Step 1. Fire Boeing.
Step 2. Fucking FUND NASA.
Step 3. NASA builds space stuff that works.
To be fair, some work has always been outsourced.
Like the o rings…
I like my humor like I like my NASA space vehicles - outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Boeing was the most expensive bidder for this program.
Dark 😮
Too soon.
I’ve worked for several aerospace companies including Boeing. I have nothing but contempt and hatred for Boeing and couldn’t get out of there fast enough. Management is garbage, safety comes second to schedule, people are treated like disposable cogs, but I would trust Boeing over NASA. I work with a lot of NASA and ex-NASA people right now on a couple major projects. Dear god NASA upper management makes me want to put my head through a wall! The insufferable sense of superiority trying to tell us “how things are done”. Bro, how is SLS coming? That’s what I thought, shut your mouth and stop pretending like you are the Apple of space systems. Luckily, most of the ground level people at NASA are more down to earth (pardon the puns) and easier to work with.
NASA contracting stuff to space X has probably be the most amazing and sound financial decision they have made.
People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world. Government including the US are miles behind them and struggling to play catch up and they are only trying because Space X has become so much better than them they have to.
It’s arguably not even him that it really running it
Seems like he’s more involved with starship now than falcon or dragon.
Which is why my expectations have lowered. “Hey can we build a rocket out of steel and power it with natural gas?” “We’d have to give engineers a raise or they’ll probably quit.”
I’d hope they’re paying them more, since they’re working very long hours. But I do think starship is likely to do well, they’ve crossed some huge barriers to cheap reusability.
At what point does cheapness outweigh reliability? It was good to keep wasteful and incompetent military contractors on their toes, but that’s going to have diminishing returns, eventually.
Elon’s vision is spaceflight cheap enough for extremely wealthy consumers to frequent, any further in that direction and SpaceX maybe might no longer benefit the general public.
We’ll see.
You don’t think starship will be able to be reliable? I think they’ll get falcon 9 like reliability performance at least, and they’re aiming for a lot better.
Don’t care. He built the company, he’s the face of it. People hate the company and live in a dreamland where it’s failing because they want what Elon owns to be shit.
It isn’t and they are wrong because they can’t see past their bias.
Space x doesn’t work thanks to Musk. It works DESPITE him, and it requires careful management.
Good story
This is all irrelevant to the point I was making which is about people thinking Spacex is a terrible company due to bias.
No more. No less.
Yes, Musk has made people hate anything he’s involved in, or that enriches him. It’s only natural; Actions have consequences. He’s a severely mentally ill billionaire, increasingly detached from reality. And now his politics and disinformation are a danger to millions of people. If SpaceX or Tesla wants to feel the love, they know what to do. Until then, I can only assume they accept the consequences.
I’m not sure how peoples delusions are a logical outcome.
If I don’t like America that doesn’t mean it suddenly isn’t the richest country in the world just because I don’t like it.
People really need to understand their bias, wanting SpaceX to be shit doesn’t make it so. That’s what we are talking about. Nothing else. SpaceX rockets aren’t powered on feels.
You keep bringing up people wanting spacex to be shit but I don’t think that’s a prevailing sentiment
I have definitely seen that. You see it more on the tests of Starship. Even when it is successful and goes better than expected. Because it blows up a lot of people are laughing at how bad the company is.
From what I see Gwynne Shotwell is the one that’s really doing the heavy lifting in the company.
Seriously what is going on here?
Okay? If that is or isn’t correct what did I say that was wrong?
Are you saying. People think Spacex is a failing company (when it isn’t) because of Shotwell?
They’re just adding context. Calm down you have a real victim complex going on, and it’s boring.
It’s not context because it’s irrelevant to the point at hand. It’s an adjacent point but it isn’t related.
I’m talking about people perception of SpaceX. The actual inner workings of the company is an irrelevant point.
You can practically hear him flop sweating and hyperventilating.
It’s not a complex, he’s reacting to the downvotes (that do seem unfair).
I haven’t said anything about it being a failing company, I’m just introducing some much needed information because of how much glazing I’ve noticed.
Glazing for what? How?
deleted by creator
People on this website are so biased because Elon runs it but he genuinely built one of the most amazing companies in the world
Elon didn’t build it. They literally have a manager whose entire job is to make sure Elon doesn’t get too close to the technical stuff because he’ll break it with some random order to change it for no reason
Ah yes, the CCM: “CEO Childcare Manager”
I read quite a bit about how spacex was formed, including the book that obviously will tell the hero tales of Elon. But I’ve never seen any mention of this and would like to learn more. Would you be able to share a link?
It’s not just blind hate for Elon, they’re genuinely terrible stewards of the environment in south Texas. They constantly lie about their intentions and impact to avoid having to take responsibility for anything. Say what you will about how independently they operate from his input, this is definitely a company culture that he cultivates and promotes.
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1823378186836889699
CNBC updated its story yesterday with additional factually inaccurate information.
While there may be a typo in one table of the initial TCEQ’s public version of the permit application, the rest of the application and the lab reports clearly states that levels of Mercury found in non-stormwater discharge associated with the water deluge system are well below state and federal water quality criteria (of no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity), and are, in most instances, non-detectable.
The initial application was updated within 30 days to correct the typo and TCEQ is updating the application to reflect the correction.
The news story you are linking was incorrect and based on a typo in a report.
So I’ve read.
They still blew up their launch pad and showered a protected wildlife area with particulate, metal, and concrete debris.
They then built and operated their water deluge system without obtaining permits.
Typo or no, they’re still taking a fast and loose, “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach that is a detriment to a protected natural environment. They intend to test the limits of the Texas government’s ability to show disdain for the environment in favor of private enterprise.
I agree, I’m just saying this story in particular is untrue. That, obviously, doesn’t excuse all the other things they actually did, like the ones you linked here.
Those are valid points. The people that actually know even small amounts about the company do have interesting insights.
But I wasn’t talking about those people. I was talking about people that see the name Elon and immediately “know” the company is in a shambles, failing and can’t keep up with the competition and all other sorts of nonsense based on no facts.
No it was the engineers not Elon who built Space X up.
Step 4. NASA builds planes that work (on the side).
If BASA build aircraft they would have to throw it all away at the end of the flight.
Need better funding but they absolutely shouldn’t be building spacecraft, they are too scared of getting yelled at to innovate, and innovation is required.
Their idea of building a new rocket is by reusing as much of the 1970’s shuttle tech as they can.
reusing as much of the 1970’s shuttle tech as they can
And reusing the tech, but not the hardware. NASA are throwing four RS-25 shuttle engines (some of which flew multiple shuttle missions) into the ocean with every SLS launch.
They tried being more actively involved with the Aries I and Aries V rockets, but they got really bogged down to the point where Obama started commercial crew. Aries V eventually evolved into SLS, but with low capability and a very long schedule. And for better or for worse, SLS is getting lots of funding.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Program
s/Fire/Nationalize/
YES
1
We need to support and upgrade sls
Do we? It’s already years behind schedule, billions over budget, and doesn’t really have a use beyond Artemis. Also, the Exploration Upper Stage (one of the major planned upgrades) is being developed by… Boeing.
The crew should come back on the Dragon and Boeing be required to solve the problems and carry out another test flight. It is unacceptable that Boeing wants to bring the astronauts back without understanding some of the failures on the Starliner.
I’m sure they understand the problems, and they understand that solving them would eat into their profits
Another test flight will be a bit of a problem. There are no spare Atlas V rockets. They will either have to convince Amazon to give up one of theirs or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.
or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.
That’s okay; the next Starliner test flight clearly shouldn’t be crew rated either!
This is exactly it for me. A problem is one thing, a problem can be addressed. But a problem whose core cause is not understood can’t be quantified or addressed.
So you have a thruster pack that’s overheating and they don’t even know why, you have helium that’s leaking and they don’t even know why, so I ask why is it even a question what to do?
I am among other things a private pilot, I fly little propeller airplanes around for fun. Lots of private pilots do stupid stuff, and some get killed as a result. I’m talking for example pilots who want to get back to their home airport, so they fly over five airports that all sell fuel without landing but then run out of gas and crash half a mile from their home airport. So there is a saying, before you do anything risky, consider how stupid you will look in the NTSB report if it doesn’t work out. And the pilot who intentionally flew below fuel minimums looks pretty damn stupid, destroyed a $100,000 airplane and lost his life so he could save 20 bucks on cheaper gas.
Point is, the same principle applies to all of the recent space disasters. Challenger was obviously not the right decision to launch. Columbia obviously a serious risk that was ignored. And that brings us to Starliner, we have serious fundamental problems that could definitely lead to a loss of ship and crew situation and we don’t even understand what is causing those problems. Now imagine Starliner fails. How stupid will that decision look? Probably even dumber than Columbia or Challenger, because unlike those two disasters we know ahead of time that something is very wrong.
Shitty Boeing aside, how are they eating up there? I don’t know anything about space station food logistics, but if a planned week has turned into ten weeks, surely there must be a resource strain.
Edit: Google search says they can regularly send up unmanned supply ships.
Can’t wait to see this project too in Google’s graveyard.
Ah, the old lemmy switcharoo
Hold my Reddit account I’m going in!
They eat whichever astronaut dies first.
Just don’t question the cause of death, because it will be blunt force trauma
Don’t they have their own version of MREs they use for situations like this?
They just send up more food.
Imagine that Uber Eats bill.
Fr. Imagine the expected tip.
Instructions: please ring door bell
Please leave anywhere near the airlock. Pls don’t ring or knock, dogs bark.
deleted by creator
they must have a significant food bank supply, including some kind of reserve replacement nutrients in the event shit goes wrong. That or an incredibly redundant delivery network.
Cygnus, last mission launched on 4 August 2024.
I was curious about this same thing.
I though I read they’re currently housed in the ISS so they should have reserves. I initially thought they were stuck in their launch vehicle.
In this particular situation, if Boeing says it’s safe, I would be inclined to trust them, because if they make the return happen, and it fails, Boeing is done fore. As a crew member though, I would pass for sure and wait for a Dragon
How many people died because boeing made shitty planes and didn’t train their crew properly?
Is boeing done for?
They get one last chance! If they kill these astronauts this time, we’ll be really, really mad like for real!
Don’t worry, we have enough tax payer’s money to bail them out if anything goes wrong.
/s
I think messing up on NASA projects will hurt a company way more. Of course aviation is supposed to be safe, but even the 737 Max has flown thousands of hours. Comparing how many people that have flown on them, versus how many that have been hurt/killed, is still a small number, which is still is supposed to be zero of course.
Traversing space, a pinnacle of engineering, is quite another level of danger, and if you insist on your product being functional and safe, and then kills two astronauts, would cause a whole different level of backlash
How many deaths per 1000h does the max have?
347 apparently, across 7 years of operation
They already couldn’t afford this situation, and look where they are.
What’s an improbable “acceptable risk” to them may not be good enough for NASA, especially if they don’t really understand what’s wrong.
True. Didn’t think of it that way
I am not sure that businesses like Boeing make risk decisions like that. You would think that they would only take a risk that they know they can win, but many times they take a risk and hope that the dice land their way. This would be lives at risk, with calculations assessed by people with very poor records with such assessments.
They could feel like there’s nothing more to lose if it doesn’t make it back but they might be able to claw their way back if it succeeds. “They” being the individuals making the recommendation, not the individuals more concerned about the company overall. If Boeing decides the spaceflight industry isn’t worth the risks, a downsize or complete closing of that part of the company could cost the jobs of those who are the experts in this situation.
So it might not be a case of “we think it’s safe to return”. It might be “returning safely is the only scenario where we aren’t fucked, so let’s roll the dice”.
That’s a very valid point
The question facing NASA’s leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth from the International Space Station in Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, with its history of thruster failures and helium leaks, or should they come home on a SpaceX Dragon capsule?
The question facing NASA’s leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth…
“Alright, just hear me out…” -Boeing
The lives of two government employees are in the balance, and taxpayers paid Boeing for most of the Starliner spacecraft’s development costs.
Money money money…
Three Starliner mission managers had key roles on Columbia’s ill-fated final flight.
I was gonna take issue with that statement until i read this. Causality does seem more probable.
Will those Astronauts get overtime pay?
Unfortunately they’ve been moving backwards across the time zones, resulting in them owing NASA money
This is an excellent article. I’m glad they took time to go into the history of these folks.
Ok Huston, we’re listening!
Huston: okay you two probably gonna die. But we got two options for you. You wanna boing boing boing your way down here? Or do you wanna have space sex bring, I mean make you come? Everyone dies, we just don’t know when or where. Ok most hospice palliative care old people know where, but not when.
Well, you tried.
