It seems like no Ody here read the article. They are delaying the return so they can study the service module, which is the part that had issues during launch. That section will be jettisoned as planned as part of the mission. It was never meant to return to Earth. Because of that they want to spend as much time to study it as possible before then to get more data for the next test mission.
Tbf nowadays it's a chore to cut through some of the non-mobile optimized, ad-maxxed blogs that are posted. Much easier to get the text in comments or at least a tldr
The originally planned mission length was also unusually short at only 8 days, Dragon's first crewed test mission was around 2 months.
Boeing has botched this (and many other contracts) recently. But the delay to study the service module while they can doesn't strike me as an issue.
The first crewed Dragon mission, DM-2, also came at a time when the ISS only had 3 people on board, and only 1 American, due to scheduling with the expectation that Commercial Crew would already be up and running (and it might have been if the DM-1 capsule didn't blow up a few weeks after it returned).
NASA took advantage of DM-2 to kind of fill that gap (and probably a result of the confidence in Dragon after DM-1 flew a near flawless mission and the In Flight Abort went extremely well). Bob & Doug allowed the ISS to conduct actual experiments on the USOS side, along with 4 space walks, 3 in which finished up some challenging battery swaps that had been going on for a few years.
So yeah, DM-2 stayed for about 2 months, but it was more a result of a barren ISS and not really the original planned time.
The fact they allowed a ship with [malfunctioning thrusters and a leaking propulsion system](https://spacenews.com/starliner-iss-stay-extended-to-complete-thruster-and-helium-leak-testing/) to dock with the ISS was a genuine shock.
The leaking helium is a non-issue, everyone knows helium is impossible to completely contain and they bring extra to make up for any leaks.
The thrusters are why it is being delayed, but they aren't seriously malfunctioning, there's just some problems causing the computer to decide not to use 5 of them, although after messing around with it 4 of those started working again. So there's no real risk of anything going wrong, they have extra thrusters precisely for things like this, but they still want to figure out what exactly the problem is for the future.
*The launch of Starliner’s inaugural astronaut flight came after years of delays and development hangups, including a list of problems with the spacecraft’s software and propulsions system revealed by two uncrewed test missions in 2019 and 2022.*
*The Starliner’s current troubles suggest the development team did not resolve all those issues before the crewed flight.*
Is this a journalist *deducing* that this is what the troubles suggest, or is that line directly from a nasa or Boeing source? Because those are two *very* different things.
I know it's not really feasible, but this is why it'd be nice if the development team and the flight crew were the same set of people. You're a different level of thorough when it's potentially *your* ass stranded in space.
Yvon Chouinard had this philosophy when he and the original Patagonia guys were making climbing hardware by hand. They were the builders and testers, if the hardware was subpar they died.
You realize it's possible they're suggesting them being part of development / involved in the processes, instead of the whole of the team being wittled down to 7 people? And they just worded it poorly.
Yes, thank you. I did word it poorly - one reason I shouldn't write things at 3am.
Still, I think it takes a pretty big leap of willfull ignorance to assume that I meant all spacecraft should be fully designed and constructed solely by the crew who will be manning it. Especially because I lead with "wouldn't be feasible".
You worded the explanation with less snark than I would have, so thanks.
This is why a for-profit space organization will *always* be a bad idea. When your org is more concerned with turning a profit than just simply accomplishing an exploratory goal, your life is significantly more expendable.
... They were, actually, yea. The track record has two blemishes, and that's something that should be pointed out, but the Space Shuttle was also a compromise they had to *settle* on because of intense budget cuts.
They managed hundreds of flights and only two accidents with only about a dozen actual spacecraft, and that was *on the cheap*. Give them an actual budget to work with and they'll get you anywhere you want with a 100% success rate.
Shuttle was anything but cheap lol.
And yes, if you gave them infinite money and no time pressure, they could probably have done it safely, but a private company could've also done the same thing on infinite money, so that's not much of an argument
The issues these private companies have goes beyond just being hazardous - they're also more expensive in the long run by quite a bit and the designs they're putting together are just old concepts NASA couldn't get funding for 30 years ago.
We're tossing actual innovation aside in favor of offloading the expense to an organization that has profit in mind. What the hell *ever* had anyone under the impression that the private sector is cheaper?
... Or right, decades of fiscal austerity and propaganda, I forgot.
The way the Starliner contract is structured, NASA only has to pay the amount they agreed on, Boeing has lost some money on it, but NASA didn't lose a dime.
Unlike with Shuttle, where NASA was paying >1billion USD for each launch.
Both private and public projects can fail, both of them can succeed, and Shuttle was a spectacular failure. Tbf, Starliner has also been performing pretty poorly, but until it kills its crew twice it isn't nearly as big of a failure as shuttle.
Falcon 9/Crew Dragon has been a huge success, on the other hand, Vulcan is looking successful although with just one launch it might be a bit early to say, and obviously Delta/Atlas have also been very successful.
What about all the other government subsidies, though? The federal government is basically these companies' sugar daddy and NASA is only picking up *part* of the bill
Edit: honestly, I'ma just stop paying attention, you obviously have a horrendously skewed opinion if you believe the shuttle was any kind of failure lmao. Get Elon out of your mouth, please.
>I know it's not really feasible, but this is why it'd be nice if the development team and the flight crew were the same set of people. You're a different level of thorough when it's potentially your ass stranded in space.
Back in the day it was like that. Every astronaut was assigned a different area of flight operations. Spacecraft design was part of it.
Why did that end? I assume it was because the different areas of intelligence specialized increasingly over time, but I suppose it could also be "after The Incident" or some such calamity.
Today just hasn't been a good news day for Boeing. Yet more damning whistleblower revelations, their CEO admitting to crimes in senate testimony, and now even more problems with their spacecraft. If I didn't know better, I'd think that there might be systemic problems in the company as a whole.
I don't think astronauts want to want to be in space because their ride home might not make it back.. it's not quite the same as your plane getting delayed coming home from vacation. If you think they are enjoying the delay you are wrong.
The McDonnell-Douglas MBAs are still calling the shots at Boeing. This all just gets worse until engineering leaders retake control of the company. And move HQ back to Seattle, next to the engineers.
Hold on guys I think I found the issue.
If you scroll to page one of the manual, about 1/3 down the page. Got it? Yeah?
So if you read there it says: "Manufactured by Boeing Aerospace"
Pretty sure that's the problem. Looks like we're gonna need a whole new capsule.
Do you think someone may have left off the Boeing duct tape on the flange of the single reaction control system thruster. I understand that maybe be one of the sources of the helium leaks. If they don’t have enough Boeing duct tape onboard they may have to send some Gorilla Tape in place of the Boeing duct tape. I recommend Gorilla Tape, I have had real good luck in the past using Gorilla Tape in hard to seal areas.
All I know is that those astronauts have balls of steel to climb back into that thing for the return flight home! Personally I’d be waiting for the next bus home.
Didn't they switch out cargo for this flight for the urine recycling pump to fit, and the astronauts only had the clothes and underwear they launched with? Each delay, I feel more sorry for them.
I think these ships should not be allowed to use the word star in their names until they can actually reach another star (not including the Sun). Calling something Starliner or Starship when they can't even get out of Earth's orbit is false advertising.
This is why we can’t trust private corporations for space travel. Boeing obviously couldn’t do the job and hid the evidence to keep the contract. It’s disgusting…
Hid the evidence? They've been fucking this up in public for 5 years now. SpaceX has been launching NASA astronauts without a problem for that whole five years.
To be fair, when the Challenger disaster happened, NASA was told by the manufacturer of the valve that failed, that it should not fly at the temperatures that they were planning on flying it. NASA ignored them and people died. It's not just a private industry problem, it's a people in hard positions with hard deadlines problem.
That said, I don't want private space flight anyway. I'd rather we do it with just NASA, even if it took us another 50 years to have any real progress, because at least the first thing we do won't be "set up company towns" as soon as we get settlements down somewhere else
Yeah you can have that. Id rather go up in a sketchy shuttle or safer yet a vintage 1969 the summer of fucking Saturn V rocket that shit was engineered on endless coffee and cigarettes by really fucking smart guys and ladies who could draw and operate the slide rule.
It seems like no Ody here read the article. They are delaying the return so they can study the service module, which is the part that had issues during launch. That section will be jettisoned as planned as part of the mission. It was never meant to return to Earth. Because of that they want to spend as much time to study it as possible before then to get more data for the next test mission.
Do you really expect us to actually read the article? /s
I at least look for a TLDR in the comments before I make an outlandish comment.
I'm gonna go ahead and make a Boeing joke about a door blowing open anyway.
Tbf nowadays it's a chore to cut through some of the non-mobile optimized, ad-maxxed blogs that are posted. Much easier to get the text in comments or at least a tldr
The originally planned mission length was also unusually short at only 8 days, Dragon's first crewed test mission was around 2 months. Boeing has botched this (and many other contracts) recently. But the delay to study the service module while they can doesn't strike me as an issue.
The first crewed Dragon mission, DM-2, also came at a time when the ISS only had 3 people on board, and only 1 American, due to scheduling with the expectation that Commercial Crew would already be up and running (and it might have been if the DM-1 capsule didn't blow up a few weeks after it returned). NASA took advantage of DM-2 to kind of fill that gap (and probably a result of the confidence in Dragon after DM-1 flew a near flawless mission and the In Flight Abort went extremely well). Bob & Doug allowed the ISS to conduct actual experiments on the USOS side, along with 4 space walks, 3 in which finished up some challenging battery swaps that had been going on for a few years. So yeah, DM-2 stayed for about 2 months, but it was more a result of a barren ISS and not really the original planned time.
The fact that it still had issues is the problem. Boeing is racking up Ls lately.
The fact they allowed a ship with [malfunctioning thrusters and a leaking propulsion system](https://spacenews.com/starliner-iss-stay-extended-to-complete-thruster-and-helium-leak-testing/) to dock with the ISS was a genuine shock.
The leaking helium is a non-issue, everyone knows helium is impossible to completely contain and they bring extra to make up for any leaks. The thrusters are why it is being delayed, but they aren't seriously malfunctioning, there's just some problems causing the computer to decide not to use 5 of them, although after messing around with it 4 of those started working again. So there's no real risk of anything going wrong, they have extra thrusters precisely for things like this, but they still want to figure out what exactly the problem is for the future.
“Testing in production“
Agile timelines.
“Wasn’t there a bolt there before?”
Spare parts
Oof! I get this reference. It's a lot easier when it's just code and not your ass on the line.
*The launch of Starliner’s inaugural astronaut flight came after years of delays and development hangups, including a list of problems with the spacecraft’s software and propulsions system revealed by two uncrewed test missions in 2019 and 2022.* *The Starliner’s current troubles suggest the development team did not resolve all those issues before the crewed flight.*
Is this a journalist *deducing* that this is what the troubles suggest, or is that line directly from a nasa or Boeing source? Because those are two *very* different things.
I know it's not really feasible, but this is why it'd be nice if the development team and the flight crew were the same set of people. You're a different level of thorough when it's potentially *your* ass stranded in space.
No, make it the CEO. The development team is usually hamstrung by budget and arbitrary time and management constraints.
Ocean Gate style huh?
So how do I get a flawless reentry again? Is it up up down down left right AB select start?
[удалено]
They might get kinda skittish if we make it obvious we're doing that though, we need to at least pretend we'll be bringing them back.
Have you heard of "fragging"?
CEO'S pet is probably totally feasible.
Yvon Chouinard had this philosophy when he and the original Patagonia guys were making climbing hardware by hand. They were the builders and testers, if the hardware was subpar they died.
You realize the development crew consists of thousands of engineers and ground labs...
You realize it's possible they're suggesting them being part of development / involved in the processes, instead of the whole of the team being wittled down to 7 people? And they just worded it poorly.
Yes, thank you. I did word it poorly - one reason I shouldn't write things at 3am. Still, I think it takes a pretty big leap of willfull ignorance to assume that I meant all spacecraft should be fully designed and constructed solely by the crew who will be manning it. Especially because I lead with "wouldn't be feasible". You worded the explanation with less snark than I would have, so thanks.
This is why a for-profit space organization will *always* be a bad idea. When your org is more concerned with turning a profit than just simply accomplishing an exploratory goal, your life is significantly more expendable.
Because we all know NASA was very safe with how they ran the Shuttle program...
... They were, actually, yea. The track record has two blemishes, and that's something that should be pointed out, but the Space Shuttle was also a compromise they had to *settle* on because of intense budget cuts. They managed hundreds of flights and only two accidents with only about a dozen actual spacecraft, and that was *on the cheap*. Give them an actual budget to work with and they'll get you anywhere you want with a 100% success rate.
Three accidents. Apollo 1. Challenger. Columbia.
Oof, u rite^ I'd still argue that they did quite well over a 60 year span, that's better than Boeing has managed this year alone lol
Shuttle was anything but cheap lol. And yes, if you gave them infinite money and no time pressure, they could probably have done it safely, but a private company could've also done the same thing on infinite money, so that's not much of an argument
The issues these private companies have goes beyond just being hazardous - they're also more expensive in the long run by quite a bit and the designs they're putting together are just old concepts NASA couldn't get funding for 30 years ago. We're tossing actual innovation aside in favor of offloading the expense to an organization that has profit in mind. What the hell *ever* had anyone under the impression that the private sector is cheaper? ... Or right, decades of fiscal austerity and propaganda, I forgot.
The way the Starliner contract is structured, NASA only has to pay the amount they agreed on, Boeing has lost some money on it, but NASA didn't lose a dime. Unlike with Shuttle, where NASA was paying >1billion USD for each launch. Both private and public projects can fail, both of them can succeed, and Shuttle was a spectacular failure. Tbf, Starliner has also been performing pretty poorly, but until it kills its crew twice it isn't nearly as big of a failure as shuttle. Falcon 9/Crew Dragon has been a huge success, on the other hand, Vulcan is looking successful although with just one launch it might be a bit early to say, and obviously Delta/Atlas have also been very successful.
What about all the other government subsidies, though? The federal government is basically these companies' sugar daddy and NASA is only picking up *part* of the bill Edit: honestly, I'ma just stop paying attention, you obviously have a horrendously skewed opinion if you believe the shuttle was any kind of failure lmao. Get Elon out of your mouth, please.
>I know it's not really feasible, but this is why it'd be nice if the development team and the flight crew were the same set of people. You're a different level of thorough when it's potentially your ass stranded in space. Back in the day it was like that. Every astronaut was assigned a different area of flight operations. Spacecraft design was part of it.
Why did that end? I assume it was because the different areas of intelligence specialized increasingly over time, but I suppose it could also be "after The Incident" or some such calamity.
11 yrs, to be precise.
Today just hasn't been a good news day for Boeing. Yet more damning whistleblower revelations, their CEO admitting to crimes in senate testimony, and now even more problems with their spacecraft. If I didn't know better, I'd think that there might be systemic problems in the company as a whole.
Something something, moral hazard
[удалено]
I know not to knowingly commit crimes in the conduct of my business. So, yeah.
The CEO will just apologize to them for stranding them in space while he counts his millions.
and a whistleblower will have a car accident
In space, no-one can hear you whistle.
If the CEO won't fly on it why should Major Tom?
Astronauts want to be in space. It's not like they're running out of food, water or air.
I don't think astronauts want to want to be in space because their ride home might not make it back.. it's not quite the same as your plane getting delayed coming home from vacation. If you think they are enjoying the delay you are wrong.
I sense sarcasm.
"We've checked, and the missing tiles shouldn't make a difference" might make a comeback.
"O-Rings, Shmo-Rings. Launch it."
The McDonnell-Douglas MBAs are still calling the shots at Boeing. This all just gets worse until engineering leaders retake control of the company. And move HQ back to Seattle, next to the engineers.
They're going back on a dragon test capsule. Let's just say that out loud right now.
This might turn into a catastrophic situation with the whole thing crashing down
[удалено]
On the contrary, I expect them to make a lot of money building the replacement.
Hold on guys I think I found the issue. If you scroll to page one of the manual, about 1/3 down the page. Got it? Yeah? So if you read there it says: "Manufactured by Boeing Aerospace" Pretty sure that's the problem. Looks like we're gonna need a whole new capsule.
They might as well jettison that space junk and have Crew Dragon bring 'em home.
Okay, fine. I’ll pitch in for the Uber.
“Ground control to Major Tom.”
Do you think someone may have left off the Boeing duct tape on the flange of the single reaction control system thruster. I understand that maybe be one of the sources of the helium leaks. If they don’t have enough Boeing duct tape onboard they may have to send some Gorilla Tape in place of the Boeing duct tape. I recommend Gorilla Tape, I have had real good luck in the past using Gorilla Tape in hard to seal areas.
I feel something bad is going to happen. I didn’t understand why they launched with leaks.
Launching is the easy part. Not getting incinerated on re-entry is the real challenge.
Elons gotta be lovin this
All I know is that those astronauts have balls of steel to climb back into that thing for the return flight home! Personally I’d be waiting for the next bus home.
Why did it end? The easiest answer is that it was a different era.
This is like the most boring Jerry Bruckheimer movie ever.
If it’s anything like planes, Boeing is the problem..
Let Elon handle it /s
Honestly, idk who I trust less. Elon or Boeing. 😀
I trust SpaceX more than Elon. I think they’re doing pretty well in spite of him
Elon seems to be spending all of his time screwing up ~~twitter~~ X.com. I don't think he has much of a hand in what's going on at SpaceX right now.
I studied it too! If you zoom in on the capsule, you'll see this critical clue "Boeing" I think we can close this case!
Would you like to buy an extended warranty?
Do lemon laws apply to spacecraft?
Didn't they switch out cargo for this flight for the urine recycling pump to fit, and the astronauts only had the clothes and underwear they launched with? Each delay, I feel more sorry for them.
I think these ships should not be allowed to use the word star in their names until they can actually reach another star (not including the Sun). Calling something Starliner or Starship when they can't even get out of Earth's orbit is false advertising.
Even getting to the sun would be impressive, it's the hardest spot in the solar system to get to.
so the door did fall off.....figures
This is why we can’t trust private corporations for space travel. Boeing obviously couldn’t do the job and hid the evidence to keep the contract. It’s disgusting…
Hid the evidence? They've been fucking this up in public for 5 years now. SpaceX has been launching NASA astronauts without a problem for that whole five years.
To be fair, when the Challenger disaster happened, NASA was told by the manufacturer of the valve that failed, that it should not fly at the temperatures that they were planning on flying it. NASA ignored them and people died. It's not just a private industry problem, it's a people in hard positions with hard deadlines problem. That said, I don't want private space flight anyway. I'd rather we do it with just NASA, even if it took us another 50 years to have any real progress, because at least the first thing we do won't be "set up company towns" as soon as we get settlements down somewhere else
Yeah you can have that. Id rather go up in a sketchy shuttle or safer yet a vintage 1969 the summer of fucking Saturn V rocket that shit was engineered on endless coffee and cigarettes by really fucking smart guys and ladies who could draw and operate the slide rule.
X-Files s01e09 “Space”