NASA says astronauts stuck in space will not return on Boeing capsule, will wait for SpaceX craft
NASA says astronauts stuck in space will not return on Boeing capsule, will wait for SpaceX craft
The Starliner drama has been a major setback for Boeing’s space ambitions, adding to years of struggle to get the capsule off the ground and keep up with rival company SpaceX.
You're viewing a single thread.
Imagine you're stuck in space... and your two options for getting home are Boeing and SpaceX. Is OceanGate going to branch out into space travel next? I hope these brave souls make it home safely.
As much as I detest SpaceX and the literal child in charge of the company, their craft at least has a track record of safely bringing astronauts to and from the ISS. Boeing doesn't even have that.
SpaceX is Shotwell's company, and she's way more capable of driving success than the fuckstick who does their PR. It's difficult to dismiss the objectively astounding leaps in technical progress that the engineers at SpaceX have achieved.
Musk could take a long walk off a short bridge and it wouldn't affect SpaceX's operations at all.
I know you all like to think that Musk does nothing at SpaceX, but that's not the case. He is heavily involved with Starship, and he was involved with F9 in the past. For example, landing on barges was his push, same as pushing to use stainless steel for Starship.
Whenever someone working at SpaceX says hes involved though, you all just dismiss it as "they don't want to lose their job"
Shotwell runs the day to day though, he's not involved with that.
In business, just like in war, the few take credit for the work and will of the many.
We remember Eisenhower, not the millions who died and sacrificed their life fighting for him.
He doesn't take credit for everything.
But people seems to have a hard on for saying he does absolutely nothing.
We do remember those people... there's a huge WWII memorial in DC and memorials around the country. The Korean War has a great memorial in DC too, great statues.
Dwight Eisenhower apparently has a small memorial as well. I had to look it up to find it. The first review says:
We just happened to find this memorial while waiting for our timed entry into the Air and Space Museum.
So, who is remembered more?
You’re treating a million individual deaths as the same as one person in your thinking. This isn’t binary.
You made the comparison between one person and a million. I quote:
We remember Eisenhower, not the millions who died
From memory, how many of their names do you know?
Yes. That is his point.
same as pushing to use stainless steel for Starship.
Which he totally didn't do because he's a fucking moron who likes stainless steel, nooo this is definitely a sign that his contributions are meaningful
It's stronger than aluminium, as well as easier to manufacture and work in less-than-ideal conditions than carbon fiber. Useful traits when your end goal is to build a whole fuckton of the biggest, most capable, fully reusable rockets in history.
Don't worry, if SS ends up being a failure for any reason they'll blame him, but if it succeeds they'll be silent or say it was dumb luck or he had nothing to do with it.
I remember hearing a podcast story - maybe the Economist? - punctuated with Elon personally canceling the weekend for all of SpaceX by screaming commands at the shift supervisor of the launch platform at night on a Friday.
Everyone dutifully and instantly canceled their plans and worked through the weekend and in fact made great progress.
So I don’t believe all the convenient hype that he is not involved.
I feel the same as you, but you really can't deny the fact that the engineers at his various companies have managed to design some really great tech despite their CEO.
Not just spacecraft either. Starlink is really the first usable satellite broadband, and Tesla has mastered the art of putting advanced powertrain in terrible automobiles.
Those companies have people whose unofficial job is to manage the child when he throws a tantrum and somewhat isolate him from things that could be damaged. Twitter didn't have this protection.
This. SpaceX and by proxy Starlink have Gwynne Shotwell to actually run things. Elon may be the one talking all the time, but he doesn't actually run daily operations.
I've read that Tesla and SpaceX engineers were actually happy that Musk bought Twitter because it's been keeping him occupied and out of their hair.
Well, Twitter's not made up of researchers and engineers. Catering to the whims of a rich guy to get your research funded is a tale as old as the scientific method, they've got it down by now.
some people don't realize that, despite politics and who owns it, they launch like 90% of the things in orbit worldwide. they are essentially the standard.
I'm kinda positive to SpaceX, despite muskyboi, not thanks to.
I hate Musk but he is not the one who designed the Falcon rockets and capsule which have the best track record. I would much prefer to go on one of those than Starliner.
Yep, I probably would too. Nobody's saying Musk designed them.
I'm OOTL: is Soyuz no longer also an option?
Russia invading Ukraine has complicated any future dealings with them, especially when there’s a domestic alternative.
They've been transporting American space personal since at least March
Not sure what could have changed since, but when US/Russia relations at some of the worst levels in history, I'm surprised this last lingering relationship has held out as long as it has.
My understanding is that, in retaliation to US sanctions imposed at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia stopped providing RD-180 rocket engines that were used in the Atlas V. My surprise is that the USA relied on Russian rocket engines to put national security payloads into space.
The use of Russian engines on the Atlas dates back to a Clinton program after the collapse of the USSR. With the Soviet Union no longer able to pay its rocket scientists, it was thought that it was better that the United States pay them for their expertise rather than some other more hostile government gain access to their knowledge.
Interesting. Thanks for the info! I love learning about this stuff.
In case you know - was there some sort of exclusivity agreement the USA had for their Russian rocketry purchases? What would have prevented Russia from sharing their info with whoever they wanted, while still selling to the USA? Or was this agreement guided by political norms? Was the Clinton program named? I'd like to learn more about it.
Prior to the war, relations between the US and Russia were relatively warm. Specifically, during the Bush War on Terror, Russia and China were active partners and enthusiastic participants in crushing "Radical Islamist Extremism".
I suspect you can trace the reliance on Russian rockets back to that period, what with the end of the Shuttle program and a confused path forward between administrations.
Russian industrial rocketry was both world class and dirt cheap, back during the late '00s.
The agreement between Roscosmos and NASA still exist. Each Soyuz mission to the ISS is carrying an American astronaut and each NASA mission is carrying a Russian cosmonaut.
The next mission with the Dragon was supposed to carry 4 astronauts, 3 Americans and 1 Russian. Now the capsule will only carry two astronaut to leave space for the rescue so only 1 American astronaut and 1 Russian will go up on the Crew-9 mission.
SpaceX has a regular scheduled launch that's been sitting around delayed waiting for Starliner to leave the ISS, so kicking two people off it and replacing them with the Starliner crew is convenient and minimizes the schedule disruption.
Soyuz only has three seats and launching a Soyuz with only one crew or empty is something Russia hasn't done since the 60s and would be more work.
NASA is still doing a seat exchange and launching Johnny Kim on the next Soyuz in March, but it looks like it’ll be just Russians on at least the next 2 Soyuz’s after that
I'm just slightly less out of the loop than you, read somewhere it would take a bit longer than Space X but there is some kind of emergency rocket ready-ish.
I'll wait for people with actual information to correct me tho.
It's a decision between a spacecraft that sprung multiple leaks on its first crewed flight and one that carried crew 8 times without issues so far.
Oh I'm sure it was a well-thought out and easy decision.
That will not stop me from poking at Musk a lil bit. Just a lil bit. C'mon bro just a lil pokeage.
I always feel extreme tension during movies and TV if the scene is an oxygen leak from a space shuttle. Now I'm imagining that, but they have to repair things with their janky Xbox controller setup. Holding things upside-down, of course, because they wired the engines backwards.
Oceans Gate 11, The Revenger. The first rocket 🚀 powered by match stick heads. But very safe.
At that point I'd take my chances with a space suit and a parachute. If I live, it would at least break the world record for skydiving height.
That wouldn't work even a little bit. Not just because spacesuits aren't heat resistant so you'd burn up on reentry, but because they don't have enough ∆V to slow down from orbital velocity in the first place.
You'd be like Jebediah in my Kerbal Space Program campaign, floating around the planet without a spacecraft indefinitely.
Did you think I was serious?
Commenters Try To Resist The Urge To “Um Akshully” A Joke Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Why would I resist? That's the fun part!
Being wrong on the internet is a serious matter and deserves our downvotes, sir
HOW DARE
Um, actually dude the situation in your joke was a bit outlandish. Do your research next time.
/jk, gotta be super clear in this thread
And a record for degrees of burning (if surviving), when inevitably meeting the upper layers of atmosphere (especially ionosphere) at supersonic speeds (due to gravitation acceleration as well the current speed of ISS being 7659 meters per second / 17133 miles per hour). Ah, you'd need to find a way to lose horizontal speed in order to fall vertically (orbiting is falling both horizontally and vertically while never actually reaching the ground, at least while the orbiting thing maintains its orbit with subtle periodic adjustments through RCS/ionic thrusters).
Looks like they're not Boeing To Die.
Although, I gotta say, "Hard pass on that Starliner, I'm putting my faith in an Elon Transport Solution" really speaks to the deplorable state of American aerospace.
Except that there have been 12.5 successful Crew Dragon flights (one is still docked to ISS) and, critically, zero crew casualties.
I'd put my faith in Elon Transport Solution (that realistically Elon has nothing to do with any more, operationally) over Made By A Company Where Sometimes The Door Plugs Come Off Transport Solution any day.
And F9 has the record for 363 successful consecutive launches, and more successful consecutive landings than any other vehicle has (edit: consecutive successful) launches.
The next behind them is 100 launches.
And the failure that reset that number, IIRC was AMOS-6 (an uncrewed launch), which was still on the pad being fueled for it's final static fire test before launch. Which wouldn't put crew in danger anyway since they wouldn't be onboard for that test. The only reason the satellite was integrated was because the customer chose to have that done before the test to reduce time between the test and launch, IIRC.
The number is also reset now, just in case you aren't up to date.
The 2nd stage failed on a Starlink mission around a month ago. Some problem with a valve that was part of some test measurement equipment that allowed ice to then build up and damage the engine. All satellites were lost as they couldn't make orbit due to the insertion failure from the engine.
And 30 crew dragon flights.