The European Space Agency has a space program as well: it has the Ariane rocket. I don't think it's capable to bring astronauts to the ISS but maybe it would be worth starting to cooperate to enable this in the future.

There's several issues involved there. For starters a "human rated" rocket needs to operate within certain performance envelopes and have certain features. For instance the rocket carrying a human crew will have different vibration needs than one carrying cargo. The rocket also shouldn't vent cryogenic gases to the atmosphere while on the launch pad which creates a danger for astronauts and a ground crew when the rocket is fueled.

The Ariane hasn't ever really gone through a human rating process and doing so would take several years. Even then, the ESA does not have a crew launch vehicle available. The Automated Launch Vehicle was used to resupply the ISS but can't carry a crew despite having a habitable volume when it was docked to the station.

The ATV doesn't land but burns up in the atmosphere at the end of its mission. That's not a vehicle astronauts would really want to ride home in. While I don't doubt the ESA could develop a manned vehicle, it would just end up being so different from the existing ATV that it would take longer to develop than the remaining life of the ISS.

That makes sense. I don’t follow this stuff closely but o didn’t think they were moving people yet.

That would be a great alternative but they could end up in a situation where I’m once it’s ready it takes a while to shake out too.

So the US may not have that option for quite a while. Or maybe they can’t launch frequently enough when they’re ready.

What's the worst-case scenario they're trying to avoid from being 100% dependent on SpaceX? Perhaps it's something like the present scenario. If the vaccine is as bad as the disease, then skip the vaccine and just chance it.

Huh? Isn't the right interpretation that they are 100% dependent on SpaceX right now, in the present scenario, but simply pretending otherwise? The facts are what they are.

The reason one spaceship is better than another isn't a management or strategy problem. It is what it is. There's no decision here that changes whether or not Starliner is a shitty spaceship. It might look like it does.

Is NASA management is personally going to be assembling and running the plans? One interpretation is that they will now (?). Another is that is already happening and they are sucking at it, and that is SpaceX's opportunity in a nutshell.

If the government wants better spaceships, it has to occasionally buy them in politically unideal circumstances. It is that simple. Sometimes it will take longer to turn some senator's state into a manufacturing powerhouse than we will have political appetite to sustain all the failures on that journey. The fact that it's not an economic problem, that no amount of money can turn around Boeing, is bad, and that's why I am surprised. Any honest interpretation of the facts makes NASA, a bunch of civil service people, look like they are delaying the inevitable to benefit no one.

> And the head of SpaceX is, shall we say, not giving off strong vibes of calm consistency right now.

What is your logic?

> What is your logic?

That is precisely the question many people would like to ask the head of SpaceX.

Why?

Pretty clear, I thought.

Having your entire access to space controlled by one company is a gamble. If that one company is controlled by one man, that's more of a gamble. If that one man is showing signs of mental instability, that's an even bigger gamble.

You would know based on your physical interaction with said man?