According to the relative price of seats on Starliner versus Soyuz, NASA will actually save money by having to buy more seats on Soyuz. Down side ... Soyuz has less leg room and lousy food. Plus side ... the little bottles of Stoli.
In 2000, I met a vietnamese technology worker who told me he found out how much more his white counterpart got paid at Boeing. He couldn't work for such a biased company. Boeing's software woes stem from this blatant bias toward their treatment of workers based on race versus ability. What a joke the company has become with this coddling by the federal government.
"But somehow, the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, and a flawed thruster burn pushed the capsule into the wrong orbit."
All Boeing clocks are now set to Wall Street time. Maybe somebody failed to inform NASA.
2
So, let me get this straight, Boeing was unable to set the clocks correctly. And this is the same company that swore to the FAA that MCAS was safe, thereby killing two plane-loads of people. And Boeing wants to be trusted with the lives of astronauts - and passengers on their planes. Yup.
1
The capsule time was probably set to Bangalore, where Boeing's outsourced programmers are.
3
Boeing sensors and software go awry... Sound familiar?
6
Timing problem ... better on the way up than on the way down.
2
Wow! Driving design and quality by shareholder value and schedule instead of quality of work and safety and engineering doesn't work so well???? What a surprise!! Why does anyone think that this is still the same engineering company that it was once????
9
Can I get a refund? Seems like tax dollars wasted on a wastrel of a company now.
6
The moon landing in 1969 did not have clock problems. Have we forgotten how to tell time?
7
Good luck to all those thinking about joining the Space Force.
1
BA stock price should be plummeting to double digits or lower but in this day and age of too big to fail... investors unfazed. This is a massively mismanaged out of control corporation and yet... This latest cockup is another shrug. Will any major corporation be held to account by government or investors?
6
I’m glad that Boeing is suspending production on the 737’s.
I’d much rather fly on the new 738.
I hear they are a lot safer.
2
Why would any government agency do business with a company the gave us the Boeing 737 MAX ?
Ha Ha Ha.
This report just shows that the company can't be trusted to produce a quality product.
Time for NASA to go back to the drawing board and take this project in-house again.
5
Any other company in (almost) any other democratic country, would have already folded or being severly punished by regulators for their consistent faults, wether going to space or flying to Etiopia. Not Boeing, which has always hired former high level republican or democrat officials, ambassadors or private sector guys to help them shield them from the kind of Max trouble of the past year, and now this. Too big to fail ?
Imagine if a French or Chinese company had gone thru what Boeing has recently. American double standard at its best.
5
The pains of "annus horribilis" for Boeing continue.
This is indeed a rocket science.
I am a big fan of our space program.
I disagreed with Obama when he abandoned space shuttle without any other American option.
For life of me - why he thought buying Soyuz seats is in our interests - baffles me.
But here we are - and we will buy more seats for more years.
I have been to Baiknour and have been strapped in a Soyuz simulator.
While Russians have been good Uber - nothing beats like our own Tesla.
God speed Boeing - they need some divine intervention.
5
I guess they flew it, and it flew away. 🙂 How much did this terrible blunder really cost? Will it cover health care costs for four generations?
1
Never expect an on-time delivery this close to Christmas. "We're sorry but your package was delivered to the wrong address and will be returned to the sender."
3
A few questions:
When will Boeing’s board jettison Dennis Muillenburg?
From the reaction to the first 737 max crash to the second crash, his deplorable performance before Congress and the slow drip of bad news about the Max, and now this latest “egg in the face” episode of a spacecraft’s engines failing to fire at the right time (another software glitch?) - who is ultimately responsible for the mis-steps of this storied aerospace company ? Is it because the focus has shifted from excellence in technology, pride in workmanship, and safety - to marketing and sales? What is the total financial impact to date of the grounding and has anyone quantified the “goodwill impairment “ to the Boeing name ?
Lastly, hasn’t anyone on the Board the courage to hold the CEO responsible? Isn’t that where the buck stops?
6
Can't anyone at Boeing do anything right? Especially the Board of Directors. Whoever didn't shut down the new 737 after the first crash should have been fired immediately. Now, the Board needs clean out the executive suite.
6
How could such a problem be allowed to happen? Most likely because some redundant system or redundant testing didn’t make it past the accountants or the engineers working on the problem area were just plain under-funded. Every company needs good financial managers, but they should never be running the entire business. Once too many finance guys possess too much direct authority over corporate direction, quality control and engineering always take a backseat. For prime examples of this phenomenon, see the US automotive industry in the 70s and 80s. Financial people will always manage a business down to zero, since what they know how to do best is cut cut cut. Don’t believe it? Run an analysis of the Fortune 500 over the past 50 years. Measure the performance of companies ran by finance geeks versus businesses managed by entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers. Risk simply scares them to death, they just can’t do it.
5
Back in the late 1950s, we got satellites into orbit (after a few Vanguard disasters), Boeing got the 707 into commercial service, and the Boeing B-52 production line was cranking them out. All achieved by engineers with slide rules, mechanical adding machines, and pencil and paper. Indeed, the four function calculator was yet to be invented, and even the desk top calculator, with its Nixie tube display, was still ten years away.
Today we have digital computers. The thousand dollar PC can run circles around computers that filled entire rooms fifty years ago.
And with these wonderful tools, the technical wizards at Boeing have produced the 737 Max and this wonderful space craft, that goes into the wrong orbit.
I don't blame the engineers. They are capable of technological wonders if given the chance. No, its the bean counters and the MBAs, whose sole goal is to produce profits. By whatever means possible. And impossible.
16
@RM I was married to a brilliant engineer. He often said the same thing. Too many MBAs.
4
So the clock was set to the wrong time? Is this another software programmed single point of failure issue?
What's wrong with Boeing? First MCAS, now clock timers...
How about a few parallel timers in sequence with parity checks in place?
Hopefully with some added redundancy they won't charge taxpayers an extra $80K like the AoA disagree lights. After all, this another "automated" system courtesy of Boeing...
9
Hollowing-out of once-great US companies now formulaic...
Starts at the top – aided and abetted by consultants – convincing themselves that “supply chain management” is the key to enduring success...
With this, they outsource all the components and count on NDA’s and $ leverage with suppliers and compartmentalization to keep their market leadership...
So, when one of these companies begin to fail at integration testing – that is, testing that all the parts are working correctly with one another – says the bottom is closer to falling out than they’re letting on...
More fundamentally, when the overall design itself is flawed, no longer any one on hand who understands – let alone willing to admit – what’s going on...
Public sector not immune – which is why so many of our regulated industries are lagging, globally...
Wilbur Ross spoke two days ago about nuclear energy – numbers speak for themselves...
https://www.commerce.gov/news/speeches/2019/12/remarks-secretary-commerce-wilbur-ross-us-japan-roundtable-washington
“...There are 53 reactors currently under construction globally, of which 10 of those in China; 7 in India; 6 in Russia; 4 in Korea; four in the UAE; only 2 each in the U.S. and Japan...another 107 reactors planned between now and 2030. China is contracting to build 43 of them, including 24 outside of its country; and Russia is planning to build 29 reactors, of which 23 outside of Russia. India is planning to build 10; Korea, 9; France, 5; and the U.S., 3...
4
SpaceX is the true spiritual defendant of ‘69 NASA. They’ll be the ones getting us to Mars.
1
A clock problem! How such a mundane, trivial and insignificant device could cause a few hundred million dollars in planning to simply dissolve is amazing.
I have a simple solution; My wife collects clocks and watches too. There are perhaps a hundred or more in our home. There isn't a room or view without a clock within sight.
So, Boeing. Please, come visit and we'll see that you have all the necessary working clocks you can imagine. You can have your pick. I strongly recommend my favorite clock; A handmade little wonder that is always right twice a day. Guaranteed! No winding, battery or anything else required. The hands never have to move so nothing wears out. It would be perfect for your space capsule. Astronauts can sleep well knowing their clock soundlessly and effortlessly provides the security of perfectly correct time. Forever.
4
Save the US tax payer money, it it has to be US based : Hand it to Elon Musk
Even more savings: Let's the Russian continue to do it. They do it well and for half the money.
3
Let's see: Boeing is having trouble keeping its planes in the sky, and yet, they are awarded millions of taxpayer dollars to build a rocket. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides that why is it the there is enough money so that millionaires can leave earth, after they destroy it, while on earth there are still people going to bed hungry, unsheltered and dying for lack of healthcare, nor can many still have the 'privilege of an education. We may have invented different tools to get out of the cave, but we are still beating each other with clubs!!!
7
So now we know Boeing has a very big problem in the computer code writing field.
2
To run certain programs, my computer needs to have its clock synchronized to GMT. I have a note posted to remind me. From time to time, I forget, and the operation fails. But it is pennies to me. This is 100’s of millions, without a doubt.
Boeing: You guys need a clock watcher? I can be hired at a very reasonable rate.
2
From Wiki: Each Atlas V rocket consists of two main stages. The first stage is powered by a Russian RD-180 engine...
We're paying Boeing/ULA a premium price for this system. It is still using a Russian engine. SpacEx doesn't have half a dozen corporate buildings lining the highways around the National Capital Region. As alluded to in the article--might be cheaper to continue paying Russia directly for the transport given Boeing and ULA's prices.
3
Boeing, what else. Nescafe couldn't do worse.
2
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/8/18255847/gps-week-rollover-issue-2019-garmin-tomtom-devices-affected
The rollover issue itself is caused by the fact that GPS systems count weeks using a ten-bit parameter. This means they start counting at week zero and reset when they hit week 1,024. The first count (or “GPS epoch”) started on January 6th, 1980, and the first reset took place on August 21st, 1999. That means the next one is due April 6th this year.
When the rollover happens older devices may reset their date, potentially corrupting navigation data and throwing off location estimates. GPS relies on precise timing data to operate, and each nanosecond the clock is out translates into a foot of location error.
2
This happens to me all the time...
1
A few years ago, Boeing decided to fight with the engineers union. There were layoffs and Boeing made it clear that they considered engineers to be expendable. Do you really think that Boeing now attracts the best and brightest?
14
Isn't it time we stopped wasting billions of dollars on this space nonsense? just what exactly are they doing up in that space station besides giving interviews on NASA tv?
3
I guess Boeing chose to equip the spacecraft with only one, but faulty, Angle of Attack Sensor. MCAS anyone?
2
What’s with all the ridiculous commenters lambasting Boeing? It’s a test. A test to make sure systems are working or not working and then to address and fix issues as they arise. A TEST.
2
Greed over Everything. Those Max planes crashed because corners were cut, engineering outsourced at $9.00 an hour to some people in India, because, hey were a public company.
Shareholder concerns have led to a housing shortage, medical malpractice, insane drug prices , and the rise of Plutocratic Capitalism.
Either this stops or the country will end up in revolution.
4
Boeing can't seem to get the software thing down.
At least no one died from their ineptitude this time.
3
Another big black eye for Boeing.
A good housecleaning and a new crop of managers is probably in order.
Pity.
2
Somebody please buy NASA a Timex!
2
Boeing is proving itself to be "The Old Grey Mare."
3
Unlike SpaceX's Dragon capsule, Boeing's Starliner will not undergo a flight abort test. NASA signed off on that plan, happy with Boeing's analysis and assurances. To me this is uncomfortably like the FAA accepting Boeing's assurances about MCAS on the 737 MAX. Well, maybe it'll all work out OK.
4
"But somehow, the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, and a flawed thruster burn pushed the capsule into the wrong orbit."
Yet another key quality issue brought to you by the company that killed nearly 400 people due to serious design and quality flaws of the 737 MAX.
When will the madness end??????
4
Boeing must fail. It’s hard to say this knowing what the local effects will be. But what is this corporation at this point other than a parasite?
3
The US rulers will never let that happen. Too much money, and never forget that the civilian stuff is just a cover for the military. More corporate welfare coming up. They'll tax the minimum wage workers to pay for it, just like everything else.
1
That’s alright. I think we’re all in the wrong orbit lately. Let’s hope we can make the necessary maneuvers to get it back.
2
How’s much did the accountant say try to save for time ??
Oh look...a penny !!
Just keeps getting better and better for Boeing, huh?
Space is hard. Who knew?
2
When will board have the guts to fire this sorry excuse for a CEO at Boeing? Are they deaf, dumb, and blind?
I can’t believe that I am now rooting for a corporate raider to show up and rattle some cages, since the US Defense Dept, the FAA, and NASA seem to be utterly unable or incompetent.
Carl Icahn, where are you?
2
There is an error in this article. Boeing's higher payments are not tied directly to number of flights. Boeing asked for more money and contributed less. NASA awarded them the contract partly for political reasons, but partly because Boeing were seen as the more experienced company and more likely to be successful, albeit at higher cost. In the event, they are performing no better then SpaceX.
2
Ground control to Major Tom?
1
Boeing.
Enough said.
Failed program!! Boeing using third world Chinese computer components in these NASA rockets. Xi's got a satellite for that.
It’s got a cool name.
Moral of the story:
Flying home to Texas for the holidays?
Check your flight.
If it's Boeing, book your tickets to California so you arrive in Texas.
1
No doubt MCAS is to blame.
Oops.
I wouldn't trust these bozos to conduct a one-car funeral.
1
NYT, why show a video of launch if you are going to block it with "subtitles"? D'oh.
Ooops!
Boeing. Once an iconic American success story.
2
Boeing has been NASA's partner and contractor for years so this is hardly anything new. This really sounds like a rookie mistake. So we the tax payers paid for an expendable launcher and crew capsule. For a test.
@Rick To be clear, the capsule can be reused. Assuming this Starliner makes it back on Sunday, it is scheduled to be refurbished and used for the second manned mission.
Boeing is looking ever more suspect -- can they stay in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for much longer? -- NASA seems to attract these "events." I still remember the loss of the Mars Orbiter, where one engineering "team" was using imperial units (feet and inches) and another team was using meters. Not pretty, and that one lost a few hundreds of million dollars.
1
On the one hand this sounds like no big deal and should be trivial to fix. On the other hand, the capsule hasn't tried to re-enter and land yet. This test flight is not over.
And then there's the matter of no flight abort test before crew are scheduled to fly.
This is typical of a company that prioritizes profits over engineering. Having worked for the company, and seen their desire to replace senior engineers (who have a lot of lessons learned) with junior engineers (who cost less), this is the kind of result you get. These particular engineers won't make this mistake again, but when they are replaced due to cost pressures, the new ones will.
Boeing needs to again realize they are doing hard stuff and they need the best engineers, and managers, to do it successfully. A mix of seasoned engineers with experience and new engineers with enthusiasm. They need to return to engineering managers, not MBAs, running programs. Profits and reputation can be quickly lost when mistakes, such as this, or not having active redundancy on the 737 Max sensors, happen. And once their reputation is tarnished for mission failures, there will be no Boeing.
7
@scott Good points!
2
Fancy PowerPoint presentations are no substitute for sound engineering and quality product delivery.
6
This is what happens when companies serve their CEOs and investors instead of hiring and training the best engineers.
14
Boeing gets almost twice that given to Space X and with half the money Space X is obviously the more technically proficient company. I do not doubt that many highly qualified engineers have left Boeing to get away from their terrible management.
6
Republican "privatizing" fails again. Why not go back to when we were successful as a nation flying these missions on behalf of the country with idealistic government personnel instead of a for-profit only money grubbers.
12
@Henry Crawford "idealistic government personnel"?! Oh please!!!
1
@Henry Crawford Actually was Obama who did it !
1
Good thing there was nobody inside on this trip! This is just another sad footnote in the failure of America to sustain a human presence in space. With the decommissioning of the creaky space shuttle (two of which blew up, and we only ever had four I think), we lost our ability to put people into space independently.
Space exploration and conquest is the future of humanity, because without it, humanity has no future. If America does not recover its ability to get people into space, then we will be a failed nation historically, just like Rome or Charlemagne's France, pretty impressive at one point but unimportant in the long run.
1
This was a successful test flight.
Yes, successful,
Tests are designed for failure.
Yes, this notion is a great disappointment for those who believe Boeing to be down and feel entitled to get their pathetic kicks on record, but it was a TEST flight.
This has exactly nothing to do with MAX.
6
@gc Corporate culture has EVERYTHING to do with Boeing, including the STARLINER and MCAS/MAX!
1
They probably forgot to adjust the time correctly for relativity. At least this one isn't because they used feet instead of meters like the Mars Climate Orbiter. Still, it would have been nice if they had had the forethought to enable a course correction before flying out of range. Boeing should do better for all the money we give them.
1
@CR Hare How about the foresight of some redundancy and reliability, elements missing from their MCAS disaster.
1
This actually sounds like a minor and readily correctible problem. Space flight is still at a point the standards of early aviation should be applied. Any flight the (hypothetical) crew could walk away from is a good one.
4
Kudos to Robert Fine in Boston:
"...We don't need to make America great again we need to make truth, empathy, civility and caring about each other and an economy that serves the needs of all the people of this country great..."
His words capture the essence of America's malady perfectly. He has correctly identified the root cause of many of our social/economic/political problems.
Thank you Mr. Fine
6
@Bob
Exactly. I thank god that I live in a middle power country, not a hyper-power. Less chest thumping and stress, more focus on the basics of what it is that makes society work for all.
4
@Mike: Thank you for taking time to comment. While many Americans think of Canadians as our "cousins" I believe that many more millions think of us all as brothers and sisters.
And your, and your countrymen's comments are always welcomed as constructive and supportive.
2
Sometimes the simple answer is the best: when Boeing turned to an ex-consultant, non-engineer empty suit to run the company in 2005, everything turned into a race to the bottom. They corrected that mistake in 2016 but it was too late.
15
Why are we sending humans into space when we can send machines with better sensing and analytic capability? A robotic space program would be far less expensive and less dangerous to human health.
7
Sooooo so agree. Isn’t it obvious?
1
And would get in the wrong orbit and not be able to correct itself apparently. Did you read the article? Humans are still much better explorers than machines at this point.
You can never go wrong with space exploration.
The mission is to go where no one has gone before and explore strange new worlds.
Even if you get lost, mission still accomplished.
2
@Bhaskar
Okay, yes I suppose. But in this case they are ultimately going to the space station, to which Russian Soyuz craft have been venturing for years.
1
@Mike
Russia. Russia.
Must you bring that up again?
You know, our country has been through a lot.
Maybe their secret is, they aim at the wrong orbit just so they end up in the right one. You know, the 2 wrongs make a right theory.
Think about how many people and how much time went into the planning and checking for this, for a few well-known maneuvers to be done in an environment without many surprises. It failed.
Now envision one of the infinite number of scenarios when driving a car. Let's throw in ice, poor visibility, kids, and something blowing across the street. Do you think that it's realistic that autonomous cars can handle all of these situations? No, it is not.
So far Tesla and Uber can't even avoid killing drivers or pedestrians when the only thing moving (beyond a walking pace) is the car itself. And this is in areas specifically selected for good roads and good weather.
3
There is absolutely no reason to continue with these missions. Use the money to help perfect renewable energy here on earth.
1
As this story says, it was a test. You know, to see if works? It wound up in the wrong orbit but it did make orbit, and if it makes it back intact to solid ground, that adds up to at lot of success. As another commenter noted, this actually is rocket science.
10
@Harry It did not reach the correct orbit nor did it rendezvous with the ISS - the test is a failure.
1
This is what happens when you put businessmen in charge. In the past the heads of aerospace corporations were expected to have a engineering background. It makes sense to have the person in charge to have some idea of how the product works.
Businessmen in charge doesn’t work in technology companies or government. There a two glaring examples of this.
8
Sheesh! What up with all the pessimism stateside? The Starliner test is a test, folks! To see what goes wrong, and then fix it!
And then, in just a few months, the USA will be launching astronauts into space on our own shiny rockets, from our own country, for the first time in years! What’s not to like? This is brilliant! This is “great again”! For real! For everybody!
4
There are tests and there are tests.
A full-scale launch test to orbit is a test that costs as much as a mission. Saying that it is “just a test” completely ignores the economic and program risk.
3
@DavidE For what purpose?
Let me guess, the space capsule was number 737 Max B?
6
So China’s secret sabotage war on Boeing goes on. They caused these accidents. Thanks trump for the trade war. Of course PLA agents will attack America’s most important corporation.
1
Check out Al Jazeera's expose on Boeing entitled "The Boeing 787: Broken Dreams." Basically, the company moved operations to South Carolina for inexpensive, non-union, drug-addled, semi-literate employees. Then they ransacked the employee's pensions and gave it all to their CEO, while the government deregulated the FAA and allowed Boeing to police themselves. Genius!
This is 21st century American exceptionalism.
Watch our civilization crumble. Right. Before. Our. Very. Eyes.
Fly Airbus only.
6
At least they did not lose the spacecraft. To all those belittling NASA, SpaceX, and Boeing for delays in their programs, remember: this IS rocket science.
It will be years, if ever, that these launches become as routine as air travel. Every new system on every new type of vehicle needs many lengthy and expensive tests, especially when carrying humans.
Get used to it.
6
@Peak Oiler You seem to ignore the fact
2
I think that tears it...
not another dime of taxpayers money to Boeing for anything and time to call time on NASA's involvement in any future space ventures.
Paging Mr. Musk...paging Mr. Musk...please pickup any white courtesy phone.
6
@Mary Elizabeth Lease Mr. Musk and SpaceX have received over $1B in US taxpayer money and have had their own share of failures, including explosions on the pad. Let's deal in facts here, not romantic nonsense.
2
Can Boeing not get anything right? Yeah, yeah, it's been around a long time blah-blah, but you're only as good as your latest effort. That outfit needs an overhaul, starting at the top.
7
With 737 Max production halted, I guess Boeing decided to use on the Starliner one of the MCAS systems idly lying about...
;)
3
"But somehow, the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time ... ." This makes it sound like someone forgot to wind up the cuckoo clock. Is this really what happened, or is it something far more complex. I just wonder if this article is providing an accurate description.
4
@The Judge Yes, the article is misleading. At separation, a variable called mission time starts to count from zero. This variable is then used to issues commands to the spacecraft at specific times to do specific things. That is what failed, NOT the clock.
More welfare for Boeing. I thought capitalism was the rule in the USA. (i know that's the 'stuff' that's shoveled)
4
If there were a god, I would ask her to protect any astronaut traveling to space in any product made by Boeing.
5
Another reason to finally end this daylight savings time ridiculousness. Split the difference - move the clocks 1/2 hour forward next spring and be done with it.
3
The management of several major defense-aerospace contractorships, not only Boeing, but the whole cartel of them, has been running the wrong direction for more than 15 years. They have worked to expel the greatest engineers and scientists, or at least to hold them back within the ranks, to the advantage of those within the corporation who will go along with the skirting of ethical management practices. They make up lie after lie to cover their own tracks and stay in.
Other examples of mismanagement, and the corresponding gigantic waste of taxpayer dollars; because these companies exist upon public money in the form of government contracts, include the Webb telescope failure and NASA launches that crashed in recent history and innumerable program setbacks.
Meanwhile, many of the best and brightest engineers that this country has produced, who ten to be meticulous and methodical in their work, are held out of jobs and swept under the rug; not given access even when those job candidates are Top Secret-clearable candidates who have the exact skills required for the missions going on.
How do I know any of this is true? Because I am exactly that man...
14
I'm no rocket scientist, but I know how to set my clocks correctly.
I miss the Apollo program.
And especially Chris Kraft.
4
There were plenty of mishaps in the Apollo program, including one that killed 3 astronauts.
Read Alan Shepard’s and Deke Slayton’s book Moon Shot and you will find out about a slew of mishaps that fortunately, as a result of skill and probably some luck, didn’t kill more. Space flight is hard and dangerous despite Apollo making it look easy.
3
Boeing probably did what worked so well in development of the 737Max MCAS software: outsourced bits and pieces to remote, hourly programmers with no buy-in or even a clue about the safety culture that used to make Boeing a great company. Memo to all airlines and other operators of heavies: Buy Airbus.
5
Capitalism works when combined with honesty, integrity and generosity. Boeings latest struggles are an example of a lack of common sense.
7
what is the point and objective of still sending astronauts to that space junk station? it's like a flying mobile home that's been accessorized to an absurd level. scientific whimsy seems to be the deciding factor.why aren't we with others building a newer more advanced space station? like ya know, move on up, elevate the project into modernity.
3
@Boregard I'd rather see us build a moon base. BUT, there are many in the government who are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.
So many inaccuracies in one headline. It launched into the correct orbit. The clock was working fine, but there is a variable called mission elapsed time that is supposed to reset to zero and start a sequences at separation. That did not happen, we don't know why yet. Instead, the spacecraft did what it was supposed to do - it station kept. The subsequent burn worked perfectly, but instead of going on to the station the mission team has elected to conserve fuel for the ride home.
7
@Scott: thanks. Pity about the wild-eyed commenters.
Would love to hear more.
Yet another reminder to be cautious when reading news articles. Having said that, “elapsed time” is a sort of a clock - although more of a stopwatch really - so the point wasn’t too far off.
@scott Could you cite a source? Every site I've read says it entered the wrong orbit then was directed to an unplanned but stable orbit so it can be brought back Sunday.
1
Boeing forgot to sell the digital clock upgrade, so the craft was relying on the analog wristwatch.
5
It was on Daylight Savings Time.
4
Boeing is the darling of the military. They pay so much graft to government managers that their problems are never reported. Two 737 crashes and what? Government says let em fix the problems. Swamp people for sure.
4
"Boeing software issue." Where have we heard that phrase before? Hint: the words 737 MAX come to mind.
NASA allowed Boeing to cancel the abort test mission in order to speed up the schedule for putting the "starliner" crew capsule into service. Perhaps they might now want to reconsider that decision.
On another issue, while I'm sure the Atlas V was perfectly safe, to be honest, I had misgivings about this mission from the start. The appearance of the rocket itself, with an oversized capsule bolted on top and two undersized boosters on the side, gave the whole launch the appearance of being hurried and jerry-rigged.
Meanwhile, SpaceX, which does not have the lobbying prowess of Boeing, continues to succeed with mission after mission, including with its own Dragon capsule.
Is it too late for NASA to pick a winner for a change?
1
@James Aahh… another SpaceX devotee willing to look beyond every SpaceX failure. Let's not talk about the explosions on the pad, shall we?
@James I agree that Starliner looks odd atop the Atlas 5 but the boosters are routine. Atlas 5 can have up to 5 boosters depending on the payload/mission needs.
SpaceX had a Crew Dragon explode during a ground test of the abort system last spring. They've also had problems with parachutes.
God forbid that social media existed during the 1957-1958 period when almost every other rocket was exploding in the launch pad. Or when the Apollo capsule incinerated three astronauts during a 1967 test. The cacophony of ignorance that would have spewed forth would have had everyone believing the country’s engineers were a group of incompetents. Tis a pity that barroom-level wisecracks no longer remain in the barrooms.
7
A sign of shoddy workmanship here and complete lack of safety and morality with the 737 crime where two jet loads of poor souls died.
Re the latter, Trump, the heads of the FAA and Boeing should be held responsibility for the deaths by pretty much letting Boeing regulate itself.
3
@Paul Pretty early to be calling out shoddy workmanship when root cause hasn't been established. Unless it was YOUR workmanship?
1
SPACE X use it! It's not part of the MIC, yet.
1
Space X is way cheaper... of course, we rarely get the rocket we ordered but if you do, there’s a 50/50 chance it’ll blow up. Fun!
People died when NASA ran our space program, starting with Gus Grissom and his teammates and then two space shuttle missions. For for all those complaining that NASA ran the space program better, think about it. And, of course, American industry actually built the rockets and capsules and launch pads and ISS components and so on and so on. It’s easy for people to criticize failure and it’s especially galling that we are reliant on Russia, but I think a big part of the reaction is to Boeing’s role. It’s sad - or worse - to see their reputation self-destruct, especially considering their prominence in commercial aviation for so many decades.
1
I live in Central Florida and head outside to look East for every launch. My husband and I both remarked this morning that the rocket seemed to be going in an odd trajectory.
5
@Mandy Cason Good eye! Launches to the space station are at a different angle than those to more normal satellite orbits, and this trajectory was a special "flatter" one in order to limit the accelerations that astronauts will feel. Although you wouldn't have been able to see when the error occurred, since that happened to the Starliner rather than the main rocket and it would have been out of view of Florida by that time.
11
Not dissimilar to the meters vs feet confusion that caused a crash of a Mars probe.
The simplest of things can come back to bite one.
Any clock on such a craft should be updated every minute or so for absolute accuracy and linked in such a way that they cannot be out of synch or time zone with other clocks involved in the greater system/control platform.
3
@dmckj It wasn't the clock, it was the signal to reset mission time to zero at separation that went wrong. Listen to the press conference. Mission time has nothing to do with terrestrial time zones - it is literally time since separation from the launch vehicle.
3
I find the orbital choice made to be curious. Without knowing the specifics of the elliptical orbit the Starliner was placed in, it seems odd that it wasn't simply placed in a lower circular orbit. This would have required less fuel, initially, and would have also have the benefit of providing multiple windows for the orbital transfer to a higher orbit; useful in cases where a window is missed.
It sounds like it may not have been helpful in this particular case where a mis-timed orbital insertion occurred, but does beg the question of why the elliptical orbit, and single burn-to-ascent profile was selected for the mission. By selecting the elliptical orbit, single burn, you are really limiting your ability to make a corrective burn(s) if needed.
1
What does it fundamentally mean that even after this news and Boeing stock going down over 25% since March, it still has a price to earnings ratio of around fifty?
4
@Steve Fankuchen
it fundamentally means there is no there, there when it comes to stock valuations.
stock prices are a mirage built on fairy tales written under eternally blue skies with eyes glued to the rear view mirror.
3
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the space program and how it worked in the past and works today. And where blame needs to be placed some of it precedes Obama, but he does hold some blame as well as all presidents after Kennedy.
Initially the US space program was run by the military. Even then, like all weapons systems, the rockets were outsourced to industry. The military oversaw the programs. NASA was formed to give control of the space program to a civilian agency. But from earliest days the rockets were military until NASA needed larger boosters and crew capsules that had to be designed from scratch. But guess what? All of these were outsourced to industry, although NASA employees engineers and scientists were heavily involved and ran the programs. If you look at all of the old NASA tapes from the nest days of the space program, you will see the names and logos of major corporate aerospace companies on them. This was true of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Nothing wrong with the efficiency of using industrial expertise when done correctly. The same process was used to develop the ISS and the space shuttle. The big mistake the US made was not having a continuum of programs, which begat our reliance on the Russians, and not having a plan to stay on the moon and use it as a permanent base. Obama was was guilty of wasting valuable time with pushing his silly asteroid program. NASA knew better but went along. Finally back on track. Not enough space for more.
5
The incredible irony--and embarrassment-- of this episode: the irony that the part of this mission that worked was sude to an atlas 5 first stage that is powered by a Russian main engine. What a disgrace that we have not been able to substitute for it in the many years since the Shuttle program was ended. Embarrassment: "somehow, the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, and a flawed thruster burn pushed the capsule into the wrong orbit." Look, these things happen--but for such stuff to happen on a Boeing vehicle at this point-, after all of Boeing's vast spacecraft experience, and in the wake of its awful corporate behavior and decisions on the 737 Max --- well, it makes you wonder what's going on at Boeing. It also forces one to root for the horrid Elon Musk, who at least gets stuff done (albeit in this case with enormous government support for SpaceX on commercial crew.)
69
@pjt It's software. It's always software. The thing is software is incredibly expensive to actually produce by treating it like a real engineering field. So we don't. We pretend that 15 year olds self taught on the web can do everything and more than developers with 25 years experience. We pretend that a 6 week crash course can get anyone up to speed. We pretend that a software engineer with no experience in the field they are programming in knows more than the real engineers working in those fields. We pretend that outsourcing makes these problems go away and magically a group of 20 something kids working 16 hour days in India are aerospace experts.
16
@pjt Listen to the press conference. There was no "flawed thruster burn". The NYT needs to get a better reporter on this story.
2
@pjt: The US constantly screws up with it's unique antique measurement system.
3
Space travel operates on very crucial margins. The rocket is just a giant controlled explosion. The old adage that the fuel to rocket structure ratio is similar to that of a soda can is factual....I ran the calc to check. Essentially about 5% of the rocket is structure, 95% fuel.
One small glitch here and the ship cannot achieve the needed orbit. Energy is everything when it comes to rocket propulsion. Chemical fuels are limited and these rockets are just not very versatile.
It is difficult to project the future, but a mission to mars seems a bit of a dream....I would really love to see it and would volunteer for a one way mission. But really is tough.
Star trek is fantasy....don't expect that Enterprise to exist in real life.
2
@glennmr Then please explain the UFOs that the Navy has shown us, as they fly through our atmosphere from who-knows-where, doing things we cannot comprehend..YET. To glibly assume something won't be developed in the future "because it just can't" is totally absurd, and "flies" in the face of all the developments and discoveries we've made in history, that "just couldn't" have been accomplished.
Some American corporations, instead of invest in technology development, overplay national security card by investing in lobbying to stymie foreign competition. The consequence of this tactic is inevitable loss of competitive edge. Boeing and Cisco are two prime examples.
7
But how will we deploy the Space Force???!!!!!
14
Space Force. The collusion of trump and pelosi. One is no better than the other. Now we need to impeach Pelosi.
@Brian33 With full-on reverb and echo, whenever that name is spoken, that's how.
Boeing found a use for some spare 737 Max parts?
7
let's hope they can find some chinese scientists to fix this.
3
Failure, Boeing is thy name.
4
After watching the press conference, I'm a lot more optimistic about this flight than when I saw the headline. The issue seems to be a small one in the code, which the astronauts could have easily manually overrode had they been on board. The launch itself was perfect, all the life support systems on the Starliner are working well, and NASA will get to test all the in-flight operations other than the physical docking, as well as reentry and landing. Assuming those tests go well, I would expect that the next flight will be cleared to fly with astronauts on board.
Bridenstine said that the docking procedure itself is something that can be done manually, and is not a critical test before sending up people (the Shuttle never tested automatic docking for example). Both he and the astronauts emphasized that there were no safety concerns, and the whole reason to test is to work out bugs like this. The optics for Boeing here are not great, but as someone who has worked on complicated engineering projects, I see this test flight as overall a large success, and don't expect the anomaly to set back the program very long.
11
All this pressure and enormous expense just to avoid paying Russia for use of the tried and true Soyuz delivery system. I suppose it's now politically impossible and morally unthinkable to do the pragmatic and cost-effective -- not to mention relationship-maintaining -- thing by continuing to use the Russian system.
That doesn't mean U.S. companies can't continue to develop their own systems, but take the pressure off and let them take the time necessary to get it right and compete based on their own criteria. After all, we now know how time pressure affects Boeing, so why take unnecessary risk?
The first Cold War was expensive and wasteful, and it looks like the second one is repeating the pattern.
1
What happens when the Russians one day say no? Do we blow the ISS out of the sky in spite? Best to have our own vehicle to get there. It’s been 8 years of this already!
I think people are overreacting on this Starliner problem.
According to the article the mission did not have anyone aboard, but was designed as a test to check out the systems; Boeing and NASA are calling this an orbital flight test.
Looks like SpaceX is also having some issues to work out.
Friends, this is REALLY rocket science. Not a drive to the strip mall.
48
@Vasu Srinivasan thank you for making the point that space exploration is hard and failure lives in a fishbowl. But, in that business, mistakes are not created equal, failures are not all 'good' ones, and entities and their processes are not all OK.
4
@Vasu Srinivasan hmmm...software is also an issue in the 737 Max...coincidence?
8
@Vasu Srinivasan
Rocket science has a long history, and we’re reading about mistakes that should not be made in the first place in light of that past.
When this mistake is scrutinized, it will likely turn out to be something with a past history in space programs, somewhere. Therefore, if they had been more careful here, it should never have happened. We do NOT simply learn the hard way in technological investigation, but rather we avoid costly mistakes the better we understand what we are doing.
This is where corporate culture comes to play a very real role. A culture adverse to mistake catching might run against the grain when management would like to cover up their mistakes. This is just the latest in a long line of catchable errors, with the end result of large cost overruns and even loss of life as its consequences.
6
Another underwhelming performance by Boeing and NASA. More than five years in development, at the cost of several hundred million dollars, and a capsule little different from the Apollo capsule cannot fly successfully to the ISS. It is pretty clear that "giant leaps" are no longer in either the Boeing or NASA repertoire.
3
Well, a review of 'failures' should clear up the problem. Recall the latest US crash on the surface of Mars revealed as 'miscalculation' in approach and the Indian satellite failure were both atmospheric and this should tell us that we have a unknown factor at work, perhaps magnetism left out of the math.
@katesisco wrote: "Recall the latest US crash on the surface of Mars revealed as 'miscalculation' in approach..."
The US has not had a failed mission to Mars in twenty years. Is that the "latest" that you speak of?
2
Boeing using spare parts from the Super Max ?
2
They can’t set a clock but expect us to fly in the Max? Hello Boeing, anyone home?
6
Basically: Boeing is not that good at software. This is a huge flaw and is going to lead to many more disasters. They need to go.
4
Amazing and saddening that we can't even do what we used to do 50 years ago, and with amazing reliability.
16
That’s not really true. Yes we went to the moon, but not every mission was a success. We didn’t have an International Space Station to fly to 50 years ago, that’s for sure!
1
". . . a decision that could reverberate through the American economy." This is the big red flag in this whole grounded-plane episode. Keeping ONE plane on the ground sends tremors through the whole economy? What's wrong with this picture. Well, everything. Boeing is a de facto monopoly and this is what you get when your economy is dominated by a handful of monopolies. And this situation worsens by the day.
9
Boeing probably forgot to update the capsule's dashboard clock, back from Daylight Savings Time.
Remember guys: Spring forward; Fall back.
-C
22
This is why we should not have daylight savings time.
5
@Tim
On the contrary. We should always have daylight saving time. (Except of course in the desert southwest where it’s too hot to do anything in the evening. LOL)
4
Space stuff is hard. Makes you appreciate science & engineering - I hope.
10
We had this kind of tech nailed down in 1970. It's 2019, and we can't get it to work.
Only difference I can see is that this stuff, a couple of horrific accidents aside, worked well from the 50s through the end of the shuttle program. When it was a government program.
Now that we've Rumsfelded NASA? You know, for efficiency and progress's sake? Can't achieve orbit.
It's more than a metaphor, but it is that.
19
@Doug Tarnopol: Part of the program to flow public funds into private pockets. What was a matter for national pride is now limited to corporate pride (or embarrassment, as in this case).
4
@Doug Tarnopol We blew up a lot of rockets before sending Shepard to space. We lost 3 astronauts during a ground test of the Apollo capsule that led to an 18 month delay and more than 1,000 changes to the capsule. F-1 engines (for the Saturn V rocket) exploded during testing several times until Rocketdyne could figure out the problem and fix it.
Robert J. Shiller, the Nobel behavioral economist at Yale, in his Nov. 8, 2019 Economic View column for the Digital Times titled: "How Lying and Mistrust Could Hurt the American Economy," states that: In addition to the political damage that can result from "a culture of lying at the highest circles of government;" also, "there is another danger, an economic one, and it is worth pondering, too." He continues: "There is substantial evidence that if an atmosphere filled with lies or presumed lies spreads throughout a society, the effect might reduce economic growth rates." And, after years of such cumulative economic damage, the result would be: "a substantially lower level of economic well-being than would otherwise have existed."
The NY Times coverage of the Boeing Max story has noted the very cozy relationship that developed between the aircraft manufacturer and FAA officials, with the company given great leeway in complying with regulations; and the importance, some times overridingly so, of timely achieving profit goals. Also, the Washington Post has extensively covered the dispute between Amazon's cloud division and the DOD in awarding a $10 billion contract to Microsoft over Amazon, and other rivals. Here, contract disputes between Boeing, SpaceX, and NASA officials are critical to NASA's manned space program. These disputes concern higher costs to be paid by NASA which result in higher revenues and higher profits for the firms.
[12/20/19 F 11:44a Greenville NC]
7
@John Joseph Laffiteau MS in Econ: few humans are really capable at self-regulations; no corporations are. Exxon polices itself??? Government regulators "assist" corporations to comply? Look at Florida's water fresh and salt.
2
"Somehow, the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time."
4
@Lorenzo Please remember that this article was written by a Times writer, not the engineers involved in the program. The Times writer also has to simplify the situation for the general public, which makes people think that it is easy to launch and fly space craft. Not true ! This is more than a "dashboard clock" problem. The command and control of launch vehicle and spacecraft is a problem that many engineers the world over have been working on and will continue to refine. Also remember at this point the root cause has not been identified.
9
“Clock“ is the keyword and that is a major circuit description on circuit boards, of appliances, computers, traffic lights, And anything else that Has to be synchronized and timed to work properly at least — And then for a whole (rocket ship) system? —The Inadvertent miss timing, lack of synchronization etc. ofEven a small rocket ship will end in total loss… And for this TEST, it sounds like they recovered the craft (bird).
Winning management team you got there!
2
By the fine folks who brought you the Boeing 737 Max ...
4
Outsourcing major parts of the country's space program was a big mistake and it looks like Obama is to blame. It's frustrating to see this privatization when NASA's efforts have given previous generations of Americans something nonpartisan to rally around and be proud of. Stop funding these private companies who are literally flailing in the wind and let NASA take control again.
46
@Brian "from the midwest"... Blaming Obama ? More than just a president has been involved in the direction of our space programs.
47
@Brian Yeah, and yet Republicans want tax cuts and don't want to pay for increased taxed for have a competent NASA, NIH, NSF, etc. etc.
It's the Republican ideology of privatisation that has led to this.
33
@Brian Uhm, haven't parts of the space program been implemented by private contractors from the outset? Is this really different than what occurred in the past?
8
Optics for Boeing could not have been worse.
Now Trump is putting the heat on the CEO, which by any other name is an encouragement to cut corners to get the 737 recertified.
The amoral Trump has no interest in safety, accountability, or the troublesome details of what that requres. He sees only the company's hefty component of the Dow and will do whatever it takes make one of his golden gooses lay more eggs... for him.
4
It looked spectacular from Orlando at sunrise...wow!
2
Oooooo! You LUCKY! I hope one day I can afford to come to see a launch! I’m busy writing a novel that includes our successful beginning to establish ourselves in the next great frontier, and I know I need to feel the experience of being there in my bones!
2
NASA should go back to making their own rockets and capsules though a mix of contractors and in-house expertise, or whatever method they used to use.
The current setup reminds me of the pharmaceutical industry- we taxpayers subsidize the research required to make a new drug, then the companies raise the prices of said medication.
What reassurance do we have that letting companies control our entire space program won’t lead to them controlling all that “proprietary information” and making us pay more and more for it?
When we have to rely on money-hungry predatory companies we are guaranteed to end up paying through the nose for projects that cut corners to save the companies money. Their motivator is profit, not scientific progress for the sake of progress and knowledge.
5
NASA never built their own rockets and spacecraft. It was always done by contractors just as in this case. The Space Shuttle was built by Rockwell for instance.
7
@AW
In the past, NASA owned the rocket design and was integral in working with the subcontractors. Now, NASA has subcontracted the entire design and construction to commercial companies. NASA would write the specification for performance.
3
@L. Brown >not scientific progress for the sake of progress and knowledge
Mysticism. Profit is a need of life.
I wish all the money and know-how in the space program was turned to healing our little spacecraft — planet Earth. It’s mild climate is at risk. Our thin atmosphere is being pumped fuller and fuller with heat-trapping gasses. The “space race” should be about saving Earths own safety.
9
What if we could build factories off-planet to allow us to rewild half the earth and turn our precious planet into an Eden again?! This is one reason I’m writing my novel for people like you too! I hope I can be successful in igniting your fire of optimism and hope for all the glorious things that we can and I believe will do that make use of this tremendous resource just within our grasp!
1
Uh? It is! Most of the satellites and other spacecraft launched for NASA missions study the health and climate of the Earth and the effects of deep space phenomena like the solar wind on life on earth as well as our infrastructure.
5
@Sherry The easiest way to measure the entire planet's temperature everywhere is from space. The easiest way to detect concentrations of various gases over the entire planet is from space. The easiest way to measure ice thickness and ocean height over the entire planet is from space. Take the space program out of planetary sciences and you set it back to the 1940's, when guessing (interpolation) was the main data gathering method. Real time data is a great side benefit.
6
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg took home about $30 million in 2018 (+ $20 M of which was through stock and bonuses). The Boeing Chairman, Dave Calhoun, recently said that Muilenburg's 2019 compensation should be drastically reduced, but also cautioned against holding him accountable for the recent 737 crashes: "Dennis didn't create this problem," he asserted.
Sure. But a leader needs to do more than manage corporations through a succession of crises. A leader must change the corporate culture that led to those crises. Can Muilenburg do this?
15
It is not that easy to make rockets folks. It takes rocket science. It is a very large and complex system and technical problems are bound to appear. The same goes for the airplanes that Boeing makes. And any large engineering feat in general. Without denying management problems at Boeing, people should stop a moment and appreciate the scales involved in these projects. These are not science class afternoon homework assignments.
11
@r
Right! Boeing will need the help of union members to run its factories.
5
No doubt but I'm not about to fly on a 737 Max anytime soon.
2
@r They basically are homework assignments! Fifty years ago we made it to the moon and back several times without today's advanced computers and technology.
What has gotten more difficult over the years? Gravity is the same, propulsion is the same, and rocket science is the same.
The only things that are different are corporate greed and stupidity.
2
December 20, 2019
Software must require self correcting spontaneous remedies in the design for successful tasking. Boeing is great with hardware and designs and now this exercise offers the opportunity process actions with backup / secondary corrections that is a can do and must be with redundancy and reliability to protect the success for all live procedures - and so make it a go voyage.
3
They must have bought the sensors at Walmart and then used one instead of the two that was prescribed in the original design. And the off course, outsourcing the software development for the fuel thrusters to a minimum wage country and it’s no surprise that this happened.
14
@Sipa111 has a point. The small stuff in the parts bins were probably purchased at a discount price from a shoestring budget Chinese manufacturer.
Space flight, manned or not, will continue. Our system of governed business has produced remarkable results many times in a variety of industries. An awesome, educated work force is the core, supported by an equally talented legislature, led by dedicated executives with a dependable judiciary foundation underlying all efforts.
2
@RAS yea. One should add in a strong union so workers (“workforce”) can safely raise their concerns, opinions and suggestions.
5
why can't our government do government stuff--instead of paying private enterprise to do it---like: even campsites are run now by the private enterprise guys....just anjother level of payment required for a public benefit.
We just refuse to believe it's better or cheaper to pay private enterprise to do govt jobs. CEO's of these private companies make millions, and taxpayers pay them.
Time to pull the cord on Boeing--didn't donald say being nice to Saudi Arabia would benefit this company?
12
@lin Norma Our government has never built a rocket. Ever. They have all been built by contractors. NASA coordinates and administers the projects.
14
And remember, Boeing can't even design commercial aircraft that that fly safeley, so why are we surprised that they flubbed a satelite launch?
1
@lin Norma >why can't our government do government stuff
Like protecting individual rights, inc/property rights?
1
It’s criminal what the Congress has allowed Boeing to spend on this project when SpaceX has demonstrated the ability to deliver more results, faster and at a fraction of the cost.
I’m all for private space launch capability, but let’s at least reap the benefits. Giving out projects to companies that put jobs in the right districts has to stop.
46
Space X does not deliver anything “faster”. You’re lucky if they deliver anything at all.
1
A lot of engineers and programmers are going to be working over Christmas.
1
Mission Control Commander: "Welcome team! Happy to announce a contractor has been awarded the low bid for your Starliner capsule... Boeing,"
Astronauts: " " (sound of crickets)
4
@Nick
Sorry you feel this way... there are many smart and hard workers at Boeing focused on assuring safety. Space X on the other hand has completely obliterated their pad during a non dynamic test condition ( no one else has ever done that at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) and also burned up their capsule. Plus The X has also lost missions during ascent. Boeing / ULA has not.
The Starliner did not destruct and is in a safe orbit awaiting the next plan. I would say many check boxes have already been completed. the situation is still being investigated, which is more than Space X seems willing or able to do.
7
@Celia The mission was not accomplished.
1
@Jack Many mission objectives have been accomplished. The spacecraft is in a safe configuration, which is important had there been astronauts on board. Many more objectives will be accomplished with a safe landing. The MAIN objective of docking with the station may not be accomplished, but the trip was not a complete wash out. A space mission is more than ONE objective.
3
I'd argue that this type of spacecraft is exactly what Humanity needs to travel and, eventually, settle out there: something nearly as routine as an airliner ride to orbit. It's the non-romantic part of space travel, what Tom Wolfe called "the operational stuff" late in his famous book. Our rockets still blow up sometimes, but if they blew up enough, we'd not have a satellite industry.
Boeing, facing criticism of the 737 max, has to get this right. So does SpaceX. One accident in space with a crew will lead to years and years of setbacks. One disaster with tourists will crush the industry.
Despite the Administration's ridiculous and overtly political 2024 Moon deadline, there is a quiet new Space Race underway: China, Russia, and India have human-crewed programs aimed at the 2030s, and those governments need not bow to grumblers on Earth who want money spent elsewhere. Though it may seem to be 1968 all over again, this time it's not about planting flags and collecting rocks: there are resources in space we can finally extract, and thus money to be made.
If America again lags, as it did in the 1970s, that's the end of the American Century. The blip of 20 years of a broken Federal government and four (or God help us, 8) years of a tragically incompetent President pale beside losing our technological lead to other nations.
3
@Ross agreed. But that 2024 deadline sure is.
We are spending hundreds of billions trying to get astronauts to the space station so we don't have to rely on Russia. Why are we so determined to achieve a very questionable goal.
We claim we can keep track of climate change etc. but to what end?
Does anyone believe when the earth becomes unlivable for humans we can send billions of people to a colony on Mars.
Stop filling the skies with communication satellites because we cant even agree on issues when we are sitting at the same table, face to face.
It's long since time to focus every penny away from these profit making ventures and invest in keeping the earth sustainable for future generations.
We must get our priority's to align with reality, something I am not optimistic will happen.
4
Of course it failed. Boeing engaged in a race to the bottom, seeking every last short term dollar over anything else. This is what happens. But hey, at least they saved a few bucks by busting unions and moving their headquarters.
285
@Tim Right! and who doesn't want a high-flying Tesla!
3
@Tim When they went to South Carolina for their production, I knew that was the end of Boeing as a serious aeronautical enterprise. I lived in that region for over 30 years and know intimately how thin the shell of competence is in both of the Carolinas. Think of this: Until only a few years ago companies delivering gasoline to gas stations did not have to recover the vapor displaced from the storage tanks with gas being delivered from a tanker truck. This is the kind of place South Carolina is: dirt poor and stupid.
12
@Tim As Terrance points out, South Carolina citizens aren't exactly intellectual giants. I worked in the auto industry and we had to hand out laminated cartoon pictures of the assembly process cause these Southerners had "limited vocabulary"
8
SpaceX is the clear winner here. They just delivered their 19th load of cargo to the space station in essentially the same capsule that will carry astronauts.
SpaceX's per seat cost is HALF of Boeings cost.
Why?
Boeing throws away the rocket each time they fly. SpaceX re-uses theirs.
SpaceX development costs are lower since they use their commercial satellite launch business to fund their efforts.
Boeing wants a handout from the US taxpayers to fund theirs.
Look what happens.
Winner SpaceX
Loser Boeing
123
@georgesbower Why is it that when SpaceX has an issue (as when their fuel tank exploded a few weeks ago), all the comments embrace the "learning culture" at SpaceX. But if anyone else has a problem, in this case a failure to reset the clock correctly at separation, it's a sign of negligence, bloat and a "handout from the US tax payer". Between NASA and DoD, SpaceX has held on financially but even Elon has publicly said they might have gone under without that investment. Total U.S. taxpayer investment to date in SpaceX is in the billions.
6
@georgesbower And Boeing has received hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding over the decades while Elon Musk and company built Space X from scratch fairly recently. Makes one appreciate Space X's achievements all the more.
15
@georgesbower SpaceX has received over !1B of taxpayer money. Look it up - even Elon has said they wouldn't have survived without gov't investment.
2
NASA: Next Attempt Send Airbus
26
No problem. Test to dock with ISS failed. Let's test aborted mission procedure. Just as, if not more, important.
Bring Rosie and Snoopy home safely!
3
@Juliet Lima Victor Yes, Boeing can make this work for them. Apollo 13 could have been a disaster as well, but the ground crews worked thru it. Surely I am not putting Starliner on the same level as Apollo, but the idea is there that they can test a non standard procedure for safe return.
1
Bummer for Boeing, they needed a win following the 737max disasters.
1
You GO Elon!!!
4
Shocking
Another failure for Boeing. Space-X has had their fair share of failures as well; however, Space-X seems to learn from their failures.
Boeing, not so much. Sweep it under the rug.
Greed?? Who decided to stop US manned space flight in favor of Russians without having a backup plan? We lost a tremendous amount of real world knowledge with that stupid decision.
4
@kirk I don't think that Space X has learned from their failures They have been given a free pass on many of their failures, which Boeing/ ULA would not have been given. Case in point is when they COMPLETELY obliterated SLC40 under a non dynamic test condition.... no one else has EVER done that at the Cape and been allowed to continue without a full , exhaustive investigation.
3
@kirk
I think GW bush decided that one. And then Obama made it worse by scrapping all the millions we paid into Bush’s shuttle replacement.
Why Boeing again? What's really wrong with Boeing nowadays?
5
@Rod The reason for failure has not been identified yet. It may not have been with the Starliner.
I really like the quote: "assessing next steps". This is what everyone, everyday all over the planet does, from the moment they wake up.
Hopefully it doesn’t have MCAS—Boeing’s propriety crash system.
52
Why is everything seemingly coming up as failure for Boeing in their signature new model airliners and spaceliners?
Avarice? Hubris? Both?
Ignorance? Incompetence ? Both?
27
@Blackmamba I’m fairly certain it is Greed.
2
Boeing? We have a problem.
25
Software must have pushed the nose down.
4
Seems like Boeing has used the MCAS in more than just the 737 Max. Why are we still throwing good taxpayers' money after bad on this corrupt and incompetent company?
24
At the same time Russians can dock ISS in just about 3 hours after launch. Maybe ask them for software?
9
They should have used AirBus.
7
Another good reason to abandon the program, bring the astronauts now in the Space Station down in a Russian spacecraft, and de-orbit that big incubus.
Oh well. I'm sure that, when Boeing gets astronauts to ride their Starliner rocket, the company will blame the pilots for operator error! Genius.
4
A metaphor for America: wrong orbit and relying on the Russians to give us a lift.
108
Boeing again. Another highly visible failure albeit, fortunately, without loss of life.
Boeing, going, gone?
11
@Quoth The Raven
Yeah, they have relied too much on government contracts in military spending---they were corrupted by "private enterprise," which wasn't so private afterall.
"Private enterprise" just means none of the good stuff is going back to the people/public.
This admittedly limited in scope test should have gone flawlessly. What’s going on with these private contractors taking huge sums of taxpayers’ money, running huge cost and time overruns and not delivering on something that this country has done many decades before. This whole space program is being run as a social service giveaway, except that it’s making billions in profit for private companies and their executives and serving as pork barrel spending for senators to pump money in their respective states to get the votes they need to stay in power. Enough!
175
@PK This is NOT a limited scope test. Every mission at the Cape is not all that standard and has a lot of lessons learned... even after 50+ years lessons are still being learned. In all, Boeing checked a lot of success boxes with this mission and more to come as they decide on the next SAFE direction. A successful landing on a non standard procedure would be a big success. Wait on that to pass judgement.
3
@PK says, “Enough!”
I suggest the opposite. More, better detailed management, not for corporate profit, but for success and results for the greater good. Is this too idealistic for a biased majority failing to see past the end of their collective nose?
3
@PK
The aerospace industry is now a de-facto branch of government. There have been so many mergers over the years that we've ended up with just Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, who've agreed to divide the spoils, while posing as rivals.
When I was a kid, my father used to read the World Telegram & Sun, an evening newspaper in New York. What I didn't realize at the time that it's very name was also it's history. There were once dozens of papers in the city, but they all eventually consolidated. The World merged with the Telegram and that in turn merged with the Sun. Then it went out of business.
9
What will the consequences for this serious failure be? Continued government funding? Bonuses for executives? Pats on the back? My guess is all of the above.
11
Boeing’s decline is obvious , it has run amuck .Start with the executives who went on to run the FAA while the 737 Max was having enormous problems !
2
NASA is caught between a rock and a hard place which is purely of its own making. By electing to go with SpaceX it chose to go with a supplier whose culture of cost cutting and recklessness is sure to hurt them on man rated launches. Technical chutzpah should never be mistaken for culture of safety. This business depends on safety at all costs and SpaceX will never provide that safety umbrella.
Boeing on the other hand, seems to be facing its own unique set of challenges to quality control. Years of successful lobbying by its senior executives to become the supplier of choice for NASA - launch vehicles, storage tanks, crew capsules etc - might have left NASA in a situation where it is exposed to a single point of failure.
The Russians probably cannot believe their luck.
6
so maybe private business isn't the answer?
5
At some point in time the ancient Egyptians lost the skills and technology that enabled them to build the pyramids. I wonder if their decline was as fast and steep as ours.
14
Boeing’s largest customer for its 787 only takes deliveries of that plane from the factory in Seattle, not South Carolina. The 737Max is grounded. Their 777X program has a setback and is delayed. Does the company have the leadership team and the talent to be in this business?
15
I thought the private sector was supposed to do things better.
4
As children we all learned of the voyages of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria to the Western Hemisphere. The Santa Maria sunk off the coast of Haiti. The smaller Nina and Pinta successfully returned to Spain.
All new ships, planes, and spacecraft are designed for specific purposes and all designs are compromises. Aside from designs, the manufacture of every unique component introduces some unknown risk into how the final product will perform under the challenges it faces during blastoff and flight.
Every "O-ring" counts.
Even Thomas Edison invented hundreds of failed light bulbs before making one that finally worked.
Just as our earlier rocket successes were the result of Wernher Von Braun and his team of German scientists, maybe we should hire some of the Russian engineers and scientists who designed and built the Russian rockets we use to send our astronauts to the Space Station.
After all, this is rocket science, and they are proven Rocket Scientists.
3
@JMT Seriously? To begin with, Von Braun was a NAZI and we used his skills to our advantage ( good for us) and Von Brain got his butt away from being taken by the Russians
Do you know how many drastic Russian failures have there been and continue to be ?
We have a good team of Rocket engineers in America, so let them keep working .
1
Boeing is not having a good year, it killed over 300 people when it's slap dash software fix to a bad aircraft design malfunctioned, now its rocket's software apparently malfunctioned as well. Good thing there weren't any people on board.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that flying any Boeing craft may be hazardous to your life.
2
The root cause is that we've become a sloppy people. Penney jars have become nickel jars, even dimes. There is little desire for precision in this country in any endeavor.
1
Another flight control victory for boeing!! yippee, sooo much winning.
2
Let me guess. More short cuts? More profit?
The President, always cognizant of "My Stock Market," pulled out all stops to shore up Boeing's plunging stock prices. Following Mr. Putin's sage advice, the president quoted old-time Communist icon, Vadimir Lenin: "If you're making a omelet, you gotta break some eggs."
Some have interpreted these words to imply that Boeing share prices are more important to the president than are the lives of a few US astronauts.
Surprise! This is a SATIRE.
“Instead of putting the capsule into orbit, the Atlas 5 rocket and Centaur upper stage left it in an elliptical suborbital path, and a burn by the capsule’s engines would shift it from elliptical to circular.”
Funny how so many people seem to be convinced that it’s not that difficult to put a man on the moon, yet those same individuals will burst into vicious tirades against anyone who might doubt that Elon Musk is going to send them to Mars.
This is Ground Control to Major Tom.
1
Clock set wrongly: That's what you get when you transfer 737 Max engineers to Boeing's spaceflight division.
1
When is the CEO going to be fired? He has failed Boeing, failed NASA and failed the US. It was a Corporate culture of saving money, doing less than they should have and now the company is reeling. Its small (I'm sure) suppliers are on tender hooks and how many will now lose jobs, be laid off and so on. All because of toxic leadership.
145
@JHM If they fire him he will bail out with millions of dollars
2
I’m surprised that so many commenters are expert in the organizational health complexities of an aerospace company. People are disgusted by the 737 MAX debacle, I get it, but no NYT subscriber honestly knows what really went wrong here. Stop salivating over a miss that’s clearly to the detriment of our common interest.
If they had spacecraft control as claimed, they'd have executed the orbital insertion burn, so they clearly don't have control over all systems. Is Starliner Boeing's Apollo Max?
2
If they had spacecraft control, they'd have made the orbital insertion burn. Clearly, they don't have all systems under control. Is Starliner Boeing's Apollo Max?
Let's hope the 737 Max team wasn't involved in this.
1
I find myself thinking of the show, “West Wing,” and a discussion Sam Seaborn has with his old professor about how he can sell Congress on the supercollider-superconductor-terribly-expensive thing. He wants to know what the taxpayer will get out of it. The answer?
Discovery!
Sounds like they had the 737 Max Engineering team on this one...
2
Sounds like the same Boeing team that gave us the 737 Max.
For the people that did not see the Live NASA TV broadcast and that did not follow the event on the various news sites dedicated to the aerospace industry: (1) the Starliner reached orbit, and if it had astronauts on-board, it would have docked with the ISS. (2) Starliner could dock with the ISS but would used up too much of its orbiting fuel, leaving an amount of fuel reserves not adequate for safety reasons and for additional orbital correction for reentry - if needed. There is always a need to have an overabundance of fuel reserves for any un-scheduled orbital adjustments. (3) Starliner will continue its orbital tests and will do the equally important landing test at White Sands. This type of orbital anomaly has happened before - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle program. Finally, remember that SpaceX had a successful orbital test flight on March 2019.
5
I sincerely thank you for the explanations. You brought up several points; the most important being manual control may have corrected this error. Seriously, it's either that, or I have seen too many sci-fi films. I prefer the former.
@Angel Perez Thank you for your thoughtful summary of the situation. SPOT on, even if the unfortunate Starliner was not. People do not seem to realize that space missions are never routine , and we never quite know how close to disaster we may come with equipment failure. That is why we continue to work at making it better. Lots of smart pencils are being sharpened to solve this latest problem.
Allowing private companies to run a manned space program is a ridiculous notion.
3
Unfortunately there wouldn't be one at all. Born in the Fifties, I was one of the millions of people who watched JFK (both) say we would be on the moon before the end of the decade, and we were. After that, most people who saw all this fully believed we would be on Mars by the year 2000. The problem was three-fold, (and not in this particular order): First, The Vietnam War. Second, The wars in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan (which is still ongoing) sucking up trillions of dollars. Third, Add in the Apollo 11 near disaster. After Vietnam, the space budget had been reduced enormously. Next came the Challenger disaster, plus another shuttle explosion. All this plus the other wars had used up so much money (and still are), people tired of the idea to of sending shuttles to the ISP and back. As such, thois is where we find ourselves: Using private money for new ideas. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Nicolai Tesla and so many other private individuals have given the world tremendous gifts: Long distance communication, mass production, and the alternating current (Tesla's AC versus Edison's inferior DC), and who knows what else Tesla has done? My point is this: Private individuals have given mankind the ways and means to do almost anythingand everything so much better. Granted, this has been abused in many forms: Wars, The haves and have nots, and (worst of all) Global environmental pollution.
It makes one appreciate all the more the accomplishments of Musk and SpaceX.
2
It's no surprise that the spacecraft built by the makers of the 737 Max failed to achieve the correct orbit.
1
If you look up Atlas V, the launch system, you'll find that most of it is made in Russia. Sure, building a capsule is an accomplishment, but even with it the US can't put a man in space.
2
@Peter The RD180 engine on the first stage is the Russian component. The rest is made in the US. And you can thank Atlas and Delta for many things in life you take for granted... weather monitoring, GPS, telecommunications and your national security.
2
Of course it did. It was built by Boeing. The corruptness of that organization has no bounds. But we can't talk about that here in Seattle because so many people we know work there.
2
"What other companies are building new rides to space?"
Sierra Nevada Corporation, the 'Dream Chaser' mini shuttle.
Note: SNC is not some pie-in-the-sky startup.
If I met Elon I would grab and shake him:
"Buy Sierra Nevada! Adapt the 'Dream Chaser' as Dragon 3!"
A mystery to me why he doesn't see this... 'Dream Chaser' can land at any airport. Its front skid may tear up the runway a bit, but it's still cheaper than sending recovery ships out to sea.
Could Boeing have a worse year ?
@Ed van Dood
The year isn’t over yet. I’ll bet some of the managers at Boeing are in bed with the covers pulled over their head, thumb in mouth, whimpering.
1
@Mike
NAH, they are counting up their CEO bonuses.
Could someone please tell me exactly what benefit the space station has provided to us as a nation, other than to keep a bunch of white collar welfare recipients working and defense companies raking in profits . I received a free lunch from Boeing when the space station was just a thought and a room full of government contractors just like me were encouraged to lobby for it because lots of contracts/profits would follow.
1
@James T ONeill wrote: "Could someone please tell me exactly what benefit the space station has provided to us as a nation..."
It directly or indirectly provided the technology you used to post your comment. Some see that as a benefit.
4
@James T ONeill
The space station is a big fat waste of money. Money that would be better spent on robotic missions.
I wonder if Boeing hasn't been infiltrated by enemy agents as well as our government. They should look into it. It seems to me that this country is under attack from all fronts and the sooner we recognize it the sooner we can defend ourselves.
9
@Meighley Boeing has been infiltrated by the rot that has infiltrated the whole country since Jan 20, 2017.
1
@FilmMD I agree on the date of the rot, but there are many dedicated Boeing employees, so let us not denigrate the entire Boeing organization. That would only be stooping to the level brought in on Jan 20, 2017.
This disappointment is very frustrating, but the problem would appear to be more of a programming mistake, and not a hardware issue. At least the whole thing didn't blow up in everyone's faces. Thus, the general criticism of Boeing is a little misplaced as far as the Starliner capsule is concerned. It has nothing to do with the company's other businesses. The inability of the U.S. to put their own astronauts into orbit is a national embarrassment that has gone on too long; NASA and the private contractors must simply work harder and with urgency to overcome defects like what occurred today in order to change that.
2
@David Godinez wrote: "...the problem would appear to be more of a programming mistake."
You don't say...
Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers
1
This is not just a failure of the corporate culture at Boeing but a refutation (see the comment from StarMan) of corporate culture in our country. Corporate and socio-economic culture has shifted way to far from science and quality to profit and wealth accumulation. It has occurred in health care, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment engineering, education, civil engineering and on and on. We need to get back to a government by the people for the people and of the people. That government needs to regulate these large corporations. The real dive started when Regan (was he in early dementia at the time or just in the pockets of corporate and finance capital) declared that the government was our enemy. It coincided with US Steel declaring to the United Steel Workers Union that the business of US Steel was maximizing profit for share holders not in making steel. They then changed their name to USX. So went the US steel industry into the dust and so went the true growth of our economy towards meeting the real needs of the people of this country. We don't need to make America great again we need to make truth, empathy, civility and caring about each other and an economy that serves the needs of all the people of this country great.
199
@Robert Fine - are you kidding? A glitch during a test flight of a new rocket is emblematic of problems with corporate culture, in your view? Perhaps you don't recall all of the NASA rockets and shuttles that have had mishaps over the years? This is complicated business, and some failures along the way are expected and normal. Seriously, get real.
13
Correct. Not sure why people are drawn to make such negative comments about technology they clearly do not understand. Guess it’s just the ignorant times we live in. In aeronautics, like any science there are steps forward and back. This was a very minor glitch. Not even a real set back. Assuming one knows anything about how complex engineering programs work. The Max was another issue. Bad design from the get go driven by management not technical experts. Boeing deserves their losses on that one and hopefully has learned a lesson, as has hopefully the FAA management team that was also culpable for those preventable deaths.
9
@Wilmington EDTsion
A glitch that proper QC should have caught before the launch. Due to this 'minor glitch' the craft could be placed in an unstable orbit and burn up on reentry along with its passengers.
5
It is becoming more and more likely that Boeing has a flawed computer science / IT department unable to execute the proper programming to safely put humans into space. We have recently seen the horrendous results of the Boeing 737 Max computer systems which have resulted in two fatal crashes. And now, the termination of 737 Max production. Somewhere within the behemoth which is Boeing, there is a flawed and sloppy programming department, resulting in more unacceptable failures in the programming of the Starliner Spacecraft. How many more computer programming failures must be endured? If this track record continues, perhaps Boeing should be shuttered and another company take its place. Or split up Boeing up into separate companies.
12
@John OBrienj How can IT do what makes no sense? Perhaps the design was flawed, all to cut corners!
@John OBrienj Information Technology is not the same as Computer Science. The most that an IT department would do is install and remove software on servers and desktops, enforce technical policies handed down from management and implement security measures. Let's not impugn the group who works more on maintaining the MATLAB licensing server and less on fluid dynamics simulations.
@John As an IT professional I understand how sensitive some can be. The bottom line is that IT requires Computer Science and engineering. It is the IT incorporated into the programmed instrumentation. They have to work together. If not, then, just like the MAX, the system fails.
The question is not has Boeing become a careless remnant of a once-great company. It has. The question is how many of the thousands of planes in the fleet have undiscovered flaws waiting to bring them down. Boeing didn't get sloppy all at once. It was on a long glide path of incremental negligence for two decades.
94
Boeing needs to dig deep into their culture and figure out what's going on.
Their current state-of-affairs in untenable and needs to change.
19
The Starliner story, like the 737 Max problem, is symptomatic of the wrong culture at Boeing.
Boeing's culture took a fateful turn away from engineering with the McDonnell-Douglas merger in 1997. Leadership moved corporate HQ from Seattle to Chicago specifically and deliberately to separate management from the core engineering and production functions of the enterprise, clearly telegraphing their contempt for the heart of the business.
New leadership and real structural changes are necessary for Boeing to succeed with premium technical products that work. Boeing stakeholders and shareholders should demand nothing less.
153
I can't believe I'm writing this, but I almost feel sorry for Boeing right now.
At some point, a new CEO will get the opportunity to helm a corporate-culture turnaround that will return it to former glory, I hope.
44
No. Boeing died with its union-busting, died again with the murderous Max debacle, and dies yet again here. Give it the Corporate Death Penalty so the record, and its executives' criminal records, can finally reflect that!
It's the R. Kelly of manufacturers—the 747 may be its "I Believe I Can Fly", but the Max is its crimes that make even the jumbo jet a legal liability to even be a fan of.
4
@Mark Gardiner
You can't change this corporate culture with the pervasive short-term profit maximizing culture strongly held by the investors. These folks, and often the boards of directors, are largely ignorant of the cumulative problems Boeing is now having.
5
@Mark Gardiner The Boeing of the 1960's era is long gone and it's time to cut the cord with Boeing as a supplier to NASA as well as the commercial airlines.
2
Space travel is complex and expensive. It is not for the fait of the heart and those unwilling to spend the money. The rewards are equally big. While space flight themselves do not produce too much tangible, the process of building the spacecraft creates so much new technologies that have alternate uses, that it makes the whole thing worthwhile. While this launch had a problem, they will fix it and it will be fine next time.
10
Show me an independent cost/benefit analysis where manned spaceflight comes out ahead of robotic missions. Crewed flights are pricey window dressing that drain limited resources from more science-heavy missions that offer greater payback.
82
@Jan
It is not even cost/benefit analysis, it is much simpler than that. With the exception of Apollo, every single piece of scientific data collected from outside the Earth's atmosphere has been collected by un-crewed spacecraft. So:
cost/benefit for manned space flight except Apollo = infinity
9
@A A
Human space flight is a big waste of dollars, being 1 to 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than a robotic mission. Virtually all of the scientific data, including iconic photographs of breathtaking images, planetary exploration, exoplanet discovery etc has been collected by robotic spacecraft. Humans are not physically capable of long duration space flight.
29
We are paying for this.
While you're up there, direct hand held service to taxpayer paid in full satellite service owned by We The People eliminating high corporate fees to provide internet equality. Eliminate the cables attached to telephone poles and underground Fios, Charter, Spectrum et al.
21
@Guy Walker
Government control of internet and phone services provides equality for the Chinese. Combined with government facial recognition technology, they all have equal access to privacy: none.
3
@Guy Walker
We paid for all this and for 80 a month I get the worst service Spectrum can supply. ENOUGH.
Its not 'Free" stuff when you've paid for it a hundred thousand times over.
Makes one appreciate the analog success launches of the 60, 70’s.
190
@Tabula Rasa Check out the book "Go, Flight", a book about Mission Control (Houston, we have a problem), 1965-1992. It made me appreciate some of the complexities of human space travel.
7
@Tabula Rasa
And the reliable Soyuz, still flying after all these years.
14
@Tabula Rasa
Or closer to our time, appreciate the successes of SpaceX. Not only have they been launching rockets and satellites, they have been docking with the Space Station and providing supplies. And providing excellent video feeds of the whole operation on Youtube to educate and inspire a new generation, if they and their elders have the attention span to watch.
11