NASA Praises Boeing Starliner's 'Picture Perfect' Return from ISS Visit (space.com) 125
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."
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."
NASA should heal on praise (Score:2)
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)
And if you add the risk-cost, it is probably like 10x that or more.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
correction: the CS thrusters were on the service module so they weren't recovered.
Re:NASA should heap on praise (Score:2)
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
Re: NASA should heap on praise (Score:2)
Boeing is a company with many great engineers
Yes. But they have Boeing managers ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is definitely true that there are a lot of people who believe that Musk has the Midas touch - maybe even Amber heard and her GF who he had a 3Way with. https://www.newsweek.com/amber... [newsweek.com] I suppose a God among mere mortals can have sex with whoever and how many at the same time as he wants. Modern folks amirite? By the way, just so we're certain, I troll the living bejeezuz out of the faithful on a regular basis, so if you aren't one of the cult - this isn't aimed at you. The rest - oh hell yeah.
I don't see why I should care who Musk has sex with, and I'm not a great fan of trolls, not even when they think they are only trolling people who deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you are talking to the wrong person who saw good science programs never get funding because we wasted money on rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, thats my profession.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, using Starliner instead of Dragon means not having to get a bigger boat.
And that means exactly what?
Re: (Score:1)
Jaws [Re:NASA should heal on praise] (Score:2)
And that means exactly what?
Which word didn't you understand?
It's a Jaws reference. Basically, he's saying going to Space Station in the Dragon capsule is like hunting a shark from a small boat, while going in the Boeing Capsule is like hunting a shark from a larger boat.
Since both capsules hold 7 crew, I can't figure what the meaning of the quote is, either. Starliner isn't a bigger boat than Crew Dragon.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'd have thought it was obvious by now . . . you don't need any boat to recover a Starliner and her crew. Got to hand it to 'em - the Russians had that one right clear back when the space race was on, it's better to land on land. Back then, super risky. Splashdown was more expensive and carried its own risks, but it minimized the primary danger of turning the capsule's crew into jelly or crispy critters. We have passive systems that will work on dry land now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem butthurt...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a personal vendetta against the guy who owns spacex, and a need to tell us about it over and over and over...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, sockpuppet, stop bringing politics into this. We're talking about space travel.
SpaceX is not trustworthy because its owner is untrustworthy. If I weren't an Atheist, I'd thank God we have an alternative. Remember when the Space Shuttle was grounded those two times? Yeah, when SpaceX has a disaster it'll be one helluva bang - and that's not if, that's when. Starliner will almost certainly crater some day, but I suspect that might be survivable. Ever seen what happens when an active rocket goes *b
Re: NASA should heal on praise (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Flamebait)
Okay, I'll bite. Just what exactly makes Musk untrustworthy? So far, I have yet to see SpaceX make a promise that it didn't at least try to keep. Most of them have been kept with some issues on dates. So, what makes them untrustworthy.
Bezos, on the other hand, seems to have a history of unfair business practices with Amazon. Union busting, also at Amazon. Not to mention bidding issues with Nasa and some strange over runs on some Nasa contracts.
Of the two, Bezos acts more like a James Bond Super V
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. So, in what way would this be flame bait do you suppose? We have a legitimate question for someone questioning their reasons and motives.
Then we have a truthful statement about early rocket tests and Nasa safety record.
The correct mod for OP is, +1, Insiteful.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxpayers don't want NASA to be reliant on a single vehicle provider. Elon Musk could always raise prices for SpaceX to pay for Twitter.
Yep. Long experience has shown that leaving a market to a monopoly is a bad idea in the long run, no matter how sensible it seems in the short run.
Really, that's economics 101.
I do hope that SpaceX gets some reasonable competition soon. Maybe DreamChaser?
Problems? What problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
No worries. If astronauts get stranded with non-working thrusters, a SpaceX Dragon can rescue them.
Re: (Score:3)
YES! ABSOLUTELY!!
And the reverse will be true. It will happen - unless we pull the plug on Starliner now.
Your call. You like penny-wise, or pound-foolish, guv?
Re: (Score:2)
While yes, that's true...Starliner's only contracted for 6 operational launches, currently scheduled for 2023 to 2026. That uses up the available Atlas V's, and Boeing's not shown much interest in adapting it for Vulcan, which would require certifying Vulcan to carry crew...they want someone else to pay for that. So, for about half of the ISS's planned remaining lifespan, Starliner won't be around to be a backup.
Re: (Score:3)
No worries. If astronauts get stranded with non-working thrusters, a SpaceX Dragon can rescue them.
Which is exactly why we need two independent ways of getting to orbit.
(and preferably more than two).
Re: Problems? What problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
They never recovered the failed components of Apollo I or STS Challenger either. We still learned from those failures, we didn't need to hold a bottle of liquid O2 or a chilled O-ring in our hands to figure out what went wrong and fix it. Those failures cost lives, but we didn't abandon either the Apollo or STS programs - we learned, improved, and continued to begin exploring space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And miss another chance to engage with a sockpuppet?
But you keep right on arguing for SpaceX to enjoy a monopoly on US space travel. Do us a favor, go to Twitter where I won't see you. Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter (the high likelihood, IMHO), the thing's just a toll-free toilet. I don't care if Musk buys or backs out at a loss or even gets out with a bonus - he put SpaceX on the chopping block. I'm not sure we should blackball SpaceX until they fix this, but we absolutely can't depend on them. The
Re: (Score:2)
There's my special friend again!
But you seem addicted to those ad hominem attacks, don't you? What part of anything I've said has anything to do with socialism? When did YouTube come into the conversation? Oh, and who brought Senator Sanders into the conversation?
Now that that's out of the way ... what were you saying that had anything to do with the subject? I lost track of the part where this has anything to do with whether or not NASA should continue investigating an alternative to giving SpaceX a
Re: (Score:2)
s/But y/Y
Better?
Thruster failure is "picture perfect"? WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
So, the landing was faked? I watched it, looked like they stuck the landing to me.
How many redundancies are present in a Dragon capsule? How many primary failures could a Dragon capsule sustain and still land safely on the deck of a ship bobbing around in the ocean?
Redundancies are engineered in because there is an expectation that there will be failures. Looks like Boeing's Starliner will require some more tweaking before its ready for prime time, but the landing was flawless. I know, I watched it ha
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know? We've just seen Starliner demonstrate the effectiveness of her redundant systems. Given the tremendously more complex nature of the Dragon's landing process, I suspect we'll eventually see just how good Dragon's redundancies are, with her relying very heavily on active technologies to cope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We've just seen Starliner demonstrate the effectiveness of her redundant systems.
No. We have seen Starliner _needing_ those redundant systems, which is pretty bad. Redundancy is only redundancy if it is _not_ needed in normal operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess finding this out and fixing it before we put humans in there would be a good idea, don't you think?
If we don't, when the Dragon suffers a mishap the US will be grounded from space travel again.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice attempt to gloss over that you claimed bullshit.
FYI, a demonstration of effectiveness of redundant systems is when you intentionally switch off the primary ones. Actually needing the redundant systems right on the first deployment is properly called an "emergency" and shows your primary systems are not reliable enough and your design is flawed. Takes an actually competent engineer or at least a smart person to see that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to agree. This flight was far from "picture perfect." Was the flight successful? Yes, it was a successful flight, but it was not a perfect flight.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to agree. This flight was far from "picture perfect." Was the flight successful? Yes, it was a successful flight, but it was not a perfect flight.
Yes. It was a success and it probably was the last chance Boeing got. But that they feel the need to paint a strongly skewed picture of it is highly suspicious and not a good sign at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'm going to retract my successful flight statement. I was not aware of how bad the thrust failures where on this vehicle. Not to mention environmental issues with that system.
With this many critical system failures on a human capable vehicle, this whole test should have been rated as a failure. And reclassified as a successful recovery of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. It was a success only in the sense that they got the vehicle back on the ground in one piece. If you take into account that this is intended to carry humans, it was pretty much not better as maybe an early proof of concept (basically "it can fly and land") and certainly a failure as any kind of safety-test.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't describe the flight as picture perfect, only the landing. That appears to be accurate, it was well within the target area and touched down safely and according to the plan.
As you and others have said, the flight was far from perfect on the way up. Coming down seems to have gone better.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so far I have seen "the return" (here) and "the mission" (space.com) called "picture perfect". Maybe they really only said "the landing", but any halfway competent PR person must know that would get distorted and was possibly betting on it.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you just flip sides, sockpuppet? You now seem to be arguing that we shouldn't hold Dragon's use of redundancy against them, but Starliner's use of redundancy is a problem.
Oh, and please stop posting personal insults here. It makes you seem both ignorant and ill-mannered. People will think you're a Trump supporter.
Re: (Score:2)
He is rightly saying a redundant system is good, but in *normal* operation you should not be making use of the redundancy. Boeing had to make use of the redundancy in this mission and there it was by definition not "picture perfect".
Thought to be fair to Boeing they only claimed the landing was "picture perfect" because the assent certainly was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I dunno. The guys at NASA seemed pleased, overall. Turns out, a lot of those guys are rocket scientists!
But, you're right - "picture perfect" only describes the reentry. The redundant systems are redundant for a reason - the mission was only slightly delayed and never in any real danger of failure, so while Boeing certainly has their work cut out for them to improve Starliner's mission performance, the fundamental soundness of their design and methods has been established.
I think they used to call
Picture perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Of course, without thermal management, a manned mission would have to abort.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Well the press release was the *LANDING* was picture perfect. All those failures happened during assent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Picture perfect (Score:4)
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.
Picture perfect? (Score:2)
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.
Re: Picture perfect? (Score:2)
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.
Yes, picture perfect, from a trustworthy source. (Score:2)
Yeah, but you need to put a ship way away from everybody to do it safely. Using rockets to land may look neat on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, but I'd sooner put my faith in passive systems such as airbags and parachutes. They're not perfect, but I see a lot less to go wrong with passive systems than with active ones.
If they miss that launchpad . . . SPLASH!. If SpaceX's owner goes to jail for sexual assault . . . CRASH 'N' BURN. If SpaceX's owner decides he doesn't agree with a NASA mission - say, to
Re: Yes, picture perfect, from a trustworthy sourc (Score:2)
Yeah, but you need to put a ship way away from everybody
SpaceX has demonstrated booster landings on dry land. The barge landings are more an issue of range and fuel required to reach the landing site.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, they have. Let's have a look at that footage one more time.
https://youtu.be/sX1Y2JMK6g8 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather pay considerably more to do business with an entity that's trustworthy
Like Boeing! Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Big Lie" . . . as pioneered by Adolph Hitler and honed to perfection by Donald Trump.
I watched the Starliner landing. Sure looked perfect to me. Even the part where they made sure it was safe before they proceeded to land on dry land. I'll admit, I didn't wait around for the ship to return to shore with the astronauts on board, so I don't know how getting Rosie the Robot back to shore went, but I'm guessing it went picture perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
(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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: An example for the "Big Lie" technique (Score:2)
Yeah. But you don't get to see John Wayne [youtu.be] walk away from that landing.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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.
Dragon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Only two critical failures (Score:2)
Two (of three) booster engine failures during critical insertion burn are not "minor hickups".
Against Any Private ICBM Capability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even having just one STS was a mistake - we were grounded when that solid-fuel booster went "boom" at launch, and again when that ceramic tile got knocked loose on the STS. Back then, one solution was all we could afford.
It would be insane to trust the future of our space program to an organization headed by one individual who has demonstrated instability (didn't Musk used to be a woke snowflake? Now he's a MAGA madman!), as well as questionable ethics (paying big bucks to squelch a sexual assault allega
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, even *I* can deliver a nuclear weapon. I have a truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the cost was prohibitive (Score:2)
But hey, we're rich!
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk did it cheaper. You go ahead and trust him, rsilvergun impersonator. I think that even if you're right, we need an alternative when SpaceX hits their O-ring moment (or their ceramic tile moment). We had to stop going to space over those two issues; how nice would it have been if we'd had another spacecraft to use while we worked out those problems with the STS.
And that assumes that we can trust SpaceX. I don't. You shouldn't either.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ad hominem again.
I am (if you must know) a Republican and a conservative - at least, by 1980 standards. Yes, I suppose from your perspective I must seem that way. Why are you bringing the Democrats into this?
I do trust Boeing. They're not perfect, but they make great aircraft! It's what they do. They've made literally thousands of highly successful aircraft over the decades. They have a proven track record of overall excellence, and I don't need to worry myself that they'll lose interest when some
Re: (Score:2)
Look, find another insult, you are tedious.
Re: (Score:2)
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I'll overlook the childishness you demonstrate with your pseudonymous handle. I won't even mention it here.
I don't trust Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX. Never have, never will. Tried to warn my daughter not to buy a Tesla, but she wouldn't listen. She regrets that now, BTW. Elon Musk has provided ample reason to be considered untrustworthy. I believe that simple factual assertion will more than counter the remainder of your (somewhat offtopic a