back to article Boeing nowhere fast: Starliner space taxi schedule slips once again to August

Boeing's passenger spacecraft for deliveries to the International Space Station (ISS), already lagging behind SpaceX, has been delayed yet again. The new "working" date, according to NASA and Boeing is now August. The reason given was that there were "limited launch opportunities in April and May" and an Atlas V was needed in …

  1. Mark 85

    Boeing's passenger spacecraft for deliveries to the International Space Station (ISS), already lagging behind SpaceX, has been delayed let again.

    What are they doing? Having more "all staff" meetings everyday to find out why nothing is getting done? Been there, done that, and have the coffee cup they gave out.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Try reading past the first sentence. But I'll restate it here as you dont seem to have the ability to read a full article before launching into rant mode - the USAF have the launch pad fully booked. That left them a 2 day launch window in April, (which is f*&k all) so rather than risk it, theyve gone to where they can have a proper window in August.

      Sounds reasonable to me...

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Read the link posted by Hopalong below. They're just trying to shift the blame for their own internal fuckups here. There was something tremendously wrong with the launch abort system, and they haven't even performed the pad abort test. ULA didn't even start stacking the Atlas, which they would have needed to start doing in februari to be ready in time for spacecraft integration to be completed for an april launch window. The fact ULA didn't start means that Boeing told them probably in January not to bother. It's at the very least not very nice of them to then point the finger at ULA for short launch window, which they knew about for a LONG time.

        1. don't you hate it when you lose your account

          Software

          Was the abort software written by the 737 max team

          1. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: Software

            Beat me to it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "That left them a 2 day launch window in April, (which is f*&k all) so rather than risk it, theyve gone to where they can have a proper window in August."

        Not really. Even their excuses sound like "we think that we might be late, so we think that we'll make the decision to definitely be late instead"

  2. Hopalong
    FAIL

    BS

    NASA Spaceflight (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/) takes a very dim view of Boeing trying to blame ULA for the delays.

    Worth a read.

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: BS

      Worth a link as well.

      1. JassMan

        Re: BS

        Having fully read the original article and your link, IMHO, it is much more likely that Boeing have bottled it. The most likely scenario is that with the loss of two 737s, they decided to double check all their software and may have found some possibly dubious assumptions. As the NASA article states, Boeing have known the window was only 2 days for a long time and have left it rather late to reschedule.

        Rats. Just noticed a similar post while typing.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: BS

          Much as I think Boeing is likely to be found at fault with the 737s, I don't think the problems are related. The space programme work is entirely separate not least because it's for the government.

          1. not.known@this.address

            Re: BS

            Charlie, Boeing raised merry hell because Airbus were receiving money from EU coffers - apparently it is "unfair" that a commercial company should receive state aid.

            Apparently there are absolutely NO similarities between that, and Boeing being given exclusive access to NASA aerospace research (CCVs, laminar airflow, high speed/high altitude flight, high-alpha flight to name just a few) or being paid to develop new technologies for military aircraft which just happen to appear soon after in their commercial aircraft too

            .

            Is Boeing's Starliner and any associated hardware going to be used exclusively for US Government launches, or are Boeing going to offer the service to other, non-USG, customers?

            Boeing's work, like all corporations, is for the benefit of the shareholders and any good stuff that benefits other people is a happy accident (and a missed marketing opportunity).

          2. A.P. Veening Silver badge

            Re: BS

            Much as I think Boeing is likely to be found at fault with the 737s, I don't think the problems are related. The space programme work is entirely separate not least because it's for the government.

            But both problems are provably related, both are bean counter driven. The problems will be solved very quickly once the bean counters are replaced by competent engineers. Of course Boeing will first have to hire a lot of competent engineers as those already left in disgust of the bean counter culture.

        2. imanidiot Silver badge

          Re: BS

          It's not a software problem. They bungled it months ago (before the 737 debacle) when they found a failure in the launch abort system fuel valves. They're not ready for a pad abort test, and this test HAS to be done before the OFT can be performed. If you have read the full article you have read they must have informed ULA months ago not to start stacking the rocket, again before the 737 debacle.

          1. Gnoitall
            Alert

            Re: BS

            I'm just amazed ULA is allowing itself to be scapegoated* for schedule problems caused by Boeing's development issues.

            *I mean, the last I looked ULA hasn't pushed back. Maybe they think "it'll all be worth it when they pay us, and we don't want SpaceX getting this business just because we objected out loud and made the customer look bad."

            1. Hopalong

              Re: BS

              ULA is 50% owned by Boeing, the other 50% being Lockheed Martin.

  3. steamnut

    Software glitches?

    Maybe they are sharing the software from another project and they are having to change the message from "pull up, pull up" to "abort abort". Either way, Boeing are not having a good year so far and any failures with their name attached will not go down well.....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Software glitches?

      I think they have nailed the going down part.....oh now I see what you did there.

  4. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

    "We remain diligent, with a safety-first culture"

    Good luck convincing the world about that.

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: "We remain diligent, with a safety-first culture"

      No need for luck, I believe them, it is just a different safety (their bonuses, not lives and planes).

  5. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Schedule slip

    Russian engines are on back order?

  6. Tikimon
    Facepalm

    Possiblity - Boeing has simply Lost It in a general sense.

    "The US Air Force said Tuesday it had halted for a second time the acceptance of new KC-46 tankers due to ongoing quality issues. Air Force inspectors had discovered "foreign object debris" in the new planes that should not have been there as well as other areas "where Boeing did not meet quality standards.""

    For the SECOND time! So let's see, 737 Max designed with deathtrap "safety" features. Starliner falling ever more behind schedule. Now they can't even build a tanker without littering the airframe with trash and tools, even after having deliveries refused once already. Looks like Boeing have generally lost it. Would Not Recommend.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-04-pentagon-boeing-tanker-deliveries-quality.html

    1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

      Re: Possiblity - Boeing has simply Lost It in a general sense.

      "Air Force inspectors had discovered 'foreign object debris' in the new planes"

      Strange. Boeing was supposed to have adopted Toyota's Kanban system for lean manufacturing. No more mechanics grabbing a box of bolts and their own tools and haphazardly assembling stuff as they went. You have a job to install three bolts, you get a box with three bolts, plus tracking paperwork and the proper tool certified for that job. And if you don't turn the box, paper and tool back in, the job is not complete. Nobody should have extraneous parts or tools to leave rattling around in the fuselage. Perhaps the odd lunchbox or Hustler magazine. But that's about it.

  7. Beachrider

    It was the Armstrong lever arms...

    Since the rockets, themselves, are the same as ULA stuff for years...

    It has to be something about the special parts of the capsule. Doggone MGB parts are SO hard to find!

  8. Mike 16

    Can I dream

    that the current wave of trademark necromancy (Atari, Mini, Sinclair, AT&T, HP?) will be to re-animate Pan Am in time for the first Boeing launch, so, after all, we get to see a Boeing craft in Pan Am livery dock with a lovely 1950s design space station (with a nice Waltz playing, but nobody will hear it because space...)?

  9. Cynicalmark
    Devil

    Just simply incompetent

    Smells like Crossrail type disaster coming. Public money divided by greedy shareholders equals shortcuts and delays to something that will need constant repair and replacement.

    Go SpaceX et al - shaft the Dinosaur all the way

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon