[Rebelgecko]

After SpaceX's failures, lots of people were saying things like "This is why they test— if you're not occassionally failing, you're not pushing the limits enough".

I would guess that at least in part the difference in attitudes is because SpaceX is considered more startup-y and Boeing is more associated with the "failure is not an option" ethos.

[bkor]

SpaceX still put satellites in orbit. From what I understood, SpaceX tests the entire software where they simulate launches. Something such as different timers should've been caught already.

Anyway, I do not care too much about pointing fingers elsewhere. The parachute thing was quite embarrassing and IMO this problem should have been prevented as well.

[Rebelgecko]

Boeing still put a capsule in orbit too. And I actually saw those excuses I'm referring to when the BFR prototype blew its lid, which didn't involved even a partially successful mission. Similar things were also said when the Crew Dragon blew up on the ground.

Regardless, testing all of the flight software is certainly not exclusive to SpaceX. I would bet any amount of money that Boeing also tested their software and performed simulated launches, moreover that testing is probably mandated by their contract with NASA. My uninformed guess is that one of two things happened:

1. Their tests were incomplete. e.g. they didn't find some edge case that would cause problems when the T-0 changed.

2. Someone goofed the procedures on the day of launch and didn't update their configuration properly.