this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
98 points (98.0% liked)

Space

8884 readers
56 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archive link: https://archive.ph/aVT4z

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This just underlines the need for reliable alternatives. They've pumped billions into Starliner and now looks like they'll need billions more. Someone needs to answer for this.

[–] aeronmelon 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This πŸ‘ is πŸ‘ what πŸ‘ the πŸ‘ NASA πŸ‘ space πŸ‘ shuttles πŸ‘ were πŸ‘ for!

I’m still sour that the shuttle program wasn’t replaced by a better shuttle program. For All Mankind is an instruction manual, you guys!

[–] Carighan 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You realize that orbiter had the exact same operational and institutional issues that are the root cause of the current Boeing issues, yes? Just 30+ years later.

So if you spooled the orbiter program forward by the same amount of years, chances are it'll have the exact same flaws. Institutionalized deviance was what brought down their two orbiters after all, and it's the root flaw in all of Boeing's current issues, too. The driving cause might be different (Boeing is cheapskating due to wanting to pay themselves higher CEO bonuses, NASA was cheapskating due to political defunding), but the impacting issue is the same.

The reason SpaceX works so well right now is because it's so new. It can pump absurd amounts of money into its shit. It'll develop the same issues if it ever has to make due with less cash. Which points to the root cause pretty neatly.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago

Oh boy. That’s bad

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago

2025? What the absolute fuck?

[–] SatouKazuma 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What in the fuck. Can Boeing be permanently disqualified as a NASA supplier moving forward?

[–] WhatAmLemmy 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They're too big to fail, so they'll continue stealing from tax payers en mass until a non corporate whore does something about it.

[–] SatouKazuma 1 points 4 months ago

Seize the means of production. Honestly, that private businesses have been allowed to exist has been one of the greatest mistakes in American history.

[–] Carighan 15 points 4 months ago

You're Boeing to die...

[–] jqubed 14 points 4 months ago

Welp! 😐

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This sure sounds like they are stranded.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Sort of. It's more like the risk of returning in Starliner might be higher than 1/270, and NASA wants to be cautious.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

Oh Boeing ! You've done it again, you scamps !

[–] aeronmelon 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If they’ve made up their mind about it, I want them to bring back the empty capsule as is. Just to see what happens.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The real joke is that the can't bring back an empty capsule.

Boeing, in their infinite wisdom, decided to disable the software that would allow Starliner to undock by itself.

Despite it already having done this during its second test run.

So as of now, at least one astronaut MUST be inside the capsule to get this $6 billion space barnacle detached from the space station. They can't even send up the "rescue" ship because there wouldn't be any place for it to dock.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I think it's more that they haven't tested the software changing mode mid-mission. At least that's Scott Manley's impression(@5:50ish).

Given the software issues thus far, I can see they'd be a bit wary that flipping that switch could cause problems.

I would think they could set it back to autonomous mode but that they have to do the testing and validation to prove the system will tolerate the change with no issues.

[–] FinishingDutch 2 points 4 months ago

So basically, the ISS has the equivalent of a car up on blocks parked in its driveway. How delightful.

It’s a shame they can’t toss the responsible Boeing/NASA folks out that same airlock.

[–] Cyberflunk 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

All those brains and they can't rig up a switchbot? https://us.switch-bot.com/products/switchbot-bot

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Man, just imagine you're all excited about your eight day trip into space and then finding out you might be there six months. It's a very different decision if you got to make it in advance. But then having no agency about it and just having to tough it out would be awful.

[–] PMFL 2 points 4 months ago

Imagine the astronauts and their families, how is it possible for this to happen just a few kilometers from the surface of the Earth? It doesn't leave much confidence in the systems we currently have available. If they can't even rescue these poor souls, let alone talk about expanding into space, occupying the Moon, going to Mars... With this news, when they talk about these topics, only we will want to laugh!