As was widely anticipated, NASA has decided it's too risky to send test pilot astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore back to Earth on the Boeing Starliner spacecraft that took them to the International Space Station in June. Instead, what started as an eight-day shakedown mission for the two veteran astronauts has turned into an eight month odyssey that will see them replace two of the four astronauts that were to travel to the ISS on a SpaceX Crew Dragon vehicle in September for a planned six month stay. They will finally go home in February at the end of the long-planned mission. âThis has not been an easy decision, but it is absolutely the right one,â said Jim Free, NASAâs associate administrator. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said the decision was made out of a "commitment to safety."
A smart decision. the astronauts can help with the workload on ISS while things get sorted. Will be interesting to see how the Starliner Spacecraft fares on re-entry. With the world watching it seems a very prudent decision. Maybe common sense isnât that uncommon after all.
Here we have an opportunity to see the benefit of having multiple providers for crew transport. With even a little doubt about the safety of one, the other can can to the rescue. There are good options on the table to choose from.
Listening to the entire press briefing today my ear was tuned to any mention of safety culture change and lessons learned resulting from Challenger and Columbia shuttle losses. I was not disappointed. Bill Nelson was clear and unambiguous on that subject as though those shuttle disasters were as fresh on his mind as the days on which they happened.
NASA made the tough decision and then Bill Nelson owned the decision while not dumping on Boeing which he could have and which a smaller administrator would have. We could all learn that lesson in integrity and dignity. When pressed to justify what Boeing has been paid at taxpayersâ expense to perform, he reminded the press that Boeing signed up for a fixed price and that arrangement is still in effect.
I still think that NASA should offer to pay SpaceX for an additional Crew Dragon flight before Feb to get Butch and Suni. They had no way of planning an 8 month mission from a 8 day mission. Imagine how you would feel in that situation.
The loss of public (taxpayers) confidence in the Boeing Starliner program is a big deal. It could lead to less government funding, fewer partnerships, and more strict regulations. With SpaceX doing well, the pressure on Boeing is even greater. Boeingâs reputation is on the line, and while the programâs future isnât solely based on public opinion, rebuilding trust is a major concern. But the real question is: can Boeing handle another failure?
Honestly, as a taxpayer, the question is why are we still funding this at all. We already know that human space flight is insanely expensive as it is insanely dangerous. WHAT are we actually gaining for every multibillion-dollar spacecraft test flight? If this is still a republic then I think itâs time that people (not Boeing) vote to say if re-developing manned space capsules is a priority. On second thought, I think I heard Boeing is throwing in the towel on this too.
Arthur, I get your concerns about funding Boeingâs Starliner program, especially with SpaceX doing so well. Space exploration is risky and expensive, and Boeingâs recent issues make it hard to justify continued investment. But space programs drive innovation and having more than one company involved is crucial for national security and competition.
Public trust in Boeing is low, and another failure would be tough. However, giving up on the program now could mean missing out on future advancements. Space exploration needs long-term commitment, even when results arenât immediate.
âspace programs drive innovationâ
Nope, not here, and now, and not this mission. Manned space capsules in earth orbit date back to 1961. Space exploration needs long-term sensors, not people, and that means means UNMANED missions are preferable. If the goal is exploration then itâs a waste of people to be in space for months or years or decades or centuries.
There is ZERO ânational securityâ in low earth orbit or sending people beyond. None. Nada. Zip.
Wow Arthur, with your logic, it could be said that passenger flights arenât necessary because we have video calling. Itâs too wasteful and dangerous for people to fly. We can just use drones to do all freight transportation.
My take, If we do not have people in space experiencing the unpredictable then we canât predict what space travel will do to a person or persons. Living in a tent or cave in the dessert with a group of people is just not the same as sharing a low or zero gravity confined space ship.
Logic fail on your part. Passenger flights are not the same as operating in space.
If they were, then weâd have been in space in the late 1920âs. Hello?
With todayâs advances sensors then it makes ZERO sense to risk people in the BASIC exploration of planets.
Almost everything you touch has an I.C. chip or small computer in it. My teakettle has programmable electronic controls. Your car unless itâs a Nash rambler has electronic controls. They work fine until they donât. This doesnât happen every day and the reliability gets better by leaps and bounds. None of this would have occurred without the space (military) race. When we return to the moon and go for takeout food I hope there will be someone there preparing it and not just a solar powered dispenser. We need to experience the next frontier, not just take pictures of it.
You have completely missed KlausMâs point. Not to mention Muskâs thoughts on the subject; To inspire young people the way they were inspired by historical explorers of our own planet who went off in incredibly rickety (by todayâs standards) vessels to âdiscoverâ lands no European had ever seen beforeâŚ
You are about 70 years too late if you want to debate the value of the space program, and not the kind of thing the public gets to vote on on determine priorities. Thatâs the last thing the public should be involved in. Time to rethink what you âthink you heard.â
This might be one of the few times I agree with AJ, but he is right.
Manned space flight is only a small part of our exploration of space, with decades of sending probes and robots to several dozens of missions. We sent a ship to Pluto, a 3 BILLION mile flight, to be in the right place for a 36-hour window to photograph it. We have two ships orbiting the sun. We have others exploring Mercury, Jupiter, Mars and Venus and their moons, besides the ones you see on the surface of our moon and Mars.
We landed on and sampled an asteroid, for Christâs sake.
We have extremely sophisticated telescope, radiation, radio wave and microwave systems on duty 24/7 and our second space-based telescope recording our universe.
Apollo 8 is often overshadowed by other moon missions, but consider that in 1968 it was the first time we left this planet to go somewhere else. That was only 66 years ago.
Voyager I and II are still transmitting as they continue to fly across the universe. How do you like them apples?
âSpace is big. You just wonât believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think itâs long way down the road to the chemistâs, but thatâs just peanuts to spaceâ -HHGG
If your goal is to explore the vastness of space, then use sensors and send robotic probes. Let robots suffer the mindless tedium required to travel years or decades in order to run a few tests. Let probes suffer the double indignity of wasted time if you want samples returned to earth. .