←back to thread

NASA freezes Starliner missions

(gizmodo.com)
269 points rntn | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
OutOfHere ◴[19 Oct 24 14:32 UTC] No.41887967[source]▶
> The space agency will now judge how the Starliner could be eventually certified to fly

Methinks this will require firing all Boeing management, and taking it private :)

replies(2): >>41888012 #>>41891192 #
butterlettuce ◴[19 Oct 24 14:39 UTC] No.41888012[source]▶
I’m all for Elon buying it and trusting that he makes the necessary changes.
replies(7): >>41888047 #>>41888059 #>>41888098 #>>41888300 #>>41888492 #>>41889899 #>>41889929 #
1. Karellen ◴[19 Oct 24 19:08 UTC] No.41889899[source]▶
Part of the benefit of having Starliner and SpX is redundancy. Having multiple vendors to choose from/have compete each other/use as backups if one is grounded, is a large part of the point. Having anyone, including Musk, have control over both defeats the purpose of redundancy.
replies(2): >>41890773 #>>41891050 #
2. lupusreal ◴[19 Oct 24 21:02 UTC] No.41890773[source]▶
Soyuz already provides redundancy, albeit not exactly commercial competition. The whole point of the ride sharing agreement with Russia is to prevent both countries from having the other rely on a single vehicle, to ensure the station can continue to operate if either America or Russia is grounded.

Anyway, Boeing isn't a serious competitor to SpaceX and the money should be given to another instead. This should have been done several years ago, but as they say, the second best time to plant an apple tree is now.

3. JumpCrisscross ◴[19 Oct 24 21:54 UTC] No.41891050[source]▶
> the benefit of having Starliner and SpX is redundancy

Starliner provides zero redundancy. It doesn’t work. If it did, it can’t spin up quickly enough. If it could, it has a limited number of shots for having been designed for an obsolete launch vehicle