Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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


seanflyon t1_je8y4qk wrote

They could go to the Moon without SLS. Here is a video describe some of the obvious options. Basically, it would be a lot cheaper to go to the Moon without SLS and it would take nearly zero development beyond what is already needed for the planed lunar landings.


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?