Quoted:
Hopefully Boeing tightened the door bolts on this one.

Quoted:

Pretty sure SpaceX has flown men in their capsule many times, how many have flown in Orion or Starliner?

Quoted:


What is the travel time on SLS? FH travel time is advertised as 5.5 years. Is the payload designed for the higher thrust and possible increased vibrations? How quickly will a new SLS even be ready? Would there even be an SLS ready for the launch window for the flight path? I'm sure you realize orbital mechanics isn't just a take off any time and fly a million miles and the faster you go the faster you get there scenario.

I doubt the entire science team sits there collecting paychecks doing nothing. It's not like they have the entire mission control room sitting there just for a probe.


Edit just read: SLS 3 years Falcon Heavy 5.5, SLS launch is 2 Billion more, 1 billion of that is redesigning the satellite to handle the torsional loads from SLS.

The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case.

Quoted:
Dragon2 has launched 23 times mainly carrying cargo, carried crew on 8 of those missions, and they have 7 vehicles in active use.

Quoted:
I just can't believe an Apollo-esq capsule is still the best Boeing can do since 1970. I know the shuttle had its issues, but it seems crazy that teardrop capsules are the norm still.

(I know alot of form follows function, and i am happy that anything is still going to space.. just still).

Quoted:
Boeing

Not the Brand I'd have confidence in.

Quoted:


Because the capsule (the payload) is the root of all the problems here and the rocket (Atlas V) is actually a very solid, proven system that existed long before Starliner.  Atlas V flies under the flag of ULA now, but it was developed by Lockheed Martin.

The liquid fueled engine on Atlas V first stage may be a Russian RD-180, but overall it's been a very, very reliable system with a two decade track record of success.

The primary reason the first uncrewed flight test of Starliner was a failure was a lack of integration testing with the rocket by Boeing.  The Altas V and Starliner had unsynchronized clocks and the capsule fired it's on-orbit maneuvering system early, leading to insertion into the wrong orbit and premature use of all of the propellant needed to do a rendezvous with the ISS.  The lack of clock synchronization turned out to be the tip of the iceberg with software programming flaws. Then you get into the later issues they had on attempts to fly the second uncrewed flight test with the valves. After that test finally flew, issues were discovered with the wiring harness tape and parachutes. These are not issues that are solved by putting a different rocket under the payload, it is the payload itself that is flawed.  Integrating Starliner with a SpaceX rocket would likely create more opportunities for error on Boeing's part.



SpaceX has more Starship prototypes than they have opportunities to fly them.  There are more Starship prototypes that have been scrapped than there will ever be SLS rockets built.  They're doing real-world ground and flight testing instead of years or decades of ground simulation and testing as has been commonly done.  They're building something twice as capable as Saturn V with just a fraction of the development budget.  This is a completely different development paradigm than the one used by SLS. The purpose of SS/SH is to radically decrease the cost of access to space with a factory and launch infrastructure capable of building and flying many boosters and ships that are both recoverable and rapidly reflyable instead of dumping it all in the ocean (boosters) or letting them burn up on re-entry (upper stages.) The purpose SLS is to keep sending money to legacy NASA contractors in all 50 states in order to keep congress voting in favor of it.  It is a self-licking ice cream cone.

Either you're being deliberately obtuse by ignoring this or you are too old to understand it.  I suspect the latter, but wouldn't bet against a mix of both.

Quoted:
Hopefully Boeing tightened the door bolts on this one.

Quoted:
giving the chance, wouldn't even hesitate to hop on that flight

Quoted:
Calypso? Really? That's the name they are going with?

Weird choice.

Quoted:
But what's the point?   Dragon has already proven itself and SNC Dreamchaser is basically just waiting on Blue Origin to start doing cargo runs.   Crewed Dreamchaser won't be far behind.

Quoted:
I just can't believe an Apollo-esq capsule is still the best Boeing can do since 1970. I know the shuttle had its issues, but it seems crazy that teardrop capsules are the norm still.

(I know alot of form follows function, and i am happy that anything is still going to space.. just still).

Quoted:
It's just an optimized shape for reentry.  The Shuttle, X-37, and Starship are departures from this local optimum, but that last one has yet to perform a reentry.

Quoted:
But what's the point?   Dragon has already proven itself and SNC Dreamchaser is basically just waiting on Blue Origin to start doing cargo runs.   Crewed Dreamchaser won't be far behind.

Quoted:

I don't think anyone is disputing that dragon is a reliable and much more cost effective option.
Having a backup is always good, a mishap w/dragon could ground it for a long time (especially if there was a loss of life).
Crewed dream chaser is still years away at best.

Quoted:


Astronauts are going to die in space. People are going to die in space.

Especially as it becomes more commercial.


This dying in space means we have to pause the program for half a decade bullshit needs to stop.