←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 #
TrainedMonkey ◴[] No.41894080[source]
> No. The ISS is decommissioned in 2030 and Boeing is losing money on the programme. It makes sense for nobody to continue this charade.

There is an important point here that needs to be emphasized. To fix starliner you need to build up personnel familiar with construction, operations, and build/test enough hardware to iterate kinks. This requires investment that Boeing being a publicly traded company cannot do for free (or they will get sued) and NASA is unlikely to pay them to do it. So this is catch 22, they will fix current issues, but given how long it will take, there is a high chance of causing new issues due to loss of essential personnel who would know how to integrate fixes with existing design constraints... so unfortunately charade characterization fits.

replies(2): >>41894153 #>>41906098 #
lesuorac ◴[] No.41894153[source]
I have to imagine that as a company, investing back into the company for the future will be a pretty easy lawsuit to win.

Especially when your stock price has returned back to where it was before a lot of divestment started.

replies(1): >>41895021 #
SQueeeeeL ◴[] No.41895021[source]
Investing back into yourself is generally true, but only under healthy economic conditions. Boeing exists in a really weird place of being "too big to fail" (ie a monopoly) where investing money into personnel and improved processes is actually wasteful towards the shareholders because it isn't necessary to maintain the core business.
replies(2): >>41895845 #>>41902507 #
1. nickserv ◴[] No.41902507{3}[source]
Looks like that mentality is exactly what caused them to lose out to SpaceX. They thought they were the monopoly and now find themselves out of the picture.

Same mentality with their civil aviation business. Their failure to invest in the core of the company (making great planes) has led to spectacular - and deadly - failure.

The main reason they are still an important player in civil aviation is because Airbus can't make planes fast enough.