←back to thread

269 points rntn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.192s | 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41891035[source]
> Boeing fits at least that role

No, they don’t. Starliner is a paper competitor. The money NASA sends it ensure SpaceX maintains a practical monopoly.

Boeing is the “competitor” everyone wishes for. Sucking up the oxygen in the room a real competitor might need while doing absolutely nothing to contest your market share.

> they've built the vehicle with no drama

Late to launch, billions over budget and strands its astronauts but has a CEO you can’t remember because their planes kept falling apart is a weird way to spell “no drama.”

replies(1): >>41891331 #
1. dotnet00 ◴[] No.41891331[source]
One of the benefits of the commercial crew program was supposed to be that NASA would just be one customer of many, thus justifying why the company takes on the risk of making a fixed price bid.

Starliner does not even attempt to compete on the commercial market, it has a fixed number of Atlas V's stored away for the NASA contract, and then someone will have to cough up money to try to put it on another rocket.

So, they aren't even in the market, let alone doing anything to even appear to compete.