Boeing and NASA call off Starliner crew launch minutes before liftoff

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/01/boeings-starliner-first-launch-with-nasa-astronauts.html

by shinryudbz • 2 years ago

45 47 2 years ago

cnbc.com

belter2• 2 years ago

Every day that passes the Apollo program looks more amazing. A truly golden generation....

dylan6045• 2 years ago

That's the positive spin, but every day that passes makes Boeing look worse and worse. Comically even at this point.

SoftTalker• 2 years ago

Well, if you ignore the crew that was burned alive on the launch pad....

tadfisher• 2 years ago

To be fair, the Apollo program did lose three astronauts on the launch pad.

leptons• 2 years ago

Still less than the Space Shuttle program.

librasteve• 2 years ago

Apollo had a much much higher tolerance of risk - Apollo 12 did not abort after a lightning strike and total systems reboot (except the engines), Armstrong and Aldrin basically decided they were going to be the first men to land on the moon dead or alive (they actually ignored the fuel out alarm during lunar module descent). Would never happen in todays elf and safety culture.

29athrowaway2• 2 years ago

The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX.

SpaceX has already sent multiple crews to the ISS. Boeing is delayed and overbudget. Boeign has had a long series of problems including setting the system clock wrong.

Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing.

ethagknight• 2 years ago

Competition is good, unfortunate that NASA picked a know abuser of govt contracting for the competitor.

dylan6045• 2 years ago

It takes more than one to compete though. Right now, we have one and only one that actually works, and then some people floundering around taking government funding to do nothing really to justify anything.

delfinom• 2 years ago

NASA has no choice. Boeing is a political requirement.

readams• 2 years ago

53 people across 13 launches for SpaceX

sandis• 2 years ago

The idea wasn't to have them compete. The idea is to have "dissimilar redundancy", so that the US still would have a human-rated launch system with the ability to go to the ISS in case one of them gets grounded for whatever reason.

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

While that seems prudent, at the same time for how many years have we been beholden to russian launches because we didn’t have an american system at all after the shuttle? Seems like the sky didn’t fall during that time despite only one launch system we had to go to Kazakhstan to borrow. Kind of hard to justify the cost to the tax payer when the benefit they get is effectively zero since no new capabilities are present really: we could launch people to iss before and we can do that now too.

geertj• 2 years ago

Yes, also referred to as “Assured Access.”

TMWNN• 2 years ago

By contrast, Marcus Wandt of Sweden:

* Nov 2022 - Chosen as reserve ESA astronaut

* Jun 2023 - Chosen for Ax-3 mission using SpaceX Crew Dragon

* Jan 2024 - Flies to ISS

Tuna-Fish2• 2 years ago

Clearly SpaceX already won, NASA should just pull the plug on Boeing.

That would cost NASA a lot more money than continuing.

The contract is task order based. Boeing (and SpaceX) get paid for reaching some milestones, but mostly for launching the actual operational missions, of which Boeing is currently contracted for 6. Boeing had to front the development money for the system, and then gets paid back when they actually fly. This is in contrast with the traditional cost+ contracting, where Boeing just tallies costs and gets paid that plus a fixed profit margin.

At this point, Boeing has reached all the milestones and gotten paid for them, but hasn't flown any of the operational missions, and has spent billions more than they've been paid to develop the system. If NASA cancels now without a clear reason listed in the contract, Boeing has a clean case for contract violation against them, and can sue for the spent development money. Delays are not an appropriate reason, so long as Boeing isn't unduly endangering the crew they can just keep trying. But they are not getting paid any money from NASA for any of this, every day that the program continues but they are not launching the actual paid 6 missions, they are just wasting their own money.

mjevans• 2 years ago

It's sort of like a game of chicken in that respect...

I guess Boeing would have to do the math and figure out that paying SpaceX for 6 ISS missions is a cheaper way of fulfilling the contract?

29athrowaway2• 2 years ago

Thanks for the clarification here. Now it makes more sense.

PopePompus• 2 years ago

Why aren't delays an appropriate reason? Is that explicitly in the contracts?

robomartin• 2 years ago

The idea was to make Boeing compete with SpaceX.

Not quite. Results aside, the idea is that the government wants multiple sources for access to orbit. This isn't so much about competition but rather about having options. I have no idea if there are other political elements to this at all.

And so, ULA gets funding because they represent that other potential option. They can be as inefficient and slow as they want because, in a sense, their metric is to exist as backup. And, for backup to exist, you have to fund it not just to have things designed and built. You have to use these things despite cost and performance issues for readiness considerations.

Conceptually, it makes sense. The execution, in my opinion, is seriously lacking in many ways.

ericcumbee• 2 years ago

Boeing was supposed to be the safe pick and spaceX the risky one that might not pan out.

notjustanymike• 2 years ago

Well at least this was an issue with the Atlas V instead of Starliner. Progress?

dylan6045• 2 years ago

It's a good thing Boeing is part of the Atlas V...er, nevermind

wannacboatmovie2• 2 years ago

Would they scrub a launch if e.g. one if the crew members had diarrhea, or is it limited to technical reasons and weather?

Aaargh20318• 2 years ago

Asking the important questions.

dylan6045• 2 years ago

That's a different type of valve

HeatrayEnjoyer• 2 years ago

Aren't they quarantined before going up? To limit the possible germs they might bring up with them?

adastra22• 2 years ago

Nothing is guaranteed.

kjkjadksj3• 2 years ago

This makes me wonder if they engineer for diarrhea in space or puking all over the controls perhaps. It seems not all unlikely to happen.

dmoy• 2 years ago

There's a quora answer over here from an astronaut who had diarrhea in space:

https://www.quora.com/Has-an-astronaut-ever-had-diarrhea-whi...

Unfortunately it looks like most of the answer is behind a paywall, because it sounds like a good read lol.

throwup2383• 2 years ago

Probably not, they’d sub in a standby if the launch window allowed for the time to do it. There’s a prelaunch diet plan but it’s hard to find information on it because the space diet gets all the attention. It’s not too exciting though, it’s mostly just a subset of whatever each astronaut considers comfort food with extra attention to nutrition and food safety.

The Apollo 11 astronauts had steak and eggs for breakfast before the launch.

wannacboatmovie2• 2 years ago

That's very interesting! My first reaction is one of disbelief because steak and eggs could send someone with IBS running for the loo, but a trip to space likely entails altered energy needs, and a high energy meal loaded with protein would certainly make sense.

belter2• 2 years ago

Apollo 8....Frank Borman got vomiting and diarrhea hours into the flight...Alien movie was nothing compared to it...

TrainedMonkey2• 2 years ago

Depending on the severity - before launch probably, after the launch it's a risk call and they would probably adopt wait and see if it gets better approach. The reason for scrub would not be the diarrhea, but rather not knowing the reason why. Astronauts are placed in isolation / fed high quality and low diarrhea risk food. This mitigates most of normal reasons of why it could happen, so getting proceeding with the mission without understanding what is going on is risky.

dylan6045• 2 years ago

"Starliner is reusable, with each capsule designed to fly as many as 10 missions."

Now that's an optimistic statement. Do each of the aborted launch attempts count against the tally? If so, this first one is about done. <snicker>

As I see it now, it doesn't look like it is designed to fly at all.

throwup2383• 2 years ago

I think that’s 10 reentries for the capsule but the heat shield would have to be inspected and refurbished every time anyway. The rocket goes through a whole process every time a launch is scrubbed to make sure nothing goes wrong from thermal expansion after the cryogenic fuels are pumped back out.

TrainedMonkey2• 2 years ago

It's complicated (in a way that makes it worse). Capsules need 6 months happy path refurb - "reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner#Spacecraft_ch... ). This means that some components such as pressure section are qualified for 10 flights, but others are expected to be replaced sooner. The actual refurb will be a lot longer unless they have a lot of flights to dial that in.

The real problem with Boeing is lack of testing / iteration. This is the company that perfected "paperwork milestones" - where they prove that they in theory can do something. This is supposed to be exhaustive, but theoretically validating things scales abysmally with complexity. Originally designed to speed up progress by claiming credit for work done previously this devolved into current state of affairs. I want to emphasize that from maximizing shareholder value which is the mode Boeing operated since the McDonnell Douglas merger I believe this to be a good short and maybe even medium term strategy. This is because of cost plus / a lot of programs get cancelled environment Boeing enjoyed and lower risk of milestone payment delays. AKA, if you test something and you find an issue you risk blowing up schedule now, but paperwork milestones guarantee payments and delay risk of finding out something is wrong. Boeing would have probably keep getting away with this, but new age / more agile aerospace companies showed up. Not only they sucked up all of the talent, but also the only way to survive was to iterate and iterate fast... so they did.

Source: worked in the field for 10 years.

idlewords• 2 years ago

It's not clear why the hold was called, but the launch was scrubbed because the launch window to ISS is relatively narrow.

Boeing and NASA call off Starliner crew launch minutes before liftoff

Related Stories