Live data from Hacker News

Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

arstechnica.com

81–90 of 228 posts

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare that has been avoided because Russia can't use cutting off access to the ISS as a bargaining chip.

They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising. They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up later this decade. What gets in the way is that the US has severa…

> half the station is Russian and habdles orbit raising

The orbit raising has been performed by the Progress resupply vehicles from Russia and Shuttle and other vehicles from the US. As of 2018 the Cygnus resupply vehicle from the US was capable of performing the orbit raising mission.

While the Cygnus was still docked at the space station's Unity module on Tuesday (July 10), the spacecraft fired its main engine for 50 seconds as part of a test to determine whether the cargo ship can be used to raise the space station's orbit, Frank DeMauro, Vice President of Advanced Programs at NGIS, told Space.com.

About the size of a short bus, the Cygnus may look puny compared to the ISS, which is as big as a football field. But its powerful Delta-V engine provided enough thrust to raise the space station by about 282 feet (86 meters). "The burn went extremely well," DeMauro said. "The spacecraft behaved exactly as we expected."

https://www.space.com/41172-cygnus-leaves-space-station-orbi...

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#82
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the purposes of ISS, and other space programs (Apollo-Soyuz for example) was showcasing how nations can work together, and bringing hope for peace during the cold war. May sound naive, but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station - even if there are embargoes on the ground.

[flagged]

“I’m just trolling.” Don’t do that here.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#83
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the purposes of ISS, and other space programs (Apollo-Soyuz for example) was showcasing how nations can work together, and bringing hope for peace during the cold war. May sound naive, but that's the reason why nobody should be jettisoned off the space station - even if there are embargoes on the ground.

[flagged]

The edit window is still open.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#84
post #8

This comment is your regularly scheduled reminder that they were supposed to be the safe option. The people who'd come in clutch when SpaceX failed (and it was assumed in certain quarters that SpaceX would fail to deliver on time). They were paid 2x more than what NASA paid SpaceX. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing... RIP Boeing.

I agree with this, it is pretty stunning. Also ULA's inability to come up with a launch capability that is anywhere close to Falcon/Falcon Heavy in terms of cost and time to flight.

The fascinating thing is that the lack of competition allowed the space launch industry to switch from "invent" mode to "monetize" mode way too early. It is also what makes the Starship work both more credible and more interesting. There are a lot of technical problems to work through on Starship between now and it being as reliable as say Falcon is, but if (when?) they get there, the ability to put 100 tons into LEO for just the cost of the propellant and some depreciation on the vehicle? That really changes the economics of having things in space in a way that is hard for folks to imagine.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#85
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX’s dragon had test failures slow things doing remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scz-fFZT-dI > is simply not the truth. Funding represents significantly more than 4 years of delays, just using their initial announcement date let alone when funding was actually provided. That’s just simple math.

> SpaceX’s dragon had test failures There's a major difference between internal tests intended to discover problems and "we think everything's good, NASA, can we send it to the ISS?" tests intended to show everything's working. > Funding represents significantly more than 4 years of delays Sure. Add on additional years worth of failed tests on the actual production vehicle and you get the $1.1B in the article. Boe-OF…

They were only different in how expensive they were to conduct. NASA, SpaceX, and Boeing all expected these tests to have a significant risks, which is why they where unmanned.

The entire point of spending that much money was to discover problems. As to your “sure” if admit Boeings delays are less than half of total delays, that sounds like you agree with me.

Anyway, Dragon 2 as an iteration of an existing platform was by far the lower risk option. But, that’s a completely separate question.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#86
post #67
post #54

There's no market. Private manned launches have been on Space-X's price list for years. Anybody buy one yet?

Yes, they've had 3 so far and have at least 4 more planned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Crew_Dragon_fl...

Right, billionaire space tourism is a thing.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#87
post #8

This comment is your regularly scheduled reminder that they were supposed to be the safe option. The people who'd come in clutch when SpaceX failed (and it was assumed in certain quarters that SpaceX would fail to deliver on time). They were paid 2x more than what NASA paid SpaceX. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing... RIP Boeing.

I agree with this, it is pretty stunning. Also ULA's inability to come up with a launch capability that is anywhere close to Falcon/Falcon Heavy in terms of cost and time to flight. The fascinating thing is that the lack of competition allowed the space launch industry to switch from "invent" mode to "monetize" mode way too early. It is also what makes the Starship work both more credible and more interesting. There…

150T... They have been able to crank up the power of the raptors per Elon.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare that has been avoided because Russia can't use cutting off access to the ISS as a bargaining chip.

They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising. They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up later this decade. What gets in the way is that the US has severa…

IIRC, NASA and SpaceX are working on a study to see if Dragon can do station keeping for this exact reason. NASA is doing a great job hedging their bets in a very tricky political climate.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#89
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that starliner is still not operational and the situation in Russia the description seems pretty on point to me?

So does, "Announced in 2012 to be launched in November 2016, the program suffered numerous delays until four years after the initial launch date, it's taking off..." > and the situation in Russia Presumably you mean the Ukraine invasion, which had zero bearing on this, given that it happened nearly a year and a half later...

I mean I guess you are correct it was late but it was still first relative to Boeing. So the timeline warranted less emphasis then say now when Boeing is delayed 3 plus years on top of that.

I’m not sure how you can say the Ukraine invasion has zero bearing on the “NASA…having no access to space”. Given starliner is a dumpster fire and NASA would not be able to reliably count on Soyuz for access to ISS, it was a remarkably prescient statement. Even if Russia hadn’t invaded in 2020 it was obvious that NASA having its own capability to get to ISS was a strategic priority, that was only achieved by SpaceX.

Re: Boeing has now lost $1.1B on Starliner, with no crew flight in sight

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment hits differently after the Ukraine invasion. I hadn't thought about the sheer level of diplomatic nightmare that has been avoided because Russia can't use cutting off access to the ISS as a bargaining chip.

They still can use cutting off the ISS as a bargaining chip since half the station is Russian and handles orbit raising. They actually did do that a lot early into the war, until Rogozin was replaced as head of Roscosmos by someone who took a slightly less bombastic approach of saying that Russia would quit the ISS once they have a successor station up later this decade. What gets in the way is that the US has severa…

NASA replacement stations are totally underfunded by congress, non are close. Don't expect a solution from that anyime soon.
Post reply on HN