Hacker News Reader

Comment by boxed | Hacker News Reader

> In some ways, Starliner is being held to a higher standard than Dragon Crew-2

Maybe. I don't believe that's true, but let's assume it is.

They SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Of the 16 US astronauts that have died in the space program, 14 died on the shuttle which was Boeing. That, coupled with Boeings recent deterioration and demonstrated disregard for human life, makes it clear that Boeing needs to be kept on a short leash.

View on HN

While I don't disagree with you, I think it's important to point out that 3 american astronauts died during the Apollo 1 ground test.

Apollo 1 was built by North American Aviation, which was acquired by Rockwell, which is now part of Boeing.

Ouch. My bad. Yes, three, not two.

Boeing didn't make the space shuttle.

Boeing did largely design build the orbiter, which is the reusable spacecraft that's commonly referred to as the space shuttle, although it was only a part of the entire space shuttle program. Both disasters though were not the fault of the orbiter but caused by failures of the boosters and tank, neither of which were built by Boeing, but these projects are supposed to be designed holistically and so I'd say all the companies involved in that project share responsibility for the shortcomings of the design.

Rockwell International made the orbiter. Unless they were later merged into Boeing and now perhaps involved in Starliner?

Yeah, Rockwell was broken up and that part of the company is now Boeing Defense, although i do think Boeing was directly involved in designing of the shuttle back then. Now you've got me wondering if I'm mistaken about that.

In the early 1970s, NASA had three contractors helping it to design the Space Shuttle: Rockwell, Lockheed, and a Boeing-Grumman joint venture. So Boeing definitely played a role in designing it, although exactly how big its role was in the design, as opposed to the other contractors, I don’t know.

https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/...

However, Boeing was not originally one of the main contractors for the actual construction/operation/maintenance of the Space Shuttle. It later became one by buying Rockwell’s space division

They love to claim they did as part of their legacy.

In the case of the Challenger accident, the actual orbiter wasn't the problem. The seals on the solid rocket boosters were. That said, I don't know who was responsible for their design/manufacture.

The teams responsible for their design and manufacture were sounding the alarm about the o-rings being out of their operational envelope. It was management at the manufacturer and NASA that decided to proceed.

Thiokol[1], who were later bought out by ATK who in turn were bought out by Northrop Grumman.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiokol

Thiokol + Hercules = ATK

ATK + OribtalSciences = Orbital ATK

then NG bought out Orbital ATK

As opposed to SpaceX with literally no history of human rated spaceflight? Neither of these companies have earned reduced standards...

Edit: To clarify, this applies to the certification process, not current performance.

They've launched 12 crew missions in the last 44 months putting 46 people in orbit.

Right, but first they certified it for human-rated spaceflight by scrutinizing it very closely and testing it very rigorously.

They certified a modification to an existing spacecraft that was already proven. Starliner is a bespoke from scratch vehicle.

Are you suggesting they did or should have relaxed the human-rated spaceflight certification standards for Crew Dragon?

No, they actually have made them go through more rigor than Starliner has been subject to.

What I'm saying is that Dragon was built upon an existing proven platform. The effort needed to convert the cargo module for human spaceflight is less than the effort Boeing needed to create a module from scratch. AND SpaceX still had to go through more rigor with Crew Dragon than what Boeing has had to do with Starliner.

The certification standards for Starliner have been reduced compared to Dragon, and Boeing is asking for them to be reduced further still.

You're aware that SpaceX routinely performs crewed missions, right? There's been at least a dozen now.

How many of those happened before testing and certification was completed?

If you count the ones from before certification was complete, then there was one more than I counted. A baker's dozen instead of an even dozen launches.

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-and-spacex-complet...

“The Crew Dragon, including the Falcon 9 rocket and associated ground systems, is the first new, crew spacecraft to be NASA-certified for regular flights with astronauts since the space shuttle nearly 40 years ago. Several critical events paved the way for this achievement, including grounds tests, simulations, uncrewed flight tests and NASA’s SpaceX Demo-2 test flight with astronauts Robert Behnken and Douglas Hurley earlier this year.” [from 2020]

Dragon did test flights demonstrating that the systems worked, Starliner has so far only done test flights demonstrating that the systems do not, plus a pinky promise that it'll work the next time. We do not know if, say, the abort system works, because the only time it was subjected to a full test, it failed. This is not a matter of SpaceX not having experience building human-rated craft and trying to get unearned credit for competence, this is a matter of Boeing trying to use their history to get unearned credit.

In the context of standards used for certification, I would count only flights from before certification was complete.

There was one flight with two crew to the ISS: the same test Starliner is currently attempting.

I agree with your analysis that Boeing does not deserve to have lowered standards. I'm suggesting that neither did Crew Dragon before certification. I'm not suggesting their systems or records are comparable, I'm simply arguing that unproven systems should be tested rigorously before being certified for human-rated spaceflight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com