波音星際客機(jī)的維修不順利，返回時(shí)間已經(jīng)推遲3次。國(guó)際空間站燃料不足，要求星際客機(jī)在35天內(nèi)必須返回。

@devoof  
Space X: Wanna fly Starship  

Space X：想飛星艦嗎  

@teslasnek  
@devoof spacex and Boeing both started working on their capsules at the same time and Boeing got way more money from the government to do it than SpaceX did, yet SpaceX beat them to it and has been transporting astronauts flawlessly for years now, and Boeing still can't "get it up" lol  

SpaceX 和波音同時(shí)開(kāi)始研制他們的太空艙，波音從政府那里得到了比 SpaceX 多得多的錢(qián)，但 SpaceX 還是搶先一步，并且這些年來(lái)完美地運(yùn)送了宇航員，而波音至今仍無(wú)法“起飛”，哈哈。  

@devoof  
@teslasnek Starship??  

星艦？  

@genxray951  
wanting to go to space is a lot different than not wanting to die in space.  

想去太空和不想死在太空是很不一樣的。  

@billweberx  
Unfortunately, the astronauts don't have a choice.  

不幸的是，宇航員們沒(méi)有選擇的余地。  

@teslasnek  
@devoof my comparison was apples to apples. Yours is apples to broccoli  

我的比較是蘋(píng)果對(duì)蘋(píng)果。你的比較是蘋(píng)果對(duì)西蘭花。  

@infinityvids8392  
@devoof no people have flown in starship  

沒(méi)有人在星艦上飛行過(guò)。  

@devoof  
@infinityvids8392 despite it exploding its probably safer  

盡管它爆炸了，但可能更安全。  

@infinityvids8392  
@devoof yeah I 100% agree  

是的，我 100% 同意。  

@digi3218  
I'd rather ride starship as long as I can get out before it tips over in the ocean..  

只要能在它墜入海洋之前離開(kāi)，我寧愿乘坐星艦。  

@mrm7309  
I'm a certified diver. Let's go!  

我是認(rèn)證潛水員。我們走吧！  

@deeptoot1453  
@devoof comment of the day  

今天的最佳評(píng)論。  

@devoof  
@digi3218 ehh you'll survive. For another 4 days cause no one's coming to get you in the middle of the Indian Ocean  

呃，你會(huì)活下來(lái)的。再活四天，因?yàn)闆](méi)有人會(huì)來(lái)印度洋中間接你。  

@digi3218  
@devoof I will tell them to put some food on the buoy for me and hope it gets closer than 6 km this time around  

我會(huì)告訴他們?cè)诟?biāo)上給我放些食物，希望這次它能靠近6公里以?xún)?nèi)。  

@andrewwilliams9419  
Yes go on starshit  

是的，上星艦。  

@fookkayleung6735  
Bro i can't wait for sierra space's dreamchaser spacecraft that hopefully will do better for sure,and will stayliner ever be certified? I think it's unlikely . Stayliner please do better  

兄弟，我迫不及待想要看看塞拉空間公司的追夢(mèng)者飛船，希望它能做得更好，星艦會(huì)被認(rèn)證嗎？我認(rèn)為不太可能。星艦，請(qǐng)做得更好。  

@garreth629  
I'll do almost anything to visit space, but I'm not dying to do it. That's about where I draw the line.  

我愿意做幾乎任何事情去太空，但我不愿意為了去太空而死。這就是我的底線。  

@garreth629  
@devoof What I think starships landing looked uhhh survivable. Just give me a space suit, make shift life support, and a custom fitted seat strapped down in the middle of that giant fairing. It'll be fine. Oh, throw in a change of pants when I land.  

我覺(jué)得星艦的著陸看起來(lái)呃，可以活下來(lái)。只要給我一套太空服，一個(gè)臨時(shí)的生命支持系統(tǒng)和一個(gè)安裝在那個(gè)巨大整流罩中間的定制座椅。我會(huì)沒(méi)事的。哦，著陸時(shí)再給我一條備用褲子。  

@kevind1980  
There are no free rides.  

沒(méi)有免費(fèi)的搭乘。  

@williamstephens9945  
@infinityvids8392 Dragon launched astronauts successfully to the ISS multiple times  

龍飛船多次成功地將宇航員送上國(guó)際空間站。  

@infinityvids8392  
@williamstephens9945 we were talking about starship not dragon  

我們?cè)谡務(wù)撔桥?，不是龍飛船。  

@g2h0  
lets be honest we all sorta saw this coming didnt we?  

老實(shí)說(shuō)，我們都有預(yù)見(jiàn)到這事會(huì)發(fā)生，不是嗎？  

@reubenmorris487  
Not exactly - but one can deduce that leaks and problems never go away once you depart the ground or atmosphere.  

不完全是——但可以推斷，一旦離開(kāi)地面或大氣層，泄漏和問(wèn)題就不會(huì)消失。  

@geektechpow4537  
Yup.. after trial and leak that appeared, I was wondering if they had resolved the problem. Seeing all problem Boeing have with its commercial airplane, I was wondering if the airspace division would be impacted as well.. but I felt that this would be bad.. after 3 leaks during the flight... now 5 leaks...  

是的……在試驗(yàn)和出現(xiàn)泄漏之后，我想知道他們是否解決了這個(gè)問(wèn)題?？吹讲ㄒ粼谏逃蔑w機(jī)上的所有問(wèn)題，我想知道其航空部門(mén)是否也會(huì)受到影響……但我覺(jué)得這會(huì)很糟糕……飛行中有3次泄漏……現(xiàn)在是5次……  

@allanau  
I don’t understand why would they put a crew on it. I would have thought that had to prove the ship is sail ready for deployment.  

我不明白他們?yōu)槭裁磿?huì)讓機(jī)組人員上去。我認(rèn)為必須證明這艘船已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備好部署了。  

@timspiker  
Yeah, if I were the astronauts I'd say "you can either send spaceX or I ain't going"  

是的，如果我是宇航員，我會(huì)說(shuō)“你可以派SpaceX，否則我不去”。  

@allanau  
@timspiker spacex for sure. Great rockets, great capsules and even their space suites looks cooler.  

當(dāng)然是SpaceX。優(yōu)秀的火箭，優(yōu)秀的太空艙，甚至他們的太空服看起來(lái)都更酷。  

@augurseer  
Yes.  

是的。  

@TerryJLaRue  
If I were a Boeing engineer for the last ten years and I was looking for a new job, I think I would instead tell the new employer I was in jail for those ten years. I would be more likely to get hired.  

如果我是波音公司過(guò)去十年的工程師，而我在找新工作，我想我會(huì)告訴新雇主我這十年在坐牢。我可能更容易被雇用。  

@billweberx  
It's not the Engineer's fault. It's the management focus on profits at the expense of sound engineering.  

這不是工程師的錯(cuò)。是管理層為了利潤(rùn)而犧牲了可靠的工程。  

@davidtuer5825  
@billweberx That's not quite right. The Engineers allowed the pressure for profits to influence their technical demands in building their products. Their products being aeroplanes and rocket ships.  

那不完全對(duì)。工程師們?cè)试S利潤(rùn)壓力影響他們?cè)谥圃飚a(chǎn)品時(shí)的技術(shù)要求。他們的產(chǎn)品是飛機(jī)和火箭。  

@marcelocoelho4107  
@davidtuer
5825 Yes, but you forget that in cases like this if you go against the will of management you will simple be told to get on with the program or get replaced, because there is others that want the job, and unsurprising keeping their livelihood is of a greater importance to most than caring about the results, specially because in general our kind sucks at long term planning.  

是的，但你忘了在這種情況下，如果你違背管理層的意愿，你會(huì)被簡(jiǎn)單地告知繼續(xù)項(xiàng)目或被替換，因?yàn)橛衅渌讼胍@份工作，不出所料，對(duì)于大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō)，保持生計(jì)比關(guān)心結(jié)果更重要，特別是因?yàn)榭傮w上我們這個(gè)種類(lèi)在長(zhǎng)期規(guī)劃方面很糟糕。  

@stevej7139  
As an engineer that worked in the industry for 43 years including for Boeing at one point I can safely say that it is the constraints put on the engineers by management that is the problem, Boeing is not like most aerospace companies, I didn't enjoy my time with Boeing as it always felt like our opinions didn't matter, management was the problem because you have people that are in no way engineers telling engineers how they have to do things and it's either their way or the highway. The difference in how it feels to work at Boeing vs Lockheed Martin is like night and day and the end product shows that difference, Boeing deserves to go under.  

作為在這個(gè)行業(yè)工作了43年的工程師，包括在波音工作過(guò)一段時(shí)間，我可以肯定地說(shuō)，問(wèn)題在于管理層對(duì)工程師的限制。波音不像大多數(shù)航空航天公司，我不喜歡在波音的工作，因?yàn)榭傆X(jué)得我們的意見(jiàn)無(wú)關(guān)緊要，問(wèn)題在于管理層，因?yàn)橛型耆皇枪こ處煹娜嗽诟嬖V工程師們?cè)撛趺醋觯凑兆鲆醋呷?。在波音工作和在洛克希德·馬丁工作感覺(jué)的差別就像白天和黑夜，最終產(chǎn)品也顯示了這種差異，波音應(yīng)該倒閉。

@robertsmith2956
@marcelocoelho4107
The ones that said fine bye, went to work for SpaceX.

那些說(shuō)“好吧再見(jiàn)”的人去了SpaceX工作。

@stevej7139
Isn't that with all industries? In fact I would argue goverment to be even worse, so many unqualified idiots making regulatory decisions that affect entire industries.

難道所有行業(yè)不都是這樣嗎？實(shí)際上，我認(rèn)為政府更糟糕，很多不合格的傻瓜在做影響整個(gè)行業(yè)的監(jiān)管決策。

@robertsmith2956
Wouldn't be surprised honestly, doubt SpaceX would refuse qualified and experienced engineers, but like I said, most humans kinda suck at long term planning, and many more are also averse to risk. I know many people that wouldn't risk leaving their job without having a new one already lined up even if they were utterly miserable.

老實(shí)說(shuō)，我并不驚訝，我懷疑SpaceX會(huì)拒絕合格且有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的工程師，但正如我所說(shuō)，大多數(shù)人在長(zhǎng)期規(guī)劃上表現(xiàn)得很差，而且很多人也不愿冒險(xiǎn)。我認(rèn)識(shí)很多人即使過(guò)得很慘，也不會(huì)冒險(xiǎn)辭職，除非他們已經(jīng)找到了新工作。

@billweberx
@davidtuer5825
Not according to people who worked at Boeing.  Management (non engineers) forced engineering decisions and led to all the safety issues.  Several whistle blowers have spoken out about this.

據(jù)曾在波音工作的人說(shuō)，管理層（非工程師）強(qiáng)迫做出工程決策，導(dǎo)致了所有的安全問(wèn)題。有幾位舉報(bào)者對(duì)此進(jìn)行了揭露。

@davidtuer5825
This is not a binary question with a yes or no answer. There is no one person or group of people that can be blamed. Management for pressurising the production process, Engineers for allowing that pressure to influence their technical decisions, workers who are careless - how can someone who has taken a panel out by unscrewing 5 bolts forget to re-screw them when refitting the panel?? Management must bear the brunt of the blame as they set the tone for the working environment, but that in no way excuses those downstream for lackadaisical and unprofessional work performance.

這不是一個(gè)可以用“是”或“否”回答的二元問(wèn)題。沒(méi)有一個(gè)人或一群人可以被指責(zé)。管理層因?yàn)榻o生產(chǎn)過(guò)程施壓，工程師因?yàn)樽屵@種壓力影響他們的技術(shù)決策，工人因?yàn)榇中摹趺磿?huì)有人在拆下5個(gè)螺栓后忘記重新裝上呢？管理層必須承擔(dān)主要責(zé)任，因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)O(shè)定了工作環(huán)境的基調(diào)，但這絕不能為下游人員的懶散和不專(zhuān)業(yè)的工作表現(xiàn)開(kāi)脫。

@billweberx
Completely wrong.  Management decides what goes on at Boeing, not engineers.  It's been reported repeatedly that management forced engineering to schedules that were impossible, leading to poor quality.  Engineers complained to management about many safety issues but it fell on deaf ears.  The only choice engineers have is to follow orders or quit, which many did.  Not everyone is in the position that they can quit their jobs and keep their finances above water, so they hang on.  All the best engineers left Boeing long ago.

完全錯(cuò)誤。波音的事情是管理層決定的，不是工程師。據(jù)多次報(bào)道，管理層強(qiáng)迫工程師執(zhí)行不可能的時(shí)間表，導(dǎo)致質(zhì)量下降。工程師向管理層抱怨很多安全問(wèn)題，但沒(méi)人理會(huì)。工程師唯一的選擇是服從命令或辭職，許多人選擇了辭職。并不是每個(gè)人都能辭職并維持經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況，所以他們只能堅(jiān)持。所有最好的工程師早就離開(kāi)波音了。

@davidtuer5825
Completely wrong?? You may disagree with me but your opinion remains just that, an opinion. Find some humility and some manners.

完全錯(cuò)誤？你可以不同意我的看法，但你的意見(jiàn)也只是意見(jiàn)而已。找點(diǎn)謙虛和禮貌吧。

@billweberx
That was my opinion and I didn't say or do anything that should offend you.

那是我的意見(jiàn)，我沒(méi)有說(shuō)或做任何冒犯你的事。

@Dain_Bramage702
So the engineers decided to go with Money over Morals and willingly let loose products that were unsafe.  I'm sure they are proud of their work...

所以工程師決定選擇金錢(qián)而不是道德，愿意放任不安全的產(chǎn)品。我相信他們對(duì)自己的工作很自豪...

@billweberx
The moral responsibility of the Engineers is to report safety issue to management.  They did that.  Management chose to go down the immoral path of ignoring the Engineers.  The Engineers have no authority to work on projects not approved by management.  What are they supposed to do?  Quit their jobs?  Easy for you to say.  Nothing like blaming the workers for management poor judgement.  I'm guessing you're a manager at Boeing.  You sure talk like you are.

工程師的道德責(zé)任是向管理層報(bào)告安全問(wèn)題。他們做了。管理層選擇了無(wú)視工程師的不道德路線。工程師無(wú)權(quán)處理未經(jīng)管理層批準(zhǔn)的項(xiàng)目。他們?cè)撛趺崔k？辭職嗎？說(shuō)得倒輕巧。把管理層的糟糕判斷歸咎于工人，真是荒謬。我猜你是波音的經(jīng)理。你說(shuō)話的口氣就是這樣。

@Dain_Bramage702
Nope just an engineer.  With other engineers in family, 2 of which quit boeing seattle many years ago because they didn't want the weight of knowing they made poor decisions and lowered their work ethic enough to endanger peoples lives.  They moved on and are much better for it.  So yes, it is easy for me to say. If you choose to accept the managements poor decisions and continue knowing its wrong, you're just as bad as them and share in the blame.

不，只是一個(gè)工程師。家里還有其他工程師，其中兩人多年前辭去了波音西雅圖的工作，因?yàn)樗麄儾幌氡池?fù)做出錯(cuò)誤決策并降低工作道德到危及人們生命的重?fù)?dān)。他們離開(kāi)了，現(xiàn)在過(guò)得好多了。所以，是的，對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)很容易說(shuō)。如果你選擇接受管理層的糟糕決策并繼續(xù)明知其錯(cuò)誤的情況下工作，你和他們一樣糟糕，也要分擔(dān)責(zé)任。

@billweberx
I don't believe anything you wrote.

我不相信你寫(xiě)的任何東西。

@teslasnek
spacex and Boeing both started working on their capsules at the same time and Boeing got way more money from the government to do it than SpaceX did, yet SpaceX beat them to it and has been transporting astronauts flawlessly for years now, and Boeing still can't "get it up" lol

SpaceX和波音同時(shí)開(kāi)始研制他們的太空艙，而波音從政府那里獲得的資金比SpaceX多得多，然而SpaceX先一步成功并多年來(lái)完美地運(yùn)輸宇航員，而波音仍然“搞不定”哈哈。

@michaelreid2329
And I think it's time for NASA and Boeing admit that Boeing hasn't delivered and hand the money back.

我認(rèn)為是時(shí)候讓NASA和波音承認(rèn)波音沒(méi)有交付成果并退還資金了。

@JT-ir6vw
The craziest part is the difference in government budgets provided.  Boeing received considerable more funding for development and it took them twice as long as SpaceX to make.  They bill the US taxpayers 90 million per launch, while SpaceX 55 million.  If our government were run like a business, trying to save money for the best product, SpaceX would have all contract and Boeing would have been cutoff and given the middle finger.  There are just way too many politicians with their hands in the Boeing cookie jar, hence why they literally get away with corporate assassinations.

最瘋狂的部分是政府提供的預(yù)算差異。波音獲得了更多的研發(fā)資金，但耗時(shí)是SpaceX的兩倍。他們每次發(fā)射向美國(guó)納稅人收取9000萬(wàn)美元，而SpaceX則是5500萬(wàn)美元。如果我們的政府像企業(yè)一樣運(yùn)營(yíng)，試圖節(jié)省最好的產(chǎn)品的錢(qián)，那么SpaceX將獲得所有合同，而波音將被切斷并被豎中指。有太多政客插手波音的蛋糕，這就是他們能夠逍遙法外的原因。

@mrm7309
Those two old men may not come back, Boeing should ask Musk for help

那兩個(gè)老人家可能回不來(lái)了，波音應(yīng)該請(qǐng)求馬斯克的幫助

@CrucialArmitage
All that extra money just went to their bottom line to profits.

所有那些額外的錢(qián)都進(jìn)了他們的利潤(rùn)底線。

@JoeShmoism
@mrm7309
Believe me, they would rather ask the Chinese for help than ask Musk for help

相信我
他們寧可求助中國(guó)人 也不想求助馬斯克

@thomasboese3793
@CrucialArmitage
Hey, the Boeing CEO last year made 32 Million. A Congressman asked him what his job was and the guy from Boeing couldn't give an answer.

嘿，波音CEO去年賺了3200萬(wàn)美元。一位國(guó)會(huì)議員問(wèn)他他的工作是什么，那位波音的人無(wú)法回答。

@thomasboese3793
Since SpaceX was ignored and not thought of as a spacecraft provider at first in the eyes of NASA, Boeing had a head start on top of the extra money. And still, all Boeing did was rebuild the 1960s Apollo capsule and couldn't get it right the first time. Do you remember the wiring had to be redone because the wrong electrical tape was used? Did a group of high school students design and spec. out Starliner?

由于SpaceX最初被NASA忽視，并未被認(rèn)為是航天器提供商，波音在額外資金的基礎(chǔ)上占得先機(jī)。而且，波音所做的一切只是重建了1960年代的阿波羅登月艙，但第一次就沒(méi)搞對(duì)。你還記得因?yàn)槭褂昧隋e(cuò)誤的電工膠帶，布線必須重新做嗎？是某個(gè)高中生團(tuán)隊(duì)設(shè)計(jì)和制定了星際客機(jī)的規(guī)格嗎？

@pinballrobbie
The door fell off.

門(mén)掉了。

@jfverboom7973
@CrucialArmitage
Stock buybacks instead of Research & Development!
Prio 1 : profits for shareholders
Prio n : Deliver working product.

股票回購(gòu)而不是研發(fā)！
優(yōu)先1：股東利潤(rùn)
優(yōu)先n：交付工作產(chǎn)品。

@johnchambers8528
Another example of Boeing’s failures. I am not sure I would want to travel in any newer Boeing product until I am sure they have fixed their quality control issues.

波音失敗的另一個(gè)例子。我不確定是否愿意乘坐任何新的波音產(chǎn)品，直到確定他們已經(jīng)解決了質(zhì)量控制問(wèn)題。

@craigmackay4909
“We haven’t got senators in our pockets” - Boeing.

“我們口袋里沒(méi)有參議員” - 波音。

@Mike-tv9rk
Both sides of capitalism right there! You can use your money to try and progress humanity or you can pee it away in greedy shareholders with no interest in humanity.

這就是資本主義的兩面！你可以用你的錢(qián)來(lái)推動(dòng)人類(lèi)進(jìn)步，也可以把它浪費(fèi)在對(duì)人類(lèi)毫無(wú)興趣的貪婪股東身上。


@dannydaw59
Boeing gets paid before they deliver. SpaceX has to deliver to get paid. Boeing has incentive to drag things out and ask for money. It's messed up. Boeing should get paid like SpaceX or don't give them contracts.

波音在交付前就能拿到錢(qián)。SpaceX必須交付后才能拿錢(qián)。波音有動(dòng)力拖延事情并要求資金。這很混亂。波音應(yīng)該像SpaceX一樣獲得報(bào)酬，否則就不要給他們合同。

@OzSpud72
Even though Boeing got more money, the money given was lined into the pockets of executives and kickbacks back to the government workers who granted the grants. SpaceX got little or nothing and consistently face the moving of the goal post that even Boeing didn't even overcome. SpaceX conquered all the requirements of NASA beyond expectation. So seeing SpaceX the underdog succeed where Boeing with its 50's business mentality about keeping share prices high over safety and R&D. Anyway it is what it is. Glad we have the internet that can point out the back room deals, If this was the pre-internet era 99% of Boeings shortfalls would have been swept under the carpet. Governments sweep so much under the carpet - watch the video regarding US wiping out half of IRAN navy over 8 hours.

盡管波音得到了更多的錢(qián)，但這些錢(qián)進(jìn)了高管的口袋和給了授予撥款的政府工作人員回扣。SpaceX幾乎沒(méi)得到什么，并且不斷面對(duì)目標(biāo)變動(dòng)的問(wèn)題，而波音甚至都沒(méi)有克服這些問(wèn)題。SpaceX超出預(yù)期地征服了NASA的所有要求。因此，看到SpaceX這個(gè)弱者在波音以保持股價(jià)高于安全和研發(fā)的50年代商業(yè)心態(tài)下取得成功。無(wú)論如何，事實(shí)就是如此。很高興我們有互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，可以指出背后的交易。如果這是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代之前，99%的波音缺點(diǎn)都會(huì)被掩蓋。政府掩蓋了太多東西——看一段關(guān)于美國(guó)在8小時(shí)內(nèi)消滅一半伊朗海軍的視頻。

@christianvitroler5289
Nope, Boeing started earlier and got more funding as well.

不，波音開(kāi)始得更早，也得到了更多的資金。

@OzSpud72
@christianvitroler5289
makes it even worse now. Yikes

這讓事情變得更糟。哎呀。

@therealjamespickering
Well, they did get it up, but now they can't get it down again. In some cases, that might not be considered to be a problem (possibly even quite handy), but I think it could be quite awkward in public.

嗯，他們確實(shí)讓它升空了，但現(xiàn)在卻降不下來(lái)。在某些情況下，這可能不被認(rèn)為是個(gè)問(wèn)題（甚至可能相當(dāng)方便），但我認(rèn)為在公共場(chǎng)合可能會(huì)很尷尬。

@danpatterson8009
Have to assume NASA let two contracts (old way and new way) to see if commercial space was a real thing. I'd say they have their answer.

不得不假設(shè)NASA簽了兩個(gè)合同（舊方式和新方式），以看看商業(yè)航天是否是真實(shí)的。我想他們已經(jīng)得到了答案。

@i-love-space390
Keep in mind SpaceX received BILLIONS to develop Cargo Dragon well over a decade ago. They had 6 years of flight heritage on things like RCS thrusters, power systems, pressurization systems, heat shields, parachutes, etc that they could fit directly into Crew Dragon. When they did have to develop new hardware for the manned ship, they had parachute issues and an unexpected capsule EXPLOSION on the ground. If you combine the money from Cargo and Crew Dragon, SpaceX got MORE money than Boeing. And Boeing was starting from scratch after not having built a crewed vehicle since the Space Shuttle in the 1970s. So all that institutional memory left with retired engineers. All in all, people are just pissed off at Boeing because of the troubles with their commercial aircraft division, which is essentially a different company. I don't hear people griping about the F-15 EX fighter. That is also built by Boeing, as is the F-18 Super Hornet.

請(qǐng)記住，十多年前SpaceX獲得了數(shù)十億美元來(lái)開(kāi)發(fā)貨運(yùn)龍飛船。他們?cè)赗CS推進(jìn)器、電力系統(tǒng)、加壓系統(tǒng)、隔熱罩、降落傘等方面有6年的飛行經(jīng)驗(yàn)，可以直接裝入載人龍飛船。當(dāng)他們必須為載人飛船開(kāi)發(fā)新硬件時(shí)，他們遇到了降落傘問(wèn)題和意外的地面艙爆炸。如果你把貨運(yùn)和載人龍飛船的錢(qián)合并起來(lái)，SpaceX獲得的錢(qián)比波音多。而且波音在自從1970年代建造航天飛機(jī)以來(lái)就沒(méi)有建造過(guò)載人飛行器，所以所有的技術(shù)記憶都隨著退休的工程師消失了?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)，人們對(duì)波音感到不滿是因?yàn)槠渖逃蔑w機(jī)部門(mén)的問(wèn)題，這本質(zhì)上是一個(gè)不同的公司。我沒(méi)有聽(tīng)到有人抱怨F-15EX戰(zhàn)斗機(jī)。這也是波音制造的，還有F-18超級(jí)大黃蜂。

@teslasnek
@i-love-space390
the F-15 and F-18 are old designs. No one is denying they USED to make good stuff. The other reason people are peeved is everyone said there was no way SpaceX would beat Boeing... obviously all those experts were wrong

F-15和F-18是舊設(shè)計(jì)。沒(méi)有人否認(rèn)他們以前確實(shí)做過(guò)好東西。人們感到憤怒的另一個(gè)原因是每個(gè)人都說(shuō)SpaceX不可能打敗波音……顯然所有那些專(zhuān)家都錯(cuò)了。

@NavyVet4955
Boeing has received nearly double of what SpaceX has for these two platforms.

波音在這兩個(gè)平臺(tái)上獲得的資金幾乎是SpaceX的兩倍。

@PsyckoSama
@JT-ir6vw
If government was run like a business the mess would be just as a bad if not worse. Businesses do not save money for the best product. They save money for the one the CEO thinks is neat or gives procurement the best cutbacks.

如果政府像企業(yè)一樣運(yùn)作，混亂情況不會(huì)比現(xiàn)在好，甚至可能更糟。企業(yè)不會(huì)為最好的產(chǎn)品省錢(qián)。他們會(huì)為CEO認(rèn)為不錯(cuò)的或給采購(gòu)帶來(lái)最大回扣的產(chǎn)品省錢(qián)。.

@benyomovod6904  
DOOMLINER  
Boeing is unable to perform proper plumbing.  
Number one rule of plumbing  
NO LEAKS  

毀滅航線  
波音無(wú)法進(jìn)行正確的管道安裝。  
管道安裝的第一條規(guī)則  
不漏水

@AKguru762  
Number one rule of plumbing is crap runs down hill.  
Number two rule of plumbing is pay on Friday.  
You are now qualified to be a plumber.  

管道安裝的第一條規(guī)則是垃圾往下流。  
管道安裝的第二條規(guī)則是星期五付款。  
你現(xiàn)在有資格成為管道工了。  

@wyattnoise  
You mean like SpaceX's toilets?  

你是說(shuō)像SpaceX的廁所？  

@tomdave42  
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prevent leaks using helium? No element is as light. It's like making a system water tight but yet having a miniscule air leak. You may not get a drip of water out of it but you still have a leak.  
I've had a refrigerant leaks that were unable to be found unless I used helium to locate the leak.  

你知道用氦氣防止泄漏有多難嗎？沒(méi)有哪種元素像它這么輕。就像在一個(gè)防水系統(tǒng)中有一個(gè)極小的氣體泄漏。你可能不會(huì)看到一滴水漏出來(lái)，但你還是會(huì)有泄漏。  
我有過(guò)制冷劑泄漏，只有用氦氣才能找到泄漏點(diǎn)。

@zoltanposfai3451  
@tomdave42 Has anyone forced them to use helium? If they chose a technology, it's their responsibility to make it work. NASA did not order a helium tank, but a space capsule. What matters is whether it works and is it safe. So far, it has underperformed in both, and cost a lot of money.  

有人強(qiáng)迫他們用氦氣嗎？如果他們選擇了一種技術(shù)，就有責(zé)任讓它工作。NASA要求的是太空艙，不是氦氣罐。重要的是它是否有效且安全。到目前為止，這兩方面它都表現(xiàn)不佳，而且花費(fèi)了很多錢(qián)。  

@user-ze7vb5cx3y  
Yeah, but this is Boeing.  

是的，但這是波音。  

@thomaswakefield6889  
@tomdave42 that's funny because SpaceX doesn't have those leak problems with helium  
Boeing CEO says they ordered helium valves from India

這很有趣，因?yàn)镾paceX用氦氣時(shí)沒(méi)有這些泄漏問(wèn)題。  
波音的CEO說(shuō)，他們訂購(gòu)了來(lái)自印度的氦氣閥門(mén)

@MrKennyanders  
Leaks do not get smaller, they were allowed to send up a broken capsule with people. Who gets fired, and, every contract should be pulled from Boeing.  

泄漏不會(huì)變小，他們被允許用一艘有問(wèn)題的艙送人上去。誰(shuí)會(huì)被解雇，每個(gè)合同都應(yīng)該從波音手中撤回。  

@hiltonwatkins6750  
However, India's valves are from China, and they just increased the price by 3 times.
Time to break up the company… and jail Calhoun  

是時(shí)候拆分公司了……并把卡爾霍恩關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。  
然而印度的閥門(mén)是來(lái)自中國(guó)，他們只是將報(bào)價(jià)提高了3倍。

@NScherdin  
@tomdave42 Hydrogen is lighter than Helium.  
Such valves are installed on hydrogen-powered vehicles in China and Japan.
No problem

氫比氦輕。  
中國(guó)和日本的氫能源汽車(chē)上都安裝著這類(lèi)閥門(mén)
毫無(wú)問(wèn)題

@michaelbyrnee9584  
I wonder if NASA and Boeing are buying valves from china. I have never seen a plumbing valve from china that did not leak.  

我想知道NASA和波音是否從中國(guó)購(gòu)買(mǎi)閥門(mén)。我從沒(méi)見(jiàn)過(guò)不漏水的中國(guó)管道閥門(mén)。  

@ralphm6901  
@zoltanposfai3451 it does seem like a silly thing to sext helium. Nitrogen, while heavier, is a lot easier to acquire and may be less likely to escape.  

選擇氦氣似乎很愚蠢。雖然氮?dú)飧?，但更容易獲得，可能不太容易泄漏。  

@craigmackay4909  
60% of the time it works every time.  

它有60%的時(shí)間是每次都能工作。  

@longshot7601  
As safety oriented NASA is I was surprised at how they downplayed the leaks and launched anyway. I'm wondering if some of the NASA decision makers are going to be in HIGH paying jobs at Boeing in the near future.  

以安全為導(dǎo)向的 NASA 居然輕描淡寫(xiě)地對(duì)待泄漏問(wèn)題并繼續(xù)發(fā)射，這讓我感到驚訝。我想知道 NASA 的一些決策者是否將在不久的將來(lái)在波音獲得高薪工作。  

@user-hk6mt4uo4p  
@AKguru762 You beat me to it  

@AKguru762 你搶在我前面說(shuō)了。  

@Tenskwatawa4U  
Maybe, but they shouldn't be buying $2 valves from China for their spacecraft. They should at least be ordering the $200 ones.

也許是的，但是他們不該購(gòu)買(mǎi)中國(guó)2美元的閥門(mén)用于宇宙飛船。他們至少應(yīng)該訂購(gòu)200美元的那種

@Maggie-Holt  
Here's a thought... how about we don't allow Boeing to build any more spaceships. Or airplanes. (Wouldn't be the first time companies got iced for unsafe incompetence.)  

這是個(gè)想法……我們不讓波音再建造任何飛船或飛機(jī)或者其他的。（這不是第一次公司因不安全和無(wú)能而被凍結(jié)。）  

@bowldawg1  
I’m not sure they’re even capable anymore. I feel bad for the people who’s blood sweat and tears helped build a great company. Now they’re just watching die by a thousand cuts.  

我不確定他們是否還有能力。我為那些用血汗和淚水幫助建立偉大公司的員工感到難過(guò)。現(xiàn)在他們只能眼睜睜地看著公司變得千瘡百孔。  

@pierrelabrecque8979  
I am scared shitless for these astronauts.  They'll be back in a leaky spaceship

我為這些宇航員感到非常害怕。他們將乘坐四處漏氣的飛船回來(lái)