In an age when you can get just about anything online, it’s probably no surprise that you can buy a diamond-making machine for $200,000 on Chinese ecommerce site Alibaba. If you, like me, haven’t been paying attention to the diamond industry, it turns out that the availability of these machines reflects an ongoing trend toward democratizing diamond production—a process that began decades ago and continues to evolve.

The history of lab-grown diamonds dates back at least half a century. According to Harvard graduate student Javid Lakha, writing in a comprehensive piece on lab-grown diamonds published in Works in Progress last month, the first successful synthesis of diamonds in a laboratory setting occurred in the 1950s. Lakha recounts how Howard Tracy Hall, a chemist at General Electric, created the first lab-grown diamonds using a high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT) process that mimicked the conditions under which diamonds form in nature.

Since then, diamond-making technology has advanced significantly. Today, there are two primary methods for creating lab-grown diamonds: the HPHT process and chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Both types of machines are now listed on Alibaba, with prices starting at around $200,000, as pointed out by engineer John Nagle (who goes by “Animats” on Hacker News). A CVD machine we found is more pricey, at around $450,000.

Not a Simple Operation

While the idea of purchasing a diamond-making machine on Alibaba might be intriguing, it’s important to note that operating one isn’t as simple as plugging it in and watching diamonds form. According to Lakha’s article, these machines require significant expertise and additional resources to operate effectively.

For an HPHT press, you’d need a reliable source of high-quality graphite, metal catalysts like iron or cobalt, and precise temperature and pressure control systems. CVD machines require a steady supply of methane and hydrogen gases, as well as the ability to generate and control microwaves or hot filaments. Both methods need diamond seed crystals to start the growth process.

Moreover, you’d need specialized knowledge to manage the growth parameters, handle potentially hazardous materials and high-pressure equipment safely, and process the resulting raw diamonds into usable gems or industrial components. The machines also use considerable amounts of energy and require regular maintenance. Those factors may make the process subject to some regulations that are far beyond the scope of this piece.

In short, while these machines are more accessible than ever, turning one into a productive diamond-making operation would still require significant investment in equipment, materials, expertise, and safety measures. But hey, a guy can dream, right?

The Great Diamond Glut

Sometimes a Hacker News comment is worth more than its weight in gold (or diamonds), and John Nagle, who developed Nagle’s algorithm for improving the efficiency of TCP/IP networks in the 1980s, posted one in response to Lakha’s article. It contains factoids about diamonds, with sources, that are worth relaying for anyone curious about the current state of diamond production.

One notable development comes from De Beers, the diamond corporation known for its dominance in the natural diamond market. Through its R&D operation Element Six, the company is now capable of producing synthetic diamonds with flaw levels in the parts-per-billion range. This level of purity far exceeds what’s necessary for jewelry, entering the realm of high-tech applications. Element Six has even managed to create diamond windows for lasers up to 10 centimeters across, showcasing the potential for large, extremely pure synthetic diamonds.

On the natural diamond front, there’s been a surprising breakthrough. Nagle points out that the industry has developed an industrial x-ray system to examine rocks before crushing, helping to preserve large diamonds that might otherwise be broken during extraction. This technology has led to some impressive finds, including a 2,492-carat diamond discovered last month. The sorter for this job comes from TOMRA, a company known for high-volume sorting systems used in recycling and food processing.

Until now, NASA has paid Boeing roughly $2.7 billion of the $4.6 billion total potential value of its commercial crew contract, according to Finch. The Starliner contract NASA awarded Boeing in 2014 originally had a maximum value of $4.2 billion, but contract modifications since 2014 have added $400 million to the deal. Most of the money NASA has paid Boeing to date has been for Starliner development costs, while the remaining funds under the contract cover future service payments for operational flights.

So, if Boeing walked away from Starliner, the company would be giving up nearly $1.9 billion on potential revenue from NASA, still more than the $1.6 billion in losses it has taken on the program so far.

Ready for Departure

Since deciding last month to fly Starliner home without its crew, NASA managers have reviewed plans for the spacecraft to depart the space station in autopilot mode. The preparations included updating Starliner’s software parameters to enable the autonomous undocking. Then, last Thursday, NASA officials convened a Flight Readiness Review and cleared Starliner to return to Earth.

“Everybody polled ‘go’ in that review, pending the operational status of the vehicle and the landing weather,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s commercial crew program manager. “So we’re proceeding toward undock and landing on Friday.”

As Starliner approached the space station on June 6, five of the ship’s 28 Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters dropped offline, requiring Wilmore to take manual control while ground controllers tried to recover some of the control jets.

Engineers tested thrusters and analyzed data for over two months to track down the cause of the thrusters’ failure. Ground teams were able to bring four of the five failed thrusters back online, but NASA officials could not assure themselves the same thrusters, or perhaps more, won’t overheat again and fail as Starliner departs the station and heads for reentry.

Investigators found that repeated pulses of the RCS jets led to rising temperatures in the thrusters. This likely caused a seal in each of the problematic thrusters to bulge and deform, restricting the flow of propellant, according to NASA officials.

Stich said Wednesday that possible solutions to the problem on future Starliner flights range from changing the way the ship fires its thrusters to prevent overheating, to changing the seal design, to modifying the doghouse-shaped propulsion pods where the thrusters reside on the spacecraft’s service module. The design of these “doghouses” cause them to retain heat like a thermos, exacerbating the thermal problem.

Boeing and NASA also must resolve helium leaks that plagued the Starliner test flight. Engineers believe a separate set of degraded seals is causing helium leaks, which the spacecraft uses to pressurize the propulsion system and drive propellants into its thrusters. Ground controllers have closed valves to isolate the helium system and close off the leaks while Starliner has been docked at the space station. Those isolation valves will open before Starliner departs the space station, but NASA officials say the spacecraft has more than enough helium for the six-hour flight from undocking until landing Friday night.

Wilmore and Williams originally planned to stay at the space station for around eight days, but will now remain as residents on the complex until February, when they will come home in a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.

Dana Weigel, NASA’s ISS program manager, said Wednesday that the Starliner astronauts, both veterans of previous six-month stays on the space station, are fully trained to perform spacewalks, operate the lab’s robotic arm, and conduct maintenance and scientific experiments. They will be fully integrated into the space station’s long-duration crew, which usually includes seven residents. With the Starliner crew’s extended stay, the station crew size has grown to nine people.

The crew shakeup forced NASA to remove two astronauts from the next SpaceX Dragon crew flight launching to the ISS later this month, leaving two seats empty to accommodate Wilmore and Williams when the Dragon spacecraft returns to Earth early next year. This upcoming SpaceX crew rotation will bring the station crew size back to its usual complement of seven US astronauts and Russian cosmonauts.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.