41–50 of 64 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah so just the fact that Boeing has been around for half a century doesn't absolve them from being subject to safety reviews? Nice to see some sense.
Well, their CEO also doesn’t go on podcasts and smoke pot. Not that I think that’s necessarily a better or worse sign that SpaceX is or is not safe than a CEO drinking moderately in public, but we are prudish about these things in the States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah so just the fact that Boeing has been around for half a century doesn't absolve them from being subject to safety reviews? Nice to see some sense.
It's McDonnell-Douglas with a Boeing name -- beancounters run the show now.
> According to the source, Boeing patched a software code error just two hours before the vehicle reentered Earth's atmosphere. Had the error not been caught, the source said, proper thrusters would not open during the reentry process, and the vehicle would have been lost. Uh, that's extremely concerning for a CREWED capsule.
> According to the source, Boeing patched a software code error just two hours before the vehicle reentered Earth's atmosphere. Had the error not been caught, the source said, proper thrusters would not open during the reentry process, and the vehicle would have been lost. Uh, that's extremely concerning for a CREWED capsule.
Makes me wonder why put all this effort to make space-travel safe for crews. Why not focus on remotely controlled or AI autonomous vehicles instead?
But more importantly - where is the fun in that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm going to order a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" for Boeing too late. Boeing is already deep in Agile, a methodology which promises that a child can be delivered by the way of 9 incremental monthly deliveries. https://www.infosysconsultinginsights.com/2019/06/12/the-ris... "Boeing was an early Agile adopter in 2008 surpassing its rival, Airbus, in 2012 by deploying a newly renovated 737 Max 8 faster to market.…
The baby analogy is pithy, but I don’t really see the comparison. You don’t do your software development in increments smaller than a month? What does that mean, you spend two months just writing specs?
So we know there were catastrophic bugs in the 737 Max, they've found additional bugs that haven't been catastrophic yet and now we hear that the Starliner also has software bugs. I'm going to order a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" for Boeing ... they need to get way back to the basics. (Where's Margaret Hamilton when you need here?
On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over langu…
FYI the Space Shuttle flew 10 missions for the DoD, making it far more relevant to the military than the Saturn V.
On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over langu…
> On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness What does this statement really add besides political signaling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Boeing took the "we'll do very rigorous engineering up front and prove everything on paper" approach, where SpaceX took the "we'll prove it works by actually launching it" approach (which isn't to say SpaceX isn't operating with engineering rigor). In theory Boeing ran all their simulations over the past couple years, and this flight should have just been a formality. As it turns out, Boeing is running into a lot of…
This is likely an oversimplification. There are multiple organizations, even within Boeing Defense & Space, that write their own flight software. All stovepiped and largely working in parallel. This doesn't even include the commercial folks, infamous for the 737 Max. My understanding is that the St. Louis teams are better regarded, and the folks that worked on DARPA HACMS deserve some credit, but they seem to be outl…
At the core of the issue though, the process that SpaceX pitched to NASA (and NASA approved) involved quite a bit of actual hardware testing. Boeing's plan (also approved by NASA) relied much more heavily on simulation, modelling, and other sorts of process validation. For instance, Boeing did not perform an in-flight abort.