9 ms·

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

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.

closewith 2y ago
> Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now. I think this is a soft cancellation of Starliner. System certification is indefinitely paused.
- Melatonic 2y ago
  Agreed. Soyuz is old but reliable and SpaceX is new and reliable. Why go for something in between ?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 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.
- notahacker 2y ago
  Would think that timeline is more likely to be extended than shortened. There will be successor missions, and other space use cases for which derivatives of an astronaut transfer vehicle have value. The bigger question will be whether it's better for Boeing to take the relatively low cost option of fixing the propulsion system which to some extent is their third party supplier's issue, in a funding environment where operating actual missions is more favourably funded than R&D, or whether that's sunk cost fallacy when SpaceX is clearly ahead of them.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > that timeline is more likely to be extended than shortened For the ISS? Based on what? It’s most likely to remain where it is.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      It probably won't be extended, but there isn't no reason for people to think otherwise. It has been extended in the past, and NASA's own white paper from this year says that extension is a possibility if there are no commercial LEO stations suitable to NASA by 2030 and if Russia agrees to continue their participation. This is despite the contract for the Deorbit Vehicle already being awarded to SpaceX; it would simply wait until later. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > there isn't no reason for people to think otherwise It’s possible, not probable. It would take an act of the Congress to keep the ISS funded. There is zero indication that status quo will change nor a strong constituency for changing it.
      - notahacker 2y ago
        This basically. Either there's a functional commercial replacement which is theoretically also a use case for a properly functioning Starliner or the ISS gets extended. Plausibly both. It doesn't have a fixed life limit, hasn't stopped working, hasn't stopped being used for experiments, and a commercial space boom era when microgravity experiments started turning into businesses would be a weird time for the US to decide it was a waste of money and give the space station monopoly to China...
        lupusreal 2y ago
        The ISS may not, but Starliner does have a fixed life. It is meant to fly on the Atlas V, which is end-of-life. Once those are gone Starliner would need to be integrated and recertified to fly on a new rocket, probably Vulcan, but it's doubtful Boeing would want to spend the money to do this. In response to your other point, I am very skeptical of microgravity experiments becoming a big industry. I think NASA (as an organization, I'm not talking about individuals in NASA) is mostly interested in continuing human space flight simply because it keeps the public interested in space, which makes NASA's funding more secure.
- dchichkov 2y ago
  It is unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 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.
    - dchichkov 2y ago
      As long as there's competition, it is fine. Boeing fits at least that role easily. Plus, they've built the vehicle with no drama and without purchasing Twitter in the middle. This is worth something. We see similar situation in automotive. Other companies do allow to keep Tesla in check, so there's less opportunity to force "Cybertrucks" onto the market as the only option.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Boeing fits at least that role No, they don’t. Starliner is a paper competitor. The money NASA sends it ensure SpaceX maintains a practical monopoly. Boeing is the “competitor” everyone wishes for. Sucking up the oxygen in the room a real competitor might need while doing absolutely nothing to contest your market share. > they've built the vehicle with no drama Late to launch, billions over budget and strands its astronauts but has a CEO you can’t remember because their planes kept falling apart is a weird way to spell “no drama.”
        dotnet00 2y ago
        One of the benefits of the commercial crew program was supposed to be that NASA would just be one customer of many, thus justifying why the company takes on the risk of making a fixed price bid. Starliner does not even attempt to compete on the commercial market, it has a fixed number of Atlas V's stored away for the NASA contract, and then someone will have to cough up money to try to put it on another rocket. So, they aren't even in the market, let alone doing anything to even appear to compete.
- 0xTJ 2y ago
  I'm confused about your "no" here. The comment to which you're replying is clarifying misleading wording, but your comment is an opinion on what should happen.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - schiffern 2y ago
    s/should/will/
  - schiffern 2y ago
    Since apparently I'm being misunderstood: the comment wasn't "clarifying" anything, it was only attempting to re-impose euphemistic and deceptive PR language. Everyone knows Starliner is as good as dead. It's what Boeing wants even, since Starliner is a huge money pit. The only ones propping up this continued "delay" fiction are the NASA and Boeing PR departments.
    - stogot 2y ago
      I agree with you, but also worth noting that NASA paid Boeing 4.6B to build it with the expectation that it can be used. There is a “sink cost” issue here, but realistically that’s on Boeing not NASA. They should at least elbow Boeing into fixing it. Letting Boeing walk away from a fixed price contract because they screwed up is going to lead to lots of future low-ball fixed-price “whoops, sorry” issues. Plusfrom an engineering standpoint, Boeing should fix it to prove their competency for future contracts
- TrainedMonkey 2y ago
  > 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.
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    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.
    - SQueeeeeL 2y ago
      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.
      - wongarsu 2y ago
        Boeing is only too big to fail in the business of building passenger airliners. Maybe there is some strategic interest in keeping their defence arm afloat. But their space business is subject to market forces. There are plenty of players willing and able to replace Boeing in that specific industry.
      - nickserv 2y ago
        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.
xattt 2y ago
Is this not a replay of the competition that happened between US homegrown Redstone rockets versus von Braun’s rockets for getting to orbit and moon?

closewith 2y ago

> Would be clearer to say that its return to flight has been delayed to at least around a year from now. I think this is a soft cancellation of Starliner. System certification is indefinitely paused.

Melatonic 2y ago
Agreed. Soyuz is old but reliable and SpaceX is new and reliable. Why go for something in between ?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 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.

notahacker 2y ago
Would think that timeline is more likely to be extended than shortened. There will be successor missions, and other space use cases for which derivatives of an astronaut transfer vehicle have value. The bigger question will be whether it's better for Boeing to take the relatively low cost option of fixing the propulsion system which to some extent is their third party supplier's issue, in a funding environment where operating actual missions is more favourably funded than R&D, or whether that's sunk cost fallacy when SpaceX is clearly ahead of them.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > that timeline is more likely to be extended than shortened For the ISS? Based on what? It’s most likely to remain where it is.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    It probably won't be extended, but there isn't no reason for people to think otherwise. It has been extended in the past, and NASA's own white paper from this year says that extension is a possibility if there are no commercial LEO stations suitable to NASA by 2030 and if Russia agrees to continue their participation. This is despite the contract for the Deorbit Vehicle already being awarded to SpaceX; it would simply wait until later. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > there isn't no reason for people to think otherwise It’s possible, not probable. It would take an act of the Congress to keep the ISS funded. There is zero indication that status quo will change nor a strong constituency for changing it.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      This basically. Either there's a functional commercial replacement which is theoretically also a use case for a properly functioning Starliner or the ISS gets extended. Plausibly both. It doesn't have a fixed life limit, hasn't stopped working, hasn't stopped being used for experiments, and a commercial space boom era when microgravity experiments started turning into businesses would be a weird time for the US to decide it was a waste of money and give the space station monopoly to China...
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        The ISS may not, but Starliner does have a fixed life. It is meant to fly on the Atlas V, which is end-of-life. Once those are gone Starliner would need to be integrated and recertified to fly on a new rocket, probably Vulcan, but it's doubtful Boeing would want to spend the money to do this. In response to your other point, I am very skeptical of microgravity experiments becoming a big industry. I think NASA (as an organization, I'm not talking about individuals in NASA) is mostly interested in continuing human space flight simply because it keeps the public interested in space, which makes NASA's funding more secure.
dchichkov 2y ago
It is unhealthy to not have competition to SpaceX.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 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.
  - dchichkov 2y ago
    As long as there's competition, it is fine. Boeing fits at least that role easily. Plus, they've built the vehicle with no drama and without purchasing Twitter in the middle. This is worth something. We see similar situation in automotive. Other companies do allow to keep Tesla in check, so there's less opportunity to force "Cybertrucks" onto the market as the only option.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Boeing fits at least that role No, they don’t. Starliner is a paper competitor. The money NASA sends it ensure SpaceX maintains a practical monopoly. Boeing is the “competitor” everyone wishes for. Sucking up the oxygen in the room a real competitor might need while doing absolutely nothing to contest your market share. > they've built the vehicle with no drama Late to launch, billions over budget and strands its astronauts but has a CEO you can’t remember because their planes kept falling apart is a weird way to spell “no drama.”
      - dotnet00 2y ago
        One of the benefits of the commercial crew program was supposed to be that NASA would just be one customer of many, thus justifying why the company takes on the risk of making a fixed price bid. Starliner does not even attempt to compete on the commercial market, it has a fixed number of Atlas V's stored away for the NASA contract, and then someone will have to cough up money to try to put it on another rocket. So, they aren't even in the market, let alone doing anything to even appear to compete.
0xTJ 2y ago
I'm confused about your "no" here. The comment to which you're replying is clarifying misleading wording, but your comment is an opinion on what should happen.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- schiffern 2y ago
  s/should/will/
- schiffern 2y ago
  Since apparently I'm being misunderstood: the comment wasn't "clarifying" anything, it was only attempting to re-impose euphemistic and deceptive PR language. Everyone knows Starliner is as good as dead. It's what Boeing wants even, since Starliner is a huge money pit. The only ones propping up this continued "delay" fiction are the NASA and Boeing PR departments.
  - stogot 2y ago
    I agree with you, but also worth noting that NASA paid Boeing 4.6B to build it with the expectation that it can be used. There is a “sink cost” issue here, but realistically that’s on Boeing not NASA. They should at least elbow Boeing into fixing it. Letting Boeing walk away from a fixed price contract because they screwed up is going to lead to lots of future low-ball fixed-price “whoops, sorry” issues. Plusfrom an engineering standpoint, Boeing should fix it to prove their competency for future contracts
TrainedMonkey 2y ago
> 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.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  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.
  - SQueeeeeL 2y ago
    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.
    - wongarsu 2y ago
      Boeing is only too big to fail in the business of building passenger airliners. Maybe there is some strategic interest in keeping their defence arm afloat. But their space business is subject to market forces. There are plenty of players willing and able to replace Boeing in that specific industry.
    - nickserv 2y ago
      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.

xattt 2y ago

Is this not a replay of the competition that happened between US homegrown Redstone rockets versus von Braun’s rockets for getting to orbit and moon?