Raf
Great news! The Starliner’s successful return highlights the outstanding work of Boeing and NASA engineers. Congratulations to the team!
Great news! The Starliner’s successful return highlights the outstanding work of Boeing and NASA engineers. Congratulations to the team!
Good news that the ship made it home in one piece. I suspect there is a little celebrating going on at Boeing headquarters. But two thoughts come to mind.
As I’ve read Boeing posts, Boeing was confident on the safety of the return. How does a retrospective distinguish between risk assessments, engineering analyses, risk aversion, and politics to find the “right” answer. Can anyone consider what happened with Starliner and not think “Max”? But is this rationale?
Of course the “null” side of the risk equation is: don’t fly, stay in your house. The other side of the spectrum is unfathomably complex.
In sum, a true retrospective should consider if NASA was “wrong.”
3 replies
I don’t think NASA was wrong. After losing 14 astronauts on the shuttle when ignoring advise to not fly, I don’t think NASA management wanted to have to explain to Congress and family if the return had not gone well with the possible loss of 2 more. Now Boeing can get off its behind and fix whatever issues the Starliner has before launching again.
Better to be up there wishing you were down here than… or so the old saying goes.
My post event retrospective is that NASA was right. Being human we are destined to err. Erring in favor of safety affords us the opportunity to live to make future judgement calls. Being right occasionally means being wrong particularly in high risk and close call circumstances.
" Poll: Should Boeing Quit Space?" Consensus Breakdown:
42% (948 voters) think Boeing should quit space.
50% (1,115 voters) believe Boeing can still improve: (38% (850 voters) think Boeing should stay, but it needs to do better. +12% (265 voters) say maybe it should quit, but there’s still hope for improvement.)
8% (200 voters) believe Boeing’s current problems are just normal challenges.
In summary, (50%) think Boeing has potential to improve and shouldn’t quit space.
Is there hope for Boeing Space?: Yes, there is hope for Boeing based on the breakdown of the poll. While 42% believe Boeing should quit space, a larger portion—50%—thinks Boeing has the potential to improve. Of that group, 38% believe Boeing should stay and do better, and another 12% think there’s still hope for improvement even if they are uncertain. Additionally, 8% see Boeing’s challenges as normal in such a complex field. This suggests a significant portion of people believe Boeing has the ability to overcome its current difficulties and improve in space endeavors.
Given the Starliner capsule is designed to be reused is there any chance that Boeing / ULA could send it back to collect the two astronauts before SpaceX gets there in February? While I appreciate that this would be very expensive it may help Boeing rehabilitate their reputation and the reputation of the Starliner.
Except the problematic thrusters were in the discarded Service Module, not that capsule that returned.
The main reason the return flight was so delayed is because the Boeing engineers could only diagnose the problems while it was still in space. The SM is detached prior to capsule reentry and burns up in the atmosphere, destroying all physical evidence.
Given the time it took Boeing just to get this far (seven years overdue and still not operational), it could be a year or more before they can prove it’s safe and try again with another manned flight.
At which point, why bother? NASA has only committed to buying three rides on the Starliner (not including this test flight). And there are only six Atlas rockets left reserved for Boeing. After that its choices are SpaceX’s Falcon, or paying to man-rate the Vulcan rocket.
With the ISS scheduled to be deorbited after 2030, that means there are only five years of life remaining. How many supply and crew missions are left? How many of those will Boeing actually get paid to fly?
I hope they succeed. My fantasy would be to see a Boeing spacecraft with a Pan Am logo pulling into a space station a la “2001” But the bean-counters and stockholders have a good case to tell Boeing to spend the money elsewhere in their overall turnaround efforts.
I’m not normally this blunt, but the poll, “Should Boeing quit space” features the most gawdawful wording for a poll that I’ve ever seen. Before I go further, let me say I’m a retired Boeing Space Systems Engineer.
Should Boeing quit space? Should Boeing give up on 60+ years of space legacy? From building the first stages for the Saturn 5, to the lunar buggy, to the International Space Station?
The first picture of Earth taken from Lunar orbit was not taken by Apollo 8. It was taken by the Lunar Orbiter, designed and built by…you guessed it, Boeing.
And don’t forget the other aspects of Boeing space legacy. Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the Mercury and Gemini capsules. After the merger, Boeing’s logo was modified to reflect that heritage…adding the McD Earth orbit icon. North American/Rockwell, the prime contractor for the Apollo Command Module and the Space Shuttle, was also subsumed into Boeing.
And just throw out that legacy? Quit space? Really? Until the Space Shuttle was retired, no American astronaut flew into space in anything OTHER than a spacecraft built by McDonnell Douglas or Rockwell. And those companies now comprise the Boeing legacy.
And keep in mind this is just the CREWED part of “space.” Boeing has been deeply involved in satellite development as well, for communications, science, and national defense. Boeing bought Hughes Space and Communications Group in the year 2000, at which point forty percent of all communications satellites were Hughes/Boeing products.
Oh, and have you heard of the Boeing X-37 Space Plane? Pretty damn successful program.
Legacy Boeing has been deeply involved in satellite systems for national defense, too. The Hubble Space Telescope has a large low-thermal-expansion truss at its core…built by Boeing. Ever wonder why Boeing developed the expertise to build large orbital telescopes?
In my career at Boeing, I worked on programs that produced 15 spacecraft. None of them failed. Some were still working at eight times their design lifetime.
Finally, understand that “Boeing Space” isn’t just one ramshackle building with a cardboard sign out front saying “space.” Most of the design centers all those companies that merged with Boeing still exist, mainly because they have wildly varying areas of expertise.
Now, I’m not saying the Boeing didn’t diddle the dachshund in the Starliner program. Some of the things I’ve heard have made my System Engineer’s blood boil. I’m assuming that portion of Boeing is going to get a bit of re-education. It’s that 60+ year legacy that’ll help them recover.
And a poll asking, “Should Boeing quit the Starliner Program” would have been a valid question.
But suggesting that Boeing’s entire space operation shut down due to this single program’s failure?
Really?
1 reply
To bad there are only 4 flights left. You see, it is only rated for the Atlas booster, and they are obsolete with only 4 remaining in inventory.
So its like Boeing is beating a dead horse. What are they going to do, “We declare it is now operational, and obsolete”
Great plan NASA and Boeing
You’re right. It’s a legacy to be proud and inspired by. Not everything in a large, complex endeavour always goes as planned even with the best minds working on it. Perhaps a newer wrinkle has emerged and with good analysis a good remedy built into the next crew capsule. It might be smart to use the re-engineered Starliner as a freighter/garbage truck for a launch or two to verify all corrective issues have been resolved before filling it with astronauts.
The accolades directed to the Boeing Company of the past were hard earned and well deserved, but the operative words are “of the past”. What exists now is the result of an aerospace company run by investment bankers. It is clearly a failure despite a core of talented and dedicated employees.
We will see if the new CEO can turn this sinking ship around. With the majority of the board of directors unchanged, however, I think this unlikely. If the current Boeing restructured its space division into bicycle manufacture, I wouldn’t ride one.
Can Boeing find the jettisoned part that had key parts of the offending thruster system?
(Routinely jettisoned before the capsule reaches ground/sea surface, I do not know where.
Should be very useful in diagnosing the problem.)
Thank you, Ron. How nice it is to read comments from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
It is great to see Ron comment here. I always learn something.
I worked in manned space for 32 years in Houston as a GN&C engineer. First shuttle flight I had flight design responsibilities for was STS-3 if I recall correctly. Last shuttle flight I had flight design responsibilities was STS-135. In between I spent about 10 years contributing to the design of the guidance and control systems of the ISS. Towards the end of my career I worked 1.5 years on the Commercial Crew Program, Starliner.
I started with McDonnell Douglas and then got pulled into Boeing when they bought McDonnell Douglas. Through all that time, I worked with a very dedicated and competent group of engineers. Most of the managers were good, all though there were a pair of stinkers in the mix.
While at McDonnell Douglas, the employees were treated as valued members of the team. We all worked together. HR was actually there for the employees. At the time Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas we were all concerned about how things would change. Luckily, it took about 10 years or so for Boeing management style to filter down to us. And yes, things did go down hill. HR began to be used against employees. One upper manager called us “commodities” that could easily be replaced if the company so desired. At a different point in time a low level manager claimed that we were not engineers (about 25 of us in the room). So at times it was difficult dealing with that. Funny thing is that we always got excellent performance reviews from our customer (NASA). Delivered products were always of high quality and on time. These same managers always congratulated us when the contract performance reviews were made public.
Commercial Crew is/was a different type of contract being fixed price and with not very much oversight from NASA. I was just a grunt GNC engineer in that program and had very little insight into the program as a whole. There was a lot of talk on the floor as we noticed new middle managers coming in from the west coast with little to no space experience. By the time I was let go (old and expensive), most of the work in our area was done. I was having severe doubts about the program as a whole anyway.
As Ron has pointed out, Boeing has quite a legacy in both manned and unmanned space activities. As one might infer from my comments, Boeing was involved in Space Shuttle ops and was the prime in the development and ops of the ISS. I’m certain that there are very good engineers still working there. I believe there will have to be some major shakeups in all levels of management at Boeing and that it will be years before Boeing as a company will get back on course.
1 reply
The successful return of the Starliner is a positive step for Boeing, but it’s clear that recent problems, like the 737 MAX, along with a series of managerial, engineering, and production snags, still overshadow their achievements. As a Boeing enthusiast who’s followed their history in space for a long time, I recognize their significant contributions, but these recent issues make it hard for people to fully embrace Starliner’s success without some caution. NASA made the right call by prioritizing safety, but now Boeing must focus on fixing the problems from this mission and rebuilding public trust. This is a key opportunity for them to regain confidence, but they’ll need to be transparent and accountable to move forward successfully.
Ah, too bad.
They did some rig testing but I’d ask if they were able to duplicate the problem found in the vacuum of space.
They did not stay in their house and they did not fly. What more do you want?
I have to laugh, Lowell, because my experience was nearly the identical to yours, except reversed… legacy Boeing guy having problems with the McD management.
First off, I believe you…I’m not casting doubt on your experience. But I was in legacy Boeing when the companies merged, and our chain of command put the LA-area former McD executives in charge of our operation. We were under pressure to transfer to LA (in one case, we were put to work on a proposal effort and told the program itself would be worked out of LA…oddly enough, we couldn’t seem to get any support from there for the proposal effort. As far as attitude towards the rank and file, well, this was the period one one one of the high mucky-mucks publicly proclaimed the engineers were a bunch of prima-donnas.
Harry Stonecipher engendered such hatred that to the day I retired in 2017, there were STILL cartoons hanging in the offices about him. I’m thinking of the one showing him and Phil Condit as Laurel and Hardy.
A lot of this led to the engineering strike in 2000. I wrote an email about my experiences to several of my writing friends and editors, and one suggested I send it to AvWeb. And for my sins, they published it:
But again, I don’t doubt your experiences in the slightest. We all experienced it differently.
One of the things we used to say was, “McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money.” I’ll lay odds you and your co-workers told the same thing the other way around… 
They did not tell of the sixth thruster problem and the guidance “blip”, in the first news cycle. Wonder why?
Good call then to leave the test pilots up there. The extra weight might have thrown the thruster even more out of kilter… And was the guidance blip similar to a gps sending a heavy truck over a light bridge, caught in time, or “no satellites available…”
Would be good to have three competitors.
Hollywood space cadet Jeff Bezos’ ‘Blue Origin’ project has flown people into space - including himself, commendably.
The company makes engines for the Vulcan heavy rocket and for the ‘upgraded Atlas IV’ replacing Russian engines. And is developing other engines including one using LNG with LO2.
1 reply
Three competitors would be an excellent idea, but I’m not sure there’s enough business for TWO separate companies, let alone three.
There’s really not that much use for crewed space capsules. Just about everything you use people for in space, you can do with an autonomous spacecraft, for considerably less money.
There’s really not enough financial incentive for manned missions. Right now, the only thing folks are flying people into space for is to support the two space stations…and no one claims that the ISS or the Chinese station could exist without massive government investment. Which, of course, isn’t getting paid back.
It’s all a matter of national/corporate pride… and that doesn’t put a single penny in the coffers.
Two things are needed. First, the replacement of chemical rockets with something far more effective. Don’t know what it’ll be (hey, I’m a rocket engineer, not a rocket scientist), but we need to keep from having to burn a million pounds of rocket propellant to put a thousand pounds in orbit.
The second thing? Well, right now, tourism is the only potential use of manned spacecraft. And, at $20 million a pop (for orbital flight), how much of a market is there? And after the first group frying of billionaires after a failed mission, THAT’LL go away. How many tourist dives have been made on the Titanic since the mini-sub went crunch?
No, what’s needed is a massive financial incentive…a gold rush. Robert Heinlein, in “The Man Who Sold the Moon,” had the main character slip a bag of diamonds into the first manned rocket to go to the Moon and instruct the astronaut to claim that he’d found them scattered on the Moon’s surface. On his return, the astronaut gave him his bag of diamonds back…plus three bags more, of ACTUAL diamonds he’d found there.
We need a financial incentive to send humans into space, and we need to develop technology to let us get there cheaper. Without those, it’s a dead end.
2 replies
And after the first group frying of billionaires after a failed mission, THAT’LL go away. How many tourist dives have been made on the Titanic since the mini-sub went crunch?
They’re on their way:
I read your attached article about the strike - and I recall those days. Those of us working as engineers in Houston did benefit from the outcome. Wasn’t a given as we had no union. I think I did make a financial contribution to the SPEEA fund. And Ron, you will be happy to know that those of us in Houston did not like Stonecipher either. MD employees paid a price in the MD-Boeing merger or buyout or whatever one would like to call it. We lost retiree medical benefits and approximately 1 billion dollars of the pension fund was pulled out for places unknown.
I will never know why/how company board of directors choose CEOs. Condit - shown the door, Stonecipher - shown the door, McNerny - following in Jack Welch’s footsteps, Muilenburg - shown the door, Calhoun - shown the door. All the while us rank and file engineers were worrying about our careers and whether or not there would be a time when we would be out on the street looking for another job. Quite a few did have their careers destroyed by the shenanigans of these CEOs.
Did this history play a role in the Starliner problems? Probably, most certainly indirectly.
Way back when, I watched the Apollo flights on an itty-bitty black and white TV. and I decided I wanted to be a part of that. My path was also 4 years in the Air Force before getting a AeroE degree. Well, my contributions never got beyond LEO. And as Ron points out, as long as we are dependent upon chemical propulsion, our horizons are limited. Musk is really pushing the envelope and I believe he will be making the most of what we have available today.
My son is now working the HLS (Human Landing System?) program. Only getting to the Moon, but that is further than I got. All though this program is feasible from an engineering standpoint, I doubt that there is enough money or competent leadership being committed to have success - at least looking back at what has happened in the past.
Ron refers to Heinlein in his post. Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Pohl, Niven and hundreds of other science fiction authors have described what could/might come to be. Some of what was science fiction, has become reality. Probably sometime in the future a “rocket scientist” will come up with a viable reactionless drive. Hey, it might happen! Just think what that would do to the world economy.
I should have never created an account to be able to comment on this forum. I need to stop.
1 reply
“I should have never created an account to be able to comment on this forum. I need to stop.”
Not at all, Ben. It’s good to have us steely-eyed space veterans to class up this joint. Enjoy all your write-ups, and the view from the “other side.” Comments are going to close on this thread in a day or so, anyway.
A few years after I retired, I indulged my space history with a tattoo. It’s a Flash Gordon space ship, with Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equation above it. I’d post a picture, but I think AvWeb doesn’t allow skin pix.
A tat? You are a wild one.
I’ve been out of the game 10 years now. The one guy I used to keep in contact with on the Commercial Crew program left about 3 years after I was outed due to medical issues. Another guy I worked with on the Shuttle program is now doing airplane support out on the west coast, 737 mostly I think. Another Shuttle guy I used to work with has also been retired for a while. All though his wife is still in the Space business. So I no longer have any visibility into any of those goings ons at Boeing.
I’ve always enjoyed reading what you have written in various venues through the years. Wish I could buy you a few adult beverages as payback.