Hell, the launch article for Crew-1 (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/weather-permitting-t...) literally did not once mention that that launch was delayed, let alone 3 separate year+ delays. Just about SpaceX "saving" NASA from "wandering around in the wilderness with no access to space".
> and the situation in Russia
Presumably you mean the Ukraine invasion, which had zero bearing on this, given that it happened nearly a year and a half later...
I’m not sure how you can say the Ukraine invasion has zero bearing on the “NASA…having no access to space”. Given starliner is a dumpster fire and NASA would not be able to reliably count on Soyuz for access to ISS, it was a remarkably prescient statement. Even if Russia hadn’t invaded in 2020 it was obvious that NASA having its own capability to get to ISS was a strategic priority, that was only achieved by SpaceX.
SpaceX is at Crew 7, Starliner isn't even close to Starliner-1
That's only true if you assume SpaceX strictly allocated budgets per program and that no revenue from their other missions have gone to the crewed flight programs.
I'm not saying Spaceliner is a success, or that there are arguments to be made about each company's approach (you could argue that while Boeing's approach seems relatively glacial, Boeing also has far fewer smoking craters and damaged barges than SpaceX).
None of that removes the fairly evident bias that Ars can be counted on to spin anything SpaceX in a positive manner (a la ignoring years of delays to talk of SpaceX saving the day for NASA, while a refusal to commit to a launch date following a just discovered issue for Boeing immediately implies more years of delays).
It Eric Berger, not "Ars". And he absolutly did report on all the SpaceX delays. After the testing explosion he even said SpaceX might be behind. Stop spreading your conspircy threory nonsense.
Never said he didn't. I am saying that Berger, who is writing for Ars as its Senior Space Editor, completely neglects to mention any delay whatsoever when talking about the Crew-1 launch, and spins a lack of a confirmed updated launch date less than three weeks after discovery of issues into a delay that will approach 2025, "perhaps even after Crew-9", which is hilarious given that even Crew-8 doesn't have a launch date other than towards the middle of next year, and Crew-7 is currently facing new delays.
That's nothing to do with conspiracy theories - that's a journalist's open bias showing.
The Crew-1 delay was three years ago. Why would he mention it in this article?
> spins a lack of a confirmed updated launch date less than three weeks after discovery of issues into a delay that will approach 2025
Reasonable, given how it's gone so far. They've yet another parachute issue, and accidentally used "hundreds of feet" of flammable tape.
> "perhaps even after Crew-9", which is hilarious given that even Crew-8 doesn't have a launch date other than towards the middle of next year, and Crew-7 is currently facing new delays
Crew-9 in 2024 is hardly an unreasonable assumption. Crew-8 is scheduled NET February 2024, not "middle of next year". Crew-7 is facing a two day delay, because of another launch. https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-7-astronaut-launch-delay-a...
Pretending that's relevant in assessing Starliner's multi-year delays is nutty.
The Crew-1 delays were not mentioned once in the article where Crew-1 actually launched - he just spent the article patting SpaceX on the back for saving NASA.
Now we have this delay but it's Boeing, and it's all about the delays. And speculating that Starliner may not even launch until after Crew-9, when Crew-8 isn't even announced, but will be mid 2024 at the earliest, and that's before you realize that Crew-7 is delayed, yes by a few days, but "because of another launch" - that other launch being a SpaceX launch that was delayed.
However you spin it, this journalist has a near allergic avoidance of the word "delay" when it comes to SpaceX, and can't wait to spin Boeing delays into worst case scenarios that are entirely speculation. There's no way you can reasonably turn "we're going to talk to Boeing and announce an updated launch date" in July of 2023 and credibly say "it's entirely possible that Crew-9 will launch before it!"
The article about Boeing finally getting their crewed test done is in the future, so it's a little odd to be mad at a slight that hasn't yet happened.
> Now we have this delay but it's Boeing, and it's all about the delays.
Yes, the article about the delays is about the delays. Why is this surprising?
> that's before you realize that Crew-7 is delayed, yes by a few days
If you're going to point out two-day delays, Berger's pointing out two year delays seems eminently reasonable. When they eventually do fly crew, a "after years of delays and additional test flights at Boeing's expense" is probably warranted in the article.
> There's no way you can reasonably turn "we're going to talk to Boeing and announce an updated launch date" in July of 2023 and credibly say "it's entirely possible that Crew-9 will launch before it!"
The last Starliner delay was nine months long. Crew-9 beating the Boe CFT is entirely possible. SpaceX and Boeing both had their first orbital tests in 2019, but SpaceX has flown eight NASA crewed flights (and three commercial) since then to Boeing's zero.
One of these programs is currently troubled, the other has hit its goals and won extra contracted flights. You really can't wish these facts away, and a journalist would be goofy to ignore the difference.
> less than three weeks after discovery of issues
It has been much longer then 3 weeks.
> which is hilarious
Eric Berger has a very good track record when talking about delays. He usually has information from inside the industry. I'm gone go with they guy that has predicted correctly over and over and over again the last 10 years.
I don't really care if you think it's 'hilarious'.
Dragon is on regular cadence, short term delays of one doesn't necessarily even mean that the launches after that will be delayed to.
Yet SpaceX is still cheaper despite those damaged barges and craters. And that's really all there is to those, a cost element. It would be different if they had left smoking corpses but they haven't.
They do really do something right.
Partial mission success gets them a paycheck, but it would be interesting to look at their financials and see if they lost money on those missions.