• HejMedDig@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    In this particular situation, if Boeing says it’s safe, I would be inclined to trust them, because if they make the return happen, and it fails, Boeing is done fore. As a crew member though, I would pass for sure and wait for a Dragon

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They already couldn’t afford this situation, and look where they are.

      What’s an improbable “acceptable risk” to them may not be good enough for NASA, especially if they don’t really understand what’s wrong.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      How many people died because boeing made shitty planes and didn’t train their crew properly?

      Is boeing done for?

      • HejMedDig@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think messing up on NASA projects will hurt a company way more. Of course aviation is supposed to be safe, but even the 737 Max has flown thousands of hours. Comparing how many people that have flown on them, versus how many that have been hurt/killed, is still a small number, which is still is supposed to be zero of course.

        Traversing space, a pinnacle of engineering, is quite another level of danger, and if you insist on your product being functional and safe, and then kills two astronauts, would cause a whole different level of backlash

    • jaxxed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I am not sure that businesses like Boeing make risk decisions like that. You would think that they would only take a risk that they know they can win, but many times they take a risk and hope that the dice land their way. This would be lives at risk, with calculations assessed by people with very poor records with such assessments.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They could feel like there’s nothing more to lose if it doesn’t make it back but they might be able to claw their way back if it succeeds. “They” being the individuals making the recommendation, not the individuals more concerned about the company overall. If Boeing decides the spaceflight industry isn’t worth the risks, a downsize or complete closing of that part of the company could cost the jobs of those who are the experts in this situation.

      So it might not be a case of “we think it’s safe to return”. It might be “returning safely is the only scenario where we aren’t fucked, so let’s roll the dice”.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Three Starliner mission managers had key roles on Columbia’s ill-fated final flight.

    I was gonna take issue with that statement until i read this. Causality does seem more probable.

  • Australis13@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The crew should come back on the Dragon and Boeing be required to solve the problems and carry out another test flight. It is unacceptable that Boeing wants to bring the astronauts back without understanding some of the failures on the Starliner.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Another test flight will be a bit of a problem. There are no spare Atlas V rockets. They will either have to convince Amazon to give up one of theirs or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.

        That’s okay; the next Starliner test flight clearly shouldn’t be crew rated either!

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is exactly it for me. A problem is one thing, a problem can be addressed. But a problem whose core cause is not understood can’t be quantified or addressed.

      So you have a thruster pack that’s overheating and they don’t even know why, you have helium that’s leaking and they don’t even know why, so I ask why is it even a question what to do?

      I am among other things a private pilot, I fly little propeller airplanes around for fun. Lots of private pilots do stupid stuff, and some get killed as a result. I’m talking for example pilots who want to get back to their home airport, so they fly over five airports that all sell fuel without landing but then run out of gas and crash half a mile from their home airport. So there is a saying, before you do anything risky, consider how stupid you will look in the NTSB report if it doesn’t work out. And the pilot who intentionally flew below fuel minimums looks pretty damn stupid, destroyed a $100,000 airplane and lost his life so he could save 20 bucks on cheaper gas.

      Point is, the same principle applies to all of the recent space disasters. Challenger was obviously not the right decision to launch. Columbia obviously a serious risk that was ignored. And that brings us to Starliner, we have serious fundamental problems that could definitely lead to a loss of ship and crew situation and we don’t even understand what is causing those problems. Now imagine Starliner fails. How stupid will that decision look? Probably even dumber than Columbia or Challenger, because unlike those two disasters we know ahead of time that something is very wrong.

    • YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m sure they understand the problems, and they understand that solving them would eat into their profits

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ok Huston, we’re listening!

    Huston: okay you two probably gonna die. But we got two options for you. You wanna boing boing boing your way down here? Or do you wanna have space sex bring, I mean make you come? Everyone dies, we just don’t know when or where. Ok most hospice palliative care old people know where, but not when.

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The question facing NASA’s leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth from the International Space Station in Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, with its history of thruster failures and helium leaks, or should they come home on a SpaceX Dragon capsule?

    • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The question facing NASA’s leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth…

      “Alright, just hear me out…” -Boeing

    • 0x0@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The lives of two government employees are in the balance, and taxpayers paid Boeing for most of the Starliner spacecraft’s development costs.

      Money money money…

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Shitty Boeing aside, how are they eating up there? I don’t know anything about space station food logistics, but if a planned week has turned into ten weeks, surely there must be a resource strain.

    • Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Well… except for those times it didn’t.

      Id argue that nasa is responsible for more deaths than the privately owned companies attempting the same thing.

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do we? It’s already years behind schedule, billions over budget, and doesn’t really have a use beyond Artemis. Also, the Exploration Upper Stage (one of the major planned upgrades) is being developed by… Boeing.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      NASA contracting stuff to space X has probably be the most amazing and sound financial decision they have made.

      People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world. Government including the US are miles behind them and struggling to play catch up and they are only trying because Space X has become so much better than them they have to.

      • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not just blind hate for Elon, they’re genuinely terrible stewards of the environment in south Texas. They constantly lie about their intentions and impact to avoid having to take responsibility for anything. Say what you will about how independently they operate from his input, this is definitely a company culture that he cultivates and promotes.

        • llamacoffee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699

          CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.

          While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.

          The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.

        • dev_null@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The news story you are linking was incorrect and based on a typo in a report.

          • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            So I’ve read.

            They still blew up their launch pad and showered a protected wildlife area with particulate, metal, and concrete debris.

            They then built and operated their water deluge system without obtaining permits.

            Typo or no, they’re still taking a fast and loose, “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach that is a detriment to a protected natural environment. They intend to test the limits of the Texas government’s ability to show disdain for the environment in favor of private enterprise.

            • dev_null@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I agree, I’m just saying this story in particular is untrue. That, obviously, doesn’t excuse all the other things they actually did, like the ones you linked here.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Those are valid points. The people that actually know even small amounts about the company do have interesting insights.

          But I wasn’t talking about those people. I was talking about people that see the name Elon and immediately “know” the company is in a shambles, failing and can’t keep up with the competition and all other sorts of nonsense based on no facts.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t care. He built the company, he’s the face of it. People hate the company and live in a dreamland where it’s failing because they want what Elon owns to be shit.

          It isn’t and they are wrong because they can’t see past their bias.

          • vinyl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            From what I see Gwynne Shotwell is the one that’s really doing the heavy lifting in the company.

            • Wanderer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Seriously what is going on here?

              Okay? If that is or isn’t correct what did I say that was wrong?

              Are you saying. People think Spacex is a failing company (when it isn’t) because of Shotwell?

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                They’re just adding context. Calm down you have a real victim complex going on, and it’s boring.

                • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s not context because it’s irrelevant to the point at hand. It’s an adjacent point but it isn’t related.

                  I’m talking about people perception of SpaceX. The actual inner workings of the company is an irrelevant point.

              • vinyl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                I haven’t said anything about it being a failing company, I’m just introducing some much needed information because of how much glazing I’ve noticed.

          • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Space x doesn’t work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.

          • Vanon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes, Musk has made people hate anything he’s involved in, or that enriches him. It’s only natural; Actions have consequences. He’s a severely mentally ill billionaire, increasingly detached from reality. And now his politics and disinformation are a danger to millions of people. If SpaceX or Tesla wants to feel the love, they know what to do. Until then, I can only assume they accept the consequences.

            • Wanderer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not sure how peoples delusions are a logical outcome.

              If I don’t like America that doesn’t mean it suddenly isn’t the richest country in the world just because I don’t like it.

              People really need to understand their bias, wanting SpaceX to be shit doesn’t make it so. That’s what we are talking about. Nothing else. SpaceX rockets aren’t powered on feels.

              • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You keep bringing up people wanting spacex to be shit but I don’t think that’s a prevailing sentiment

                • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I have definitely seen that. You see it more on the tests of Starship. Even when it is successful and goes better than expected. Because it blows up a lot of people are laughing at how bad the company is.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Which is why my expectations have lowered. “Hey can we build a rocket out of steel and power it with natural gas?” “We’d have to give engineers a raise or they’ll probably quit.”

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’d hope they’re paying them more, since they’re working very long hours. But I do think starship is likely to do well, they’ve crossed some huge barriers to cheap reusability.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                At what point does cheapness outweigh reliability? It was good to keep wasteful and incompetent military contractors on their toes, but that’s going to have diminishing returns, eventually.

                Elon’s vision is spaceflight cheap enough for extremely wealthy consumers to frequent, any further in that direction and SpaceX maybe might no longer benefit the general public.

                We’ll see.

                • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You don’t think starship will be able to be reliable? I think they’ll get falcon 9 like reliability performance at least, and they’re aiming for a lot better.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world

        Elon didn’t build it. They literally have a manager whose entire job is to make sure Elon doesn’t get too close to the technical stuff because he’ll break it with some random order to change it for no reason

        • trolololol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I read quite a bit about how spacex was formed, including the book that obviously will tell the hero tales of Elon. But I’ve never seen any mention of this and would like to learn more. Would you be able to share a link?

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If BASA build aircraft they would have to throw it all away at the end of the flight.

        Need better funding but they absolutely shouldn’t be building spacecraft, they are too scared of getting yelled at to innovate, and innovation is required.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Their idea of building a new rocket is by reusing as much of the 1970’s shuttle tech as they can.

          • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            reusing as much of the 1970’s shuttle tech as they can

            And reusing the tech, but not the hardware. NASA are throwing four RS-25 shuttle engines (some of which flew multiple shuttle missions) into the ocean with every SLS launch.

    • spacecadet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve worked for several aerospace companies including Boeing. I have nothing but contempt and hatred for Boeing and couldn’t get out of there fast enough. Management is garbage, safety comes second to schedule, people are treated like disposable cogs, but I would trust Boeing over NASA. I work with a lot of NASA and ex-NASA people right now on a couple major projects. Dear god NASA upper management makes me want to put my head through a wall! The insufferable sense of superiority trying to tell us “how things are done”. Bro, how is SLS coming? That’s what I thought, shut your mouth and stop pretending like you are the Apple of space systems. Luckily, most of the ground level people at NASA are more down to earth (pardon the puns) and easier to work with.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unfortunately they’ve been moving backwards across the time zones, resulting in them owing NASA money