Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mustafar0111 OP t1_jdg8145 wrote

Looks like the crux of it was related to concerns about the batteries. Boeing thinks they are safe, NASA doesn't.

>Boeing software engineers are running tests with Starliner's manual flight system used as a backup in case the spacecraft's automated flight software fails, Stich said.
>
>A Boeing spokesman said the focus for that testing is for "added redundancy in cases of emergency."
>
>Deliberations about mission-critical lithium ion batteries and the low chance they overheat while the spacecraft is docked to the station also took more time than expected, Stich said.
>
>In a recent pre-flight technical meeting with Boeing and NASA officials, the space station's chief safety officer and representatives from NASA's astronaut office disagreed with Boeing's plans to proceed with the mission citing concerns over the batteries, according to a person who attended the meetings.
>
>But those NASA officials eventually agreed with Boeing and others at the federal space agency that the chances of a battery mishap that would endanger the crew were low, said the person who requested anonymity to discuss preflight deliberations.
>
>Boeing also is weighing battery redesigns and a plan to add shielding in case one overheats, Stich said. SpaceX, which has already flown seven crewed missions for NASA since 2020, redesigned its spacecraft's batteries at one point, he said.

21

Skeptical0ptimist t1_jdgqclb wrote

ISS is slated to be scrapped in 2030. So we only have 7 years before Starliner can fulfill its purpose.

21

kielu t1_jdha7ub wrote

Damn you're right. They might fly once, twice in that window. It's mostly public funding of aerospace jobs, not much actual outcome expected

11

seanflyon t1_jdi3zn3 wrote

Fortunately this is a fixed price contract, so Boeing only gets paid as they meet milestones.

15

kielu t1_jdi4mq2 wrote

Oh, not cost plus? Well, those are not my taxes but still that setup promotes efficiency. While this is literally rocket science it is rather standard rocket science, so i don't see many reasons for unlimited funding.

Edit: fixed price is in my opinion better for this rocket. It's mostly known risks and just optimizing delivery.

5

Roamingkillerpanda t1_jdi609f wrote

The cost plus promotes efficiency or the fixed price?

Fixed price should be the way going forward on relatively low risk endeavors. I’ve worked contracts that were really pushing the envelope and the company management didn’t want to bid because they were concerned that they would lose money on the contract.

5

kielu t1_jdi6709 wrote

Fixed price does. That wasn't obvious from what i wrote?

For absolutely innovative scientific research fixed price leads nowhere. Typical example is fusion power. But this rocket? Oversimplifying: it's just bigger.

5

HolyGig t1_jdil7bm wrote

In theory there will be commercial stations at some point. I assume tourists will continue going with SpaceX due to cost and track record but NASA will still buy Starliners because they would like to keep both options. Wouldn't surprise me if Boeing threatens to axe the program after the initial contract if NASA doesn't start paying them just to maintain it

2

TheRealNobodySpecial t1_jdh25hn wrote

So the Stayliner has the same problems that Boeing faced with its 787…. Back in 2010!

Does that company ever learn?

7