-
#1460
by
ChrisWilson68
on 05 Apr, 2020 20:03
-
Starliner can, and should, fly. Just a matter of when that we should all be discussing.
I do not wanna do this, but I am coming out as an contrarian on this issue. We live in Coronatimes, people are dying everywhere. Im guessing that Boeing will need to conserve money and the faith of the company so in this case i will guess that NASA draws the short straw. Starliner will be cancelled, insert corporate reason here.
Its just wishful thinking. Ending a $4.2 billion dollar contract (with a stable customer unlike the airlines) doesn't necessarily help with a company's cash needs. Boeing just took a $14 billion dollar loan, which would account for their ~$600 million dollar 2019 loss for about 20 years and is 28x the size of SpaceX's recent cash infusion. If anything, you should be worried more about Dragon. Unlike Boeing's loan, their cash needs are not met for the foreseeable future and the commercial crew contract appears to be underbid like the CRS 1 Dragon contract.
This is all off topic, and the claims here have been debunked on other threads. If you want to beat these dead horses, please take it to the appropriate threads.
-
#1461
by
mgeagon
on 05 Apr, 2020 23:32
-
So, let's add up what actually needs to be done to the spacecraft to get Starliner flying again. They are sifting through a million lines of code to fix the clock, service module thruster sequence, and any other undisclosed software problem issues. They also may change some hardware to mitigate the communication gap experienced on OFT 1. Judging from the continued work on SpaceX DM-2, Boeing is still working on the CST-100, even as the rest of the company is shuttered. I'd imagine we should be hearing something soon about the progress being made, especially and hopefully because there may be good news to report for a change.
-
#1462
by
abaddon
on 06 Apr, 2020 19:58
-
https://twitter.com/sierranevcorp/status/1247192217862668289
SNC has developed a lifeline for astronauts aboard @BoeingSpace’s CST-100 Starliner. The AES Fan Package provides fresh air using fans during launch, reentry & other critical moments. In emergencies, it can provide astronauts w/fresh oxygen.
So this is different and separate from the normal life support? Why?
Why call it a "lifeline"? That's sounds like it's special emergency equipment.
(Remember to use discussion thread for non-updates).
It sounds to me like a part of normal life support (moving air around) with additional capability to supply fresh oxygen in an emergency.
-
#1463
by
ulm_atms
on 06 Apr, 2020 21:57
-
Hallelujah!
I was hoping politics would not win this one. I want to see both succeed..but Boeing's 1st test was um well....not good...and I feel a re-flight is the right course of action to restore confidence.
Mods...thanks for moving...didn't realize I was in the update thread....my bad.
-
#1464
by
Robotbeat
on 06 Apr, 2020 22:00
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
-
#1465
by
Comga
on 06 Apr, 2020 22:49
-
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2020-04-06-Boeing-Statement-on-Starliners-Next-Flight
Boeing Statement on Starliner's Next Flight
ARLINGTON, Va., April 6, 2020— The Boeing Company is honored to be a provider for the Commercial Crew mission. We are committed to the safety of the men and women who design, build and ultimately will fly on the Starliner just as we have on every crewed mission to space. We have chosen to refly our Orbital Flight Test to demonstrate the quality of the Starliner system. Flying another uncrewed flight will allow us to complete all flight test objectives and evaluate the performance of the second Starliner vehicle at no cost to the taxpayer. We will then proceed to the tremendous responsibility and privilege of flying astronauts to the International Space Station.
Fine
It's not clear that it's so much volunteering as conceding to the inevitable.
They wrote off the cost last year.
Now we will see how quickly they can get OFT-2 and CFT scheduled and flown.
-
#1466
by
OM72
on 06 Apr, 2020 23:03
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
-
#1467
by
Vettedrmr
on 06 Apr, 2020 23:13
-
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
Absolutely. Just like we re-ran tests/analyses on programs that were contracted by USAF or USN. They didn't
direct us to re-run them, we took the initiative so we didn't force their hand. Boeing may be many things, but they aren't that level of stupid.
Now we know, and everyone can now move forward.
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#1468
by
ulm_atms
on 06 Apr, 2020 23:20
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
Yes, But Boeing knew NASA and other ISS members were going to force their hand if Boeing said they didn't need a re-flight. Them coming out saying they are going to do redo the test was Boeing PR going with the situation that looked the best for Boeing. They knew they would have to spend the money regardless...might as well make it look as good as possible too.
No one in here can tell me with a straight face that Boeing would voluntarily do a re-flight out of the goodness of their corporate heart. This was NASA going..nudge, nudge..
-
#1469
by
SteveU
on 06 Apr, 2020 23:29
-
Have to give Boeing a big thumbs up on this.
They may not have had a choice, but taking the responsibility for the second OFT is the right thing to do.
-
#1470
by
freddo411
on 07 Apr, 2020 00:33
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
Yes, But Boeing knew NASA and other ISS members were going to force their hand if Boeing said they didn't need a re-flight. Them coming out saying they are going to do redo the test was Boeing PR going with the situation that looked the best for Boeing. They knew they would have to spend the money regardless...might as well make it look as good as possible too.
No one in here can tell me with a straight face that Boeing would voluntarily do a re-flight out of the goodness of their corporate heart. This was NASA going..nudge, nudge..
Did you see the PR outta NASA on this? I quote:
If Boeing would have proposed a crewed mission as the next flight, NASA would have completed a detailed review and analysis of the proposal to determine the feasibility of the plan. However, as this was not the recommendation made by Boeing, NASA will not speculate on what the agency would have required
.
Good lord. Let's stop the spin already. Jim Bridenstine, stop with the third person and hiding behind the organization, just stand up and say: "I expect Boeing to fulfill it's contract. I look forward to a successful unmanned flight to meet the stated contract requirements."
-
#1471
by
Comga
on 07 Apr, 2020 00:42
-
Well, there's part of an answer to my earlier question:
More information from spokesperson to me:
"Boeing is working with NASA to determine an agreeable schedule for the second OFT; while details are yet to be confirmed, we anticipate flying the mission in the Fall of 2020. Dates for CFT and PCM-1 are not yet determined."
That's remarkable, but perhaps not surprising.
It's going to be tough to get anything done for a while.
Can't definitely pin it on the coronavirus pandemic, but it seems to be breaking lots of assumptions of linearity.
Things just can't be done as they were and no one really knows fully how to adapt, particularly when new paths are being forged.
The dates for the subsequent flights can barely be guessed.
Really bad timing for Boeing.
-
#1472
by
erioladastra
on 07 Apr, 2020 01:04
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
Yes, But Boeing knew NASA and other ISS members were going to force their hand if Boeing said they didn't need a re-flight. Them coming out saying they are going to do redo the test was Boeing PR going with the situation that looked the best for Boeing. They knew they would have to spend the money regardless...might as well make it look as good as possible too.
No one in here can tell me with a straight face that Boeing would voluntarily do a re-flight out of the goodness of their corporate heart. This was NASA going..nudge, nudge..
Actually, I don't think so. NASA had pretty much completed their review and was waiting to meet with Loverro. And it sounded like there was an ok path to CFT. Sure there was going to be a LOT more review and questioning but I believe if they had said CFT was next NASA probably would have been ok with that. But Boeing has a LOT of trust to regain from NASA and the crew and its employers and ISS partners... this may have been a smarter way to do it. I think this has caught a lot of people by surprise. There were some other factors I think to including the schedule of traffic at the ISS.
-
#1473
by
Rocket Science
on 07 Apr, 2020 02:22
-
Make it right Boeing... "Do good work"... Gus Grissom
-
#1474
by
woods170
on 07 Apr, 2020 08:02
-
Hats off to Boeing. This is the right thing to do.
May it be the first step in the many steps required to restore Boeing to its former greatness.
-
#1475
by
niwax
on 07 Apr, 2020 08:12
-
Hats off to Boeing for deciding to refly the uncrewed demo. I don’t know how much of it was their choice but if it was (and if it costs them money), then that’s a brave decision.
Good on y’all.
Quite frankly this was an all-Boeing decision that then informed NASA.
Yes, But Boeing knew NASA and other ISS members were going to force their hand if Boeing said they didn't need a re-flight. Them coming out saying they are going to do redo the test was Boeing PR going with the situation that looked the best for Boeing. They knew they would have to spend the money regardless...might as well make it look as good as possible too.
No one in here can tell me with a straight face that Boeing would voluntarily do a re-flight out of the goodness of their corporate heart. This was NASA going..nudge, nudge..
Actually, I don't think so. NASA had pretty much completed their review and was waiting to meet with Loverro. And it sounded like there was an ok path to CFT. Sure there was going to be a LOT more review and questioning but I believe if they had said CFT was next NASA probably would have been ok with that. But Boeing has a LOT of trust to regain from NASA and the crew and its employers and ISS partners... this may have been a smarter way to do it. I think this has caught a lot of people by surprise. There were some other factors I think to including the schedule of traffic at the ISS.
A slightly more conspiratorial factor would be that by announcing OFT-2 now, they preempted the review being made public. Their official line is still that they combed through the code and fixed two bugs, but admit no organizational mistakes. A successful OFT-2 would then hopefully close that chapter.
-
#1476
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 07 Apr, 2020 09:24
-
A slightly more conspiratorial factor would be that by announcing OFT-2 now, they preempted the review being made public. Their official line is still that they combed through the code and fixed two bugs, but admit no organizational mistakes. A successful OFT-2 would then hopefully close that chapter.
I disagree. I think it's pretty clear from comments coming out of NASA that they know there's a lot to do to regain trust and that Boeing just proposing OFT-2 doesn't magically make any of that work go away.
Also given Jim Bridenstine's actions so far to make things more transparent, Boeing recommending OFT-2 isn't going to affect what NASA decides to make public.
twitter.com/joroulette/status/1247323455185436672
Boeing is repeating its flight test to the ISS. NASA officials held back on immediately supporting a re-flight because they “didn’t think it would be sufficient” to address all of Boeing's problems, an agency official said.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1247323456309518336
"There are a bunch of recommendations that have not been released yet," the official said.
-
#1477
by
Vettedrmr
on 07 Apr, 2020 10:34
-
A slightly more conspiratorial factor would be that by announcing OFT-2 now, they preempted the review being made public.
Boeing's decision doesn't change anything about what is public and what is private; that's set by law. Now, whether the public pays any attention to it or not....
-
#1478
by
SWGlassPit
on 07 Apr, 2020 16:28
-
Hallelujah!
I was hoping politics would not win this one. I want to see both succeed..but Boeing's 1st test was um well....not good...and I feel a re-flight is the right course of action to restore confidence.
Mods...thanks for moving...didn't realize I was in the update thread....my bad.
Not to pick a nit, but "restoring confidence" is a political maneuver as much as it is an engineering one.
Politics are inescapable, no matter what.
-
#1479
by
baldusi
on 07 Apr, 2020 17:27
-
I want to congratulate Boeing on making the right decision. They are one of the great ones and let the last decade tarnish that legacy. I think eating the cost of OTF-2 and doing a thorough re-focusing on the company on the rock solid processes that brought so much good things to them and the US, is the right, long-term decision.
I must confess I was pretty disappointed at their engineering and internal-culture between Delta IV, 737Max and CST-100. But life is about redemption and this signals willingness to make the short term effort for the long-run results.
