Huor
22616
463
6
What made the space shuttle program such a disaster is that NASA's leadership continued flying missions despite repeated warnings of operational and design flaws that would inevitably lead to catastrophic loss. Basically, every flight that returned safely made them think that everything was fine.
Well, the recent report into the bungled 2024 mission of Boeing's new Starliner capsule is an attempt to put a stop to that behaviour. The capsule experienced mission-scrubbing thruster problems, and while it did return to earth (unmanned), its astronauts were left stranded in space for 9 months.
The mission could easily have been a fatal loss. Even now, they have no idea why the thrusters malfunctioned or how to make sure it never happens again. The current head of NASA says the organization has once more, insanely, fallen into the old habit of saying "fuck it, let's fly" despite awareness of dangerous defects of design.
The Starliner was created in the wake of the shuttle program, touted as a way to ensure American access to space. Unfortunately, as we now know, it’s essentially unsafe to carry human beings.
https://www.nhpr.org/2026-02-19/nasa-chief-blasts-boeing-space-agency-for-failed-starliner-astronaut-mission
toshach33
Yes. I agree. I wonder what he has to say about Musk's bloated Starships doing a RUD more often than not.
ironymus
It's been a bit more than forty years since the Challenger catastrophe on Jan 28th 1986
Drives11
I miss when NASA had funding
Sageypie
Also worth noting is that part of the reason that it took 9 goddamned months despite other spacecraft going up and returning from the ISS, is because they had Boeing suits. And Boeing, for some goddamned reason, was allowed to design their suits to be completely incompatible with other spacecraft, to the point where other astronauts also couldn't use the Starliner, because their suits wouldn't be able to connect. Because Boeing didn't learn shit from the lawless days of early cellphone chargers.
eyespy95523
The "Leadership" has been paid off in X-bucks.
jtxyz
Can we give it a nickname to emphasize the point?
I'm thinking "Boeing crapsule"
Bundalicious
How the NASA, let Boeing fly in space? Their track record on Earth is horrible! Oh yeah, corruption .
cgt9803
I can't imagine how much more of a faster cluck NASA is now under Trump's maladministration of ideologue grifter asskissers.
elucca
It does seem to be one of those funny cases where Trump's maximum corruption pick with no qualifications is not as bad as he hoped.
dragoonwraith
I had a client with a fleet of satellites, one of the biggest, and one of their best, newest, fanciest ones, that they frankly were pinning a lot of their hopes on, just disintegrated in orbit one Sunday morning. No reason was ever determined for it, at least that I heard, just poof, gone You’ll never guess who made the for them...
VibratingNipples
Just be glad the door didn't pop off
GreaseMonkeyOfLove
“Boeing’s Starliner”…..found your problem, NASA, it’s right in front of Starliner!
Blakeadelic
I recommend “Challenger” by Adam Higginbotham if you’re interested in learning more about the history of the shuttle program. Fascinating stuff.
GalacticHammer
The Challenger Launch Decision by Diane Vaughan is also great.
PolitiCat
This leadership problem is still ongoing. They will be sending Artemis II as a manned mission to the moon, knowing that the unmanned Artemis I has failed re-entry due to the heat shield failing. No changes have been done to this failed heat shield design. They merely changed the re-entry parameters without testing them again against the actual hardware. Artemis II will likely result in the death of the astronauts.
Stanistani
Some quibbles. Artemis I re-entered successfully. There were issues with the type of erosion found after the flight. Changes were made to the heat shield design, too late for Artemis II. Odds are the existing heat shield design will work for this re-entry profile.
However, Artemis II should be an non-crewed mission, because the environmental support system is untested in space, along with a raft of other systems.
We're in too much of a hurry, and the SLS is not sustainable.
PolitiCat
Yes, your points are correct. The hurry is by the way solely caused by Trump. He wants his prestige space project that serves no other purpose.
PowerPedant
"The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA." -- Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report
Rhythmaster
Yep, sounds like morons with business degrees taking over... yikes.
Geveg
A lot of NASA projects take longer and more money than initially anticipated, but there's a good reason for that: quality. Capitalist companies crank out the cheapest, crappiest product that minimizes their cost. Actually quality is a distant secondary concern from that perspective. NASA at least used to understand that for the missions they undertake, quality must reign supreme. That's how they made machines that operated under stresses they couldn't always foresee without failing, and [1/2]
Geveg
then continue operating for 20+ years beyond their expected ~6 month lifespan. THAT is the type of planning we need.
dronir
I'll be surprised if the Starliner ever flies again.
GuyWithDog
They'll decide to fly it. I just wonder, if they find someone willing to fly onboard
mindstorm8191
After this fiasco, Boeing doesn't deserve any more contracts with NASA
SavageDrums
MBAs are a blight on humanity and must be shunned if we are to survive.
elucca
At least these remarks and decisions are happening now and not after a crew is dead...
toshach33
You're right.
Quaxx
If it's Boeing I ain't going, apparently applies to all vehicles. It is sad what mismanagement made of this proud company.
3dartwork
It's way more than Boeing. NASA is totally at fault here, too. Boeing isn't just the culprit.
witheredspoon
It USED to be "If it aint Boeing, I aint going." ... in the before times.
insaaanity
*once
somethingstupidandclever
But boeing investigated themselves and found no wrong doing!!
Cilvaa
RuminatingYak
There's a great video on how Boeing went to shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URoVKPVDKPU
keebs63
I can save everyone the time: the answer is McDonnell -Douglas. They merged with Boeing in the 90s and turned an engineer-based company into a corporate nightmare. MD leadership was atrocious and didn't care about shit except profit margins, least of all safety. They tanked MD then took over Boeing and tanked them too. You know, they usual hyper capitalist dogshit that turned an incredibly successful company into an abject failure because it made the shareholders an extra 0.3% return.
BarryTheCyborg
Hell, even the engineers of the dc-10 wouldn't fly on it.
RuminatingYak
Why would you want to save anyone the time? Do people go to Imgur and Youtube to save time?
RanOutofWit
Boeing. Used to be run by engineers that cared about little things like quality. Now under capitalist management. I'm shocked the capsule even made it to the ISS. Fuck, I was shocked they even got the contract - at the time all they had was a mock-up 'capsule' and the boeing name, and other possible suppliers had actually functioning spaceships - like the Dreamchaser, FFS, which should have got the contract and didn't. Fuck Boeing.
CrushBug
Came here for this, thank you.
WalkItOutLikeTheFlash
Yeah, see that’s the problem when you change management and C suite leadership from engineers to bean counters. It starts to be less about the product and more about the profit.
SpikedDoggos
Yep, I dabbled in that industry for a bit, wild
MarkWatneysVicodinPotato
As someone in the industry, you would be surprised at the amount of pressure applied to engineers to maintain cost and schedule and safety. The market demands results at all costs, shareholders rule the roost.
slowshutterspeed
Id bet that is the priority hierarchy,cost is most important, followed closely by schedule, then safety and only if it doesn’t directly impede the first 2.
That was how most management acted when I worked in the rail industry.
SgtLemming
I guaranfuckingtee if they can save $1 by reducing a safety margin from 4 to 3, they'll get pressured to save that $1.
MarkWatneysVicodinPotato
To be fair, we would see that at something that weighs far more than it should and gravity tends to make that decision for us but I get your point.
SgtLemming
You don't have to sacrifice lightness to increase safety margin. Sometimes a lighter material can actually be safer, but that also tends to be more expensive.
I.e. using an aluminium honeycomb filled composite structure instead of a rigid hollow beam. The honeycomb can be both lighter and stronger as it spreads the load over thousands of points instead of just a few critical points... But it's also far more expensive to manufacture.
MarkWatneysVicodinPotato
I'm an aerospace design engineer... I know what I'm doing.