A rocket made by Boeing or SpaceX?
I know the aircraft and rockets are not really linked but Boeing are getting a bit of a rep for cutting costs and stuff not working (see the Starliner failure to make proper orbit a few weeks ago) while the SpaceX Dragon made a perfect autonomous docking
Think I'd rather be atop a SpaceX ship that made by a company with a very good rep, flies a lot and has nailed the ability to be incredibly cool
What are the failure rates of both manufacturers? I’ll go with the lowest one.
I'll wager that one has made substantially more vehicles than the other... (-:
I'd rather go in an actual spaceship with one of those hybrid jet/rocket engines being developed. Far cooler.
Re Boeing, they've carried a lot more passengers than SpaceX have in their time.
I’d rather fly a Y-Wing than travel in a Boeing
Interesting choices, a new startup Tech company or an established passenger/cargo distribution company.
Is there really a choice?
Why not work together of the proposition, both companies would benefit and the ultimate aim.
A rocket made by Boeing or SpaceX?
Neither. I'd take the Russian bus instead. It's about $90M (return). Went around the Kennedy Space Centre last year, and all they kept saying was how much it cost to send an American to space on that bus. The last Us manned space flight was in 2011.
If pushed, SpaceX.
The Apollo 1 accident didn’t stop the astronauts on any subsequent flights.
No but it led to a hugely redesigned capsule to try and increase astronaut safety which delyed the program. NASA's safety Shuttle safety record is not exactly unblemished either. I'd always choose Russian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Funny you should mention Russia.
One of the most selfless acts you'll ever come across, by someone most will never have heard of:
The Russian rockets are limited in what they can do. It's like choosing a Ford Model T over a Mondeo. The Russian rockets couldn't do what the Shuttle, or Saturn V rockets did and whenever the Russians have tried to design a new rocket system they've failed spectacularly...remember their attempts at a shuttle? So the Russians have made one very successful rocket system which they've been using for 50 years. It couldn't have put a man on the moon (their attempts at a rocket to do that failed to even make one flight with one resulting in the largest non-nuclear explosion ever recorded), couldn't have built the International Space Station, couldn't have put large satellites like the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit.
So yes, if you want to just stay in your safe zone and not progress then go Russian, but if you want to push the boundaries then you need to continuously develop your kit and that is where the risks are.
Interesting choices, a new startup Tech company or an established passenger/cargo distribution company.
Is there really a choice?
TBF Boeing are not a passenger/cargo distribution company, they make planes.
And if you're going to play that card then SpaceX have launched and run the worlds largest satellite constellation - and launched at least once a month in 2019 and are aiming to double that in 2020.
The Apollo 1 accident didn’t stop the astronauts on any subsequent flights
And why did the capsule go on fire? Because of appalling build quality.
Hmmmm 🤔.
remember their attempts at a shuttle?
And why did the capsule go on fire? Because of appalling build quality.
Hmmmm 🤔.
It wasn't built by Boeing though.
So yes, if you want to just stay in your safe zone and not progress then go Russian, but if you want to push the boundaries then you need to continuously develop your kit and that is where the risks are.
You do know that SpaceX and Boeing abandoned the rocket engine technology of the Shuttle (60’s) and moved back to the tried and tested Apollo rocket engines designed in the 50’s? I had a long chat with a retired Boeing/Apollo engineer at the Saturn rocket hall and it was fascinating.
BTW more American astronauts have died flying T38 jet trainers than cosmonauts in total.
I’ll take the Soyuz thanks. The Land Rover Defenders of the rocket world.
I've been to SpaceX's factory, and have had dealings with Boeing. If it was my ar*e in the rocket it would be Boeing every time.
If I wanted to get something new and innovative made in the shortest possible time, and didn't mind if it blew up a bit in the process, it would be SpaceX.
It's amazing how people's perceptions are affected. What is it, two 737 MAX crashes now? And millions of people EVERY DAY flying around the world in Boeing planes without any incident, including probably tens or hundreds of thousands in the air right now. And probably most of you many times.
EDIT some estimates suggest there are half a million people in the air at any one time - holy crap! - and that roughly half of all airliners are made by Boeing.
whenever the Russians have tried to design a new rocket system they’ve failed spectacularly…remember their attempts at a shuttle?
It was (lack of) political will that killed the Buran, not anything technical. It could have been a fine ship.
It’s one (totally automated) flight was flawless.
The Russian rockets couldn’t do what the Shuttle, or Saturn V rockets did and whenever the Russians have tried to design a new rocket system they’ve failed spectacularly…remember their attempts at a shuttle?
The Buran launched, orbited, re-entered and landed on a runway automatically - on it's first and only spaceflight. That's pretty outstanding for 1988, not even the Shuttle managed that. The Buran was designed with liquid fueled boosters which could be throttled, unlike the Shuttle's solid fuel booster that caused the Challenger accident.
Russian rockets and spacecraft are reliable, no-one has died in a Soyuz since 1971 - I've no idea how many crewed launches of Soyuz capsules that there's been since, but I am sure that it'll run into three figures.
Jesus, that picture of the open casket was a bit of a shock when I realized what I was looking at.
Funny you should mention Russia.
One of the most selfless acts you’ll ever come across, by someone most will never have heard of:
Only, if you read the follow up in that link, it may not have happened that way at all.
You do know that SpaceX and Boeing abandoned the rocket engine technology of the Shuttle (60’s) and moved back to the tried and tested Apollo rocket engines designed in the 50’s?
NASA are using the shuttle main engines (RocketDyne?) on the first stage of their big dumb booster. They are very reliable - I believe there was never a main engine failure on a shuttle launch and they were used in excess of their original design parameters (Shuttle main engine throttle went up to 110%)
spacex has not taken any passengers yet. Are their rockets reliable enough? Do they accelerate at survivable rates? Its the reentry at survivable rates of aceleration?
I do not know the answers to this but I would go with a soyuz as above - the landrover of space. simple, cheap, reliable
KISS
Interesting choices, a new startup Tech company or an established passenger/cargo distribution company.
Is there really a choice?
TBF Boeing are not a passenger/cargo distribution company, they make planes.
For established passenger/cargo distribution companies
💁♂️
Russians have made one very successful rocket system which they’ve been using for 50 years. It ... couldn’t have built the International Space Station
Except of course the very parts of the ISS that it did launch. Starting with the very first part.
Having dealt with SpaceX and the space debris it is launching,... I'd pick Boeing
Never been to the SpaceX factory. Only the Soyuz one. Oh and the Shuttle VAB shortly after the first shuttle disaster. And the Ariane 4 and Ariane 5 facilities in Kourou.
I wouldn't bet on the Russians too heavily, well at least not historically!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
Back in the days of the cold war, the Russians took massive risks to try to get ahead of the americans, and it bit them hard!
the landrover of space. simple, cheap, reliable
The Taliban, African warlords, etc. prefer Toyotas for their gun trucks.
Soyuz, Space-x or Boeing are all a bit meh. They'll get you to low earth orbit and back with re-entry speeds of about 7.8km/s. If you want to go anywhere interesting (like the moon) you'll need an Apollo. That'll keep you alive for a couple of weeks and cope with re-entry speeds of over 11km/s.
I love some of the failed landings in that SpaceX video, it's like they're rockets from Hollywood. They land ok-ish, wobble a bit, fall over in slow motion then KABOOM! It's like a crash in the A-Team where the slightest impact causes the whole thing to go up, throwing blue-jeaned henchmen everywhere.
That spacex video is great but does kind of miss the point that these were all development fails trying to do something that nobody else thought was plausible. Skip forward a couple of years and now they're landing and reusing boosters as a matter of course- they have one that's done 4 launches and will fly again.
Except of course the very parts of the ISS that it did launch. Starting with the very first part.
It put the whole of mir up there (in sections) by the mid 80s didn't it?
Soyuz, Space-x or Boeing are all a bit meh. They’ll get you to low earth orbit and back with re-entry speeds of about 7.8km/s. If you want to go anywhere interesting (like the moon) you’ll need an Apollo. That’ll keep you alive for a couple of weeks and cope with re-entry speeds of over 11km/s.
Space X could in theory slow itself down in space before re-entry. Not sure if they plan to do this with it mind.
Space X could in theory slow itself down in space before re-entry. Not sure if they plan to do this with it mind.
Not coming back from the moon it couldn't. Unless Elon Musk has invented an anti-gravity drive.
I think I'll book my trip on the Lockheed Martin Orion - that's the direct successor to Apollo.
Not coming back from the moon it couldn’t. Unless Elon Musk has invented an anti-gravity drive.
He's invented a thruster that can reverse thrust in the direction of travel, this is what it does when it lands on the launchpad. The issue will be if the extra fuel required to do this is worth lugging up into space and back.
except of course the very parts of the ISS that it did launch.
A few token bits and pieces...the shuttle had double the payload capability of the Russian Soyuz and capability as a platform once up in orbit so handled all the proper large and heavy modules.
It was (lack of) political will that killed the Buran, not anything technical. It could have been a fine ship.
The Titanic could have been a fine ship too. Heard the same about concordski..but the reality was it was hugely technically flawed (both concordski and Buran). The space race was a political venture..of course with unlimited resources the human race is capable of great things..almost unlimited, but without the resources you can't achieve diddly squat. The US had the resources...the Soviet Union didn't. They lost out as a result - couldn't develop the technology beyond Soyuz. But Soyuz is good enough for what it does.
The Buran launched, orbited, re-entered and landed on a runway automatically – on it’s first and only spaceflight. That’s pretty outstanding for 1988,
The Cat 3 auto land system was invented and put into civilian passenger aircraft over 20 years earlier. So not quite pushing the boundaries even for 1988. A doddle for a nation that had intercontinental ballistic missile technology at the time. Also Apollo took off automatically and landed the lunar landers on the moon automatically (mostly) 20 years before.
OK I'm being an awkward arse and the correct engineering solution is any that works, and the Soyuz works for what it does...but it can't do much and can't continue shouldering the burden given the ambitions we have going forward - basically it's only good for servicing the ISS and putting up small satellites. It's old technology and severely limited with no scope for further development. So you can't compare Soyuz to the latest generation of rocket systems. They're completely different built for completely different purposes.
But for me, strap me to any - Soyuz, Boeing, Space X...whatever. Going into space is never completely safe but the opportunity to go would be amazing and not to be passed up. I'll take my chances.
This article basically argues that Boeing's woes stem from the merger with McDonnell Douglas.
A company once driven by engineers became driven by finance
For about 80 years, Boeing basically functioned as an association of engineers. Its executives held patents, designed wings, spoke the language of engineering and safety as a mother tongue. Finance wasn’t a primary language. Even Boeing’s bean counters didn’t act the part. As late as the mid-’90s, the company’s chief financial officer had minimal contact with Wall Street and answered colleagues’ requests for basic financial data with a curt “Tell them not to worry.”
By the time I visited the company—for Fortune, in 2000—that had begun to change. In Condit’s office, overlooking Boeing Field, were 54 white roses to celebrate the day’s closing stock price. The shift had started three years earlier, with Boeing’s “reverse takeover” of McDonnell Douglas—so-called because it was McDonnell executives who perversely ended up in charge of the combined entity, and it was McDonnell’s culture that became ascendant. “McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money,” went the joke around Seattle. Condit was still in charge, yes, and told me to ignore the talk that somebody had “captured” him and was holding him “hostage” in his own office. But Stonecipher was cutting a Dick Cheney–like figure, blasting the company’s engineers as “arrogant” and spouting Harry Trumanisms (“I don’t give ’em hell; I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell”) when they shot back that he was the problem.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/
It was (lack of) political will that killed the Buran, not anything technical. It could have been a fine ship.
No, it was the complete collapse of the Soviet Union, and, quite literally, no money to continue.
Buran was virtually identical to the Shuttle*, except it had no engines, only manoeuvring thrusters, and it wasn’t flown, it was just a dumb glider with no means for a pilot to take manual control.
*The KGB had obtained plans for the Shuttle.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-russia-tried-build-its-very-own-space-shuttle-112716