan Dean Foster - See: https://www.starwars.com/news/check-out-over-40-years-of-star-wars-a-new-hope-novelization-covers]
:)
I'm pretty sure that the Chinese have the capability to reach an orbiting space station
The key word there is "an". They can reach a space station but possiby not the ISS due to the different orbital inclinations between where the ISS is and what China can reach.
And that's before we get to the tiny little issue of American law preventing NASA working with the Chinese.
LOL. Did you not see how Russia doubled the cost of Soyuz launches and did other asshole moves before SpaceX got Crew Dragon working and America didn't have any other option to get crew to the ISS?
The Russian participation in ISS is now seen as a liability, with the war on Ukraine, unexplained holes in pressure skins, and Soyuz expelling all its ammonia coolant all over everything.
And I wouldn't trust China any more than I trust one of those fake 10TB SSDs from Alibaba. Or the 20ton chainfall that my employer ordered, where the Chinese company asked if they wanted it labeled "40ton test"
China would love the intelligence/technology windfall of participating in ISS or other American space endeavor.
> I'm pretty sure that the Chinese have the capability to reach an orbiting space station
Tiangong, the Chinese space station, is at a similar height to the ISS but in a different orbit; I don't know whether the ISS orbit is easily reachable from any of the Chinese launch sites.
The situation reminds me of the current ban on advanced chip manufacturing equipment and the resulting chips being exported to China. It may give the west a temporary advantage, but in the long term it's going to force China to develop their own technology with absolutely no need of anything from the West, at which point you lose all ability to apply pressure to China through chips, space science, or whatever the next thing is.
Gotta love the irony of a company owned by a man who's biggest wish is to destroy the State so freedom reigns above all and no one is subject to the exploitation of taxes and regulations fill its pockets with taxpayers money to being back astronauts who are stranded because of State regulations.
Only in 'murica, eh?
Boeing got $4.2billion for their Starliner contract against SpaceX's $2.6billion. So far SpaceX is delivering and is making Boeing look like amateurs. Boeing's cost per seat is also 60% higher than SpaceX.
So why are NASA still dealing with Boeing at all? Their next "test" launch looks like 2026 and good luck with that!
NASA are spending public money so a serious audit of the viability of the Boeing space program ought to be carried out.
There has been serious audits of Boeing. The Government Accounting Office released a report on Boeing's work on SLS and it was SCATHING. Basically called them a bunch of amateur clowns.
When Commercial Crew started, it was all "Why are NASA dealing with SpaceX at all? They're a startup with no serious space experience"
How times change.
I can't find the numbers at the moment, but Boeing has taken several billions in writedowns with Starliner. I believe it's cost them a lot of money.
Starliner cost to Boeing is between $1bn and $2bn and getting worse though I assume there is some tax write off there. Doing fixed price contract for something that you have no experience in developing was always going to be risky and I suspect Boeing just assumed that NASA would keep paying which they did on at least one occasion. Spacex had Cargo dragon so at least had an idea of what it would take to develop a crewed version even if it was a big redesign.
The current management thinks engineers are overpaid bigots who dare to question their wisdom all the time. So they've outsourced everything and turning the company into a marketing operation. Their products are all "legacy" (read: developed by their forerunners) and developing new products isn't really possible because they fired all the knowledgeable people.
Management is laser focused on getting their $100 million bonus package. The rest is merely noise.
Boeing is basically doomed. Only a fool who believes otherwise.
"...why are NASA still dealing with Boeing at all?"
NASA wisely kept a door open to a second supplier because if SpaceX were a monopoly supplier, Musk would have them over a barrel. Unfortunately for NASA that second supplier is Boeing, so they're sort of screwed either way.
Although given they're funding Starliner by the billions, a serious startup competitor to SpaceX would be a more viable alternative in the long run.
Apparently NASA has been working with Sierra Space on crewed dreamchaser. Its years away at best.
Problem is that all ISS contracts have been handed out and lunar travel contracts have already been given out so that leaves tourist flights until the various new space stations happen. Host much does NASA want to pay for development for 6 ISS missions that starliner is contracted for and having a fall back option to Crew Dragon ?
And is there any chance of getting money back from Boeing if they cancel starliner contract, I am guessing virtually none.
Boeing/SLS makes campaign contributions and gets whatever funding it asks for. Boeing/Starliner cannot afford to buy politicians because it is a firm fixed price contract. NASA is made up of people who do not all share the same option which is why it can work on both types of project. I am surprised Boeing have chosen to continue with Starliner. The only partial explanation I have is they expect Jeff Bezos to buy trips to Orbital Reef from anyone but SpaceX no matter what it costs to human rate a replacement for Atlas V.
It seems that NASA has finally learned how to properly assess risk. However, some risk remains, particularly if the unreliable thrusters don’t function as needed for a successful undocking and separation burn.
Unfortunately, Alan McDonald isn’t here to witness the impact of his efforts to highlight NASA's risk management decisions, which have gradually evolved into what they should be. His whistleblowing set NASA on a slow and difficult journey toward improvement.
As for Boeing, there are historical lessons they should heed. In the 1960s, North American Aviation was overstretched with projects like the Command and Service Module (CSM), the Saturn V second stage, the X-15, and the XB-70, all of which led to delays and quality issues. The CSM was late and of poor quality, and the Saturn V second stage faced similar challenges, contributing to the tragedy of Apollo 1.
NASA needs to keep Boeing involved because, as we know, you’re only as good as your last success. SpaceX while super successful only needs an accident and we are back to no access to space again. Moreover, not having a backup option for space access has hurt NASA before. Let's hope Sierra Nevada gets their spacecraft certified soon, as that would put real pressure on Boeing.
The problem is that the thruster might unexpectedly not perform at the required level. It's crucial that they maintain a specific thrust for a set duration. If the thrust is too low, you could extend the burn time, but making such adjustments in real-time would be challenging. Additionally, any asymmetric behavior would be difficult to balance and could cause significant issues.
Unfortunately, it seems that the failure mode is due to Teflon sleeves in the oxidizer valves swelling after being exposed to more heat than anticipated. When swollen, these sleeves restrict the oxidizer flow, causing the thruster to under-perform.
I sincerely hope Boeing persists, as the Starliner’s ability to land on solid ground represents an innovative approach. In some ways, SpaceX had an advantage with their Dragon cargo flights before moving on to manned missions. I am sure Boeing can feel Sierra Nevada's breath on their neck//
After all, if it were easy, it wouldn't be rocket science or brain surgery!
What really bothers me is that Aerojet Rocketdyne says they've never seen any problems with these thrusters. Have they outsourced their development to $6 / hour Indian engineers too?
I mean, thrusters like these have been made and used for at least 50 years and all of a sudden there are issues which cannot be explained by the manufacturer! This is all very worrisome.
An early test video shows a group of thrusters firing on Earth without the dog house cover. Combined with the lack of convective cooling in space that cover traps sufficient heat to take the thrusters over their temperature limit. Perhaps this would have been spotted if engineers from the two companies had talked to each other directly but Boeing and AJR got into a legal fight that reached the news last year. Communication was restricted to management level and filtered through lawyers.
"... that they might not thrust, that they might thrust unpredictably, or that they might thrust in unexpected directions?"
All of the above !!!
Yes, there probably is a small risk when uncoupling the thing, as well !!!
Basically, the Boeing 'I'am not going' Starliner is a risk which *may* be a risk to life, in some form, so NASA will not put the Astronauts onboard.
Finally they have put the Astronauts first and not Boeings need to test everything to justify the costs and actually being there !!!
:)
"What is the risk to the ISS of actually uncoupling the thing at all?"
I think one is the possibility that if the thrusters don't do their job it could end up in an orbit that brings it into collision with the ISS. Alternatively they may bring the thing down where it wasn't planned to land a bit harder than a 737 body panel.
Gemini 8 had a uncontrolled thruster burn that spun the capsule upto almost 1 rotation per second - just imagine being in this and how hard it would be to function. Neil Armstrong (pre moon) was in command and somehow managed to get thing back under control without blacking out or otherwise being disabled by the spin.
Truely the Right Stuff.
"It seems that NASA has finally learned how to properly assess risk."
I don't completely agree. Yes, better -- FAR better -- than continuing to fly the shuttle after numerous "we got away with it this time, let's assume we always will" decisions, but... they sent people up in a capsule that had yet to have an uneventful demo and attach it to the space station in a way that it would prove difficult to remove. Looks like a whole lot of "what do we do if it fails" thinking didn't take place, and a some "we'll hope that doesn't happen again" logic took place. Not as much learning as I would have hoped.
I mean: could they've come up with a different flight rationale to send down Butch and Sunita on this POS? I believe NASA engineers would've been up in arms and publicly denouncing the decision.
NASA management wanted them to return in Starliner but couldn't find an excuse to do so.
There was a golden comment (not mine) on Scott Manley's video:
"Boeing have become a case study in how valuable an intangible asset like reputation really is, and what it can cost you if you neglect it by abandoning the chase for excellence in favour of chasing next quarter's bottom line."
That needs to be chiseled in stone in the CEO's office.
Sure they didn't kill anyone.
They just burned through billions, for a defective product that is too dangerous to use.
Considering investors want a return on their investment, it would seem odd to reward them for a near complete, multi year, multi billion dollar failure that is likely to result in a scrapped project now, with nothing to gain from it ultimately.
The problem now is that Boeing will be unable to complete their Commercial Crew contract.
Starliner flies on an Atlas V. Atlas V has been replaced by Vulcan. Boeing has purchased six Atlas V rockets for its six contracted missions to the ISS but there are no more Atlas V rockets available to fly another test or certification flight. Putting Starliner on a Vulcan roket would require modifications to the capsule which would need more test and certification flights and the rocket would need to be human rated, which it is not.
Boeing will not successfully complete all six contracted missions unless NASA certify Starliner without another test flight.
NASA really want an viable alternative in case a fault is discovered in Dragon that keeps it on Earth for months. Without Dragon the price of a Soyuz would rise back up again until it becomes competitive with Orion. Dream Chaser is making progress towards becoming a cargo vehicle but it can only become a crew transport if either NASA accept the risk of launch abort requiring fairing separation to work on a busted rocket or a launch company decides their rocket will not get flipped flamey end up by Dream Chaser's wings. Shenzhou is currently less popular politically than Soyuz. One day the ISS will be able to dock with Starship and India is working on Gaganyaan but NASA would like something ready before ISS deorbits.
The most viable option is hooking up a tow truck to the Starliner contract and dragging it across the finish line. One way for doing that without risking two Dragon seats is turning the next Starliner launch into a cargo run. NASA have hedged their bets and have only given authority to proceed on three of the six launches. I am sure Never A Straight Answer will tell us more in another Saturday press conference.
The problem being, if they can't trust it for crew flights its not a backup at all.
And at best its a 6 time thing, more likely 5 or 4 by the time Boeing are done testing live.
They are already on borrowed time, so realistically, its not much of a backup if you have less than a handful of chances at it and currently none of them look very safe or promising.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
