Boeing’s Troubled Starliner Flight: It’s All in the Numbers
by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
To truly understand how problem plagued Boeing’s orbital flight test of its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft was in December, all one needs to do is to look at the numbers.
- 2: Boeing could have lost the automated spacecraft in flight on two separate occasions, once after launch and again before reentry;
- 3: number of glitches (two software, one communications) that nearly resulted in the loss of the spacecraft;
- 49: gaps in software testing where software bugs might have been found;
- 61: corrective actions recommended by joint independent review team investigating the anomalies;
- 410,000,000: Cost in dollars to Boeing if has to redo an automated flight test to the International Space Station (ISS) before conducting one with crew;
- 4,200,000,000: Cost in dollars of what NASA is paying Boeing to develop and test Starliner.
On Friday, Boeing and NASA officials briefed the media on the results of an independent review team’s investigation of Starliner’s partially successful flight test just before Christmas.
Starliner was unable to reach the space station’s orbit and dock with the orbiting facility due to a combination of a software error and a communications problem.
After controllers got Starliner into a low orbit, engineers began searching for other software bugs. They found and corrected one that could have caused the vehicle’s service module to collide with the capsule after they separated prior to reentry. The collision could have resulted in the capsule burning in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Starliner landed safely at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico after an abbreviated two-day flight test. Boeing officials said the software issues notwithstanding, the hardware performed well and largely as expected.
NASA officials on Friday said no decision has been made on whether the space agency will require Boeing to conduct another automated flight to ISS before putting astronauts aboard for a second flight test.
Before any decision is made, Boeing needs to present a plan to NASA for implementing the 61 corrective actions. The space agency will evaluate the results of the changes after Boeing completes them.
Boeing’s contract with NASA has two milestones under which it will receive payments for docking automated and crewed Starliner vehicles with the station.
However, NASA officials said the issue of an extra mission is more complicated because of the difference between the program requirements put out by NASA and how Boeing chose to respond in its winning proposal.
NASA Associate Administrator of Human Exploration and Operations Douglas Loverro the the space agency’s requirement was for Boeing to give the space agency confidence that Starliner could get a crew to the space station. Boeing proposed conducting automated and crewed flights to ISS, which was written into the contract.
After it makes the corrective actions, Boeing could propose that it move directly to the crewed flight test, Loverro said. NASA would evaluate the proposal and decide whether to approve such a plan.
Jim Chilton, senior vice president at Boeing Space and Launch, said the company stood ready to repeat the automated flight test if NASA requests it.
Boeing has taken a $410 million charge against earnings in case a second flight is required. The amount covers the flight, the investigation into the anomalies, and corrective actions.
NASA also will perform an evaluation of the workplace culture of Boeing ahead of crewed test flights through an Organizational Safety Assessment (OSA). The goal of the OSA is to provide a comprehensive safety assessment through individual employee interviews with a sampling from a cross-section of personnel, including senior managers, mid-level management and supervision, and engineers and technicians at various sites.
Loverro said he designated the flight anomalies as a high visibility close call due to their seriousness.
“As there were no injuries during the flight, this close call designation is where the potential for a significant mishap could have occurred and should be investigated to understand the risk exposure and the root cause(s) that placed equipment or individuals at risk,” the space agency said in a press release.
“Since 2004, the year NASA updated this procedural requirement, NASA has designated about 24 high visibility close calls,” the statement added. “For example, in July 2013, astronaut Luca Parmitano discovered a leak in his spacesuit that could have resulted in asphyxiation; as a result, that incident also was given the same designation.”
Boeing said it is tightening up its software development and testing program. The space agency is also improving its oversight of the company.
“NASA also will perform an evaluation of the workplace culture of Boeing ahead of crewed test flights through an Organizational Safety Assessment (OSA),” the press release said. “The goal of the OSA is to provide a comprehensive safety assessment through individual employee interviews with a sampling from a cross-section of personnel, including senior managers, mid-level management and supervision, and engineers and technicians at various sites.”
69 responses to “Boeing’s Troubled Starliner Flight: It’s All in the Numbers”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
my response would be three things
First this is completely unacceptable. Boeing is the premier manufacturer of commercial air transport vehicles and they should have treated this as such a program moving it into that division and then encouraging talent to cross pollinate. they are doing the pollination now and it should have been done a long time ago. For the money spent the results are simply not acceptable
second before the usual suspects start the hand wringing…sadly this is not unique in the space crew business. SpaceX is having similar problems, remember they actually blew a vehicle up. oh I forget that was just testing with no crew on board…well so was this. SpaceX has had a history in the cargo dragon of software problems, thruster problems, loss of comm problems. etc
Boeings issues are on a scale that is not acceptable for Boeing…but sadly it is nothing new
it has been one year since SpaceX uncrewed flight 🙂
third. . nothing seems to be a magic bullet in terms of lowering space development cost.. nothing
Robert, while your first is about correct, the rest of what you wrote is I think off the mark.
Boeing clearly demonstrates overall systemic problems, not individual teething issues. Charging so darn much, and then refusing to do even the same amount of testing as SpaceX- as well as not doing end-to-end testing- that was a lot bigger issue to me than the individual problems. Not catching these things, THAT was the issue most of all; not that they could have occurred in the process, since we’ve all made those types of mistakes ourselves (he says, extremely humbly!).
As for SpaceX: Let’s remember, SpaceX’s blowup you mentioned happened during a test that Boeing wasn’t ever even going to do in the first place – so hard to compare them, isn’t it? And SpaceX also went the extra mile in verifying safe ascent abort via test, which Boeing refused to do (and which NASA let them get away with not doing, something I disagreed with at the time. There were indeed some minimal requirements NASA should have imposed on the companies, and demonstrating the capability for intact abort should have been one of them). Now NASA is also stuck taking Boeing’s word for it, while trying to figure out how to get it past the more benign nominal flight part.
I’m still very uncomfortable with that; it was not, still in my personal view, the correct decision for NASA to make. But even in light of their (by far) most expensive contractor having (by far) the most systemic issues, and even with new leadership at multiple levels, I’m concerned that there isn’t the will to re-address this issue now, even tho Boeing’s own mismanagement of its program, and NASA’s own admittedly insufficient insight/oversight of Boeing, gives them the perfect window of opportunity to do so.
Dave Huntsman
thought I gave you a reply but dont see it maybe I did something wrong…anyway off to bed for flight ops but I will get to it
DP tabi tabi we say here sort of
“Boeing clearly demonstrates overall systemic problems, not individual teething issues. ” I would not call blowing up a capsule a teething problem …however in general when teething problems are plural then there usually is some systemic reason behind them
I am, as I have said rather disappointing with my old company.but in my view you are overstating Boeing’s issues and understating SpaceX’s one
“As for SpaceX: Let’s remember, SpaceX’s blowup you mentioned happened during a test that Boeing wasn’t ever even going to do in the first place”
nope…the only test that Boeing did not do what SpaceX did was the actual inflight abort…it was not needed for solid technical reasons
Look SpaceX has issues of their own. in the Dragon cargo flights they have had thrusters fail (an entire thruster ring), comm problems, and other issues that could have resulted in loss of the vehicle. in real time they figured out fixes to these just like the Boeing team did.
and I think the problems go deeper. how deep
https://arstechnica.com/sci…
here is the money graph
“We sent out a note to the team that this was badly designed, badly
built, and badly checked,” he said. “That’s just a statement of fact. I
met with the whole quality team, and I said, ‘Did you think that that
thing was good?’ They said, ‘No.’ I told them that, in the future, you
treat that rocket like it’s your baby, and you do not send it to the
test site unless you think your baby’s going to be OK. They said that
they did raise the concern to one of the engineers. But that engineer
didn’t do anything. ‘OK,’ I said, ‘then you need to email me directly.’
Now they understand. If you email me directly, and if I buy off on the
risk, then it’s OK. What’s not OK is they think that the weld is not
good, they don’t tell me, they take it to the pad and blow it up. Now I
have been clear. There’s plenty of forgiveness if you pass me the buck.
There is no forgiveness if you don’t.”this is 1) an admission that the safety system at SpaceXis broken…2) an admission that they are flying with bad welds…you dont “think” welds are good or bad…you X ray them. but even my eye in photos can spot runs of FNC fusion not complete welds. and 3) that the design process is slipshod
this is not innovation or rapid prototyping…its just simply bad management
we will I think see more of this Robert
You post explains well why Old Space Boeing has ground to a halt in terms of progress having taken over a decade to develop the expendable SLS from the decades old elements of the reusable STS.
Meanwhile, down Texas way, the SN2 is already on the test stand doing its tank testing. Work meanwhile has started on SN3.
LOL Musk world
wow this next version of SN will be built fast fly high and do great things…
dont worry progress is happening
Oh bad it blew up ,no worries really all it was going to do was blah blah blah
and wow the next version is coming any day now…back to one
fans cheer
If they are building inexpensive test articles to find the limits, there is no problem and the expense is minimal and acceptable. When they are building final flight articles, then booms are a major issue.
Robert has a very hard time understanding SpaceX is not merely building a rocket in Boca Chica, they are building an assembly line for building rockets.
I suspect the SpaceX acceptance of test to destruction of full sized equipment bothers him more. No one else in the business is comfortable with destroying so much potentially flight worthy hardware in full view of the company detractors. When congress is the financier, appearance of flawless development is of supreme importance, second only to keeping the parking lots full. Spend decades in a culture and some of it will absorb.
Whether it costs $5M per blown article, or a tenth of that, the optics are at odds with the financial reality. Dueagle notwithstanding (thinks I’m a factor of 20 too high) , $100M in destroyed hardware is cheap if it leads to this system being operational.
I am concerned about this Starship/Superheavy production in advance of flyable prototypes being a bridge too far. There could possibly be a showstopper that has been overlooked. Another concern is the one Lee brought up in another thread that the stock of Falcon9 cores is fairly small. Any core business must keep the wheels turning even while moving on. Note that these are concerns of mine and not based on knowledge or any recommendation to do anything differently.
and the hard part, the raptor engines, are pretty much done.
Yep, and SN2 passed it’s cryogenic tests. Work on SN3 is moving forward.
bad management? It sounds exactly like what BOEING needs. A CEO that actually puts the product first, ahead of stock prices/profits.
Something that Boeing USED to be.
And a CEO who has no problem getting his hands dirty being on the shop floor instead of someone who just sits in the Executive Suite hundreds of miles away from the assembly line.
The most important part of that being the understanding that the shop floor is the reason for the offices to exist and not the other way around.
Yes, SpaceX is limited to moving at the speed of NASA. But the capsule and rocket for DM-2 are at the Cape, just waiting for NASA to sign off on it. The Starliner on the other still needs a lot of work.
I wonder if Boeing will have the money to fly it again given the collapsing of the airline industry. Even Southwest is projecting to lose money this quarter from folks not flying. Needless to say Southwest now has bigger worries then the B737 Max.
there is a reason that SpaceX has been sitting on the ground for a year. these folks launched an incomplete capsule…it has no life support for instance…and well all they did was fly a semi dragon to the space station
its not “waiting for NASA” these are the folks who after they flew that mission blew up a capsule
Boeing has the money …no worries and the Max is coming back. I will go back and do some of the test flying soon. Its a little smaller then what I am use to but my company has insisted 🙂 fly navy
I an sure it will be back someday, just like Starliner. But Boeing has a lot of work fixing both of them. Boeing is just lucky Airbus has such a backlog of orders the airlines are stuck with the B737 Max’s they ordered.
you clearly dont have a clue why the Max was built like it was in the first place sigh
I guess you haven’t seen the Friday release of the House’s investigation on the B737 Max. It is worst than NASA’s findings on the Starliner. Hopefully NASA will take note of it, including the “culture of concealment” at Boeing which seems to fit with NASA’s surprise that Boeing didn’t do a full review of Starliner’s software.
https://www.reuters.com/art…
U.S. lawmakers fault FAA, Boeing for deadly 737 Max crashes
March 6, 2020 / 11:11 AM
David Shepardson, Eric M. Johnson
“WASHINGTON/SEATTLE (Reuters) – A U.S. House investigative report into two fatal Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes on a Boeing 737 MAX faulted the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval of the plane and Boeing’s design failures, saying the flights were “doomed.”
and
“The U.S. House panel also faulted Boeing for what it described as a “culture of concealment” for failing to disclose information to airline pilots about the 737 MAX’s MCAS stall-prevention system linked to both crashes, and that a key angle-of-attack cockpit alert was “inoperable on the majority of the 737 MAX fleet.””
its useless…”
and that a key angle-of-attack cockpit alert was “inoperable on the majority of t”
most airplanes dont have it period. our fleet does not we didnt want it
I do. They should have stuck with Yellowstone and not building an abortion like this.
they had no choice, the customer wanted it. Boeing has not wanted to build any 737 since the 200its all customer pressure
And that is why they need ENGINEERS up there, not MBAs that can only see PROFITS and stock prices.
When Boeing did 747, Almost ALL AIRLINEs feared it. Yet, they bet the company and succeeded.
Now, Boeing gives up on Yellowstone. Likewise, they continue to screw up with X-48 BWB (start it as cargo and tanker; even DOD wanted that as a tanker. ).
No, Boeing has become a has-been.
” I will go back and do some of the test flying soon.”
So you will be working for Boeing now?
“My company has insisted.”
His company, these days, is Turkish Airlines. It’s a big Boeing customer so I’m sure it has a sizable pecuniary interest in the rehabilitation of the 737 MAX. Thus Capt. Bob’s marching orders are utterly unsurprising. I’m sure senior captains at other big 737 MAX customer airlines are also packing their bags. MAXapalooza coming up!
To be fair, it makes good sense that ALL of the airline’s senior pilots check off on this. Over at AA, the crews are asking AA to NOT fly MAX. It is going to take some convincing to get them back onboard.
Hadn’t heard that about AA but I can’t say I’m surprised.
Lori Garver is running ALPA these days. I’d be fascinated to know what her take – official or otherwise – is on the whole MAX mess.
I am on the max recert team as a representative of my company. they (my company) Pulled me into it even though I am on the triple 7 now…but I carry DPE/DER certification on both airplanes …so I was a good fit to go back and work the issues…also I am on quite good terms with boeing.
Yes, and we all know what the reason is. But Crew Dragon 2 is ready now. NASA has all its little rituals and mummeries to do and a metric ton or two of paperwork to finish and then it will fly.
The DM-1 capsule lacked only the crew control console. It had life support.
The “Not Ready for Prime Time” capsule turned out to be Starliner.
Care to hazard a guess how long it will be sitting on the ground? I’m thinking it will be doing well to fly again two years hence.
no it was not very complete…if all it lacked was the crew console its been a long 1 year for that
I have no idea why you keep up your futile attempts to peddle this fairy story about DM-1 being incomplete. The DM-1 D2 had no crew console because it had no crew, not because the thing didn’t exist. All the D2’s built since that are going to carry crew have everything they need to do that job.
The Cargo D2’s won’t have any crew-related stuff and will be fitted with a smaller life support package as it only has to be big enough to keep any bugs or small animals alive on their way to ISS.
The year since DM-1 was spent dealing with the April 20 explosion, cranking out more vehicles and waiting for NASA to finish all its ritual dances and paperwork.
I have to wonder if that is not a mistake. Cargo can serve as a backup lifeboat.
Yes, I have wondered why D1 couldn’t have been a backup lifeboat.
D1 is berthed. Need to docked. But D2 cargo is docked. Makes sense to keep it there.
With Boeing coming up there, might be useful.
There’s a limit even to D2’s versatility.
um. No. DM-1 had no abort system. Likewise, the life support was minimal, not full.
Of course DM-1 had an abort system. That was what blew it up later.
If you have a link to any source – other than some Internet troll – to back up that fairy tale that DM-1 flew with no or “minimal” life support, trot it out.
It’s really quite astonishing how much disinformation is still widely believed about D2. A lot of people still seem to be of the opinion that the Crew Dragons are going to be refurbished for cargo after one crew flight each. SpaceX shot that one down months ago but I still see it all the time on this and other forums.
Oops. Was thinking of dragon V1.
Whataboutisms galore!!
The DM-1 explosion was due to an unknown unknown not even NASA suspected could happen. Ditto AMOS-6. SpaceX and NASA went to school on those. Get over them.
CRS-7 was due to a strut part not meeting spec by a factor of 5. IIRC, at the time much of aerospace was getting bad metal from a source fudging their testing procedures.
Face it: your beloved Boeing screwed the pooch, repeatedly. Own it.
Actually, it is TOTALLY fair for RGO to point to this. What I find interesting is that he is missing the point. SX’s QA is such that they are testing extreme edge cases, and finding them. IOW, SX’s QA is night and day ahead of Boeing’s.
Even RGO’s pointing to a good ARS article and he thinks that the section he pulled was a downfall for SX. Oddly, it was quite the opposite. It really pointed out the difference in old space and new space, and new space comes out WAY AHEAD.
Minor nitpick.. Actually, the last uncrewed flight of a Crew Dragon was on January 19 this year. That’s less than 2 months ago.
That particular flight was very successful.
First,
No. Boeing WAS the premier manufacturer of commercial air transport vehicles.
I think that just about everybody agrees, that at this time, Airbus has the title.
Boeing is a total DISASTER right now and Calhoun remains another disaster in the making. Boeing QA in Commercial ATV, along with military, and space, is EXACTLY what is causing their issues. Cross pollinating is the disaster because Boeing is now controlled by MBA’s.
Secondly, SX has not had anywhere near the issues that you make it up to be. Even the explosion was post flight, and could not happen on the first flight. Thankfully, SX has a MUCH better QA program than Boeing does at this time. Thankfully, SNC also appears to have a better QA program.
Third, lowering the costs are easy. Just get rid of old space. The fact that Boeing has not only cost multiple billions more than SX AND SNC, but been the worst choice, only confirms what NASA’s originally point system showed.
“
No. Boeing WAS the premier manufacturer of commercial air transport vehicles.
I think that just about everybody agrees, that at this time, Airbus has the title
you are happy to have your opinion…my company is buying more Boeings than airbus and will stay there
“Secondly, SX has not had anywhere near the issues that you make it up to
be. Even the explosion was post flight, and could not happen on the
first flight.”
it could not happen on the first flight because the system was not there 🙂 they have blown up tha capsule now, they have blown up several proto vehicles, they have had the same issues with crew dragon
Space X QC is a joke just ask Elon
““We sent out a note to the team that this was badly designed, badly
built, and badly checked,” he said. “That’s just a statement of fact. I
met with the whole quality team, and I said, ‘Did you think that that
thing was good?’ They said, ‘No.’ I told them that, in the future, you
treat that rocket like it’s your baby, and you do not send it to the
test site unless you think your baby’s going to be OK. They said that
they did raise the concern to one of the engineers. But that engineer
didn’t do anything. ‘OK,’ I said, ‘then you need to email me directly.’
Now they understand. If you email me directly, and if I buy off on the
risk, then it’s OK. What’s not OK is they think that the weld is not
good, they don’t tell me, they take it to the pad and blow it up. Now I
have been clear. There’s plenty of forgiveness if you pass me the buck.
There is no forgiveness if you don’t.”
wonderful
rest is your opinion as well 🙂 safe flights
As far as a playback of the briefing, I’m unable to find it anywhere; not on YouTube, nor naturally not on NASA’s (who never, I guess as a matter of policy, it seems, likes to record and post such things); anyone know if someone else might have posted it somewhere? – Dave Huntsman
It’s on YouTube. I will post the link in the morning, but if you put “YouTube Starliner Conference” in google it will come up.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Emmet, That’s it. Thanks!
I agree with Francesco – Boeing was picked for this program as the more expensive but essentially guaranteed option to counterbalance the lower cost but perceived-to-be-riskier SpaceX. Despite this, Boeing’s performance has been disappointing. And NASA has been somewhat blindly accepting that as just “Oh, whatever – they’re the ones who know how to do this stuff anyway. Everything’s fine.” But it wasn’t fine. NASA, who was supposed to be supervising this whole thing and accepted simulations (+ component-level testing) as equivalent to flight tests and required a large number of tortuous reviews and mountains of paperwork, is to blame here, too.
Anyway, we don’t want to be solely dependent on SpaceX to give the US access to the ISS and orbit in general. We’ve already seen, when Antares/Cygnus blew up and we were set to be solely dependent on SpaceX for ISS cargo, how on the very next flight (iirc) that all went up in smoke. NASA paid for a backup and we need a backup. Otherwise, the backup is to keep paying Putin. Accordingly, we need Starliner to succeed. And it will get there; it’s just going to be even slower than anyone wants.
One wonders how Sierra Nevada and their DreamChaser would have done. Considering they couldn’t even land it from a short glide without crashing, I suspect that Boeing was still the better choice. And of course SpaceX has had its hiccups with this program too – Commercial Crew has turned out to be somewhat harder than hoped. But, all involved are getting good experience. This generation is getting experience. We can’t really call the experiences of the 60s ours anymore; this generation has to go out there and get in the fight, even get it’s nose bloodied at times, too.
Well, disappointing on Boeing and NASA’s parts, but looking forward to this getting back on track, and not at the snail’s pace I suspect might be in store. Hopefully a reflight can be done before the year is out, but we’ll see
I think your “snail’s pace” suspicion is all but certain to be dead-on. Based on Boeing’s recent past history with other Starliner problems, I’m figuring a minimum of two more years before Starliner flies crew. It’s not entirely out of the question for it to take that long just to get to a re-do of OFT. Another flight of some kind before year’s end would, no doubt, please some of us space nerds, but I think the odds of that happening are asymptotically close to zero. Boeing simply isn’t institutionally either quick or fast. And this is, frankly, no time to be applying the lash to the rowers on the Boeing benches. They make enough mistakes even when they aren’t being chivvied along. Boeing needs to take the time it needs to do a proper comeback job. SpaceX – and perhaps a couple or three seats purchased from Roscosmos – will handle things in the meantime.
Dream Chaser didn’t “crash” exactly, it went into the weeds after one of its main landing gear failed to deploy. That landing gear wasn’t a flight article, it was borrowed from another aircraft to save money on the prototype. Not the smartest place to pursue economies as it turned out, but nowhere near as serious as either the D2 explosion or Starliner’s multifarious woes. In the alternate universe where SNC stayed in the CC program, Dream Chaser might well have beaten even SpaceX to ISS.
I suspect that NASA will wait for SX’s next flight before deciding exactly how critical Boeing issues are. If SX is successful, then Boeing will have to undergo a LOT of inspection. Otherwise, NASA will clear them and away they go.
Nope. Do you remember when the GOP forced NASA to down select? And interestingly, the GOP wrote letters condemning NASA for selecting SX. They expected either Boeing or Boeing and SNC. Then SNC sued upon losing.
According to SNC’s lawsuit,
SX scored tops (and IIRC, by a large margin ), THEN SNC, and finally Boeing. Problem is, that one of the top ppl (in fact, I think it was same guy that went to SX), OVERRODE the points system and put Boeing ahead of SNC.
Basically, New Space is being screwed over due to politics in both CONgress AND NASA.
Sadly, NASA and American taxpayers are also being screwed over by that politics.
And SNC/DC will be ready in the next year. At least for Cargo. And I believe that SNC is making certain that they are human rated as well.,
Well, that might have been the plan but, as the old saying goes, man plans, God laughs.
never heard that one.
that is really not correct. I was at Boeing at the time, and have very good connections at JSC
in the commercial crew contest SpaceX was actually viewed as the “low risk option” ….SpaceX had a lot of experience with the Dragon cargo ship and while they are not crew rated, they are for all intents and purposes near crew capable…the view at NASA was that SpaceX would simply upgrade as is called in the industry “version up” the design and crew rate it
spaceX is the one who did all the useless innovation…for instance the powered landing effort…
boeing was viewed as the “fall back” because NASA did not want to depend on two companies (the other being SNC) which were “new” to spaceflight…they wanted some legacy company
your comments are just rhetoric.
itis surprising to me that 1) Boeing has been so weak in this and 2) SpaceX has taken so long to field what should have been a simple upgrade of the Dragon.
Your second is the one that got to me about Commercial Crew. It was my understanding that Dragon One was designed from the start for future upgrades to manned operations with relatively minor work. I thought a well tested capsule with a strong track record could be upgraded in a couple of years to crew capability. Probably what I get for thinking when I’m not used to it.
Eventually, I would like to know why Dragon One was not used in this manner. Was the capsule with 20 flights now not designed for manned use by SpaceX, or was it rejected by NASA. If not designed that way by SpaceX, why was it generally assumed that it was? If rejected by NASA, was it for good and sufficient reason or political maneuvering? Lack of crew escape system is the strongest reason I can think of for spending Billions and Years developing a whole new ship.
The $6.8B and many years to develop two capsules is difficult for me to understand when most of it was supposedly well understood technology.
I share this frustration…
my impression from the friends I have at NASA with commercial crew is that they expected SpaceX to do an upgrade of Dragon cargo…and were somewhat surprised when it turned out to be essentially a new ship. part of that was SpaceX learned a lot with dragon cargo and seemed to think that a near clean sheet was the way to go…but part of it I think also had to do with Musk hoping that Red or lunar Dragon would be able to fall out of the development of powered landing
I am not that all familiar with either design (more so the Boeing then SpaceX as the Boeing is more or less an Apollo CM) so I really dont know what it was going to take to upgrade the Cargo ship…clearly a life support, crew escape and some sort of crew interface as well as a new docking port…so the question ramps up to internal SpaceXdecisions which I amnot privy to
but SpaceX was seen as the least aggressive design.
I actually am “chagrined” at the two end points from slightly different ends
I am surprised SpaceX took so long to get to crewed flight and am not surprised Boeing did, but am aghast at the quality of work on the product.
I dont know or cannot comment on anything that goes on on the black side of life, but this has to be the worst product that Boeing has rolled off the assembly line since…well I dont know a real comparison
the first B17 and B29 were lost but those reasons are “things you dont know” sort of stuff…this is just things that slipped through the process…and speaks to shoddy product management.
or …I guess the alternate explanation is that the expertise that I thought existed in the company to do this sort of work…simply did not.
thats a little scary for me
I have a lot of speculative opinions on what probably happened. OTOH, I don’t have a lot of use for endless opinions stated as fact, even my own.
I tend towards the type contract that reads “Payment on Delivery”. “I’ve got better things to do than try to control your management and workforce.””Call me when you are complete.” Can’t fly well when there
are six inspectors crowded into the cockpit arguing with you and each other during IFR conditions. My speculation, not to be considered as fact, though it works well in some fields.
The Liberty vehicle that Rich Kolker and i proposed in our piece in the Weekly Standard was more as you state…a payment on delivery system
there are problems with doing that “now” however in that we also envisioned the FAA taking over and regulating such vehicles in a manner consistent with their regulation of aviation…we did note that it needed to be done much as aviation was done ie slowly and that the cost might be higher in terms of lives
but of course this doesnt exist. so NASA had to figure out another way
As you note, Dragon 1 had no abort system or docking port. Adding these was hardly going to be a trivial exercise. So I find it hard to credit that your friends at NASA ever thought otherwise.
Once an abort system is on the table, of course, it is natural – at least for a company like SpaceX – to try to figure out routine, rather than exceptional, uses for all the extra mass carried to orbit, hence powered landings.
The idea was that the Dragon2 would be more than a mere taxi to ISS, landing at a spaceport instead of the ocean, while also serving as a Deep Space spacecraft for both crew and cargo flights. It would also have the capability to land cargo on the Moon and Mars.
At space conferences during that period SpaceX presenters outlined the hopes for Dragon 2.0. There were numerous presentations about Red Dragon and other plans for it. I recall seeing at least three at the ASCE space conferences over that period. And the sponsor of the Dear Moon was originally going to fly a Dragon2 around the Moon.
But NASA didn’t like having competition for the SLS/Orion nor did they see a need for a spacecraft capable of supporting Moon and Mars operations. They were also uncomfortable with rocket landing since capsules have always used parachutes for landing.
Hence SpaceX had to switch to using parachutes as the main recovery technique, instead of using them merely as an emergency system. The need to repurpose the Dragon2 has been one of the main source of the delays. It is also why Elon Musk decided to accelerate work on his Mars Transportation System. He recognized NASA has lost the ability that it once had to take risks and be bold.
I think I understand somewhat how this all went awry. If my memory is correct that D1 was supposed to become a manned system, then there is a disconnect in between the intention and D2. It would seem that a simple and quick manned capability should have been made available soon after D1 earned its’ spurs as a reliable transport vehicle.
The most likely thing in my mind is that so many requirements were piled on that D1 couldn’t handle them without a massive rework that was even worse than a clean sheet D2. The abort system being the only thing I know of that would be so major, I wonder if waving that one requirement could have had a US vehicle flying years and billions ago. I also wonder if the abort requirement is the best use of safety investment, especially when depending on the Soyuz exclusively for a decade.
Dragon 1 had no abort system and no docking mechanism. Adding those to Dragon 1 was not going to be either quick or simple. The “clean sheet of paper” design of D2 would have been largely necessary in any case.
Showstoppers for a NASA use. If mission oriented, Falcon9 is now at 82 launches, one of which was lost. Even the lost capsule could have been saved if the parachutes had been programmed to deploy. Mission oriented people could have entered ISS through the berthing hatch. Many NASA oriented people find reasons to delay or prevent much progress though.
The other part is that Dragon 1 was purportedly man capable with minor upgrades going by the stories back when. Beanbag chair and a scuba tank is one phrase I remember.
Well, given that NASA was the customer, it wasn’t like there was any way SpaceX was going to build a manned Dragon without that stuff.
NASA and Old Space have lost.
So many ppl forget that companies like Boeing were once ran by engineers like SX is today and WERE the innovation behind Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle.
We need to redevelop companies like these.
BO needs a kick in the butt (afraid of moving too fast and failures).
BA needs help to get moving (very innovative, but not willing to take final step).
Thankfully, SX ppl are learning and then creating new start-ups based on what SX has learned.
QA and Regulations. Simple as that.
You are correct about the first part.
BUT, you were wrong about the second. SNC came out WAY ahead of Boeing.
It was PURE politics that selected Boeing. It had nothing to do with legacy or any other issue.
That is why SNC sued NASA and Boeing.
Interestingly, they dropped it and then SNC was selected for cargo.
Imagine that.
And SX’s redesign of Dragon was at their OWN expense. Not at NASA. OTOH, Boeing’s nightmare has been 100% NASA (read taxpayers) expense.
BUT, you were wrong about the second. SNC came out WAY ahead of Boeing.
thats not true SNC was and is the most complicated of all three vehicles. however it has the potential to be the best
the rest is babble
No, your tripe is the bable. Fact is, that SNC sued NASA/Boeing BECAUSE SNC scored higher than Boeing (at this time, just about everybody scores higher than Boeing).