←back to thread

269 points rntn | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dotnet00 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.41890240[source]
It is unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX.
replies(7): >>41890276 #>>41891464 #>>41892428 #>>41893073 #>>41893881 #>>41894305 #>>41895244 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
boxed ◴[] 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 #
akira2501 ◴[] 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 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] 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 #
2. akira2501 ◴[] No.41894014[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.