@WordsmithFL I realize it's a prickly pear, but can't the government seize control of Boeing on the grounds of public safety issues.

@Tacitus_Kilgore Simply, no.

The purpose of the commercial crew program is to help the private sector mature transportation services. NASA is contractually required to give Boeing a minimum of two flights. I'm sure the contract has clauses for non-performance.

Because it's a fixed-price contract, Boeing has already lost $1 billion on the program. Most likely, NASA and Boeing would agree to go their separate ways, leaving NASA only with SpaceX for the time being.

@WordsmithFL Makes sense. I figured with the safety issues they were having with their commercial aircraft as well that the US would have a reason to do so. Thank you for the clarification.

@Tacitus_Kilgore Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

"The Court found that there was no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property. "

oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us

@Tacitus_Kilgore My personal opinion is that this is just risk-adverse acting like it always does when there's an unknown with crewed flight.

Their declaration of an intent to conduct an "agency-level review" says to me they're trying to get everyone to buy in on return so, if there's an accident, no one can point a finger at someone else.

If they'd found something fundamentally wrong, we'd hear whispers that they'd reached out to about a rescue mission. No evidence of that.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

CounterSocial is the first Social Network Platform to take a zero-tolerance stance to hostile nations, bot accounts and trolls who are weaponizing OUR social media platforms and freedoms to engage in influence operations against us. And we're here to counter it.