3 ms·

The title (and premise) of this post are entirely based on a Bloomberg piece (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-ceo-faces-hard-decisions

by nickff 2y ago

The title (and premise) of this post are entirely based on a Bloomberg piece (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-ceo-faces-hard-decisions-after-nasa-s-starliner-rejection?sref=YfHlo0rL https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-ce...), with nothing but fluff added.

plumeria 2y ago
However, this source is not paywalled.
- tithe 2y ago
  To bypass the Bloomberg paywall in Chrome, add a dot after the TLD: https://www.bloomberg.com./news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-ceo-faces-hard-decisions-after-nasa-s-starliner-rejection?sref=YfHlo0rL https://www.bloomberg.com./news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-c...
  - cwillu 2y ago
    I get a paywall with or without the dot.
Nevermark 2y ago
Regardless of sourcing, this is the kind of article that gets people talking, and can be self-fulfilling. I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized shareholders, in continuing the losses. Starliner isn't fully reusable, so unlikely to ever be really profitable. It is a very poor start to any wider space ambitions. If I was Boeing's CEO, I would have confidentially got the conversation rolling too. But this is off the record, deep background. No attribution on those statements, please!
- rbanffy 2y ago
  > Starliner isn't fully reusable Neither is Dragon. Upper stage and service module are discarded. Only the booster and the capsule are reusable.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    Starliner is a capsule/service module, not a rocket.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      Capsule is reusable, service module isn’t, the same as Dragon.
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        Thanks for that info, getting up to speed here. Dragon has a more integrated design. It has a "trunk module" which is a kind of service module lite. So presumably, Dragon is not completely reusable (the trunk is discarded), but more reusable than Starliner in that greater functionality is preserved in the reusable capsule.
        rbanffy 2y ago
        Agreed. In that, Dragon is a better design overall. At least they can see what went wrong with the propulsion pods after the craft lands. To do that for Starliner would require an EVA and do things to the craft it was definitely not designed to do. If a faulty pod could be detached, the sane EVA would be to close the docking hatch, depressurise the capsule, open its side hatch, detach the pod and put it inside the capsule in a way it wouldn't bang on everything (it'd still contaminate everything with its remaining propellants), close the hatch and let it come back to Earth with the remaining functioning propulsion pods. Quite an adventure.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized shareholders, in continuing the losses. Perhaps the value is to show that they can actually stick with, and follow through, on things. If they become known for cutting-and-running, why would anyone trust them for anything?

by nickff 2y ago

plumeria 2y ago

However, this source is not paywalled.

tithe 2y ago
To bypass the Bloomberg paywall in Chrome, add a dot after the TLD: https://www.bloomberg.com./news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-ceo-faces-hard-decisions-after-nasa-s-starliner-rejection?sref=YfHlo0rL https://www.bloomberg.com./news/articles/2024-08-25/boeing-c...
- cwillu 2y ago
  I get a paywall with or without the dot.

Nevermark 2y ago

Regardless of sourcing, this is the kind of article that gets people talking, and can be self-fulfilling. I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized shareholders, in continuing the losses. Starliner isn't fully reusable, so unlikely to ever be really profitable. It is a very poor start to any wider space ambitions. If I was Boeing's CEO, I would have confidentially got the conversation rolling too. But this is off the record, deep background. No attribution on those statements, please!

rbanffy 2y ago
> Starliner isn't fully reusable Neither is Dragon. Upper stage and service module are discarded. Only the booster and the capsule are reusable.
- Nevermark 2y ago
  Starliner is a capsule/service module, not a rocket.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Capsule is reusable, service module isn’t, the same as Dragon.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      Thanks for that info, getting up to speed here. Dragon has a more integrated design. It has a "trunk module" which is a kind of service module lite. So presumably, Dragon is not completely reusable (the trunk is discarded), but more reusable than Starliner in that greater functionality is preserved in the reusable capsule.
      - rbanffy 2y ago
        Agreed. In that, Dragon is a better design overall. At least they can see what went wrong with the propulsion pods after the craft lands. To do that for Starliner would require an EVA and do things to the craft it was definitely not designed to do. If a faulty pod could be detached, the sane EVA would be to close the docking hatch, depressurise the capsule, open its side hatch, detach the pod and put it inside the capsule in a way it wouldn't bang on everything (it'd still contaminate everything with its remaining propellants), close the hatch and let it come back to Earth with the remaining functioning propulsion pods. Quite an adventure.
throw0101d 2y ago
> I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized shareholders, in continuing the losses. Perhaps the value is to show that they can actually stick with, and follow through, on things. If they become known for cutting-and-running, why would anyone trust them for anything?