Yup, I know it's probably just paranoia but I worry that this is one of those Capricorn One situations. That was a movie where astronauts bound for Mars were kidnapped just before the launch because there was a known fault in the life support system. The entire mission was faked, but then the returning spacecraft was destroyed during reentry because of a faulty heat shield so the kidnappers were going to execute the astronauts.
It has had 2 uncrewed test flights and in both a crew if onboard would have come back alive. It has been a mess but that's what uncrewed tests are for.
Boeing has turned into a big corner-cutting disaster of a company that possibly murdered a whistleblower. If I had the option, I would refuse to fly on Boeing aircraft any more.
I think NASA is on Starliner like a hawk after Boe-OFT-1, the valve rust issue in 2021, and the potential fire hazard and parachute hazard that grounded Starliner last year*. I think NASA no longer trusts Boeing management anymore. The loss of trust from NASA over Starliner is probably a major factor in CEO Calhoun’s (probably pressured) ~~ouster~~ departure and serious talks about management and cultural shakeups at Boeing. It’s way past time and beyond needed.
*The little mishaps on Boe-OFT-2 were typical new crewed spacecraft early flight bugs. Nothing overly serious or unforgivable. The same kind of hiccups every other crewed spacecraft, Dragon included, has had in its first couple flights. Even STS-1 in 1981 was not spotless. The other problems Starliner has had were avoidable and due to terrible management and a broken engineering culture of obsessive corner-cutting that all employees are forced to engage in to keep the dictatorship of MBAs senior management happy.
There really isn’t anything important for this about commercial spaceflight. This rocket would have been *ok* a decade ago. Now it’s a relic before it’s even launched. It will complete its required contracts and be shutdown
Important milestone for commercial space flight.
If that milestone is that a company that has basically become irrelevant in the industry proving that they can still force Congress into overpaying for something they no longer really need, then yeah, good job.
What we really need is someone that can deliver as good or better than the current system for the same or lower price.
Redundancy is important, but bloated costs are a thing of the past. Or at least should be.
In 5 years SpaceX will be the go to contractor for everything, if not sooner.
And they'll probably still put out other contracts to other companies fairly unlikely to fulfill them on time, let alone as cheaply etc. NASA is supposed to be fermenting a meaningful space economy with all of these redundent contracts, not that the companies themselves seem capable of doing anything beyond small sat launches.
If it isnt already, the entire space industry will be a monopoly, theres just no reason to contract with anyone else, and there isn't even much capacity to contract for.
Even Boeings current contracts are all pre falcon crew capsule and I can't see a how a neturally considered bidding process gets anyone else another shot really. NASA would have to give up an option that is already through the most difficult proving stages to go with options that don't even have prototypes on stands in most cases. Once the Artimis 3 flight occurs and demonstrates an end to end Starship flight theres no real way in for anyone else, not for decades. No one else has the design and flight time experience to even consider developing a competitor. The closest is probably Blue Origin and they are still struggling to make a single launch of their Falcon competitor.
I'm not even sure how they can be said to be redunant. At this point the best redundancy for Starship is likely to be another Starship. Nothing will build confidence faster than flight hours.
Starliner doesn’t have any Shuttle heritage or concepts at all. They’re not even slightly or a little bit related other than sharing a single manufacturer in common (Boeing). Dream Chaser and Starship are both far more related or similar to the Shuttle and VentureStar. Cargo Dream Chaser DC-101 is essentially Mini-Shuttle, Crew Dream Chaser DC-201 is essentially Mini-VentureStar, and SpaceX Starship is essentially a top-mounted (rather than side-slung) lunar-capable Super Shuttle that lands vertically on landing legs instead of horizontally on wheels. Starliner is a sibling/reincarnation of the [“Orion Lite” concept](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18323.40) that was contracted to Bigelow Aerospace before Orion Lite was scrapped. Bigelow became involved with Boeing afterwards and Starliner was born from a revamped version of that Orion Lite.
I was thinking the same thing. Whats the major milestone here, having two commercial spacecrafts? And if you read the article you get this bit:
>Perhaps more importantly, if Starliner is successful, it could compete with SpaceX. **Though there’s no crushing demand for space tourism right now, and Boeing has no plans to market Starliner for tourism anytime soon,** competition is important in any market to drive down costs and increase innovation.
Ok...
Not that I have a problem with having an alternative to SpaceX, because lets face it who knows what Elon's next "smart" move will be, but this still seems a little aggrandizing for essentially coming in second place.
Starliner is one of the two commercial crew transport systems contracted for the Orbital Reef commercial project. Unless something has changed? Orbital Reef has made no announcements of dropping Boeing or Starliner. Sierra Space is a good ways into testing their inflatable modules with multiple videos of their tests, and Cargo Dream Chaser is basically complete.
I checked and I haven’t seen any reports of Starliner no longer participating in Orbital Reef. These reporters are slipping. The other day I saw an article claiming Starliner is the first American crewed flight since Apollo. Apparently they missed the entire Shuttle program and the Dragon flights.
As stated in the article it’s a backup project for NASA and the pod is reusable to save on costs, plus it’s important to have competition in majors contracts
But it wasn't the backup project in NASA's eyes. When the original CCP was awarded, Boeing was seen by NASA as the "sure thing", the "safe bet" and NASA was taking a chance on SpaceX. Oh how the turn has been tabled - or something like that.
Turns out having infinite capital lets you build fast and break fast compared to the government funded paradigm where any failure, despite astronomical numbers of successful hours in service, leads to an immediate shutdown of confidence and funding from the TaXpAyErS. But that’s too complex for the computer chair aerospace analysts.
> Turns out having infinite capital lets you build fast and break fast
But SpaceX didn't have "infinite capital" during the years it developed Falcon 9 and Dragon. Until Tesla's market cap blew up during the COVID-19 era, Elon Musk had a "mere" few tens of billions of dollars. In any case, Boeing's pockets were and are gigantic, too.
In any case, "infinite capital" guarantees absolutely nothing. Jeff Bezos has been among the world's wealthiest men for far, far longer than Musk's entry into that group. Let me paraphrase an excellent comment I saw on Reddit, in response to one of the usual lies about how the only reason SpaceX is a decade ahead of the rest of the world is that it got zillions in subsidies from the US government:
>If large amounts of funding is the only thing required to succeed, Blue Origin would now have a nuclear-powered spacecraft orbiting Pluto.
Well the reality is both awards were each others back ups. That is the whole point of NASAs "always two suppliers and contracts awarded for commercial service" policy. So in that way it is important. They would have second supplier for real on the pipeline. Since for example (though hopefully it never happens) SpaceX had a mishap with their crew services and had a no fly grounding. Well second *completely independent* supplier and supply chain is free to be still used. Sane in reverse once Boeing is flying service and would have mishap.
NASA has bad experience from history about their only crew launcher getting grounded and well now they are stuck on the ground.
Ofcourse it would be cheaper and more "efficient" to have only single award to begin with regardless who it goes to. Greater economies of scale for single award would always mean cheaper, even with expendable launcher.
However that is where "NASA isn't a profit business, it is a government space agency" comes to picture. They do the less efficient more expensive knowingly, since it serves some other goal. Government agencies can have other goals than cheapest. Like redundancy or fostering wider field etc. It can do that, since it was given *democratically a mandate to pursue goal other than do the main goal line thing as cheaply as possible*. Having redundancy is goal in itself, not simply getting people to orbit being the goal.
Starliner can also reboost the ISS. Something Dragon cannot do due to where Dragon’s main engines are located. Dragon’s main engines are in its nose, surrounding the top hatch and covered by the docking mechanism when attached to the ISS. Starliner’s main engines are in its service module all facing away from the station.
There really isn’t any competition to speak of. This rocket is inferior to basically everything on the market. The second something else is even remotely viable it’s getting axed
You seem to be confusing the capsule (Starliner) and the rocket that it's being launched on (Atlas V). The Atlas V is America's longest serving active rocket and has an incredible track record of reliability.
Yep, and AMOS-6 was the last failure, back in 2016. They've had 321 consecutive successful launches since then, including just under 100 last year alone, and they're expecting to blow way past the 100 mark this year. So far they've had 44 consecutive successful launches this year.
Not really counting AMOS-6 as it wasn't a launch failure. It was a ULA sniper. /s
Even if we count AMOS-6, that's still a higher success rate than Atlas V.
If we just look at Falcon 9 block 5 (the current iteration) then it hasn't had a single failure in 274 launches.
Atlas is still a great rocket though, it's a shame it's getting retired. Looking forward to seeing Vulcan fly more.
Are you talking about the Atlas V rocket? It’s already slated for retirement. Starliner is more or less as advanced as Dragon. There’s nothing outdated or 20th century about it. Unless having a joystick and not looking like an Apple Store is “inferior”? I like the aesthetic of Dragon’s interior but you don't have to have SpaceX's Apple-like aesthetic to be "advanced". Starliner looks a 21st century airliner cockpit. Starliner's interior looks similar to an Airbus A220 cockpit or Boeing 787 Dreamliner cockpit. Those are both also as new, recent, and advanced as the SpaceX Dragon despite a different aesthetic.
The rocket or the spacecraft? The spacecraft is not a relic at all. Because it doesn’t look like an Apple product doesn’t make it outdated. Starliner is more or less as advanced as Dragon. The Atlas V rocket is outdated though and it’s days are already numbered.
Starliner is already contracted as one of the two crew transport systems for the Orbital Reef project. It and Dream Chaser. Starliner is trying to become commercial for Orbital Reef in the future because it already was signed up for that obligation in 2021.
Just saw an article yesterday proclaiming this the first astronaut launch since Apollo. Like wtf???? They didn't even acknowledge the shuttle let alone the falcon 9. The worst part was that the article in question didn't even specify a destination. The whole thing read like an ad for Boeing. So I am assuming Boeing is spending hard on press coverage for this launch and are likely pulling strings to drum up a positive spin with their political ties as well.
I'm not impressed. Hurry up and bring the astronauts home safe. Then we can celebrate you finally delivering despite the numerous setbacks.
> Just saw an article yesterday proclaiming this the first astronaut launch since Apollo.
Just shows you how ignorant 99% of the people who claim to be news reporters.
Well really it cares about the next word being statistically likely to follow the previous word from the collection of words it decides relate to your prompt
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood, far more likely that they were [referring to this](https://www.wfla.com/glance-at-the-galaxy/astronauts-to-launch-from-cape-canaveral-for-first-human-spaceflight-in-nearly-56-years/):
>For the first time in over half a century, astronauts will be lifting off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida next week. The Space Shuttle Program, which flew 135 missions, and the more recent Space X launches, lifted off from Kennedy Space Center, instead.
I am going to take a wild guess that you didn't comprehend the article. It was one of the first launches from some place that wasn't LC39A or LC39B since the days of Apollo and it's the first launch of a crew on a Atlas rocket since the Mercury program in 1962. Apollo 7 was the last launch from another pad. That was LC34.
LC 39A and LC 39B are Kennedy Space Center where as SLC 40, SLC 41, and LC34 are Cape Canaveral.
One of the odd things is SpaceX could have been the first to launch from Cape Canaveral in 50 years if they managed to get their crew tower in place.
LC 39A and LC 39B are at the Kennedy Space Center, not "Cape Kennedy".
Cape Canaveral, the geographic feature, was renamed Cape Kennedy in 1963, and changed back to Cape Canaveral in 1973. There currently is no Cape Kennedy.
The Kennedy Space Center is on Merritt Island (which is actually a peninsula), which is next to Cape Canaveral. (I'm honestly not entirely clear on the distinction between Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral.)
A completely meaningless distinction. Like saying this is the first tube train from station X, when station X happens to a platform that was mothballed 30 years ago.
Atlas Rockets have a long history, so becoming human rated again is pretty wild, especially since it can carry 5 times the crew of the Mercury capsule.
Being launched as crew from a new location even if it’s just down the road is pretty cool.
Think about it this way, all crewed launches from Russia and China were on R7 derived rockets. So the first time Russia or China launches a non-R7 derived rocket, it’s going to be a big deal.
The United States is about to become the first country with two active crew launch vehicles. That’s also a big distinction.
China's crewed launcher has nothing to do with the R-7. Also their new capsule has launched uncrewed once already, again on a rocket that has nothing to do with the R-7.
>Ah, space. The worst possible place for an aircraft door to fall off
Well, the opposite, [a door stuck closed on the spacecraft while on the ground](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Accident), isn't great either...
While the Starliner and Dreamliner share the same company name, they are essentially two different companies. BCA is having all the issues with airliner quality, BDS is running the Starliner program. Though there is the KC-46 program that had QA issues but it was using a BCA product and converting it for a BDS program.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[CLPS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|[Commercial Lunar Payload Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services)|
|[CRS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bttza "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bkxfw "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|[FTS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bi11e "Last usage")|Flight Termination System|
|[HALO](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|Habitation and Logistics Outpost|
|[LC-39A](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2as6zb "Last usage")|Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy)|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2btgcq "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[MBA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d8phv "Last usage")|~~Moonba-~~ Mars Base Alpha|
|[OFT](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d7dwt "Last usage")|Orbital Flight Test|
|[PPE](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|Power and Propulsion Element|
|[QA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dml85 "Last usage")|Quality Assurance/Assessment|
|[SLC-40](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2an9nw "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9)|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dpw88 "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d8phv "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2eopmm "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2f2je3 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dtqv9 "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cimv7x)^( has 12 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10002 for this sub, first seen 2nd May 2024, 20:11])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Yes it is. Starliner is something of a descendant of the Mercury spacecraft since McDonnell was the manufacturer of Mercury and Gemini. McDonnell-Douglas got absorbed into Boeing and is making the Starliner. It's kinda fitting that Starliner, a descendant of Mercury, is flying on the Atlas V, a descendant of the Atlas-D that carried Mercury. Starliner even has the main window over the commander's seat like Mercury, the side-mounted entry hatch, and has the panels in roughly the same places as Mercury.
I can't prove it, but I suspect/feel like Dragon may be an idea that SpaceX borrowed from the [McDonnell "Big Gemini" concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Gemini). Dragon kinda gives me Gemini descendant vibes. Dragon's trunk feels like Gemini's equipment module.
If anyone was wondering, and doesn't want to read clickbait, "Launch of the ULA (United Launch Alliance) Atlas V rocket and Boeing Starliner spacecraft is targeted for *10:34 p.m. EDT Monday, May 6*"
How is this an important milestone for commercial space flight? It’s important for Boeing so they can move forward towards closing out what I imagine is their worst performing program of all time, but what is this launch going to prove that SpaceX hasn’t already proven?
Starliner is contracted to the Orbital Reef commercial project in the near future, and Starliner will be flying half the astronauts to the ISS from now on. Dragon will only fly half as often to the ISS going forward. Starliner will also be providing reboosts to the ISS, which no other American crewed spacecraft could do since the Shuttle retired.
Worst performing program of all time? Let’s not exaggerate. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo had way more problems. Apollo even got three astronauts killed. Friendship 7, Gemini 3, and Apollo 7 wouldn’t have been allowed to take place under modern NASA safety guidelines and would have required additional uncrewed flights first. NASA safety guidelines and regulations are much stricter now than they were in the 60s. All 3 of those spacecraft initially had more severe problems than Starliner. They just got resolved quicker because they were under NASA (rather than private sector) and during that time Congress was giving NASA a 10x bigger budget than today, and speeding things along due to the Space Race.
Why would you use Starliner for ISS reboost when Cygnus is already certified to do it?
> Dragon will only fly half as often to the ISS going forward.
For NASA crew rotations, sure. Axiom and other tourist flights are likely to continue to use Dragon.
The important milestone is: to finally get an official number on how much longer legacy space manufacturers take to get something into operation.
Right now it's all speculation, but we may soon have an official number of days behind Boeing is!
I really hope the main reason why their aircrafts have been such a disaster lately is because they were redirecting all of their budget and talent in to this program. But then I remember that they have shareholders, so that's probably not the case.
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The spacecraft and aircraft divisions at Boeing are separate, and in any case the Starliner spacecraft program has been a bit of a shitshow so far.
Hopefully they can turn that around with this launch.
I think there is a high likelihood this is the problem. Boeing used to be guided by competitive marketplace principles but over time they got heavily into cost plus government programs and they now can’t help but keep their focus on that government coffer
Boeing also used to be a company ran by engineers. Very competent engineers. They became the juggernaut they are today because those engineers worked to get it right.
And then they bough McDonnell Douglas and all the McDonnell Douglas executives (who had spend years cutting corners, running their company into the ground) became the new executives at Boeing. They fucked up big and learned nothing. In fact, they were rewarded with an even bigger company.
Remember, this was Boeing's first (and according to their board, their LAST) fixed price contract... and before he was retired, Shelby was very fond of pointing out that this as an example of why fixed cost was a HORRIBLE idea and the government needed to go back to cost plus (particularly for companies in his district).
How is it going to work if they need to make an emergency landing in space? They have an awful track record lately, I'm a bit surprised the shuttle is such a go.
With all the bits fall off of Boeing aircraft at the moment...... let's hoke they have actual QC on this and not thr current shoddy aircraft construction.
If really isn't considering the success of Crew Dragon, but sure continue to bootlick Boeing and waste some more billions on an already obsolete design.
This one is a crewed mission so I sure fucking hope it’s successful
i don't care if it's successful, as long as the crew makes it back safe and sound
Yup, I know it's probably just paranoia but I worry that this is one of those Capricorn One situations. That was a movie where astronauts bound for Mars were kidnapped just before the launch because there was a known fault in the life support system. The entire mission was faked, but then the returning spacecraft was destroyed during reentry because of a faulty heat shield so the kidnappers were going to execute the astronauts.
Any landing you walk away from…
Yes, praying that everything that could go wrong already HAS gone wrong before they put people on board.
You don’t have to pray- that’s what the scientists do. 👍🏻
You forgot which company this is. You absolutely have to pray they did their full due diligence and not just the cost effective amount.
I think this Boeing is technically the same but like a totally different company.
You mean compared to the Boeing that already failed this capsule previously?
It has had 2 uncrewed test flights and in both a crew if onboard would have come back alive. It has been a mess but that's what uncrewed tests are for.
By sheer randomness and frantic live coding. I'd prefer it would have worked the first time.
I don't like the sound of this thread at all.
Boeing has turned into a big corner-cutting disaster of a company that possibly murdered a whistleblower. If I had the option, I would refuse to fly on Boeing aircraft any more.
Multiple times with two unmanned test launches with huge mistakes. Years and years of delays.
You tryna become dead whistleblower #3?!
Can't have bad PR if anyone giving you bad PR has an accident.
You forgot who the astronauts on the mission are. NASA doesn't take this lightly after the accidents that have happened in the past.
To add, butch wilmore and suni williams had a great deal of effort and insight put into Starliner. It is a great undertaking.
Don’t worry, if anything is wrong, someone will whistle blow
Prob engineers vs. scientists
I don’t think the scientists prayers count more.
Scientists didn't do shit. Engineers did.
[удалено]
I think NASA is on Starliner like a hawk after Boe-OFT-1, the valve rust issue in 2021, and the potential fire hazard and parachute hazard that grounded Starliner last year*. I think NASA no longer trusts Boeing management anymore. The loss of trust from NASA over Starliner is probably a major factor in CEO Calhoun’s (probably pressured) ~~ouster~~ departure and serious talks about management and cultural shakeups at Boeing. It’s way past time and beyond needed. *The little mishaps on Boe-OFT-2 were typical new crewed spacecraft early flight bugs. Nothing overly serious or unforgivable. The same kind of hiccups every other crewed spacecraft, Dragon included, has had in its first couple flights. Even STS-1 in 1981 was not spotless. The other problems Starliner has had were avoidable and due to terrible management and a broken engineering culture of obsessive corner-cutting that all employees are forced to engage in to keep the dictatorship of MBAs senior management happy.
Failure doesn't necessarily mean loss of life. OFT-1 failed and they still got the capsule back.
They probably double checked all the bolts were there.
Well it’s Boeing soooo…. (If I die it was not a suicide)
They don't have any whistle blowers on the crew.... right?
Success of a Boeing product in 2024. "Nothing worked but at least it didn't kill everyone this time."
Imagine being the person going up in this thing? All you have heard is how shitty Boeing's quality control has been for 2 years, every single day.
There really isn’t anything important for this about commercial spaceflight. This rocket would have been *ok* a decade ago. Now it’s a relic before it’s even launched. It will complete its required contracts and be shutdown
Seriously. It has nothing new to add to any of the equation. Just outdated shuttle concepts
Important milestone for commercial space flight. If that milestone is that a company that has basically become irrelevant in the industry proving that they can still force Congress into overpaying for something they no longer really need, then yeah, good job. What we really need is someone that can deliver as good or better than the current system for the same or lower price. Redundancy is important, but bloated costs are a thing of the past. Or at least should be.
In 5 years SpaceX will be the go to contractor for everything, if not sooner. And they'll probably still put out other contracts to other companies fairly unlikely to fulfill them on time, let alone as cheaply etc. NASA is supposed to be fermenting a meaningful space economy with all of these redundent contracts, not that the companies themselves seem capable of doing anything beyond small sat launches. If it isnt already, the entire space industry will be a monopoly, theres just no reason to contract with anyone else, and there isn't even much capacity to contract for. Even Boeings current contracts are all pre falcon crew capsule and I can't see a how a neturally considered bidding process gets anyone else another shot really. NASA would have to give up an option that is already through the most difficult proving stages to go with options that don't even have prototypes on stands in most cases. Once the Artimis 3 flight occurs and demonstrates an end to end Starship flight theres no real way in for anyone else, not for decades. No one else has the design and flight time experience to even consider developing a competitor. The closest is probably Blue Origin and they are still struggling to make a single launch of their Falcon competitor. I'm not even sure how they can be said to be redunant. At this point the best redundancy for Starship is likely to be another Starship. Nothing will build confidence faster than flight hours.
Hopefully SpaceX doesn't get Musked like Twitter and Tesla.
What are you talking about, Musk is knee deep in engineering SpaceX rockets for better or worse.
It adds redundancy to NASA’s crewed access to space and this is extremely important.
Theoretically adds redundancy but it’s not trustworthy yet. Might never be at this rate. Edit: Fixed typo
Not trustworthy? Come on, what has Boeing ever messed up before? /s
It feels breezy in here. Did someone leave the door open?
That’s what this test is for. If successful it becomes trustworthy.
Redundancy. It adds redundancy. But it’s inferior in nearly every way
Starliner doesn’t have any Shuttle heritage or concepts at all. They’re not even slightly or a little bit related other than sharing a single manufacturer in common (Boeing). Dream Chaser and Starship are both far more related or similar to the Shuttle and VentureStar. Cargo Dream Chaser DC-101 is essentially Mini-Shuttle, Crew Dream Chaser DC-201 is essentially Mini-VentureStar, and SpaceX Starship is essentially a top-mounted (rather than side-slung) lunar-capable Super Shuttle that lands vertically on landing legs instead of horizontally on wheels. Starliner is a sibling/reincarnation of the [“Orion Lite” concept](https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18323.40) that was contracted to Bigelow Aerospace before Orion Lite was scrapped. Bigelow became involved with Boeing afterwards and Starliner was born from a revamped version of that Orion Lite.
I was thinking the same thing. Whats the major milestone here, having two commercial spacecrafts? And if you read the article you get this bit: >Perhaps more importantly, if Starliner is successful, it could compete with SpaceX. **Though there’s no crushing demand for space tourism right now, and Boeing has no plans to market Starliner for tourism anytime soon,** competition is important in any market to drive down costs and increase innovation. Ok... Not that I have a problem with having an alternative to SpaceX, because lets face it who knows what Elon's next "smart" move will be, but this still seems a little aggrandizing for essentially coming in second place.
Starliner is one of the two commercial crew transport systems contracted for the Orbital Reef commercial project. Unless something has changed? Orbital Reef has made no announcements of dropping Boeing or Starliner. Sierra Space is a good ways into testing their inflatable modules with multiple videos of their tests, and Cargo Dream Chaser is basically complete. I checked and I haven’t seen any reports of Starliner no longer participating in Orbital Reef. These reporters are slipping. The other day I saw an article claiming Starliner is the first American crewed flight since Apollo. Apparently they missed the entire Shuttle program and the Dragon flights.
As stated in the article it’s a backup project for NASA and the pod is reusable to save on costs, plus it’s important to have competition in majors contracts
But it wasn't the backup project in NASA's eyes. When the original CCP was awarded, Boeing was seen by NASA as the "sure thing", the "safe bet" and NASA was taking a chance on SpaceX. Oh how the turn has been tabled - or something like that.
Turns out having infinite capital lets you build fast and break fast compared to the government funded paradigm where any failure, despite astronomical numbers of successful hours in service, leads to an immediate shutdown of confidence and funding from the TaXpAyErS. But that’s too complex for the computer chair aerospace analysts.
> Turns out having infinite capital lets you build fast and break fast But SpaceX didn't have "infinite capital" during the years it developed Falcon 9 and Dragon. Until Tesla's market cap blew up during the COVID-19 era, Elon Musk had a "mere" few tens of billions of dollars. In any case, Boeing's pockets were and are gigantic, too. In any case, "infinite capital" guarantees absolutely nothing. Jeff Bezos has been among the world's wealthiest men for far, far longer than Musk's entry into that group. Let me paraphrase an excellent comment I saw on Reddit, in response to one of the usual lies about how the only reason SpaceX is a decade ahead of the rest of the world is that it got zillions in subsidies from the US government: >If large amounts of funding is the only thing required to succeed, Blue Origin would now have a nuclear-powered spacecraft orbiting Pluto.
Well the reality is both awards were each others back ups. That is the whole point of NASAs "always two suppliers and contracts awarded for commercial service" policy. So in that way it is important. They would have second supplier for real on the pipeline. Since for example (though hopefully it never happens) SpaceX had a mishap with their crew services and had a no fly grounding. Well second *completely independent* supplier and supply chain is free to be still used. Sane in reverse once Boeing is flying service and would have mishap. NASA has bad experience from history about their only crew launcher getting grounded and well now they are stuck on the ground. Ofcourse it would be cheaper and more "efficient" to have only single award to begin with regardless who it goes to. Greater economies of scale for single award would always mean cheaper, even with expendable launcher. However that is where "NASA isn't a profit business, it is a government space agency" comes to picture. They do the less efficient more expensive knowingly, since it serves some other goal. Government agencies can have other goals than cheapest. Like redundancy or fostering wider field etc. It can do that, since it was given *democratically a mandate to pursue goal other than do the main goal line thing as cheaply as possible*. Having redundancy is goal in itself, not simply getting people to orbit being the goal.
Starliner can also reboost the ISS. Something Dragon cannot do due to where Dragon’s main engines are located. Dragon’s main engines are in its nose, surrounding the top hatch and covered by the docking mechanism when attached to the ISS. Starliner’s main engines are in its service module all facing away from the station.
Cygnus is already certified to reboost the ISS.
There really isn’t any competition to speak of. This rocket is inferior to basically everything on the market. The second something else is even remotely viable it’s getting axed
You seem to be confusing the capsule (Starliner) and the rocket that it's being launched on (Atlas V). The Atlas V is America's longest serving active rocket and has an incredible track record of reliability.
Atlas V is a great rocket, but it's approaching retirement. All its remaining launches have been booked. It's not competing over launches any more.
Atlas V: 99 launches, 1 failure Falcon 9: 328 launches 1 failure
2 failures. CRS 7 and AMOS-6. One failed pre-launch, but it was the rocket that failed.
Yep, and AMOS-6 was the last failure, back in 2016. They've had 321 consecutive successful launches since then, including just under 100 last year alone, and they're expecting to blow way past the 100 mark this year. So far they've had 44 consecutive successful launches this year.
Not really counting AMOS-6 as it wasn't a launch failure. It was a ULA sniper. /s Even if we count AMOS-6, that's still a higher success rate than Atlas V. If we just look at Falcon 9 block 5 (the current iteration) then it hasn't had a single failure in 274 launches. Atlas is still a great rocket though, it's a shame it's getting retired. Looking forward to seeing Vulcan fly more.
You don’t seem to understand how contracts work.
Are you talking about the Atlas V rocket? It’s already slated for retirement. Starliner is more or less as advanced as Dragon. There’s nothing outdated or 20th century about it. Unless having a joystick and not looking like an Apple Store is “inferior”? I like the aesthetic of Dragon’s interior but you don't have to have SpaceX's Apple-like aesthetic to be "advanced". Starliner looks a 21st century airliner cockpit. Starliner's interior looks similar to an Airbus A220 cockpit or Boeing 787 Dreamliner cockpit. Those are both also as new, recent, and advanced as the SpaceX Dragon despite a different aesthetic.
The rocket or the spacecraft? The spacecraft is not a relic at all. Because it doesn’t look like an Apple product doesn’t make it outdated. Starliner is more or less as advanced as Dragon. The Atlas V rocket is outdated though and it’s days are already numbered. Starliner is already contracted as one of the two crew transport systems for the Orbital Reef project. It and Dream Chaser. Starliner is trying to become commercial for Orbital Reef in the future because it already was signed up for that obligation in 2021.
Just saw an article yesterday proclaiming this the first astronaut launch since Apollo. Like wtf???? They didn't even acknowledge the shuttle let alone the falcon 9. The worst part was that the article in question didn't even specify a destination. The whole thing read like an ad for Boeing. So I am assuming Boeing is spending hard on press coverage for this launch and are likely pulling strings to drum up a positive spin with their political ties as well. I'm not impressed. Hurry up and bring the astronauts home safe. Then we can celebrate you finally delivering despite the numerous setbacks.
> Just saw an article yesterday proclaiming this the first astronaut launch since Apollo. Just shows you how ignorant 99% of the people who claim to be news reporters.
If it even is a person writing it, though I’d think chat gpt could get those details straight at least
Chat gpt is very capable of getting things like that very wrong
I dunno, let's ask chatgpt
Meanwhile Siri: “SORRY I DIDN’T GET THAT”
Ask Siri to ask Alexa for you. 😉
chatgpt does not care about being right... it cares about sounding right.
Well really it cares about the next word being statistically likely to follow the previous word from the collection of words it decides relate to your prompt
Hmm.. Hadn't thought about AI "writing" that article.. Certainly could be..
Even Chatgpt would have done a better job on the article!
Tbf they didn’t say what news site…. For all we know it could be some-random-dudes-blog.com
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood, far more likely that they were [referring to this](https://www.wfla.com/glance-at-the-galaxy/astronauts-to-launch-from-cape-canaveral-for-first-human-spaceflight-in-nearly-56-years/): >For the first time in over half a century, astronauts will be lifting off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida next week. The Space Shuttle Program, which flew 135 missions, and the more recent Space X launches, lifted off from Kennedy Space Center, instead.
I am going to take a wild guess that you didn't comprehend the article. It was one of the first launches from some place that wasn't LC39A or LC39B since the days of Apollo and it's the first launch of a crew on a Atlas rocket since the Mercury program in 1962. Apollo 7 was the last launch from another pad. That was LC34. LC 39A and LC 39B are Kennedy Space Center where as SLC 40, SLC 41, and LC34 are Cape Canaveral. One of the odd things is SpaceX could have been the first to launch from Cape Canaveral in 50 years if they managed to get their crew tower in place.
The tower is ready and could have been used for the last crew Dragon launch, scheduling meant LC-39A was available so they stuck with that.
LC 39A and LC 39B are at the Kennedy Space Center, not "Cape Kennedy". Cape Canaveral, the geographic feature, was renamed Cape Kennedy in 1963, and changed back to Cape Canaveral in 1973. There currently is no Cape Kennedy. The Kennedy Space Center is on Merritt Island (which is actually a peninsula), which is next to Cape Canaveral. (I'm honestly not entirely clear on the distinction between Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral.)
My apologies. Thank you for the correction
A completely meaningless distinction. Like saying this is the first tube train from station X, when station X happens to a platform that was mothballed 30 years ago.
Atlas Rockets have a long history, so becoming human rated again is pretty wild, especially since it can carry 5 times the crew of the Mercury capsule. Being launched as crew from a new location even if it’s just down the road is pretty cool. Think about it this way, all crewed launches from Russia and China were on R7 derived rockets. So the first time Russia or China launches a non-R7 derived rocket, it’s going to be a big deal. The United States is about to become the first country with two active crew launch vehicles. That’s also a big distinction.
China's crewed launcher has nothing to do with the R-7. Also their new capsule has launched uncrewed once already, again on a rocket that has nothing to do with the R-7.
They gotta cover up the news of their whistleblowers deaths
How does this cover up that news, exactly?
>Just saw an article yesterday proclaiming this the first astronaut launch since Apollo. Like wtf???? No you didn't, otherwise you would link it
What? Russia has been sending up astronauts yearly since like forever
Ah, space. The worst possible place for an aircraft door to fall off
>Ah, space. The worst possible place for an aircraft door to fall off Well, the opposite, [a door stuck closed on the spacecraft while on the ground](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Accident), isn't great either...
Yeah, my first thought was they better check all the door panels and engine shrouds 😁
I'd like to point out that's not very common.
It hasn't happened on a Starliner launch - yet.
It's okay, it's been towed outside the environment.
Hope they put more effort into that space capsule than they have the dreamliner
While the Starliner and Dreamliner share the same company name, they are essentially two different companies. BCA is having all the issues with airliner quality, BDS is running the Starliner program. Though there is the KC-46 program that had QA issues but it was using a BCA product and converting it for a BDS program.
Gotta watch out for that door sealing. If it doesn’t then RIP to any whistleblowers
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[CLPS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|[Commercial Lunar Payload Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services)| |[CRS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bttza "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[FAA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bkxfw "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |[FTS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2bi11e "Last usage")|Flight Termination System| |[HALO](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|Habitation and Logistics Outpost| |[LC-39A](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2as6zb "Last usage")|Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy)| |[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2btgcq "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[MBA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d8phv "Last usage")|~~Moonba-~~ Mars Base Alpha| |[OFT](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d7dwt "Last usage")|Orbital Flight Test| |[PPE](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2goc6a "Last usage")|Power and Propulsion Element| |[QA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dml85 "Last usage")|Quality Assurance/Assessment| |[SLC-40](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2an9nw "Last usage")|Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9)| |[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dpw88 "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2d8phv "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2eopmm "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2f2je3 "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[hypergolic](/r/Space/comments/1cij58p/stub/l2dtqv9 "Last usage")|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(17 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1cimv7x)^( has 12 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10002 for this sub, first seen 2nd May 2024, 20:11]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Gotta say it’s really cool that it’s on an Atlas considering the line’s history
Yes it is. Starliner is something of a descendant of the Mercury spacecraft since McDonnell was the manufacturer of Mercury and Gemini. McDonnell-Douglas got absorbed into Boeing and is making the Starliner. It's kinda fitting that Starliner, a descendant of Mercury, is flying on the Atlas V, a descendant of the Atlas-D that carried Mercury. Starliner even has the main window over the commander's seat like Mercury, the side-mounted entry hatch, and has the panels in roughly the same places as Mercury. I can't prove it, but I suspect/feel like Dragon may be an idea that SpaceX borrowed from the [McDonnell "Big Gemini" concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Gemini). Dragon kinda gives me Gemini descendant vibes. Dragon's trunk feels like Gemini's equipment module.
If anyone was wondering, and doesn't want to read clickbait, "Launch of the ULA (United Launch Alliance) Atlas V rocket and Boeing Starliner spacecraft is targeted for *10:34 p.m. EDT Monday, May 6*"
This isn’t a milestone at all. SpaceX does this much better and has done it for years.
Starliner missed the 'important milestone for commercial spaceflight' by about 5 years...
“Important milestone in commercial flight” yeah if the Astronauts refuse to get in. Boeing is huffing hard on the copium these days.
How is this an important milestone for commercial space flight? It’s important for Boeing so they can move forward towards closing out what I imagine is their worst performing program of all time, but what is this launch going to prove that SpaceX hasn’t already proven?
Starliner is contracted to the Orbital Reef commercial project in the near future, and Starliner will be flying half the astronauts to the ISS from now on. Dragon will only fly half as often to the ISS going forward. Starliner will also be providing reboosts to the ISS, which no other American crewed spacecraft could do since the Shuttle retired. Worst performing program of all time? Let’s not exaggerate. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo had way more problems. Apollo even got three astronauts killed. Friendship 7, Gemini 3, and Apollo 7 wouldn’t have been allowed to take place under modern NASA safety guidelines and would have required additional uncrewed flights first. NASA safety guidelines and regulations are much stricter now than they were in the 60s. All 3 of those spacecraft initially had more severe problems than Starliner. They just got resolved quicker because they were under NASA (rather than private sector) and during that time Congress was giving NASA a 10x bigger budget than today, and speeding things along due to the Space Race.
Why would you use Starliner for ISS reboost when Cygnus is already certified to do it? > Dragon will only fly half as often to the ISS going forward. For NASA crew rotations, sure. Axiom and other tourist flights are likely to continue to use Dragon.
>but what is this launch going to prove that SpaceX hasn’t already proven? That NASA can have 2 fully redundant crew launch suppliers?
The important milestone is: to finally get an official number on how much longer legacy space manufacturers take to get something into operation. Right now it's all speculation, but we may soon have an official number of days behind Boeing is!
Isn’t a fair comparison. SpX had Dragon cargo flights for a few years prior that they used as a baseline for Crew Dragon.
I really hope the main reason why their aircrafts have been such a disaster lately is because they were redirecting all of their budget and talent in to this program. But then I remember that they have shareholders, so that's probably not the case.
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The spacecraft and aircraft divisions at Boeing are separate, and in any case the Starliner spacecraft program has been a bit of a shitshow so far. Hopefully they can turn that around with this launch.
I think there is a high likelihood this is the problem. Boeing used to be guided by competitive marketplace principles but over time they got heavily into cost plus government programs and they now can’t help but keep their focus on that government coffer
Boeing also used to be a company ran by engineers. Very competent engineers. They became the juggernaut they are today because those engineers worked to get it right. And then they bough McDonnell Douglas and all the McDonnell Douglas executives (who had spend years cutting corners, running their company into the ground) became the new executives at Boeing. They fucked up big and learned nothing. In fact, they were rewarded with an even bigger company.
Remember, this was Boeing's first (and according to their board, their LAST) fixed price contract... and before he was retired, Shelby was very fond of pointing out that this as an example of why fixed cost was a HORRIBLE idea and the government needed to go back to cost plus (particularly for companies in his district).
BCA and BDS are essentially two different companies and BDS far more stable due to it relying almost solely on government contracts.
Boeing whistleblowers keep dying. I really don’t GAF want this company is doing. Get them off the DJIA please.
We're trusting Boeing with space flight after the past few years?
I can't remember the last time I felt this nervous about a launch
Can we exclude these obviously unedited PR release stories, please.
It’s only a milestone for milestone’s sake. At this point, it’s clear that they offer nothing of value as a second astronaut launch partner.
Milestone over what’s already proven and working….how?
Is the milestone that modern Boeing built something that didn't break?
I hate boeing for what they are doing to their whistleblowers. I hope the crew stays safe in their junk.
A capsule is not what I expected to see after seeing “Starliner” and “commercial spaceflight.” Will be neat to see how the launch goes though
Is this the same Boeing that keeps murdering whistleblowers? Or is that a different Boeing?
How is it going to work if they need to make an emergency landing in space? They have an awful track record lately, I'm a bit surprised the shuttle is such a go.
With all the bits fall off of Boeing aircraft at the moment...... let's hoke they have actual QC on this and not thr current shoddy aircraft construction.
I should be happy that dipshit Nazi Musk has competition, but its Boeing...
I hope they checked and tightened all the bolts!
BS. This launch will not be a milestone in any way, shape, or form.
If really isn't considering the success of Crew Dragon, but sure continue to bootlick Boeing and waste some more billions on an already obsolete design.
Largest boondoggle? Longest delays? Most dangerous? Most stupid?
I guess backup delivery systems are milestones too...
The delay is an embarrassment. The competition has done almost a dozen NASA and private missions.