←back to thread

269 points rntn | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
dotnet00 ◴[] No.41888001[source]
Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now.

For the fall/winter 2025 rotation they're going to plan with it being a Crew Dragon flight for now, subject to change depending on how Starliner's fixes go.

They also somewhat misleadingly say that NASA will also rely on Soyuz because of Starliner's unavailability, but that's just about the seat swap arrangement which helps to ensure that both the US and Russia can maintain a continuous presence if either side's vehicles have trouble. IIRC the agreement is expiring and NASA's interested in extending it, but Roscosmos hasn't agreed yet. I say misleading because I think they intended to extend that agreement regardless of Starliner's status.

replies(3): >>41889755 #>>41889872 #>>41899803 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41889872[source]
> Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now

No. The ISS is decommissioned in 2030 and Boeing is losing money on the programme. It makes sense for nobody to continue this charade.

replies(4): >>41890013 #>>41890240 #>>41892015 #>>41894080 #
dchichkov ◴[] No.41890240[source]
It is unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX.
replies(7): >>41890276 #>>41891464 #>>41892428 #>>41893073 #>>41893881 #>>41894305 #>>41895244 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41890276[source]
> unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX

Agree. That’s why Starliner should be killed. To open those resources to someone who actually intends to compete with SpaceX.

replies(5): >>41890413 #>>41890845 #>>41891368 #>>41893157 #>>41894950 #
dchichkov ◴[] No.41890413[source]
As long as there's competition, it is fine. Boeing fits at least that role easily. Plus, they've built the vehicle with no drama and without purchasing Twitter in the middle. This is worth something.

We see similar situation in automotive. Other companies do allow to keep Tesla in check, so there's less opportunity to force "Cybertrucks" onto the market as the only option.

replies(3): >>41891035 #>>41891066 #>>41894115 #
ben_w ◴[] No.41891066[source]
The only positive thing I can say about his purchase of Twitter was that it finally stopped me wasting time on the site.

Despite Musk's… what, breakdown? Radicalisation? Temper tantrums? Whatever that is, SpaceX is still astoundingly fast at both launching stuff to orbit and also making new and better rockets than almost everyone else on the planet combined.

I'd like to see the money that was given to Boeing, instead given to another space startup that might do something interesting.

Spin-launch, perhaps.

replies(3): >>41891165 #>>41894013 #>>41895189 #
1. Exoristos ◴[] No.41891165{3}[source]
You can just say "he has a few different opinions than my peer group" and leave it at that. Heck, you yourself can even form your own opinions -- it's fine -- don't look so aghast.
replies(2): >>41891397 #>>41893205 #
2. ben_w ◴[] No.41891397[source]
Different opinions is not the problem. My own opinions differ plenty from my peers. Even that the opinions are outside my Overton Window isn't itself a problem, because (as with most of my nationality) that window excludes the 2nd Amendment and yet I can be here on this American website.

Problem is, quite a lot of the weird stuff looks like defections in the IPD sense.

3. thinkcontext ◴[] No.41893205[source]
I put spreading conspiracy theories about Dominion voting machines (this week), plots by Jews, vaccines caused Lebron James' son to pass out, Paul Pelosi's attacker was actually his gay lover, etc in a different category than "he has a few different opinions than my peer group". Something has gone terribly wrong.
replies(1): >>41893394 #
4. smolder ◴[] No.41893394[source]
I don't think he's actually as dumb as that, he is just playing the same counter-intelligence game as other people on the right, because telling the truth isn't as advantageous for them.

People buying into that stuff are morons, but useful to the republican party all the same.

replies(1): >>41893569 #
5. ben_w ◴[] No.41893569{3}[source]
Neither I nor thinkcontext said "dumb".

What you describe is still a defection in the iterated prisoners' dilemma sense.