- cross-posted to:
- aviation@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- aviation@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
Hope they properly bolted in the door plugs
Why properly bolt them when you can just intimidate and harass the employees?
And kill them.
Well, there’s no direct, incontrovertible, available evidence for that.
Yet.
True but his statement from a few days before he died is pretty damning
Let is see if there are any laat minute additions of employees to the flight crew.
I get the reference. But coincidentally, the Apollo I accident was related to the same. (RIP Ed White, Roger Chaffee, Gus Grissom)
From what I’ve heard the main hurdle they are tackling is getting the screen door to stop squeaking.
We twisted them two extra times. Oh wait… It’s lefty tighty, right?
I feel like if I was one of the astronauts picked, I’d fake the measles or something so I could nope the fuck out of it.
You want to believe that the quality control issues in their aircraft wing don’t cross over to starliner, but delays, glitches and multiple other issues in Starliner say otherwise.
It’s not like they had to do software updates on the fly to land it last launch.
Sure, I’m okay with flying on an orbiter with a 67% survival rate. But a Boeing spacecraft? Fuck outta here.
(Just to be clear I am in no way disagreeing with you)
deleted by creator
Which is unforgivably low. Check the dates and see if you notice a modern-day program that’s overrepresented.
Space travel is dangerous and anyone who flies in space understands that and signed up for it. But the shuttle program had deliberately and pointlessly unsafe decisions that were taken for reasons of cost-cutting or simple management incompetence, and all the dead astronauts on those two shuttles are a direct result.
If you know you’re going to fly 135 missions, and you accept a 1.5% catastrophic failure rate, then you’re accepting blowing up two shuttles with everyone on board. Which is exactly what 1980s-era NASA did, not because it was an inevitable reality they couldn’t avoid, but because management had their heads up their asses and wasn’t invested in the idea of sacrificing their own convenience in order to keep the program safer than 1.5%.
deleted by creator
Fair enough. My point was that 33% of the shuttles that were in service are not around anymore, because they’ve blown up killing all astronauts on board. 67% is the percent of the in service shuttles that have survived to the present day. But the words I was using were arguably just an incorrect way of phrasing that, so yeah you kind of have a point.
I can revise my statement to, for any given flight there seems to have been a 1.5% chance that the shuttle would malfunction and kill all the astronauts on board even if they did their jobs perfectly (and specifically for reasons of gross mismanagement of the program as opposed to the already-significant risks inherent to space travel), and that’s too high for a vehicle which was explicitly being pushed hard as a “we can make these flights routine and do tons of them” solution. Sounds better?
Also, from the link I sent:
Two lightning strikes during launch. The first strike, at 36 seconds after liftoff, knocked the three fuel cells offline and the craft switched to battery power automatically. The second strike, at 52 seconds after liftoff, knocked the onboard guidance platform offline. Four temperature sensors on the outside of the Lunar Module were burnt out and four measuring devices in the reaction control system failed temporarily. Fuel cell power was restored about four minutes later.
Don’t just say “power was restored.” TELL THE STORY YOU PUSSY
Also Boeing Space is an entirely different company, it may has well have a different name. Same with Boeing Defense.
I think a large part of that was that the majority of the shuttles service was spent in a pre-internet world. We literally didn’t know the shuttles weaknesses until there were big incidents like Challenger and Columbia.
I was a kid in 86’. And (like a lot of others I’ll bet) I was absolutely in awe of the shuttle. I was enamoured thanks to movies like SpaceCamp, etc…
Nowadays, with starliner, every failure in testing, every flaw, every glitch, is presented on a thousand tech blogs.
Why get there economically when you can get there for ten times the price?
They want redundancy. What if Musk goes crazy in a new direction and decides to retire Dragon.
They should have thought of redundancy for the HLS. For one, you have a space fuel depot with cryogenic boil off that has to be refilled by multiple (at least 12?) starships. And then you have a slender long full rocket stage that has to land vertically on soft and unprepared lunar regolith. For some reason, my engineering instincts are revolting just at the thoughts of it.
They should have thought of redundancy for the HLS
NASA wanted redundancy, and will eventually get it.
NASA announced Thursday that it has awarded three contracts to begin initial development of lunar landing systems that will take astronauts down to the surface of the Moon in less than five years.
2021: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/nasa-selects-spacex-as-its-sole-provider-for-a-lunar-lander/
About a year ago, NASA gave initial study and preliminary development contracts for Moon landers to SpaceX, Dynetics, and a team of aerospace heavyweights led by Blue Origin. The cost of SpaceX’s bid was about half that of Dynetics, and one-fourth the amount received by Blue Origin. That frugality, at least in part, led NASA on Friday to choose SpaceX as the sole provider of landing services during the down-select phase.
SpaceX is the only affordable option, but BO makes a fuss: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/heres-why-blue-origin-thinks-it-is-justified-in-continuing-to-protest-nasa/
NASA on Friday announced its selection of Blue Origin to build a second Human Landing System for its Artemis program to return to the Moon. The space company, founded by Jeff Bezos, will lead the development of a fully reusable lander that could take flight as soon as the end of this decade.
Friday’s announcement represents a significant moment for NASA for multiple reasons. Importantly, it adds a second provider of human landing services. Previously, NASA awarded a contract to SpaceX for its Starship vehicle to serve as a lunar lander. That vehicle will be used for NASA’s first two lunar landing missions, Artemis III and Artemis IV. So NASA gets the competition it covets, which has been shown to spur commercial development.
They could shoot the occupants for free. Same glorious Boeing ™ results fo no money.
They could probably get the human up there in 10 smaller cheaper launches for the same result.
