If any of the remaining crew set to launch on that capsule had any sense they'd pull out. I wouldn't go up in it. I suspect anyone who has been following Boeing showering themselves in glory with their aircraft 'accidents', wouldn't either.
Nothing says 'We believe in you' like NASA switching two 'nauts off Boeing's Starliner onto SpaceX's Crew Dragon
NASA has shown its tremendous confidence in Boeing's Starliner by shifting astronauts scheduled to launch aboard the calamity capsule to SpaceX's Crew Dragon. The affected 'nauts are Nicole Mann and Josh Cassada, who were slated for the Crew Flight Test and Starliner-1 missions respectively. Both were selected by NASA in 2013 …
COMMENTS
-
Thursday 7th October 2021 17:52 GMT GBE
When an astronaut says "no thanks" to a space flight...
Three-time Space Shuttle flyer Christoper Ferguson bowed out of his role as commander of the first crewed Starliner mission in 2020. This is a move which, in retrospect, seems to have been a canny one.
That's putting it mildly. From everything I've read, NASA's astronauts are a pretty eager and ambitious group and wouldn't be discouraged from a space flight by something trivial like the risk of dying. However, the risk of sitting on your ass doing nothing during years of delays while other people fly on other platforms —that's something to be avoided at all costs.
-
Thursday 7th October 2021 18:23 GMT Gene Cash
"Curse of the Calamity Capsule" is going on a plaque, along with "The one-ton Mars-invading laser-toting nuclear-powered space truck Curiosity"
There's a reason I get my space news from El Reg! (and yes, I 3D printed that on a plaque for my LEGO Curiosity model display)
Anyway, not only did the capsule have to give up the launch due to sticking valves, it had to make way for the Crew Dragon, and is delayed while Crew Dragon occupies its primary docking port. THAT has gotta sting. "Git outta the way, kiddo, I got WORK to do!"
-
-
-
Friday 8th October 2021 16:02 GMT TVU
"Is it not time for them to rebrand the Starliner as the Starliner Max?"
That is a very relevant comment because in recent years Boeing executives effectively abandoned their previous engineering excellence and public safety first policies in favour of bean counting and quick fixes and the inevitable result was the 737 Max with its terrible disasters.
-
Saturday 9th October 2021 15:11 GMT A.P. Veening
That is a very relevant comment because in recent years Boeing executives effectively abandoned their previous engineering excellence and public safety first policies in favour of bean counting and quick fixes and the inevitable result was the 737 Max with its terrible disasters.
Not quite, the Boeing engineering executives were replaced by McDonnel-Douglas bean counting and button sorting executives when Boeing "took over"*) McDonnel-Douglas.
*) Officially (and according to the finances), Boeing took over McDonnel-Douglas. When you look at the management and executive level, McDonnel-Douglas took over Boeing while keeping the name of the latter for the reputation.
-
Sunday 10th October 2021 18:47 GMT John Brown (no body)
"*) Officially (and according to the finances), Boeing took over McDonnel-Douglas. When you look at the management and executive level, McDonnel-Douglas took over Boeing while keeping the name of the latter for the reputation."
The same happened in the UK cable TV/BB industry when the smaller Telewest "bought" the larger NTL. In that case, it was because of existing lucrative contracts including a joint venture with the BBC for the UKTV channels. If the buyout had happened the other way, the UKTV contract would have been voided. I'd not be surprised if the MD/Boeing"buy out" had similar contractual reasons for happening the way it did.
-
-
-
-
Friday 8th October 2021 13:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Even if Starship/Superheavy doesn't work out, I can't see the SLS getting much use now. Now SpaceX has proven that booster reusability is a perfectly achievable thing, and has the track record in actual use to prove it, anything in the same payload to orbit category that doesnt involve reusable boosters is at best obsolescent, if not actually obsolete - and a damned sight more expensive as well.
Yes, having more than one supplier of launchers is definitely a good thing for NASA to have, but given how Congress tends to pare NASA's budget to the bone, NASA cant affford overly expensive "options" that exist mainly due to the whims of politicians wanting work for companies in their home state. The other aerospace companies need to pull their fingers out and start producing products that can match or best SpaceX products. Even Blue origin, which started out working on re-usable boosters, has been overtaken and left in the dust by SpaceX!