Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
ISS Space

NASA Says Boeing Starliner Astronauts May Fly Home On SpaceX In 2025 (nytimes.com) 105

Posted by BeauHD from the slight-change-of-plans dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: For weeks, NASA has downplayed problems experienced by Starliner, a Boeing spacecraft that took two astronauts to the International Space Station in June. But on Wednesday, NASA officials admitted that the problems with the spacecraft were more serious than first thought and that the astronauts may not travel home on the Boeing vehicle, after all. The agency is exploring a backup option for the astronauts, Suni Wiliams and Butch Wilmore, to hitch a ride back to Earth on a vehicle built by Boeing's competitor SpaceX instead. Their stay in orbit, which was to be as short as eight days, may extend into next year. "We could take either path," Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for the space operations mission directorate, said during a news conference on Wednesday. "And reasonable people could pick either path."

NASA and Boeing officials had maintained that the crew that launched with Starliner on its first crewed test flight was not stranded in space. Ms. Williams and Mr. Wilmore have spent two months aboard the orbital outpost while engineers continue to analyze data about the faulty performance of several of the Starliner's thrusters when it approached for docking. Under the contingency plan, a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule would travel to the space station with two astronauts instead of its planned crew of four. Ms. Williams and Mr. Wilmore would then join as full-time members of the space station crew for a half-year stay, returning on the Crew Dragon around next February. "In the last few weeks, we have decided to make sure we have that capability there, as our community, I would say, got more and more uncomfortable," said Steve Stich, the manager of the commercial crew program at NASA. NASA officials said no decision had been made yet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Says Boeing Starliner Astronauts May Fly Home On SpaceX In 2025 More

NASA Says Boeing Starliner Astronauts May Fly Home On SpaceX In 2025

Comments Filter:

  • It's no longer the 1960's... (Score:3)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:43PM (#64688658)
    ...so we probably shouldn't send people up there when we don't have at least two ways of getting them back.

    • Re:It's no longer the 1960's... (Score:5, Informative)

      by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:58PM (#64688698)

      There are already two ways: Crew Dragon and Soyuz (yes, NASA and Roscosmos are still ride-sharing).
      Starliner was supposed to be the third.

      • I wonder how realistic that is though. For one, SpaceX make each suit to fit each person which are custom made for Crew Dragon. The people are already up on the station, so you can not make a suit for them as they are in space. Another thing, SpaceX charge per seat. Are Boeing going to fork over money to get the astronauts home? Is NASA going to have to spend double? SpaceX may not even be willing to assist, given that Boeings headaches have delayed Crew 9 from going up as planned, ruining SpaceXs mission.

        • Re: It's no longer the 1960's... (Score:4, Informative)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @05:07PM (#64688838)

          Very realistic. If you think NASA sends astronauts up without (several) backup plans you're dreaming. Sure SpaceX charge. Who pays is a matter for NASA, Boeing and perhaps a court to work out. Astronauts' measurements are on file along with a bazillion other things down to the composition of their excrement.

          Starliner looks like it will need a software upgrade to reenter on it's own. If there was actually a safety issue though, one group could leave on the currently docked Dragon, then the next one could dock where it is. Starliner remaining docked is a scheduling hassle, not a safety one. If for some reason it became so they could absolutely toss it. It wouldn't execute a controlled reentry, which probably wouldn't be a problem, but isn't something we like to do anymore.

          • Incidents like this might be a very good reason for future space stations to have "parking docks" It wouldn't be a dock that you could enter and exit the vehicle, but a long term parking dock for when a vehicle needs to be at the station or in this case is stuck at the station for an extended period of time. Vehicles could either autonomously move themselves to and from the parking docks or use the robot arm to do so. This then frees up pressurized docks for normally scheduled comings and goings of vehicles

          • Very realistic. If you think NASA sends astronauts up without (several) backup plans you're dreaming.

            Mr. Ryan ... the folks at NASA don't even take a dump without a backup plan ! :)))

        • Re: It's no longer the 1960's... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @05:08PM (#64688848)

          SpaceX may not even be willing to assist...

          Elon Musk may be a temperamental prick, but he better do what NASA asks if he wants the company to be able to keep launching.

          • No he is not, but that was not what I am referring to. The astronauts were on A starliner which has different suit configuration than a crew dragon. To say nothing of the logistics of getting a free dock. They need to get the starliner out of there.
          • Who ever rescues the stranded Astronauts will be a Hero, for a few days anyway. I'd prefer it not be the Russians.
        • If it can't be brought down in a controlled manner the only option is to send it farther out in space somehow so that it never deorbits. Unlike a satellite which burns up during a deorbit, this thing was designed to survive reentry. If its coming back uncontrolled there will be debris remaining if not an entire intact vehicle which has a chance to hit a populated area.

          • If it can't be brought down in a controlled manner the only option is to send it farther out in space somehow so that it never deorbits. Unlike a satellite which burns up during a deorbit, this thing was designed to survive reentry. If its coming back uncontrolled there will be debris remaining if not an entire intact vehicle which has a chance to hit a populated area.

            My understanding (which could very well be wrong) is that the software update they're waiting on will allow autonomous undocking and subsequent re-entry. Apparently they didn't have all the pieces needed for a fully automatic return in place so it'll take a month to get the update completed. Assuming this works out ok, I would expect they will attempt a re-entry with a splashdown a good ways off-shore. Whether or not they have enough fuel, and confidence, to instead lift it higher up into a permanent 'parki

            • This is Boeing we're talking about. Do you honestly trust that they can write software that will automate undocking and re-entry in just one month with virtually no way to test it first?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by caseih ( 160668 )

            If it can't be brought down in a controlled manner the only option is to send it farther out in space somehow so that it never deorbits.

            No that's not really an option.

      • But what's the use if Starliner if there are multiple crewdragon capsules already? So much has gone wrong with Starliner already, and it took Boeing twice as long as SpaceX to design and build it, even having had a much larger initial budget given by NASA as SpaceX was given.

        • Redundancy. Itâ(TM)s only one month since Falcon 9 was grounded due to a failed second stage engine. If SpaceX had had to investigate that for longer, NASA would have a *real* problem without a second available crewed launcher.

          • Except many new Falcon 9 flights have been done since. You think NASA has other rockets so easily on standby? And it's not like the crew dragon capsule can only be on top of a Falcon 9 rocket.

    • Agreed it's no longer the 1960s. The Space Race is over. Space won. People floating around in a tin can in the upper atmosphere is pointless.

  • zombie (Score:5, Funny)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:46PM (#64688666)

    Seems like Boeing is just a zombie at this point. Beyond dead.

    Boeing needs to pivot, I think Boeing and CrowdStrike is a match made in heaven. At least no one would expect the product to work.

    • Too big to fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:59PM (#64688702) Journal

      Nope, USA will have to bail them out; they are too big to fail. Plus, it would leave Airbus with a monopoly, which creates supply chain risks, among other things.

      We gotta fix them.

      The merger with McDonald Douglass should have been stopped, but it's too late, we have to live with our mistake.

      • We don't have to bail them out. We can break them up, ban everyone in current management from participating in the new companies, and support the pieces until they become viable.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          I'm not sure that would solve a whole lot. Having the gov't fire private workers randomly creates legal problems. If they already have strong evidence on them, they should be out anyhow. Most the very top is already out.

          But splitting out commercial versus military could help each focus better.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by dnaumov ( 453672 )

            I'm not sure that would solve a whole lot. Having the gov't fire private workers randomly creates legal problems. If they already have strong evidence on them, they should be out anyhow. Most the very top is already out.

            But splitting out commercial versus military could help each focus better.

            Owners can fire whoever they want and any sort of bailout without the goverment getting a majority stake in return is a ridiculous proposition.

          • Re:Too big to fail (Score:4, Insightful)

            by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:29PM (#64688758)

            Splitting commercial and military would hurt both entities viability. They have different cycles and cash flows and the combination smooths things out. You might be able to break off parts and give them to competitors but that creates a different set of problems.

            I'm all for firing anyone in management with an MBA that doesn't have an engineering degree though.

            My guess is they are going to need a bankruptcy and a cash infusion of about $10-20B to recover though. The commercial side is really screwed with all three of their active programs having major problems, their main competitor having a better product in all say 4 of 7 segments. The military side hasn't really won as prime on major new design contracts in decades. They have perpetual labor issues and a dire need to simplify things to work within their capabilities.

          • Don't fire them. Identify, prosecute and incarcerate the management responsible for this all. Make an example. No firings required
        • In the end, that’ll still be a bailout. The daughter companies will still need recapitalization aka taxpayer money.

          Letting them actually go under is not an option. If a country wants to buy a new big commercial jet, there are three options: Boeing, Airbus if you can wait over a decade, and “there-is-no-third-option”.

          But the case for a breakup is getting stronger. Boeing’s leadership probably has a few years of time-on-the-clock to get their house in order. If they can get th

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            > and "there-is-no-third-option".

            Yes there is: Jiiiihna!

            They are working on it in conjunction with Russia.

            • Haha. Sure, you first. I’d rather do a hundred back-to-back flights on a Boeing MAX than fly on a jet that Russia had any hand in making. A Chinese-made craft? I would trust that slightly more but I would still rather fly on a MAX anyday.

          • Bombardier... I wonder if they can still do it or if they've sold off too many parts.

            Then again, the US doesn't like it when Canadians build stuff instead of just selling raw resources. Last time Bombardier made inroads into the US, Boeing got the US government to tariff it all to hell for a while.

            • I'd love to see Bombardier back in the game. Canadian government should have made a bigger stink about the C Series jets, talk about being royally screwed over by your neighbor. To be fair I'm no Aviation expert but it's sure nice to fly in.

            • Bombardier is big in Asia.

              I fly planes like that all the times. They mostly (or all?) are propeller machines, a tick slower than a jet, but who cares if the flight time is 55mins or 63mins?

              No idea though, how well the company is doing.

              Yeah, the American hate for superior technology reminds me to the "Arrow" debacle.

        • CEOs and board level management should be like lawyers and doctors. You fuck up and you get your licence to perform business revoked for a set period of time or permanently depending on the severity of the infraction.

        • I propose that we investigate and hopefully imprison somewhere between most and all of the board and the current execs, and bring back the old Boeing guys to run the company instead of the McDD guys until they can hire suitable replacements if necessary — Instead of tearing apart a company that was already suffering from having pieces of itself removed and having to work by contract instead of in concert.

        • We don't have to bail them out. We can break them up, ban everyone in current management from participating in the new companies, and support the pieces until they become viable.

          Break them up how? Spin off their manufacturing business [wikipedia.org]?

          Boeing's business is largely just making things that fly. It's not a business that has a lot of nice clear divisions.

          Realistically the best case is they struggle until they declare bankruptcy, someone buys them for pennies on the dollar, and starts running it properly.

          If you're lucky a 3rd manufacturer enters the mix, and the US government doesn't force them out of the market to protect Boeing [wikipedia.org].

          • One possibility is to liquidate everything not directly involved in manufacturing, put the resulting revenue into a fund that loans to aviation manufacturing startups, and let a substantial number of new American companies devour the corpse of Boeing in a newly de-monopolized environment.

            Aviation technology has largely stagnated due to the descent of the industry into politically-encrusted monopoly, so solving that is the only way to solve Boeing. It's a company that now feeds off of the American econom

      • China is rapidly catching up with Airbus. Theyâ(TM)re still a bit behind as of now, but it wonâ(TM)t be long.

      • We gotta fix them.

        In the real world, we let the living organism die to let a new, possibly better organism do the job. If you want to keep your decrepit 103 year old grandpa on life support in the hopes that he will recover, go ahead. The USA is already going to fail for a million other reasons, why not keep this reason around too? What can it hurt?

        And fuck all of you for destroying the best premise for a country ever created without lining up something better. Let it all fucking burn. Too big to fail? Such bigness induces f

  • "A three day cruise, a three day cruise" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:47PM (#64688670)
    "Those poor people."

    Subject: Nigerian Astronaut Wants To Come Home Dr. Bakare Tunde Astronautics Project Manager National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA) Plot 555 Misau Street PMB 437 Garki, Abuja, FCT NIGERIA

    Dear Mr. Sir,

    REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE-STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

    I am Dr. Bakare Tunde, the cousin of Nigerian Astronaut, Air Force Major Abacha Tunde. He was the first African in space when he made a secret flight to the Salyut 6 space station in 1979. He was on a later Soviet spaceflight, Soyuz T-16Z to the secret Soviet military space station Salyut 8T in 1989. He was stranded there in 1990 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. His other Soviet crew members returned to earth on the Soyuz T-16Z, but his place was taken up by return cargo. There have been occasional Progrez supply flights to keep him going since that time. He is in good humor, but wants to come home.

    In the 14-years since he has been on the station, he has accumulated flight pay and interest amounting to almost $ 15,000,000 American Dollars. This is held in a trust at the Lagos National Savings and Trust Association. If we can obtain access to this money, we can place a down payment with the Russian Space Authorities for a Soyuz return flight to bring him back to Earth. I am told this will cost $ 3,000,000 American Dollars. In order to access the his trust fund we need your assistance.

    Consequently, my colleagues and I are willing to transfer the total amount to your account or subsequent disbursement, since we as civil servants are prohibited by the Code of Conduct Bureau (Civil Service Laws) from opening and/ or operating foreign accounts in our names.

    Needless to say, the trust reposed on you at this juncture is enormous. In return, we have agreed to offer you 20 percent of the transferred sum, while 10 percent shall be set aside for incidental expenses (internal and external) between the parties in the course of the transaction. You will be mandated to remit the balance 70 percent to other accounts in due course.

    Kindly expedite action as we are behind schedule to enable us include downpayment in this financial quarter.

    Please acknowledge the receipt of this message via my direct number 234 (0) 9-234-2220 only.

    Yours Sincerely, Dr. Bakare Tunde Astronautics Project Manager tip@nasrda.gov.nghttps://www.nasrda.gov.ng/

  • Nuts (Score:3)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:48PM (#64688676) Homepage
    It is absolutely nuts that they have waited so long - and now are waiting another *six* months. Who remembers Gilligan's Island "A three hour cruise"? Here, a week' visit is turning into eight months.

    • Re:Nuts (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:06PM (#64688716) Journal

      They were hoping detective work both on the craft and in engineering data would solve it, but that didn't pan out.

      At least this gives them a chance to test the thrusters without a crew inside taking risks. Eventually they have to jettison the capsule to make room for regular transfer missions. When they do that they could fiddle with the thrusters remotely to get more engineering info. But ultimately it'll probably burn up in the atmosphere.

      • I think at this point Starliner is a dead project, the project, not the astronauts. Unlike the first unmanned flight, I've heard they don't even have the software onboard to do a remote deorbit. I can't understand what Boeing was thinking and how far down the drain they've gone.

      • They had a chance to test the thrusters on the ground. Who ships untested hardware with people onboard?
      • Boeing will send up additional hardware on the SpaceX capsule to pilot the Starliner back through the atmosphere.

        https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12... [imdb.com]

    • I mean... you could look at it this way.

      They got bumped to the head of the head of the line for the next crewed mission to the ISS... and they don't even need to return to earth before they go!

    • But theses episodes don't have Ginger or Mary Ann and the natives are friendly. Sounds like another boring Netflix remake.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      It is absolutely nuts that they have waited so long - and now are waiting another *six* months.

      I don't know the astronauts personally, but I think they've gotten over their frustration. They were selected for their poise and equanimity. They have trained for the unexpected. Both Suni and Butch are ex-Navy Aviators. They have had to face the real and multitude of ways they could die on the job. But instead of dying due to some accident (yet), they get to spend *months* in space. For an astronaut, how

  • Suddenly unexpectedly extended (Score:3)

    by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:50PM (#64688682)

    How would you like to go on a business trip scheduled for, say, a week then find out that your trip was extended to six months?

    At least you might be able to run to the nearest Target and pick up extra living supplies like clothes, toiletries, etc.

  • If it's Boeing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @03:53PM (#64688690)

    I ain't coming back?

  • Got to wonder if their contracts have an overtime clause. Just imagine if they decided to litigate against Boeing...from space!.

    • Re:Overtime? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wycliffe ( 116160 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:08PM (#64688724) Homepage

      Assuming they have enough supplies, the type of person who spent the time to become an astronaut
      would likely be thrilled to spend an extra 6 months in space. Because it's unscheduled, they likely
      also don't have many assigned duties or experiments to perform so they can likely do whatever they want.
      Most if not all astronauts would love this opportunity.

      • Im sure the existing crew up there is divvying up some of their tasks that don't require specific training to perform, and the caliber of person that becomes an astronaut is welcome to help out. Im sure there are plenty of housekeeping tasks up there that would take no or minimal OJT training to support. Where as the crew might keep some of their scientific tasks that they may have had very specific training on the tasks on the ground before they went up for their mission.

        • They are obviously cleaning the station with used tooth brushes millimeter by millimeter, 24h a day.
          You know ... those fungi and stuff ...

      • The sad reality is that they will be doing make-work, not doing anything remotely enjoyable or even useful. It sounds like a prison to me.

  • Free Rent (Score:3)

    by akw0088 ( 7073305 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:01PM (#64688706)
    I think there might be tax implications for employer supplied housing

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cstacy ( 534252 )

      I think there might be tax implications for employer supplied housing

      Not really, as they are still paying for their house back on Planet Earth.

  • Gilligan! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @04:12PM (#64688728)
    I'll no longer support Anything Boeing makes, they need to go away. They should make pizza instead of vehicles that are entrusted to allow passengers to live after using them. So let's sing a little song to praise Boeing.

    I call it Gilligan's spaceship

    Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,

    A tale of a fateful trip

    That started from Cape Kennedy,

    On this tiny spaceship.

    Suni was a mighty astronette,

    Butch was brave and sure. The astronauts launched off that morn

    For a six day tour, a six day tour.

    The capsule started acting up,

    The tiny ship was tossed,

    Boeing can't make a ship worth shit,

    Starliner is now lost, Starliner is now lost.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Gilligan is "trapped" on a Island with Ginger and Mary Ann. That is NOT a problem! The competition is old, nerdy, and fat.

      I don't know why astronaut George Taylor complained so loudly either. He has a hotty, privacy, a horse, and a tall beach condo with a great view.

      • Gilligan is "trapped" on a Island with Ginger and Mary Ann. That is NOT a problem! The competition is old, nerdy, and fat.

        I don't know why astronaut George Taylor complained so loudly either. He has a hotty, privacy, a horse, and a tall beach condo with a great view.

        And as I grew older, even Mrs Howell looks pretty good!

        Did you know that at first, Tina Louise thought she was the main character? Now personally I thought that Ginger was a lot hotter than Ginger. Many pitched battles has been fought over who was the hottest.

        But you are correct - both is good!

        • Did you know that at first, Tina Louise thought she was the main character? Now personally I thought that Ginger was a lot hotter than Ginger. Many pitched battles has been fought over who was the hottest.

          I think you meant that Mary Anne was hotter than Ginger...because if you said that, you would be correct.

    • You are just silly.
      Who would buy a Pizza from Boing?

      Wrong angle of attack and it might fly into your face!

      • You are just silly. Who would buy a Pizza from Boing?

        Wrong angle of attack and it might fly into your face!

        At this point, I have to agree. They'd probably decide to replace wheat dough with sand, because the stockholders must be served. After buying McDonnell Douglas that was failing hard, then they adopted the brain dead move of adopting McDonnell Douglas's culture. Boeing now is more like McDonnell Douglas and just like them, is failing before our eyes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Mod parent funnier. But with notes of sadness for the profits-driven demise of a once great company.

      • Mod parent funnier. But with notes of sadness for the profits-driven demise of a once great company.

        I've learned one thing. A successful company should never ever even think about buying up an unsuccessful one. K Mart destroyed Sears after Sears picked them up. A cable company I worked for many many years ago bought a badly failed one, and after the execs from the failed company took over, they bankrupted the once successful company in a few years.

        So I am firmly convinced after McDonnell Douglas got a strong grip on the culture of Boeing, Boeing's days are numbered. I'm certain that their inability to

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          Sad ACK.

          On the Sears topic I recommend a book called Quit by Annie Duke. She says quite a bit about Sears refusing to quit retail even though they were succeeding with financial service businesses. I can't recall what she said about K Mart, but she spent quit a few pages on the death of Sears.

  • Boeing tanked their talent pipeline. For a tech company, that's like a lethal radiation dose. You're walking, you're talking, but the gut lining is the first to die, and then it's slow and painful starvation.

  • The fix. (Score:3)

    by Morky ( 577776 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2024 @05:20PM (#64688870)
    I don't like Elon's politics of late, but the board of Boeing should give him equity to reorg the company and then allow him to select a new board. His track record running engineering-focused companies speaks for itself.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Morky ( 577776 )
      Maybe it would take his attention off shitposting for awhile.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Evtim ( 1022085 )

      You have been told, instructed, gaslighted and lied about Elon's politics of late. I am not sure all of these terms can or should be covered by "like" There is too much language confusion in the world, let's try not to add more...plus this is supposed to be "technical" site so let's be exact about things!

  • This is especially rich since there were plenty of indignant folks claiming they could really return at any time and they are just waiting to keep carrying g out testing and everyone was blowing it all out of proportion.

    Looks like they might have eat crow on that one. This whole thing got out of hand thanks to vague and infrequent updates by all parties involved. Perhaps to try to not do more damage to Boeing's already tarnished reputation.
    • And that is still the position of the Boeing engineers:

      Boeing engineers are advocating for flying Starliner as is, that enough is known about the problem that failures will not occur during the vehicle's return to Earth. However, during meetings of key engineers at NASA known as the "Program Control Board" this week, there was no agreement that this so-called flight rationale was enough to fly crew on the vehicle.

      https://arstechnica.com/space/... [arstechnica.com]

  • They are checking the bolts around the window ...

  • Fantastic first season, some of the funniest things I've ever seen in a show. The show had a space cruise an 8 week trip turn to 3 years.

    Here's a real situation where 8 days could become 8 MONTHS? Seriously?

    I hate to see a monopoly in space travel, but

  • My guess is they became astronauts because they want to do space things. A problem with their occupation is you typically do not get to spend a whole lot of time on rockets or in space. Well, the two astronauts possibly hit the jack pot. They got to test pilot a new launch system for the most interesting part of the ride. They got to grapple with unexpected an interesting problems (and survive). They get to stay on the ISS for a long period of time. NASA will find something for them to do up there to keep t

    • I dont know, I'd think the novelty of being in space wears off after a couple days, then it's like being trapped in a server closest with your coworkers

  • The next cargo resupply mission to the ISS will include a bottle of brandy for Butch and Suni, and an Electronic Sub-Etha Signaling Device. Good luck, and remember your towels!

  • Boeing is all butt-hurt by complaints that their Starliner isn't safe for NASA to use to return the astronauts. So, since we're sending a Space-X flight up with two empty seats, let's put a couple of top level Boeing executives in those seats and they can ride their "safe" capsule back to Earth. Lets see them put their own lives on the line for a change.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close