Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space ISS NASA

NASA Praises Boeing Starliner's 'Picture Perfect' Return from ISS Visit (space.com) 125

Posted by EditorDavid from the there-and-back-again dept.
Boeing's Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) "is officially a success," reports Space.com: That's the verdict that leaders at NASA and Boeing gave during a press briefing on Wednesday night (May 25), a few hours after the aerospace giant's Starliner capsule returned to Earth to wrap up OFT-2, a crucial uncrewed demonstration mission to the International Space Station.

Starliner touched down in the White Sands Missile Range, a U.S. Army facility in New Mexico, at 6:49 p.m EDT (2249 GMT) on Wednesday, hitting the desert dirt just 0.3 miles (0.5 kilometers) from its target landing point. Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, described the landing as "picture perfect" during Wednesday night's briefing, saying that the test flight accomplished all of its mission objectives....

OFT-2 went smoothly from start to finish, though it did have a few minor hiccups. For example, two thrusters on Starliner's service module failed during the orbital insertion burn, which occurred about 30 minutes after launch. And as Starliner approached the space station on Friday (May 20), an additional two thrusters needed to be shut down, this time in the capsule's reaction control system. In both cases, backups for each system worked as they were designed to do, and neither issue substantially affected the mission. But Starliner's thrusters will be a focus of several post-flight checks and tests in the near future.
The Washington Post writes that on-the-ground engineers "won't be able to examine the two main thrusters that cut out since they are housed in the spacecraft's service module, which was jettisoned during the return." (And during the flight, their article adds, "the spacecraft's thermal control system, used to keep the spacecraft at the right temperature, also failed.") But NASA's Steve Stich tells Space.com that "Putting the vehicle through its paces on this flight is really the only way to prepare us for the crewed flight test.

"Once we work through all the data, we'll be ready to fly crew on this vehicle."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Praises Boeing Starliner's 'Picture Perfect' Return from ISS Visit More

NASA Praises Boeing Starliner's 'Picture Perfect' Return from ISS Visit

Comments Filter:

  • To make themselves feel better about all the money they wasted on starliner, it costs about double what the dragon capsule does.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      And if you add the risk-cost, it is probably like 10x that or more.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        And if you add the risk-cost, it is probably like 10x that or more.

        Hard to say. SpaceX takes a lot of risks. That is almost their signature: they're the company that takes risks. Sometimes it works spectacularly well. Sometimes they blow things up.

        With all the focus on the sticky thruster valves on Starliner, for example, we tend to forget that SpaceX's Crew Dragon also had a problem with their thruster valves. But their problem was the spacecraft exploded.

        Other tests had been successful; it was entirely possible that the test that exploded might just as easily have succ

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Well, Boeing just burned through most (all?) of the redundancy they had on a test that probably was their last chance to get it right. That is not a sign of people that know what they are doing or that can do better.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          They were lucky.

          They were probably being conservative and had different thresholds set up for the three motors (IIRC) on each control authority (IIRTC). Recovering the craft means they can assess the accuracy of the sensors and refine their model.

          Congratulations Boeing, that NASA does not have to face a monopoly is probably a good thing for everyone involved and ensures that spaceflight keeps going forward.

    • In general I am in favor of the government helping to develop competition to SpaceX even if the resulting product/services are not as good or efficient. I don't want the future of space flight to be fully under control of Elon Musk any more than I want it to be under the control of Putin or Xi Jinping.

      That said this feverish tendency to create the pretense that Boeing is anywhere near close to what SpaceX is doing or just avoiding any comparison altogether is embarrassingly childish. In spite of all t

      • Boeing is a company with many great engineers

        Yes. But they have Boeing managers ...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        In spite of all the well-known problems they have Boeing is a company with many great engineers ...

        You sure? Looks more to me like their engineers are cowards and/or not that great. And I am not talking only about the two instances of criminally negligent mass-murder from the recent past.

    • Nah. Your take isn't well thought out. You need competition. If you think it's a good idea to have space travel in the hands of a single company then I'm not sure what to tell you. Other than you're wrong.

    • To make themselves feel better about all the money they wasted on starliner, it costs about double what the dragon capsule does.

      And? Spacex fans are as annoying as the woke crowd.

      I listened to them actively wishing for Starliner to fail, so they could bray agin woh there should be no space vehicles but th9ose that dear leader Musk created.

      That is some mighty insecurity the true believers ha have going, that they demand no competition.

      Spacex is a fine organization. Their fans are People's Temple Jonestown level inculcated.

      So anyhow, looks like the bugs are pretty well worked out, just like Dear Leader did not have perfect

      • They need the competition [Re:NASA should heal...] (Score:4, Insightful)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @03:47PM (#62573330) Homepage

        Spacex fans are as annoying as the woke crowd. I listened to them actively wishing for Starliner to fail, so they could bray agin woh there should be no space vehicles but th9ose that dear leader Musk created.

        I think you could count me as a SpaceX fan, and I did not "actively wish for Starliner to fail." The opposite: I wished for it to succeed, because SpaceX needs the competition to keep them from getting complacent.

      • Um, you are talking to the wrong person who saw good science programs never get funding because we wasted money on rockets.

        • Um, you are talking to the wrong person who saw good science programs never get funding because we wasted money on rockets.

          And there are some people who believe we must solve all the problems on earth before we venture off of it.

  • Problems? What problems? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by McFortner ( 881162 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @09:48AM (#62572576)

    The Washington Post writes that on-the-ground engineers "won't be able to examine the two main thrusters that cut out since they are housed in the spacecraft's service module, which was jettisoned during the return."

    Well, isn't that convenient? So, let's go ahead and certify it anyway. What's the worst that can happen?

  • Thruster failure is "picture perfect"? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @09:52AM (#62572584)

    I was no able to find how many main thrusters this thing has and how many it needs to still safely return. But losing two of them sound like a "close call" to me, not a "picture perfect" operation. Looks like Boeing continues (as expected) to perform badly and hence now uses the technique of the "Big Lie" now to pretend everything is right. Well, the "Big Lie" unfortunately works on many people and instead of seeing the continuation of screw-ups Boeing has done, many people will now probably think everything is ok. Lets hope at least the decision makers at NASA are competent, but I am not holding mu breath for that.

    For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Picture perfect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @09:54AM (#62572596) Homepage
    Picture perfect

    OFT-2 went smoothly from start to finish

    Lessee

    - Two of Starliner’s thrusters didn’t fire as expected. The first failed after only one second. Its backup immediately kicked on and was able to fire for another 25 seconds before it also failed. Redundancy failsafes activated a tertiary backup for the thruster group

    - an additional two thrusters needed to be shut down

    - the spacecraft's thermal control system, used to keep the spacecraft at the right temperature, also failed

    Funny definitions they have for words like "smoothly" and "picture perfect". NASA and Boeing are pretty damned desperate to force Starliner to be a success. As an astronaut, I would be pretty worried, if thrusters fail down to tertiary backups.

    • Re:Picture perfect (Score:4, Interesting)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @10:12AM (#62572618) Homepage Journal

      Of course, without thermal management, a manned mission would have to abort.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Funny definitions they have for words like "smoothly" and "picture perfect". NASA and Boeing are pretty damned desperate to force Starliner to be a success. As an astronaut, I would be pretty worried, if thrusters fail down to tertiary backups.

      Indeed. They are setting things up for people to get killed by their tech. Again. Obviously Boeing management is desperate and irrational at this time, because engineering reality does not care about PR propaganda statements.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jabuzz ( 182671 )

      Well the press release was the *LANDING* was picture perfect. All those failures happened during assent.

    • A successful test of the failsafe systems then.

    • Re:Picture perfect (Score:4)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @05:08PM (#62573496) Homepage

      Funny definitions they have for words like "smoothly" and "picture perfect". NASA and Boeing are pretty damned desperate to force Starliner to be a success. As an astronaut, I would be pretty worried, if thrusters fail down to tertiary backups.

      Wait. The failure went that far into the system? I was not aware that the issues went that deep into the system. That sounds like a fundamental design issue to me. They were one step away from losing the mission, with this issue alone.

      I take it back. This was not a successful test in my option. This was successful recovery.

  • Landing a third of a mile from the target is "picture perfect" when SpaceX can land upright on a barge or in the center of a launchpad? Okay, cope more.

    • Ok, youâ(TM)re kinda comparing apples to GPS guided missiles there. The starliner and dragon both return via parachute, and we canâ(TM)t control wind. Landing .5 miles from target is pretty good.

      The falcon boosters, on the other hand perform powered and controlled landings with some serious guidance control. Of course itâ(TM)s going to be more accurate.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Landing on a barge is risky even when it works, they can get away with it because lives will never be at risk there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      Landing a third of a mile from the target is "picture perfect" when SpaceX can land upright on a barge or in the center of a launchpad?

      SpaceX Dragon does not land upright on a barge nor in the center of the launchpad.

      If you're castigating companies for failures that didn't end up resulting in mission failure but could have, you should remember that the SpaceX Crew Dragon has had parachute problems. They didn't crash the spacecraft, because not all the redundant parachutes failed, but if you're saying that Boeing thruster failures could have caused mission failure, you should also say that SpaceX parachute failures could have caused missio

  • An example for the "Big Lie" technique (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday May 28, 2022 @10:19AM (#62572620)

    I think this merits a closer examination. Clearly Boeing screwed up again (as expected) and things were somewhere between "bumpy" and "nearly catastrophic". Yet they claim everything was fine, indeed they vastly overstate things and call it better than perfect ("picture perfect").

    Now, why to do that? The manipulation technique is called the "Big Lie" technique and it is a form of lying by misdirection often used in propaganda. It works by making a statement that grossly distorts the truth and then hammering it home. In addition, harmless sounding language is often used. So what is a failure becomes a "glitch", because that sounds harmless and non-threatening. What is also common is to state the problems only once (or not at all) and use over-the-top language to indicate how nice and perfect everything is as often as they can get away with. Surprisingly, this works on many people, because many people do not fact-check at all. Others build sort-of a mean between what is observable and what is claimed. So "picture perfect" + "screwed up again" = "all went well". Only a small part of the human race will ignore the propaganda and look at the facts and see that things are really not as claimed.

    This technique is currently often used in Politics, PR and product marketing. In product marketing, it is often used to compensate for products getting worse. A recent example I saw was a brand of toiled paper that I used to buy suddenly getting much worse in quality and tearing a lot easier. When I checked the package, I found a bold statement of "Now even sturdier!" when clearly the opposite was the case. This unfortunately works because many people will ignore the facts or do an average between reality and claim and this product is not only still on the shelves but apparently selling well. Boeing is doing the same here to mask their continued failure to perform well.

    Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Only a small part of the human race will ignore the propaganda and look at the facts and see that things are really not as claimed.

      Or, for that matter, even apply a modicum of critical thinking skills if they even possess such skills. In many of these cases you don't need to do much in the way of fact-checking to detect BS is afloat.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Only a small part of the human race will ignore the propaganda and look at the facts and see that things are really not as claimed.

        Or, for that matter, even apply a modicum of critical thinking skills if they even possess such skills. In many of these cases you don't need to do much in the way of fact-checking to detect BS is afloat.

        Indeed. In this case here, you just need to see that there is a list of failures and that a "picture perfect" operation cannot have those. A reasonably smart child would spot this immediately. Apparently many adults cannot.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        "The Big Lie" . . . as pioneered by Adolph Hitler and honed to perfection by Donald Trump.

        It is likely much, much older. But Goebbels and Hitler optimized it and Goebbels documented it nicely. Both were masters at its application. My guess is Trump did add nothing to it at all and actually had to have it explained to him by a consultant. Remember that Trump is functionally illiterate. The thing Trump brings to the table is absolutely no shame in using it for his own personal and often temporary goals. Hitler and Goebbels at least had a longer-term vision for the future, as screwed up as that vis

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Oh, aye . . . I was merely citing what I consider to be two of the most visible recent examples. Most dictatorships in recorded history have been using the "Big Lie" far longer than the English language existed to coin the phrase "Big Lie". But we're getting off-topic.

            Indeed. Also an all-time favorite with religions of all kinds and with business scams.

            (and while continuing to wander off-topic) . . . Trump was neither more or less malevolent than Adolph Hitler, in my personal opinion. The emergence of a rather extreme form of Nationalism here in the US was a direct result of Donald Trump's entry into the political arena. It was his campaign and subsequent election that exposed clearly just how widespread this (previously considered extremist) viewpoint is. It may not be National Socialism, but it sure is pure Nationalism and is apparently as evil.

            I agree on that. My point was that Trump has nowhere near the level of skill that Hitler and Goebbels had and has no vision beyond self-promotion. We are lucky that this is so, because that limits him somewhat. Still impressive how much evil Trump managed and continues to do. On the other hand, just as with the 3rd Reich, the ones at the top can only use potential that is already there. The fatal combination is a leader wi

    • Yeah. But you don't get to see John Wayne [youtu.be] walk away from that landing.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      No, this isn't the "big lie" technique; it is at worst an example of "spin": highlighting the good part with words that are technically correct*, and downplaying the problems, without actually lying.

      The "big lie" is statements that are completely and unambigously false.

      Like, "Barrack Obama was born in Kenya" or "Hillary Clinton run a pedophile sex ring out of a pizza parlor in Washington" or "There was massive documented fraud in the 2020 presidential election and Donald Trump really won."

      --
      and, technic [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        From the definition: "The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). I would say calling this flight "picture perfect", i.e. completely flawless, is a very good example of a "gross distortion or misrepresentation" of the truth.

        You are probably thinking of a "fabrication" or a regular lie. That is something different. The "Big Lie" has some basis in truth. In the case at h

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          I would say calling this flight "picture perfect", i.e. completely flawless, is a very good example of a "gross distortion or misrepresentation" of the truth.

          They didn't. They called the landing picture perfect.

  • Meanwhile Dragon capsules continue to rotate trips to the ISS. Major failure was a bad toilet which has been fixed and capsules are reused multiple times. Starliner is a gigantic waste of time, money and engineering (un) elegance as well as being an example of the wasteful nonrecyclable NASA space program. Congrats on being able to land close to the target.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      I believe the terms applicable here are "corruption" and after they fly a few times with crew there may well be an added "criminally negligent homicide". Sure, you want more than one service provider for something like this, but they should at least be competent and reliable. Boeing is neither.

  • Two (of three) booster engine failures during critical insertion burn are not "minor hickups".

  • The U.S. government is stupid for allowing any one privately held company from having the tech to deliver a nuclear weapon, as in--how long before it goes wrong.

  • But hey, we're rich!

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close