NASA investigation finds Boeing hindering Americans' return to moon(flyingmag.com)
flyingmag.com
NASA investigation finds Boeing hindering Americans' return to moon
https://www.flyingmag.com/modern/nasa-investigation-finds-boeing-hindering-americans-return-to-moon/
411 comments
You should know that in business school and after everything you just described would be called "optimized". There is some short discussion about ethics, usually involving not stealing from investors, but otherwise the world is seen as one giant place where people are the same as nuts and bolts or ingredients in a chocolate bar to be optimized. This goes for customers and employees.
Optimization is one of the more useful terms for it, but I think a big part of the problem is foundational. It's easier to trade in measurable values than unmeasurable ones, so the trades with something measurable on both sides get prioritized, which subtly increases the demand and market value of measurable values over unmeasurable.
So we end up gradually converting our productivity to the measurable outputs because we can more safely trade them. But then unmeasurable values get shafted.
The non-fungible values get shafted even harder. For example, it's inherently impossible to trade for true human relationships because the bidirectional flow is where the value comes from and that flow must be built. But that means two people must simultaneously choose to take a mostly unknown level of risk on building a relationship that could fail or even be a net negative. Our relationship drive is pretty strong. The people making AI chatbot friends and SOs, not even to mention dating apps and relationship-commodifiers like Meetup or old Facebook, are doing their best to commodify relationships, though. The sheer level of social toxicity caused by online mass social media has been correspondingly enormous.
So we end up gradually converting our productivity to the measurable outputs because we can more safely trade them. But then unmeasurable values get shafted.
The non-fungible values get shafted even harder. For example, it's inherently impossible to trade for true human relationships because the bidirectional flow is where the value comes from and that flow must be built. But that means two people must simultaneously choose to take a mostly unknown level of risk on building a relationship that could fail or even be a net negative. Our relationship drive is pretty strong. The people making AI chatbot friends and SOs, not even to mention dating apps and relationship-commodifiers like Meetup or old Facebook, are doing their best to commodify relationships, though. The sheer level of social toxicity caused by online mass social media has been correspondingly enormous.
My undergrad is in finance. IMO the problem is that we don't really teach what wealth is as Adam Smith defined it. A wealthy nation is not the one with the greatest stockpile of gold, but the one with the most quality goods and services easily available to its average citizens (I'm paraphrasing a bit, but you understand). Smith really stresses that profit is a measurement of the good provided to society by an activity. But in my studies, there was no concern for this quality of profit. The attitude was that any way net income (profit) could be increased was strictly to be understood as a net positive for society.
I had professors explain that war is profitable because people are employed building tanks etc. and they use their wages to stimulate the economy. When I asked 'what if instead of sending a few million dollars of steel and circuitry to the desert to get exploded, those workers used the same resources on a hospital?' I recieved the answer that if the NPV of the tank is higher than the hospital, it must be the better use of the resources.
I had professors explain that war is profitable because people are employed building tanks etc. and they use their wages to stimulate the economy. When I asked 'what if instead of sending a few million dollars of steel and circuitry to the desert to get exploded, those workers used the same resources on a hospital?' I recieved the answer that if the NPV of the tank is higher than the hospital, it must be the better use of the resources.
You had finance professors who were unfamiliar with Bastiat’s parable of the broken window? Or unable to apply it to the military-industrial complex?
Our universities may be in worse shape than I thought.
Our universities may be in worse shape than I thought.
>Bastiat’s parable of the broken window
Never heard of it. Admittedly it wasn't a highly ranked university.
Edit: Having familiarized myself, thank you for the introduction. This is not the first time my education has disappointed me.
Never heard of it. Admittedly it wasn't a highly ranked university.
Edit: Having familiarized myself, thank you for the introduction. This is not the first time my education has disappointed me.
War is profitable in capitalism, because the dogma is that capital is productive and must net a positive return.
In the underutilized capital scenario, idle capital incurs costs, but no benefits. It must be destroyed. The easiest way to maintain the facade is to send the capital to war. If you acquire new land, congratulations, the "investment" paid off. If it doesn't, then the destruction of capital at least maintains the profitability of domestic capital.
War is really that simple. If you had a war for any other reason, everyone involved would see the stupidity after the first few skirmishes.
In the underutilized capital scenario, idle capital incurs costs, but no benefits. It must be destroyed. The easiest way to maintain the facade is to send the capital to war. If you acquire new land, congratulations, the "investment" paid off. If it doesn't, then the destruction of capital at least maintains the profitability of domestic capital.
War is really that simple. If you had a war for any other reason, everyone involved would see the stupidity after the first few skirmishes.
War is good for business. It's the 34th rule of acquisition.
https://youtu.be/pgUA1tluVmE?si=H_XON7YHc7peHSs7
https://youtu.be/pgUA1tluVmE?si=H_XON7YHc7peHSs7
Ahistorical Marxist "analysis" on HN?
War has existed since the dawn of humanity, thousands of years prior to the advent of capitalism, and has been fought by societies with every kind of socioeconomic and political configuration. War is a human institution and not contingent upon a particular economic arrangement.
War has existed since the dawn of humanity, thousands of years prior to the advent of capitalism, and has been fought by societies with every kind of socioeconomic and political configuration. War is a human institution and not contingent upon a particular economic arrangement.
I do believe that people from the USA are extremely more likely to view war as profitable and not a huge money sinc.
And I have to wonder is there a connection to WW2, where USA exported about $32.5 billion worth of goods through Lend-Lease, indebting a number of nations in the process, while having almost zero repair damage (yes, Perl Harbor, of course a tragedy, but it was a small town, and Europe had cities that were bombed for years, and that had to be rebuild almost from scratch)
The process of repairing Europe costed a lot. Not to mention paying back the land-lease!
So yeah huge money sink for everyone who are on a continent the war is on. And profitable for leasers because everyone actively at war is kinda forced to take the deal.
The process of repairing Europe costed a lot. Not to mention paying back the land-lease!
So yeah huge money sink for everyone who are on a continent the war is on. And profitable for leasers because everyone actively at war is kinda forced to take the deal.
No one really “let them” destroy things. This is one of the key dangers of majoritarian government. The moment that people can vote for representatives the representatives will be purchased, and later, the votes will purchased. Once this happens, money will be destroyed to allow the purchasing class to rob the wealth of the civilization, and this leads to financialization of economics. This pattern has been repeated over and over again. In the USA, this process started almost immediately after the formation of the country, but it didn’t become truly corrupt until the McKinley campaign. The financialization process started in 1913, saw its first bust boom/bust less than a decade later, and then purposeful inflation began in 1971. The entire economy was financialized by the late 1990s which culminated in 2008. The banks are now so bankrupt that the Fed has begun providing overnight repossessions to member banks…
> This is one of the key dangers of majoritarian government. The moment that people can vote for representatives the representatives will be purchased
What better alternatives are you thinking of? An intelligent, compassionate, eco-friendly and forward-thinking dictator would be great I guess, but historically that's not the ones emerging on top.
What better alternatives are you thinking of? An intelligent, compassionate, eco-friendly and forward-thinking dictator would be great I guess, but historically that's not the ones emerging on top.
> but historically that's not the ones emerging on top.
the only one that has so far been "good" has been the singaporean authoritarian regime (yes, they are "authoritarean").
But even if they're good and benevolent so far, there's zero guarantee that the next leader, or the next generation of them, will remain true.
That's why even though majoritarian gov't are bad, they're the least worst. Not to mention that if the elected gov't is bad, it's becaue the people doing the electing didn't put in enough civic responsibility as a collective.
the only one that has so far been "good" has been the singaporean authoritarian regime (yes, they are "authoritarean").
But even if they're good and benevolent so far, there's zero guarantee that the next leader, or the next generation of them, will remain true.
That's why even though majoritarian gov't are bad, they're the least worst. Not to mention that if the elected gov't is bad, it's becaue the people doing the electing didn't put in enough civic responsibility as a collective.
The current system is not that bad, a radical shift towards government transparency would help a lot. Make it hard to hide bribery, corruption, and plain evilness, pay well but make it hard to sell favours in the dark. Make it easy for public officers to pay for blatant crimes. Make it hard for a single political group to revert transparency.
Politicians would have more shit to throw around, yes, but hopefully the worst of them will look elsewhere for the easy money if it can't be had that easily in public office.
Politicians would have more shit to throw around, yes, but hopefully the worst of them will look elsewhere for the easy money if it can't be had that easily in public office.
If you think 1913 was the first boom/bust in United States financial history you're either trying to push an agenda or just totally ignorant
No, that’s just when the economy began financialization.
I assume you're saying because of the fed, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to mark JP Morgan's efforts to create monopolies throughout the economy a better start point?
Well, this is why I pointed out McKinley and also stated the process did start shortly after the founding. True financialization only after Morgan and his friends met and formed the Fed tho, which was 1913. Once the Fed was in place, they could vastly expand the amount of available credit, bribe and purchase without restraint, and start the type of economy to which we are all now accustomed. Importantly, this pattern is a direct inversion of “capitalism.” In capitalism, the present is leveraged for the future. In “financialism,” the future is leveraged for the present.
Where have you learned about this? I’ve been casually spelunking into the US economic past, mostly via Wikipedia, but I’d love to know if there are other better sources to check out. Especially around where you drew that conclusion of “capitalism” vs “financialism”
Regarding capitalism vs financialism, that’s my own observation of the present vs reading about the past, and having studied economics. Today, there is no saving, and most of the wealthiest people are also the most indebted. This transition occurred as a byproduct of constant inflation. Even “low” inflation rates will push people from saving into investment (even if passive). If you sit on money you lose year over year. You’ll be forced to invest. Price inflation is therefore seen first in stocks, bonds, some derivatives markets, then in property and every other asset. As interest rates go down, they eventually fall below the inflation rate. This essentially makes money free if a person knows that he/she will make a return that exceeds the inflation rate. Eventually, with the collection and accumulation of debt obligations, those debt obligations themselves become a goods to be traded. Liabilities become assets. Future funds are used not only to fund the present, but they are then leveraged to create more credit and expand the pool of debt obligations and increase the inflation rate. This is financialism as a distinct economic system; the entire economy is built upon financial products and not upon physical wealth. Further, it is built upon future claims on production instead of on sacrifices made in the present. Financialism is then the temporal opposite of capitalism.
[deleted]
It goes beyond voting, people actually empower their abusers by buying the cheapest option regardless of its context. People dislike monopolies, but will happily grow one if it costs less than local or more responsible alternatives. That monopoly eventually gains the power to change the game rules.
We are mostly ignorant, and we vote, consume, act and live that way. We choose to be that way, and so good things won't last long in our collective hands.
We are mostly ignorant, and we vote, consume, act and live that way. We choose to be that way, and so good things won't last long in our collective hands.
1971, you say?
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Good charting. But yeah, the dollar has lost over 90% of its value since then, and the disparity between the rich and the poor has widened.
It wasn't always this way. Milton Friedman introduced the idea in the 1970s that businesses could ignore their workers and communities because if they focused on profit, that would benefit everyone. Shareholder Theory elevates the stockholders above all others and leads to stock buybacks and optimizing for wealth extraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
> that would benefit everyone.
no, it would benefit the shareholders. The regulations imposed by the gov't (which is meant to be representitive) would reign in the excess externalization. Everyone would benefit from competition, when it does happen.
no, it would benefit the shareholders. The regulations imposed by the gov't (which is meant to be representitive) would reign in the excess externalization. Everyone would benefit from competition, when it does happen.
I do not understand the statement "Everyone would benefit from competition".
How is that not an oxymoron?
Surely those that do not win in a competition are losers. How is that a benefit to them?
How is that not an oxymoron?
Surely those that do not win in a competition are losers. How is that a benefit to them?
"Everyone" meaning "everyone as a whole", not absolutely every individual.
If there's more than one grocery store, I probably get better prices. (Or, negatively, if there's only one then I probably get worse prices.) And so with every other aspect of the economy.
If there's more than one grocery store, I probably get better prices. (Or, negatively, if there's only one then I probably get worse prices.) And so with every other aspect of the economy.
[deleted]
So, if competition is supposed to fix other aspects of the economy, why is healthcare disproportionately high compared to other things?
There are several hospitals around me. Endless amount of doctor offices. There are several health insurance companies I can choose from. There is competition. Yet, prices are not affordable for most.
There are several hospitals around me. Endless amount of doctor offices. There are several health insurance companies I can choose from. There is competition. Yet, prices are not affordable for most.
It's not fair competition, healthcare is full of players competing with each other in a highly regulated marketplace. The system has been set up in a way (generally with good intentions, you want doctors to have expensive malpractice insurance for example) that no matter who is providing the services, the costs to the end user are going to be high.
So, maybe something's can't be solved by free market capitalism?
> healthcare disproportionately high compared to other things?
it's because the number you're comparing to is from other countries, where they subsidize their own citizen's healthcare.
The US's healthcare system has become a convoluted mess, and the competition you mention is not sufficient.
it's because the number you're comparing to is from other countries, where they subsidize their own citizen's healthcare.
The US's healthcare system has become a convoluted mess, and the competition you mention is not sufficient.
Oh, so there are other means or systems that are good or even better, i.e. more sufficient to fix or improve society than just blind competition. Got it!
Fair competition drives out inefficient players, and generally can keep costs down for consumers. That's what it means, it doesn't literally mean every single person will profit, but competition makes for healthier markets than lack thereof.
So, competition benefits consumers, which are a subset of society. Say that instead.
> So, what next? our organs?
Not even kidding. There are villages around where I grew up, a good number of adults have one kidney only.
Now if they manage to kidnap and kill a person, now they got two kidneys, a heart, a liver and other stuff.
Not even kidding. There are villages around where I grew up, a good number of adults have one kidney only.
Now if they manage to kidnap and kill a person, now they got two kidneys, a heart, a liver and other stuff.
> What MBAs and Financists destroyed so far:
You can add governance for as long as lobbyists have been writing law.
You can add accountability for whenever MBAs and investors come in contact with news orgs.
You can add governance for as long as lobbyists have been writing law.
You can add accountability for whenever MBAs and investors come in contact with news orgs.
> So, what next? our organs?
Yep, they started with our eye balls. In exchange, we are getting "relevant ads".
Also our frontal lobe. In exchange, we get depressive dopamine releases.
Yep, they started with our eye balls. In exchange, we are getting "relevant ads".
Also our frontal lobe. In exchange, we get depressive dopamine releases.
> So, what next? our organs?
I’m almost certain I’ve seen a study that tried to prove opening up the organ trade would help the economy and hinder the black market.
I’m almost certain I’ve seen a study that tried to prove opening up the organ trade would help the economy and hinder the black market.
I see your organ trade study and raise you a billion dollar VC to turn kidneys into penis enlargement powder, buying at a rate that prices out the majority of dialysis patients.
You have a study for this or are you just getting off on imagined scenarios? I agree VC is largely terrible, but being hyperbolic won't help us arrive at a better solution.
You mention health care and education. Have you considered government’s role in this?
https://kottke.org/19/02/cheap-tvs-and-exorbitant-education-...
- Social cohesion and homogeneity and all the draw backs of destroying it.
The idea that you should mass import as many people as possible to increase GDP is absolutely one of the worst things that has happened in modern time.
If you want to import this many people then it takes a lot of hard work. Singapore is a good example.
The idea that you should mass import as many people as possible to increase GDP is absolutely one of the worst things that has happened in modern time.
If you want to import this many people then it takes a lot of hard work. Singapore is a good example.
> what next? our organs?
already happening, look at the american food industry
already happening, look at the american food industry
But think about all the shareholder value they created
From the Tom Toro The New Yorker comic:
* https://www.npr.org/2015/01/25/379787274/howd-a-cartoonist-s...
* https://www.npr.org/2015/01/25/379787274/howd-a-cartoonist-s...
[deleted]
> They convinced us that our homes are investments, so they can fleece us with their usurary schemes. So, what next? our organs?
It's an extortionist scheme. Every additional industry or vertical is not only proof that capitalism continues to provide "value" and move society forward, but it makes more millionaires and inflates our GDP. Currency wants everything to be traded with currency. Healthcare, water, land, sex, breathable air.
Also, this ultimately benefits the Fed and other massive financial institutions. If they get together and decide policy, they can do almost whatever they want. Then that small cabal of people can scheme with the government or military to exert control. This is mostly extra-democratic.
We'd have to switch out our entire government with un-bribable ethically driven heroes in order to even put a dent in this system.
In truth we are playing pretend with democracy. Like a little game for the peasants to play pretend. While economic and military policy is decided outside of that system.
Every inch financiers can gain, is another system under the control of economic fascists.
And to claim that it is dictated in some way by profit or merit is laughable. It is only dictated by those things when they want it to be. Another game.
It's an extortionist scheme. Every additional industry or vertical is not only proof that capitalism continues to provide "value" and move society forward, but it makes more millionaires and inflates our GDP. Currency wants everything to be traded with currency. Healthcare, water, land, sex, breathable air.
Also, this ultimately benefits the Fed and other massive financial institutions. If they get together and decide policy, they can do almost whatever they want. Then that small cabal of people can scheme with the government or military to exert control. This is mostly extra-democratic.
We'd have to switch out our entire government with un-bribable ethically driven heroes in order to even put a dent in this system.
In truth we are playing pretend with democracy. Like a little game for the peasants to play pretend. While economic and military policy is decided outside of that system.
Every inch financiers can gain, is another system under the control of economic fascists.
And to claim that it is dictated in some way by profit or merit is laughable. It is only dictated by those things when they want it to be. Another game.
tazu(2)
> During a visit to Michoud in 2023, for example, inspectors discovered that welding on a component of the SLS Core Stage 3 did not meet NASA standards. Per the report, unsatisfactory welding performed on a set of fuel tanks led directly to a seven-month delay in EUS completion.
> “According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. [...]
Welders are highly qualified and well-paid craftsmen. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’d been hit particularly hard by management that doesn’t value tenured, expensive employees.
> “According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. [...]
Welders are highly qualified and well-paid craftsmen. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’d been hit particularly hard by management that doesn’t value tenured, expensive employees.
If you read the OIG report, it states:
"Michoud officials stated that it has been difficult to attract and retain a contractor workforce with aerospace manufacturing experience in part due to Michoud’s geographical location in New Orleans, Louisiana, and lower employee compensation relative to other aerospace competitors."
"Michoud officials stated that it has been difficult to attract and retain a contractor workforce with aerospace manufacturing experience in part due to Michoud’s geographical location in New Orleans, Louisiana, and lower employee compensation relative to other aerospace competitors."
The entire purpose of SLS is to create high-paying jobs and they just... didn't. Imagine having a blank check and cheaping out. Amazing.
If you can get away with the share buybacks and other self enrichment, with no accountability mechanisms, this is a natural outcome based on who is in charge of these companies. But, if we were to have made these workers government employees to pay them the desired wages (and cut out the management and shareholder middlemen) as well as “pay, train, retrain”, we would have been laughed at as promoting government waste. Much harder to skim government wages as a for profit enterprise vs government contracts.
Like a religion or a cult, you have to cut through the ideology; the ideas are parroted to control the narrative.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-rot-at-the-heart-of...
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-disaster-american-bus...
Like a religion or a cult, you have to cut through the ideology; the ideas are parroted to control the narrative.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-rot-at-the-heart-of...
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-disaster-american-bus...
> if we were to have made these workers government employees
The problem is monopoly. Spacefaring isn’t exactly the type of work that attracts the safe and secure job for life types. (Most folks I know at SpaceX would have chosen another career if the only option were a public job at public pay with public promotion limits.)
The problem is monopoly. Spacefaring isn’t exactly the type of work that attracts the safe and secure job for life types. (Most folks I know at SpaceX would have chosen another career if the only option were a public job at public pay with public promotion limits.)
While SpaceX has been successful and innovative, it certainly doesn’t keep folks around. Average tenure is ~3.6 years. Those folks are smart, and can always find work elsewhere. Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades? A tale as old as time.
> While SpaceX has been successful and innovative, it certainly doesn’t keep folks around. Average tenure is ~3.6 years
What was it for the Apollo programme?(The entire programme was 11 years [1].)
> Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades?
I’m not arguing against having more people at NASA. Simply against the claim that this is the evidenced issue. Unless the entire American space programme is a failure, private operators are not the root problem.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
What was it for the Apollo programme?(The entire programme was 11 years [1].)
> Are we optimizing for the individual? Or for an aerospace manufacturing and supply chain system that requires care and feeding over decades?
I’m not arguing against having more people at NASA. Simply against the claim that this is the evidenced issue. Unless the entire American space programme is a failure, private operators are not the root problem.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
The Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least.
> Apollo program doesn’t seem to be a good example of a space pipeline that is sustainable for a few decades at least
Correct. OP suggested the root of the problem is we haven't made "these workers government employees." The Apollo programme had lots of government employees. Commercial interests clearly aren't at the root of the problem.
Correct. OP suggested the root of the problem is we haven't made "these workers government employees." The Apollo programme had lots of government employees. Commercial interests clearly aren't at the root of the problem.
Im pretty sure the government employees working on Apollo were mostly already there before the program or stayed there afterwards, so their tenure was probably much longer than 3.6 years. And a lot of work on Apollo was done by contractors (for example building basically all flight hardware as far as I know).
As a private company how are you even getting those numbers? I'm certain they vary dramatically by specialty within SpaceX.
I think LinkedIn exposes these stats on Company pages. Search company and click the Insights tab.
Edit: Median tenure is 2.8 yrs according to LinkedIn.
Edit: Median tenure is 2.8 yrs according to LinkedIn.
Average tenure will always be low in a growing company, not due to people leaving but due to people joining.
Can see here space X has more than doubled the number of people the past few years, that is enough to explain that "low tenure", its just due to people joining.
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62ac4aacc75a115ff9dcb9bc/639...
Can see here space X has more than doubled the number of people the past few years, that is enough to explain that "low tenure", its just due to people joining.
https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/62ac4aacc75a115ff9dcb9bc/639...
>The problem is monopoly. Spacefaring isn’t exactly the type of work that attracts the safe and secure job for life types.
Sure, but we aren't talking about hiring astronauts (who ironically do tend to spend their entire career in government because it's the only place to get the thrills they want from fighter pilot to space).
We're talking about quality professional welders. Stereotyping them into one bucket would be silly, but I think it's fair to assume there are a large number of welders who wouldn't mind a guaranteed, high paying job with a guaranteed retirement package.
Extend that to like 90% of the jobs required to make a spaceship...
Sure, but we aren't talking about hiring astronauts (who ironically do tend to spend their entire career in government because it's the only place to get the thrills they want from fighter pilot to space).
We're talking about quality professional welders. Stereotyping them into one bucket would be silly, but I think it's fair to assume there are a large number of welders who wouldn't mind a guaranteed, high paying job with a guaranteed retirement package.
Extend that to like 90% of the jobs required to make a spaceship...
Do you make more welding for the USG than you do welding in the private sector?
If so it might be the only government job in the country that beats the private sector in terms of pay.
If so it might be the only government job in the country that beats the private sector in terms of pay.
People say this so confidently, shortly before the layoff that keeps them out of the job for half-a-year (for the 3rd time).
What do you think has changed since the 1960s? There were high paying private industry union protected skilled jobs, but many people went to work for NASA.
The USSR had just beat the US to put the first man into space. The same USSR that was killing political dissidents en masse and building an arsenal of terrifying nuclear weapons. John F. Kennedy set out the ambitious goal of putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade, and then he was assassinated.
People wanted to make that happen. So they did.
There hasn't been a lot to inspire people to work for the government like that lately.
People wanted to make that happen. So they did.
There hasn't been a lot to inspire people to work for the government like that lately.
While this is how this story is regularly retold it's not quite accurate. Polling around the Moon program tells that while there was a large minority of people vehemently in support of it, the overall response was mixed, and NASA was generally seen as a good target to cut funding from. [1]
I think there are lots of parallels between the Moon landings in the 60s and the idea of colonizing Mars today. In particular, most people don't think it's possible, and so they think it's a waste of money. The Apollo program only received majority approval once we landed on the Moon. People also tend to dramatically overestimate the cost of achieving great things in space. Polling suggested people thought the Moon missions were taking up about 22% of the budget. In modern times it's down to less than 0.5%, and that's with NASA blowing tens of billions of dollars of pork projects like the SLS.
Overall support for the Moon program only began to steadily rise in the years after human spaceflight was defacto completely cancelled by Nixon, and people were able to coolly reflect on what a ridiculous and important achievement that was.
[1] - https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-suppo...
I think there are lots of parallels between the Moon landings in the 60s and the idea of colonizing Mars today. In particular, most people don't think it's possible, and so they think it's a waste of money. The Apollo program only received majority approval once we landed on the Moon. People also tend to dramatically overestimate the cost of achieving great things in space. Polling suggested people thought the Moon missions were taking up about 22% of the budget. In modern times it's down to less than 0.5%, and that's with NASA blowing tens of billions of dollars of pork projects like the SLS.
Overall support for the Moon program only began to steadily rise in the years after human spaceflight was defacto completely cancelled by Nixon, and people were able to coolly reflect on what a ridiculous and important achievement that was.
[1] - https://www.space.com/10601-apollo-moon-program-public-suppo...
According to your own link, the thing people don't like isn't space exploration, it's paying for it:
> "When you divorce it from the numbers and you ask people if they like NASA and spaceflight, people say yes," Launius told SPACE.com. "75 to 80 percent are in favor."
Because obviously; people don't like paying for anything.
If you ask someone without a lot of surplus in their life whether they'd rather have the money themselves in tax cuts or benefits or they want to spend it on astronauts, they want food on their table. Especially when they're overestimating how much the space program costs.
But the question was, did people want to work for NASA? And then you get to select your idealists from the >75% in favor of the space program.
> "When you divorce it from the numbers and you ask people if they like NASA and spaceflight, people say yes," Launius told SPACE.com. "75 to 80 percent are in favor."
Because obviously; people don't like paying for anything.
If you ask someone without a lot of surplus in their life whether they'd rather have the money themselves in tax cuts or benefits or they want to spend it on astronauts, they want food on their table. Especially when they're overestimating how much the space program costs.
But the question was, did people want to work for NASA? And then you get to select your idealists from the >75% in favor of the space program.
> same USSR that was killing political dissidents en masse and building an arsenal of terrifying nuclear weapons
One more factor: decolonisation created new countries. That created a unique competition for ideological supremacy.
One more factor: decolonisation created new countries. That created a unique competition for ideological supremacy.
No, it just aligned with elite interests ("If they can put nuke platforms above our heads and we can't put some above theirs, it doesn't matter how much better our economy runs, in theory.") There were plenty of people who would have loved to have put their energy and expertise towards a climate change moonshot, but our incredibly powerful corporate interests and the legislators that they own didn't want it to happen, so it didn't.
Also, you remove that second S and first R from that second sentence, and it would still be true. Our entry into the space race wasn't a matter of unmatched moral nobility.
Also, you remove that second S and first R from that second sentence, and it would still be true. Our entry into the space race wasn't a matter of unmatched moral nobility.
> There were plenty of people who would have loved to have put their energy and expertise towards a climate change moonshot, but our incredibly powerful corporate interests and the legislators that they own didn't want it to happen, so it didn't.
The problem with "climate change moonshot" is that the answer isn't really a single target or anything suitable to a government spending program. You get the result you want by doing a carbon tax and then refunding fully 100% of the money to the population as a dividend so the tax doesn't trash the economy.
Then people reduce carbon to avoid the tax. Hybrid and electric vehicles become more attractive than gas (especially to people who drive more), diesel rail lines get electrified, coal power plants get shut down as uneconomical and replaced with solar/wind/nuclear/hydro, people replace furnaces with heat pumps, etc. You don't have to order anybody to do anything in particular or figure out how it should be done for them because everybody wants to avoid the tax so they do it themselves.
The reason that doesn't happen is the reason you say -- the oil and coal industries have captured too many legislators. But even if you had the votes, the way to fix it still isn't "NASA for climate change", it's just pricing carbon.
The problem with "climate change moonshot" is that the answer isn't really a single target or anything suitable to a government spending program. You get the result you want by doing a carbon tax and then refunding fully 100% of the money to the population as a dividend so the tax doesn't trash the economy.
Then people reduce carbon to avoid the tax. Hybrid and electric vehicles become more attractive than gas (especially to people who drive more), diesel rail lines get electrified, coal power plants get shut down as uneconomical and replaced with solar/wind/nuclear/hydro, people replace furnaces with heat pumps, etc. You don't have to order anybody to do anything in particular or figure out how it should be done for them because everybody wants to avoid the tax so they do it themselves.
The reason that doesn't happen is the reason you say -- the oil and coal industries have captured too many legislators. But even if you had the votes, the way to fix it still isn't "NASA for climate change", it's just pricing carbon.
No, trying to financially engineer incentives to make all of those things magically happen would not have worked. They tried that with broadband rollout and healthcare and got middling results, at best. Public/private partnerships are a fool's gold standard and it's time to stop getting burned by that scam.
We wanted the government to get directly involved. To fund and empower a federal agency to hire workers, plan projects, requisition resources, and execute at a massive scale, as had NASA worked in the 60s, or the WPA in the 30s. I know that this terrifies certain people, and I revel in their terror. Things that are bad for their craven interests are good for the rest of us.
We wanted the government to get directly involved. To fund and empower a federal agency to hire workers, plan projects, requisition resources, and execute at a massive scale, as had NASA worked in the 60s, or the WPA in the 30s. I know that this terrifies certain people, and I revel in their terror. Things that are bad for their craven interests are good for the rest of us.
> No, trying to financially engineer incentives to make all of those things magically happen would not have worked. They tried that with broadband rollout and healthcare and got middling results, at best. Public/private partnerships are a fool's gold standard and it's time to stop getting burned by that scam.
Public/private partnerships are an entirely different thing. There you still have the government dictating what should happen, even if the thing they require is inefficient or miserable, and then you invite a corrupt government contractor that satisfies none of the prerequisites for a competitive market to back their armored car up to the government's vault and suck out all the money.
A carbon tax does not involve any government contractors. You burn carbon, you pay tax. People avoid burning carbon to avoid paying the tax. All of the tax money goes back to the citizens; everybody gets a check cut in the same amount. The imperative is to eliminate space for corruption by leaving no exceptions to the tax and no discretion in where the money goes.
> We wanted the government to get directly involved.
You are implicitly asking for the thing you say you don't like.
In order to install solar panels, the government would have to buy land to put them on, and then buy solar panels. These things come from private sellers. But the government's purchasing process is thoroughly corrupt, so now you're buying solar panels and concrete and transformers from whoever's cronies have the in with the administration. You can't avoid this by trying to say "we'll make our own solar panels then" because for that you'd have to buy semiconductor wafers and fabrication equipment etc. The inputs ultimately have to come from somewhere and the somewhere is going to capture the government.
This is exactly what happened with the WPA and NASA. The term "boondoggle" was coined for the WPA's corruption and inefficiency. Around 90% of NASA's funding goes to government contractors. This is Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, etc. And it's not a new thing:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/hr-93-11.pdf
At the height of the New Deal in 1936, total federal spending, even adjusted for both population growth and inflation to 2024 dollars, was less than $500B. (In unadjusted 1936 dollars it was $8.2B). The current federal budget is over $6T -- right now it's more than twelve times as much in real dollars per capita than it was at the height of the New Deal. The "massive scale" you wanted is more than already happening, but it's not working, because the government doesn't spend money efficiently. It siphons it into the coffers of the connected.
Public/private partnerships are an entirely different thing. There you still have the government dictating what should happen, even if the thing they require is inefficient or miserable, and then you invite a corrupt government contractor that satisfies none of the prerequisites for a competitive market to back their armored car up to the government's vault and suck out all the money.
A carbon tax does not involve any government contractors. You burn carbon, you pay tax. People avoid burning carbon to avoid paying the tax. All of the tax money goes back to the citizens; everybody gets a check cut in the same amount. The imperative is to eliminate space for corruption by leaving no exceptions to the tax and no discretion in where the money goes.
> We wanted the government to get directly involved.
You are implicitly asking for the thing you say you don't like.
In order to install solar panels, the government would have to buy land to put them on, and then buy solar panels. These things come from private sellers. But the government's purchasing process is thoroughly corrupt, so now you're buying solar panels and concrete and transformers from whoever's cronies have the in with the administration. You can't avoid this by trying to say "we'll make our own solar panels then" because for that you'd have to buy semiconductor wafers and fabrication equipment etc. The inputs ultimately have to come from somewhere and the somewhere is going to capture the government.
This is exactly what happened with the WPA and NASA. The term "boondoggle" was coined for the WPA's corruption and inefficiency. Around 90% of NASA's funding goes to government contractors. This is Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, etc. And it's not a new thing:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/hr-93-11.pdf
At the height of the New Deal in 1936, total federal spending, even adjusted for both population growth and inflation to 2024 dollars, was less than $500B. (In unadjusted 1936 dollars it was $8.2B). The current federal budget is over $6T -- right now it's more than twelve times as much in real dollars per capita than it was at the height of the New Deal. The "massive scale" you wanted is more than already happening, but it's not working, because the government doesn't spend money efficiently. It siphons it into the coffers of the connected.
> killing political dissidents
That's a funny perspective. USSR just before that time mostly killed communist apparatus members¥ and with them innocent people. In such an environment, there naturally won't be too many dissidents, so I don't think they registered.
They did kill a lot of supposed sympathiers of pre-Soviet Russia, though.
¥ As they say, internal competition is the most fierce one.
That's a funny perspective. USSR just before that time mostly killed communist apparatus members¥ and with them innocent people. In such an environment, there naturally won't be too many dissidents, so I don't think they registered.
They did kill a lot of supposed sympathiers of pre-Soviet Russia, though.
¥ As they say, internal competition is the most fierce one.
Are you forgetting that the USSR took control of about a dozen other countries during and after the war? That led to events like Katyn, which had nothing to do with communist dissidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
I think we're talking about highly-skilled precision welders who built things like the F-1 rocket engine. These people didn't work for NASA in the 1960s: they worked for private contractors like Rocketdyne. NASA doesn't build rocket engines, and never has.
> What do you think has changed since the 1960s? There were high paying private industry union protected skilled jobs, but many people went to work for NASA
We were spending more money. There was competition among contractors. And there were skilled low-level labourers from WWII.
We were spending more money. There was competition among contractors. And there were skilled low-level labourers from WWII.
Corporate culture changed radically in the 70s adopting Milton Friedman views that ethics and responsibility towards society have no place in the private sector, and as a consequence started maximizing profits in spite of everything else.
I'm not convinced that's exactly what he thought, though corporates might have gone that way.
Corporations never had "responsibility towards society". In fact I much prefer corporations that don't pretend to have such a burden. It's almost always a false front.
Corps have a responsibility to deliver a product or service at a competitive price in order to sustain growth.
Friedman was an economist, not a corporate whisperer. To the extent that corps changed, they were forced to by market forces, most notably globalization, a force much bigger than one man and a force that was inevitable and even necessary in the wake of world war one and world war two.
Corps have a responsibility to deliver a product or service at a competitive price in order to sustain growth.
Friedman was an economist, not a corporate whisperer. To the extent that corps changed, they were forced to by market forces, most notably globalization, a force much bigger than one man and a force that was inevitable and even necessary in the wake of world war one and world war two.
Maybe, but somehow their behaviour and their products and services changed. Companies are made of people, and individuals had more freedom to put value in what they did, they took pride in the quality of their work. After Friedman everything got "optimized" for revenue, even if this meant screwing the customers (or the society). There are some things that cannot possibly work with this "self-regulated" market, so if we want to accept this way of doing business, we should move back some responsibilities to the public sector (healthcare, infrastructures, rehabilitation, education, research), because the search for "immediate gratification" of shareholders can't move the society as a whole out of local maxima that are far away from society best possibilities.
The Apollo project was the most ambitious engineering effort since the Manhattan project. What was next though? We didn't establish a moon base and instead opted for the Space Shuttle program which was considerably less ambitious than Apollo/Saturn V.
NASA has piss all experience hiring and keeping the best fabricators, the government uses contractors to build things. The problem is with this contractor being rotten and NASA not being willing to kick them to the curb.
Why would the qualified people who desire to work in that location and have better options suddenly work for the government. If the idea is to train non-experienced people that's what Boeing did. What is going to prevent them for leaving for other local work that pays better once they have some experience.
What the government should have done is reduce their pay for missing deadlines by having milestones in the contract. At that point paying more makes economic sense and wages would rise.
What the government should have done is reduce their pay for missing deadlines by having milestones in the contract. At that point paying more makes economic sense and wages would rise.
Because government jobs are secure, Boeing subcontractor jobs where you are a cheap disposal cog are not. If you don’t see the value in security to someone making $20-$40/hr who needs healthcare benefits, you might start there.
A union fixes this in the long term, but that will take time. Government can employ rapidly. Something, quickly, needs to change before we forget how to build because MBAs, accountants, and lawyers burned the place down for shareholder value. There are two astronauts stuck in space very publicly demonstrating this.
A union fixes this in the long term, but that will take time. Government can employ rapidly. Something, quickly, needs to change before we forget how to build because MBAs, accountants, and lawyers burned the place down for shareholder value. There are two astronauts stuck in space very publicly demonstrating this.
The US has already forgotten how to build. This process has happened for 30 years, a full generation.
A welder making double outside of the government would take a chance the more experience they have. Similiar to how many people here would rather get a job at Amazon vs the government. Chances are you are out in a year or two compared to a government job where you can survive longer for half of the pay.
Remember we are talking about experienced aircraft welders. They are not available for 20 an hour when industry is paying so much more.
Remember we are talking about experienced aircraft welders. They are not available for 20 an hour when industry is paying so much more.
Collins Aerospace is offering $19/hr for third shift welding work on aircraft. It was referred to me by someone in the labor community, and I spoke with HR under the guise of a prospective candidate to confirm. They do $26B/year in revenue.
This should be a top level comment - it kind of reinforces the point of the whole article. I understand that 15/hr is the (planned) US minimum wage?
People have been talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 for so long now (the "Fight for 15" movement started in 2012) that the inflation-adjusted value of that would now have to be almost $21/hr. However, the minimum wage is still $7.25 and seems to be likely to remain so.
To put into perspective how abysmal 19 an hour is, I used to make 22 an hour working at a gas station. Second shift, not third. And I'm not in a high COL area.
The federal minimum wage has zero chance of increasing unless we get a supermajority of Democrats in both wings of congress and the presidency. Republicans, voters included, largely do not want the minimum wage to go up.
excuse me but what is third shift welding? is this the security lvl of the welding job?thank you
Third shift is the overnight shift at a 24-hour workplace. Usually that means midnight to 8 AM.
There is a reason that major contractors for government have widely distributed facilities in politically relevant states.
Ideally there should be one facility in all 435 districts.
This isn't ideal for optimizing quality work.
This isn't ideal for optimizing quality work.
[deleted]
I live in New Orleans. It’s 1h away of commute.
They pay a solid 30% below market. ( 100k for a senior eng position )
They pay a solid 30% below market. ( 100k for a senior eng position )
At 30% below market, I imagine most of their applicants are either true believers, fuck-ups, or lying about their experience. Probably mostly fuck-ups.
Fuckups lying about their experience who truly believe they can get away with it.
The tri-fuckta.
The tri-fuckta.
> it has been difficult to attract and retain a contractor workforce […] in part due to […] lower employee compensation relative to other aerospace competitors
You’re building rockets and complaining about the cost of skilled labor?
You’re building rockets and complaining about the cost of skilled labor?
I always found the obsession with location-determined compensation weird. Experienced workers know exactly what their skills are worth regardless of the local labor market, so why even try surpressing their wages?
Besides when you're an aerospace company producing rockets for NASA you are not building a product that the local market pays for, so why should your workers be affected by what the local market is willing to pay for their skills? How can the local labor market accurately value their skills if the product of their labor isn't sold in the same market?
Besides when you're an aerospace company producing rockets for NASA you are not building a product that the local market pays for, so why should your workers be affected by what the local market is willing to pay for their skills? How can the local labor market accurately value their skills if the product of their labor isn't sold in the same market?
Because with non-remote work like welders you're competing with the local market for welders. Of course if they're paying 30% below market that means they're not properly doing location-based compensation.
It's also a plain idiotic move because you'll end up with workers who cost 70% as much and are half as productive, at best, or at worst workers who cost 10,000% more because they screw up a critical component and cause massive delays.
It's also a plain idiotic move because you'll end up with workers who cost 70% as much and are half as productive, at best, or at worst workers who cost 10,000% more because they screw up a critical component and cause massive delays.
aka they aren’t willing to pay, many such cases.
Their wages are fine, there is simply a shortage of labor which is everybody's problem and needs government intervention in the form of tax dollars or something. /s
New Orleans is one of the greatest cities in the world and definitely has access to experienced welders, this argument makes no sense to me.
> this argument makes no sense to me
Might want to remember that experienced welders demand stronger compensation. Can't have that compensation going to the wrong people, though. Boeing can't survive as a business if it had to compensate fairly!
Might want to remember that experienced welders demand stronger compensation. Can't have that compensation going to the wrong people, though. Boeing can't survive as a business if it had to compensate fairly!
There have to be a lot of welders in that region due to the oil and gas and heavy industry. If there aren't enough welders there I don't know what area would have enough. As others have said, maybe they're not paying them enough?
Aerospace welding is a different beast. Vast/tedious documentation requirements, experience with dissimilar metals, welding gold (think about the cost of splatter with that one), extremely tolerance requirements, etc. Some welding jobs are done under a microscope. You don't fix welds, you through everything away and try again. Very experienced welders report a long and steep learning curve. Hiring somebody from a different industry means investing significantly in their skill set, and waiting a decade for their skills to ramp up. There is also a significant tech component, in that a lot is being automated, where the welder is setting up the robot, inspecting results, and so on, and only doing manual welds where the robot cannot achieve what is needed.
Meanwhile bog standard pipe welding often pays better and the jobs are easier to get with far fewer requirements.
Meanwhile bog standard pipe welding often pays better and the jobs are easier to get with far fewer requirements.
Not only that but Stennis Space Center is nearby. It's no Cape Canaveral but it's not as though aerospace is completely unheard of there.
Stennis is not getting its personnel from local grad schools.
Welders don't go to grad school so I'm not sure what we're talking about here.
Stennis isn’t going to keep welders around. Those are the design and engineering support personnel.
[deleted]
[deleted]
UNO’s enrollment has dropped by 2/3rds since Katrina. What did people think was going to happen to the labor supply?
How did they build LIGO then? Fairy dust?
Related: https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/08/12/whats_b...
The Navy’s ability to build lower-cost warships that can shoot down Houthi rebel missiles in the Red Sea depends in part on a 25-year-old laborer who previously made parts for garbage trucks.
Lucas Andreini, a welder at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, in Marinette, Wisconsin, is among thousands of young workers who’ve received employer-sponsored training nationwide as shipyards struggle to hire and retain employees.
The labor shortage is one of myriad challenges that have led to backlogs in ship production and maintenance at a time when the Navy faces expanding global threats. Combined with shifting defense priorities, last-minute design changes and cost overruns, it has put the U.S. behind China in the number of ships at its disposal — and the gap is widening.
Navy shipbuilding is currently in “a terrible state” — the worst in a quarter century, says Eric Labs, a longtime naval analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. “I feel alarmed,” he said. “I don’t see a fast, easy way to get out of this problem. It’s taken us a long time to get into it.”
The Navy’s ability to build lower-cost warships that can shoot down Houthi rebel missiles in the Red Sea depends in part on a 25-year-old laborer who previously made parts for garbage trucks.
Lucas Andreini, a welder at Fincantieri Marinette Marine, in Marinette, Wisconsin, is among thousands of young workers who’ve received employer-sponsored training nationwide as shipyards struggle to hire and retain employees.
The labor shortage is one of myriad challenges that have led to backlogs in ship production and maintenance at a time when the Navy faces expanding global threats. Combined with shifting defense priorities, last-minute design changes and cost overruns, it has put the U.S. behind China in the number of ships at its disposal — and the gap is widening.
Navy shipbuilding is currently in “a terrible state” — the worst in a quarter century, says Eric Labs, a longtime naval analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. “I feel alarmed,” he said. “I don’t see a fast, easy way to get out of this problem. It’s taken us a long time to get into it.”
There was an ad for Navy shipbuilding recently that did the rounds online, targeting gig workers [1]. The snake grows hungry, and slithers toward its tail. :)
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1IZC3t8NRc
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1IZC3t8NRc
I think it is a great development, the US decided to export jobs to other countries to pay less its own workers, so it fits well that now it has no expertise to build its war machines.
It doesn't even have to be like that. People want comfy WFH service jobs and college is basically just becoming 13th-16th grade at this point.
America is an advanced economy and the advanced work is where the money and comfy life is. No one did anything wrong, really the problem is that too many are doing everything right.
The only real answers to this is either immigrants (who undercut local workers) or some kind of wage incentive rebalancing/redistribution (which pisses off service workers above the median income).
America is an advanced economy and the advanced work is where the money and comfy life is. No one did anything wrong, really the problem is that too many are doing everything right.
The only real answers to this is either immigrants (who undercut local workers) or some kind of wage incentive rebalancing/redistribution (which pisses off service workers above the median income).
>No one did anything wrong
No, LIRP and ZIRP are totally responsible for fundamentally causing 'growth' businesses to be valued ridiculously higher than 'dividend' businesses. Basically any business that was "profitably make stuff now" had to compete with "no profit now, but we'll for sure change the world in 20 years" for capital and making the DCFV denominator's risk-free-rate term 0 tilted the table 90 degrees toward the latter.
The reason comfy "knowledge" WFH jobs are so much more financially desireable than anything else is absolutely the fault of the FOMC. They killed price discovery.
No, LIRP and ZIRP are totally responsible for fundamentally causing 'growth' businesses to be valued ridiculously higher than 'dividend' businesses. Basically any business that was "profitably make stuff now" had to compete with "no profit now, but we'll for sure change the world in 20 years" for capital and making the DCFV denominator's risk-free-rate term 0 tilted the table 90 degrees toward the latter.
The reason comfy "knowledge" WFH jobs are so much more financially desireable than anything else is absolutely the fault of the FOMC. They killed price discovery.
I don't know why so many people on HN get ZIRP wrong.
The problem with ZIRP isn't the absolute level of interest. The problem is that the central bank thinks it can simulate negative interest through QE. The zero lower bound is ultimately a price guarantee by the government that it will offer an infinite quantity of bonds to the general public to prevent the interest rate from dipping negative.
Any form of lower price control will cause an oversupply. In this case (mostly rich) people are oversupplying capital to the government instead of simply spending it.
Since the money is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, their investment decisions are going to either be a random crap shot, since information is distributed in the economy and the people who have information to make informed purchasing decisions have no money, while the people with money have no idea what to do with it, or it will endlessly get cycled through more QE and government debt.
In a hypothetical scenario with negative interest, wealth deconcentrates so that money goes to where it needs to be.
The problem with ZIRP isn't the absolute level of interest. The problem is that the central bank thinks it can simulate negative interest through QE. The zero lower bound is ultimately a price guarantee by the government that it will offer an infinite quantity of bonds to the general public to prevent the interest rate from dipping negative.
Any form of lower price control will cause an oversupply. In this case (mostly rich) people are oversupplying capital to the government instead of simply spending it.
Since the money is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, their investment decisions are going to either be a random crap shot, since information is distributed in the economy and the people who have information to make informed purchasing decisions have no money, while the people with money have no idea what to do with it, or it will endlessly get cycled through more QE and government debt.
In a hypothetical scenario with negative interest, wealth deconcentrates so that money goes to where it needs to be.
>get ZIRP wrong.
Buddy I'm not going off an economic theory about ZIRP like you posted, I'm going off having run valuations on companies and seen that interfering with the risk free rate made bad companies (and their wasteful activities) valuable.
I agree the problem isn't the absolute level of interest. My point is the yield curve should reflect the market appetite for risk, and we broke that relationship.
Buddy I'm not going off an economic theory about ZIRP like you posted, I'm going off having run valuations on companies and seen that interfering with the risk free rate made bad companies (and their wasteful activities) valuable.
I agree the problem isn't the absolute level of interest. My point is the yield curve should reflect the market appetite for risk, and we broke that relationship.
100% agree. No-profit high valuation businesses can easily borrow its way into existence, and profitable businesses in the real economy have to compete for the same pool of money.
> America is an advanced economy and the advanced work is where the money and comfy life is.
The only advance is the downward spiral of the American economy. The money is in the financial industry and third sector only, which only profits from the dollar control.
The only advance is the downward spiral of the American economy. The money is in the financial industry and third sector only, which only profits from the dollar control.
Government incentivized wall-st backed outsourcing of critical skill sets turned out to be a bad idea.
Everything about this reeks to me. Why do we need to build so many warships? (To fight China? We're going to war with another nuclear power?) Why are we fighting Houthi rebels? But also, why isn't the government sponsoring this training? Why is it only thousands, and not hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers being trained? And when did the call go out that they were going to be offering training? (I never hear about these initiatives, or when I do, it's for a couple thousand people to get into a position that pays $18/hr starting. Might as well walk onto a warehouse job.) If this is so important, why did they close so many shipyards during realignment?
Like, from every angle, it's ill-conceived.
Like, from every angle, it's ill-conceived.
>Why are we fighting Houthi rebels?
Because they're attacking commercial shipping heading to and from the Suez Canal? I mean it wlso pleases our Saudi allies but the shipping attacks are the main concern.
Because they're attacking commercial shipping heading to and from the Suez Canal? I mean it wlso pleases our Saudi allies but the shipping attacks are the main concern.
Why are they doing that?
Complex geopolitics involving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, the US, China, and several other players
>Why do we need to build so many warships?
Igitur quī desīderat pacem, præparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war").[1] While I think there's immense scope for debate over what constitutes appropriate preparation in this or any other context, I believe the core idea, that effective preparation for war can prevent it, has merit. (Though it should not be the only way a country works to prevent war!) And there are ancillary uses for militaries, such as the prevention of piracy mentioned elsewhere.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
Igitur quī desīderat pacem, præparet bellum ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war").[1] While I think there's immense scope for debate over what constitutes appropriate preparation in this or any other context, I believe the core idea, that effective preparation for war can prevent it, has merit. (Though it should not be the only way a country works to prevent war!) And there are ancillary uses for militaries, such as the prevention of piracy mentioned elsewhere.
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
This has been posted here a good bit before, but adding it in as relevant.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-l...
We've let everything go to rot for the sake of a giant financial ponzi scheme that we call the U.S. economy.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-navy-spent-billions-l...
We've let everything go to rot for the sake of a giant financial ponzi scheme that we call the U.S. economy.
You must have seen how beautiful the welds are on the Rocketdyne F-1 joints. Whoever made those put pride in their work.
If anyone else is curious this article has close-up photos of the joints: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the...
Can someone please explain why this is a high quality welding job? In India, welders are not paid handsomely and are rarely rigorously trained but I'm unable to distinguish between a welding job done by them compared to these photos.
The photos don't do a great job of showing it, and a lot of the skills in welding aren't immediately visible.
Welding joints that look good as-welded, instead of passing over it with a grinder and a coat of paint to cover up any imperfections? That needs decent skills.
Welding thin material, and not having the heat of the welding process just melt a hole right through? That's needs skill.
Welding thin material to thick material, where it's easy to blow a hole in the thin part before the thick part gets up to temperature? That needs skill.
Welding complex shapes where some of the work has to be done upside-down and you have to control what's going to happen to that molten metal under gravity? That's a special skill.
Doing continuous welds around complex shapes, where you have to keep the weld puddle in the right place and moving at a constant rate while completely repositioning your body and moving your feet? That's a special skill.
Because of thermal expansion/contraction, to get precision results you don't just put the parts in the desired location and weld them - you need special 'fixturing' that anticipates the inevitable change of shape due to the heat of welding. That's a special skill.
Welding joints where, to prevent contamination, you need to get shielding gas not only at the front of the joint but also at the back? That's a special skill.
Welding unusual metals, like special high temperature rocket nozzles might involve? That's a special skill.
And most importantly, if you're welding a part that takes 40 hours of welding and 39 hours in you slip on the pedal and ruin the part, you've lost loads of work. So a part that needs 40 hours of welding requires exceptional consistency too.
Of course none of this stuff is impossible. But for sure it's skilled work, and not easy to hire for.
Welding joints that look good as-welded, instead of passing over it with a grinder and a coat of paint to cover up any imperfections? That needs decent skills.
Welding thin material, and not having the heat of the welding process just melt a hole right through? That's needs skill.
Welding thin material to thick material, where it's easy to blow a hole in the thin part before the thick part gets up to temperature? That needs skill.
Welding complex shapes where some of the work has to be done upside-down and you have to control what's going to happen to that molten metal under gravity? That's a special skill.
Doing continuous welds around complex shapes, where you have to keep the weld puddle in the right place and moving at a constant rate while completely repositioning your body and moving your feet? That's a special skill.
Because of thermal expansion/contraction, to get precision results you don't just put the parts in the desired location and weld them - you need special 'fixturing' that anticipates the inevitable change of shape due to the heat of welding. That's a special skill.
Welding joints where, to prevent contamination, you need to get shielding gas not only at the front of the joint but also at the back? That's a special skill.
Welding unusual metals, like special high temperature rocket nozzles might involve? That's a special skill.
And most importantly, if you're welding a part that takes 40 hours of welding and 39 hours in you slip on the pedal and ruin the part, you've lost loads of work. So a part that needs 40 hours of welding requires exceptional consistency too.
Of course none of this stuff is impossible. But for sure it's skilled work, and not easy to hire for.
didnt read the article but I am assuming it is the material they are working on. copper and iron are easy to handle but aluminum is a bit harder and then there is stuff like titanium which recuire very high skills… and all those cases with titanium with steel or whatever. they need to know what they are doing. …. got my information from my ex roommate who welded bikes with titanium and he was a highly skilled enthusiast.
https://www.cwbgroup.org/association/how-it-works/how-it-wor...
https://www.cwbgroup.org/association/how-it-works/how-it-wor...
Oh just like Skyrim smithing.
MVP, thank you.
I guess they felt, correctly, that they were not just making a weld, not just making an engine or a rocket, but helping to put people on the moon. "Building a cathedral", indeed.
Much more than that though, they would have been highly skilled people with thousands of hours of welding high pressure piping and exotic metals. It doesn't matter how slowly or carefully somebody goes, or how much they revere what they are working on, if they aren't experienced then they will turn out poor work.
A welding book I had mentioned that stick welding aluminum is no longer done because it is too hard and used the F-1 stick welds as an example of such welds. I think they we not so much welds as strategic strengthening.
I'm surprised they stick welded it. I know they oxy-acetylene welded aluminum aircraft in WW2, (which I've attempted, I found it impossible to do) and TIG welding has existed since the 50s.
Having NASA come and test stuff.. Creates a 'see what sticks' kind of attitude. Eat your own dogfood
The obvious patch for this is to have monetary penalties for failing inspection written into the contract, so that submitting shoddy work has a price measured in dollars. Money is the unit of caring, at least at a corporate scale, so there needs to be money involved if you want them to care systematically.
(I don’t know if NASA already does this. They might.)
(I don’t know if NASA already does this. They might.)
One of the very interesting parts of the report is that the OIG recommended 4 areas that needed to be fixed/worked on. NASA agreed to 3 of them, and was working on making those areas better. The one recommendation that NASA did not agree with was to monetarily penalize Boeing for continuous quality issues. I found that interesting.
Regulatory capture
Inspections can help to an extent, but you can't inspect quality into a product. The customer can't anticipate every possible serious failure. Good results in safety-critical systems require an organizational culture that focuses on quality throughout the product lifecycle.
Yeah but as we see with Boeing now, when its shitshow, its more like crap is landing left and right and not a situation of overall excellence with one singular failing point.
Meaning many failures would be spotted. Maybe not 100% automatically corrected but much better situation than current regulatory capture one and stuff we see in news every second week.
Meaning many failures would be spotted. Maybe not 100% automatically corrected but much better situation than current regulatory capture one and stuff we see in news every second week.
[deleted]
ggernov(2)
zo1(4)
> Welders are highly qualified and well-paid craftsmen.
They’re not. You must be one of those people that hears something once and quotes it as gospel. My BIL did that yesterday: “nfl viewership has been down because of all the different platforms, and it’s been trending down for years.” As it so happens, last year was their second-best year of ratings since ratings were tracked. But, it fit his narrative, facts be damned.
“We all see the welding school advertisements: Make Over $100,000 As a Welder! And while it’s true that skilled welders are among the most sought-after workers in the job market, the average welder is bringing in $48,000 per year, a far cry from six figures.” [0]
[0] https://primeweld.com/blogs/news/how-much-do-welders-make-in....
They’re not. You must be one of those people that hears something once and quotes it as gospel. My BIL did that yesterday: “nfl viewership has been down because of all the different platforms, and it’s been trending down for years.” As it so happens, last year was their second-best year of ratings since ratings were tracked. But, it fit his narrative, facts be damned.
“We all see the welding school advertisements: Make Over $100,000 As a Welder! And while it’s true that skilled welders are among the most sought-after workers in the job market, the average welder is bringing in $48,000 per year, a far cry from six figures.” [0]
[0] https://primeweld.com/blogs/news/how-much-do-welders-make-in....
This is 1000% false and misleading. My Dad was a journeyman machinist and many of his friends were highly sought after welders in the area we lived. These guys could weld anything anywhere and exceed quality criteria.
Welding is an art and at a certain required level of performance it's not something you teach, but find the folks who have the drive to be that good and want to weld for high precision requirements.
What you've linked is a run of the mill welder. My Dad machined classified parts for USG and NASA. When they'd get those jobs they would go to the guys who had a reputation to be able to produce the die to the spec required. Messing up a multi-ton die of a specific quality could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost material and time. You don't make $48k on those tolerances, even back in the 80s.
Welding is an art and at a certain required level of performance it's not something you teach, but find the folks who have the drive to be that good and want to weld for high precision requirements.
What you've linked is a run of the mill welder. My Dad machined classified parts for USG and NASA. When they'd get those jobs they would go to the guys who had a reputation to be able to produce the die to the spec required. Messing up a multi-ton die of a specific quality could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost material and time. You don't make $48k on those tolerances, even back in the 80s.
I'm not sure how to address this. I sent a link that says "sure some people make 100k+" and your dad was one of them. The link ALSO said "most people make half of that" and your anecdote doesn't refute anything.
Your dad had a a trade skill, and obtained a clearance. Congrats, he is an outlier. Nothing I said was false or misleading.
Your dad had a a trade skill, and obtained a clearance. Congrats, he is an outlier. Nothing I said was false or misleading.
I can assure you that skilled welders like the ones you need for aerospace applications are rare and valuable. The welding techniques and standards are much higher than your average welding application
I agree with you. 3% of welders make good money. I never disagreed with this.
I had a friend who was a welder for nuclear power plants.
He got shipped around the country.
Not exactly a trade-school C-student.
Had a better house than mine, but I’m a cheapskate.
He got shipped around the country.
Not exactly a trade-school C-student.
Had a better house than mine, but I’m a cheapskate.
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.
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.
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!!
> 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!!
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"
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!
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!
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"?
"CEO changes will continue until morale improves"?
> 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.
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.
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)
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)
> 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price. NASA just needs to drop them.
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.
> 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).
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).
No, but there will be. Besides SpaceX there is also Rocketlab who has a CEO rocket nerd in charge.
So that's two nerds total.
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/
[1]: https://everydayastronaut.com/stoke-space/
> And of course there's Blue Origin (even though they seem to be taking forever)
Ever since Bezos installed David Limp as CEO, it seems like they've been able to ship stuff. It's hard to know if he was set up for success by his predecessor, but their older no press policy prevented anyone from knowing it, or if he changed the company culture for the better.
Regardless, it appears like Blue Origin is likely to launch New Glenn this year. Or, at least the DoD thinks it's likely enough that they agreed to onramp Blue Origin to NSSLv3 (pending a successful launch).
> it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9
I don't think it'll be that long.
* Blue Origin's New Glenn should launch in 2024-2025.
* RocketLab's Neutron should launch in 2025-2027.
* Relativity's Terran R should launch in 2026-2028.
That's remarkably soon.
Of course, as you point out, Starship should be operational quite soon. It'll be exciting to see how things shake out.
My personal opinion is that SpaceX will move to payload based pricing, somewhat akin to their current rideshare pricing. I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but something like $10m + $3m/tonne. That way they can compete for smaller payloads while also being paid appropriately for launching really heavy stuff. However it ends up, I'm sure pricing will be heavily influenced by the competition when it comes out.
Ever since Bezos installed David Limp as CEO, it seems like they've been able to ship stuff. It's hard to know if he was set up for success by his predecessor, but their older no press policy prevented anyone from knowing it, or if he changed the company culture for the better.
Regardless, it appears like Blue Origin is likely to launch New Glenn this year. Or, at least the DoD thinks it's likely enough that they agreed to onramp Blue Origin to NSSLv3 (pending a successful launch).
> it'll be a long time before these younger companies produce anything capable of rivaling Falcon 9
I don't think it'll be that long.
* Blue Origin's New Glenn should launch in 2024-2025.
* RocketLab's Neutron should launch in 2025-2027.
* Relativity's Terran R should launch in 2026-2028.
That's remarkably soon.
Of course, as you point out, Starship should be operational quite soon. It'll be exciting to see how things shake out.
My personal opinion is that SpaceX will move to payload based pricing, somewhat akin to their current rideshare pricing. I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, but something like $10m + $3m/tonne. That way they can compete for smaller payloads while also being paid appropriately for launching really heavy stuff. However it ends up, I'm sure pricing will be heavily influenced by the competition when it comes out.
True, I'm also stoked(sorry) about stoke space.
One thing I really like about Rocket Lab though, is how diversified they are.
Sierra and Blue Origin are coming.
> Old Space companies will never adopt fixed price
Starliner is fixed cost.
Starliner is fixed cost.
> Starliner is fixed cost.
It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost?
Just from pop culture, isn't starliner that thing that leaves people stranded for a year after making them shed "excess" baggage for a supposedly weeklong(?) trip?
Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
> Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion in budget overruns on the Starliner project which has been marred by delays, management issues and engineering challenges. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.
It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost?
Just from pop culture, isn't starliner that thing that leaves people stranded for a year after making them shed "excess" baggage for a supposedly weeklong(?) trip?
Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
> Boeing has lost more than $1.5 billion in budget overruns on the Starliner project which has been marred by delays, management issues and engineering challenges. The price paid per flight has also drawn criticism from NASA's inspector general and from observers who point to significantly lower costs on the competing Crew Dragon.
> It sounds like you agree that Boeing is failing to adopt to fixed cost?
“Will never adopt” and is failing to adopt and adapt to are miles apart.
“Will never adopt” and is failing to adopt and adapt to are miles apart.
[deleted]
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-ma...
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-ma...
"Moss on my teeth is hindering my getting a date" reads the same. I think different people will get different interpretations.
“NASA considering sending FlossX to extract moss from teeth”
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.
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.
The problem is that stack ranking rewards the political actors and not people who heads down focus on their work. This is especially true when the organization has already been taken over by the parasites.
I think Boeing needs to immediately fire everyone in leadership positions with a finance or consulting background, unless they're under the CFO. Everyone needs to be reviewed to make sure they have the background to lead their team. If the leader can't do the work of the people at least one and ideally two levels under them they need to be fired for incompetence. Basically Boeing needs rebuilt from the top down as a company of doers.
I think Boeing needs to immediately fire everyone in leadership positions with a finance or consulting background, unless they're under the CFO. Everyone needs to be reviewed to make sure they have the background to lead their team. If the leader can't do the work of the people at least one and ideally two levels under them they need to be fired for incompetence. Basically Boeing needs rebuilt from the top down as a company of doers.
Who stack-ranks the management? How?
You would have employees evaluate the managers. You can have outside consultants also evaluate the health of the management --but that can get tricky.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy claims another victim.
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
RIP Jerry. A Step Farther Out is one of my all time favorites.
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.
RIP Jerry. A Step Farther Out is one of my all time favorites.
This is why bankruptcy is such a good thing in private industry. And we need a mechanism like bankruptcy for government agencies.
Does anyone actually seriously believe the U.S. will land a person on the moon in 2025? This is the country that takes decades to open a new subway station.
There is a very interesting video from Smarter Every Day that suggests everyone knows that the SLS is physically incapable of landing on the moon as designed but nobody seems to be mentioning it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU
You got things very confused.
SLS is the thing that launches Orion, which is the capsule with humans inside. SLS isn't capable enough to get that capsule into lunar orbit. Orion also isn't landing by itself though, it just transfers the astronauts to a landing vehicle (SpaceX Starship, currently...), which lands and then starts again.
The thing brought up in that video is that the rendezvous point should probably be in lunar orbit, but isn't.
SLS is the thing that launches Orion, which is the capsule with humans inside. SLS isn't capable enough to get that capsule into lunar orbit. Orion also isn't landing by itself though, it just transfers the astronauts to a landing vehicle (SpaceX Starship, currently...), which lands and then starts again.
The thing brought up in that video is that the rendezvous point should probably be in lunar orbit, but isn't.
Unfortunately there is no alternative to Orion so far.
No, Starship may carry people to the moon, but getting them off the moon isn't possible. The lunar Starship won't return to LEO.
The closest thing you could do is send another Starship and do the same NRHO docking that SLS+Orion is already doing and then instead of aerobraking, do a deceleration burn to get an LEO capture. That is the only way without Orion. For better or worse, Orion in NRHO is indispensable.
No, Starship may carry people to the moon, but getting them off the moon isn't possible. The lunar Starship won't return to LEO.
The closest thing you could do is send another Starship and do the same NRHO docking that SLS+Orion is already doing and then instead of aerobraking, do a deceleration burn to get an LEO capture. That is the only way without Orion. For better or worse, Orion in NRHO is indispensable.
HLS is for landing, but nobody seems to have any plan on how many resources it will take to get Starship HLS there with a full enough tank
SpaceX is probably just gonna brute force it by launching 20 times to refuel it, they see it as testing out the hardware anyway.
We're the only nation that has ever done it. It seems like unchecked graft is our current main problem. In the scope of all problems of returning people to the Moon this is both expected and the easiest to deal with.
When that was happening, the US was spending ungodly amount of money to show Soviets that they can take ~a nuke~ sorry people to the Moon and back.
Boeing, Lockheed etc. were still engineering oriented companies full of projects and management opportunities for innovative and risk-taking people. Starting with the Reagan era, they are now emptied out rent seekers full of car salesmen who look up to Jack Welch as a role model.
Boeing, Lockheed etc. were still engineering oriented companies full of projects and management opportunities for innovative and risk-taking people. Starting with the Reagan era, they are now emptied out rent seekers full of car salesmen who look up to Jack Welch as a role model.
And there were a lot more players in aerospace then too. Apart from Boeing and Lockheed, Apollo also involved North American Aviation, Grumman, Rocketdyne, General Dynamics, Pratt & Whitney, Douglas, TRW, and Bell. Of those, only General Dynamics and Pratt & Whitney have not been acquired or merged into other companies.
Are there not _far_ more players in aerospace today than what you listed? Maybe those of today are not at the scale of the companies you listed at the height of the cold war, but we're really in a new era of space industry.
People making cubesats? Sure. Companies that can build moonshot hardware, though, are far more scarce.
> Boeing, Lockheed etc. were still engineering oriented companies full of projects and management opportunities for innovative and risk-taking people. Starting with the Reagan era, they are now emptied out rent seekers full of car salesmen who look up to Jack Welch as a role model.
To be fair, Boeing, Lockheed etc won't be the decisive players putting humans back on the moon from the US. It'll be smaller and scrappier players more akin to startups.
To be fair, Boeing, Lockheed etc won't be the decisive players putting humans back on the moon from the US. It'll be smaller and scrappier players more akin to startups.
This is where the "ungodly" funds of Cold War make the difference. There is little incentive in the US government to spend at once as much and take political risk as much as it did back then.
> We're the only nation that has ever done it
The USA of the 1960s was very different from the one that exists today.
The USA of the 1960s was very different from the one that exists today.
What “the US” did 50+ years ago has absolutely no say in what “the US” can do now.
Our GDP is about 50x higher now than it was then, in real terms.
GDP in such a services-based economy is unreliable as a metric for the ability to produce, since just moving the money around now contributes to it.
More like a factor of 6.6.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
The spirit is different.
Yeah but money can't pay for skill that doesn't exist anymore.
I really think it's worth it to go back and read the original Apollo program proposals, technical conference memos, and NASA administrative plans to see the history of the program and how something like this gets off the ground in the first place.
The US was not a bastion of technical capability or well educated people in the 1950s. To say that the "skill doesn't exist anymore" suggests a misunderstanding of "where it comes from" in the first place.
You can do the same thing for Apollo as you can for the Shuttle. The process of reading through these histories, from front to back, is incredibly enlightening, and shows just how with determination alone you can build something like this from scratch.
That being said.. it really also helps if there's a dual purpose use for the military.
The US was not a bastion of technical capability or well educated people in the 1950s. To say that the "skill doesn't exist anymore" suggests a misunderstanding of "where it comes from" in the first place.
You can do the same thing for Apollo as you can for the Shuttle. The process of reading through these histories, from front to back, is incredibly enlightening, and shows just how with determination alone you can build something like this from scratch.
That being said.. it really also helps if there's a dual purpose use for the military.
I think you drastically underestimate the influence that World War 2 had on up-skilling a technological workforce in the United States. I know a handful of people who's fathers or relatives went from farm boy to a radio technician with basic electrical engineering skills (or a similar story) because of the war.
The effect that war had on the technological progress, including learning the skills of how to manage a not-so-simple idea like going to the moon into reality was incredible, and a direct spinoff from the bureaucracy created during the war.
The effect that war had on the technological progress, including learning the skills of how to manage a not-so-simple idea like going to the moon into reality was incredible, and a direct spinoff from the bureaucracy created during the war.
Most people want to deny it, but both Apollo and Space Shuttle were the results of there being a Fucking War(tm) that had to be won at any cost.
Nowadays, that specific motivator is squarely with the Chinese.
Nowadays, that specific motivator is squarely with the Chinese.
But what wars has China started though in order for us to be afraid of them?
If I look at the current score board in the last decades, US has invaded more counties than China (have they found those WMDs yet?), yet somehow we're (us non Americans in the west) are supposed to fear China, because reasons?
Honestly, my biggest enemy right now is my own EU government who has done the biggest damage to our country and because of them there's a shortage of doctors, teachers, etc, high inflation, stagnating wages, high taxes, unaffordable housing, etc. We have done that ourselves, not China. Whatever bad things China is doing in their own back yard is much less damaging to us than all those things I've just mentioned yet somehow we're expected to fear China.
Aren't these foreign boogie men convenient finger pointing to our corrupt and incompetent leadership: "Hey, don't look at us for your plummeting standard of living, look at Covid, Russia, China, immigrants with beards, The Loch Ness Monster, etc". Give me a break.
If I look at the current score board in the last decades, US has invaded more counties than China (have they found those WMDs yet?), yet somehow we're (us non Americans in the west) are supposed to fear China, because reasons?
Honestly, my biggest enemy right now is my own EU government who has done the biggest damage to our country and because of them there's a shortage of doctors, teachers, etc, high inflation, stagnating wages, high taxes, unaffordable housing, etc. We have done that ourselves, not China. Whatever bad things China is doing in their own back yard is much less damaging to us than all those things I've just mentioned yet somehow we're expected to fear China.
Aren't these foreign boogie men convenient finger pointing to our corrupt and incompetent leadership: "Hey, don't look at us for your plummeting standard of living, look at Covid, Russia, China, immigrants with beards, The Loch Ness Monster, etc". Give me a break.
China has made it pretty clear that it is planning to grow into a dominant position and then invade Taiwan and claim the 9 dotted line.
While it is true that it is globally not very active in military terms I am pretty sure that this is going to change when more and more economic partners are realizing that there is no more money coming from China and it is cheaper to just default on their debt and nationalize Chinese interests.
While it is true that it is globally not very active in military terms I am pretty sure that this is going to change when more and more economic partners are realizing that there is no more money coming from China and it is cheaper to just default on their debt and nationalize Chinese interests.
> and then invade Taiwan and claim the 9 dotted line.
FWiW :
The issue is that "Western" sea faring nations self selected themselves as arbitrators of global borders, including those of regions with governance dating back 4,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%...
China and Taiwan have always claimed the regions within the nine dashed line.
FWiW :
The Republic of China (ROC), or simply China, was a sovereign state based in mainland China from 1912 until its government's retreat in 1949 to Taiwan, where it is now based.
The nine-dash line, also referred to as the eleven-dash line by Taiwan, is a set of line segments on various maps that accompanied the claims of the People's Republic of China (PRC, "mainland China") and the Republic of China (ROC, "Taiwan") in the South China Sea.
A 1946 map showing a U-shaped eleven-dash line was first published by the Republic of China government on 1 December 1947.
The issue is that "Western" sea faring nations self selected themselves as arbitrators of global borders, including those of regions with governance dating back 4,000 years.
On 12 July 2016, an arbitral tribunal organized under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concluded that China had not exercised exclusive and continuous control over the [ dashed zones ]
Over 20 governments have called for the ruling to be respected.
It was rejected by eight governments, including China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%...
China and Taiwan have always claimed the regions within the nine dashed line.
It is somewhat disingenuous to say that Taiwan claims those regions. China has made it clear that any abdication of those claims would be seen as a move towards independence and result in invasion.
Similar to the Chinese claims that the British never brought democracy to HongKong while China threatened invasion if any such thing had happened.
Similar to the Chinese claims that the British never brought democracy to HongKong while China threatened invasion if any such thing had happened.
>China has made it pretty clear that it is planning to grow into a dominant position and then invade Taiwan and claim the 9 dotted line.
Populist words are cheap. I'll start blaming China for warmongering when they actually put boots on the ground. Meanwhile how many dorne strikes has the US made in the middle east without any consequences?
Populist words are cheap. I'll start blaming China for warmongering when they actually put boots on the ground. Meanwhile how many dorne strikes has the US made in the middle east without any consequences?
Wars don't have to be waged with rubber and lead; actually, fighting a war is about the worst possible way to wage one.
No, China is waging a war against the entire world in the smartest way imaginable, and most of us don't even realize it: They have their financial tendrils in all of our economies, down to the core elements and throughout the peripheries. Nearly everything has at least some degree of Chinese monies and thus influence now.
It's really only a matter of time until Pax Americana comes crashing down because we are all far too busy complaining about our navels. Be prepared, because Pax Sino isn't going to be kind to most of us.
No, China is waging a war against the entire world in the smartest way imaginable, and most of us don't even realize it: They have their financial tendrils in all of our economies, down to the core elements and throughout the peripheries. Nearly everything has at least some degree of Chinese monies and thus influence now.
It's really only a matter of time until Pax Americana comes crashing down because we are all far too busy complaining about our navels. Be prepared, because Pax Sino isn't going to be kind to most of us.
But the massive buildup of the Chinese Navy and their paramilitary maritime militias are not cheap. In the end the only thing that matters is if China invades Taiwan there will be war, if it doesnt there wont be. Better be prepared for the first case.
Powerful undemocratic countries are scary, if they are willing to oppress their own people they are for sure willing to oppress other people as well.
>Powerful undemocratic countries are scary
Just like all the other undemocratic dictatorships the west is "friends" with and turn a blind eye to their anti human rights actions?
Just like all the other undemocratic dictatorships the west is "friends" with and turn a blind eye to their anti human rights actions?
There is no reasoning about this. Government as an entity (especially the "Rainbow" West ones like the EU and US) is literally schizophrenic or crazy or has multiple personality disorder (that's the best analogy I can come up with). Their laws are not internally consistent, their words don't match their actions, they entertain conflicting and opposing priorities, they actively do things to their own detriment, they promote the well-being of everyone but their own citizens, they can't get consensus on anything from their own populace, and they blame everyone and themselves too at the same time for their own failings.
They admit their own failings by showing us who they are "allergic" to. So yes, China may be a "bad guy", but they're painted as a boogeyman for a reason.
They admit their own failings by showing us who they are "allergic" to. So yes, China may be a "bad guy", but they're painted as a boogeyman for a reason.
Apollo really was a rare alignment of motivations, unbounded optimism meets existential fear, ie, "humanity can migrate into the stars" overlapping with "if we don't do this the commies win first strike capability", seems unlikely to re-occur.
Ohh but it can. The downfall of Boeing has literally been because it prioritized not paying money for skill that definitely exists.
Something else... US current political climate vs immigrants doesn't help. In addition to the life prospects of potential immigrants.
I'm a drop on the ocean only, but my case is the one I have: PhD in Computer Science, highly specialized and have lived and worked around the world , but there's not enough that attracts me to living in the US.
Its health system issues, the animosity against minorities and immigrants and the lack of reasonable immigration paths for professionals make it unsexy.
And as I said I'm literally nobody. How would the US attract real post Ww2 talent?
I'm a drop on the ocean only, but my case is the one I have: PhD in Computer Science, highly specialized and have lived and worked around the world , but there's not enough that attracts me to living in the US.
Its health system issues, the animosity against minorities and immigrants and the lack of reasonable immigration paths for professionals make it unsexy.
And as I said I'm literally nobody. How would the US attract real post Ww2 talent?
There is definitely animosity towards migrants in the U.S. but I’m not convinced it’s any worse than in any other country with a large immigrant population. Look at the huge advances made recently by far-right parties in Europe for example, or the riots in England.
> lack of reasonable immigration paths for professionals
getting a visa is the hardest part, but doable if you’re a bit lucky. Once you have the visa, getting permanent residency after a few years and ultimately citizenship is relatively straightforward, IF you’re not from one of a few countries with large numbers of immigrants to the U.S.: mainly Mexico, the Philippines, China and India.
It seems from your profile that you’re Mexican so yeah, getting permanent status in the U.S. would take a really long time even if you got a visa.
This is one of the biggest competitive disadvantages of the U.S. currently: making it unreasonably hard for skilled people to immigrate, compared to places like Canada or Europe. But I think it’s an exaggeration to say there’s no reasonable path.
> lack of reasonable immigration paths for professionals
getting a visa is the hardest part, but doable if you’re a bit lucky. Once you have the visa, getting permanent residency after a few years and ultimately citizenship is relatively straightforward, IF you’re not from one of a few countries with large numbers of immigrants to the U.S.: mainly Mexico, the Philippines, China and India.
It seems from your profile that you’re Mexican so yeah, getting permanent status in the U.S. would take a really long time even if you got a visa.
This is one of the biggest competitive disadvantages of the U.S. currently: making it unreasonably hard for skilled people to immigrate, compared to places like Canada or Europe. But I think it’s an exaggeration to say there’s no reasonable path.
It can be unreasonable, like you mentioned, if you originate from specific countries. For sectors like Defense, Aerospace etc., you literally can't work unless you are a permanent resident or a citizen. Which means, even if you do have a visa, without a path to permanent immigration, you can't really contribute in those sectors, making it unreasonable.
True, that is a fair point in the context of the moon discussion.
> money can't pay for skill that doesn't exist anymore
Expert welders can be trained in years. We could easily buy an Apollo-era generation of aerospace welders if we wanted them.
Expert welders can be trained in years. We could easily buy an Apollo-era generation of aerospace welders if we wanted them.
The depth of breadth and skill is still there, even moreso today. Whether Boeing will catalyze that is in question, not the fundamentals.
If they keep awarding contracts to SpaceX for getting the needed pieces done, then it's possible. :)
At least until SpaceX starts to feel a bit too comfortable... o_O
At least until SpaceX starts to feel a bit too comfortable... o_O
That doesn't really seem like something SpaceX will do any time soon though. After all, they want Mars. The moon is just wasting time to SpaceX. So until SpaceX achieves Mars, they have too much to do to become too comfortable. Of course, I just sit on a couch offering opinions.
> That doesn't really seem like something SpaceX will do any time soon though. After all, they want Mars. The moon is just wasting time to SpaceX.
IMO, the opposite is true.
1. SpaceX needs money to fund their Mars dreams. And the HLS contract is a couple billion dollars that they can grab.
2. Getting to the moon with NASA will dramatically help SpaceX because NASA will be working with them to crew rate the lander for everything except taking off from and landing on Earth.
3. Developing HLS Starship will let SpaceX begin to offer private Lunar missions.
4. Mars is really tough. It's far away, it's only feasible to travel there once every 2 years, it's very difficult to land, and it'll be super hard to get in-situ resource utilization - basically harvesting resources from Mars to generate enough propellant that a return trip to Earth is possible.
I'm sure SpaceX will probably send some rockets to Mars. But the first few sets will be figuring out hwo to land and maybe set up ISRU. And in the meantime, the Moon is a great venue for SpaceX to train systems and earn a bit of money.
IMO, the opposite is true.
1. SpaceX needs money to fund their Mars dreams. And the HLS contract is a couple billion dollars that they can grab.
2. Getting to the moon with NASA will dramatically help SpaceX because NASA will be working with them to crew rate the lander for everything except taking off from and landing on Earth.
3. Developing HLS Starship will let SpaceX begin to offer private Lunar missions.
4. Mars is really tough. It's far away, it's only feasible to travel there once every 2 years, it's very difficult to land, and it'll be super hard to get in-situ resource utilization - basically harvesting resources from Mars to generate enough propellant that a return trip to Earth is possible.
I'm sure SpaceX will probably send some rockets to Mars. But the first few sets will be figuring out hwo to land and maybe set up ISRU. And in the meantime, the Moon is a great venue for SpaceX to train systems and earn a bit of money.
[deleted]
If America can make space a crusade again instead of a business sure.
The Chinese are currently in their Apollo phase in which every engineer dedicates their life to the mission.
The Chinese are currently in their Apollo phase in which every engineer dedicates their life to the mission.
There are no NIMBYs on the moon, so maybe?
I honestly hope so or soon after although I think it unlikely.
The psychological shock to the nation & to the world of seeing China do it before us will be immense. It will have indicated a changing of the guard and the decline of America.
But I like to think we will.
But I like to think we will.
That was always a bullshit date. No different than elder Bush's Mars in 2030. 2028, maybe if everything goes well with Starship, and the suits. Their lunar variant is still a disaster waiting to happen without a better design. We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel? SLS is also supposed to somehow fit into the picture which is still not tested in any way resembling the baby steps Apollo took.
Starship didn’t destroy anything, that was the booster, and they’re not landing a 33 engine booster on the Moon.
"We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel?"
Starship has fewer engines than Super Heavy, it likely won't be landing at full throttle either, and lunar lander Starship could have landing legs as well. The lower gravity on the Moon means that you can carry more hardware with you. Maneuvering in 0.16 g is nowhere near as fuel intensive as in 1 g.
Starship has fewer engines than Super Heavy, it likely won't be landing at full throttle either, and lunar lander Starship could have landing legs as well. The lower gravity on the Moon means that you can carry more hardware with you. Maneuvering in 0.16 g is nowhere near as fuel intensive as in 1 g.
Super Heavy isn't going to the moon. Also, the moon has less gravity. WAY LESS.
I think those two things combined means your logic is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
I think those two things combined means your logic is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
Why is this being downvoted? These are all valid concerns.
Well we're over 1,000 days in to Kamala Harris' $42B universal broadband access program and not a single subscriber has been connected.
The damage to Boeing is already done I am afraid. But moving forwards there needs to be accountability for management types that destroy companies in such a way. This is a massive destruction of capability for the USA and will continue to be extremely expensive in the future.
NNT wrote Skin in the Game, which discusses such types of managers who cause similar damages.
He argues that there should be clawbacks to managers that harm a company to the degree Boeing’s current management has.
He invokes The Code of Hammurabi to illustrate how ancient civilization used to deal with such class of professionals.
He argues that there should be clawbacks to managers that harm a company to the degree Boeing’s current management has.
He invokes The Code of Hammurabi to illustrate how ancient civilization used to deal with such class of professionals.
The Soviet Union would actually send managers to GULAG for "wrecking," or other labor crimes, and it didn't really help. In fact, "accountability" was the only thing the USSR did not have a short supply of. Extraordinary punishments don't help if the system for figuring out who's doing a good job, and who isn't, is not working in the first place.
I think this is the key point, one that gets neglected in these discussions. It's easy to say we should reward people for doing a good job, and punish people for doing a bad job, but that determination will be made by people, and those people can have an agenda. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Wouldn't the best punishment be "just no longer give them any public money, until they show in the private sector that they improved their quality of work"?
That is way less brutal than Hammurabi or Stalin, and still gets the point home.
That is way less brutal than Hammurabi or Stalin, and still gets the point home.
If only there was some middle ground between a golden parachute and gulags.
According to NNT, there is. He claims that if a company doesn't want state intervention then it should not ask for bailouts when things start to go wrong. And, should they want or need to be bailed out, then it's the state who determines how much all employees from such a company can make in compensation. So, no more executives making $30M/year despite terrible years such as those Boeing has had.
That's a good idea. Another idea I've had is that the state could become an investor in that company.
In shark tank if you want money you usually sell a stake in your company.
If a company needs a bailout. The executives would lose their stocks and give them to the state in exchange for bailout money.
If the company then starts to be successful again later the state gets money back by having a portion of the company.
In shark tank if you want money you usually sell a stake in your company.
If a company needs a bailout. The executives would lose their stocks and give them to the state in exchange for bailout money.
If the company then starts to be successful again later the state gets money back by having a portion of the company.
Sending management to the gulag because they didn't meet a stupid an unrealistic quota is NOT "accountability". The USSR did NOT have accountability. If Stalin liked you, you rarely went to the gulag. If Stalin didn't like you, you went to the gulag. That's not accountability and no citizen ever parsed it as such.
You can't just shoot random people and pretend that's accountability.
You can't just shoot random people and pretend that's accountability.
Yes, that is my point. If the bureaucracy is corrupt to begin with and rewards and penalties are distributed on a internal political basis, imposing harsh penalties will make the few good managers desperate, and corrupt what's left of the system.
The challenge with this is how far back you have to go. A lot of the damages that ultimately led to the 737 MAX and now this space boondoggle started under James McNerney, who was CEO from 2005 to 2016 and is now 74 years old.
> For example, Boeing Defense’s Earned Value Management System (EVMS)—which NASA uses to measure contract cost and schedule progress ... has been disapproved by the Department of Defense since 2020. Officials claim this precludes Boeing from reliably predicting an EUS delivery date.
Interesting that instead of commenting on engineering or technology issues, this is basically NASA bureaucrats complaining about Boeing bureaucrats' procedures. The whole SLS program is so bureaucratized it's amazing they can get anything of the ground, and not surprising that Space X is beating them in performance and cost by 3X.
Interesting that instead of commenting on engineering or technology issues, this is basically NASA bureaucrats complaining about Boeing bureaucrats' procedures. The whole SLS program is so bureaucratized it's amazing they can get anything of the ground, and not surprising that Space X is beating them in performance and cost by 3X.
Just read a little farther, here are some comments on technical issues:
>“According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. “The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”
>“According to NASA officials, the welding issues arose due to Boeing’s inexperienced technicians and inadequate work order planning and supervision,” the OIG says. “The lack of a trained and qualified workforce increases the risk that Boeing will continue to manufacture parts and components that do not adhere to NASA requirements and industry standards.”
Fair enough and thanks for pointing that out. Even that focuses on "adhere to NASA requirements" rather than "will it work". In between there's stuff like:
> DCMA also found that Boeing personnel made numerous administrative errors through changes to certified work order data without proper documentation
and
> Some technicians reported they had to hunt through layers of documentation to identify required instructions and documentation of work history and key decisions related to the hardware
It sounds like the focus is more on making documents and reading documents and complying with documents than "will this thing fly?"
> DCMA also found that Boeing personnel made numerous administrative errors through changes to certified work order data without proper documentation
and
> Some technicians reported they had to hunt through layers of documentation to identify required instructions and documentation of work history and key decisions related to the hardware
It sounds like the focus is more on making documents and reading documents and complying with documents than "will this thing fly?"
It's the OIG, the government's auditors. They're not equipped to make engineering decisions, but they are experts at seeing whether that policies ostensibly written by engineers are being followed.
I feel that in this situation the balme is valid. Engineering was spot on until management threw it out the window as something in the way for making money.
They wanted to make things for sales, not for use. Usability is the side effect for sellable for them apparently: sometimes happen, sometimes not. While they were pushing on with sell sell sell sell sell, sell nooow! Instead of making something that is needed and is usable, so people would want to buy.
They wanted to make things for sales, not for use. Usability is the side effect for sellable for them apparently: sometimes happen, sometimes not. While they were pushing on with sell sell sell sell sell, sell nooow! Instead of making something that is needed and is usable, so people would want to buy.
The OIG Report itself: https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ig-24-015.pd...
And SpaceX are sitting there with all the capability, resource and a good chunk of the technology ready to go.
The legacy defence contractors have been watered with a hoover dams worth of taxpayer money for far too long and have little to show for it.
The legacy defence contractors have been watered with a hoover dams worth of taxpayer money for far too long and have little to show for it.
SpaceX is about to launch Starship for the fifth time in a few weeks. If they pull off a controlled landing and catch (which they are rumored to attempt), that's going to be the best ticket to the moon by far. They might actually manage to get there before the Chinese if they put their mind to it and get the resources and backing to do it.
Chinese peer pressure might achieve what years of lobbying hasn't managed to achieve: a sense of urgency. The Chinese establishing a moon base without US boots on the surface would be a major embarrassment. They've done a few unmanned landings now. So, they clearly have the capability to pull this off now.
Chinese peer pressure might achieve what years of lobbying hasn't managed to achieve: a sense of urgency. The Chinese establishing a moon base without US boots on the surface would be a major embarrassment. They've done a few unmanned landings now. So, they clearly have the capability to pull this off now.
Maybe SpaceX should finish the HLS that they have saying should have landed on the Moon by now.
Anyone found the actual Office of the Inspector General report yet? It ought ot be here [1] or here [2], but it's not.
[1] https://oigforms.nasa.gov/audits/auditReports.html
[2] https://oig.nasa.gov/investigation-reports/
[1] https://oigforms.nasa.gov/audits/auditReports.html
[2] https://oig.nasa.gov/investigation-reports/
It could just stop at hindering.
I think it's safe to say at this point that Boeing is hindering Americans. Full stop.
I'm a very proud American, my grandfather worked on Apollo, and was a submariner in WWII. Recently Boeing has not made me proud.
I think it's safe to say at this point that Boeing is hindering Americans. Full stop.
I'm a very proud American, my grandfather worked on Apollo, and was a submariner in WWII. Recently Boeing has not made me proud.
Off-topic: Dear proud American, pls loosen up your immigration rules for highly-skilled workers who despite the last years would still be very grateful to move to America.
We want our grandchildren to one day also be proud Americans.
Cheers, A friend from abroad who still believes in America
We want our grandchildren to one day also be proud Americans.
Cheers, A friend from abroad who still believes in America
Dear prospective immigrant,
Thanks for the offer, but we have plenty of highly-skilled workers in the US already. Unless you're a medical doctor, that is.
Cheers!
The Unemployed (and Forgotten) Masses
(Note: I'm not unemployed, but was for a several months until earlier this year.)
Thanks for the offer, but we have plenty of highly-skilled workers in the US already. Unless you're a medical doctor, that is.
Cheers!
The Unemployed (and Forgotten) Masses
(Note: I'm not unemployed, but was for a several months until earlier this year.)
If we stopped illegal immigration, we would have far more room for high skills legal immigrants.
Highly-skilled, legal immigrants and ostensibly low-skilled, illegal immigrants are two different groups of people with different motivations. Low-skilled immigrants contribute to different kinds of jobs (e.g. agriculture, construction, domestic work) than the ones highly-skilled, legal immigrants do. A family swimming across the Rio Grande, trying to escape destitution in Venezuela, probably isn't going to take a programming job from the man or woman from India, who came to the US on a work visa.
How does that work exactly?
Boeing has been very slow at raising salaries and contract rates in the last 15 years or so. That lead to a lot of the best engineers, managers and technicians leaving.
It's a pervasive problem among all gov contractors. Most don't pay as well as private market, and you have the added downside of needing a clearance in a lot of positions, so they try to make it up with "job security". That means, when times are tough, instead of letting people go they freeze or cap raises, often below inflation. Good people wind up leaving.
If half your best people leave every few years when the gov hits its next debt ceiling, your company is gonna have a bad time.
If half your best people leave every few years when the gov hits its next debt ceiling, your company is gonna have a bad time.
When Yuri Gagarin saw Earth from orbit for the first time in history, he saw a planet without borders between nations. One planet, one human species.
This vision is the last thing that the people profiting from conflict want you to see.
This vision is the last thing that the people profiting from conflict want you to see.
I wonder how much of this is Boeing and how much is NASA. It's very easy to throw Boeing under the bus right now, and they might even deserve it, but at a minimum, NASA deserves blame for not doing due diligence. They're also trying to build something that we've largely forgotten how to build. It's a different NASA, and different Boeing, and design technology and manufacturing is completely different. It isn't reasonable to expect this to go smoothly.
I think Nasa has forgotten how to Nasa because of SpaceX. They still cannot adapt to how fast SpaceX moves. They are used to being able to plan everything for years as technology moved slowly. Now their plans are obsolete by launch date.
Boeing appears to have simply collapsed under its own hubris.
Boeing appears to have simply collapsed under its own hubris.
Boeing haven't exactly been covering themselves with glory with their non-NASA work over the last decade or two, either. But I'd still go with "both" :)
The blame should honestly go to Congress, because they keep interfering in the process to force NASA to stick with SLS. NASA has tried several times to ditch this albatross around their necks only to be scolded by influential senators determined to keep money flowing into their states despite the overall project failing wildly.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/so-long-senator-shel...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/so-long-senator-shel...
IMO its a huge opportunity cost for humans to land on moon if it comes at cost of gazillions of dollars. We've been to moon, many countries have spent probes on the Moon. Humans are fragile blood bags covered in thin skin plastic. It takes a ton of other infrastructure around to sustain them. Even losing a single human is a disaster.
That money and time could be spent building better rovers. We could likely send 10 +rovers to different planets for exploration at the same time + cost factor.
Spirit & Opportunity spent ~21 years combined on Mars.
We could have an army of rovers for years on Moon and build habitable bases. It'd be cheaper than sending a few human astronauts to the Moon for a few hours of "we did it" videos.
That money and time could be spent building better rovers. We could likely send 10 +rovers to different planets for exploration at the same time + cost factor.
Spirit & Opportunity spent ~21 years combined on Mars.
We could have an army of rovers for years on Moon and build habitable bases. It'd be cheaper than sending a few human astronauts to the Moon for a few hours of "we did it" videos.
What killed American expertise? Middle management.
More than middle management, it was extreme financialization.
The best quote I've ever read about that was "Why become a physicist, when you can be his boss?" Can't find the source anymore.
With no universal healthcare, no free higher education, very little social safety net and a raft of other holes in society to fall through, America is the poster child of “F$$k everyone else, I got mine”
People have to behave this way just to survive.
People have to behave this way just to survive.
Lack of adequate STEM education in US schools --> more liberal arts majors --> more MBAs --> low value for engineering fundamentals and higher value for financialization --> Oh crap, MBAs can't send stuff to space?
There are an enormous number of physicists who can't find jobs now, the systemic problems are much deeper than that. In fact, I would posit that the "low standards" of highschool STEM relative to countries like India are actually due to the extraordinarily high fraction of our kids we push in that direction.
That was the decision of US elites decades ago. The whole matter becomes a bit clearer if you regard those elites as aristocratic and the US happened to be one of their most fertile lands.
How do you extract value from your land? There are many ways.
How do you extract value from your land? There are many ways.
Don't worry you Americans.
Your government will soon find a reason to sue Airbus (corruption, unfair competition, etc.) in order to extract its secrets and supply them to Boeing, and voila, Airbus' technological lead will be wiped out.
See Alstom's story for a manual of the perfect economic imperialist : https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-americ...
Your government will soon find a reason to sue Airbus (corruption, unfair competition, etc.) in order to extract its secrets and supply them to Boeing, and voila, Airbus' technological lead will be wiped out.
See Alstom's story for a manual of the perfect economic imperialist : https://www.economist.com/business/2019/01/17/how-the-americ...
This is an easy fix for Boeing: budget for more lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Just give the whole contract to SpaceX already
SpaceX faces the same risks of becoming a monopolist and then declining. To give the whole contract to him maybe is a good short term solution, but long term it will end badly.
Indeed. Iirc Falcon Heavy has the capability right.now. They time/effort only needs to be spent on the lander and getting back.
Has SpaceX even been outside low earth orbit with anything meaningful?
"Launches to higher-orbits have included DSCOVR to Sun–Earth Lagrange point L1, TESS to a lunar flyby, a Tesla Roadster demonstration payload to a heliocentric orbit extending past the orbit of Mars, DART to the asteroid Didymos, Euclid to Sun-Earth Lagrange point L2, and Psyche to the asteroid 16 Psyche." Per wikipedia, not sure if those count as meaningful. Plus Europe Clipper in a few months.
If you mean human spaceflight, current Boeing has less experience flying humans to anywhere in space than SpaceX, let alone beyond low earth orbit. If you mean general spaceflight, SpaceX has launched more lunar and interplanetary payloads than Boeing has in the past decade or two.
Boeing and its proponents love to talk about things like "spaceflight heritage", but none of that means anything when most if not all of those employees are gone and nothing was done to transfer the knowledge.
Boeing and its proponents love to talk about things like "spaceflight heritage", but none of that means anything when most if not all of those employees are gone and nothing was done to transfer the knowledge.
It was Rockwell. It was always Rockwell. Boeing's heritage is that they bought it.
They regularly have missions to Geostationary Transfer Orbit, but I assume that’s not what you’re talking about.
Not yet, but I believe the Artemis 3 manned moon landing is still a planned for 2026.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sure, let’s give the richest man on earth who spends more time trolling on Twitter than working more taxpayer dollars for his self enrichment
So in a thread about how abysmal and over budget the only competitor is, you have decided that we should cut off the most innovative space company in of the past 20 years and our governments sole proven launch provider because you don't like the owner on a personal level?
No, I think the government should not be continuing to rack up debt for a toy program that does nothing for the welfare of the average American. If Spacex is so successful and innovative surely they can survive without government funding. I’ve never met Elon so how would I dislike him on a personal level? I dislike how blatant he is about using his companies and political dark money to curry favor. I dislike that he has faced zero consequences for market manipulation and lying to investors and the SEC.
Does this somehow disqualifies SpaceX as a contract supplier?
"This service is awful, let's switch to the better one"
You: "and give them money in exchange for services rendered?!!?"
You: "and give them money in exchange for services rendered?!!?"
They didn't complain about SpaceX itself getting money, they complained that some of that money will go to Musk.
That's a meaningless distinction though. What's the logic of not choosing the most reliable supplier in the industry just because the owner is rich?
> That's a meaningless distinction though.
Just because there's currently no way to separate the two financially doesn't mean the complaint is invalid. There are multiple plausible ways for those finances to become untangled.
> just because the owner is rich
Him being just "rich" (7-8 figure threshold) is barely a factor. It's the extreme level and the way he acts.
Just because there's currently no way to separate the two financially doesn't mean the complaint is invalid. There are multiple plausible ways for those finances to become untangled.
> just because the owner is rich
Him being just "rich" (7-8 figure threshold) is barely a factor. It's the extreme level and the way he acts.
This is why I mentioned 'reliable'. People love to whine about how extreme they perceive Musk to be, but SpaceX has continued to be as reliable as ever and hasn't shown any of the urges conspiracy theorists love to imagine they will have.
"SpaceX is reliable" and "I don't want Elon Musk to get money" are completely compatible thoughts to hold at the same time.
Complaining about a choice doesn't mean you think it's the wrong choice.
Note that I'm not really concerned with how mcmcmc feels in detail, I'm just commenting on their initial post and your response to it. They weren't objecting to money for services rendered.
Complaining about a choice doesn't mean you think it's the wrong choice.
Note that I'm not really concerned with how mcmcmc feels in detail, I'm just commenting on their initial post and your response to it. They weren't objecting to money for services rendered.
The whole thing is a boondoggle and running a deficit to redistribute more wealth to the top should disgust people. Your strawman is meaningless.
Where's the strawman? You're whining about giving money to SpaceX in exchange for asking SpaceX to build something to the specifications of the program. That's not redistributing wealth to the top, that's purchasing a service.
You literally made up a quote that I did not say to create a nonsensical argument. Taking taxpayer money and spending it on something that doesn’t benefit taxpayers, but does benefit people with equity in Spacex, is wealth redistribution. All fiscal policy is wealth redistribution when it comes down to it.
Musk is only really rich because he owned Tesla and SpaceX and those were only successful because they produced better stuff and transformed their industries. The system is kind of working as intended. Do you think things would be better if Musk never happened and we had relied on GM and Boeing?
[deleted]
A nice video commentary on this by Philip Sloss: https://youtu.be/XDsxdrIL_Cs
[deleted]
If the delays end up with Boeing extracting more money from NASA, it is obviously NASA who is inexperienced and mismanaged, while Boeing looks rather clever.
If outside contractors and suppliers are causing delays while you pay them, the poor manager is you.
If outside contractors and suppliers are causing delays while you pay them, the poor manager is you.
Sack all the managers at Boeing and watch everything work better…
Honestly think we're beyond that now. They need stripping of all government contracts - obviously not in one go as theres currently no alternatives in many cases. They certainly should be banned from being involved in anything going forwards.
I work at a company like this where management self interest has taken over and the staff have zero power to say no. It makes everything impossible if I’m honest, the 200 layers of management might as well be using a magic 8 ball to run the company.
You could find/replace Boeing with NASA/Federal government with this entire article. Boeing has a crazy amount of oversight. This is the governments failure.
And SpaceX doesn't? They had the same requirements.
Boeing failed to meet the basic standards, but has been given a pass by NASA up til now. Bad welds? Sternly worded letter. Inadequate heat shielding? Well, it didn't get too hot so let's try with people. Bad valves? Just replace the broken ones, In sure there's no borderline valves from a systemic problem. Leaky tanks? Not a problem. Flaky thrusters that might not be able to make it to re-entry? Hold on there!
Boeing failed to meet the basic standards, but has been given a pass by NASA up til now. Bad welds? Sternly worded letter. Inadequate heat shielding? Well, it didn't get too hot so let's try with people. Bad valves? Just replace the broken ones, In sure there's no borderline valves from a systemic problem. Leaky tanks? Not a problem. Flaky thrusters that might not be able to make it to re-entry? Hold on there!
Nope - Boeing has been failing at many things for many years - this is the fault of putting accountants in charge.
Boiling the downturn of one of the largest military contractors in the country down to "accountants" is a mass simplification. Boeing has 1000s of employees focused on regulation and oversight. If the federal government didn't see this coming, they are either complicit in this or incompetent. I will say, its a mix of both.
[deleted]
I don't know which is a better illustration of America's decline during my baby boomer lifetime - California High Speed Rail vs The Interstate Highway System or Artemis vs Apollo.
Good examples. The same comparison can be made in other western countries. When I point out there issues, people act like they were always there - but they weren’t. We used to build! Or they say it’s an inherent feature of democracy. Or they get angry.
I watched the Superman movie with my kids the other day and I wondered how a planet like Krypton could just collapse after all its accomplishments. It seemed unrealistic. I totally understand now.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41193416
Intel and Boeing. Sad to see greats turn into this.
The SLS is a sinking ship and money pit. Blaming on Boeing is just en vogue.
Why is this not cancelled?
Because Congress critters use it as a means to spend taxpayer money on purchasing votes. They'll do pretty much anything to avoid having to admit that SLS was a mistake.
Is "Moon Policy" anywhere near the ballot box? Particularly for senators? To the extent it might be, isn't it the inverse problem, to cancel the program is to lose jobs. So they're mostly just being held hostage by the monopoly.
The person you are voting for has fantastically small power. Which, is not what we were taught, but it does seem to be the fact.
The person you are voting for has fantastically small power. Which, is not what we were taught, but it does seem to be the fact.
The topic buying the votes isn't moon policy, it's that they're creating jobs. SLS was being given absurd sums of money for development well before Artemis was a thing.
Canceling SLS would mean losing jobs, yes. But that's not because of some sort of Boeing monopoly on space (they're obviously not a monopoly in that area), it's because the program is designed to be inefficient, with tons of 3rd party suppliers intentionally spread across the entire country, and tons of extra red tape to justify creating more jobs. They and other old school defense contractors specifically advertise these projects with the promise of creating jobs in all 50 states.
I'd disagree on the claim that the senators have fantastically small power on this matter, a single senator was capable of holding back in-space refueling tech for at least a decade under threat of canceling the entire space technologies program (because if you can refuel in space, even launching several medium lift disposable rockets is more efficient, and that'd mean no need for SLS, affecting jobs in his area).
Canceling SLS would mean losing jobs, yes. But that's not because of some sort of Boeing monopoly on space (they're obviously not a monopoly in that area), it's because the program is designed to be inefficient, with tons of 3rd party suppliers intentionally spread across the entire country, and tons of extra red tape to justify creating more jobs. They and other old school defense contractors specifically advertise these projects with the promise of creating jobs in all 50 states.
I'd disagree on the claim that the senators have fantastically small power on this matter, a single senator was capable of holding back in-space refueling tech for at least a decade under threat of canceling the entire space technologies program (because if you can refuel in space, even launching several medium lift disposable rockets is more efficient, and that'd mean no need for SLS, affecting jobs in his area).
> it's that they're creating jobs.
It seems to me they just repurposed other industries and companies that were dwindling or going out of business anyways. I'm failing to see the millions of people put to work on this project.
> they're obviously not a monopoly in that area
SLS was officially started in 2011. SpaceX just had it's first successful launch and public verification of their platform in 2008. The situation today is different than it was when SLS was being put together. I think it's worth understanding in that context. Aside from that, Boeing is a monopoly, which grants them lots of power to manipulate the government.
> They and other old school defense contractors specifically advertise these projects with the promise of creating jobs in all 50 states.
Okay.. then how do they connect that back to specific senators in the minds of the voters to help them get elected?
> a single senator was capable of holding back
Was that simply because he was a senator or because he was on a _specific_ committee? Do we want to get into how committee assignments are handed out? Or how that particular "power" actually functions?
> because if you can refuel in space
Maintaining cryogenics in orbit is actually harder than people admit and you're resting a huge part of your argument on a very shaky ideal here.
It seems to me they just repurposed other industries and companies that were dwindling or going out of business anyways. I'm failing to see the millions of people put to work on this project.
> they're obviously not a monopoly in that area
SLS was officially started in 2011. SpaceX just had it's first successful launch and public verification of their platform in 2008. The situation today is different than it was when SLS was being put together. I think it's worth understanding in that context. Aside from that, Boeing is a monopoly, which grants them lots of power to manipulate the government.
> They and other old school defense contractors specifically advertise these projects with the promise of creating jobs in all 50 states.
Okay.. then how do they connect that back to specific senators in the minds of the voters to help them get elected?
> a single senator was capable of holding back
Was that simply because he was a senator or because he was on a _specific_ committee? Do we want to get into how committee assignments are handed out? Or how that particular "power" actually functions?
> because if you can refuel in space
Maintaining cryogenics in orbit is actually harder than people admit and you're resting a huge part of your argument on a very shaky ideal here.
>Okay.. then how do they connect that back to specific senators in the minds of the voters to help them get elected?
I feel like this should be obvious? The work is distributed across the country, but a state like New York or California is obviously less dependent on jobs from this than other states.
>Was that simply because he was a senator or because he was on a _specific_ committee? Do we want to get into how committee assignments are handed out? Or how that particular "power" actually functions?
He was on the senate appropriations committee, and considering that 30% of the senate is on the committee and we don't get to control who gets on it, I'd argue it still supports the point that senators have much more than just "fantastically small power" as you put it.
>SLS was officially started in 2011. SpaceX just had it's first successful launch and public verification of their platform in 2008. The situation today is different than it was when SLS was being put together. I think it's worth understanding in that context.
That doesn't cover the insistence from Congress on using it today and for the next 30 years.
>Maintaining cryogenics in orbit is actually harder than people admit and you're resting a huge part of your argument on a very shaky ideal here.
If only any serious research on long term cryogenic storage in orbit had been permitted, we'd know exactly how hard it is!
I feel like this should be obvious? The work is distributed across the country, but a state like New York or California is obviously less dependent on jobs from this than other states.
>Was that simply because he was a senator or because he was on a _specific_ committee? Do we want to get into how committee assignments are handed out? Or how that particular "power" actually functions?
He was on the senate appropriations committee, and considering that 30% of the senate is on the committee and we don't get to control who gets on it, I'd argue it still supports the point that senators have much more than just "fantastically small power" as you put it.
>SLS was officially started in 2011. SpaceX just had it's first successful launch and public verification of their platform in 2008. The situation today is different than it was when SLS was being put together. I think it's worth understanding in that context.
That doesn't cover the insistence from Congress on using it today and for the next 30 years.
>Maintaining cryogenics in orbit is actually harder than people admit and you're resting a huge part of your argument on a very shaky ideal here.
If only any serious research on long term cryogenic storage in orbit had been permitted, we'd know exactly how hard it is!
Is "Moon Policy" anywhere near the ballot box? Particularly for senators?
It is in Huntsville.
I suggest you read up on former Senator Richard Shelby.
It is in Huntsville.
I suggest you read up on former Senator Richard Shelby.
Projects like this have the work divvied up amongst as many congressional districts as possible. It’s about graft, not policy.
It's pork for states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. The joke for years has been that SLS stands for "Senate Launch System."
Probably the same reason the Space Shuttle wasn't cancelled even through pretty early on it was clear that it didn't make sense.
Upper management decisions are seldom made for good technical reasons.
Upper management decisions are seldom made for good technical reasons.
> Probably the same reason the Space Shuttle wasn't cancelled even through pretty early on it was clear that it didn't make sense.
Upper management decisions are seldom made for good technical reasons.
> SLS's existence has nothing to do with upper management. This is the child of Congress who funded it without any sort of mission.
Which is a big part of why Artemis is kind of messed up - neither SLS nor Orion was designed with the mission in mind. So Orion has to go to a relatively high near "rectilinear halo orbit" instead of Apollo's "low lunar orbit" because the SLS/Orion system doesn't have enough delta-V to get to the superior orbit and back.
> SLS's existence has nothing to do with upper management. This is the child of Congress who funded it without any sort of mission.
Which is a big part of why Artemis is kind of messed up - neither SLS nor Orion was designed with the mission in mind. So Orion has to go to a relatively high near "rectilinear halo orbit" instead of Apollo's "low lunar orbit" because the SLS/Orion system doesn't have enough delta-V to get to the superior orbit and back.
Same reason the most popular political candidates never make it past primaries.
Boeing's number one priority is DEI.
What's worse ignorance or malice? Boeing presents the best of both all to maximize quarterly earning$.
Can we please stop giving my tax dollars to them? Maybe it's better than building functioning weapon systems?
Can we please stop giving my tax dollars to them? Maybe it's better than building functioning weapon systems?
Is Boeing salvageable at this point? They are so bloated and bureaucratic. We've seen nothing but dishonesty from their executives. I'd rather see Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic step up beyond this space tourism nonsense.
The money is in the journey, not the destination /s
- Western Industry.
- The blue-collar middle class
- The Middle Class
- Our health care system
- Our education
- Western Economic Leadership.
- Social Mobility
Now they are busy destroying western technology, science and innovation on their never-ending selfish wealth-extraction quest.
They convinced us that our homes are investments, so they can fleece us with their usurary schemes. So, what next? our organs?
They convinced us to exchange our pensions for the privilege of being the mark on a market where the sharks like them do whatever the fuck they want, from blatant insider trading, to pump and dump schemes, to outright fraud, having for all practical purposes bought the SEC a long time ago.
What they will kill next?
How long are we going to transfer wealth to those slimmy sweet talking ignorant greedy bean counters?
Our daily work is like being in a mad house because almost everything is subordinated to the the most sacred goal of cooking the next quarter numbers to ensure we maximize executive bonuses, and fuck the long run! crazy projects started, spin offs, merges, projects cancelled, company killing layoffs, fuck long term value generation! they want more and more, and more, and they fucking want it right now! the fucking bonus gollums.
Everything is fucked in our society but executive compensation. Xerox, HP, IBM, Boeing... How many other proud symbols of our economy and civilization are we going to let them destroy?