3 ms·

> It had a minor issue that turned out not to be so serious. We don't know if it was serious or not. If Starliner managed to land this time, will it be able to

by ordu 2y ago

> It had a minor issue that turned out not to be so serious. We don't know if it was serious or not. If Starliner managed to land this time, will it be able to do it repeatedly, or it was just luck this time? If we are trying to deduce seriousness of the issue from data, then one point of data is too low. Boeing needs to launch a few dozens more of test flights to gather the data needed for this kind of reasoning. But if we are relying on causal reasoning, then we have no clear understanding of causes, Boeing engineers are still unable to explain how their thrusters fail exactly, and what they could do to make them robust.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Boeing needs to launch a few dozens more of test flights to gather the data needed for this kind of reasoning. This in fact is a shining vindication of Musk's "Waste metal, not time." philosophy. Boeing is operating in the old school "Spend lots of time planning, go for a hole in one." philosophy, so if they proceed to fail they need to spend lots of more time planning and going for more hole in ones to demonstrate sufficient statistics. SpaceX? They wasted metal instead of time and got statistics out with sheer numbers before Boeing even got a number, because the only way you get numbers is by getting numbers. Boeing should be fired and ideally bankrupted, and everyone else needs to get with the times so they don't become the next Boeing.
- tliltocatl 2y ago
  On the other hand, "waste metal" philosophy was what killed Soviet moon program. Guess sensors and telemetry are a bit more advanced today.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    No, the Soviets lost simply because we wasted more metal than they did. Consider that just the Apollo programme had twenty one (21) launches in a span of about just 8 years before Apollo 11 landed the first men on the Moon. Gemini had twelve (12) launches in a span of just 2 years, and Mercury had twenty six (26) launches in a span of just 4 years. Contrast 4 launches of N1, 6 launches of Voskhod, and 13 launches of Vostok from records we know of. If anything, Musk should waste more metal.

by ordu 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>Boeing needs to launch a few dozens more of test flights to gather the data needed for this kind of reasoning. This in fact is a shining vindication of Musk's "Waste metal, not time." philosophy. Boeing is operating in the old school "Spend lots of time planning, go for a hole in one." philosophy, so if they proceed to fail they need to spend lots of more time planning and going for more hole in ones to demonstrate sufficient statistics. SpaceX? They wasted metal instead of time and got statistics out with sheer numbers before Boeing even got a number, because the only way you get numbers is by getting numbers. Boeing should be fired and ideally bankrupted, and everyone else needs to get with the times so they don't become the next Boeing.

tliltocatl 2y ago
On the other hand, "waste metal" philosophy was what killed Soviet moon program. Guess sensors and telemetry are a bit more advanced today.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  No, the Soviets lost simply because we wasted more metal than they did. Consider that just the Apollo programme had twenty one (21) launches in a span of about just 8 years before Apollo 11 landed the first men on the Moon. Gemini had twelve (12) launches in a span of just 2 years, and Mercury had twenty six (26) launches in a span of just 4 years. Contrast 4 launches of N1, 6 launches of Voskhod, and 13 launches of Vostok from records we know of. If anything, Musk should waste more metal.