SpaceX Rescues Astronauts Stranded By Boeing

[xrole]

Originally Posted by Krash

Not sure if everyone knows, but Starliner successfully landed without the astronauts today. So it appears as if NASA was overly cautious and overly risk adverse. The astronauts would have made it back safely after all…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Overly cautious and overly risk averse? Clearly Boeing thought that the risk was significant, so leaving them there in comparative safety was the right thing to do. If they had died on the way down it would have been a disaster.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by xrole

Overly cautious and overly risk averse? Clearly Boeing thought that the risk was significant, so leaving them there in comparative safety was the right thing to do. If they had died on the way down it would have been a disaster.

Actually, it wasn’t Boeing that made the decision. It was NASA that made the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xrole]

Originally Posted by Krash

Actually, it wasn’t Boeing that made the decision. It was NASA that made the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for clarifying but either way it seems like it was the right call based on Boeings recent track record.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Krash

Not sure if everyone knows, but Starliner successfully landed without the astronauts today. So it appears as if NASA was overly cautious and overly risk adverse. The astronauts would have made it back safely after all…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You cannot make this conclusion (“overly cautious and overly risk adverse [sic]”) based on an outcome.

For example, you can identify a strategy that has a 90% expected failure rate. That can be a correct assessment of the generally expected distribution of outcomes but even then 10% of the time it succeeds. I suspect most would agree a 10% success rate for returning the astronauts to Earth would be considered too low to be prudent…

On a separate note, it would be nice if the title of this thread could be fixed. Sure, it aligns with how Musk might pitch the situation but it is very misleading.

[enjoythemusic]

I'm ok with mids changing the title.

Very, very glad Starliner undocked and got back safely. It's good to have Boeing's partially successfully mission. Let's hope for 100% next time as we need a base on the moon... and beyond.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

You cannot make this conclusion (“overly cautious and overly risk adverse [sic]”) based on an outcome.

For example, you can identify a strategy that has a 90% expected failure rate. That can be a correct assessment of the generally expected distribution of outcomes but even then 10% of the time it succeeds. I suspect most would agree a 10% success rate for returning the astronauts to Earth would be considered too low to be prudent…

On a separate note, it would be nice if the title of this thread could be fixed. Sure, it aligns with how Musk might pitch the situation but it is very misleading.

It returned safely without failure. NASA obviously had doubts. Safety was their top priority, and it should be.

And of course if something has a failure rate of 90%, you’d never roll the dice on that. That would be crazy. Everyone knows that.

Also, in terms of the thread title, it was appropriate at the time. That’s how all media outlets presented it, because that’s what was really the case.

It could be presented now as: NASA decides against Starliner for safety reasons, will use SpaceX instead.

But I think it’s sort of silly to ask for the thread title to be changed. Seriously, there have been literally thousands of ridiculous thread titles on TRF through the years, and nobody ever asked any of them to be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tricolore66]

Both fatal shuttle disasters have been directly related to NASA’s lack of prioritizing astronaut safety, in spite of evidence that would compromise it. I’m not convinced that if they weren’t using private contractors that anything would have changed today. Remember, this is a government agency.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Krash

It returned safely without failure. NASA obviously had doubts. Safety was their top priority, and it should be.

And of course if something has a failure rate of 90%, you’d never roll the dice on that. That would be crazy. Everyone knows that.

Also, in terms of the thread title, it was appropriate at the time. That’s how all media outlets presented it, because that’s what was really the case.

It could be presented now as: NASA decides against Starliner for safety reasons, will use SpaceX instead.

But I think it’s sort of silly to ask for the thread title to be changed. Seriously, there have been literally thousands of ridiculous thread titles on TRF through the years, and nobody ever asked any of them to be changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was addressing what you said (as I quoted) that they were overly risk averse. THAT is a silly conclusion to draw from the spacecraft making a safe autonomous landing.

As for the thread title, it is simply false / misleading, whatever the cause. I couldn’t care (much) less whether it is indeed changed, just that it would be nice if it could be. Consider it a “nice to have” since some posters may skip the facts and respond to the title itself.

[enjoythemusic]

Am 100% for being fair, and so if a Boeing built craft gets the astronauts back then YES please change the title of this thread. Am willing to ignore the long delay in their return trip. If, on the other hand, a SpaceX craft gets them back to planet Earth, then the title remains.

Is this agreeable to all, as want to be fair.

Added: Or whatever, and let us hope the astronauts get back safely... even if it is on a Russian craft.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Tricolore66

Both fatal shuttle disasters have been directly related to NASA’s lack of prioritizing astronaut safety, in spite of evidence that would compromise it. I’m not convinced that if they weren’t using private contractors that anything would have changed today. Remember, this is a government agency.

Yes, there are never any guarantees with space travel. They’ll never be able to say we’re 100% certain they’ll make it back safely. I’d imagine in this case, they just didn’t have enough good data to conclusively say, “let’s go.”

Starliner landed safely, but they clearly had some degree of doubt beyond their normal threshold of risk tolerance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tricolore66]

Repeated warnings from engineers to scrub flights due to known issues with O-ring seals and the risks of launching in cold conditions doesn’t fall under the category of normal risk in space flight, but gross negligence. If this were a commercial airliner there would probably be criminal charges.

Originally Posted by Krash

Yes, there are never any guarantees with space travel. They’ll never be able to say we’re 100% certain they’ll make it back safely. I’d imagine in this case, they just didn’t have enough good data to conclusively say, “let’s go.”

Starliner landed safely, but they clearly had some degree of doubt beyond their normal threshold of risk tolerance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Yes, there were problems before liftoff. Imho those should have been fixed pre-flight. jmho

Space, like the deepest ocean on Earth, is unforgiving.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

I hope that Boeing gets their act together and fixes all their issues, both with their NASA contracted stuff and their commercial aviation. It’s an iconic American company that plays a large role in our economy and defense industry.

[2loaded]

Originally Posted by Krash

Not sure if everyone knows, but Starliner successfully landed without the astronauts today. So it appears as if NASA was overly cautious and overly risk adverse. The astronauts would have made it back safely after all…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do I picture a few dozen engineers saying " I told you it would make it ! "

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Tricolore66

Repeated warnings from engineers to scrub flights due to known issues with O-ring seals and the risks of launching in cold conditions doesn’t fall under the category of normal risk in space flight, but gross negligence. If this were a commercial airliner there would probably be criminal charges.

Yes, those are decades old issues with the space shuttle program. We can go back further and ask why we let astronauts into a capsule with highly flammable, 100% pure oxygen and no way to open the hatch from the inside. That of course led to the tragic accident during the Apollo days back in the 60s. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed.

But those problems have nothing to do with Starliner or SpaceX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[INC]

Originally Posted by Krash

Not sure if everyone knows, but Starliner successfully landed without the astronauts today. So it appears as if NASA was overly cautious and overly risk adverse. The astronauts would have made it back safely after all…

I think your conclusion does not follow from the fact alone.

In my opinion, no one knows what would have happened if the astronauts had been in the cabin! What I think is that it is not certain that the air supply would have worked properly. This shouldn't be a problem at all for a non-human landing, but it would easily have been a deadly risk to the astronauts. Based on history, I think NASA didn't want to risk showing dead or seriously injured astronauts to the masses.

But to be honest, I don't think it was NASA, but Boeing, who definitely didn't want this to happen, because it could have meant the end of their participation in the whole program and maybe even their presence on the stock market. Therefore, I personally do not believe that Boeing would have argued for a long time in favor of "the astronauts will be safe in this cabin".

[Krash]

Originally Posted by 2loaded

Why do I picture a few dozen engineers saying " I told you it would make it ! "

I’m hearing from Boeing insiders that there is a lot of anger over this. Especially because of how it was framed. (i.e., Boeing unable to finish the mission, SpaceX rescuing the astronauts.) There is a huge rivalry between Boeing and SpaceX.

In the weeks leading up to the decision, Boeing passed numerous tests in space that were supposed to be the deciding factors. But NASA still said, “no, let’s go with SpaceX instead.” And then of course, they brought the capsule home unmanned and it worked as expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Krash

I’m hearing from Boeing insiders that there is a lot of anger over this.

Have no doubt that 'behind the scenes' there are some serious .... discussions. Boeing is fine, their gov contracts for MIL and their status as TBTF... so they are fine regardless of 'stock' pricing.

A heck of a lot has to go right, a heck of a lot. But imho by now engineering and production is 'far easier' than even just a decade ago. Boeing can do better, and be more financially responsible to their 'aero crafts' more than their shareholders. Maybe part of Boeing's problem is in having shareholder profiteers, so eliminate those so Boeing can concentrate on their job.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

i heard Boeing got $5,000,000,000+ ($5 billion) over the years from USA citizens, yet Boeing still have no proven working system. That's 5000 million dollars. Said another way, it's $5000 from 1,000,000 people, which could help the many homeless.

Congress desperately needs to demand a refund from Boeing, those funds could be put to good use to help USA citizens.

I think you hit the nail on the nail on the head. We as a society seem to be devolving into a culture devoid of accountability.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by dtwer

I think you hit the nail on the nail on the head. We as a society seem to be devolving into a culture devoid of accountability.

When we get the $17.8 billion back from Northrup Grumman over the USS Gerald Ford boondoggle (original budget $5 billion) we can go after Boeing for a mere $5 billion.

Boeing has a fixed price contract. NASA isn't losing anything on the project.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Boeing has a fixed price contract. NASA isn't losing anything on the project.

Would it be more efficient / cost-effective to nationalize Boeing?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Krash

I’m hearing from Boeing insiders that there is a lot of anger over this. Especially because of how it was framed. (i.e., Boeing unable to finish the mission, SpaceX rescuing the astronauts.) There is a huge rivalry between Boeing and SpaceX.

In the weeks leading up to the decision, Boeing passed numerous tests in space that were supposed to be the deciding factors. But NASA still said, “no, let’s go with SpaceX instead.” And then of course, they brought the capsule home unmanned and it worked as expected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did it?

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Andad

Did it?

Yes.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Would it be more efficient / cost-effective to nationalize Boeing?

It's never more efficient to nationalize a company. The government takes many people to do the work of one commercial employee. Costs sky rocket, obstacles are created for the purpose of perpetuating the project and generating more staff, decisions cannot be made without a committee to sign off on it, no one can be fired and no one is accountable.

Things that have specifications, quality requirements, and have to get done on schedule are always contracted out. The government isn't designed or operated to actually accomplish real work. At best, they are good at staffing work out. But the Starliner and USS Gerald Ford are excellent examples of how they can't even do that very well.

[enjoythemusic]

You make good points. The USA needs someone who oversees efficiency, costs, etc (in many sectors). Surely there are 'middlemen' that can be cut, reduction in some places... and better oversight. Truly hope Boeing the best, as imho there need to be three or four major companies to bring space travel into the future jmho

Yes, even that bald guy who likes everything to look phallic.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Maleg

It's never more efficient to nationalize a company. The government takes many people to do the work of one commercial employee. Costs sky rocket, obstacles are created for the purpose of perpetuating the project and generating more staff, decisions cannot be made without a committee to sign off on it, no one can be fired and no one is accountable.

Things that have specifications, quality requirements, and have to get done on schedule are always contracted out. The government isn't designed or operated to actually accomplish real work. At best, they are good at staffing work out. But the Starliner and USS Gerald Ford are excellent examples of how they can't even do that very well.

Yes, I agree.

I actually think Boeing might be a good stock to buy. I know this sounds absolutely ludicrous (LOL), but eventually, I see this stock trading at $250 to $300 a share again. It's not going to happen overnight, but it could be a nice investment if you have a 5-year horizon.

[dtwer]

Originally Posted by Maleg

When we get the $17.8 billion back from Northrup Grumman over the USS Gerald Ford boondoggle (original budget $5 billion) we can go after Boeing for a mere $5 billion.

Boeing has a fixed price contract. NASA isn't losing anything on the project.

I would say the fact that it's a fixed price contract makes this situation worse. It represents a huge opportunity cost. The same budget would most likely have earned the taxpayers greater return on investment if it were awarded to SpaceX.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by dtwer

I would say the fact that it's a fixed price contract makes this situation worse. It represents a huge opportunity cost. The same budget would most likely have earned the taxpayers greater return on investment if it were awarded to SpaceX.

I don't think there was a missed opportunity since NASA awarded both commercial development contracts (Crew Dragon and Starliner) at the same time. Boeing had a number of big contracts with NASA at the time, so it made sense that they could be trusted as a system contractor for this project.

IMO, the difference between Boeing and SpaceX is how they view contracting. SpaceX's philosophy seems to be accomplishing things on time. Whereas, Boeing has raised milking government contracts to a high art. The fact that SpaceX is now getting more money from NASA than Boeing might be an indication that NASA has turned a page.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Krash

Yes.

Well it did land but we will never know if any occupants would have survived.

Based on reading the historical stats on the "Starliner".

[enjoythemusic]

SpaceX.... so reliable and exceptional that private explorers help pay for the trip :)


.
.
.

Look, we know there are zero worries about Boeing since they are part of the US GOV MIL complex. Rest assured Boeing will be fine... one way or another.