-
#620
by
SoftwareDude
on 30 Nov, 2022 17:13
-
-
#621
by
whitelancer64
on 30 Nov, 2022 17:24
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
-
#622
by
SoftwareDude
on 30 Nov, 2022 18:12
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
I've been saying that what Boeing, and to a certain extent, NASA, say publicly is misleading, and we can infer what is happening from what they do. For saying that, I have taken real abuse from some people. Whenever I've pointed out a conflict between what they said publicly and what they did, I get hammered.
-
#623
by
whitelancer64
on 30 Nov, 2022 19:40
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
I've been saying that what Boeing, and to a certain extent, NASA, say publicly is misleading, and we can infer what is happening from what they do. For saying that, I have taken real abuse from some people. Whenever I've pointed out a conflict between what they said publicly and what they did, I get hammered.
Saying (and even celebrating) that a test flight went reasonably well doesn't mean there weren't anomalies that need to be addressed, if that's what you mean.
-
#624
by
SoftwareDude
on 30 Nov, 2022 19:55
-
Well, if you believe that article is good journalism then fine. I disagree, of course I believe that a Boeing employee wrote that article but that’s me having written articles for companies like this to appear in industry rags.
-
#625
by
whitelancer64
on 30 Nov, 2022 20:05
-
Well, if you believe that article is good journalism then fine. I disagree, of course I believe that a Boeing employee wrote that article but that’s me having written articles for companies like this to appear in industry rags.
Journalism? Do you mean the short summary about Starliner and Popular Science's "Best of What's New" award posted
on Boeing's website?
Yeah, obviously a Boeing employee wrote that lol. It's not even given any credit to an author, so it is probably their social media team's joint effort. It's not a news article on CNN or somewhere you'd expect a journalist to write it.
That said, I don't see anything factually inaccurate in it. Nothing I'd call "misleading"
-
#626
by
russianhalo117
on 30 Nov, 2022 20:46
-
Well, if you believe that article is good journalism then fine. I disagree, of course I believe that a Boeing employee wrote that article but that’s me having written articles for companies like this to appear in industry rags.
Journalism? Do you mean the short summary about Starliner and Popular Science's "Best of What's New" award posted on Boeing's website?
Yeah, obviously a Boeing employee wrote that lol. It's not even given any credit to an author, so it is probably their social media team's joint effort. It's not a news article on CNN or somewhere you'd expect a journalist to write it.
That said, I don't see anything factually inaccurate in it. Nothing I'd call "misleading"
The modern Popular "fill in the blank" brand is nothing like the original which was an academic publication. When it became a fully public oriented magazine it gradually became a pay to publish corporate yellow dog media brand. Now you do get people with journalism degrees that do write the occasional article such Anatoly Zak of Russian Space Web however such content must be fully separated from the usual place of publication (as a reference to the above example author). The difference is everything being put forth for publication is no longer peer reviewed and not really subject to stringent review. As such there has been more than a few occasions where the magazine staff have to publicly issue in their next edition an apology for allowing such a faff article. I stopped my paid subscriptions to their magazines around 2000.
-
#627
by
DanClemmensen
on 30 Nov, 2022 21:43
-
There’s no race anymore. Everyone plus Boeing is going at their own pace.
Well, there was still a bit of a "race": against the clock. Boeing is contractually committed to provide six operational CCP flights to ISS at a cadence of one flight per year, but ISS has had several possible termination dates, some of which would not have allowed Boeing to provide all six flights. As of now, the plan appears to be that one Starliner CCP flight will occur in each of the years 2024-2029.
-
#628
by
ZachS09
on 01 Dec, 2022 00:17
-
Well, if you believe that article is good journalism then fine. I disagree, of course I believe that a Boeing employee wrote that article but that’s me having written articles for companies like this to appear in industry rags.
Journalism? Do you mean the short summary about Starliner and Popular Science's "Best of What's New" award posted on Boeing's website?
Yeah, obviously a Boeing employee wrote that lol. It's not even given any credit to an author, so it is probably their social media team's joint effort. It's not a news article on CNN or somewhere you'd expect a journalist to write it.
That said, I don't see anything factually inaccurate in it. Nothing I'd call "misleading"
The modern Popular "fill in the blank" brand is nothing like the original which was an academic publication. When it became a fully public oriented magazine it gradually became a pay to publish corporate yellow dog media brand. Now you do get people with journalism degrees that do write the occasional article such Anatoly Zak of Russian Space Web however such content must be fully separated from the usual place of publication (as a reference to the above example author). The difference is everything being put forth for publication is no longer peer reviewed and not really subject to stringent review. As such there has been more than a few occasions where the magazine staff have to publicly issue in their next edition an apology for allowing such a faff article. I stopped my paid subscriptions to their magazines around 2000.
I think you made your points already. Let’s go to another subject, please.
-
#629
by
Comga
on 01 Dec, 2022 01:24
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
I've been saying that what Boeing, and to a certain extent, NASA, say publicly is misleading, and we can infer what is happening from what they do. For saying that, I have taken real abuse from some people. Whenever I've pointed out a conflict between what they said publicly and what they did, I get hammered.
Saying (and even celebrating) that a test flight went reasonably well doesn't mean there weren't anomalies that need to be addressed, if that's what you mean.
But it said:
In May, our spacecraft proved itself ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
That’s puffery at best.
It’s not “ready” until NASA says it’s ready and they have not. There are still a few items to take care of, according to NASA and Boeing.
Starliner is ready to proceed with integration and go to further reviews up thru LRR.
Then it will be “ready to carry” NASA Astronauts.
Not saying there is anything wrong with Starliner, other than it being years late, or that it won’t be ready for CFT next Spring. We have every reason to believe it will be. But it’s not ready now.
-
#630
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Dec, 2022 03:59
-
But it said:
In May, our spacecraft proved itself ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
That’s puffery at best.
It’s not “ready” until NASA says it’s ready and they have not. There are still a few items to take care of, according to NASA and Boeing.
Starliner is ready to proceed with integration and go to further reviews up thru LRR.
Then it will be “ready to carry” NASA Astronauts.
Furthermore, the statement is only narrowly true. Successful OFT only "proves" that Starliner is "ready" for one specific flight : CFT. CFT will carry only two astronauts, both rated as test pilots, specifically because it will not have been proven ready to carry other crew, until CFT has flown and the results have been analyzed. But unless the reader is familiar with NASA test practices, the statement implies that Starliner is ready for general operations including larger crews that are not all NASA test pilots.
-
#631
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Dec, 2022 04:16
-
I actually think it's fair and defensible. They did a full mission cycle with a Starliner capsule, successfully. It's the second launch and reentry/landing (first one was glitchy... although would've been survivable just fine). NASA literally is gonna put astronauts on it to launch to ISS. Yes, this is still a "flight test" but if something bad happened to Dragon, this could serve as a backup until Dragon was back online.
-
#632
by
Vettedrmr
on 01 Dec, 2022 10:23
-
Slightly off-track, but I'm actually more annoyed at all of NASA's claims of Artemis being "crew-rated", which IMO is laughable. And why they're actually *planning* to have crew on board the 2nd flight TO THE MOON seems like they're banking on another Apollo 8 Hail Mary, when there's no need to add that level of risk.
-
#633
by
ZachS09
on 01 Dec, 2022 10:33
-
Slightly off-track, but I'm actually more annoyed at all of NASA's claims of Artemis being "crew-rated", which IMO is laughable. And why they're actually *planning* to have crew on board the 2nd flight TO THE MOON seems like they're banking on another Apollo 8 Hail Mary, when there's no need to add that level of risk.
That’s a topic that belongs in the SLS discussion thread.
-
#634
by
whitelancer64
on 01 Dec, 2022 16:34
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
I've been saying that what Boeing, and to a certain extent, NASA, say publicly is misleading, and we can infer what is happening from what they do. For saying that, I have taken real abuse from some people. Whenever I've pointed out a conflict between what they said publicly and what they did, I get hammered.
Saying (and even celebrating) that a test flight went reasonably well doesn't mean there weren't anomalies that need to be addressed, if that's what you mean.
But it said:
In May, our spacecraft proved itself ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
That’s puffery at best.
It’s not “ready” until NASA says it’s ready and they have not. There are still a few items to take care of, according to NASA and Boeing.
Starliner is ready to proceed with integration and go to further reviews up thru LRR.
Then it will be “ready to carry” NASA Astronauts.
Not saying there is anything wrong with Starliner, other than it being years late, or that it won’t be ready for CFT next Spring. We have every reason to believe it will be. But it’s not ready now.
Yeah, it did prove itself - by successfully completing all of the planned test flight milestones, including docking with the ISS.
Does that mean that it was a flawless flight? No. There were a few anomalies that need to be looked into and addressed before the next flight. The same thing happened on the SpaceX Crew Dragon test flights.
-
#635
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Dec, 2022 17:06
-
Okay, so, was I wrong?
About what?
I've been saying that what Boeing, and to a certain extent, NASA, say publicly is misleading, and we can infer what is happening from what they do. For saying that, I have taken real abuse from some people. Whenever I've pointed out a conflict between what they said publicly and what they did, I get hammered.
Saying (and even celebrating) that a test flight went reasonably well doesn't mean there weren't anomalies that need to be addressed, if that's what you mean.
But it said:
In May, our spacecraft proved itself ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
That’s puffery at best.
It’s not “ready” until NASA says it’s ready and they have not. There are still a few items to take care of, according to NASA and Boeing.
Starliner is ready to proceed with integration and go to further reviews up thru LRR.
Then it will be “ready to carry” NASA Astronauts.
Not saying there is anything wrong with Starliner, other than it being years late, or that it won’t be ready for CFT next Spring. We have every reason to believe it will be. But it’s not ready now.
Yeah, it did prove itself - by successfully completing all of the planned test flight milestones, including docking with the ISS.
Does that mean that it was a flawless flight? No. There were a few anomalies that need to be looked into and addressed before the next flight. The same thing happened on the SpaceX Crew Dragon test flights.
In March of 2019, did SpaceX make a statement about Demo-1 equivalent to Boeing's
In May, our spacecraft proved itself ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
The problem is not the level of success of Starliner OFT-2. The problem is the hype.
-
#636
by
mn
on 01 Dec, 2022 22:33
-
Since the flight had some issues that need to be addressed, technically the flight proved that they were not ready.
So let's just fix their typo and move on.
In May, our spacecraft proved itself not ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station
.
-
#637
by
sdsds
on 01 Dec, 2022 23:18
-
So let's just fix their typo and move on.
I would have made a different edit.
In May, our spacecraft proved it will be ready to carry @NASA_Astronauts to @Space_Station.
-
#638
by
SoftwareDude
on 02 Dec, 2022 06:11
-
The problem is not the level of success of Starliner OFT-2. The problem is the hype.
Yes, exactly, it is the hype. We have had exactly one item of communication from Boeing in the last months which claims that everything is ready to go except that NASA just awarded the Fall 2023 Crewed flight to SpaceX.
-
#639
by
woods170
on 02 Dec, 2022 08:45
-
The problem is not the level of success of Starliner OFT-2. The problem is the hype.
Yes, exactly, it is the hype. We have had exactly one item of communication from Boeing in the last months which claims that everything is ready to go except that NASA just awarded the Fall 2023 Crewed flight to SpaceX.
The hype at Boeing exists because it is a publically traded company, in dire need of making itself look good to its shareholders (after the poor performance on several of their high-profile projects). Their main competitor in spaceflight is a fully private company, and does not have that problem: it can look bad to the public and get away with it because their customers do not care about public image (neither do Boeing's customers care about Boeing's public image btw). Instead, their customers look at actual performance.
Which is why Boeing still hasn't been allowed to fly CFT, while their main competitor has been operational for years now and even got 8 additional PCM's awarded.
So, remind me again why we are waisting so much of Chris's bandwith on that Boeing advertisement?