Man, I really don’t like this article. It seems like a wave of propaganda is covering up the failure. Hardware failures are to be expected on new types of spacecraft, because no matter how...
Man, I really don’t like this article. It seems like a wave of propaganda is covering up the failure. Hardware failures are to be expected on new types of spacecraft, because no matter how detailed your simulation is, you can’t simulate the universe in it’s entirety, so you test stuff in reality and see what breaks.
Software errors seem less excusable, because theoretically the whole system can be tested without leaving the ground. The fact that a software issue got through because “someone used the wrong API” just screams QC issues at Boeing.
Article may as well be titled “thankfully only one thing went wrong at launch”.
SpaceNews is honestly anything but propaganda—Jeff Foust, the article author, is also usually a pretty skeptical dude who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade when the opportunity presents itself....
SpaceNews is honestly anything but propaganda—Jeff Foust, the article author, is also usually a pretty skeptical dude who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade when the opportunity presents itself.
As a journalistic outfit, they write extremely concise, detailed articles from a near-neutral POV; the lack of detail in the article probably assumes you read SpaceNews frequently, in which case they've already covered the Starliner mishap(s) in varying levels of detail.
I think the reason you've got this perspective is because all this article is doing is summarising the facts without the author injecting personal opinion into their writing—if you read Eric Berger[1] a lot, it's quite a different (read: better) journalistic style and takes some getting used to.
[1]: As an aside, this is why I usually refuse to post his articles here. They're mostly opinion pieces masquerading as journalism.
Man, I really don’t like this article. It seems like a wave of propaganda is covering up the failure. Hardware failures are to be expected on new types of spacecraft, because no matter how detailed your simulation is, you can’t simulate the universe in it’s entirety, so you test stuff in reality and see what breaks.
Software errors seem less excusable, because theoretically the whole system can be tested without leaving the ground. The fact that a software issue got through because “someone used the wrong API” just screams QC issues at Boeing.
Article may as well be titled “thankfully only one thing went wrong at launch”.
SpaceNews is honestly anything but propaganda—Jeff Foust, the article author, is also usually a pretty skeptical dude who isn't afraid to call a spade a spade when the opportunity presents itself.
As a journalistic outfit, they write extremely concise, detailed articles from a near-neutral POV; the lack of detail in the article probably assumes you read SpaceNews frequently, in which case they've already covered the Starliner mishap(s) in varying levels of detail.
I think the reason you've got this perspective is because all this article is doing is summarising the facts without the author injecting personal opinion into their writing—if you read Eric Berger[1] a lot, it's quite a different (read: better) journalistic style and takes some getting used to.
[1]: As an aside, this is why I usually refuse to post his articles here. They're mostly opinion pieces masquerading as journalism.