2 ms·

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 fa

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.

2 ms·

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 fa

by somenameforme 2y ago

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.