NASA could send Boeing Starliner astronauts home on SpaceX Dragon

[Admin]

As Starliner's planned 10-day mission stretches past two months, the next ISS SpaceX launch will now delay into September to give NASA the option of including the Starliner crew on its ride home.

NASA could send Boeing Starliner astronauts home on SpaceX Dragon : Read more

 

[fj.torres]

Seriously?
Thermal expansion issues?
Where did they source their parts? Joe's salvage on eBay?

After the flamable wiring tape they didn't think to go through the bill of materials?

And here I thought Andy Griffith's SALVAGE 1 was ridiculous even for Hollywood.
Go figure.

 

[Brad]

I wanted to believe in Boeing, I really really wanted to believe in Boeing. You pretty much lost me at this point. They had ample time and more than ample funding to do this job and they still couldn't get it done. Ugh another great US company destroyed.

 

[Canadian]

Seriously?
Thermal expansion issues?
Where did they source their parts? Joe's salvage on eBay?

After the flamable wiring tape they didn't think to go through the bill of materials?

And here I thought Andy Griffith's SALVAGE 1 was ridiculous even for Hollywood.
Go figure.

For sure, the astronauts are going to get a lot of money, with the overtime.

 

[bwana4swahili]

As Starliner's planned 10-day mission stretches past two months, the next ISS SpaceX launch will now delay into September to give NASA the option of including the Starliner crew on its ride home.

NASA could send Boeing Starliner astronauts home on SpaceX Dragon : Read more

Gotta love it! And SpaceX is laughing all the way to the bank!!

 

[Viking]

Let the CEO and CFO TAKE A Dragon up for them and they come home on their Starliner!

 

[Ebonheart]

I suppose they could repurpose the Axiom Dragon for a second ISS Flight, at Boeing's expense, of course.

 

[ZZTOP]

Gotta love it! And SpaceX is laughing all the way to the bank!!

Laughing at what, every one of their Earthships blew up

 

[Wyggyn]

Boeing...The manufacturer that helped us win WWII, the same manufacturer that gave us the mighty F1 engine...this. Instead of focusing on your strengths, you intentionally looked away from the ball... this.

 

[fj.torres]

Boeing...The manufacturer that helped us win WWII, the same manufacturer that gave us the mighty F1 engine...this. Instead of focusing on your strengths, you intentionally looked away from the ball... this.

Much like Intel, they got fat dumb, and *stingy* and forgot about quality control in the quest for cost savings. They pushed out the techies in favor of MBAs because "managing is managing" and if you can manage a lemonade stand you can manage a tech company. Riiighhttt...

 

[DrRaviSharma]

It is not a total surprise hence and now all combinations will figure in decision.
However Suni and Butch need to be safe and they can test fire the thrusters autonomously (uncrewed )on Starliner's way home if JPL review does not yield anything new that has not already been discovered.
Another caution, we need at least one option more for domestic LEO and CISLUNAR human capability as we learned from untimely retirement of the Shuttle.

Hope we archive all knowledge used since Apollo-Saturn era to reference back if required.

 

[Rob77]

Much like Intel, they got fat dumb, and *stingy* and forgot about quality control in the quest for cost savings. They pushed out the techies in favor of MBAs because "managing is managing" and if you can manage a lemonade stand you can manage a tech company. Riiighhttt...

Though Dragon was a big success for SpaceX, I feel Starship is in the same boat here - they are looking at making a feasible rapid re-usable system. Difference is they seem to have a bigger budget to continue making several protoypes and learning from each iteration, something Boeing most likely couldn't afford to do.

 

[ZZTOP]

Though Dragon was a big success for SpaceX, I feel Starship is in the same boat here - they are looking at making a feasible rapid re-usable system. Difference is they seem to have a bigger budget to continue making several protoypes and learning from each iteration, something Boeing most likely couldn't afford to do.

Rapid reuse is nothing but a myth, in fact it may be easier to build a new stage from scratch then to refurbish one that managed not to blow up

 

[fj.torres]

Though Dragon was a big success for SpaceX, I feel Starship is in the same boat here - they are looking at making a feasible rapid re-usable system. Difference is they seem to have a bigger budget to continue making several protoypes and learning from each iteration, something Boeing most likely couldn't afford to do.

You do realize the Spacex President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell is an engineer with a deep resume and background in both manufacturing and space?
Her whole career before SpaceX trained her to run the company why Musk strategizes its direction. He plans, she manages, and an army of engineers and technicians executes.

SpaceX beats boeing and ULA and everybody else because there is nobody else like them. There is only one Musk (thankfully) and only one Gwynne Shotwell. Their track record says the know exactly what they're doing.

 

[TruthB Told]

Boeing & NASA have spent the last 30 days trying to avoid having SpaceX save their cookies. It will be very telling to have the astronauts who arrived at the ISS in a Boeing Starliner return to Earth in a SpaceX Dragon.

 

[DanaBspaced]

>>"SpaceX and Boeing are the two commercial crew providers for NASA<<"

That statement certainly is not really true at this time. Three flights of Starliner and they still have not come to grips with their thruster system.

60 days ago I expected the crew would not leave the ISS on Starliner. The question, have they learned enough to fix their problems on future flights? It looks as if they are reluctantly moving towards making the safe decision.

 

[ZZTOP]

You do realize the Spacex President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell is an engineer with a deep resume and background in both manufacturing and space?
Her whole career before SpaceX trained her to run the company why Musk strategizes its direction. He plans, she manages, and an army of engineers and technicians executes.

SpaceX beats boeing and ULA and everybody else because there is nobody else like them. There is only one Musk (thankfully) and only one Gwynne Shotwell. Their track record says the know exactly what they're doing.

LOL she designed starships with a perfect record of exploding just like the Hindenburg

Great resume

 

[R0ckets!]

Gilligan's Island "a three hour tour ..."

 

[Unclear Engineer]

LOL she designed starships with a perfect record of exploding just like the Hindenburg

Great resume

ZZTOP's posts are getting ridiculous in their attempts to put a negative spin on everything.

Obviously, the Hindenburg was in commercial service when it exploded, while the StarShip launches so far have been uncrewed steps in a developmental process with unsurvivable endings actually parts of the plans. And, even so, the last launch did not result in any "explosions" and actually achieved soft splashdowns - paving the way for attempting soft landings and eventual reuse.

Because ZZTOP cannot properly describe the development process, I give no credibility to his unsupported statement that it costs more to reuse a rocket than to build a new one. SpaceX pricing of its launches with its recoverable Falcon 9s are pretty sure proof to the contrary.

I am coming to the conclusion that addressing his misstatements a waste of time, because he is has shown that he is more interested in posting negative rhetoric than actually discussing logic and facts. I doubt he is misleading any other readers, here.

 

[ZZTOP]

ZZTOP's posts are getting ridiculous in their attempts to put a negative spin on everything.

Obviously, the Hindenburg was in commercial service when it exploded, while the StarShip launches so far have been uncrewed steps in a developmental process with unsurvivable endings actually parts of the plans. And, even so, the last launch did not result in any "explosions" and actually achieved soft splashdowns - paving the way for attempting soft landings and eventual reuse.

Because ZZTOP cannot properly describe the development process, I give no credibility to his unsupported statement that it costs more to reuse a rocket than to build a new one. SpaceX pricing of its launches with its recoverable Falcon 9s are pretty sure proof to the contrary.

I am coming to the conclusion that addressing his misstatements a waste of time, because he is has shown that he is more interested in posting negative rhetoric than actually discussing logic and facts. I doubt he is misleading any other readers, here.

Please show the video of the spacex starship that did not explode on launch, in flight or landing. If Musk is so bright he can pilot the next one. So does Musk really trust his hardware?

 

[ZZTOP]

Gilligan's Island "a three hour tour ..."

That was when TV was still real

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Please show the video of the spacex starship that did not explode on launch, in flight or landing. If Musk is so bright he can pilot the next one. So does Musk really trust his hardware?

• SpaceX's Cut
• The Everyday Astronaut's steam

Also, Musk doesn't "trust his hardware" because it's still in development. Your statement is a straw man argument. No one argued that Starship is fully functional, or trustworthy. Our argument (at least mine) is that Starship is performing nominally in testing, and meeting milestones rapidly. So designing it would be great on a résumé.

 

[ZZTOP]

• SpaceX's Cut
• The Everyday Astronaut's steam

Also, Musk doesn't "trust his hardware" because it's still in development. Your statement is a straw man argument. No one argued that Starship is fully functional, or trustworthy. Our argument (at least mine) is that Starship is performing nominally in testing, and meeting milestones rapidly. So designing it would be great on a résumé.

With a 100% failure rate it is mathematically impossible to calculate when testing of the starship will be done, which might well be 100 years or never as the DOD and Lockheed are already flying antigravity craft. So the rumor mill suggests that the starship is just a ruse leading the enemy down the wrong path

 

[COLGeek]

With a 100% failure rate it is mathematically impossible to calculate when testing of the starship will be done, which might well be 100 years or never as the DOD and Lockheed are already flying antigravity craft. So the rumor mill suggests that the starship is just a ruse leading the enemy down the wrong path

Source, please.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

With a 100% failure rate it is mathematically impossible to calculate when testing of the starship will be done, which might well be 100 years or never as the DOD and Lockheed are already flying antigravity craft. So the rumor mill suggests that the starship is just a ruse leading the enemy down the wrong path

I'm pretty sure flight 4 was a success, considering that it accomplished all its goals and pushed Starship's development along.

Also, there are many things which can't be mathematically predicted, but still happen.