Live data from Hacker News

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

cbsnews.com

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61
post #37
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…

Didn’t get a ton of grants from the government? Like $15B over the last 20 years. https://qz.com/elon-musks-spacex-and-tesla-get-far-more-gove... . Is that not “cost-plus?”

Grants are very different from contracts.

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

#62
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 b…

> 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

So in essence SpaceX is subsidizing the government and taxpayer, while the usual rhetoric is that SpaceX is getting government subsidies, not sure why folks cannot understand the different between a government contract to deliver something and a subsidy.

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

#63
post #37
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…

Didn’t get a ton of grants from the government? Like $15B over the last 20 years. https://qz.com/elon-musks-spacex-and-tesla-get-far-more-gove... . Is that not “cost-plus?”

“Cost-plus” means a government contract where if the contract ends up costing more than you expected, the government will cover the shortfall. Versus “firm fixed price”, where if the vendor underestimates the expense of implementing the contract, the vendor wears that loss, not the government.

SpaceX received over US$15 billion in US federal government contracts, but the vast majority (maybe even all?) of them were firm fixed price. I’m not aware that SpaceX has any cost-plus federal contracts; Boeing has multiple cost-plus contracts with NASA (not Starliner; contracts like SLS Core Stage, EUS, ISS engineering support) and many more with the Pentagon. Cost-plus is the norm for Boeing and firm fixed price is the exception; for SpaceX, firm fixed price is the norm.

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

#64

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?

50 years ago, the mission profile was much simpler than it is today. For one, Starliner is reusable, which means a completely different set of materials and components for many elements of the system. Each and every Apollo capsule went straight to a museum after each use.

And if 50 years ago you mean the Shuttle, then that thing killed 2 crews. Not a shining beacon to emulate.

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

#65

I’ll say it, since no one else is: Congratulations to Boeing! This is a much needed victory at a time when their reputation has taken a beating (most of it deserved). Over on Slashdot, it was reported that the likely cause was: a “Teflon seal in a valve known as a ‘poppet’ expanded as it was being heated by the nearby thrusters, significantly constraining the flow of the oxidizer”. As Musk’s SpaceX team has stated re…

I'll hold my congratulations to Boeing for when they fix their culture.

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

#66
post #60
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'a an answer here on what went wrong. It seems some Boeing management knew the thrusters could overheat but didn;t fix it to save a few bob https://anythingspaceastronomy.quora.com/Boeing-Management-o... It seems rather reminiscent of their other problems of doing a hack on the 737 Max which caused the crashes and ignoring safety inspections which caused the panel to blow out. It's kind of interesting if you see…

Did you actually read the link you posted? It discusses a failure in involving designing and communicating specifications, not trying to save a buck.

Ah right you are. I got my links muddled. I was kind of thinking of this one that had the "Boeing didn't want to pay vendors for design changes" idea. I'm not sure that's proven though.

https://x.com/theJordanNoone/status/1823421499686183220

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

#67

Noob question: Hypothetically if the crew were in the Starliner for the trip, they would have planned safely? I get that prior to the trip, the risk of failure was high enough to not make that call.

> planned safely

*landed safely

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

#69
post #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 alw…

Among several maddening bits from Robert Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth a few years back was this passage:

> The most obvious reason why productivity remained high after World War II, despite the end of the military emergency is that technological change does not regress. People do not forget. Once progress is made, no matter under what circumstances, it is permanent.

Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, Chapter 16, p. 550.

Emphasis in original.

The best counterexample is the apocryphal quote, since adopted by many programmers: "When I wrote that passage, there were two who understood it.—God and myself. Now, alas, God alone understands it!"

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/24/god-knows/>

I've certainly been in that circumstance with my own code multiple times, as well as at organisations which no longer knew why, or how, certain things were done.

And people, cultures, do forget. The whole notion of "lost wisdom" or "forgotten knowdge" is legion (though unfortunately neither seems to have a Wikipedia article yet which I can conveniently cite here).

Psychology has the notion however of a "forgetting curve", based on the work of Hermann Ebbinghaus, and I'm pretty sure that there's a similar notion which applies at a cultural and/or social level:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/09/24/god-knows/>

A related concept, and one that's given me pause for thought for some time, has been what the minimum sufficient level of continuation of cultural knowledge is, especially given the distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge. The former is easy to codify and transmit via text or speech, the latter is hard to express, and requires direct experience, personal training, or otherwise greater-than-verbal or greater-than-textual instruction. "You can't learn to swim from a book" is one expression of this.[1] In a technological society which becomes ever more specialised, at what point is there no longer sufficient transmission of a concept for it to be considered still "remembered"? How many crafts today have only a single practitioner? Perhaps retired?

(I've posted previously about the art of scientific glass-blowing, which seems headed down this forgetting path.)

________________________________

Notes:

1. Though of course there are exceptions. Theodor Kaluza taught himself to swim aged thirty from a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Kaluza#Personal_life>.

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

#70
post #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 alw…

>a lot of plans and drawings were lost.

Even if the drawings are there, they are often not as good as you may hope. It’s not uncommon to have missing specs, part numbers etc. Modern engineers have to fill in the gaps and sometimes build one-off small parts when the OEM is no longer in business (or no longer interested in building small quantities of some part)

Post reply on HN