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

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#91

Post by philistine »

mschuster91 wrote: post #71
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…

> 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. Financially, there is almost zero chance for SpaceX to go under at the point they're at - every launch is profitable for them and the margin goes up with each time they can re-use any component, for boosters their record holder was at 19…

Their most reused rocket is now 20 launches, and was used in a Galileo launch in an expendable configuration.

https://www.space.com/spacex-galileo-l12-falcon-9-launch

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#92

Post by fch42 »

somenameforme wrote: post #82
mschuster91 wrote: post #71

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. Financially, there is almost zero chance for SpaceX to go under at the point they're at - every launch is profitable for them and the margin goes up with each time they can re-use any component, for boosters their record holder was at 19…

The only thing that's particularly unique about Elon is that he voices his actual opinions on topics instead of what he thinks will be most well received. It's a throw back to times long since past, where you will find highly visible individuals often had views starkly different than those of the government. It's not that that's changed - if anything I expect there's far less support for government decisions than in…

I think it's fine for Elon to voice his opinion, even if direct or hurtful.

He should though have a mirror held in front of him in public occasionally. It works for you alright, but have you considered the consequences of everyone else acting the same way ? What actions do you think will derive from creating an agenda of "do as I do or f** you" ?

It's the categorical imperative of ethics. In the sense that a good (ethical) agenda doesn't derive from "eff all others".

Commentary on, and the questioning of other's opinions is as much a necessary part of free speech as is the right to voice your opinions.

I think we need more commentary, and more questions.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#93

Post by mschuster91 »

fch42 wrote: post #90
mschuster91 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People freely and openly expressing themselves is the only way a democracy can really function. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment is at the top of the Bill of Rights. The problem is, if you don't make sure that there is at least a common baseline of decency, eventually the one willing to fight the dirtiest will win out. "Anything goes, no repercussions" will always lead to a destructive death spiral as polit…

I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. It runs ancient law / legal precedence; As example, the current government has used "Henry VIIIth powers" (basically ... sovereign edicts) more than once in the last decade. But the UK body of law doesn't denote anything specifically as "constitutional". That said, it has a strong (legal) history on somewhat-free speech, more…

> I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none.

Germany doesn't have a "constitution" either, and so doesn't Israel, we run on "basic laws" instead which are functionally equivalent. And the UK instead runs on the entire body of its truly ancient laws, court decisions and international treaties. But no one would argue that either of the three nations is not a democracy or a constitutional state (i.e. a state where individuals and legal entities enjoy a reasonably common set of protections).

> Free speech alone though only helps public discourse if there is no attempt to "balance" differing views. Trying that has the opposite effect; instead of pointing out flaws and lies in any argument, the mediator simply "gives equal airtime" to conflicting views. That's the perfect way to polarize - choose whom you're with, and whom you're against.

There is another bad aspect in "balancing" itself, perfectly illustrated by "flat earth" believers. We don't go and give people who believe that the earth is flat equal airtime to those believing we're on a globe, in fact we don't give them any airtime (except when we need to fill some airtime by laughing about ridiculously dumb people) - but there are enough reckless / profit-addicted media that give airtime to COVID deniers, antivaxxers, "great replacement" and other conspiracy spreaders.

Democracy itself can only work on a common set of core beliefs and truths. Once lies are allowed to be part of democratic discourse, the defenders of democracy will have to spend way more of their share of airtime to refute the lies instead of presenting their point of view - a phenomenon/rhetoric tactic known as "firehose of falsehoods", basically flooding the argument with lies (which stick with your followers thanks to repetition as an additional bonus) and making it impossible for the opponent to present their ideas. And sadly, there are more than enough media, politicians and people accepting this tactic.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#94

Post by somenameforme »

mschuster91 wrote: post #89
somenameforme wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that's particularly unique about Elon is that he voices his actual opinions on topics instead of what he thinks will be most well received. It's a throw back to times long since past, where you will find highly visible individuals often had views starkly different than those of the government. It's not that that's changed - if anything I expect there's far less support for government decisions than in…

> People freely and openly expressing themselves is the only way a democracy can really function. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment is at the top of the Bill of Rights. The problem is, if you don't make sure that there is at least a common baseline of decency, eventually the one willing to fight the dirtiest will win out. "Anything goes, no repercussions" will always lead to a destructive death spiral as polit…

It's Norway, not the UK (which doesn't even have a formal constitution), with the 2nd oldest active constitution. [1] And they also have ingrained and well supported freedom of speech dating back to 1814. In fact many regular parts of Norwegian discourse would never be allowed in the US, and would be framed as some sort of ultra radical far whatever blah blah end of the world type stuff.

For instance Hjernevask [2] was an extremely popular series aired on the primary state owned broadcasting channel. It was a documentary that was highly critical of gender studies and a variety of other topics related to identity politics. The title translates to "brainwashing." And in 2011, after the documentary aired, Norway did choose to cease funding Nordic Gender Institute, leading to its closure - though they stated that the documentary was not directly why. Yet, lo and behold, Norway remains one the single most egalitarian and gender equal societies in the world.

Open dialogue is not a threat to anything except bad ideas and bad actors. And it's critical to help ensure everybody has a voice in society, even if what's coming out of their mouth is not what you might want to hear. That said I do agree with you the the US constitution could use some updates, but that would be largely to further these aims. So, for instance, I think proportional representation (as Norway swapped to in 1919) is just objectively better than this district based first past the post nonsense.

But the reason for that change is again precisely to make sure everybody has some representation. For instance, rolling with the Norway theme, here is a list of their political parties currently with representation in Parliament. [3] You've got your religious types, your socialists, your right wing populists, an agrarian party, liberal conservatives, and more. In the US we get to choose between pack of idiots #1, pack of idiots #2, and throwing away your vote.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Norway

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_N...

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#95

Post by _heimdall »

mschuster91 wrote: post #93
fch42 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. It runs ancient law / legal precedence; As example, the current government has used "Henry VIIIth powers" (basically ... sovereign edicts) more than once in the last decade. But the UK body of law doesn't denote anything specifically as "constitutional". That said, it has a strong (legal) history on somewhat-free speech, more…

> I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. Germany doesn't have a "constitution" either, and so doesn't Israel, we run on "basic laws" instead which are functionally equivalent. And the UK instead runs on the entire body of its truly ancient laws, court decisions and international treaties. But no one would argue that either of the three nations is not a democracy o…

We can't have free speech if anyone has the authority and power to identify and silence what they consider lies.

Flat earthers are an easy example as a vast majority of people understand that the earth is in fact not flat. You seem to take that as an example of why we can't allow people to share such ideas, of given air time you worry that more would believe it. There's an easier answer though, people know the earth is a sphere despite the flat earth idea being out there. The idea gets little air time because so few people think its possible or true.

Silencing an idea gives a certain air of feasibility to it, one in charge does need to bother silencing something that is obviously false and easily disproven.

Moving your argument to anything more widely considered than flat earth and the line between lies and truths is much less clear, and therefore the line of where speech should be silenced is much trickier. Covid should have made this clear, health officials and governments have walked back on almost all of the ideas that they claimed to be dangerous lies during the pandemic response. Something unclear can easily be branded as a lie by one with power and a microphone, that doesn't mean it is a lie though and definitely doesn't mean that we all still have free speech rights if the people in charge can silence us.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#96

Post by fch42 »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #35
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…

Hedging against what? Boeing should be allocated to making weapons now

according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/268999/sales-in-defense-... roughly 1/3rd of Boeing's current revenue already is from their defense business.

Also, their commercial airliner side used to be a "balancer" and a backup, they never were tied to the "next big gun thing" like maybe Raytheon or Lockheed are. Funny as it sounds ... Boeing's current struggles can't be blamed on them being overly cosy with government, or overly wasteful thanks to the Pentagon's deep pockets.

Not sure though that more defense money/contracts would help. "solve" what is reported about their inner culture.

would you elaborate ?

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#97

Post by pjc50 »

somenameforme wrote: post #94
mschuster91 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People freely and openly expressing themselves is the only way a democracy can really function. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment is at the top of the Bill of Rights. The problem is, if you don't make sure that there is at least a common baseline of decency, eventually the one willing to fight the dirtiest will win out. "Anything goes, no repercussions" will always lead to a destructive death spiral as polit…

It's Norway, not the UK (which doesn't even have a formal constitution), with the 2nd oldest active constitution. [1] And they also have ingrained and well supported freedom of speech dating back to 1814. In fact many regular parts of Norwegian discourse would never be allowed in the US, and would be framed as some sort of ultra radical far whatever blah blah end of the world type stuff. For instance Hjernevask [2] w…

> But the reason for that change is again precisely to make sure everybody has some representation. For instance, rolling with the Norway theme, here is a list of their political parties currently with representation in Parliament.

I put it to you that the different voting system of PR for the Storting is far more important in ensuring that outcome rather than speech.

As do a few other things; the state broadcaster rather than a set of increasingly weird private clickbait conspiracy broadcasters as in the US; the monarchy; and having Vikrund Quisling taken out and shot.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#98

Post by foobarbecue »

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…

The point of "redundancy" here is so you can don't have to evacuate the space station while Dragon is grounded during the investigation you describe.

Nobody is saying a failure would result in the end of Dragon or SpaceX.

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#99

Post by mschuster91 »

_heimdall wrote: post #95
mschuster91 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree with you on the UK running according to a "constitution". It definitely has none. Germany doesn't have a "constitution" either, and so doesn't Israel, we run on "basic laws" instead which are functionally equivalent. And the UK instead runs on the entire body of its truly ancient laws, court decisions and international treaties. But no one would argue that either of the three nations is not a democracy o…

We can't have free speech if anyone has the authority and power to identify and silence what they consider lies. Flat earthers are an easy example as a vast majority of people understand that the earth is in fact not flat. You seem to take that as an example of why we can't allow people to share such ideas, of given air time you worry that more would believe it. There's an easier answer though, people know the earth…

> Silencing an idea gives a certain air of feasibility to it, one in charge does need to bother silencing something that is obviously false and easily disproven.

Allowing an idea or a viewpoint to be part of legitimate media discourse gives an even larger air of legitimacy - the so-called "Overton window" [1]. The far-right across virtually all Western countries has been very successful in expanding that window and shifting the idea of where the "center" lies very far to the right.

An example here from Germany is Beatrix von Storch, who called for allowing the police to shoot even at refugee children attempting to cross the borders back in 2016 [2], leading to major national outrage. Nowadays, articles of border police actually shooting on refugees don't even make the headlines any more, it's just a "this also happened" line.

> Covid should have made this clear, health officials and governments have walked back on almost all of the ideas that they claimed to be dangerous lies during the pandemic response.

There are only two major things that turned out to be actually wrong: that "ordinary" cloth masks protect against covid (which indeed was a lie, to prevent people from hoarding masks needed for healthcare and some sorts of employment) and that vaccines provide sterile immunity (they didn't in the end, but early data from when these statements were made suggested that this were the case and many people didn't realize that science can and does improve over time).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[2] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/beatri...

[3] https://www.profil.at/ausland/eu-migrationspolitik-die-bruta...

Re: Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission scrubbed

#100

Post by dotnet00 »

panick21_ wrote: post #75
dotnet00 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, the production lines for Atlas V have already been retooled with those for Vulcan, so even if they did have the engines, they couldn't make the rockets. IIRC ULA did have a license to manufacture their own domestic RD-180s (or was considering getting it), but the factory for those would've been very expensive and not worth it with Vulcan in its early design stages.

I don't think the line has been retooled. They still have to build a number of Atlas 5s for Amazon. They don't have all of those in storage.

That's a very good point, I could've sworn Tory Bruno had said that the line had been retooled and all the remaining cores were in storage, but the closest tweet to that seems to be referring to having the engines in storage.
Post reply on HN