Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#111

Post by throwawaymaths »

golol wrote: post #54
somenameforme wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The chances of SpaceX failing in an irrecoverable way are zero. In some sort of crazy black swan event, a public offering of stock/equity would easily bring in vast sums for them. They even managed to get through COVID unscathed. The main danger of relying on a single provider is them taking advantage of that position and charging unreasonable rates, exactly like Boeing/Lockheed have been doing for decades (two compa…

> I don't actually understand why this is, as it's not like SpaceX is relying on any sort of just extremely well guarded secrets It's good management.

Have you ever worked with ex-spacex middle management? It's not good management.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#112

Post by throwawaymaths »

irjustin wrote: post #14

Glad this is happening. ULA is a good launch provider even if they are insanely expensive vs SpaceX. Yes, Elon is right, SpaceX did it cheaper, faster everything that you'd dream of. But, from a policy making standpoint, you always need to diversify at the expense of upfront money because the downsides risks are too high if you put all your eggs in one basket. That said - I do wish Boeing+ULA would get it's act toget…

> Glad this is happening

Will you stand by that statement when two astronauts die this weekend?

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#113

Post by tw04 »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #28
tw04 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s really a fair assessment. Yes Space-X has had the most launches and gets the most press, but the US has a very healthy launch industry. https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/top-us-launch-compan...

The thing is, it's not even remotely close. SpaceX had 98 launches in 2023. ULA, the closest competitor, had 3. For all of these others, considering that this article is from 2022, how many of them even still exist? Don't get me wrong, I hope SpaceX gets some stiff competition because I believe that competition breeds innovation. At the moment, however, I have no idea where that is going to come from or when it might…

So you didn't click the link? Because ULA wasn't second, rocket labs had 9 launches last year and 24 scheduled this year.

As I said, the launch industry in the US is robust.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#114

Post by Beldin »

somenameforme wrote: post #62
fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t say the chance is zero unless you have a mathematical proof or something. Would the odds be zero if they lose of a crew of astronauts?

Definitely. I'd actually go one step further and say that they will eventually lose a crew of astronauts. Perhaps to the ISS, but most definitely to Mars. The Falcon is the most reliable rocket ever made with some 335 successes for 2 failures contrasted against e.g. 133 and 2 for the Space Shuttle, but that failure rate is still extremely high relative to something like an airplane. And the overwhelming majority of a…

> Something like 3% of all astronauts have died 'on the job' making it likely the single most dangerous profession in existence.

Wait till you hear about a truly deadly job: president of the USA. 8 of the 46 presidents have died while in office, i.e., over 17%.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#115

Post by TulliusCicero »

jvanderbot wrote: post #38
TulliusCicero wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy for old, incumbent companies to become ossified, where their internal culture and bureaucracy and processes are hilariously inefficient. At any given time, there will be some people pushing back on that, but there will always be more people there who are okay with it -- because the ones who couldn't handle the ossification left, while the people who were okay with it stayed. Survivorship bias, in other word…

Boeing is definitely in on it, but let's be clear, the gov as a consumer was not really asking for 100 launches a year, and was not in the business of paying for the change necessary to completely reinvent lift as a service. So why wouldn't they just keep charging what they were charging, and building what they always did. There just wasn't an appetite for risk and reinvention, at least not enough to bring it down an…

> So why wouldn't they just keep charging what they were charging, and building what they always did.

So that they can keep up with any eventual newcomers?

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#116

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Atlas V + Starliner vs Falcon + Dragon is SLS + Orion vs Starship with the stupid dialled to eleven.

Starliner is meant to be reusable, except its components can’t even make it through one run uneventfully [1]. It’s mated to the Atlas V, a buggy, disposable stack that’s already been EOL’d [2].

NASA’s money would be so much better spent—even now!—on literally anything else. The amount of practical redundancy provided by Starliner is zero.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Orbital_Flight_Test_2

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#117

Post by dylan604 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Atlas V + Starliner vs Falcon + Dragon is SLS + Orion vs Starship with the stupid dialled to eleven. Starliner is meant to be reusable, except its components can’t even make it through one run uneventfully [1]. It’s mated to the Atlas V, a buggy, disposable stack that’s already been EOL’d [2]. NASA’s money would be so much better spent—even now!—on literally anything else. The amount of practical redundancy provided…

At least this time it wasn't scrubbed for a Starliner issue. The capsule isn't responsible for the booster's valve issues. I'm guessing the Boeing reps in capcom were wiping their brows

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#119

Post by orenlindsey »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Atlas V + Starliner vs Falcon + Dragon is SLS + Orion vs Starship with the stupid dialled to eleven. Starliner is meant to be reusable, except its components can’t even make it through one run uneventfully [1]. It’s mated to the Atlas V, a buggy, disposable stack that’s already been EOL’d [2]. NASA’s money would be so much better spent—even now!—on literally anything else. The amount of practical redundancy provided…

I think it's clear that Boeing, ULA, and all of the "old guard" space companies are still trying to catch up to the disruption from SpaceX and the ensuing boom of innovation that followed it. Let's face it - Starliner would not have even been thought of without SpaceX bringing competition. They were caught flat footed and had to scramble to catch up. Now we see the results of that - a capsule that's only partly baked.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#120

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dylan604 wrote: post #117
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #116

Atlas V + Starliner vs Falcon + Dragon is SLS + Orion vs Starship with the stupid dialled to eleven. Starliner is meant to be reusable, except its components can’t even make it through one run uneventfully [1]. It’s mated to the Atlas V, a buggy, disposable stack that’s already been EOL’d [2]. NASA’s money would be so much better spent—even now!—on literally anything else. The amount of practical redundancy provided…

At least this time it wasn't scrubbed for a Starliner issue. The capsule isn't responsible for the booster's valve issues. I'm guessing the Boeing reps in capcom were wiping their brows

> capsule isn't responsible for the booster's valve issues

But Boeing is responsible for putting it on an Atlas V. Why?! There are fewer than thirty of them left! Why aren’t they practicing on a modern stack?

I’ll eat my words if Starliner can rapidly transition to another booster. But given its track record in software alone, I’m incredibly sceptical.

Post reply on HN