NASA, Boeing delay Starliner capsule's 1st astronaut launch to early May

[Admin]

NASA and Boeing have delayed the first-ever crewed flight of the company's new Starliner capsule to early May, a slip of a few weeks.

NASA, Boeing delay Starliner capsule's 1st astronaut launch to early May : Read more

 

[Ozymandias]

NASA and Boeing have delayed the first-ever crewed flight of the company's new Starliner capsule to early May, a slip of a few weeks.

NASA, Boeing delay Starliner capsule's 1st astronaut launch to early May : Read more

My frustration with legacy space contractors would go way down if we just stopped pretending that they are building anything and just wrote them a check every couple of months. We can think of it as a pension. Moving on....

 

[CSGASTRO]

Wait... what? The capsule's wiring was wrapped with flammable tape??? Haven't we learned anything from the Apollo 1 fire?

 

[Axel Tillert]

Did anyone believe that Boeing in its current state, is able to build a spacecraft?

 

[lifeboatpres]

"Elon Musk's company has now launched eight operational astronaut missions to the ISS for NASA, the most recent of which, called Crew-8, lifted off on Sunday (March 3)."

This doesn't accurately compare Crew Dragon to Starliner as it ignores one NASA mission with 2 astronauts and 4 private missions with another 16 astronauts.

It would be better to say that "Elon Musk's company has launched 50 astronauts with Crew Dragon so far."

 

[ricke]

Might want to delay it indefinitely and start anew. If Boeing can't built a plane that doesn't have some major malfunction, how can they possibly build something as complex as a space capsule.

If it's Boeing, I ain't going.

 

[RFM]

I believe it is a risk to send the astronauts on a 10 day mission outside of earth's orbit in what is not a fully tested capsule. The last test did not have a full environmental system on board. Even in the race to the moon, Apollo spacecraft with a crew spent mission length time in an orbital test to ring out the systems. Had there been any issues, they could have deorbited in short order. I believe an earth orbit mission length test is better approach.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

RFM, The mission is to the International Space Station for 10 days on the station. So, there is plenty of opportunity for a "bail out" if the Boeing Starliner capsule had problems. I think you are confusing it with the Orion capsule that is part of the Artemis Program for going to the Moon.

The only thing the the Boeing Starliner capsule is doing that previous U.S. capsules have not done is to return to Earth on dry land instead of splashing down in the ocean. But, the Russians have been doing that for decades. And SpaceX is working on even more impressive vertical landings of much larger craft (Starship) that will be quickly reusable. Not to mention Dream Chaser, which will land like an airplane/ space shuttle at regular airports.

So, when Boeing finally gets a successful flight, the question is how long their product will actually be useful and used.

 

[RFM]

Sorry, I did get the two mixed up. Thanks for the correction.
I still would prefer Orion to do a 10 day earth orbit with the first crewed vehicle rather than a trip to the moon.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The first Orion capsule flight was an unmanned 25 day flight that went to the Moon, went into orbit around the Moon, then came back to Earth, reentering the atmosphere and splashing into the Pacific Ocean where it was successfully recovered.

The Artemis 2 flight is planned to do pretty much the same things except with crew aboard.

The Artemis launches are extremely expensive, so NASA really can't afford baby steps in successive missions.

That said, the major risk elements seem to be the lunar landing, which will be done with an as yet undesigned version of SpaceX 's Starship, the liftoff of that Starship from the Moon and its rendezvous and docking in lunar orbit to get back the crew back into the Orion capsule to head back to Earth.

Some of us are wondering whether it would make more sense to just have the NASA astronauts go to the Moon in the SpaceX Starship to begin with.

Whatever is done with Starship will require in-space refueling, which this next flight of Starship is planned to test by pumping fuel from one tank to another inside Starship, not between 2 Starships as will be required for Artemis Moon landing missions.

 

[newtons_laws]

Some of us are wondering whether it would make more sense to just have the NASA astronauts go to the Moon in the SpaceX Starship to begin with.

You have a good point there, but of course NASA has spent $Billions on developing the SLS and Orion systems, so if they aren't used in the Artemis missions then politically they risk becoming a white elephant.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I understand the various issues related to NASA working through its process of getting out of the launch business while staying in the space exploration business. That is what it needs to do for the U.S. to stay competitive in space with the likes of China, which has a government that can spend money as a few leaders at its top see fit. But, SpaceX has not yet produced what launch vehicles NASA needs, although it seems very likely to do so. At least the SLS has flown a mission that could have put astronauts on the Moon's surface, except that there was no crew aboard, and no lander or gateway satellite there, now. NASA has not developed those, yet, and is hoping that SpaceX will do so in a timely way, but also is hedging its bet with a second contract with Blue Origin. It is a transition process that necessarily has some built in redundancies to avoid failure or unacceptable delay. But, it has to eventually settle down to the companies that can build and launch in quantity and frequency will dominate. Even China is planning to emulate the SpaceX approach to reusable massive launch vehicles. So, I don't think the SLS will last long enough to be the U.S. vehicle to take humans to Mars.

 

[newtons_laws]

So, I don't think the SLS will last long enough to be the U.S. vehicle to take humans to Mars.

Whilst the SLS may have some use in pre-positioning equipment on the surface of Mars prior to a crewed landing (and Starship even more so) then if NASA are serious about taking humans to Mars then in order to reduce the journey times and consequent potentially harmful radiation exposure and zero g duration then they need to be looking at nuclear thermal propulsion (which to be fair they now are).