At least one thing was successful with the first flight of the Boeing Starliner.  The flight failed to achieve correct orbit, but the capsule successfully returned to earth.

https://apnews.com/d941852c59a4811603a8ab3611a3cb8f

They brought it home in one piece so that's what counts. Having Astronauts on board will make a difference with the systems when they are ready for that.

Sure looks like we took a flying leap backwards in the way we do things. That was Apollo 50 years ago.

3 hours ago, mwilk said:

Sure looks like we took a flying leap backwards in the way we do things. That was Apollo 50 years ago.

I disagree. This is the first American crew capsule to land on the ground. Although Starliner wasn`t crewed during this test flight it demonstrated that despite automation failures  ground control could avoid catastrophy..  A flight crew will add more options when things go wrong; and they always will in space. But the mission objective was to rendez-vous with the ISS.  That did not happen. No Christmas gifts this year for the ISS crew. And no cigar for Boeing in 2019. 

Proof Apollo got it right, look at Orion, Space X, and Starliner all basically copies of Apollo, should've kept the Saturn V, updated it.

9 hours ago, jymp said:

Proof Apollo got it right, look at Orion, Space X, and Starliner all basically copies of Apollo, should've kept the Saturn V, updated it.

I agree Apollo was the better concept. Soyuz with its 1800 or so launches has now become the B-737 of rockets, no rocket has caught up to that kind of success and that concept is absolutely the proven one over time.

What NASA got wrong was the Space Shuttle, thinking reusable was going to be cheaper compared to Apollo's single use, however the Space Shuttle became a money pit that sucked the NASA budget limiting other projects for decades, and way too slow turnaround times. Soyuz proved that was the better concept, cheap and nasty launches because ultimately all your trying to do is launch people and payload into space, the Space Shuttle was too excessive for that purpose.

I know a lot of people love the Space Shuttle but the reality is Soyuz ended up being the better success story performance and budget wise, and for the past 8 years Soyuz had become America's UBER into Space.

Soyuz Rocket 1854 Launches, 3 orbital fatalities (oxygen failure), 1 parachute failure fatality
Space Shuttle 134 Launches, 14 Fatalities
Atlas Rocket 585 Launches
Saturn V 13 Launches, 3 fatalities (Platform Test)

7 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Saturn V 13 Launches, 3 fatalities (Platform Test)

Matthew,

The fire in the Apollo Command Module (CM) really had nothing to do with the Saturn V launch vehicle, not yet fully assembled at the time of the fire. 

At the time of the fire, the Apollo CM was sitting on top of the smaller Saturn lB, used for CM test flight in earth orbit.

The cause of the fire was, an atmosphere of 100% oxygen and faulty wiring (bad craftsmanship), in the CM.

The CM was completely redesigned, which took 1 1/2 year. 

3 hours ago, soerennielsen said:

The fire in the Apollo Command Module (CM) really had nothing to do with the Saturn V launch vehicle, not yet fully assembled at the time of the fire. 

This was why I put (Platform Test) in my post. I know it had nothing to do with the launch vehicle, it was important because it reshaped the Apollo mission and became the second most important event (next to a foot on the moon) as everything they did from that point on was in memory of those three, it changed the culture at that time.

The 4 deaths of those cosmonauts, 3 from oxygen failure in orbit and the one failure of the parachute had nothing to do with the launch vehicle either. The oxygen failure was also an extremely significant event as well.

The 14 deaths in the Space Shuttle were direct result of equipment failure during a launch (O-Ring Failure and Foam breaking loose damaging the shuttle). Space Shuttle has become the worst safety record of all time in space exploration.

One thing the Soyuz and Saturn V have in common is the escape system. Saturn V never got to use it however Soyuz has successfully used that system saving the people on board during a launch. There was no way to have an escape system with the Space Shuttle, they were doomed.

You are right Matthew.

But, I think,  you should not have pointed the death of the 3 astronauts to the Saturn V. It happened in a training session in the Apollo program, but has absolutely nothing to do with the Saturn V rocket. Put it on the Apollo program, but not on the Saturn V. The Saturn V had a 100% launch record, and no fatalities on any of its flights. Remarkable! And don't forget it is still the most powerful rocket ever launched from earth. Designed i the early 60's without very much help from computers.

But a hell of a lot of engineers and slide rules.   

The Saturn V is the real BEAST. Nothing more powerful, except a nuclear bomb, have ever been made on earth.    

 

On 12/23/2019 at 3:03 AM, Matthew Kane said:

I agree Apollo was the better concept. Soyuz with its 1800 or so launches has now become the B-737 of rockets, no rocket has caught up to that kind of success and that concept is absolutely the proven one over time.

What NASA got wrong was the Space Shuttle, thinking reusable was going to be cheaper compared to Apollo's single use, however the Space Shuttle became a money pit that sucked the NASA budget limiting other projects for decades, and way too slow turnaround times. Soyuz proved that was the better concept, cheap and nasty launches because ultimately all your trying to do is launch people and payload into space, the Space Shuttle was too excessive for that purpose.

I know a lot of people love the Space Shuttle but the reality is Soyuz ended up being the better success story performance and budget wise, and for the past 8 years Soyuz had become America's UBER into Space.

Soyuz Rocket 1854 Launches, 3 orbital fatalities (oxygen failure), 1 parachute failure fatality
Space Shuttle 134 Launches, 14 Fatalities
Atlas Rocket 585 Launches
Saturn V 13 Launches, 3 fatalities (Platform Test)

I wholeheartedly agree Matthew, (except the 3 fatalities with Saturn V, the largest most powerful machine man ever created to this day never killed anyone) the Shuttle never seemed to me to be a good idea at all, first the launch concept, putting it BESIDE the external fuel tank and SRB's, crazy idea, should have at least put it on top of all that, no LES either, Challenger may have had a chance that way, anyway it's hindsight now, NASA should have never done the Shuttle, kept Apollo/Saturn 1B & V, updated both capsule & Saturn boosters, slowing down launches to save money, but they would've be there when needed, instead they throw out the Saturn's, put all their eggs in the Shuttle basket, worst decision in spaceflight history.

Edited December 24, 20196 yr by jymp