Parker Solar Probe early returns:

[URL="https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784761596/probe-gets-close-to-the-sun-finds-rogue-plasma-waves-and-flipping-magnetic-field"]https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784761596/probe-gets-close-to-the-sun-finds-rogue-plasma-waves-and-flipping-magnetic-field[/URL]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;524686]..And Starhopper completed its test flight.[/QUOTE]

Reportedly, the next Starliner flight will be crewed and a commanding officer has been picked. I do not know what the issue was last time when it returned. Something to do with the ISS from what I gather. Either way, we need our own ride to the station so we can stop hitchhiking on Soyuz missions.

[QUOTE=storm5510;533671]Reportedly, the next Starliner flight will be crewed and a commanding officer has been picked. I do not know what the issue was last time when it returned. Something to do with the ISS from what I gather. Either way, we need our own ride to the station so we can stop hitchhiking on Soyuz missions.[/QUOTE]See also [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=533289&postcount=12]this post[/url] [i]et seq[/i] (click on thread title in upper right).

It would appear SpaceX is going to beat everyone. Their crew-capable Dragon passed its last test. They probably will not wait long to let humans take a ride.

There once was a "space race." Now it's a demolition derby.
 

[url]https://apnews.com/a83a0c8b152bb8f393c1500bd3fed739[/url]
[quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Defective software could have doomed Boeing’s crew capsule during its first test flight, a botched trip that was cut short and never made it to the International Space Station, NASA and company officials said Friday.

The Starliner capsule launched without astronauts in December, but its automatic timer was off by 11 hours, preventing the capsule from flying to the space station as planned. This software trouble — which left the capsule in the wrong orbit just after liftoff — set off a scramble to find more possible coding errors, Boeing officials said.
Hours before the Starliner's scheduled touchdown, a second software mistake was discovered, this time involving the Starliner's service module. Flight controllers rushed to fix the problem, which could have caused the cylinder to slam into the capsule once jettisoned during reentry.

Such an impact could have sent the Starliner into a tumble, said Jim Chilton, a senior vice president for Boeing. In addition, damage to the Starliner's heat shield could have caused the capsule to burn up on reentry, he noted.

He also conceded they wouldn’t have found the second problem without the first.
<snip>[/quote]
Perhaps managers thought they could save some time, or the bean-counters thought they could save a few bucks, by not bothering to check the code before they put it in control of a billion-dollar spacecraft.

But wait -- there's more! There's short-term thinking, and then there's not having enough mental capacity to handle a no-brainer:[quote]NASA has yet to decide whether Boeing should conduct another test flight without a crew, before putting astronauts on board.[/quote]

I always knew that clockwork would make a come-back.

[url]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-wants-your-help-designing-a-venus-rover-concept[/url]

I wonder if something based round a lobster eye with a photo-sensitive phase-change material would work? Use a shutter mechanism to expose the detectors and magnify the volume changes with a set of levers. The dark points when the shutters are closed would reset the detector ready for the next exposure.

Any volunteers?
 

Ahh, a new post to this thread. Excellent! I had forgotten to post a mention of this March 6 story.

[url=https://apnews.com/32280451a00709e676438424696d8ca9]Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule[/url] (my emphasis)[quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Boeing faces 61 safety fixes following last year's botched test flight of its Starliner crew capsule, NASA said Friday.

NASA has also designated December's aborted space station mission as a serious "high-visibility close call" that could have destroyed the capsule — twice.

[b]In releasing the outcome of a joint investigation, NASA said it still has not decided whether to require Boeing to launch the Starliner again without a crew, or go straight to putting astronauts on board.[/b]

Douglas Loverro, NASA's human exploration and operation chief, told reporters that Boeing must first present a plan and schedule for the 61 corrective actions. Boeing expects to have a plan in NASA's hands by the end of this month.

Loverro said the space agency wants to verify, among other things, that Boeing has retested all the necessary software for Starliner.

"[b]At the end of the day, what we have got to decide is ... do we have enough confidence to say we are ready to fly with a crew or do we believe that we need another uncrewed testing[/b]," Loverro said.[/quote]They're even [i]thinking[/i] about going straight to manned flights with this thing? Or is "thinking" even the right word?

:picard:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;539789]Ahh, a new post to this thread. Excellent! I had forgotten to post a mention of this March 6 story.

[URL="https://apnews.com/32280451a00709e676438424696d8ca9"]Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule[/URL] (my emphasis)They're even [I]thinking[/I] about going straight to manned flights with this thing? Or is "thinking" even the right word?

:picard:[/QUOTE]This is the same agency that sacrificed two space shuttles with all hands and payloads in a futile attempt to maintain a much reduced schedule, and also thereby did serious damage to the schedule. Much reduced schedule from the initial unjustified hype, that is. Both catastrophic losses were the result of launches in cold January weather. At least one against engineering advice.

[QUOTE=kriesel;539804]This is the same agency that sacrificed two space shuttles with all hands and payloads in a futile attempt to maintain a much reduced schedule, and also thereby did serious damage to the schedule. Much reduced schedule from the initial unjustified hype, that is. Both catastrophic losses were the result of launches in cold January weather. At least one against engineering advice.[/QUOTE]
O-rings (and political pressure) in one and ice damage in the other.

[QUOTE=kladner;539832]O-rings (and political pressure) in one and ice damage in the other.[/QUOTE]Yes. As an engineer who became one after watching Apollo missions in live prime time TV coverage, and subsequently involved in redesign and producing a shuttle payload that missed being lost by one launch date and so was delayed by 4 years, I'm very familiar with the failure mechanisms both technical and managerial. There was a consistent drive to obtain acceptable risk numbers. (The damage probability estimates were cooked at NASA to provide the desired outcomes. Repeatedly.) A professor I worked with applied to be a mission specialist, but ended up as ground support expert instead. That and timing saved his life and his instrument.

Challenger:
I am convinced that pressure from the top had NASA Admin overruling the engineers on the launch parameters. The Gipper was making a speech that night. It would be in character for him to point at the ceiling and husk out, "At this moment a Teacher in Space is inspiring our KIDS!"
He probably got more mileage out of the Sad Announcement, and made the Teacher in Space into The Martyr who never made it to Space.

There is a short story involving one of the Morton Thiokol engineers who was so guilt-stricken by the disaster that he arranged shaped charges to blow the wings off the Morton Thiokol corporate jet (with him and the administrators on board) at an altitude which would have the occupants falling for the same length of time as the astronauts. When the charges go off he is finally at peace.

Maybe someone like Allan McDonald was an inspiration for the story.
[URL]https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_Colloquium1012.html[/URL]