-
#520
by
ZachF
on 03 Apr, 2019 16:14
-
Sometimes it seems like Boeing spaceflight has been milking it's "too big to fail" status via paid-by-the-hour government contracts for so long it has forgotten how to actually execute.
-
#521
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 03 Apr, 2019 16:17
-
-
#522
by
BrianNH
on 03 Apr, 2019 17:29
-
"limited launch opportunities in April and May" Wow. That is breathtakingly false.
Atlas V last launched in October and the next launch is June 27th. After that is a launch NET December.
That launch pad is only used by Atlas V, so it has just been sitting empty.
The only other possible constraint would be range support, but it only takes them a couple of days to switch from supporting one rocket to another and a review of launch schedules for Canaveral and Kennedy reveals that there are no more than two launches scheduled for each month from April to August.
Unless the occasional tumbleweed is limiting launch opportunities....
-
#523
by
gongora
on 03 Apr, 2019 17:33
-
"limited launch opportunities in April and May" Wow. That is breathtakingly false.
That part is not necessarily false. The launch opportunities are constrained by ISS position, visiting vehicle schedule, how fast they want to dock to ISS, and when prep needs to start for the next Atlas V mission. Of course all of that is irrelevant since the Starliner isn't ready anyway.
-
#524
by
BrianNH
on 03 Apr, 2019 18:03
-
ISS position is not that constraining as it happens frequently except for the occasional solar beta angle blockout (if I recall correctly). As for the visiting vehicle schedule, here are the upcoming launch dates (departure dates are also a constraint):
April 7 - Progress
April 17 - Cygnus
April 25 - cargo Dragon
July 5 - crew Soyuz
July 8 - cargo Dragon
July 31 - Progress
Aug 22 - crew Soyuz
Would agree that visiting vehicles could rule out April or July. That would still leave May and June. Another constraint would be spacewalks, but I would think that those would only block out a day or two.
Edit: Agreed. None of this is actually relevant, but still pretty shocking that NASA would blame ULA when it is clear that ULA is waiting on Starliner.
-
#525
by
SWGlassPit
on 03 Apr, 2019 18:33
-
ISS position is not that constraining as it happens frequently except for the occasional solar beta angle blockout (if I recall correctly). As for the visiting vehicle schedule, here are the upcoming launch dates (departure dates are also a constraint):
April 7 - Progress
April 17 - Cygnus
April 25 - cargo Dragon
July 5 - crew Soyuz
July 8 - cargo Dragon
July 31 - Progress
Aug 22 - crew Soyuz
Would agree that visiting vehicles could rule out April or July. That would still leave May and June. Another constraint would be spacewalks, but I would think that those would only block out a day or two.
There is a high beta period from May 14 to May 23. Another one from July 13 to July 22.
-
#526
by
BrianNH
on 03 Apr, 2019 19:36
-
ok, putting together the ISS restrictions, between the visiting vehicle schedule and the beta angle period, that would limit April and May opportunities. Still, we all know that this is not the driver of these changes.
-
#527
by
darkenfast
on 03 Apr, 2019 20:21
-
Chris G, that is an excellent article and I hope some other sites pick it up or at least reference it. Whoever at NASA decided to follow this line has made a really questionable decision.
-
#528
by
deadman719
on 03 Apr, 2019 22:26
-
It's disapointing NASA chose to blame ULA instead of putting the blame where it belongs...on Boeing.
I've dealt with a division of Boeing for the past eight years. During this time, the contractor has continually failed to meet schedule and in some cases performance. The part that speaks to the Corporate attitude is the same as what has been demonstrated with Commercial Crew. They pretend development and testing are proceeding according to plan, even when all indicators trend in the opposite direction.
The press releases are, in my opinion, given with the intent of indicating all is on track.
NASA's action appears to put it bluntly....be sucking up to Boeing. Would the same have been done for a different company?
My apologies for the tirade...very dissapointed in how this played out.
-
#529
by
clongton
on 03 Apr, 2019 22:50
-
Not only has Boeing forgotten how to deliver a product on a US Government contract, but they have also forgotten how to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Apparently it's far easier to blame somebody else than do an honest appraisal. Boeing is no longer a trustworthy NASA partner and should be expunged - permanently. They screwed up royally back in their competition with LM and were temporarily barred from bidding on US Government contracts. Now it's time to make that permanent.
-
#530
by
happyflower
on 03 Apr, 2019 22:50
-
How is it possible to have an August test, and turn around and have a crewed flight test by "late 2019"? Isn't August sort of "late 2019" already? This doesn't seem realistic.
-
#531
by
Johnnyhinbos
on 04 Apr, 2019 01:16
-
Not only has Boeing forgotten how to deliver a product on a US Government contract, but they have also forgotten how to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Apparently it's far easier to blame somebody else than do an honest appraisal. Boeing is no longer a trustworthy NASA partner and should be expunged - permanently. They screwed up royally back in their competition with LM and were temporarily barred from bidding on US Government contracts. Now it's time to make that permanent.
Unfortunately (for them) there’s a direct competitor who is operating with roughly the same starting point, and who is by all intents and purposes outpacing and outperforming them. I don’t think Boeing is very used to an apples to apples comparison.
-
#532
by
woods170
on 04 Apr, 2019 08:00
-
Not only has Boeing forgotten how to deliver a product on a US Government contract, but they have also forgotten how to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings. Apparently it's far easier to blame somebody else than do an honest appraisal. Boeing is no longer a trustworthy NASA partner and should be expunged - permanently. They screwed up royally back in their competition with LM and were temporarily barred from bidding on US Government contracts. Now it's time to make that permanent.
Not gonna happen. Remember: Boeing is too big to fail. NASA will just continue to sweep Boeing's screw-ups under the rug. Just like they did just a few days ago with the continued SLS core stage delays.
-
#533
by
spacebleachers
on 04 Apr, 2019 13:31
-
Remember, NASA selected Boeing because they were "a known entity with people who had a track record with NASA" and thus it was suppose to limit their risk over choosing these crazy new space start-ups. I worked on government contracts for long enough to know that government entities rarely if ever admit they made a selection mistake. Thus, unless Boeing completely flops on this, there is no way they are going to publicly out Boeing.
This would mean they were admitting they screwed up in selecting them and they aren't going to do that!
-
#534
by
PahTo
on 04 Apr, 2019 14:29
-
Let me add some "local" perspective on Boeing. The change in the company since "taking over" McDonnell is striking.
While never the perfect community partner, once Boeing bought up McD and the subsequent takeover of Boeing by McD in terms of mgmt., culture, interaction with the community--the whole thing, it has become a much more adversarial company.
One need look no farther than the 737Max--I can't imagine that happening before the McD take over.
The Commercial Airplane Division (Seattle, Everett, Renton) has been the money-maker forever, and even that is being destroyed by the Chicago mob.
-
#535
by
OM72
on 04 Apr, 2019 15:02
-
How is it possible to have an August test, and turn around and have a crewed flight test by "late 2019"? Isn't August sort of "late 2019" already? This doesn't seem realistic.
It is indeed possible.
-
#536
by
PM3
on 05 Apr, 2019 06:27
-
No offtopic discussion intended, just would like to note the similarity between the Starliner / ULA thing and - on the very next day! -
this Boeing press release regarding the 737MAX crash, which blames it to the sensor manufacturer ("erroneous ... information") and the pilots ("high workload environment"). Same fishy PR.
-
#537
by
SWGlassPit
on 05 Apr, 2019 13:18
-
No offtopic discussion intended, just would like to note the similarity between the Starliner / ULA thing and - on the very next day! - this Boeing press release regarding the 737MAX crash, which blames it to the sensor manufacturer ("erroneous ... information") and the pilots ("high workload environment"). Same fishy PR.
That's a reach. Sensors fail all the time for various reasons. Stating that you got bad data from a sensor is in no way casting aspersions on the manufacturer. You have to design with the expectation of sensor failure in mind.
-
#538
by
envy887
on 05 Apr, 2019 14:16
-
How is it possible to have an August test, and turn around and have a crewed flight test by "late 2019"? Isn't August sort of "late 2019" already? This doesn't seem realistic.
It is indeed possible.
If the OFT actually happens in August, and if the OFT vehicle is very close to crew-ready, and if the OFT doesn't find any major issues, and if the pad abort doesn't find any major issues.
That's a lot of ifs.
-
#539
by
ZachF
on 05 Apr, 2019 16:02
-
How is it possible to have an August test, and turn around and have a crewed flight test by "late 2019"? Isn't August sort of "late 2019" already? This doesn't seem realistic.
It is indeed possible.
If the OFT actually happens in August, and if the OFT vehicle is very close to crew-ready, and if the OFT doesn't find any major issues, and if the pad abort doesn't find any major issues.
That's a lot of ifs.
Personally, I'd guess there is a higher chance of the uncrewed launch getting pushed into 2020 than the crewed launch happening in 2019.