I'm confused about your "no" here. The comment to which you're replying is clarifying misleading wording, but your comment is an opinion on what should happen.
Since apparently I'm being misunderstood: the comment wasn't "clarifying" anything, it was only attempting to re-impose euphemistic and deceptive PR language.
Everyone knows Starliner is as good as dead. It's what Boeing wants even, since Starliner is a huge money pit.
The only ones propping up this continued "delay" fiction are the NASA and Boeing PR departments.
I agree with you, but also worth noting that NASA paid Boeing 4.6B to build it with the expectation that it can be used. There is a “sink cost” issue here, but realistically that’s on Boeing not NASA. They should at least elbow Boeing into fixing it.
Letting Boeing walk away from a fixed price contract because they screwed up is going to lead to lots of future low-ball fixed-price “whoops, sorry” issues. Plusfrom an engineering standpoint, Boeing should fix it to prove their competency for future contracts
