• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    NASA also built the space shuttle, which was a plane that couldn’t fly by itself (as it was supposed to), was slower to turn around and more expensive than older equivalent technologies, and blew up all the astronauts 1.5% of the time.

    I mean, they’re great at other things - who else could have made the JWST work flawlessly with one opportunity - but they’re a definite source of hype, and they do something very particular and specialised. Beware endorsements.

    Edit: Fuck you, I’m right. Keep 'em coming.

    I don’t even care about Agile either way. This just isn’t a good argument for it.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yep. They’re probably better than anyone at making a complex system with literal moving parts that works 100% of the time, the first time. On a nearly unlimited budget, with a decades-long schedule. In an institution and culture that’s now a been around a lifetime, staffed with top-notch people.

        That’s all perfect for what NASA does, but I wouldn’t recommend a management system that NASA uses to just anyone, just 'cause “da astronauts” use it. Not any more than I’d recommend drinking your own distilled piss to anyone.

        I don’t really have an opinion on Agile, even, I just have a problem with selling it this way.