4 ms·

I don't entirely get why this is even a decision. You have a capsule that failed on its first crewed flight and is built by a company plagued by technical mism

I don't entirely get why this is even a decision. You have a capsule that failed on its first crewed flight and is built by a company plagued by technical mismanagement with multiple high-profile failures over years. On the other hand, you have a capsule that has flown 10 times with crew and another 10 without to the ISS with its predecessor flying 23 times. It's not even a question. Do the math on the fall-out of the capsule failing and having to retrain 2 new astronauts. It's entirely incalculable and immoral to put them back on that capsule. I am not a fan of Elon as a person anymore but this is exactly why reusable rockets and cheaper space travel is good. Spend the money, get them home safe, cut off Boeing.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Spend the money, get them home safe, cut off Boeing Fine them. And then take that fine and your savings from cutting them and use it to help scale a true SpaceX competitor. Every dollar going to Boeing cements SpaceX’s dominance.
ARandomerDude 2y ago
> I don't entirely get why this is even a decision. The Washington "circle of life" looks like this: 1. Boeing buys politicians. 2. Politicians determine NASA's budget, promotions, and programs. 3. NASA has a program to buy from Boeing. 4. Boeing buys politicians.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Boeing buys politicians Boeing's power doesn't come from buying politicians, however one describes that. (They're not accused of paying bribes. Most politicians don't wind up working or speaking for Boeing.) Boeing's power comes from its facilities and thus jobs in every pivotal district. That gives them votes and voices. Space and defence are niche topics. Most voters are civically unengaged. Those that are tend to engage on social issues. Once language is introduced, a Congressperson who doesn't really care about the bill getting ten calls going one way and zero another is probably going to vote 'aye' because it's a costless give. (Presently, their GR team is taking a page out of Arianespace's book in positioning them as the only alternative to Elon Musk.)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Spend the money, get them home safe, cut off Boeing Fine them. And then take that fine and your savings from cutting them and use it to help scale a true SpaceX competitor. Every dollar going to Boeing cements SpaceX’s dominance.

ARandomerDude 2y ago

> I don't entirely get why this is even a decision. The Washington "circle of life" looks like this: 1. Boeing buys politicians. 2. Politicians determine NASA's budget, promotions, and programs. 3. NASA has a program to buy from Boeing. 4. Boeing buys politicians.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Boeing buys politicians Boeing's power doesn't come from buying politicians, however one describes that. (They're not accused of paying bribes. Most politicians don't wind up working or speaking for Boeing.) Boeing's power comes from its facilities and thus jobs in every pivotal district. That gives them votes and voices. Space and defence are niche topics. Most voters are civically unengaged. Those that are tend to engage on social issues. Once language is introduced, a Congressperson who doesn't really care about the bill getting ten calls going one way and zero another is probably going to vote 'aye' because it's a costless give. (Presently, their GR team is taking a page out of Arianespace's book in positioning them as the only alternative to Elon Musk.)