What Exactly Went Wrong With Boeing’s Starliner Spacecraft?

It’s nearly been a decade since Boeing was awarded a hefty $4.2 billion contract from NASA to develop a spacecraft capable of transporting humans to the International Space Station. Unfortunately, in that time period, not only has the vehicle still yet to carry humans once, but it has consistently run into different complications. This begs the question of how a leading aerospace company had so much trouble with this contract.
At the same time as Boeing has continued to try and develop the vehicle, SpaceX has been sending humans to space for years now. When NASA originally picked these companies, they certainly didn’t expect Boeing to end up being the riskier and delayed option. In reality, a combination of test anomalies and frequent mistakes has delayed Starliner’s first crewed launch by years.
These issues have even brought up the possibility of abandoning the Starliner program as it only gets more and more expensive for Boeing to run. A future the company is trying very hard to avoid after investing so much time and money over the last 10 years. Here I will go more in-depth into some of the company’s main issues, problems with Starliner, what the future holds, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/what-exact...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex
NASA - / @nasa
Boeing - / @boeing
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
1:00 - A Costly Mistake
3:01 - Frequent Complications

[@menotyou1234]

Nothing has "gone wrong" with the spacecraft, it's the company that has "gone wrong"

[@catsupchutney]

Seems that way.

[@kevinmcgovern5110]

Whatsa difference??

[@catsupchutney]

@@kevinmcgovern5110 Share price.

[@TheMoneypresident]

Rolled out nearly a new aircraft every month or two for a year.

[@joansparky4439]

economically even the company didn't do wrong - optimizing for profit as a supplier at the expense of customers works as long as they can't switch to a competitors product. The only way to prevent that is to enforce that you're the only supplier in the market via regulatory capture.. otherwise the market trends towards ZERO profit for all involved.

[@Dave_xD]

I misheard 'first crewed launch' as 'first screwed launch' and I couldn't stop laughing at how accurate that is

[@KiRiTO72987]

I think the biggest issue is that Boeing is used to getting cost plus contracts from NASA and being able to do whatever it wants so it's struggling now that it's on fixed price

[@RidiculousRocketry]

Nailed it.

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

I just commented imagine this was a cost plus contract...insane eh like motivational to be over budget and late

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

How do these use flammable tape all over ? Like who was supervising this build

[@classic_sci_fi]

So Boeing has never planned for competing head to head. They’re used to being a protected cost-plus crony contractor. 😎

[@KiRiTO72987]

Yeah pretty much my take away they weren't ready for competing and having a fixed budget normally they can just spend as much as they want

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

Spacex made sure the contracts were not cost plus .... basically forced both contracts to be firm with penalties for beingg late...bowing has paid alot to NASA for all these delayee

[@classic_sci_fi]

@@Smart-Towel-RG-400 The big question is will Boeing ever be a NASA contractor again under those terms? 😎

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

@@classic_sci_fi probly lol 🤣 they can't be profitable if it isn't cost plus lol

[@jamescobban857]

Starliner is also supposed to provide transportation for Orbital Reef. By contrast Axiom is firmly in SpaceX's pocket and intends to continue using Crew Dragon for at least two flights a year, and to use Starship to launch bulky components of its successor to ISS. With even Jeff abandoning Orbital Reef, and since every Crew Dragon flight to the ISS saves NASA $25M over a Starliner mission, how can Starliner EVER be financially worthwhile to McBoeing, while SpaceX is taking in huge profits now that Crew Dragon is perfected.

[@davidk6264]

Why is it so much harder to redevelop new 'old' technology today? I bet 1960's engineers with slide-rules would have had this working by now easily.

[@joansparky4439]

back then making 5%+ ROI was easy as the whole economy was growing at that pace.. nowadays such growth (and the accompanying profits) is hard to come by (which is normal, add 100 units of GDP each year to a start GPD of 100 and calculate the growth rate) while the shareholders/investors still want 4%+.. this has to come from somewhere, i.e. by under-delivering and overcharging.

[@sandbridgekid4121]

No mission and crew safety improved since 1968. We got damned lucky with Apollo. That Apollo 13 was the only near disaster was fortune and some good engineering. NASA expected to least lose one, possibly two crews exploring the Moon.

[@i-love-space390]

Yeah when you have the Highest National Priority and 400,000 engineers working nationwide, it is amazing what a country can do. We've been living off that technology investment for 60 years.

[@plainText384]

In the 60's NASA got 4.5% of the total US federal budget, in the 2020's NASA has been getting maybe 0.5% of the budget. In the 60's NASA was focused on one thing, first getting to space, then going to the moon. Today NASA has to split their budget between maintaining and operating the ISS, returning to the moon with Artemis, exploring Mars and the solar system with robots, orbiters and sample return missions, as well as exploring deep space with advanced space telescopes.

[@joansparky4439]

​ @ plainText384 percentages are relative values and mostly meaningless without context.. do you have absolute numbers, ideally inflation corrected?

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

A much shorter list would have been what didn't go wrong with Starliner.🙄

[@staticgrass]

I see RocketLab as being a potential competitor to Boeing in a decade. SpaceX is so far in front it’s a competition for second place now.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Boeing still depends on ula as launch provider. That doesnt sound like competition to rocketlab, but they might be able to launch starliner much cheaper than ula.

[@centaur1a]

The problem is that Boing is making the space craft too complicated, also. Boing is starting to find ways to make NASA pay for their retirement funds.

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

Built to government specs (which have changed a couple times) on a cost-plus contract. THAT is the issue with both Starliner AND the entire Artemis program (though the SLS also suffers from Congressional mandate to "resuse as much Space Shuttle as possible" issues).

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

Starliners isnt cost plus ...dunno avout Artemis

[@bricefleckenstein9666]

​@@Smart-Towel-RG-400 Doesn't change the "built to government specs" part, even if Boeing is losing money on the contract.

[@billygamer3941]

In the dictionary under "incompetent project management" is a picture of Boeing's Starliner.

[@RidiculousRocketry]

I'd imagine that SpaceX would be reluctant to hire Boeing and Blue Origin workers because they would have trouble adapting to the fast pace and productivity expectations. As a manufacturing manager this would be like a disease that would infect other workers and would rather train intelligent, educated workers from scratch.

[@ronjon7942]

Interesting viewpoint. I can see your logic.

[@joaohenriqueneuhaus2023]

I hope they suceed...but I'm laughing a lot in the meantime 😂😂.

[@douginorlando6260]

Answer is Boeing management. Elon lived 24/7 at his Tesla factory to make sure schedule was met. He was committed to making it work on schedule. Compare this to Boeing management who moved to Chicago. They moved their management as far away as possible from factories and engineering.

[@douginorlando6260]

The most alarming aspect of the Starliner is the rate at which surprise problems continue to manifest. It means more problems will be discovered after Boeing claims it is ready and a crew is lost.

[@Asterra2]

You really, really should have pointed out that Boeing demanded more money from NASA on their "fixed contract" Starliner, and NASA obliged with nearly another $300 million. Fixed contract isn't as fixed as people widely assume.

[@i-love-space390]

See my rant below.

[@Asterra2]

@@i-love-space390It's been hidden by KZbin. They don't like language or links, if any of that was going on.

[@Rick-Rarick]

Boeing is full of itself. They have been humbled by SpaceX's success. I understand why NASA wants redundancy in launch platforms, but Starliner is not the answer.

[@savethedeveloper]

the problem is not redundancy. SpaceX cannot boost the station like starliner

[@JohnnyWednesday]

@@savethedeveloper - by the time Starliner is working - there won't be a station to boost - or at least not for long enough for Boeing to make a profit.

[@streetshreds]

NO HUMAN should get on this death trap...

[@Duhbie]

🤦‍♀️

[@chronablitz]

Such a sad waste of government spending, they can't even get a capsule into orbit safely and now Sierra space is outplaying them with Dreamchaser (hopefully) and SpaceX with Dragon, at this point what does Starliner realistically have to offer that SpaceX and Sierra (and other companies) don't? I mean Russia have been launching Soyuz since day 1, docking two of them at a time and on the US side SpaceX have docked 2 Dragons simultaneously multiple times. Just seems like a waste of time and money in my opinion.

[@dazuk1969]

There is one thing that starliner was designed to do that dragon can't. Provide re-boost to the ISS to keep it in it's orbit. That was one of the primary capabilities NASA required from the Boeing contract. I'm not sure about dreamchaser being able to do that.

[@gnoishcnshcha3160]

Sierra Nevada deserve more funds than boeing from NASA. And it can carry goods or people when needed.😊

[@larryhoutz3213]

How many years is it going to take to fix that soft link problem with a parachutes?

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

3 years ! Its 3 parachutes. Or was it 4 ....

[@AlphaWhiskey_Haryo]

dump the SL, get the SNC-DC on

[@dissaid]

Thank man...😎😎😎

[@ajm2872]

This spacecraft is the sunk cost fallacy distilled into solid form.

[@androidtexts6948]

All in with space x

[@nunessilva2162]

Short answer? Boeing

[@user-wn4sl4qq5m]

Not saying Boeing was perfect pre- McD merger but they used to get great engineering stuff done pretty much on time. Everything project post merger has been hosed up, starliner 787, kc-46, 737 MAX. How much more engineering failures out there?

[@ronjon7942]

Yes!

[@RomanKuznetsovLameFrog]

Well, they blamed the "Nauka" module for not flying to the ISS and not even apologizing for their lies, the bastards.

[@alanwang5066]

the thing is "the wrong company"

[@mikalnaylor]

Boeing lost its way shortly after its merger with McDonnell Douglas. Boeing had an excellent reputation, and was making excellent products then shortly after absorbing McD they just started running into problems with projects and completions. Hope they get their act together. Dream Chaser should have been selected versus Starliner

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

Imagine they were giving the typical costs plus contract 😂

[@timestampterrysassistant7638]

I hope the best for the Starliner program, and right now the best course of action is cutting losses. No way its safe for humans after years behind and over budget.

[@i-love-space390]

See my rant below for my thoughts on that crazy idea. Bottom line - that has been the American pattern for decades. Take a program right to the finish line where all the problems are either fixed or ready to be fixed and then CANCEL THE PROGRAM. That's why we never completed a Shuttle Replacement. Venture Star could have been great, if they had been willing to run with the backup plan for metal tanks when the composite tanks proved inadequate. But instead, they cancelled it. Starliner is almost there. It has been run over with a fine tooth comb. It is held to a higher standard than the Shuttle ever was. When it flies, it will be safe.

[@plainText384]

They are basically done now. The RnD budget is already spent, Boeing isn't getting that money back. Right now, the best thing for them to do, is to complete the final touches and finally deliver on NASA's contract.

[@timestampterrysassistant7638]

​@@i-love-space390 "It is held to a higher standard than the Shuttle ever was." Why are major design problems being discovered weeks ahead of the first manned-launch? First launch est 2025 originally planned for 2019-2020. Clearly something is very wrong...

[@citizenblue]

Boeing: where hubris and sunk cost fallacy collide

[@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188]

Try make a contact to The Australian Armor Museum. They are experts in making old American equipment function again. Latest Grant tanks. 😄

[@martythemartian99]

New rule #1: NEVER pay Boeing up front. Wait till the product is delivered in working order. New rule #2: Sierra Space is a better bet.

[@sandbridgekid4121]

Blue Origin is a better bet at this point.

[@martythemartian99]

@@sandbridgekid4121 At the time, Blue Origin were not part of the commercial crew program (I think), but Sierra Space was. They lost out to Boeing, even though they already had a design and a prototype. Boeing at the time, had nothing more than an idea, and a desire for more of that sweet sweet taxpayer money. 😉

[@vergil-__]

why even bother with boeing if you have a dragon capsule

[@ryderhaddad3344]

I really hope the best for Starliner

[@Gnefitisis]

Yes. The more spacecraft the better. Also, long-term it really is a capable capsule. Though, I think Dreamchaser will eventually be the best vehicle. Let's see which is first- Dreamchaser launch 1 or Starliner crew launch 1!

[@JohnnyWednesday]

So do I - there are going to be people flying on that collection of minimal possible efforts.

[@plainText384]

​@@Gnefitisismy guess would be cargo Dreamchaser before Starliner, but then a long gap before crew Dreamchaser happens.

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@plainText384 I don't think they are even building a crew dreamchaser. The cargo dreamchaser got a contract to deliver cargo to the ISS through.

[@plainText384]

@@DavidKnowles0 I don't know if they are building it at the moment, but they have been (saying they are) developing a crewed version for years now.

[@Ignisan_66]

Starliner is a f*cking joke at this point. SpaceX is the winner here.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

Boeing does not have any engineers. They use outsourcing to bring expertise to a job. Using flammable plastic tape has cost them $millions.

[@zmblion]

Everything take that ship out to pastur and give it the long nap. The craziest part is nasa is going to let the next flight be manned

[@xitheris1758]

I foresee Starliner being dropped - by Boeing, NASA, or both. Crew Dreamchaser will probably be brought back to fulfill the redundancy requirement.

[@rein2889]

Especially now that Sierra Space have finally come to their senses and decided to move on from Blue Origin. The first few Dreamchaser launches may go up on BO but beyond that they will move be on to other launch providers.

[@duckvs.chipanddale585]

@@rein2889 no the dreamchaser is being launched on ula's vulcan

[@i-love-space390]

Dream on. Dream Chaser will fly manned .... eventually. My bet is 3-5 YEARS. Meanwhile it will be a terrific unmanned Cargo Spacecraft that will prove the heritage hardware that will make the manned ship very good.

[@duckvs.chipanddale585]

@@i-love-space390whats even the point of dreamchaser

[@xitheris1758]

@@duckvs.chipanddale585 Dreamchaser was originally designed as a smaller, crew-only version of the Space Shuttle, for use with the ISS. When the program was cancelled, the Sierra Nevada Corporation purchased the design from NASA and continued to develop it, hoping to be selected for the Commercial Crew Program. Unfortunately, for reasons too long for this comment, Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Dragon were selected - both capsule-style spacecraft. Different types of spacecraft have different capabilities. Capsules are simpler, but they're rough on cargo and people during reentry and landing. Spaceplanes, on the other hand, are gentle on cargo and people during reentry and landing. There are a lot of experiments and medical emergencies that would either require or benefit from having a spaceplane instead of a capsule. That's why NASA is helping Dreamchaser come back. It offers needed capabilities that current systems don't have.

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

7:25 cough we are use to being paid more for being over budget and late* cough

[@FranciscoRamirez-gb6zc]

Give the money to rocket lab

[@fitnesstop112]

rocket lab isnt american

[@maxdavid2119]

Boeing, that's what went wrong.

[@OwnGrid]

the people critical of Elon about his snake oil should look into Boing at least

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

It is boeing, being critical about spacex.

[@OwnGrid]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Maybe you want to check your IQ as you completely missed the point

[@michaelreid2329]

Put aside the fatal accidents and the poor management of risk by NASA, what were the problems with the overwhelmingly successful Space Shuttle. I mean whatever were the problems that $4.2B couldn't fix?

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

The tiles falling off, Refurbishing costs nearly a new oversized shuttle, No abort systems, Total crew loss, twice! Was not intended to stay in service much longer anyway. The new shuttle was under developement. X38 for payload and (extra) crew shuttle with real new engines tech. Note: both aspects more intelligent than original shuttle concept. Dont know why got abandoned completely.

[@thomasquinn4036]

The shuttle program never lived up to the expectations.Way overpriced and unreliable, kind of like Windmills there pushing they can produce electricity but nobody can afford the cost and maintenance!

[@XCX237]

It's junk. Old school junk. Abandon it😵‍💫

[@killerdoritoWA]

This is what happens when Boeing suits design a spacecraft.

[@LexieAssassin]

Boeing is a joke anymore... The 787 Li battery fires, the 737 Max crashes, and now Starliner. Please, just let it die already...

[@wilsonle61]

I'm thinking of a combination of woke educated engineers and managers combined with a fixed-cost contract. A variation on what went wrong with the Millenium towers in San Fransisco.

[@sysfx]

Find another way to fund other projects.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

I think the Starliner will carry hominids to the space shuttle. Because until it is finished homo sapiens will have died out.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

How sarcastic, you will see when it evtl does fly a bit earlyer.

[@Smart-Towel-RG-400]

What private partys are going pay them

[@JohnnyWednesday]

Oh I know this one! : Boeing.

[@johnrday2023]

Some people are going to look very silly when the Boeing Starliner eventually flies as it eventually will. It is way behind schedule and way over budget. However, Boeing need to put in a new project manager team for a detailed project review and plan to rectify deficiencies and implement whatever is required and do whatever testing is needed to reliably fly. It is too good a capsule design to abandon the project.

[@classic_sci_fi]

Orion has done slightly better. Why is that not an alternative? 😎

[@nottrevorallen]

weight, orion is around 40% heavier than starliner iirc, precluding it from being launched via cheaper options. eft 1 required a delta heavy (but also went into a very high orbit). it could maybe be a vulcan payload with solids to leo but otherwise you need non man rated launchers or sls to put it in orbit

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

The pricetag makes orion a no-go for leo operation. Any oneway tincan concept is now unaffordable. Thats the 2nd main reason why they all dont seem to like elon. Still its only startups at least trying ....

[@scottaye9999]

Boeing = The Joe Biden of Space

[@jessewintermute8031]

Starliner is trash, I get nervous flying in boeing airplanes as well...

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

The earlier Boeing planes are the most reliable planes flying today like the 737 model. It was when Boeing was paired with Lockheed Martin, I think, that things started to go to hell primarily with the 787 Dreamliner. This mash up of two companies could point to the design/manufacture difficulties with Starliner.

[@DarthTrytan]

Am I the only one that thinks Starliner looks fake? As in it looks like one of those grey blankets from a U-Haul truck has been glued on and painted.