←back to thread

269 points rntn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
gamblor956 ◴[] No.41891368[source]
Starliner works. It had a minor issue that turned out not to be so serious. It just happens to obscenely expensive.

There are no competitors that are even remotely close to competing with SpaceX and Boeing without first spending tens of billions of dollars like SpaceX and Boeing have done.

Also, are we all forgetting that within the past year SpaceX launches have had multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures?

replies(7): >>41891608 #>>41891684 #>>41891729 #>>41892124 #>>41892128 #>>41892438 #>>41892752 #
1. dotnet00 ◴[] No.41891729[source]
>multiple unexpected catastrophic explosive failures

There has been one, a second stage that failed to relight the engine due to a sensor issue that was quickly fixed. Since then they have had more successful launches than most companies fly in entire years. The other failures were:

- A booster that failed to land after the most flights any booster in the fleet has had, a problem only SpaceX is capable of having right now

- A second stage where the engine shutdown during a deorbit burn was a few milliseconds later than expected.

On the other hand, the "minor issue" on Starliner had Boeing burning hundreds of millions of dollars trying to replicate the issue on the ground, after so many years of waterfall-style development.