Live data from Hacker News

Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

cbsnews.com

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#11

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

Although that happened over 50 years ago, and we can’t make the same exact designs, the physics is the same and well understood. Technology has evolved, and has given us more tools. Similar cultures can be made again that support that kind of work.

What’s missing is we need better cultures. I’ve been in engineering cultures that are dominated by management desires to cut costs and deliver on schedule. Engineering excellence is never considered valuable, but it will be the only thing that makes you successful.

Boeing lost its culture of engineering excellence

> “Prince Jim”—as some long-timers used to call him—repeatedly invoked a slur for longtime engineers and skilled machinists in the obligatory vanity “leadership” book he co-wrote. Those who cared too much about the integrity of the planes and not enough about the stock price were “phenomenally talented assholes,” and he encouraged his deputies to ostracize them into leaving the company.

[1] https://attentiontotheunseen.com/2024/03/29/what-boeing-did-...

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#12

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

[flagged]

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#13
post #7

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

> I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? I think SpaceX has been doing a great job of that, with Crew Dragon. > Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Yes, but also fewer options. This is the first time NASA has ever had a choice between two completely different American spacecraft to return crew on. It is like if you own two cars, an…

Not too wrong as it made it back to Earth.

> Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then?

NASA lost enough people during their "higher risk tolerance" epoch that they don't want to go through it again. Challenger and Columbia were such huge traumas each time...

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#14

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

We also had the Challenger disaster, which killed seven. And two astronauts died in a flash fire in 1967. Columbia too, another seven.

This is not the first time something has not gone according to plan. Thankfully nobody died. Let's not look at the past through rose-colored glasses, and assume that things have gotten worse. Spaceflight has been full of mistakes from the start.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#15

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

? The Starliner landed successfully, so we have shown that we can iterate.

The capsule landed successfully, but it was missing about 400 pounds of the most important cargo.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#16
post #7

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

> I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? I think SpaceX has been doing a great job of that, with Crew Dragon. > Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Yes, but also fewer options. This is the first time NASA has ever had a choice between two completely different American spacecraft to return crew on. It is like if you own two cars, an…

> Boeing has really struggled in making the cultural transition from old style cost-plus government contracting.

How is this old style? At least in software development / IT-consulting in Europe cost plus is done all the time now, since there were too many legal battles about fixed price not being finished according to spec.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#17

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

We also had the Challenger disaster, which killed seven. And two astronauts died in a flash fire in 1967. Columbia too, another seven. This is not the first time something has not gone according to plan. Thankfully nobody died. Let's not look at the past through rose-colored glasses, and assume that things have gotten worse. Spaceflight has been full of mistakes from the start.

Yep. And Apollo 11 was extremely close to being a crash.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#18

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

(I worked at SpaceX)

Two words: flight heritage.

Successful concepts are very often reused. For example, heat shields, parachute landings, sea landings, air bags for landings on hard land, etc.

Now, let me try to explain this in something similar: cars.

Cars are all pretty much the same. They have a steering wheel, 4 tires, transmission, engine, etc. The parts all do the same thing in different cars, but we don't always use the same engine, or the same tires, or the same frame for every car.

After making cars for so long, why do car companies still have recalls?

New models of cars usually either start from scratch or start based on a different vehicle already in production (new model year). But if you're starting from scratch, you've lost all the "little fixes" that go into making a car good. Like the difference from a new model EV car to a Toyota Corolla that's been in production for basically 10 years has a very different failure/recall rate. After many years of producing the same car, you fix all the little things and get your supply chains working well.

Now back to space ships. It's the same thing. You have made a new capsule and although the concepts are the same, think about all the little things: wiring, plumbing, controls, software. These are all new and basically untested. They lack "flight heritage" (proven working in space).

For the question as why can't we make Apollo ships or Saturn V's anymore, a lot of plans and drawings were lost. Key people making decisions, testing, or even building parts on an assembly line weren't there. Companies making specialized parts folded or went under, or just stopped making those parts.

Sometimes these can be small issues. Like for the Mars Climate Orbiter there was a problem where two different companies thought they were using the same units when they were not. Or when an accelerometer was installed backward on a different ship, making the chute not deploy.

Now compare this to the Soyuz, which is more like a Toyota Corolla of space ships. It's not the fanciest or has the most space or efficiency, but it has a lot of flight heritage and operational history. And from there, you can make small changes relatively safely.

This is true for all companies making space ships. Really it comes down to how well you test things and a good helping of luck on getting it to work the first time, or fixing it quickly.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#19
post #16
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? I think SpaceX has been doing a great job of that, with Crew Dragon. > Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Yes, but also fewer options. This is the first time NASA has ever had a choice between two completely different American spacecraft to return crew on. It is like if you own two cars, an…

> Boeing has really struggled in making the cultural transition from old style cost-plus government contracting. How is this old style? At least in software development / IT-consulting in Europe cost plus is done all the time now, since there were too many legal battles about fixed price not being finished according to spec.

> How is this old style? At least in software development / IT-consulting in Europe cost plus is done all the time now,

For NASA, it is old style: why offer cost-plus contracting when companies like SpaceX are willing to accept a firm fixed price contract and actually deliver on it?

There is no way that SpaceX is making a profit on their lunar lander contract (Starship HLS). But SpaceX doesn’t care because they are betting the company on Starship and returning humans to the moon after over 50 years is an amazing opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of their platform to the world. Boeing isn’t betting the company on a spaceship. Taking a multi-billion dollar loss on a contract today and hoping you’ll make it back somehow some years down the track is not the Boeing way - at least not nowadays

> since there were too many legal battles about fixed price not being finished according to spec.

Maybe in space it helps to have clearly defined success criteria - either it gets there and back in one piece, or it doesn’t. In software the criteria for success are often a lot less clear.

Re: Boeing Starliner, leaving its crew behind, lands in New Mexico

#20

I'm genuinely curious what has happened in the past 50 years that we can't iterate on already successful concepts? Did we have a higher risk tolerance back then? Is Boeing genuinely this bad? Not to sound too cliched, but we put a man on the moon. We put a CAR on the moon. Why can't the successors of those same companies be trusted to retrieve two people from LEO?

? The Starliner landed successfully, so we have shown that we can iterate.

The Starliner only landed. It didn't successfully achieve its mission. In fact, it 100% failed.
Post reply on HN