5 ms·

Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? I can't imagine Boeing saving face after that.

Max-q 2y ago
I would be willing to bet quite much on cancellation.
mrpippy 2y ago
After all this, even in the best case (Starliner returns successfully with Butch and Suni), it’s hard to see that NASA would consider it vetted and ready for an operational (non-test) flight. They still haven’t figured out a root cause for the thruster failures, and they won’t be getting the faulty flight hardware back to examine it. Is Boeing willing to put substantial engineering time into fixing/re-designing the thrusters, and then flying another 2-person test flight? I guess we’ll find out soon…
o23jro2j3 2y ago
I think you're grossly underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done. They could kill everyone on board ISS and crash six more planes and the US government would continue to bank roll them for years to come.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done You’re spitballing. Starliner was pushed by NASA, not electeds. Boeing is currently in the shitter with the public and thus the Congress. Even if you’re cynical beyond evidence, the hypothesis doesn’t hold: Boeing’s competitors are deep pocketed and connected too.
  - lostemptations5 2y ago
    "competitor" (-s) no?
- nitwit005 2y ago
  The enthusiasm genuinely seems to be waning. Overbudget is tolerable. Vehicles that kill their occupants is a more difficult pill to swallow.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? No. Remember, these are fixed-price contracts. NASA will force Boeing to fix the problem on its own dime. Which is fitting, as Starliner is the stupidest space programme in present existence.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  Starliner is stupider than Artemis and SLS?
- beAbU 2y ago
  More stupid than SLS?
zarzavat 2y ago
I suspect that NASA may want to keep Starliner around, given that SpaceX is owned by a man who seems to be getting ever more unhinged by the day and has a history of making highly questionable business decisions.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Hopefully that doesn't factor into their calculus at all. I'd like space programs to be run by practical people who value merit over noise, and I personally don't care if a space transport system is owned by Ronald McDonald as long as it works right. Boeing is a very respectable company or so I've heard. I'm sure their executives watch what they say in public and wear the proper in fashion business suits as expected. I would still rather hop on a spacex vehicle right about now. If you're right and they care about Musk owning Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud, I'd say that would reduce my trust in NASA.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > practical people who value merit over noise, How wouldn't that be a part of a perfectly rational risk analysis though? It's like saying (of course on a very different scale) that NASA should be buying rockets from Russian/Chinese/etc. companies/government as long as they offer a good price/quality ratio etc. Which would be an immensely stupid thing to do regardless of how good the actual rockets were. > Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud Or possibly more importantly doing inappropriate shit both publicly and not. In general companies that are purely driven by their management's desire to maximize profits/shareholder value/their bonuses are fairly predictable and can be expected to behave rationally under most circumstances. However you might not want to rely too much on company owned by someone (hard to tell which ones are correct so pick any): - willing to burn billions to either to prove some bizarre point - makes impulsive decisions worth billions under the influence of drugs - is willing to spend large amounts of money to manipulate public opinion (and/or undermine democracy and the rule of law) (at least long-term anyway...)
  - mopenstein 2y ago
    If you disagree with someone's political opinion, obviously they aren't fit to do anything of constructive value.

I would be willing to bet quite much on cancellation.

After all this, even in the best case (Starliner returns successfully with Butch and Suni), it’s hard to see that NASA would consider it vetted and ready for an operational (non-test) flight. They still haven’t figured out a root cause for the thruster failures, and they won’t be getting the faulty flight hardware back to examine it. Is Boeing willing to put substantial engineering time into fixing/re-designing the thrusters, and then flying another 2-person test flight? I guess we’ll find out soon…

o23jro2j3 2y ago

I think you're grossly underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done. They could kill everyone on board ISS and crash six more planes and the US government would continue to bank roll them for years to come.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> underestimating how many bribes, er, excuse me, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and wine and dines Boeing has done You’re spitballing. Starliner was pushed by NASA, not electeds. Boeing is currently in the shitter with the public and thus the Congress. Even if you’re cynical beyond evidence, the hypothesis doesn’t hold: Boeing’s competitors are deep pocketed and connected too.
- lostemptations5 2y ago
  "competitor" (-s) no?
nitwit005 2y ago
The enthusiasm genuinely seems to be waning. Overbudget is tolerable. Vehicles that kill their occupants is a more difficult pill to swallow.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Is this possibly the end for the Starliner project? No. Remember, these are fixed-price contracts. NASA will force Boeing to fix the problem on its own dime. Which is fitting, as Starliner is the stupidest space programme in present existence.

shkkmo 2y ago
Starliner is stupider than Artemis and SLS?
beAbU 2y ago
More stupid than SLS?

zarzavat 2y ago

I suspect that NASA may want to keep Starliner around, given that SpaceX is owned by a man who seems to be getting ever more unhinged by the day and has a history of making highly questionable business decisions.

big-green-man 2y ago
Hopefully that doesn't factor into their calculus at all. I'd like space programs to be run by practical people who value merit over noise, and I personally don't care if a space transport system is owned by Ronald McDonald as long as it works right. Boeing is a very respectable company or so I've heard. I'm sure their executives watch what they say in public and wear the proper in fashion business suits as expected. I would still rather hop on a spacex vehicle right about now. If you're right and they care about Musk owning Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud, I'd say that would reduce my trust in NASA.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > practical people who value merit over noise, How wouldn't that be a part of a perfectly rational risk analysis though? It's like saying (of course on a very different scale) that NASA should be buying rockets from Russian/Chinese/etc. companies/government as long as they offer a good price/quality ratio etc. Which would be an immensely stupid thing to do regardless of how good the actual rockets were. > Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud Or possibly more importantly doing inappropriate shit both publicly and not. In general companies that are purely driven by their management's desire to maximize profits/shareholder value/their bonuses are fairly predictable and can be expected to behave rationally under most circumstances. However you might not want to rely too much on company owned by someone (hard to tell which ones are correct so pick any): - willing to burn billions to either to prove some bizarre point - makes impulsive decisions worth billions under the influence of drugs - is willing to spend large amounts of money to manipulate public opinion (and/or undermine democracy and the rule of law) (at least long-term anyway...)
- mopenstein 2y ago
  If you disagree with someone's political opinion, obviously they aren't fit to do anything of constructive value.