5 ms·

I have a different take on this. Hardware is hard. Space hardware is exponentially so. But in general these days we value non-physical stuff at multiples of th

by bane 2y ago

I have a different take on this. Hardware is hard. Space hardware is exponentially so. But in general these days we value non-physical stuff at multiples of the real. Meta lost $15b on its Reality Labs last year by comparison. Orders of magnitude more. Lots of that was in AI, but that's a spend who's main value to Meta is to block OpenAI from outright monopoly and maybe push some more ads. Space has a lot of money in it (Starlink alone made like $7B maybe last year!), which is why there are so many companies trying to get up there, but a half-billion loss on manned space hardware has all of us (including me) taking turns throwing flames at Boeing for being a dying dinosaur when in fact what they've already done is definitely harder than VR and arguably in the long run has more "value" to us as a species. I sometimes see these numbers and have to reset my perspective about value and worth and what judgments I'm making about them.

snapcaster 2y ago
This is a good point that should be taken into account, but also i'm not a Meta user or shareholder (outside of ETFs etc.) so i don't care what they do with their money. Boeing is lighting our tax payments on fire and literally killing people
somenameforme 2y ago
The problem with this take is that Boeing was a major part of the Apollo program where they achieved dramatically more than is being asked of them here, in a far shorter time frame, and for far less money. There's no real explanation besides a complete atrophy of talent and overall capability, probably driven by becoming an entirely profit oriented company where taxpayer funding became a more productive means of of revenue generation than increasing quality or reducing costs.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  That's all true and I agree with your conclusion, but comparisons to Apollo are complicated by changes in how much risk NASA is willing to tolerate. The Apollo missions were very risky and got lucky more than once.
- xp84 2y ago
  > besides a complete atrophy of talent and overall capability, probably driven by becoming an entirely profit oriented company Besides the fact that you didn’t add “short-term” before “profit” I’d say you’ve described 90-100% of public companies right there. They are all pretty good at making quick profits, buying back their own stocks, coming up with legal tax evasion strategies, and other things that only add actual value for a few wealthy people, but by any objective measure, what do we do now that we possess technology only dreamed of by previous generations? How about a fridge that has a screen on it, but the fridge itself has a one-year warranty and will probably be in a landfill in 5 years because it’s made shoddily of trash components but uneconomic to fix. A laptop with 8GB of RAM, in 2025, that can’t be upgraded in any way. Tons of things from vapes to AirPods with batteries sealed in, and designed to be discarded prematurely. We don’t have as a society what we had back then. We’re too busy ripping each other off to do great things.
dv_dt 2y ago
Starliner comes after decades of failed Boeing managed space programs to replace the Space Shuttle. Its probably the second or third reboot of a crew capsule. Congress should share part of the blame but at least taxpayers used to get working hardware for their corporate welfare. Space is hard but not this hard

by bane 2y ago

snapcaster 2y ago

This is a good point that should be taken into account, but also i'm not a Meta user or shareholder (outside of ETFs etc.) so i don't care what they do with their money. Boeing is lighting our tax payments on fire and literally killing people

somenameforme 2y ago

The problem with this take is that Boeing was a major part of the Apollo program where they achieved dramatically more than is being asked of them here, in a far shorter time frame, and for far less money. There's no real explanation besides a complete atrophy of talent and overall capability, probably driven by becoming an entirely profit oriented company where taxpayer funding became a more productive means of of revenue generation than increasing quality or reducing costs.

lupusreal 2y ago
That's all true and I agree with your conclusion, but comparisons to Apollo are complicated by changes in how much risk NASA is willing to tolerate. The Apollo missions were very risky and got lucky more than once.
xp84 2y ago
> besides a complete atrophy of talent and overall capability, probably driven by becoming an entirely profit oriented company Besides the fact that you didn’t add “short-term” before “profit” I’d say you’ve described 90-100% of public companies right there. They are all pretty good at making quick profits, buying back their own stocks, coming up with legal tax evasion strategies, and other things that only add actual value for a few wealthy people, but by any objective measure, what do we do now that we possess technology only dreamed of by previous generations? How about a fridge that has a screen on it, but the fridge itself has a one-year warranty and will probably be in a landfill in 5 years because it’s made shoddily of trash components but uneconomic to fix. A laptop with 8GB of RAM, in 2025, that can’t be upgraded in any way. Tons of things from vapes to AirPods with batteries sealed in, and designed to be discarded prematurely. We don’t have as a society what we had back then. We’re too busy ripping each other off to do great things.

dv_dt 2y ago

Starliner comes after decades of failed Boeing managed space programs to replace the Space Shuttle. Its probably the second or third reboot of a crew capsule. Congress should share part of the blame but at least taxpayers used to get working hardware for their corporate welfare. Space is hard but not this hard