Boeing's Starliner proves better at torching cash than reaching orbit
Boeing’s troubled Starliner crew capsule, currently docked to the ISS with unresolved thruster and leak issues, is prompting scrutiny over whether NASA should bring its astronauts home on SpaceX’s Dragon instead. Commenters frame Starliner as a symptom of deeper problems at Boeing and in U.S. aerospace procurement: finance‑driven management, regulatory capture, and cost‑plus habits clashing with fixed‑price contracts and genuine engineering rigor. The thread contrasts this with SpaceX’s lower-cost, reusable Falcon 9 operations and raises broader concerns about how politics, corporate governance, and “jobs program” incentives undermine safety, reliability, and innovation.
Starliner mission status and safety
- Commenters note Starliner successfully reached orbit and docked with ISS but has unresolved issues bringing astronauts back due to thruster and helium system problems.
- Some argue it can safely remain docked for its full 6‑month certification; helium leaks are said to be downstream of closed valves and currently inactive. Others worry long delays could worsen risk.
- There is concern about freeing the ISS docking port for an upcoming Crew‑9 Dragon mission, creating schedule pressure.
Rescue options and Dragon
- Several suggest returning the astronauts on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and sending Starliner back uncrewed.
- Counterpoints: there isn’t a spare Dragon “just up there”; the docked one is reserved for Crew‑8, and the next must stay for Crew‑9. An unmanned Crew Dragon launch is technically possible but expensive and would force crew-number tradeoffs.
- Some advocate billing Boeing for such a contingency.
Politics and optics
- Multiple comments fear political interference: leadership may delay decisions until after the U.S. election to avoid headlines tying failures to current officeholders.
- Others argue operational safety decisions are NASA’s domain and span multiple administrations, so pinning them on current political figures is misguided.
Boeing management and culture
- Starliner is treated as another symptom of Boeing’s broader decline: finance-driven leadership, short‑termism, and hostility or indifference toward engineering excellence.
- Discussion references earlier debacles (e.g., 787 Dreamliner overruns) and the post‑merger culture shift after McDonnell Douglas, emphasizing regulatory capture and rent‑seeking over technical competence.
- Some note that even engineer-CEOs presided over major failures, suggesting the root problem is prioritizing shareholder returns and cost cutting over safety and engineering, not degrees per se.
Comparisons: SpaceX, Airbus, and defense programs
- SpaceX is contrasted favorably: lower launch costs, reuse, and apparently more effective engineering culture.
- Airbus is seen as currently healthier than Boeing, though some think it could suffer similar “capitalism disease” later.
- A long subthread debates the F‑35:
- Critics highlight high operating costs, low availability, parts shortages, delayed Block 4/TR3 upgrades, and political bloat.
- Defenders stress stealth, combat performance, foreign demand, and its political/strategic role beyond pure engineering metrics.
Government spending, jobs programs, and large organizations
- Several frame Starliner, SLS, and Artemis as distorted “jobs programs” benefiting contractors, politicians, and NASA centers more than missions.
- Others argue Starliner’s total cost (~$6.7B over a decade, per the thread) is tiny relative to education/anti‑poverty budgets, so “fix Earth before space” arguments misuse scale.
- Broader reflections criticize U.S. corporate governance, political donations, consulting-driven waste, and incentive structures that reward image management over building reliable hardware.