Boeing's Starliner Disaster Was Even Worse Than We Thought.. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pm
content: If it’s a Boeing, We should not be going.Did anyone else noticed at 7:47 something falling off from the Starliner?We all know that space travel is always dangerous, even though nowadays to the general public it seems routine. But still these failures were way too prominent, reminiscent of early Soviet-era rushed development, with a “let’s launch now and we’ll hope for the best” attitude. Not something to be expected from a 21st Century American company.Yet, Boeing’s less-than-stellar performance wasn’t an impediment to be awarded the F47’s program.The Chinese military must be delighted.

author: vidarr
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:28:36 pm
content: What do you expect from the Baby Boomer generation...

author: Andy Watson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:31:41 pm
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pmYes, it was window or a hatch or similar. I was wondering what happened to that. It appeared as if nobody stopped to pick it up - at least not before the video clip ended!

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:32:46 pm
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pmGood catch there! and no wind in the trees either.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:54:04 pm
content: Original articlehttps://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/the-harrowing-story-of-what-flying-starliner-was-like-when-its-thrusters-failed/Quote

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 11:56:27 pm
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pmIt was a protective window cover.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:10:21 am
content: I don't know if it was broadcast outside of the US but before she returned to earth some of Suni William's family was complainingvery publiclyabout the delays in bringing her back to earth.Also I've noticed that after the return of the Starliner to earth Boeing been unusually quiet about what went wrong and what it will take to fix it. Redesigning the thrusters and replacing the OEM ones shouldn't be that difficult or take that long so you have to wonder what else they may have found wrong.Considering all of the problems with Boeing aircraft over the recent past I think Trump shouldn't even consider allowing Boeing to have any part in designing or building the F-47! But perhaps the F-47 program is nothing more than one giant GOV bailout for Boeing and isn't intended to be a serious weapons system.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:22:17 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on April 04, 2025, 12:10:21 amWell, that's understandable. Too many have kept downplaying the risks, as though it was all normal, but every extra week spent in space is a health hazard. 10 months is nearing the world record (which is a bit over 12 months if I'm not mistaken) and has serious consequences. It usually takes several months of rehab to fully recover. Sure you can say that's "part of their job" (although they were only expecting 10 days this time), but several months of rehab is like what you can get from a pretty serious accident. Just to keep things in perspective. It's not like they were having some prolonged vacation at Disneyland.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:34:14 am
content: Quotei wonder how complicated is the software ?

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:38:14 am
content: QuoteI would think, or at least hope, that "if we can't bring you back on Starliner then you would have to stay on the station as half of the next crew rotation" would be part of the contigency planning that happens long before the launch.I can't imagine, or again at least hope, that it wasn't an option they came up with only after the situation presented itself.It's a plainly obvious situation that could have arisen indeed with quite some probability, and to not plan for it and have everybody aware of what the plan for it was, would have been absurd.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:39:59 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 04, 2025, 12:22:17 amI completely agree. But that wasn't my point. My point that they had been up there for 8+ months and it appeared that very little was happening regarding getting them back home. But I think that Suni's family getting very vocal about it may have finallyforcedNASA to doing something that they absolutely didn't want to do and that was to take the mission of returning the astronauts away from Boeing and turning it over to Spacex. And yes I realize that that decision was made months before the return but I still think that it was escalating pressure from the families and the general public in the first few months after the launch that forced NASA to make that decision.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:48:38 am
content: They should have been forced sooner because you know its some guy that just sees a person as a budget number that is constantly going to push the thing in terms of the favorable contract.... that was always the thing about national organizations, they should put people first.NASA was always a kind of PR thing to win the heart and mind of the world. The entire space race was like that to show that its better then the USSR. At least they stuck to their job (but the reaction time was really bad IMO, 2 weeks to 8 months. You would think they would start some serious shit at 6 weeks overdue and have a solution by 12.I thought that was the whole benefit of having it nationalized, that they can tell corporate to fuck off. Because its corporate behavior to do that, its like a realistic sounding plot part of a god damn Alien movie with WY.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:53:33 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on April 04, 2025, 12:38:14 amI can't even imagine that that was a realistic scenario. It's sort of like telling the passengers on a burning bus to wait their turn to get off while you're loading more passengers unto the bus at the same time! Even if that was NASA's plan you would think that they would use a "first on - first off' approach to minimize the extremely long duration of the astronauts' time in space.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:57:17 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on April 04, 2025, 12:53:33 amYeah unless its like a doctor or repairman they need, it should have been halted instead of acting like its business as usual. Then you would delay enough programs and derail enough projections that someone would get off their ass and fix the problem in a expedited manner. It's 'for profit' behavior. Let's put MORE cats in the tree. It's like Wal-mart style.It seriously sounds like some bullshit that you read in a rant about working at wal-mart or amazon-warehousing (kafka-esque).Greedy boss behavior, have people go into a building that still smells like smoke after a fire, etc. Common in America. Nasa was supposed to be a higher caliber.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 01:01:08 am
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pmOh, how things have reversed.As a passenger, every Airbus has always been more comfortable than the corresponding Boeing, but Boeings used to be pilots' aircraft with the automation advising the pilot but not overriding them.Remember the 1988 crash of the first A320 passenger flight? Low speed low level pass down a runway, then crashed into a forest at the end of the airport through a combination of the engines spooling up more slowly then expected and the computer not allowing the pilot to get as much AoA as they wanted to zoom over the trees. I don't know how far from stall AoA the Airbus kept the plane in those days, but surely there was some margin of extra lift actually available to initially clear the trees, at which point pressure could be released to a little less than 1G and the plane accelerated as the engines were up to power. Probably. It's impossible to say for sure, but that's certainly what the pilots thought. Thankfully all but three people survived.And then there were multiple incidents of pilots being confused by the instruments and settings, including for example crashing into terrain because on an approach the autopilot was set to 3 kfpm descent rate instead of the desired 3º descent angle. Or the plane where the vertical stabiliser fell off when the pilot pressed the rudder pedals too far at too high speed when climbing out and passing through another plane's wake turbulence. (Boeings have also had tail problems such as the rudder locking hard over one way if used too vigorously)And then there's the plane that descended in a stall all the way from cruising altitude into the Atlantic because the captain's attempts to lower the nose and start flying again were fighting the copilot's full back stick input -- and in an Airbus you can't tell what the other pilot is doing because of the electronic side-sticks. On a Boeing the two pilots' yokes are mechanically linked so you know if the other guy is fighting you (and anyway can see his hands on the controls) and yell at them / hit them. I teach people to fly gliders, sitting behind them, and it's super valuable on every flight that I can see and feel in my control stick what the student is doing, and strong-arm a correction if I don't have time to talk them into making it themselves.Boeing have really lost my trust now, and Airbus seem to have sorted their automation out. I'll take an A320 flight over a 737 one every day of the week, and an A330/340/380 flight over a B777 every time I have a choice. Especially the A380. Best long distance plane in the world. I haven't yet had a chance to try the B787 and A350.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 01:07:45 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on April 04, 2025, 12:53:33 amThey **did** use a first on first off approach.Just to be clearISS has 4 people - Crew-8 on board and the Crew-8 Dragon with 4 seats is attached, they had been there since March 2024Butch and Suni go up on Starliner, ISS has C8 Dragon + Starliner attachedStarliner is deemed out of actionIf return was necessary at this point, without starliner and with only the 4 seat dragon for 6 people, 2 of the people would have to ride attached to cargo racks, this is possible, but obviously not idealStarliner goes home unmanned, ISS has C8 Dagon attachedCrew-9 is sent up with 2 people in a 4 seat dragon, instead of 4 people, ISS has C8 and C9 Dragon attachedCrew-8 comes home with the 4 people who have been up there the longest, the Crew-8 from March 2024, ISS has C9 attachedThe Crew-9 plus Butch and Suni make up the 4 person US crew of the ISSCrew-10 is sent up with 4 people in a 4 seat dragon, ISS has C9 and C10 attachedCrew-9 comes home with the 4 people who have been up there the longest (Butch, Suni, Nick and Aleksandr ), ISS has C10 attachedNB: I'm ignoring Soyuz attachments and crew.

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 01:48:41 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on April 04, 2025, 01:07:45 amYes, but Butch and Suni has already been there 2 1/2 months when the rest of what became Crew 9 joined them.Boeing should have had to pay for a dedicated "bring them home" flight. Their f-up, their job to fix it. Boeing was already getting paid $4.2 billion vs SpaceX 's $2.6 billion for development and the same six crew flights. Dropping $100m on a rescue flight would be in the noise compared to the $2b they're in the hole on that contract, or $523m in 2024 alone.286 days when you expected 8 can't be fun.What's the bet Starliner never takes another crew?

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 03:30:38 am
content: “Considering all of the problems with Boeing aircraft over the recent past I think Trump shouldn't even consider allowing Boeing to have any part in designing or building the F-47! But perhaps the F-47 program is nothing more than one giant GOV bailout for Boeing and isn't intended to be a serious weapons system. “Where is the DOGE when we need it most?

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 03:42:37 am
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on April 03, 2025, 11:22:00 pmSounds like SpaceX with Starship, but when they do it it is lauded.Quote

author: brucehoult
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 06:20:54 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on April 04, 2025, 03:42:37 amYou apparently have missed the distinction between uncrewed testing and development flights, which have the explicit philosophy that if you're not breaking things then you're not actually making a meaningful test, and commercial revenue flights with humans on board.SpaceX blew up a lot of Falcon 1s and 9s in testing 15-20 years ago, and especially in perfecting landing the booster AFTER it had successfully delivered the paying customer's stuff to orbit. No one else has ever even attempted landings -- they just destroy the booster every time anyway.Now they've flown revenue Falcon 9 launches 470 times, with 467 full mission successes, the best record of any rocket in history. And they've landed the booster successfully 426 times.There is no reason to think it won't be the same when StarShip moves from development to revenue flights.