5 ms·

Headline makes it sound like it's intentional, like Boeing knows the moon's haunted and wants to prevent people from going. Turns out they're just a giant comp

Headline makes it sound like it's intentional, like Boeing knows the moon's haunted and wants to prevent people from going. Turns out they're just a giant company suckling on the teat of mommy government and have developed severe structural dysfunction that prevents them from effectively executing their plans.

quantified 2y ago
"Moss on my teeth is hindering my getting a date" reads the same. I think different people will get different interpretations.
- a1445c8b 2y ago
  “NASA considering sending FlossX to extract moss from teeth”
grahamjameson 2y ago
I do not know the details of their contracts, but assuming these are cost-plus contracts then it may be fair to equate structural dysfunction to intent.
- jaggederest 2y ago
  The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that. This is part of the reason why the new era of firm, fixed price contracts at NASA is so important. And why it's so troubling that NASA is having difficulty transitioning SLS contractors to such contracts for later (Artemis V+) rockets.
    - wmf 2y ago
      Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price. NASA just needs to drop them.
      - nradov 2y ago
        That sounds good, until it leaves NASA entirely dependent on SpaceX as a single supplier. For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts.
        wmf 2y ago
        Sierra and Blue Origin are coming.
        nordsieck 2y ago
        > For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts. Northrup Grumman seems to be doing a pretty good job with Cygnus. And ULA seems to be doing alright with NSSLv2 (although it sounds like they may have had to give up a launch or two due to Vulcan delays).
        Gud 2y ago
        No, but there will be. Besides SpaceX there is also Rocketlab who has a CEO rocket nerd in charge.
        kaliqt 2y ago
        So that's two nerds total.
        Ajedi32 2y ago
        Stoke Space also has a pretty huge rocket nerd at the helm[1]. And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever). The industry has been flourishing lately, though (with the possible exception of Blue Origin) it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9, let alone Starship. [1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/
- nradov 2y ago
  These are not cost-plus contracts for the most part. Boeing has incurred huge losses on fixed-price contracts with NASA. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma...
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> Turns out they're just a giant company That should die. This is what happens when you allow monopolies, you can’t even let them die because you’ll be left with nothing. They face no competition , and have no reason to improve
- whatshisface 2y ago
  The "left with nothing" fear is unfounded. All of their assets would be bought up by investors seeking to do the same thing but the right way; a factory has value and somebody will want it.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Perhaps. But now imagine trying to be the politician(s) selling the "let'em die" idea. Most voters will be thinking, "What if my company is next to go?" and will vote accordingly. Thus there are few very politicians willing to take the high road.
mc32 2y ago
I usually despise stack rank, but it looks like there are times when it's needed. Maybe companies should mostly eschew it for other methods, but run it once per decade and flush out all the dead weight, of course, including management.
- mangamadaiyan 2y ago
  Who stack-ranks the management? How?
  - mc32 2y ago
    You would have employees evaluate the managers. You can have outside consultants also evaluate the health of the management --but that can get tricky.
    - mangamadaiyan 2y ago
      Neither approach works. Engineers (management are also employees, right?) ranking management erodes management authority, and management will never stand for it. Outside consultants are usually hired with a fixed agenda - the rotten eggs almost always get to stay. Stack ranking is evil, period.
      - mc32 2y ago
        It is, but it may be periodically necessary to get rid of dead weight and extirpate those who’ve risen to their level of incompetence. I'm not advocating stack ranking for yearly review but rather a quintennial or decennial event to clean-house. In other words, a mechanism to avoid what happened to Boeing, Intel, Yahoo, and what is happening to Google and others. 360 reviews obviously allows orgs to get fat and carry bloat.
        mangamadaiyan 2y ago
        I agree with you on the importance and necessity of getting rid of dead weight. All I'm saying is that stack ranking might not successfully get rid of dead weight. As with any system of metrics, the people who game the system are the ones who reap benefits from the system - thereby subverting the system, and preventing it from achieving its stated goals. As systems of its kind go, stack ranking is particularly insidious and gameable. I have no idea what _would_ work, though. I have some half-baked thoughts, but will reserve them until such time as they are better than half-baked.
dylan604 2y ago
It only reads that way if you're being very very generous and have lived under a rock for the past few years so that you've not seen any other information about Boeing.
throwawayffffas 2y ago
> Originally, the EUS was allocated a budget of $962 million and intended to fly on Artemis II, which in January was pushed to no earlier than September 2025. But by the OIG’s estimate, EUS costs are expected to balloon to $2 billion through 2025 and reach $2.8 billion by the time Artemis IV lifts off in 2028. Lets see they were allocated a budget of $962 million in order to deliver in 2025. But now they can deliver in 2028 and they will be paid $2.8 billion. They would have to be stupid to deliver in time.
- orls 2y ago
  Exactly - all the anti-Boeing sentiment in the comments here (while deserved) should also be directing some ire at the funding and contract structures being used for these projects (I.e. “cost-plus” contracts). They’re just bad policy if you want the _nominal objectives_ of the project delivered on time and on budget; they have structural incentives for contractors to go over. (It’s pretty clear that delivering the nominal objectives is not what the relevant policy-makers are actually aiming for, though. The cost overruns are the real goal for them, as it’s a kind of pork to steer regional funding)
mihaaly 2y ago
Title of The Economists article form April: > Can anyone pull Boeing out of its nosedive? Apparently the answer is a sound no. They decided to proudly shoot themselves into the stomach, then mitigating the situation by setting themselves on fire. The inspector general is wrong saying "blame on the aerospace giant’s mismanagement and inexperienced workforce". How can someone blame clueless person? The blame is on those putting clueless person there in the first place. Or is the management the most inexperienced and clueless of all for this line of job perhaps?! As suspected for many many years now. Ajh!!
- moffkalast 2y ago
  To paraphrase the investigators of the average Boeing airliner crash: "A trained pilot would not have been able to regain control in the required time"
  - tim333 2y ago
    Well, we have new CEO, Kelly Ortberg who started Aug 8th, to give it a go. It looks like they are having a go at correcting some of their more noted flaws - he's an engineer and is going to run things from Seattle. Good luck to him!
    - moffkalast 2y ago
      Yeah like that'll make any difference. They've had a bean counter in charge for the past 4 years, and another engineer before that who was fired over the 737 Max fiasco. "CEO changes will continue until morale improves"?

quantified 2y ago

"Moss on my teeth is hindering my getting a date" reads the same. I think different people will get different interpretations.

a1445c8b 2y ago
“NASA considering sending FlossX to extract moss from teeth”

grahamjameson 2y ago

I do not know the details of their contracts, but assuming these are cost-plus contracts then it may be fair to equate structural dysfunction to intent.

jaggederest 2y ago
The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > The purpose of a system is what it does. Defense contractors extract money from the government, they are not here to enable space travel, they are here to move money from other people's pockets to their own. Any other actions are purely ancillary. And if they can get the money without delivering any result at all, why, they're fine with that. This is part of the reason why the new era of firm, fixed price contracts at NASA is so important. And why it's so troubling that NASA is having difficulty transitioning SLS contractors to such contracts for later (Artemis V+) rockets.
  - wmf 2y ago
    Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price. NASA just needs to drop them.
    - nradov 2y ago
      That sounds good, until it leaves NASA entirely dependent on SpaceX as a single supplier. For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts.
      - wmf 2y ago
        Sierra and Blue Origin are coming.
      - nordsieck 2y ago
        > For better or worse, there don't seem to be any other companies (old or new) that are able to successfully execute on huge fixed-price contracts. Northrup Grumman seems to be doing a pretty good job with Cygnus. And ULA seems to be doing alright with NSSLv2 (although it sounds like they may have had to give up a launch or two due to Vulcan delays).
      - Gud 2y ago
        No, but there will be. Besides SpaceX there is also Rocketlab who has a CEO rocket nerd in charge.
        kaliqt 2y ago
        So that's two nerds total.
        Ajedi32 2y ago
        Stoke Space also has a pretty huge rocket nerd at the helm[1]. And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever). The industry has been flourishing lately, though (with the possible exception of Blue Origin) it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9, let alone Starship. [1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/ https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/
nradov 2y ago
These are not cost-plus contracts for the most part. Boeing has incurred huge losses on fixed-price contracts with NASA. https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma...

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> Turns out they're just a giant company That should die. This is what happens when you allow monopolies, you can’t even let them die because you’ll be left with nothing. They face no competition , and have no reason to improve

whatshisface 2y ago
The "left with nothing" fear is unfounded. All of their assets would be bought up by investors seeking to do the same thing but the right way; a factory has value and somebody will want it.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Perhaps. But now imagine trying to be the politician(s) selling the "let'em die" idea. Most voters will be thinking, "What if my company is next to go?" and will vote accordingly. Thus there are few very politicians willing to take the high road.

mc32 2y ago

I usually despise stack rank, but it looks like there are times when it's needed. Maybe companies should mostly eschew it for other methods, but run it once per decade and flush out all the dead weight, of course, including management.

mangamadaiyan 2y ago
Who stack-ranks the management? How?
- mc32 2y ago
  You would have employees evaluate the managers. You can have outside consultants also evaluate the health of the management --but that can get tricky.
  - mangamadaiyan 2y ago
    Neither approach works. Engineers (management are also employees, right?) ranking management erodes management authority, and management will never stand for it. Outside consultants are usually hired with a fixed agenda - the rotten eggs almost always get to stay. Stack ranking is evil, period.
    - mc32 2y ago
      It is, but it may be periodically necessary to get rid of dead weight and extirpate those who’ve risen to their level of incompetence. I'm not advocating stack ranking for yearly review but rather a quintennial or decennial event to clean-house. In other words, a mechanism to avoid what happened to Boeing, Intel, Yahoo, and what is happening to Google and others. 360 reviews obviously allows orgs to get fat and carry bloat.
      - mangamadaiyan 2y ago
        I agree with you on the importance and necessity of getting rid of dead weight. All I'm saying is that stack ranking might not successfully get rid of dead weight. As with any system of metrics, the people who game the system are the ones who reap benefits from the system - thereby subverting the system, and preventing it from achieving its stated goals. As systems of its kind go, stack ranking is particularly insidious and gameable. I have no idea what _would_ work, though. I have some half-baked thoughts, but will reserve them until such time as they are better than half-baked.

dylan604 2y ago

It only reads that way if you're being very very generous and have lived under a rock for the past few years so that you've not seen any other information about Boeing.

throwawayffffas 2y ago

> Originally, the EUS was allocated a budget of $962 million and intended to fly on Artemis II, which in January was pushed to no earlier than September 2025. But by the OIG’s estimate, EUS costs are expected to balloon to $2 billion through 2025 and reach $2.8 billion by the time Artemis IV lifts off in 2028. Lets see they were allocated a budget of $962 million in order to deliver in 2025. But now they can deliver in 2028 and they will be paid $2.8 billion. They would have to be stupid to deliver in time.

orls 2y ago
Exactly - all the anti-Boeing sentiment in the comments here (while deserved) should also be directing some ire at the funding and contract structures being used for these projects (I.e. “cost-plus” contracts). They’re just bad policy if you want the _nominal objectives_ of the project delivered on time and on budget; they have structural incentives for contractors to go over. (It’s pretty clear that delivering the nominal objectives is not what the relevant policy-makers are actually aiming for, though. The cost overruns are the real goal for them, as it’s a kind of pork to steer regional funding)

mihaaly 2y ago

Title of The Economists article form April: > Can anyone pull Boeing out of its nosedive? Apparently the answer is a sound no. They decided to proudly shoot themselves into the stomach, then mitigating the situation by setting themselves on fire. The inspector general is wrong saying "blame on the aerospace giant’s mismanagement and inexperienced workforce". How can someone blame clueless person? The blame is on those putting clueless person there in the first place. Or is the management the most inexperienced and clueless of all for this line of job perhaps?! As suspected for many many years now. Ajh!!

moffkalast 2y ago
To paraphrase the investigators of the average Boeing airliner crash: "A trained pilot would not have been able to regain control in the required time"
- tim333 2y ago
  Well, we have new CEO, Kelly Ortberg who started Aug 8th, to give it a go. It looks like they are having a go at correcting some of their more noted flaws - he's an engineer and is going to run things from Seattle. Good luck to him!
  - moffkalast 2y ago
    Yeah like that'll make any difference. They've had a bean counter in charge for the past 4 years, and another engineer before that who was fired over the 737 Max fiasco. "CEO changes will continue until morale improves"?