Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    NASA freezes Starliner missions

    (gizmodo.com)
    269 points rntn | 12 comments | 17 Oct 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
    Show context
    dotnet00 ◴[19 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41888001[source]▶
    Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now.

    For the fall/winter 2025 rotation they're going to plan with it being a Crew Dragon flight for now, subject to change depending on how Starliner's fixes go.

    They also somewhat misleadingly say that NASA will also rely on Soyuz because of Starliner's unavailability, but that's just about the seat swap arrangement which helps to ensure that both the US and Russia can maintain a continuous presence if either side's vehicles have trouble. IIRC the agreement is expiring and NASA's interested in extending it, but Roscosmos hasn't agreed yet. I say misleading because I think they intended to extend that agreement regardless of Starliner's status.

    replies(3): >>41889755 #>>41889872 #>>41899803 #
    JumpCrisscross ◴[19 Oct 24 19:06 UTC] No.41889872[source]▶
    > Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now

    No. The ISS is decommissioned in 2030 and Boeing is losing money on the programme. It makes sense for nobody to continue this charade.

    replies(4): >>41890013 #>>41890240 #>>41892015 #>>41894080 #
    dchichkov ◴[19 Oct 24 19:50 UTC] No.41890240[source]▶
    It is unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX.
    replies(7): >>41890276 #>>41891464 #>>41892428 #>>41893073 #>>41893881 #>>41894305 #>>41895244 #
    JumpCrisscross ◴[19 Oct 24 19:54 UTC] No.41890276[source]▶
    > unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX

    Agree. That’s why Starliner should be killed. To open those resources to someone who actually intends to compete with SpaceX.

    replies(5): >>41890413 #>>41890845 #>>41891368 #>>41893157 #>>41894950 #
    gamblor956 ◴[19 Oct 24 22:45 UTC] No.41891368[source]▶
    Starliner works. It had a minor issue that turned out not to be so serious. It just happens to obscenely expensive.

    There are no competitors that are even remotely close to competing with SpaceX and Boeing without first spending tens of billions of dollars like SpaceX and Boeing have done.

    Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures?

    replies(7): >>41891608 #>>41891684 #>>41891729 #>>41892124 #>>41892128 #>>41892438 #>>41892752 #
    1. boxed ◴[19 Oct 24 23:23 UTC] No.41891608[source]▶
    The shuttle worked. It had many successful flights.

    Then it killed 7 astronauts.

    Then it worked again they said.

    Then 7 more died.

    > Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures?

    Well that's just a straight up lie.

    replies(3): >>41892182 #>>41892295 #>>41892505 #
    2. akira2501 ◴[20 Oct 24 01:30 UTC] No.41892182[source]▶
    People forget that on Apollo 13s return there was a legitimate concern that the explosion had damaged the heat shield and the fear was it would fail and the craft would melt and break up entirely during deorbit.

    Due to their nature they're sensitive and easy to compromise. Which is also why NASA knew from day 1 that icing was going to be a huge issue on the shuttle. They were retrofitting the vehicle, the launch platform and even the software to reduce heat shield risks very early on.

    Some of their earliest flights included EVA experiments where the astronauts translated themselves to the thermal tiles, did inspections, and even did mock repairs to test the feasibility of the idea and of the quality of the adhesives in near total vacuum.

    After the final accident they started doing something they could have and should have been doing since the beginning. That was simply taking up a camera that could be attached to the Canadarm, swung "underneath" the shuttle, and used to take a comprehensive survey of the thermal management system immediately on orbit.

    In any case, point is, human rated space flight will always require this level of attention to detail and ongoing effort to derisk every possible aspect of every mission performed. NASA management did an outright terrible job at this. From incentivizing the wrong behavior, falling in love with paper targets, and completely failing to audit their own internal risk estimations for errors.

    replies(1): >>41893888 #
    3. Aaron2222 ◴[20 Oct 24 01:53 UTC] No.41892295[source]▶
    >> Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures?

    > Well that's just a straight up lie.

    I'm guessing they're confusing the expected, catastrophic explosive "failures" on experimental Starship prototypes with payload-carrying F9/FH flights.

    replies(1): >>41892706 #
    4. blankx32 ◴[20 Oct 24 02:45 UTC] No.41892505[source]▶
    The shuttle worked within its constraints, bad management killed the astronauts
    5. gamblor956 ◴[20 Oct 24 03:46 UTC] No.41892706[source]▶
    Yes, when you redefine failure to mean success, everything can be a success.

    That kid who got 1% on his test? He passed, if you redefine the threshold for passing to mean something that everyone else would consider a failure.

    replies(4): >>41892806 #>>41893008 #>>41893766 #>>41894841 #
    6. dotnet00 ◴[20 Oct 24 04:12 UTC] No.41892806{3}[source]▶
    Well that's one way to tell the world you've never built anything new.
    7. Aaron2222 ◴[20 Oct 24 05:09 UTC] No.41893008{3}[source]▶
    Launching a prototype rocket with the expectation that it will probably blow up and then having it blow up isn't a failure, especially when the goal is to see what happens.
    replies(1): >>41893871 #
    8. kortilla ◴[20 Oct 24 08:06 UTC] No.41893766{3}[source]▶
    I want to short anything you’re involved in
    9. gridspy ◴[20 Oct 24 08:26 UTC] No.41893871{4}[source]▶
    Especially when each rocket successfully makes it further into the test, beyond the point where the previous iteration failed.
    10. dylan604 ◴[20 Oct 24 08:31 UTC] No.41893888[source]▶
    > they started doing something they could have and should have been doing since the beginning. That was simply taking up a camera that could be attached to the Canadarm,

    First shuttle launch, Columbia STS-1 12 April 1981.[0]

    The Canadarm was first tested in orbit in 1981, on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-2 mission [1] (12 November 1981)

    So, not exactly since the beginning

    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm

    replies(1): >>41894014 #
    11. akira2501 ◴[20 Oct 24 08:54 UTC] No.41894014{3}[source]▶
    It was always intended to be on the shuttle. It's not as if they conceived, designed, and then created it between STS-1 and STS-2. It was baked into the software and into the rear flight deck controls. It was late.

    They didn't call it "flying the arm" for nothing:

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-sts077-307-017-19-29-may-1...

    In any case, STS-1 was an insane test flight, and had it's own share of thermal tile problems.

    12. boxed ◴[20 Oct 24 12:14 UTC] No.41894841{3}[source]▶
    You said "unexpected catastrophic explosive failures". But

    1. They were not unexpected. They very very clearly communicated months ahead.

    2. "Catastrophic" is a bit much too, as they were indeed expected and planned for. In fact, the biggest failure in the Starship development was that the rocket did NOT explode fast enough once.

    3. "Failures". Well.. no. These are prototypes intended to learn from. Experiments if you will. A scientist that never has a negative result is a fraud. Same here.