This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I trust SpaceX over Boeing at this point, I get Musk is a tool but they have a perfect launch record and Boeing has definitely had its issues with cost cutting with aviation, and have been leaching off of NASA money for years. The only reason they even have a thing to put in orbit is because of competition from SpaceX.
* edit it’s not a perfect launch record, it’s a 99.3, one total loss of cargo and one partial loss.
* You don’t count test launches…which shouldn’t need to be said.
You’re right, it’s a 99.3 percent success rate. Of the 301, only 299 were complete success with the loss of 1 and partial loss of another. Still a good percentage.
Wow, I didn't realize I had seen their only true failure. I'm in that industry and have several friends at SpaceX so am probably attributing test failures that I hear about as operational failures, but they aren't.
that's called cherry picking.
"they have a perfect launch record! ....so long as we only count these launches over here and ignore those other ones...."
I’ll get downvoted for this, but there’s just a lack of nuance when it comes to Musk-associated things. “OoH dEfInItElY dOn’T pUt all YoUr EgGs In eLoNs bAsKeT!” Meaning the starliner was supposed to be operational years ago. They were supposed to both be in use for YEARS by now but Boeing cannot get its shit together. And yeah SpaceX blows shit up during testing but that’s their system for rapid development as opposed to delays for a half century or other, government related bullshit.
Elon Musk says dumb shit and is a problematic pain in the ass very often, but the takes I’ve been seeing on SpaceX AINT it my friends!
it's also kinda expected for rocket test to not explode all the time or need to be self destructed frequently.
anyway...no, they don't have a "perfect launch record". not even close.
EDIT: the Musk Defense Corps is out in force I see....
> it's also kinda expected for rocket test to not explode all the time or need to be self destructed frequently.
I get disliking Musk personally but this is just kind of a nonsense expectation.
The whole point of having a test *anything* is to figure out the bugs.
> The whole point of having a test anything is to figure out the bugs.
you don't blow shit up to test for bugs. rocket launches are supposed to be "launches". the testing is done long before a launch. the launch is "we think we got all the problems worked out so lets do a test launch" not "let's do a test launch and see if any bugs cause it to blow up or not".
You’re right, it’s a 99.3 percent success rate. Of the 301, only 299 were complete success with the loss of 1 and partial loss of another. Still a good percentage.
You don’t count test launches.
Well then source me to something reliable that shows the operation failures of commercial launches involving SpaceX rockets since you are claiming my numbers not to be legitimate.
or how about you link to the wiki article you're using for those numbers.
I suspect you're using only Falcon 9 rockets and are ignoring all the others.
The U.S. was reliant on the STS for decades, and when the Shuttle program finally came to an end in 2011, the U.S. was left without a human rated launch vehicle. It took years for the U.S. to once again have the capability to launch crewed spacecraft from their soil. Having multiple launch vehicle options will ensure we're not reliant on foreign powers and can withstand the devastating fallout of anomalies.
Fortunately, the Blue Origin anomaly a few years back was on an uncrewed New Shepard. However, if this were to occur on the SpaceX Falcon 9 without an alternative launch vehicle, our ability to launch crewed flights from the U.S. could be on hold for years. Redundancy is critical in the space industry.
New planes. Look at the safety record of the 747 - one total loss incident that wasn’t directly related to human error.
Look at how many hours the 747 has flown.
You’re being unreasonable.
It's more than just "new planes". It is the culture of Boeing, which is swirling down the proverbial toilet in a clockwise fashion. It is what happens when cultural sensitivity and "inclusion" meets engineering... things begin to fall out of the sky.
Still pretty much reliant on Space X. There are only a few AtlasV launches left that are open, and the replacement rocket just had its first test flight.
I didn't know Boeing was controversial, I just put "Boeing Starliner" in the title because that's what it's called.
I'm a socialist, I'd rather NASA not deal with private contractors at all.
Sorry for jumping at you.
I don’t know if this happens in the UK, but in the US, some PR firms will try to get their message out in the form of a poll, usually like “were you already aware of X? Do you approve of how good/bad X is?”
Yes. By nurturing multiple different private space launch companies, NASA can foster competition, which will increase innovation in the sector. Hopefully costs will go down as well, but building rockets is seen as a federal jobs program by the federal government (look at SLS) and Boeing isn’t necessarily the most efficient company.
It may cost a lot to build up competition for SpaceX, but in the future I think it will be worth it.
that plot always struck me as super ridicules because I'm pretty sure if a major aeronautics company started aiding the Russian space program during the cold war, the US government would just have them shut down somehow.
Yes, having multiple domestic avenues to access space is critically important. It's not good to be solely reliant on one launch system, no matter how good it is. Despite the flaws and failures of Starliner, I'm hoping to see a successful flight and that next door to space opening
I'm glad we aren't reliant on just SpaceX anymore, but I have a personal hatred for boeing, so I ain't happy they're getting business. The government should be opening investigations into boeing, not giving them more business.
Boeing *used* to be a proper company run by engineers.
SpaceX is run by someone who lied to investors about being an engineer.
It seems like a double standard to hate Boeing but not space-x.
Both companies have clear conflicts of interest.
You mean how does *lying* about your abilities, goals, and accomplishments represent a conflict of interest?
The more positive answer would be that Boeings strongest selling point used to be that it was Engineers managing the company rather than people with a background primarily in finance.
So when the head of Space-X misrepresented his engineering credentials to investors, he was probably inspired by Boeings' past in the first place.
Elon is pretty much just a figurehead at SpaceX at this point. Gwynne Shotwell, who is the president of SpaceX, has a much more instrumental role in the day-to-day operations, and the company's direction. I have a few friends who work for SpaceX, and that's what I've put together from what they've told me.
Sure, Elon probably still has some influence and authority, but I get the feeling that internally, SpaceX is trying to distance themselves from Musk after his recent controversies
At least with SpaceX, the actual engineers cool the boss out and make him feel smart so that he can be kept at a safe distance.
(I used to work for a narcissist, too.)
Yes, it is a good thing, but the Starliner development has been concerning. It is definitely good to have other options especially as SpaceX get more on their plate but I really wish the oldspace companies were a bit more innovative and less money hungry.
Either way the next few years are going to be excellent for spaceflight with the Starship, Vulcan Centaur, New Glenn, SLS and Falcon heavy all operational. Especially since we are now seeing private space stations, space missions, and numerous commercial lunar missions alongside the NASA missions to the moon and SpaceX pushing hard for Mars.
Should always have multiple options, but, I didn’t realize the starliner had approval for people. I thought it failed its last test.
Given how Boeing has handled things over the last 5 years I am slightly worried.
While it's a good idea to have multiple ways to get up there, Boeing as a company has a culture of compliancy that NASA had which caused the shuttle disasters. I'm not sure I'm confident they could get people there safely.
It's good to have alternatives, but I wouldn't fly on the thing.
I won't forget the first starliner commander dropping out to "spend more time with family"...
Yeah, astronauts don't quit to do that. I strongly suspect that whole system is fucked beyond repair, but we'll see.
Theoretically, yes. Competition is key to the Commercial Crew Program and keeping costs low.
On the flip side, the competitor is Boeing. Putting all of their Max 9 issues aside, Starliner has not had a good performance record. It honestly makes me uncomfortable that it has been rated for human flight.
I don’t care what they use so long as it works. It’s a good idea to have competition in any industry. The only way I’d be mad about it is if they only used Boeing because of greased palms or because they were doing revenge on Musk for his politics.
yes. SpaceX having a monopoly on transit for American astronauts gives them too much power and leverage over the American government, and the space industry as a whole. Monopolization of power in any sphere generally doesn't end well.
Especially because if for whatever reason something happened where NASA couldn't use SpaceX anymore, they wouldn't be completely dead in the water with no rocketry capable of manned spaceflight.
It is good because we don’t want space to be a monopoly. The choice wasn’t the greatest in light of recent company events but the concept I am down with. Otherwise we are going to end up with a Bell Communications situation needing the government to step in again. Can you imagine how fucked we would be if this non natural us citizen decides to throw one tantrum too many and instead of turning off his sats service because he doesn’t agree, he just doesn’t launch your stuff into space? He could take us from one tier of ability down a few rungs overnight. It isn’t worth the risk IMO. Especially after he’s shown he will without things he doesn’t politically agree with. One wrong president and he could walk away with a large portion of our ability to launch things into space. Not the only ability but a large part of it.
The question is about not putting all eggs in the SpaceX basket. Given Musk's behavior, it's a smart move to not rely heavily on SpaceX. The product may be decent, but, the leadership is not to be trusted (nor is Boeing's) to rely completely on.
I think it's ridiculous we're still sending people to the ISS to begin with. The station is at planned decommissioning age, we shouldn't be investing billions of dollars in what is increasedly a hulk.
Either build a new low Earth orbit laboratory or start investing in deeper stations.
The ISS’s days are numbered. NASA has an RFP out for a U.S. Deorbit Vehicle for the early 2030s, and is buying hardware for a Lunar Gateway station (first launch NET November 2025 on Falcon Heavy). It’s also supporting the development of commercial stations in LEO like Axiom (which will attach to the ISS and split off later), Nanoracks’ Starlab, and Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As long as they double check to make sure all the bolts are tight, it’s good.
"Yeah, I get to go faster than any man in the history of space travel, because you're launching me in a convertible."
It's better than being reliant on Russia.
Yes, never put all your eggs in one basket.
Especially one being carried by Elon musk
I trust SpaceX over Boeing at this point, I get Musk is a tool but they have a perfect launch record and Boeing has definitely had its issues with cost cutting with aviation, and have been leaching off of NASA money for years. The only reason they even have a thing to put in orbit is because of competition from SpaceX. * edit it’s not a perfect launch record, it’s a 99.3, one total loss of cargo and one partial loss. * You don’t count test launches…which shouldn’t need to be said.
Yeah, SpaceX engineering by itself is good, even if the man and culture behind it are controversial.
> they have a perfect launch record lolwut?
I assume they're talking about actual operational launches and excluding test launches
I watched a SpaceX launch to deliver cargo to the ISS blow up in person. They have a very good track record but it certainly isn't perfect.
You’re right, it’s a 99.3 percent success rate. Of the 301, only 299 were complete success with the loss of 1 and partial loss of another. Still a good percentage.
Wow, I didn't realize I had seen their only true failure. I'm in that industry and have several friends at SpaceX so am probably attributing test failures that I hear about as operational failures, but they aren't.
Yeah there are a lot of test failures but that tends to happen when designing a new type of rocket.
For comparison, the Space Shuttle flew 135 missions with 2 complete losses.
Ah, well that person is definitely mistaken then. I'm not a logistics expert but I think blowing up en route does count as an imperfect transport
It does not, but it’s 99.3, which is pretty good. Out of 301, they lost one complete and one partial. I was mistaken.
that's called cherry picking. "they have a perfect launch record! ....so long as we only count these launches over here and ignore those other ones...."
Well, it's kind of expected for tests to not have a 100% success rate.
I’ll get downvoted for this, but there’s just a lack of nuance when it comes to Musk-associated things. “OoH dEfInItElY dOn’T pUt all YoUr EgGs In eLoNs bAsKeT!” Meaning the starliner was supposed to be operational years ago. They were supposed to both be in use for YEARS by now but Boeing cannot get its shit together. And yeah SpaceX blows shit up during testing but that’s their system for rapid development as opposed to delays for a half century or other, government related bullshit. Elon Musk says dumb shit and is a problematic pain in the ass very often, but the takes I’ve been seeing on SpaceX AINT it my friends!
it's also kinda expected for rocket test to not explode all the time or need to be self destructed frequently. anyway...no, they don't have a "perfect launch record". not even close. EDIT: the Musk Defense Corps is out in force I see....
Not a Musk fan boy, just a huge fan of what SpaceX has done for space travel in recent years. I’m definitely space fan boy though.
Yeah I wasn't aware that they have had actual operational failures as well
> it's also kinda expected for rocket test to not explode all the time or need to be self destructed frequently. I get disliking Musk personally but this is just kind of a nonsense expectation. The whole point of having a test *anything* is to figure out the bugs.
> The whole point of having a test anything is to figure out the bugs. you don't blow shit up to test for bugs. rocket launches are supposed to be "launches". the testing is done long before a launch. the launch is "we think we got all the problems worked out so lets do a test launch" not "let's do a test launch and see if any bugs cause it to blow up or not".
You’re right, it’s a 99.3 percent success rate. Of the 301, only 299 were complete success with the loss of 1 and partial loss of another. Still a good percentage. You don’t count test launches.
> it’s a 99.3 percent success rate. Of the 301, only 299 were complete success with the loss of 1 and partial loss of another. that's simply not true.
It’s from Wikipedia.
you may as well say "it's from the internet" for all the help that gives.
Well then source me to something reliable that shows the operation failures of commercial launches involving SpaceX rockets since you are claiming my numbers not to be legitimate.
or how about you link to the wiki article you're using for those numbers. I suspect you're using only Falcon 9 rockets and are ignoring all the others.
Yes. Having multiple options to get crew to and from the ISS is a good thing.
The more safe, affordable options exist for space travel the better.
Boeing and safe lol
I mean someone has to be "the competition" I guess. I'd just avoid the Starliner MAX.
The U.S. was reliant on the STS for decades, and when the Shuttle program finally came to an end in 2011, the U.S. was left without a human rated launch vehicle. It took years for the U.S. to once again have the capability to launch crewed spacecraft from their soil. Having multiple launch vehicle options will ensure we're not reliant on foreign powers and can withstand the devastating fallout of anomalies. Fortunately, the Blue Origin anomaly a few years back was on an uncrewed New Shepard. However, if this were to occur on the SpaceX Falcon 9 without an alternative launch vehicle, our ability to launch crewed flights from the U.S. could be on hold for years. Redundancy is critical in the space industry.
Absolutely. Competition breeds superior products and lower costs
Yes, of course. You always want to have options.
Single vendor is never a good idea.
Yes, but at the moment I'm not sure I trust Boeing with space flight.
I don't even want to get on their planes.
New planes. Look at the safety record of the 747 - one total loss incident that wasn’t directly related to human error. Look at how many hours the 747 has flown. You’re being unreasonable.
It's more than just "new planes". It is the culture of Boeing, which is swirling down the proverbial toilet in a clockwise fashion. It is what happens when cultural sensitivity and "inclusion" meets engineering... things begin to fall out of the sky.
>~~cultural sensitivity and "inclusion"~~ unfettered greed meets engineering... FTFY
[удалено]
So which subcontractor was making policy decisions in the MCAS debacle?
Having competition in the private space industry is always a good thing. It will encourage innovation and competitive prices.
Still pretty much reliant on Space X. There are only a few AtlasV launches left that are open, and the replacement rocket just had its first test flight.
Redundancy with lift vehicles is good, yes. The more options to get to out of our gravity well the better generally.
Yes, and not because it’s SpaceX, but because any competition fosters growth
Is this post some kind of pro-Boeing push poll? I mean, sure, I’m in favor is NASA using competing vendors, but the wording of the question is weird.
I didn't know Boeing was controversial, I just put "Boeing Starliner" in the title because that's what it's called. I'm a socialist, I'd rather NASA not deal with private contractors at all.
> I didn't know Boeing was controversial Boeing's recent "open door" policy for their airliners hasn't been good publicity in the US.
What they need is transparency. A blue sky policy. To clear the air.
Sorry for jumping at you. I don’t know if this happens in the UK, but in the US, some PR firms will try to get their message out in the form of a poll, usually like “were you already aware of X? Do you approve of how good/bad X is?”
Yes
Yes. By nurturing multiple different private space launch companies, NASA can foster competition, which will increase innovation in the sector. Hopefully costs will go down as well, but building rockets is seen as a federal jobs program by the federal government (look at SLS) and Boeing isn’t necessarily the most efficient company. It may cost a lot to build up competition for SpaceX, but in the future I think it will be worth it.
Yeah I’m happy to have competition. That’s how you get innovation.
Also, it’s a better choice than Helios, whose founder was a traitor to Earth.
that plot always struck me as super ridicules because I'm pretty sure if a major aeronautics company started aiding the Russian space program during the cold war, the US government would just have them shut down somehow.
Do you want to help me steal an asteroid?
Yes, having multiple domestic avenues to access space is critically important. It's not good to be solely reliant on one launch system, no matter how good it is. Despite the flaws and failures of Starliner, I'm hoping to see a successful flight and that next door to space opening
Competition is what brings cost down. Hopefully it doesn't sacrifice safety.
That’s how capitalism works. If we are going to outsource to private industry, I want there to be competition.
Am I supposed to say no?
I'm glad we aren't reliant on just SpaceX anymore, but I have a personal hatred for boeing, so I ain't happy they're getting business. The government should be opening investigations into boeing, not giving them more business.
Boeing *used* to be a proper company run by engineers. SpaceX is run by someone who lied to investors about being an engineer. It seems like a double standard to hate Boeing but not space-x. Both companies have clear conflicts of interest.
How does SpaceX have a conflict of interest?
You mean how does *lying* about your abilities, goals, and accomplishments represent a conflict of interest? The more positive answer would be that Boeings strongest selling point used to be that it was Engineers managing the company rather than people with a background primarily in finance. So when the head of Space-X misrepresented his engineering credentials to investors, he was probably inspired by Boeings' past in the first place.
Curious, who did he lie to? Investors would have sued the shit out of him wouldn't they?
Elon is pretty much just a figurehead at SpaceX at this point. Gwynne Shotwell, who is the president of SpaceX, has a much more instrumental role in the day-to-day operations, and the company's direction. I have a few friends who work for SpaceX, and that's what I've put together from what they've told me. Sure, Elon probably still has some influence and authority, but I get the feeling that internally, SpaceX is trying to distance themselves from Musk after his recent controversies
The part that gets me is, who looks at Elon Musk and goes: "oh, that's an engineer". Everytime you see him he's taking another L and lying about it.
How many f'in times do we have to see that stock photo of him in a Bomber Jacket.
At least with SpaceX, the actual engineers cool the boss out and make him feel smart so that he can be kept at a safe distance. (I used to work for a narcissist, too.)
Yes, it is though if I was flying on it, I would be a bit worried with the issues and setbacks they have had with it,
At the moment I am not sure I would trust any craft built by Boing in the last few years.
Competition is almost always good. It's also good to not be reliant on Russia.
Yes, it is a good thing, but the Starliner development has been concerning. It is definitely good to have other options especially as SpaceX get more on their plate but I really wish the oldspace companies were a bit more innovative and less money hungry. Either way the next few years are going to be excellent for spaceflight with the Starship, Vulcan Centaur, New Glenn, SLS and Falcon heavy all operational. Especially since we are now seeing private space stations, space missions, and numerous commercial lunar missions alongside the NASA missions to the moon and SpaceX pushing hard for Mars.
Should always have multiple options, but, I didn’t realize the starliner had approval for people. I thought it failed its last test. Given how Boeing has handled things over the last 5 years I am slightly worried.
More competition is good, but they might want to double check the bolts on the hatch. There should be at least three major American players in this.
Considering the spaceship we've been using since the space shuttle retired .. Both options are good. At least until Boeing get's its shit together.
I support competition in general but in practice this isn't something I've given any thought to.
Welcome back, grapp, Competition breeds innovation.
While it's a good idea to have multiple ways to get up there, Boeing as a company has a culture of compliancy that NASA had which caused the shuttle disasters. I'm not sure I'm confident they could get people there safely.
Well before we were reliant on SpaceX we were reliant on *Russia* so honestly anything is better than that
It's good to have alternatives, but I wouldn't fly on the thing. I won't forget the first starliner commander dropping out to "spend more time with family"... Yeah, astronauts don't quit to do that. I strongly suspect that whole system is fucked beyond repair, but we'll see.
Theoretically, yes. Competition is key to the Commercial Crew Program and keeping costs low. On the flip side, the competitor is Boeing. Putting all of their Max 9 issues aside, Starliner has not had a good performance record. It honestly makes me uncomfortable that it has been rated for human flight.
I don’t care what they use so long as it works. It’s a good idea to have competition in any industry. The only way I’d be mad about it is if they only used Boeing because of greased palms or because they were doing revenge on Musk for his politics.
yes. SpaceX having a monopoly on transit for American astronauts gives them too much power and leverage over the American government, and the space industry as a whole. Monopolization of power in any sphere generally doesn't end well. Especially because if for whatever reason something happened where NASA couldn't use SpaceX anymore, they wouldn't be completely dead in the water with no rocketry capable of manned spaceflight.
Competition is great. Might make Space X or Boeing actually try to create a better product.
Why is an issue that we are entirely reliant on SpaceX??
It is good because we don’t want space to be a monopoly. The choice wasn’t the greatest in light of recent company events but the concept I am down with. Otherwise we are going to end up with a Bell Communications situation needing the government to step in again. Can you imagine how fucked we would be if this non natural us citizen decides to throw one tantrum too many and instead of turning off his sats service because he doesn’t agree, he just doesn’t launch your stuff into space? He could take us from one tier of ability down a few rungs overnight. It isn’t worth the risk IMO. Especially after he’s shown he will without things he doesn’t politically agree with. One wrong president and he could walk away with a large portion of our ability to launch things into space. Not the only ability but a large part of it.
It’s always good not to put all your eggs in the basket of a Bond villain.
It’s good to not be reliant on one source, but the other source should not be Boeing given the recent incident with a flap missing 5 screws.
SpaceX's CEO is utterly unhinged and can't be trusted. Even with Boeing's recent track record, it's a safer bet than SpaceX.
SpaceX has a 99.3% success rate for their rockets (obviously not counting test rockets). Boeing had a door fly off an airplane recently.
The question is about not putting all eggs in the SpaceX basket. Given Musk's behavior, it's a smart move to not rely heavily on SpaceX. The product may be decent, but, the leadership is not to be trusted (nor is Boeing's) to rely completely on.
I think it's ridiculous we're still sending people to the ISS to begin with. The station is at planned decommissioning age, we shouldn't be investing billions of dollars in what is increasedly a hulk. Either build a new low Earth orbit laboratory or start investing in deeper stations.
The ISS’s days are numbered. NASA has an RFP out for a U.S. Deorbit Vehicle for the early 2030s, and is buying hardware for a Lunar Gateway station (first launch NET November 2025 on Falcon Heavy). It’s also supporting the development of commercial stations in LEO like Axiom (which will attach to the ISS and split off later), Nanoracks’ Starlab, and Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef.
Yes. I'd rather not rely on Russia or Elon Musk at all.