3 ms·
NASA didn't build this, Lockheed Martin and their subcontractors did. Articles and headlines like this make people think that NASA does a lot more than they ac
by y1n0 7mo ago
NASA didn't build this, Lockheed Martin and their subcontractors did. Articles and headlines like this make people think that NASA does a lot more than they actually do. This is like a CEO claiming credit for everything a company does.
- voodoo_child 7mo agoNice “well, actually”. I’m sure Lockheed were building this quad-redundant, radiation-hardened PowerPC that costs millions of dollars and communicates via Time-Triggered Ethernet anyway, whether NASA needed one or not.
- y1n0 7mo agoThis is the equivalent of prompt engineering.
- kube-system 7mo agoProbably, if it already wasn’t developed for DoD. For example, the OS it seems to be running is integrity 178. https://www.ghs.com/products/safety_critical/integrity_178_success-nasa_orion.html https://www.ghs.com/products/safety_critical/integrity_178_s... Aerospace tech is not entirely bespoke anymore, plenty of the foundational tech is off the shelf. Historically, the main difference between ICBM tech and human spaceflight tech is the payload and reentry system.
- Sebguer 7mo agowill nobody think of the megacorps!!!
- adrian_b 7mo agoLockheed Martin and their subcontractors did the implementation. We do not know how much of the high-level architecture of the system has been specified by NASA and how much by Lockheed Martin.
- y1n0 7mo agoI do.
- professorseth 7mo agoAre you interested in sharing more details to make your claim more believable?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- jakeinspace 7mo agoTrue, but BFS was mainly done in-house. Source: my best friend and I worked on some parts of it.
- colechristensen 7mo agoEh, in these kinds of subcontractor relationships there is a lot of work and communication on both sides of the table.
- therobots927 7mo ago[flagged]
- fleroviumna 7mo ago[dead]