Boeing software glitch sends Starliner crew capsule into the wrong orbit

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: rickymouse
No Christmas gifts or Christmas dinner for the people on the space station. Maybe Santa can get some stuff to them....on a Russian rocket.

Ummm...why a Russian rocket...

SpaceX has been sending it’s capsule to the space station for years...all while returning it’s boosters to the launch pad...and quite a number of them on a drone barge out in the Atlantic Ocean...

Boeing is yesterday’s tech...

There’s a new kid in town...faster...better...brighter...and way less expensive...

YouSir

Fed-Ex can get it there overnight.

Ummm...well...the eX part was right at least...

With SpaceX’s turnaround time and capabilities...soon that...”get it there overnight”...will be a reality...


Yes...I did just give a shameless plug or two for a company that IMO...is ushering in the future of both manned and unmanned launch/recovery orbital and beyond orbital space systems...

But I digress...I totally realize you meant your post as a joke...and it is funny...





YouSir

a reply to: Arnie123

Boeing is still developing this from scratch though. There's a good reason not just anyone can build a rocket. Rocket science isn't easy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That is true right now but I think the long term plan is to get the costs down and open up space market-wise. There are a lot of people I know in my small community that are working to disruptively bring down costs for access to space. I am sure we are not alone in this as our numbers and financing grow with non traditional funding routes like crowdsource for instance.

a reply to: machineintelligence

They've brought costs way down from even 10 years ago, depending on what you're launching. If all you need is a small cubesat, you can launch one really cheap. Large satellites are still expensive, but they're getting there.

a reply to: rickymouse

The Atlas V uses the Russian made RD-180 engine. The Starliner was launched with a Russian rocket engine. It performed great, the issue was with Boeing's capsule.

It will be interesting to see what NASA says when this thing makes it back to Earth. There is some talk that they will be allowed to with a crew next time.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse
It will be interesting to see what NASA says when this thing makes it back to Earth. There is some talk that they will be allowed to with a crew next time.

IF it makes it back to earth.

We are working several options to recover Spacecraft 3 at one of our Western U.S. landing locations within the next 48 hours and are approaching the next few days with guarded optimism of a successful recovery. Our Landing and Recovery teams are executing their pre-planned contingency deployment to White Sands Missile Range and will be in position by later this evening to make a fully supported recovery.

starlinerupdates.com...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: machineintelligence

We live in an age where CEOs and presidents are committing crimes left and right for their own personal enrichment. It just seems logical the people who are most well versed in logic would conclude it's time to "get some".

Well considering you aren't one of those "well versed " in logic, rather, an unwitting pet project for liberal media that introduced Soundbites to user incapable of actually critically assessing their news correctly.

We live in an Age where the People have said enough and are doing something about it.

Conversly, this is the Age of advance projects that could deliver us to the stars.

Disasters like Boeings open up new roads and paths for us to consume.

So, stick to the topic and dimiss the TDS from your head, this is the Space Exploration forum.

That Boeing capsule looks pretty bulbous, I’m surprised that it can be pushed past Mach 1 without tearing apart.

Also with the space x reusable rockets boosters that land themselves. To me that’s wasted cargo capacity (reduced cargo weight), Basically it has to haul the fuel twice, once up then again during fuel burn for landing on the pads. Makes no sense. I’d prefer semi reusable boosters with parachutes, or non reusable, that can haul a Real load.

a reply to: 38181

Makes no sense.

Reusable lowers the cost per trip.

I’d prefer semi reusable boosters with parachutes, or non reusable, that can haul a Real load.

Your space cargo business can operate in that manner.

Sticking to topic, and being an engineer myself, I am wondering how a software glitch as major as that, was not found in
the required simulations and QA.

You think about the implications of this, and that thing could easily have been manned.

Big problems for software engineering at Boeing, especially after all of the fallout with the Max.

originally posted by: 38181
Basically it has to haul the fuel twice, once up then again during fuel burn for landing on the pads. Makes no sense.

Thats because it doesn't work like that. You only need a small fraction of the fuel to launch a fully fueled and loaded up Falcon 9 to recover the almost empty booster stage.

a reply to: charlyv

You know they must of used Apple maps software and are lucy the craft is still in our solar system

a reply to: Zaphod58

The ATLAS V has been in use for years as had the CENTAUR upper stage which been around for 60 years

Only "new " piece of hardware is the actual crew capsule

Boeing has experienced a series of high profile f**ups - 737 MAX, KC 46 tanker plane , SLS heavy launch rocket

Nor this

From news reports get the impression that Boeing management culture is to blame - thrust seems to be get it done as cheaply as possible Couple that with trying to push things along faster leaves lots of room for problems

a reply to: charlyv

Big problems for software engineering at Boeing, especially after all of the fallout with the Max.

That's what you get when pay bunch of coolies in India $9/hr to write flight software

Get what you pay for ………….

originally posted by: charlyv
You think about the implications of this, and that thing could easily have been manned.

From what I've heard, the crew could have easily corrected the problem and made it to the ISS. It was the autonomous systems that were the problem.

originally posted by: 38181
I’d prefer semi reusable boosters with parachutes, or non reusable, that can haul a Real load.

I think Rocket Lab is planning to do that with their Electron rocket, and capture the empty booster with a helicopter. Much smaller boosters - different market segment.

space.com

Rocket Lab is taking a very different approach than the one employed by SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose returning rockets land vertically after slowing their descents propulsively. Electron first stages will rely on parafoils to slow down and an enhanced thermal-protection system to endure the heat of re-entry, Beck said. And Electron boosters won't land — they'll be plucked out of the sky by a helicopter.

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: 38181
Basically it has to haul the fuel twice, once up then again during fuel burn for landing on the pads. Makes no sense.

Thats because it doesn't work like that. You only need a small fraction of the fuel to launch a fully fueled and loaded up Falcon 9 to recover the almost empty booster stage.

The rocket still has to haul the unburned fuel used for the boosters to use for landing on the pad. That is weight taken away from the Potential payload. These are vehicles where ounces count toward weight management, and where Cost-Per-Pound/kilo of payload ultimately matters for the paying customer.

a reply to: firerescue

And the capsule is what was being tested. I'm well aware of Boeing's screw ups lately. If getting to space, and getting everything to work perfectly the first time was easy, a lot more people would be up there. People act like this was something simple, and Boeing was just too incompetent to pull it off.

guess boeing is cracking trough the ice now….shame was once an good company...
who can trust them now and in the future ??????

a reply to: ressiv

One minor issue with a capsule test is not a huge issue. Look at all the problems NASA has had over the years. Or that SpaceX has had.