Submitted by thawingSumTendies t3_1264hit in space
Comments
[deleted] t1_je89gz2 wrote
[removed]
manicdee33 t1_je7ivln wrote
Dragon had problems with parachutes too. I wonder if the main difference between SpaceX and Boeing is turnaround time between design and test (and subsequent post-test review and updates to designs)?
Where to spend the money: the paper review, or fabricating a new test object to test an incremental change?
very_humble t1_je7j535 wrote
It's Boeing, they are going to hire 100 more MBAs to analyze the problem
thawingSumTendies OP t1_je7o604 wrote
Engineering companies should always have an engineer at the helm, having MBAs they’ll just try to cut costs
JungleJones4124 t1_je87o1w wrote
Guess what Boeing did? There are a lot of interesting reports on what has gone on at Boeing in the past 20-30 years. The biggest is that they cut costs on safety and reliability... hence this massive delay and cost overrun. They need to get back to the Engineering... and fast.
thawingSumTendies OP t1_je889jm wrote
Yup ever since they merged with McDonnell Douglas, I’ve read that they been on the downhill in terms of engineering.
The financial aspects started mattering more than the engineering aspects.
737 MAX was just a complete fiasco. I was shocked to read anything in engineering, never mind aeronautical engineering - having a single point of failure with no redundancy.
Like you said, it happened in the name of cost cutting.
_MissionControlled_ t1_je89dkt wrote
Anything human rated should have double redundancy. If a spacecraft, triple. My biggest concern with Starship. A human spacecraft should be over engineered.
thawingSumTendies OP t1_je89vop wrote
I agree, I’m concerned that Starship has no escape module.
I imagine that Starship can escape from the booster section if something goes wrong, but there should also be an escape method if something was wrong with Starship itself.
_MissionControlled_ t1_je8aayi wrote
I think the entire top 25% should be a large detachable capsule in any human variant. Cargo and tankers no.
But the shuttle didn't have an escape system either.
Spiritual-Act9545 t1_jeay2oi wrote
Boeing didn’t merge with but were devoured by MDD. Ever since the company has been trying to move away from commercial aviation and into the D.C. Area.
One thing about commercial sales; your goal is to keep your customers happy and well-supported. Something Boeing appears to have given up on. With government sales its all about keeping key Representatives and Senators happy by keeping constituents employed. Once a procurement pipeline opens the goal is then to keep it open.
Thomas P.M. Barnett gave a talk about this to TED back in 2007. He described how government agencies come to congress for appropriations. If NASA, say, said “SLS will be billions over budget and launch twice in 8 years” then congress wouldn’t fund it. But, if you say “Its a new rocket and spacecraft with amazing engines that will take us to Mars and beat the Chinese/Russians” then they ask “Will you build it in my district?”
Old cartoon in the New Yorker during the Reagan years: “It doesn’t have to fly. It just has to fund...”
_MissionControlled_ t1_je895iw wrote
I used to work for another large defense and aerospace company (ATK) and this was my biggest complaint. Management would laugh at me when it frankly said it a few times.
[deleted] t1_je90ged wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je9uf07 wrote
[removed]
peter303_ t1_je93qio wrote
On the other hand, I was impressed at the performance of the only two Artemis missions: an orbital run in 2014 and multi week lunar run in 2022. However, a huge cost and delays.
jrichard717 t1_jeav7o2 wrote
Yeah for as much bad rap as SLS gets, it had an actual spectacular maiden flight which is pretty rare for rockets.
photoengineer t1_jefblg0 wrote
Parachutes are hard. Which is a bit funny since they are so flexible. They are hard because they are so flexible and can be greatly impacted by hard to analyze forces.
Psychological-Gene84 t1_je8q8yq wrote
For 50 years Boeing has secured government contracts by promising unrealistic development and delivery schedules. Then, the bean counters treat the missed deadlines and cost overruns as a revenue stream.
Sure, it's a crap track record, but this technique has forced dozens of competitors into bankruptcy over the years, so it's all good.
mmm2412 t1_je84hw2 wrote
Someone just needs to pull the plug on this one. Boeing and NASA are just embarrassing themselves.
JungleJones4124 t1_je87h07 wrote
People were saying the same thing about SLS when it was having delays launching. Boeing has plenty of issues, and Starliner isn't all it's cracked up to be. Scrapping it at this point isn't a good idea, however. If something goes wrong with Falcon 9 and/or Dragon, human spaceflight takes a huge hit. There needs to be a backup, even if it's not as great and way more expensive. I look at Boeing as the B team that can come in if there is an unexpected issue.
obsesivegamer t1_je8doy2 wrote
SLS is still an embaressment old technology being pushed for political reasons.
JungleJones4124 t1_je8fvqp wrote
I'm well aware of this fact. However, if they just scrapped it there would be no going to the moon for quite some time. You work with what you have, not what you want.
w0mbatina t1_je96742 wrote
>However, if they just scrapped it there would be no going to the moon for quite some time.
That's quite a bold statement. Especially isnce scrapping SLS would have freed up a lot of resources to design and build something, you know, better.
JungleJones4124 t1_je9trsj wrote
Do you know how long it takes government to build something that goes to the moon with the budget NASA has? We'd be waiting for another 15 years. Quick case study: The Shuttle took a decade and it was only going to LEO and back.
Private space companies are definitely shaking things up, but they aren't the main driving force behind anything related the Moon at this time. They're not even in the ballpark for science only missions. NASA, still has a huge role to play. Unfortunately, that means the monstrosity that is SLS in here to stay for at least another decade - hopefully that can get phased out and the money redistributed accordingly.
Layer_4_Solutions t1_jeawef8 wrote
Sending humans to the moon on old, expensive technology is not valuable.
Moon launches should be a way to innovate and get costs down to move us towards a more sustainable(eventually self-sustaining) space program.
obsesivegamer t1_je8jcfa wrote
That I agree with, Its better than nothing but still makes me sad that after all this time we basically got a delta 4 heavy + with worse capabilities than the Saturn V and laughable economics.
NASA needs to get in gear
Spddin t1_je9oqjy wrote
Old technology is also often practical. James Webb was delayed because of all the new technology that had to be worked out and same often happens with advanced military hardware like the F35 or the Zumwalt class destroyers.
wgp3 t1_jea29ga wrote
But SLS also took twice as long as planned to reach first launch and twice as much money as planned. So we get no cutting edge technology and all of the same cost issues that come with new technology.
TbonerT t1_je98viz wrote
It is good to be concerned about Falcon 9 but it has proven to be highly reliable. The current version has flown 158 missions with complete success. Dragon 2 has 16 successful flights under its belt. Backups are good but Boeing has a long way to go to show that it can be a reliable partner in the program.
JungleJones4124 t1_je9t2os wrote
It doesn't matter how reliable the Falcon 9 and Dragon are. It's great that they are reliable, but anything made my people will eventually fail. I'm not going to speculate on how/when because we could be here for the rest of the week.
Boeing has had a lot of difficulties and I'm not a fan of Starliner. The only way for Boeing to even start to get close to the reliability of Falcon and Dragon is to launch when its safe to do so. Will this be a long term spacecraft? Absolutely not. It will be rarely used, but it is still necessary.
TbonerT t1_je9uy4b wrote
>It's great that they are reliable, but anything made my people will eventually fail.
Even if there is a failure, it won't be a huge setback for manned missions. SpaceX was back to flying just 3 months after AMOS-6 exploded on the pad.
Layer_4_Solutions t1_jeawnzk wrote
SpaceX has several Falcon 9s, with significant bandwidth from Starlink missions even if something happens to one.
JungleJones4124 t1_jeaxatb wrote
That isn’t how the rocket launch industry works. If there is an a failure with one. They have to inspect them all. That’s not to say it would be a long process, but quantity of Falcons is not important here
Psychological-Gene84 t1_je8qpev wrote
Thing is, your second string shouldn't cost twice what the franchise player is getting.
JungleJones4124 t1_jeawc04 wrote
I completely agree. Unfortunately, logic doesn’t always win when it comes to politicians who control the money… and the companies that can influence them.
bookers555 t1_je9jr6b wrote
Yes, but sad as it is, right now there's no alternative to the SLS, maybe Starship and who knows when that will be operational.
Meanwhile Starliner is just another one of many space capsules.
Having alternatives is good, but damn, how long has this thing been in development now?
TbonerT t1_je9rryu wrote
> maybe Starship and who knows when that will be operational.
It just has to be operational before the next SLS flight in November of next year to be competitive. Since there are multiple boosters and Starships ready to fly or under construction, they are well on their way to beating the next SLS launch.
JungleJones4124 t1_je9saca wrote
>how long has this thing been in development now?
If I told you it started in 2010, how infuriated would you be?
[deleted] t1_je8qjrk wrote
[removed]
fnorksayer t1_je8jeyd wrote
Why do they need Boeing if there is already dragon that works well?
Goregue t1_je8kwc5 wrote
Redundancy in case something goes wrong with Dragon/Falcon 9. NASA basically doesn't want a repeat of what happened in the 2010s after the space shuttle was retired and they were forced to buy seats on Soyuz for 10 years.
TbonerT t1_je999qe wrote
The space shuttle had failure throughout its program. If something goes wrong with Falcon 9, we’ll be flying again relatively quickly since we know it is a reliable rocket. The AMOS-6 explosion happened on September 1 and SpaceX flew again in December, just 3 months later.
bullett2434 t1_je9cy90 wrote
I mean spacex could go bankrupt one day out of nasas control, or they could abandon the F9 based on a business decision. And then nasa would be screwed. Not saying it would happen but crazier things have
TbonerT t1_je9dimu wrote
Those aren’t things that would suddenly happen. NASA could probably afford to keep SpaceX afloat with contracts for the rockets it wants. It isn’t helpless to SpaceX’s whims.
photoengineer t1_jefgn2h wrote
That wasn’t with people though. The shuttle down times were years.
[deleted] t1_je8kzxi wrote
[removed]
Decronym t1_je942mu wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|ATK|Alliant Techsystems, predecessor to Orbital ATK|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|MBA|Moonba- Mars Base Alpha|
|SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starliner|Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
^(6 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 14 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8737 for this sub, first seen 30th Mar 2023, 09:18])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
robotical712 t1_je7ifcl wrote
At this rate, Starliner’s first manned mission will reach orbit just in time to watch the ISS reenter.