• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Boeing used to be good, but these days they deliver trash

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sdifox said:
Starliner gone for a stroll, didn't get to right orbit...

www.theverge.com

Boeing’s new Starliner spacecraft is in the wrong orbit during first trip to space

Things didn’t go as expected this morning
www.theverge.com www.theverge.com
Click to expand...

For now, Starliner is at least in space, and circulating Earth. It’s just not at the altitude it was supposed to reach in order to meet up with the International Space Station — the spacecraft’s planned destination. The source of the problem was a glitch in the Starliner’s internal clock, which caused the vehicle to register a different time than it actually was.

Someone forget "Fall Back, Spring Ahead"?
 
uallas5 said:
For now, Starliner is at least in space, and circulating Earth. It’s just not at the altitude it was supposed to reach in order to meet up with the International Space Station — the spacecraft’s planned destination. The source of the problem was a glitch in the Starliner’s internal clock, which caused the vehicle to register a different time than it actually was.

Someone forget "Fall Back, Spring Ahead"?
Click to expand...


...not as sophisticated as the Apollo program?
 
Remember, they are planning on charging $90M per seat to orbit, vs $55M for SpaceX. And US govt is still buying their overpriced product, that's how corrupt our system has become.
 
uallas5 said:
For now, Starliner is at least in space, and circulating Earth. It’s just not at the altitude it was supposed to reach in order to meet up with the International Space Station — the spacecraft’s planned destination. The source of the problem was a glitch in the Starliner’s internal clock, which caused the vehicle to register a different time than it actually was.

Someone forget "Fall Back, Spring Ahead"?
Click to expand...

To be fair, we don't know that this clock glitch was caused by Boeing rather than NASA. I assume that NASA does the programming for missions. We don't know if this was a software or a hardware problem.
 
NASA and Boeing maintain that had a crew been on board, they could have taken control of the situation. “We have the capability on board to stop the automation and take over manually to fly,”


Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
 
feralkid said:
NASA and Boeing maintain that had a crew been on board, they could have taken control of the situation. “We have the capability on board to stop the automation and take over manually to fly,”


Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
Click to expand...

I see no particular reason to disbelieve this. The problem was that because of the clock glitch the main engine didn't fire, but the stabilizing thrusters did, which depleted the fuel, making it impossible for the craft to ascend to the ISS' orbital path. Had there been crew, I presume they would have manually prevented those thrusters from firing and depleting the fuel. Meaning the clock glitch would only have caused a momentary problem.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I see no particular reason to disbelieve this. The problem was that because of the clock glitch the main engine didn't fire, but the stabilizing thrusters did, which depleted the fuel, making it impossible for the craft to ascend to the ISS' orbital path. Had there been crew, I presume they would have manually prevented those thrusters from firing and depleting the fuel. Meaning the clock glitch would only have caused a momentary problem.
Click to expand...


Agreed; however, to hear Boeing say this after the 737Max fiasco, just didn't sit quite right.
 
uallas5 said:
Someone forget "Fall Back, Spring Ahead"?
Click to expand...
I know I did. Just discovered this week. It screwed up some of my programmed recordings of FM. It's a loss, but didn't cost me $50,000,000.
feralkid said:
Agreed; however, to hear Boeing say this after the 737Max fiasco, just didn't sit quite right.
Click to expand...
You'd think that one commercial airliner crash would raise some eyebrows, make folks wonder if they're OK. Two? Hold your nose, something's rotten for sure. Now, whoops, we missed our insertion point, oh boy, who programmed that timer anyway? What a bunch of clowns. I haven't been flying a lot, but if I did, I think I'd be getting nervous.
 
I don't really know much about this, but I'd really think there would be redundant polling clocks. Just like there should be redundant polling computers. I know the shuttle had 5 polling computers, and I assume they had independent clocks.
 
Just one more reason why DST is a travesty. Also perhaps one more reason why Boeing is turning itself into a travesty, but I am admittedly reluctant to embrace that second point.
 
crashtech said:
Just one more reason why DST is a travesty. Also perhaps one more reason why Boeing is turning itself into a travesty, but I am admittedly reluctant to embrace that second point.
Click to expand...
Boeing clearly has serious mismanagement issues. Not a good sign for a company that can't afford that type of problem.
 
Muse said:
Boeing clearly has serious mismanagement issues. Not a good sign for a company that can't afford that type of problem.
Click to expand...
If there was another American aircraft company, I would definitely be considering a change of allegiance. Not to say Airbus isn't a great company, but there's so much American history contained within Boeing now. Companies that my grandparents worked for, like North American Aviation and Rocketdyne all have the last of their DNA contained within Boeing. I'm ashamed that they seem to be squandering that legacy, but still try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
 
crashtech said:
If there was another American aircraft company, I would definitely be considering a change of allegiance. Not to say Airbus isn't a great company, but there's so much American history contained within Boeing now. Companies that my grandparents worked for, like North American Aviation and Rocketdyne all have the last of their DNA contained within Boeing. I'm ashamed that they seem to be squandering that legacy, but still try to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Did you see the interview of the Boeing executive who headed up the 747 operation? He was the whistleblower and he revealed himself about 2 weeks ago and went on camera in an interview. They showed a segment of that on the evening news. It was shocking what he said:

 
feralkid said:
NASA and Boeing maintain that had a crew been on board, they could have taken control of the situation. “We have the capability on board to stop the automation and take over manually to fly,”


Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
Click to expand...

The Sputnik was put into orbit with a calibrated gryo, no remote control no nothing. Ground tracking even.

For crying out loud, India managed to reach Moon orbit.
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
Did you see the interview of the Boeing executive who headed up the 747 operation? He was the whistleblower and he revealed himself about 2 weeks ago and went on camera in an interview. They showed a segment of that on the evening news. It was shocking what he said:

<snip>
Click to expand...
Thanks for the video. He seems honestly concerned, and I don't doubt he has some good points, but his concerns are totally unrelated to the MCAS issue, so it's a little weird that they seem to be saying that if management had listened to him, the crashes wouldn't have happened. That's just not true.
 
crashtech said:
Thanks for the video. He seems honestly concerned, and I don't doubt he has some good points, but his concerns are totally unrelated to the MCAS issue, so it's a little weird that they seem to be saying that if management had listened to him, the crashes wouldn't have happened. That's just not true.
Click to expand...
Well, this is the guy who managed the 747 Max production operation. He's no dummie. He wasn't purposely ignoring MCAS issues when he went public with that. AFAIK, there's no proof at all that the crashes were solely MCAS caused. He felt strongly that the production environment for that plane at Boeing was NOT conducive to delivering safe aircraft, quite the opposite. He was warning the brass in strong terms to exactly that effect. The 2nd crash's plane was in production when he wrote at least one of those letters that had urged the brass to NOT deliver the planes being produced at that time. What he feared then is exactly what happened - a 2nd crash close on the heels of the 1st.
 
Muse said:
Well, this is the guy who managed the 747 Max production operation. He's no dummie. He wasn't purposely ignoring MCAS issues when he went public with that. AFAIK, there's no proof at all that the crashes were solely MCAS caused.
Click to expand...
No such thing as 747 Max.
 
feralkid said:
NASA and Boeing maintain that had a crew been on board, they could have taken control of the situation. “We have the capability on board to stop the automation and take over manually to fly,”


Hmmm...where have we heard that before?
Click to expand...
Apollo 11? that is what Armstrong did when landing on the moon.
 
Muse said:
Well, this is the guy who managed the 747 Max production operation. He's no dummie. He wasn't purposely ignoring MCAS issues when he went public with that. AFAIK, there's no proof at all that the crashes were solely MCAS caused. He felt strongly that the production environment for that plane at Boeing was NOT conducive to delivering safe aircraft, quite the opposite. He was warning the brass in strong terms to exactly that effect. The 2nd crash's plane was in production when he wrote at least one of those letters that had urged the brass to NOT deliver the planes being produced at that time. What he feared then is exactly what happened - a 2nd crash close on the heels of the 1st.
Click to expand...

1. I never said he was a dummy. He seems smart and believable.

2. I never said he was ignoring MCAS issues. What I am saying is that his concerns do not have anything to do with MCAS.

3. There is ample evidence that MCAS malfunctions were the triggers for both accidents. A big contributing factor was that many overseas pilots are poorly trained.

4. There is NO evidence AT ALL that anything else on the plane besides the runaway trim was malfunctioning. As far as investigators can determine, the engines and flights controls were operational right up until the crash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top