Remember back in June when I assured you that, according to NASA, the two astronauts who flew to the ISS in Boeing’s new crewed spacecraft, Starliner, were not actually “stranded?” Well, NASA still insists they’re not stranded, but has made the decision to return astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore to Earth aboard a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft. This seems to be the best path to guarantee the safety of the astronauts, though many SpaceX/Elon Musk fans will be delighted by this decision for reasons that have very little to do with safety.
NASA is still sticking to their guns and saying that, should an emergency arise, Butch and Suni could ride the Starliner back home, as they state in the mission’s FAQ:
Are Butch and Suni stuck on the space station?
No, Butch and Suni are safe aboard the space station working alongside the Expedition 71 crew. They also have been actively involved in Starliner testing and technical meetings. Butch and Suni could return home aboard Starliner if an emergency arises. The agency also has other return options available, if needed, for both contingency and normal returning planning.
Even so, this is a terrible look for Boeing, who is already not exactly enjoying the best reputation for building safe vehicles at the moment.
The problem with the Starliner spacecraft started on June 6, as the capsule was approaching the space station. Helium leaks were detected in the reaction control system thrusters, which let the spacecraft steer and orient itself in space, and while Boeing claims that 27 of 28 RCS thrusters are fine and operating at full capacity, NASA has still decided to send the two astronauts home on the SpaceX Dragon already scheduled to bring astronauts to the station in February 2025.
Here’s NASA’s reasoning for their decision:
Since then, engineering teams have completed a significant amount of work, including reviewing a collection of data, conducting flight and ground testing, hosting independent reviews with agency propulsion experts, and developing various return contingency plans. The uncertainty and lack of expert concurrence does not meet the agency’s safety and performance requirements for human spaceflight, thus prompting NASA leadership to move the astronauts to the Crew-9 mission.
Oh, what’s a little uncertainty and lack of expert concurrence between friends?
So, as of this moment, the Crew-9 mission that will be launching no earlier than September 24 will be reduced from four astronauts to two, and then return with Butch and Suni, filling out the full complement of four, in February 2025, with the two Starliner astronauts filling in as part of the normal six-month crew rotation.
(Williams and Wilmore in the hatch between the ISS and Starliner. Credit: NASA)
This decision from NASA does seem to center the safety of the astronauts, and that’s good. NASA is also being careful not to describe their return in any “rescue” context, since they insist that Starliner could get them home in an emergency, and they’re not specially launching a Dragon capsule to come get the pair; they’re just re-shuffling crew on an already-planned launch.
Still, this is a hell of a delay and a vastly longer mission than Williams or Wilmore signed up for, and while, as astronauts, I’m sure they’re ready and perhaps even eager for more time in space, it has to be hard for their people stuck here on Earth.
And, oh boy is this embarrassing for Boeing. It doesn’t matter if the capsule could work fine or if 27 of the 28 thrusters are working perfectly, from a PR standpoint this is such a disaster. Boeing’s already beleaguered reputation absolutely did not need something like this, and even though NASA insists the SpaceX capsule isn’t “rescuing” the astronauts, that’s pretty much exactly how it will be treated by the general public and, especially, SpaceX/Tesla/Elon Musk fans, who will likely have a very good time with this when that Dragon returns to Earth.
Interestingly, it’s possible – though I’m not entirely certain – that this is just the second time a crewed spacecraft will go up with astronauts and return empty? I believe the first time was when a Soyuz capsule docked to the station sprung a bad coolant leak back in late 2022; that Soyuz returned to Earth empty, and another Soyuz was launched empty and returned with three crew, which was another first – first crewed spacecraft to go up empty and return with people. So at least Starliner has that potentially going for it?
No, Astronauts On The ISS Are Not Stranded Because Of Boeing’s Starliner, Despite What You Read
Boeing’s New Spacecraft Launches To The ISS And Is Only Humanity’s 10th Human-Crewed Type Of Spacecraft
A Soyuz Spacecraft Will Launch To The ISS To Replace That One With A Coolant Leak, Marking A Very Specific Space-First
Are the thrusters gonna cool it, or are they gonna blow? This indecision’s bugging me! Don’t you know which clothes even fit me? If I go, there will be trouble, And if I stay, it will be double. So you gotta let me know. Should I stay, or should I go now?
This culture Clash brought to you by Boeing
When one packs for eight days one takes a certain quantity of undergarments. I have questions.
Worse: Shortly before the mission launched, the urine processing system on the ISS broke. Astronauts on the space station were collecting their urine in bags. Each launch has a weight limit, and it was suddenly very important for the space station to receive replacement parts to fix the urine processing system … so Butch and Suni were ordered to leave their suitcases behind. They’ve been relying on spare suits that were previously stored on the ISS.
Edit: Per the NASA briefing, the next SpaceX launch will send their clothes and personal items. So at least they aren’t forced to wear borrowed suits the entire time.
Sounds like piss-poor planning.
If anyone else is wondering what the hell people are talking about with these “Mr. Microphone” references, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqIrzkPDtrk
I enjoyed the casual drive-by sexual harassment lol. The good ol days.
And it’s shaped just like a Hitachi Magic Wand!
It would be a shame to mix up the two…
Not gonna lie, feeling pretty smug right now! Got to meet Sunny and Butch (and Bob and Doug) before the selection for Crew Dragon and Starliner was complete. It was really cool to get to talk to them.
Mr. Microphone!!!!! I finally get a reference.
“Oh, what’s a little uncertainty and lack of expert concurrence between friends?”
NASA never let that stop them in the past. Except for the two times when it did sort of temporarily stop them
That’s exactly why this time they didn’t just handwave away the issue, most of the people in charge at NASA have either been in space themselves or had front row seats for the Columbia & Challenger disasters. There is no excuse to risk lives, especially since now they have an actual alternative to flying back on broken stuff: SpaceX’ Dragon.
As long as they get home safe. That’s the main thing.
Sarcastically, five years from now we will have competing bad movies about this.
Nah, we’re in an elightened future, AI scripting will cut that time in half!
LOL! You’re right.
It doesn’t matter what the expert opinion was, NASA could not have publicly said that they have faith in Boeing and sent them home on Starliner.
If anything were to happen on the way back the fallout (Congressional and otherwise) could be an extinction-level event for the agency. This isn’t the 60’s – the public and Congress expect 0 astronaut fatalities.
Be that as it may, not being able to come home on Starliner when they were scheduled to come home is a failure, even if the failure didn’t result in the destruction of the spaceship.
oh 100%, my point was that as soon as there were issues on the trip to the ISS, that was realistically the end of manned Starliner usage at least for the time being
“If anything were to happen on the way back the fallout (Congressional and otherwise) could be an extinction-level event for the agency. This isn’t the 60’s – the public and Congress expect 0 astronaut fatalities.”
Which is an excellent reason to stop sending humans to do robot jobs!
The only space jobs where humans unequivocally dominate robots are “guinea pig”, “test subject”, ” mushroom compost”, and “potential food source”.
I won’t discount the negative publicity but government agencies almost never go extinct.
FYI 5 of the 28 RCS have failed on the ascent, not just 1.
Same thing happened on their unmanned test flight in 2022, a few thrusters failed on the ascent, then another one failed on the return flight.
They actually had 1 failure before liftoff too, but deemed it good to go anyway
Astronaut Crew: “Yeah, that space craft really not going to work for us”
NASA: “You sure, We’ve had Greg run the simulations and we’ve calculated a success ratio ….”
Astronaut Crew: “Let me stop you there Nasa, We’ve got some really bad space weather coming up, and we’re working on screenplay. And our space sourdough. And I just don’t see how we can make it back before November 6th at the earliest. But let’s push the date back a bit just to be safe.”
I wonder if astronauts get paid more while in space, like combat duty?
If so, they’re going to bank some money for this extended stay.
I wondered this exact same thing. Do they get hazard pay up there?
Dunno if they get extra pay but according to this they sure get a lot of hazard:
“So what was the total dosage for the astronauts at the International Space Station during this latest six-month expedition? This turns out to be around 300 joules, which is in fact that of a lethal X-ray dose. By comparison, we only get a 0.07-joule dose here on Earth in six months.
Of course long-term exposure is very different from a short intense burst. Only astronauts who spent the entirety of those six months on a spacewalk would in fact get this lethal dose – the ISS itself helps shield them. In practice, this shielding helps limit their overall exposure to about a year’s worth of radiation that we get on Earth per day, meaning it is still some 365 times higher.”
https://theconversation.com/how-much-radiation-damage-do-astronauts-really-suffer-in-space-60475
Apollo astronauts that were also Air Force officers did get paid for milage.
That explains the Corvettes.
At first, the Corvettes were leased for a dollar. Eventually they were told to stop doing that.
JT, you sullied this post by interwinding your feelings about Elon with actual competence.
By all means, think he’s a douche-troupe. But, steer clear of actually not recognizing competence.
Boeing is the Yugo of space. Space X is the best we have, in space terms.
Don’t revert all Jalopy 😉
“Boeing is the Yugo of space.”
I guess the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center will have to settle for being the Lada of space.
(also pretty sure you misspelled “Chevette”)
Oh, so that’s how you spell it?
I thought it was “Nova”. She does know how to fold sheets, though.
I disagree:
The Zastava Koral, also called the Yugo 45, the Yugo GV, etc. was a poorly built shortened variant of a Fiat 128. However, while it lacked features expected in contemporary cars and was by all accounts a terrible driving experience, it could last for a long time if properly maintained. Crucially, it also suffered from poor build quality because the labor force started with almost no experience building automobiles. Zastava started out as a small arms company
The Boeing Starliner is an original design by a large aerospace company that should know better, but let cost-cutting get in the way of quality control. It does not, however, lack features.
The Starliner is the spacefaring equivalent of a Malaise-era U.S.-spec Ford Granada.
He didn’t insert his feelings about Elon, he inserted how weird nerds will cheer him on and jump to his defense when it isn’t even needed.
It wasn’t a slight on spacex, it was a slight on Musks ego and all his weirdo fans
I’ll take Elon’s smugness over the Boeing plan to *checks notes* leave the astronauts to die in orbit like Soviet space dogs. Fuck Elon, but if SpaceX can save the day I’ll put up with his gloating.
Elon stans are going to be insufferable over this.. not that Boeing doesn’t deserve most of what they are getting.
While Musk’s smugness is certainly annoying, it’s Boeing’s hubris and loss of focus that has killed people.
Musk derangement syndrome, like it’s close cousin TDS, is a mind killer. Otherwise intelligent people lose all sense of relative value when discussing him- annoying tweets they disagree with are somehow much, much worse than hundreds of dead people. It’s peak first-world privilege, brought to you ironically enough by the people who push feeling guilty about your ‘privilege’.
Wow. That’s…..that’s certainly a take.
Is it though? The amount of absolute butt-hurt Musk generates, for how little he actually affects the average person is shockingly disproportionate. If you’re going to get pissed off at a billionaire, at least pick a logical target like Bozos or the Waltons or middle eastern oil sheiks. I guess it’s the twatter addicts complaining about their dealer cutting the product, and worth about as much sympathy.
Your take assumes that Musk is less awful than Bezos, the Waltons, or…the Middle Eastern oil sheikhs… Okay, he hasn’t sponsored terrorism as the Saudi royal family allegedly has. And he hasn’t, as far as I know, taken out life insurance policies on his employees, as the Waltons allegedly have. And he hasn’t set nearly unattainable targets for his employees to the point where he has to dodge responsibility by blaming third-party contract employers as Bezos allegedly has. I don’t know that Elon Musk has employees peeing in bottles because they’re not allowed bathroom breaks, or passing out due to high interior temperatures in their workspaces. Like Donald Trump, though, Musk allegedly has issues paying people.) To extend the parallels, the Sackler family and the major banks have certainly done severe damage to people’s lives in their own rights.
However:
1) I don’t think Musk has any qualms about committing some of the misdeeds other oligarchs and bad actors commit; I just don’t think those misdeeds occur to him. That doesn’t make him unworthy of scorn.
2) Our scorn for people like Musk and Trump isn’t “Derangement Syndrome,” except as it describes the derangement of those particular people. It’s also perfectly understandable, because both Musk and Trump excel at gaining attention. (They certainly don’t excel at much else.)
TL;DR: Just because Musk and Trump are such raging assclowns that they distract us from other societal threats does not make either of them less of a threat themselves. They’re seriously not worth your time and effort to defend them in any context.
1) Dear lord that is a juvenile take. We teach small children to judge others by their actions, not by our frequently flawed mental models of their minds. You just listed a bunch of things he doesn’t do, then added “but he might!” as justification for for hate. Like, bruh, the kindergarten teacher called, something about “needs to learn to interact better with others”.
2) Your scorn is what Orwell called “Two Minutes Hate”. You’ve been given a target by your media bubble and told you have permission to give into those wonderful base desires of the human psyche, and deem Other Tribe Bad, the Source of All Ills. This is Dictator 101-level tactics, used for thousands of years all across the globe, because it works very well. So yes, your little hate totems are absolutely worth defending, not because they are particularly good people, or because I like them, but because when otherwise decent and intelligent persons get manipulated like fukwit sheeple by simple plays on their base desires, really bad shit happens. Source: literally all of recorded history, pick your preferred dictator/emperor/king/queen/khan, they all did this.
So ask yourself- why do you feel this way? Who told you to feel that way? Do you have a rational basis for feeling that way, or is it just because it feels good?
People don’t dislike the things Elon says and does because they dislike Elon. They dislike Elon because of the things he says and does.
Thank you for making more sense and being more concise than the previous comments
Are we sure that they aren’t whistle blowers?
We were confident in that spacecraft until the issue. Now we are confident in a different spacecraft… until an issue.
Surely doesn’t feel good for Boeing but there is a non-zero chance that the Dragon goes cabluey or something possibly less catastrophic. It’s not up there attached to the space station yet, so I think it’s a little premature for anyone to go around pumping their fists.
Very true, though it is true the Dragon has completed a number of successful missions to the ISS already, so it does have a longer track record than the Starliner.
That’s true. It’s been a few years since a Dragon exploded. Has a Starliner ever exploded? (honest question)
There haven’t been enough of them to explode. The first was a failure that didn’t even make it to the ISS. The second also had a lot of issues, and the third (this one) was also delayed for months for having to take it off the pad at least once for some pretty extensive rewiring.
The starliner is a shit design and it shows. Hopefully this is the last we’ll ever see of it.
The dragon was only lost during a test procedure, and has had 1 prototype, 3 cargo, and 4 crew flights. All without even a hiccup.
I wonder when/if NASA will relegate the Starliner to cargo duty for the remainder of the contract then quietly put it to pasture.
As bad a look as this is, at under $5 billion to develop, the Starliner was incredibly cheap to get into orbit relative to most crewed aerospace projects. The Apollo program was over $30 billion and the Space Shuttle was a bit less than that. Yes, the Dragon was even cheaper than the Starliner at ~$3 billion, but while SpaceX remains the low-cost development and launch champion, their per-seat launch costs have crept up over the years.
I hope this opens up a new opportunity for Blue Origin too, keeping the crewed launch market competitive.
Space exploration is going backwards. Where’s my SSTO? Sabre-engine spaceplanes of hotness? The truth is that we couldn’t build another ISS right now, because that was done on the back of the Space Shuttle, and there’s no other proven heavy lift vehicle capable of carrying such a load today. Sure, it could probably be done autonomously with a bunch of launches…probably…but we are missing capabilities across the board.
Check out Everyday Astronaut’s take on SSTO – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfc2Jg1gkKA
I’ve seen it. Current tech, yes. But without these incremental hops, there will never be a jump. Jet engines were horrid when they first were implemented. Slow run up, fuel hungry, couldn’t vary speeds without a lot of telegraphing…within 10 years, most of those issues were addressed, and, with turbofans, we don’t even consider “jet” engines anything special. This could be much the same with scram/ram jets. But you can’t make an omelet without cracking some eggs (in the immortal words of Jack Nicholson…)
“there’s no other proven heavy lift vehicle capable of carrying such a load today.”
This is wrong several times over. Falcon Heavy can lift twice as much to LEO as the Shuttle could. And it has completed several successful missions. Vulcan Centaur can lift slightly more than the Shuttle. So can the long-proven Delta IV. And several more heavy lift launch vehicles are in development.
Plenty of political issues with building another ISS. But from a technical standpoint, heavy lifting capabilities are more available now than they were then. And that’s not even considering the use of non-USA rockets!
By this logic, Saturn V is more capable. That was in the 1960s. So, 50+ years later, we are JUST approaching the base capabilities of something that had literal woven computer boards/chips developed in the 50s and 60s. And somehow, that makes it wrong that we are going backwards?
In what world is the Starship R&D considered going backwards?
I’m glad you included “R&D.” You’re speaking as if it’s a done deal. It’s not. And the issues encountered are not minor.
For Apollo-sized loads, SLS block 1 has completed one successful mission. And Starship has reached space twice. I understand if you don’t consider these proven vehicles. They are both still in development. But they’re fairly late in the development process, and neither of them seems like a step backwards from the Apollo days.
SLS has at least achieved orbit, so I’ll go with that one…but Starship hasn’t even done that. Until that’s shown, and safe reentry, then that’s still future tech. The owner is odious, but I will grant that it’s a least a step in the right direction.
I’d love to find your comments re: SpaceX before they successfully landed a boosted in *checks notes* the middle of the freakin’ ocean to then *checks notes* re-fly up to 15 times!
note: f Musk, but Shotwell/SpaceX has done more for space development in the past 10 years than the past 4 decades combined.
And still putting people in a can on top of a controlled explosion. Again, achieving what was done 5 decades ago. Great, the first stage is recoverable. Quite an achievement, no doubt. But it’s still the same thing over and over again with refinement. It’s still incremental. It’s still the same thing that was done with Mercury. For pete’s sake, Soyuz is near on 4 decades old. So, for the rest of us that would love to see colonization within our lifetimes, we are still satisfied with sticking 3-6 people on top of a huge controlled explosion at $100 million+ per launch? What’s wrong with wanting MORE?!
Most here seem to forget that there were spaceplanes in the 50s. the X15 project used rockets, to be sure, and of course that OG BUFF B-52 to get there, and the Space Shuttle was halfway (generously) to a space plane (yes, it took months of refurbishment, yes, it was heavy and flew like a brick, yes, it was an even larger and sometimes uncontrolled explosion, and yes, it’s reliability record was not wonderful), but, then, that all stopped to prioritize billionaires making space into their own playground.
My point is we need to try something different. Until I see Starship succeed on a full mission (orbit, load, maneuver, etc), then we’re still stuck watching other people in tin cans.
Physics is a tough mistress. Controlled explosions are now nearing the limit of how efficient they can get. Look at the Raptor V3 engine.
I understand the a plane that can get directly to space on its own might be more exciting to see develop, but there are reasons grounded in reality that are stopping progress. Efficiency of engines, material science, all that.
Don’t conflate the progress with SpaceX as just a billionaire toy. The cost to get tonnage to space has plummeted to such a low figure that it wasn’t even considered possible a decade ago. And that’s just with the first stage being reused. Starship is even more innovative. Both stages are resuable, the first stage has 33 farkin engines and is designed not to land but to land on movable chopsticks. How are you not super stoked to see that develop?? Your response to that seems to be ‘ho hum, not a space plane, borrring’
That reduction in cost gets us cooler mars rovers, cooler James Webb telescopes, missions to saturn, etc. Instead of throwing away billions per launch or billions towards cool but impractictal space plane research, NASA is using cheap LEO access to do some pretty boss science.
James Webb is redonkulously cool, but you’re making my point. It was impractical to simply get someone to LEO for a long time. It’s not a waste to research something that could literally change the course of humanity. It’s just…expensive.
It used to be considered “impractical” to reuse boosters…so should we just simply not research it and try to make something practical as a result? That kind of thought process is short-sighted and has us…again…strapping tin cans onto explosions for 60 years.
NASA used to be NACA…and they still do that aeronautic research daily. It’s literally IN THEIR WHEELHOUSE to do such research. To make such dreams a reality. When we stop dreaming and trying, we stop progressing.
It isn’t “zero sum.” We can use our current technologies while developing new ones. As mentioned later, use the capability now while coming up with new capabilities for the future is kind of the point for commercial use rockets NOW…
…so, again…where is my SSTO?!
I guess my point is that they are researching it, and the numbers aren’t looking good without some drastic change in material science.
When you get into the ‘needing fuel to make up for the weight of the fuel’ problems, SSTO starts to make less sense.
The fuel we use in many ways is just as backwards (dinojuice, farts, etc…). But this is a rabbit hole with no end in sight, and it won’t be profitable any time soon. I’m not sure we’ll survive long enough to come up with something else.
I’m thinking you’re not very well versed in physics or chemistry. Dismissing chemically stored energy as “backwards” proves my point.
Complex hydrocarbons can be derived from carbon dioxide if your energy source was cheap/plentiful.
You want to wave a magic wand for cool future tech, without acknowledging that in the real world, physics rules all.
Dismissing chemical fuels leaves pretty much only fission and fusion with anywhere close to the energy density needed to reach orbit.
One is still a pipe dream and the other is…problematic given the propensity for prototypes to blow up. Radionuclides spread across a large area are no bueno.
I am, but since you’ve gone to personal attacks, enjoy your day!
At 20 reflights now
Again, it’s more of the same. Again, I mentioned how reusability is an achievement. The point isn’t that it works. The point is the limited use of such a thing, and the intrinsic lack of widespread availability for such technology, especially when it comes to personal use or “democratic availability.” SSTOs would give full reusability and far more widespread availability.
How much “junk” floating around in space were disposed parts that were used just to get other things there? You can’t reuse decouplers. You can’t reuse second stages. You can’t reuse delivery vehicles. You can’t reuse those actual satellites when they are no longer useful. SSTOs give us reusable and eventually affordable ways to keep Kepler Syndrome from happening as well as opening up a new avenue of travel.
Again, the arguments aren’t that current tech works. The argument is that I want MORE, and better, not assuming that 60 year old tech is still the best for the future.
Not arguing against those points either. I think we may be agreeing without realizing it. The successes are monumental but shouldn’t be the end of development. Would you say that’s fair to say?
Aahhh, I like talking with educated people! That’s where our disagreement lies…I don’t think that the successes are monumental, more incremental. Bringing it back to cars for some weird reason, we have cars that go 200+ MPH, but the technology getting them there are literally 100 years old…just refined and improved over time.
I will give an inch on this one…SpaceX has combined more of those incremental improvements into one package in the shortest amount of time, and the results have been monumental in the fact that it has taken space out of the direct hands of government, who have been lazy and shortsighted more often than not (the reasons for that goes down a very dark hole, so I will not even approach that…). However, I don’t know how much better off we are relying on companies that only care about profit or, in most cases (*COUGH COUGH*), the fragile egos of those who profit from said endeavors.
But, in the end, we are still doing the same thing we did in the 60s…strapping a tin can onto a controlled explosion.
Anything we can do to get off this rock, though, is a great success, and so I salute you good sir!
Future tech? Yes. Starship isn’t ready to fly any missions at this point. But it’s not distant-future tech, the concept appears to already be sound. It’s into the learn/redesign/rebuilt phase of the project now.
But my point was that it’s not a step *backwards*.
Okay, lemme put it this way. Our way of going to space expends at least the second stage, and then much more when it comes to “service modules,” ablative heat shields, and in most cases even the first stage, although there have been companies trying to copy the success of Falcon. Even the Falcon Heavy can’t recover the “second stage” which is a first stage yet. Instead of wasting so much material and expertise on every launch, imagine a system that is completely reusable. Yes, it’s a tall order. Yes, it will take years and money. But if we don’t try, we will never succeed. And we are not trying. We are putting astronauts in beefed up Apollo capsules. Putting peeps in a tiny phone booth on top of a controlled explosion. Why is it wrong to want more?
Your information is pretty out of date.
Falcon no longer uses 1 time use ablative.
Falcon heavy center core has been recovered (and reused)
There are some pretty intense technological and physics related issues with space planes. With our current technology, effectively straight up is still the most efficient way to get large amounts of mass to space.
Dragon does use ablative shielding. The service module is disposed of. The second stage is still lost, so my data is not out of date. I was not aware that the center “second stage” had been recovered, only the two “boosters,” but I will check my notes and give the appropriate flowers as required.
Again, not disclaiming that this is the “most efficient” way RIGHT NOW. I just simply want more. For all of us. Fully reusable. And it will take time, resources and money. Money that is being used to develop more controlled explosives. I am also well aware of the technological and physics related concerns. If nuclear power wasn’t such a curse word, some of these may have already been overcome. But to not TRY because something else “is good enough” is the definition of stagnation.
Here’s my analogy. Going back to cars, BEVs were a thing…in the early 1900s. Due to various factors, it was not great for mass production at the time, but, once ICE took over, BEVs weren’t even developed until the 70s (VERY generously) and really until EV1 in the 90s. Almost 100 years passed before we got something at least partially viable, and then another 20 before something was “market ready.” I don’t want to wait another 100 years because something was “too difficult.”
Ah yea you’re right, I’ll give you that. The dragon capsule does use single use ablative. But falcon itself does not.
The center core was never second stage. It was always a relatively interchangeable single 1st stage. The 2nd stage is and always has been a single use, single engine vehicle. That is what carried dragon or any other payload into orbit.
I don’t think anybody is saying “good enough,” on not exploring new methods, but there has been a lot of success with strapping cargo to controlled explosions.
Sauce: I’ve worked at SpaceX for nearly a decade.
Huge amounts of success, for sure. And as much as Musk is a very appropriate name for such a noxious individual, I will not take the achievements of his very hard working employees away. I really REALLY hope that this isn’t the “best” way, though. We can’t keep doing this if the stated goal is a multi-planet species. Or if we don’t want a ring of garbage floating around for thousands of years, preventing us from ever leaving again.
It’s not wrong to want more. The dream of a fully-reusable super-heavy lift vehicle is pretty much what Starship is aiming for. Is the project finished? Of course not. It has many tests in front of it. But it has made some pretty significant progress in the last 5 years. Even landing a Falcon was deemed impossible a mere decade ago.
This last decade has seen more progress in space rockets than the 2 decades before it.
So if they “could totally ride back in Starliner, no problem” why don’t they? Just like I could go over Niagara Falls in a barrel and survive, it is not a safe enough bet.
As I commented on your last article, if there is not a method of transport with an acceptable level of risk, THEY ARE STRANDED. Stop being a shill for BIG SPACE.
I don’t think you realize the calculus that goes into space missions, and saying they are “stranded” is a naive black and white outlook on an industry that is centered around varying degrees of risk. The FMEAs (failure mode and effects analysis) done for each and every NASA mission are insane, and for very good reason: space exploration is inherently dangerous, and if something goes wrong, it can be incredibly hard to fix during the mission.
For the mission conditions right now, there is an unacceptable level of risk for the crew to ride back on the Starliner. That acceptable risk level might be 1% though. Should the mission conditions change, then the acceptable risk level may increase. Saying they are stranded would mean they have no way back period, but they do, just not within the mission parameters as defined today.
That might sound like bureaucratic nothing-speak, but it’s important because there’s no such thing as zero risk, only acceptable risk. This is a very bad look for Boeing, and I’m not trying to defend them, but the situation not as cut and dried as you’re trying to make it.
Way back when I was in college (~1977) we had a speaker come talk to us about something about the Apollo program. My big takeaway was the NASA was expecting and planning for about 50% of the flights to be failures. This was why towards the end of that very successful program the missions were more or less find-something-to-do-because-we-already-did-all-the-stuff-we-had-planned-for missions.
I understand exactly. If the ISS was in the path of space debris and they had to evacuate, Starliner or jamming into another capsule would become an acceptable risk. As of right now, with alternate future options with better risk profiles, NASA has determined that none of them are acceptable.
Since NASA has decided it is not acceptable they are “left without the means to move from somewhere”.
There were over 100 mission critical changes that needed to be made after their first launch. Boeing is doing as well in space as they are at the airport right now.
There are risks with everything, and doubly so with space travel. We want a zero casualty program, but, if we can’t do that with airplanes, what makes anyone think that it will happen with space travel?
“acceptable level of risk” is always a variable depending on resources available. Certainly Apollo 13’s return was highly risky but given the lack of other options, became acceptable. The fact that we are learning now the shocking level of engineering malpractice that is going on throughout Boeing, has led NASA to make the reasonable decision not to accept the risk of more failures in light of other options.
If they were not stranded they would not have to be rescued.
Since Boeing’s spacesuits aren’t compatible with Dragon, I hope they’re sending up a couple extra Dragon ones.
More concerning, as Daniel Feldman points out on BlueSky, Boeing has barely enough Russian engines for the 6 Starliner / Atlas V flights they’re contracted for.
“If it’s Boeing, I’m not going!”
How the tides have turned. Moving to the Seattle area in 1994, one used to see a lot of stickers stating the opposite on crew flight bags. A lot of local people were angry when they moved HQ from Boeing Field to Chicago in 2001.
One of the worst things that Boeing could have done is move their corporate offices. There was an article about the new CEO going back to the Everett plant to try to clean up…let’s see how that works out, since, at this rate, the PNW is going to suffer huge unemployment in a few years…
If it’s boeing, *its* not going
If it’s Boeing, it might be blowing.
If it’s Boeing, better not be any whistleblowing
You all have hit this one out of the park!
I guess Butch and the Suni-dance Kid balked at using the emergency zip line to get back to earth.
Oh yeah, one hyperlink about problems with safety at Boeing, seems about right! Oh, wait, that’s a link per word. I forgot it was that bad. Hats off to Boeing for acquiring McDonnel Douglas and only integrating the poor leadership structure and terrible incentives structure that have driven quality off a cliff. It’s a genuinely impressive feat.
Boeing has fallen SO FAR. It’s sad, especially as a PNW resident.
I read an article about the 1997 merger that quipped “McDonnel Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money.” I wish I could find the link. Anyway, the point was pretty much what you said. Too much M-D culture was assimilated into the existing organization and the results are clearly evident. Tragic.
And I’d never thought of this until now, but the merger between Daimler-Benz and Chrysler didn’t go so well either.
Bonus points galore for the “Mr. Microphone” reference
To me, it was a Simpsons reference.
I’m old. Simpsons riffed a Ronco (The legendary Ron Popiel) ad from 1978
Not the first time I learned about something via the Simpsons!
I came here b/c of it. All that’s missing is a woman nodding approvingly in the window of the Boeing capsule.