Boeing's Starliner rolls out to pad for June 1 astronaut launch (photos)

[Admin]

Boeing's Starliner capsule rolled out to the pad today (May 30) ahead of its first-ever astronaut launch, which is scheduled for June 1.

Boeing's Starliner rolls out to pad for June 1 astronaut launch (photos) : Read more

 

[DSyno]

So it's failed 1 out of 2 tries, and now they're putting humans in it?

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

So it's failed 1 out of 2 tries, and now they're putting humans in it?

To be fair, they supposedly ironed out the issues. And it's probably had many more simulated "tries".

But… you're not wrong. If it were my decision, I'd use it for cargo to test it for one or two launches. I'd pay Boeing for the extra launches to help them recoup their losses from the troublesome R&D.

Then again, NASA might not have the money right now… It's a tricky situation.

 

[SX_Junkie]

Boeing had quite a number of thruster issues as they were attempting to align Strainer for the only docking they accomplished. I agree...the wiser approach would have been to have them do a couple cargo missions before putting humans aboard. Problem is that they only have enough Atlas Vs to complete the minimum contract required crew rotations.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Problem is that they only have enough Atlas Vs to complete the minimum contract required crew rotations.

Wikipedia says that it could fly on the Falcon 9 or Vulcan Centaur. Adding missions would force Boeing to think about using Starliner beyond what they're currently required to do, and either lower the cost (Falcon 9) or human rate Vulcan Centaur.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Just because Boeing does not have Atlas rockets or because NASA can not pay for cargo flights are no excuses to put human astronauts at more than acceptable risk due to unproven (yet not operational) space mission.
Combination of mission hardware and systems includes LV + Capsule.
These could have been tested separately.
Are we seeing a Logical mistake and hope it is not as serious cover up as was Columbia by suppressing information that we proved could have saved most astronauts.

Here the story is slightly different as these are ace test pilot astronauts, but we should exhaust most robotic testing before we put astronauts in missions.

Let us now compare with Artemis! The situation is also not rosy as they are trying to patch together Shuttle engines and have enough only for a few missions and depend upon new engines at least for future missions. Thus ULA is also a slightly risky path.

Perhaps we should give Starship a chance to succeed and use Falcon and Starship combinations in clever ways than to keep reusing some mothballed hardware which has at best sub-optimal provenance!

FINALLY GODSPEED TO SUNI Williams AND BUTCH Wilmore!

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Just because Boeing does not have Atlas rockets or because NASA can not pay for cargo flights are no excuses to put human astronauts at more than acceptable risk due to unproven (yet not operational) space mission.

The issue is that NASA and Boeing decide what's "more than acceptable risk" and "unproven" (It did have a successful test).