Quite the opposite. Agile is about testing ALL THE TIME and building incrementally. They have flown humans right after a single successful cargo mission. Did they have no further anomalies in the second mission? I seriously doubt it. Now they have a bunch of issues on the RCS and reentry rockets that can't possibly be entirely new (unless someone changed something and people have flown an untested critical component). Worse for Boeing, those components are procured from a third party which now they must be questioning how much QA went into them.

A surplus of agility is the last of Boeing's problems.

In my experience, agile methodologies do not have a a strong correlation to agility.

Boeing (especially Boeing ITDA) did indeed have a run-in with Agile SAFE. It went predictably.

Boeing's bean counter management seem more concerned about cost saving than quality.

https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/article/22027840/b...

Oh yes. I worked at Boeing until recently.

“a waterfall pig with agile lipstick”

Was not an optimistic introduction to the industry...

But there were still some good people, and good teams. But yea there were times where the importance of agile methodology in being preached by an executive agile coach before an emergency task force meeting while planes are falling out the sky.

What does this have to do with anything? Are NASA or Boeing using Agile for any project related to this mission?

No. Not at all. SpaceX is much closer to “agile” than Boeing or NASA, and I don’t think their success is a strike against agile.

GP just seems to have beef with agile and seems to be trying to loop any random failure, whether or not agile was involved, into the discussion.

Here is a past HN thread discussing exactly this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23856590

My beef is with selling incompetence to plan as agile… not with agile done properly (which is rare).