Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Embarrassing, NASA has been downplaying the seriousness of this for months.

Boeing is cooked. SLS should be scrapped. There has got to be consequences for over spending, under delivering, and outright failing.



It's a fixed-price contract, so Boeing is out $1.5 billion on this.


Starliner is the capsule, SLS is the rocket. SLS [1] is not a fixed price contract. The government's dumped tens of billions on it already, and continues to throw good money after bad. And the "fixed" price contract for Starliner keeps getting adjusted with NASA giving them hundreds of millions more dollars, allowing them to skip certain qualifying tests, and so on.

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


>Embarrassing, NASA has been downplaying the seriousness of this for months.

As late as July 28, flight director Ed Van Cise explicitly denied that the Starliner crew was stuck or stranded <https://x.com/Carbon_Flight/status/1817754775196201035>. Even if one quibbles about whether "stranded" applies in this situation (I believe that it does <https://np.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ekicol/not_stranded_...>), "stuck" definitely does.


You keep posting this reply everywhere, doesn't make it true. They've always had the option of coming down on crew 8, they will have the plan of coming down on crew 9. The starliner is still functional as well, just the risk is unquantified. Remember NASA requires a risk assessment of 1:270 odds to proceed. Saying they're not coming back on starliner doesn't mean that it's certain death if they do


>You keep posting this reply everywhere, doesn't make it true.

Amazing that, even after today's confirmation of what we all expected, there are still those in denial.

>They've always had the option of coming down on crew 8

Yes, lashed to a jury-rigged harness in the cargo department. Right now NASA is in de facto violation of the ironclad rule of always having a seat for everyone aboard ISS, and for about three weeks between Crew 8's departure and Crew 9's arrival, the violation will be even greater.

>Saying they're not coming back on starliner doesn't mean that it's certain death if they do

As I wrote in the link in the comment that you keep seeing everywhere but never bothered to read:

>NASA has said that in an emergency the astronauts will use Starliner. That is not the same thing as saying that using Starliner (whether in an emergency or not) to return to earth is as safe as using Soyuz or Crew Dragon, and every day the return is delayed (hitting two months very shortly) is additional proof of this.

>Put another way, if there is an emergency on ISS right now, the two astronauts that flew on Starliner have to take Starliner back because there is no alternative. There are no extra seats on Soyuz or Crew Dragon docked there.

and

>In an "ISS explodes tomorrow and there is no Starliner" situation, of course Wilmore and Williams will be strapped in as tightly as possible as cargo in Crew Dragon. The ride might be bumpy, but should be survivable.

>The interesting question is, in an "ISS explodes tomorrow" scenario, does the above still occur? Based on all available reporting the answer would until very recently have been "No; Wilmore and Williams will use Starliner". I am no longer sure that this is the case.

Note the last sentence.


AIUI SLS is a creation of the US Congress, only they can end it




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: