281–290 of 372 posts
I’ve nothing substantive to add, but I note that the logic gymnastics on display in comments from all perspectives is somehow telling. Of something. Not sure what.
So is this a reflection on Boeing engineering culture? Seems it would be, I remember comments from previous articles saying it is.
So IMO the golem whose values are being reflected in this failure / recovery from it is a US Government Commercial organism. And indirectly the United State's civilian population since the Government is formed (over centuries) to be a care-taker reflection of the civilian pop.
I declined a job offer from Boeing recently because they can't execute anymore. Complete clown show run by accountants.
Illustrated that the hiring people were just fine, but the larger Organization was, in this case, disorganized.
There was an anomaly in the second stage deorbit burn (which did not impact the payload). Falcon is apparently grounded. https://www.space.com/spacex-pause-launches-crew-9-falcon-9-... ( "SpaceX pausing launches to study Falcon 9 issue on Crew-9 astronaut mission" ) - "After today’s successful launch of Crew-9, Falcon 9's second stage was disposed in the ocean as planned, but experienced an off-nominal deorbit burn.…
"the second stage safely landed in the ocean, but outside of the targeted area. We will resume launching after we better understand root cause" reality: "It crashed somewhere in the ocean, we don't know why but we pretend it was safe, though we just got lucky"
edit: Turns out this isn't accurate; it's still actually normal for US rocket *upper stages* to do uncontrolled reentries [0]. This is a subject of ongoing FAA rulemaking [1]. The Chinese examples are still exceptional because they involve far larger first-stage/core-stage boosters (>50 meters in length).
edit 2: If anyone was curious about the Europeans, the answer is that Ariane 5/ECA has actually *never* done a controlled upper-stage deorbit, because its LH2/LOX engine isn't designed to be able to ignite twice (deorbit burns are excluded)[2].
[0] https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/osisite/wp-content/uploads/OS... ("Uncontrolled reentries are currently used for 35% of U.S. missions (62% if we exclude SpaceX)") (as of 2023?)
[1] https://spacenews.com/new-upper-stage-disposal-rules-help-no...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00945... ("it is not possible to perform a controlled reentry of the Upper Composite")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In literally every thread about SpaceX people who don't like Musk (and sometimes others), people bring up Shotwell. Of course her name doesn't come up as often as Musk, Musk is literally one of the most famous people on earth, a highly controversial public figure and one of the richest people on the plant, who also owns and leads the company. For most other tech companies people done even know the Nr.2 person in the…
The numbers 2-4 at Apple come up quite often, but “how annoying it is to work with Tim Cook” isn’t a recurring thread, despite his also being one of the most famous, wealthy, and powerful people on Earth as well. Joel Spoksky’s meeting with Bill Gates about Excel is famous lore in our circles as well, although I doubt Spolsky was ever even top 10 at Microsoft. Werner Vogels comes up fairly often, too.
> By the time they return, the pair will have logged more than eight months in space. They expected to be gone just a week when they signed up for Boeing’s first astronaut flight that launched in June. What kind of overtime do you think they are clocking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the second stage safely landed in the ocean, but outside of the targeted area. We will resume launching after we better understand root cause" reality: "It crashed somewhere in the ocean, we don't know why but we pretend it was safe, though we just got lucky"
Is it "luck" if you intentionally chose a place smack in the middle of nowhere, such that even an off-nominal reentry will overwhelmingly occur in an extremely sparsely populated area (ie the middle of the ocean)? Sounds like planning, not luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it "luck" if you intentionally chose a place smack in the middle of nowhere, such that even an off-nominal reentry will overwhelmingly occur in an extremely sparsely populated area (ie the middle of the ocean)? Sounds like planning, not luck.
Landing area is one thing, but more important and dangerous is reentry profile. Too steep, and the capsule melts down or crew inside becomes very flat from the deceleration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it "luck" if you intentionally chose a place smack in the middle of nowhere, such that even an off-nominal reentry will overwhelmingly occur in an extremely sparsely populated area (ie the middle of the ocean)? Sounds like planning, not luck.
Landing area is one thing, but more important and dangerous is reentry profile. Too steep, and the capsule melts down or crew inside becomes very flat from the deceleration.
I’ve nothing substantive to add, but I note that the logic gymnastics on display in comments from all perspectives is somehow telling. Of something. Not sure what.