Boeing Starliner

[WillowRun 6-3]

Final segment of article by Eric Berger:

Port concerns

The International Space Station has two docking ports for crew vehicles, and these must accommodate both Crew Dragon and Starliner. At present, one of these ports is occupied by the Crew-8 spacecraft, which is due to return to Earth fairly soon. The other port is occupied by Starliner. One source at Johnson Space Center said the concern is that NASA cannot afford to "brick" one of its two crew docking ports.

For this reason, if NASA decides to return Starliner autonomously, it must be certain the undocking software update will work.

As NASA is working to balance all of these risks—the risk to crew on board Starliner, the risk of an uncrewed departure to the ISS, the risk to astronauts on board the space station, and more—Boeing has been lobbying to bring Starliner home with crew. Although NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause for the failure of the thrusters, Boeing has been urging NASA to accept "flight rationale" as a substitute. That is, Boeing believes it has provided enough data to NASA to be confident the thrusters will not fail in a catastrophic manner.

This campaign spilled out into the public on Friday evening when Boeing put out a news release [link omitted] trumpeting all of the testing it has done since the launch of the Crew Flight Test.

"Boeing remains confident in the Starliner spacecraft and its ability to return safely with crew," the company stated. "We continue to support NASA’s requests for additional testing, data, analysis and reviews to affirm the spacecraft’s safe undocking and landing capabilities. Our confidence is based on this abundance of valuable testing from Boeing and NASA." [end of article segment]

I'll take a step back, for perspective.

In the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo era, in other words during the "Space Race", the imperative for success was upon NASA on behalf of the country, in the competition begat by the Cold War, and as part of the Cold War, between United States and the U.S.S.R. The competition, really a contestation, involved all the elements of national power - to borrow a phrase from the recently-released Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy. This is a significant premise for further points, because the success or failure of any given mission, of each phase of the national effort to send a person (formerly, a "man"), to the Moon and bring the person home safely, was a matter of political accountability within the overall system of government, within the entirety of American society. (Phrasing changes with apologies to JFK's speechwriters for his addresses at Rice University and to Congress which declared the goals of lunar landing and return.)

What accountability has been established for SpaceX, and Elon Musk individually, which would, if it exists, equate to the systemic accountability which existed in the lunar program era? This is not, repeat not, a negative criticism or critique of SpaceX or Musk . . . . so far. That is, so far the company has produced major engineering and programmatic success, perhaps even astounding success. For another time (maybe), what accountability on a par with the kind of national-representational accountability assigned to NASA during the lunar program, has been established for SpaceX with respect to several R&D and operational program elements? For the HLS which is supposed to descend and ascend to/from the lunar surface, matching or exceeding the old, ungainly, but remarkable Lunar Module (LM, or to certain cognescenti, the LEM)? The orbiting fuel depot? And I'm not reaching into my bag of Wishing for Controversy by noting any as-yet unsettled issues with Starlink and Astronomy interference, or orbital debris, or (especially controversy-provoking) how the political consensus in the United States, or Western Alliance countries, or anywhere, resolves contemporary intelligentsia fascination with "settler colonialism" on one hand, and Musk wanting to "colonize" another planet.

So back to Boeing. Ironic, isn't it, that where it once was a major space program contractor - it was part of the Saturn V team iirc - it now stands somewhat apart from NASA? That it appears to be saying to NASA, "trust me, the check is in the mail" whereas in the lunar program era, it bought into, it copped to, the national-representation obligations which had been conferred upon NASA?

The French are correct, the more things change the more they stay the same, but sometimes it takes quite a long process to perceive the changes being made in the first place. Or to understand them. Not to cross threads too much, but maybe experience at Rockwell will help the new CEO get this apparent debacle either clarified as to what really is going on, or straightened out otherwise. In the meantime, DON'T open the pod bay doors HAL.