Space Station Flight Was 'Wilder' Than We Thought
23 comments
·April 6, 2025dotdi
I haven't been on slashdot in a long time, and boy is it a shitty experience.
Using Orion browser with uBlock Origin, initially the site loads fine. Then it tries to load ads. It detects that the ads don't load, so it displays an overlay that looks like a crash modal "oops, something went wrong", shaming the user into believing THEY did something wrong.
Dismissing the modal reveals that the CSS was unloaded in the background.
Thanks but no thanks.
ninkendo
FWIW I have no problems (and see no ads) on the site running a pihole dns-based blocker on my network.
In-browser blockers are interesting because they’re actually modifying the DOM, and any JavaScript which expects the DOM to have certain elements, and doesn’t handle them being missing, can cause these kinds of failures. Network-level blocking should at least cause the requests to the ad services to fail in the first place, which has a much higher likelihood of being a tested code path (ie. Not breaking the site just because a request failed.)
Basically I’m not surprised that in-browser, DOM-manipulating ad blockers cause failures in a lot of sites’ JavaScript, and I wouldn’t necessarily chalk it up to maliciousness on Slashdot’s part.
readthenotes1
No problems using Firefox mobile with unlock origin
renewiltord
In the end, SpaceX is America’s only reliable way to get to space. It’s great that it’s also cheap considering that. Boeing is, as usual: cheap, fast, good; pick none.
croes
Just wait.
When SpaceX gets the same status then Boeing they will become similar in quality.
_diyar
It's fair to say that Boeing's status within their industries enabled them to slide down the slippery slope of quality and reliability. SpaceX does seem to become more dominant over time.
But to actually go down that path also requires a culture of management by non-engineers (MBAs have a bad rep for a reason). SpaceX, at least for now, has a strong engineering culture and does not seem at risk of becoming one.
In other words, status is necessary but not sufficient for enshittification.
ceejayoz
Boeing had a strong engineering culture. Things can change quick.
piva00
I don't see many incentives in the current American corporate culture to keep a company leading in technical proficiency to maintain that status after they acquire the market they are looking for.
All the incentives are tilted over financial engineering rather than actual product/hard engineering, after the initial lift-off from technical prowess there's very little embedded in the capital system to keep that corporate culture instead of derailing it into financial juggling.
michaelsshaw
SpaceX rockets routinely fail to orbit
senectus1
they also more than routinely not just make it to orbit but land nicely to be used again.
Good luck Boeing trying to match that record.
michaelsshaw
Boeing was involved with the Saturn V. The only vehicle to take humans beyond LEO, decades before I was even born. No excuses for rockets that don't work in this day and age. I say good luck to SpaceX matching that record.
BTW, I'm not defending Boeing, more just some spacex hate :p
londons_explore
It sounds like the entire issue was caused by a design issue with a thruster which had never been used in space before.
Surely one can switch out the thruster for a redesigned one, or even a totally different type of thruster if the team has lost confidence in the design, and be flying again in months?
verzali
It's never that simple, especially when it comes to human spaceflight and NASA procedures. Switching out the thrusters will mean months of safety reviews, tests, updated procedures and flight rules, and endless other paperwork to make sure neither the crew nor the space station are put in any risk.
Not that all that necessarily works - Starliner had already been through all that and the really wild stuff to me is how much NASA was willing to waive their rules about safety around the ISS in order to let Starliner dock.
throwanem
NASA always does this in manned spaceflight: about once every two decades or one human generation, like clockwork since the 60s, they get "go fever" and people die in ways they promised the public people wouldn't.
The last one was in 2003, so I suppose those two astronauts in that Starliner must've had their guardian angels working triple shifts and overtime that day.
ChocolateGod
> safety reviews, tests, updated procedures and flight rules, and endless other paperwork to make sure neither the crew nor the space station are put in any risk.
And no one involved in these tasks has any reason to do it quickly or on time.
throwanem
There are seventeen names so far of people who died because it was more important to NASA management to get things done on time than to get things done right.
How many more names do we need to add to that list, before the psychotic mania for paperclips-uber-alles efficiency has been satisfied? And for that matter, I'm sure somewhere there's a headstone carved "Robert Strange McNamara," but have we checked what's in the casket under it? Or that there's a casket there at all? Did anyone see a body?
andrewstuart
I read “fight” at first glance and thought “wow there was a fight on the space station? AND it was wilder than we thought?”
Lex-2008
Thank you for this comment! Only it made me re-read this word correctly
mapt
tldr: These guys suffered rapid, progressive failures of their thruster control loops in orbit. They were close to either being stranded in space or impacting the station, in what might have been a lethal circumstance. Rebooting regained them just enough control authority to dock, and they did; Nobody wanted to risk touching the capsule after, not knowing how many minutes the thrusters would still be operational.
arkensaw
"slashdot". now there's a name I've not heard in a very long time
Why submit a page quoting half the article rather than the actual ArsTechnica article? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549796