Space - The Final Frontier

[SecondAttempt]

As others have said, it is no guarantee that future performance will be the same...

IIRC Boeing was at the top of its game back when I was young... now seems like it cannot shoot straight...

About 20 years ago I worked closely with a Boeing subsidiary and was a direct repot to our CEO who was a former Boeing VP. This was not long after the McDonnel-Douglas merger. It was framed as Boeing acquiring MD but the reality was that MD management practices took over.

The people I knew well predicted these fiascos after noting that Boeing was run by engineers who maintained focus on technical excellence while MD was run by bean counters who only looked at the last quarter results. They had no concern over what might happen because of past shortcuts.

All of Boeing's recent woes seem to confirm exactly this.

I am not a fan/foe of Boeing nor a foe/fan of SpaceX. If anything I worry that Elan will lose his shirt with X and Tesla and fold leaving no good space options. But at this point I think it is the only viable option. If NASA kills astronauts because it is trying to help Boeing or ensure a second supplier that would be a huge embarrassment...and potentially criminal acts by NASA managers.

 

[Koolau]

About 20 years ago I worked closely with a Boeing subsidiary and was a direct repot to our CEO who was a former Boeing VP. This was not long after the McDonnel-Douglas merger. It was framed as Boeing acquiring MD but the reality was that MD management practices took over.

The people I knew well predicted these fiascos after noting that Boeing was run by engineers who maintained focus on technical excellence while MD was run by bean counters who only looked at the last quarter results. They had no concern over what might happen because of past shortcuts.

All of Boeing's recent woes seem to confirm exactly this.

I am not a fan/foe of Boeing nor a foe/fan of SpaceX. If anything I worry that Elan will lose his shirt with X and Tesla and fold leaving no good space options. But at this point I think it is the only viable option. If NASA kills astronauts because it is trying to help Boeing or ensure a second supplier that would be a huge embarrassment...and potentially criminal acts by NASA managers.

Thanks for the insight on Boeing.

I often wondered how things could go so wrong so quickly. It probably was a slow process that became apparent very quickly when it all started to hit the fan at once. Too bad. We need a strong aviation industry that everyone in the world can safely rely upon.

 

[CaptTom]

No surprise to me. We've all seen what happens, in every industry, when the bean counters, MBAs and private equity firms take over. Yet collectively we never learn. Sorry to those who want to believe otherwise, but enriching investors is NOT the sole reason for a company to exist.

 

[Texas Proud]

No surprise to me. We've all seen what happens, in every industry, when the bean counters, MBAs and private equity firms take over. Yet collectively we never learn. Sorry to those who want to believe otherwise, but enriching investors is NOT the sole reason for a company to exist.

Just to be clear, not all bean counters are the problem... I used to do cost analysis and would take bad outcomes into my analysis...

Engineers also take shortcuts and can be just as bad... it is not one or the other... just bad decision making...

 

[skipro33]

So who's footing the bill for the occupancy of the space station by these two stranded folks anyway? I'm of the opinion that should fall on Boeing, not us tax payers. According to NASA, back on 4/10/21; " The rate for NASA ISS crew time has been set at $130,000 per hour. " A crew is 7. Around $1M for two per day in today's inflationary rate. Latest report is that they'll be there another 6 months before rescue will be attempted. (Yes, that's my definition of their return since they won't be coming back on their original transport) That comes up to about $180M.

 

[Koolau]

So who's footing the bill for the occupancy of the space station by these two stranded folks anyway? I'm of the opinion that should fall on Boeing, not us tax payers. According to NASA, back on 4/10/21; " The rate for NASA ISS crew time has been set at $130,000 per hour. " A crew is 7. Around $1M for two per day in today's inflationary rate. Latest report is that they'll be there another 6 months before rescue will be attempted. (Yes, that's my definition of their return since they won't be coming back on their original transport) That comes up to about $180M.

I assume that NASA figured it is worth it to (hopefully) find another space-flight platform to use when/if another is compromised. SO much better to have Boeing involved instead of paying the Russians for a ride. Lets face it: How many major new processes w*rk flawlessly the first time. (How many men died trying to fly the Atlantic before Lindbergh accomplished it.)

My hope is that the two stranded astronauts are being utilized while they are on the space station. (Heh, heh, I'd clean the johns or mop the floors for such a chance.)

 

[Texas Proud]

Well, about Lindbergh I tried to look it up... but...

He was hailed as the “Columbus of the Air” in Latin America but received little notice in North America. From 1919 to 1927, an additional 78 people successfully flew across the Atlantic before Lindbergh's attempt—a total of 81 people successfully flew across the Atlantic before Lindbergh.

So he was not the first... but who knows if it is true... other sites say first from NY to Paris...

As for deaths... I see one site says 6 and another says 15...

Charles Lindbergh - far from being the first

Charles Lindbergh - was he really the first man to fly solo or nonstop across the Atlantic?

www.zakkeith.com

 

[f35phixer]

I assume that NASA figured it is worth it to (hopefully) find another space-flight platform to use when/if another is compromised. SO much better to have Boeing involved instead of paying the Russians for a ride. Lets face it: How many major new processes w*rk flawlessly the first time. (How many men died trying to fly the Atlantic before Lindbergh accomplished it.)

My hope is that the two stranded astronauts are being utilized while they are on the space station. (Heh, heh, I'd clean the johns or mop the floors for such a chance.)

Read an article this a.m about this issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The women has been up in space if i remember right since 2012 ! they will be used, they are experienced with experiments and all other things space.

Yes BOING should foot the bill, wow didn't know was that much to ride around in space.

 

[Koolau]

Well, about Lindbergh I tried to look it up... but...

He was hailed as the “Columbus of the Air” in Latin America but received little notice in North America. From 1919 to 1927, an additional 78 people successfully flew across the Atlantic before Lindbergh's attempt—a total of 81 people successfully flew across the Atlantic before Lindbergh.

So he was not the first... but who knows if it is true... other sites say first from NY to Paris...

As for deaths... I see one site says 6 and another says 15...

Charles Lindbergh - far from being the first

Charles Lindbergh - was he really the first man to fly solo or nonstop across the Atlantic?

www.zakkeith.com

Sorry, I should have been more specific. He was the first to fly solo across the Atlantic.

 

[Koolau]

Read an article this a.m about this issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The women has been up in space if i remember right since 2012 ! they will be used, they are experienced with experiments and all other things space.

Yes BOING should foot the bill, wow didn't know was that much to ride around in space.

Yeah, I don't recall the numbers but recall being surprised at seeing what it costs per pound to put something into Earth orbit.

Considering what we've gotten out of the space program in the past 70 years, it's been worth it IMO. YMMV

 

[aja8888]

Yeah, I don't recall the numbers but recall being surprised at seeing what it costs per pound to put something into Earth orbit.

Considering what we've gotten out of the space program in the past 70 years, it's been worth it IMO. YMMV

IMHO, the only thing we have truly gotten out of the space program is nice pictures of Earth and a lot of unanswered questions!

 

[Koolau]

IMHO, the only thing we have truly gotten out of the space program is nice pictures of Earth and a lot of unanswered questions!

Unanswered questions are the human condition when it comes to exploration. Every answered question leads to a dozen more questions that need to be answered. It's in our genes to ask questions.

But, to the question of what we've gotten out of the space program: The computer revolution was primarily (arguably) due to the space program. We'd never have gotten to the moon without the explosion in computer technology which has filtered down to the place that your watch is likely a more powerful computer than the one on Apollo 11.

Then too, there is the communications revolution. I recall when a long distance call was a big deal - and expensive - and on a rotary dial phone - with help from an operator. Now most of my calls are long distance as I still have my old phone number which still "thinks" it's in the Midwest.

Anyone watching the Paris Olympics is beholden to the space program. I could go on, but...

Returning you now...

 

[aja8888]

Unanswered questions are the human condition when it comes to exploration. Every answered question leads to a dozen more questions that need to be answered. It's in our genes to ask questions.

But, to the question of what we've gotten out of the space program: The computer revolution was primarily (arguably) due to the space program. We'd never have gotten to the moon without the explosion in computer technology which has filtered down to the place that your watch is likely a more powerful computer than the one on Apollo 11.

Then too, there is the communications revolution. I recall when a long distance call was a big deal - and expensive - and on a rotary dial phone - with help from an operator. Now most of my calls are long distance as I still have my old phone number which still "thinks" it's in the Midwest.

Anyone watching the Paris Olympics is beholden to the space program. I could go on, but...

Returning you now...

When I worked for Bendix in 1968 after my tour, we were making great strides in computer and electronics tech (Integrated circuits, etc) associated with the nuclear weapons we were making for the Navy. That was not about space exploration.

Lots of industries benefited by the development of computer and electronics tech.

 

[JackJester]

While we watch this Starliner fiasco resolve itself …“NASA aims to soon decide whether its astronauts will return on Boeing’s misfiring Starliner — or instead turn to SpaceX as a rescue option — with agency leadership on Wednesday saying a decision is about a week away.” … I am more excited about Starship Flight Test 5. They’re going to try and bring Super Heavy back to earth and safely capture it for re-use. Damn that’s so cool!

Starship is ready for its 5th test flight, SpaceX says (photos)

Starship is ready for its 5th test flight, SpaceX says (photos)

'Flight 5 Starship and Super Heavy are ready to fly, pending regulatory approval.'

www.space.com

​

“SpaceX intends to catch the returning Super Heavy during the Flight 5 mission, using the "chopstick" arms of the launch tower at its Starbase site in South Texas.
SpaceX has never tried this before. During the first four Starship test flights — which took place in April 2023, November 2023, and March and June of this year — the company aimed to bring Super Heavy down for a splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. "

 

[Fermion]

Would there be any benefit for SpaceX to build another Starbase just across the border so they didn't have to wait on regulatory approvals? I don't know exactly how the laws would work since the company itself is USA based.

 

[JackJester]

Interesting Question. So of course someone has asked it ...reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/12kvb5o/what_would_prevent_spacex_from_building_a_launch

SpaceX 'might' (doubtful) be able to get through International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) issues if all they did was launch and recovery, but it seems like the biggest hurdle to me would be getting qualified engineers to want to move to, or at best, spend a significant amount of time in BFE Mexico... the MX gov wouldn't allow launches in someplace nice like Cabo or Cancun. And commuting across the Rio Grande daily in TX is not too appealing I assume.

 

[Koolau]

When I worked for Bendix in 1968 after my tour, we were making great strides in computer and electronics tech (Integrated circuits, etc) associated with the nuclear weapons we were making for the Navy. That was not about space exploration.

Lots of industries benefited by the development of computer and electronics tech.

Yes, I recall seeing a treatise on the space program with the premise that it had payed for itself (from consumer goods to communications to chip-advances, GPS, etc.) I don't have a citation as that was years ago, but, I'm sure we all can point to stuff that would have been years behind without the space program. Besides, space is just plain cool! As always, YMMV.

 

[CaptTom]

I think asking for short term payback from space (or any technology) investment is short sighted. Like how bean counters and private equity ruin corporations which were built up over decades. Boing being a recent example.

I look at the long term benefit to society, or, in the case of a company, to the customers, employees, AND stockholders. Not next quarter's returns.

 

[Koolau]

I think asking for short term payback from space (or any technology) investment is short sighted. Like how bean counters and private equity ruin corporations which were built up over decades. Boing being a recent example.

I look at the long term benefit to society, or, in the case of a company, to the customers, employees, AND stockholders. Not next quarter's returns.

Agreed! Too much insistence on immediate return. YMMV

 

[Fermion]

Say 100 years from now we are able to slightly adjust the orbit of a 20km asteroid such that it misses earth. What if this is only possible because of the current advances we are making in the space program? How do you value something like that, 100 years out?

 

[Koolau]

Say 100 years from now we are able to slightly adjust the orbit of a 20km asteroid such that it misses earth. What if this is only possible because of the current advances we are making in the space program? How do you value something like that, 100 years out?

Priceless!

 

[SecondAttempt]

Just to be clear, not all bean counters are the problem... I used to do cost analysis and would take bad outcomes into my analysis...

Engineers also take shortcuts and can be just as bad... it is not one or the other... just bad decision making...

I did not mean to disparage bean counters like (aparrently) you. I understand data-based decisionmaking and applaud it. A specific example is from an incident in the late 80s. The tail blew off a Boeing aircraft inflight. I don't recall precisely the details but I think it was a US aircraft over Japan. The pilot saved the passengers by ordering all passengers to crowd in the back of the plane (to offset the normal nose-down moment that the tail offsets) and I think landed safely.

But it turned out it revealed a major issue with how Boeing had been certifying aircraft. They went by flight hours and that incident caused the engineering leadership to switch to takeoff/landing count which cost Boeing hugely because they had to buy back a lot of planes that had been sold off mostly to third world carriers.

But again, this was 40 years ago but demonstrates how Boeing stepped up to problems then versus now!

 

[SecondAttempt]

Say 100 years from now we are able to slightly adjust the orbit of a 20km asteroid such that it misses earth. What if this is only possible because of the current advances we are making in the space program? How do you value something like that, 100 years out?

Slightly adjusting asteroids on a collision course with earth will be done with high power lasers rather than spacecraft or nuclear bombs. I've worked in this field! It is somewhat laughable in all honesty but there are actual military and NASA programs for "planetary defense"

 

[JoeWras]

This asteroid thing is being looked at from many sides. Just two years ago, NASA had a successful mission to deflect an asteroid using kinetic energy. It didn't get much press. They significantly altered the orbit of an asteroid's "moon."

Direct from NASA: NASA Confirms DART Mission Impact Changed Asteroid’s Motion in Space - NASA

Decent TIME article: NASA Tried To Knock an Asteroid Off Course—And Succeeded Wildly Beyond Expectations

The spacecraft, known as DART (for Double Asteroid Redirection Test), was launched last November, and its sole job was to fly out to the small, 160 m (525 ft.) asteroid Dimorphos, and crash into it at at 22,500 k/h (14,000 mph). Dimorphos is a moonlet of the larger, 780 m (2,560 ft) asteroid Didymos, making one revolution around its parent rock every 11 hours and 55 minutes. The purpose of the cosmic collision? To see if DART’s impact could nudge Dimorphos, speeding it up slightly and shortening its orbit around Didymos.

Yesterday, at a press conference at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the DART team announced its findings, and the actual results blew the doors off of even the most optimistic estimates: the collision accelerated Dimorphos by 32 minutes, shortening its orbit to 11 hours and 23 minutes.

 

[Fermion]

Slightly adjusting asteroids on a collision course with earth will be done with high power lasers rather than spacecraft or nuclear bombs. I've worked in this field! It is somewhat laughable in all honesty but there are actual military and NASA programs for "planetary defense"

But space based lasers, right?