• Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I mean this is a direct result of privatising this particular field, granted.

    Though even then, this is something that should have been flat-out mandated when the contracts where going out: “You’ll be compatible with one another, and don’t even dare start a sentence bitching about it or this contract is immediately torn up”.

    But damn… this must be so weird for the two astronauts. Second time something on this scale has happened, no? Where someone was uncertainly “stranded” in space? After the stuff with the blown oxygen tank on one of the Apollo missions?

    • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The crew of Apollo 13 weren’t really stranded, as such. They were far from home and not sure if they had the means to get home before the supplies ran out, which is a different problem

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It was intentionally not specified. NASA wanted two dissimilar spacecraft so a flaw with one wouldn’t ground the other. If they had specified a common space suit and an issue came up with it, then both Dragon and Starliner would be out of action.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It is a touch surprising that a discussion like

      we have standardized electrical, fluid, and gaseous connectors. You will conform to their hardware interface specifications if you want the contract accepted. This is not a debate.

      never occurred.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I have zero doubt the lawyers (probably contractors) involved with writing up the contracts aren’t also in the pockets of the “competing” corporations.

        Even if it wasn’t defined in the contract, the competitors knew of each others involvement and made no effort to address a very obvious engineering necessity (probably brpught up by engineers at both companies) — management (at the very least) let this happen on purpose, as a strategic decision.

        It’s all part of the hyper efficiency of privatizing profits and regulatory capture.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because these contracts aren’t about creating something. They are about funneling wealth to the already wealthy.