Boeing's 1st Starliner astronaut mission return delayed to June 22

[Admin]

The return of Boeings 1st crewed Starliner mission has been delayed to June 22.

Boeing's 1st Starliner astronaut mission return delayed to June 22 : Read more

 

[FireNWater]

NASA marketing department is going to need to sit down soon after all of their spinning. . .

 

[LemmyCaution]

The NASA spokesperson's statement regarding the six month ISS stay capabilities of the Boeing Starliner is one of the best examples of pretending to actually say something I've ever come across.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This is sounding more and more like there is some real concern about the reliability of the thrusters to get the crew back safely. Especially the hot fire test of "7 of the 8 aft thrusters".

 

[Coconutwater]

Five different leaks in the propulsion system. NASA refuses to comment on the possibility of a rescue mission.

'The extra time allows the team to finalize departure planning and operations while the spacecraft remains cleared for crew emergency return scenarios within the flight rules,' NASA and Boeing said in a statement.

Pray for the best.

 

[DSyno]

I think I speak for everyone when I say: What the ...?

 

[DanaBspaced]

It would certainly be nice to have working thrusters for reentry, and a hatch that closes properly.

 

[Rob77]

When I first heard of the mishaps of Starliner after lift-off (before docking) I bet Dragon is getting ready for a taxi fair.
And I still stand by that statement!

 

[RiversRider$!]

Complacency and arrogant leadership leads to crashed spacecraft and dead astronauts! SpaceX is in it for the exploration and the knowledge of "what's out there", Boeing is in it for the $$$$!

 

[COLGeek]

Complacency and arrogant leadership leads to crashed spacecraft and dead astronauts! SpaceX is in it for the exploration and the knowledge of "what's out there", Boeing is in it for the $$$$!

Don't assume SpaceX is so altruistic. They too are into making money, as are all the other companies lobbing rockets into space.

 

[DSyno]

Don't assume SpaceX is so altruistic. They too are into making money, as are all the other companies lobbing rockets into space.

That's not the point. The point is that SpaceX works.

 

[COLGeek]

That's not the point. The point is that SpaceX works.

...and making money. Not doing anything for free.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Depend on what you call "free". It is certainly developing launch systems "free" from government subsidy. As with any commercial enterprise, it intends to make some money with the system, as it has done with its Falcon 9 launch system and StarLink satellites. But, SpaceX seems to be driven by the goal of putting people on Mars, rather than buying the biggest yacht on the ocean. And, the result so far has been leading the way for other companies and other nations. So, it's hard to criticize the model based on the results, so far.

 

[COLGeek]

I am not criticizing SpaceX. Just pointing out they do nothing for free. They certainly have big goals and have achieved some amazing things.

But some see them in a different light, through rose colored glasses. Shareholders, not so much.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

You just put your finger on the point that RiversRider$! was making, SpaceX does not seem to be as motivated to make profits for shareholders as Boeing has seemed to be. SpaceX even continues to press forward with its development work when Federal contracts are delayed. SpaceX fails early and fixes the causes. Boeing has been failing late, and repeating the failures (thrusters, in the case of StarLiner). The corporate cultures do appear to be substantially different.

I am hoping that Sierra Space makes a good showing with its DreamChaser cargo capsule, and that NASA puts some funding there to get a crew rated version. That would put Dragon and Starliner to shame for reusability and convenience, especially if it gets adapted to reusable launch vehicles.

 

[Atlan0001]

They are two different cultures, alright, NOW! And, as those two different cultures (NOW!) have done throughout history due to their different cosmology and physics, one is always positively energetic, expansive and successful, while the other is always negatively energetic, static or contracting, and failing. Wealth expansion in breadth and depth of wealth, as usual, is a token of positive energy. Anything else is deficit spending ("complicate embryos" and "Pyrrhic victories").

 

[LemmyCaution]

All the considerations of profit motive aside, wouldn't it make more sense to put the "going to the dead planet Mars" ideas to rest and use all those resources to save our one and only earth instead?

 

[Atlan0001]

All the considerations of profit motive aside, wouldn't it make more sense to put the "going to the dead planet Mars" ideas to rest and use all those resources to save our one and only earth instead?

You don't understand that neither the planet Mars, nor your Earth-first vision, will work! Both visions are isolationist from the energetically open systemic universe of an expansionist space frontier itself and dead-on-arrival on the way to extinction as the great Stephen Hawking foresaw and prophesized (1,000 years maximum to Man's extinction from implosion in the womb-world for refusing to begin any reality of birth, plugging any exhaustion in piping out-system of life's combustion in a world-class combustion engine, from it)!

 

[LemmyCaution]

You don't understand that neither the planet Mars, nor your Earth-first vision, will work! Both visions are isolationist from the energetically open systemic universe of an expansionist space frontier itself and dead-on-arrival on the way to extinction as the great Stephen Hawking foresaw and prophesized (1,000 years maximum to Man's extinction from implosion in the womb-world for refusing to begin any reality of birth, plugging any exhaustion in piping out-system of life's combustion in a world-class combustion engine, from it)

Not only is the imagining of an "energetically open systemic universe of an expansionist space frontier itself" a fruitless exercise in science-fiction-inspired non-factual doodling but the idea that humanity has only one millenium of survival remaining is patently nonsensical when applied to a planet that has supported various forms of constantly evolving life over many hundreds of millions of years.