Boeing CEO fired today, 12/23/19, effective immediately

[sdifox]

Maybe the plan is to send monkeys first?

Astronauts.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Astronauts.

Well, we can only pray they don't become AstroNOUGHTS!

 

[Paratus]

Umm, what? Boeing really trying to fail?

Boeing won't fix leaky Starliner before flying first crew to ISS

Boeing is set to launch its first crewed space mission in June without fixing a small helium gas leak on its troubled Starliner spaceship, officials said Friday.

phys.org

You have no idea how many meetings we’ve had.

 

[sdifox]

You have no idea how many meetings we’ve had.

just pull out the Challenger explosion picture

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You have no idea how many meetings we’ve had.

I can imagine.
'we have a leak, we need to fix it'
'that'll take weeks, what are we leaking?'
'helium'
'that's not explosive, just launch with it leaking'
'it's still a leak, that's still not good... if we can't guarantee the integrity of <doodad holding helium> how can we guarantee the integrity of <doodad holding hydrogen>?'
'because we haven't noticed any hydrogen leaks, launch it!'

 

[Paratus]

just pull out the Challenger explosion picture

We have to read excerpts from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report every year.

As a safety engineer I’ve got two basic jobs.

• Try and make the vehicles we fly safer
• Make sure the community, (The program, the astronauts, the flight control team, the hardware developers) understand the risks they’ve accepted

Every vehicle we fly has catastrophic hazards related to its design and operation. Ideally you have controls to those hazards. While I’m not going to talk about Boeing CFT for obvious reasons, I’ll cover some safety basics.

For some systems hazard control means fault tolerance, similar capabilities that can be used if one capability fails. Multiple primary computers for command and control, or primary and auxiliary engines for critical burns.

For other systems, mostly structural , it means factor of safety. Tanks and pressure vessels use this method. You want a factor of safety 1.4, 2.0, or even 4.0 times the worst case pressure the system should see.

Safety engineers review hazard reports as these vehicle are designed at built.

• At phase 0/1 you identify the catastrophic hazards and potential controls
• At phase 2 you’ve firmed up the hazards and the controls and identified all the verifications to prove those controls will be in place
• At phase 3 you provide the completed verifications or identify the dates / tests they will be completed

During development the hardware providers might come and say, “Hey we can’t finish verification 6 in the prop system structual hazard report. We said we would x-ray all these welds on the propellant lines but we couldn’t easily reach these 5 welds. Our subcontractor didn’t tell us they weren’t x-rayed until we’d already integrated the engines into the flight vehicle. Is that ok? We did pressurize the lines to flight pressure and didn’t find any leaks above our maximum allowable. If it’s not ok we’ll have to take 6 months to tear them out and risk damaging other systems”

So we’d have to evaluate the risk. Are there any other similar welds that have had problems? What’s the worst case scenario if it does leak? Can we detect a leak before it becomes hazardous? Is there something the flight control team can do once it is detected or to minimize any the risk of it happening.

Sometimes it’s obvious what the right thing to do is. Most of the time it’s very gray. Many time the right decision is to accept an increase of risk for one issue so you can spend the money and manpower fixing a more critical issue.

At the end of the day there are always combinations of failures that can result in the loss of our crews and those combinations are difficult to address before hand and blindingly obvious afterwards.

 

[iRONic]

It's stressful having a job that other people lives are depending on you doing yours correctly. Been there done that.

Just know that there are people out here like me that appreciate what you do and why you do it. Take time for yourself once in a while.

beer.gif

 

[Paratus]

NASA finds more issues with Boeing’s Starliner, but crew launch set for June 1

Fixing the helium leak would delay Starliner crew test flight for months.

arstechnica.com

This is a reasonably accurate article on the flight for anyone who wants to read more.

 

[Exterous]

NASA finds more issues with Boeing’s Starliner, but crew launch set for June 1

Fixing the helium leak would delay Starliner crew test flight for months.

arstechnica.com

This is a reasonably accurate article on the flight for anyone who wants to read more.

Stephen and Eric really do a good job covering space stuff.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Had a good phone conversation with the Boeing CEO the other day. I just needed someone to talk to and he said his door is always open.

 

[igor_kavinski]

he said his door is always open.

Does he fire anyone who closes his door on the way out?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Had a good phone conversation with the Boeing CEO the other day. I just needed someone to talk to and he said his door is always open.

*instant rimshot*

 

[hal2kilo]

We have to read excerpts from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report every year.

As a safety engineer I’ve got two basic jobs.

• Try and make the vehicles we fly safer
• Make sure the community, (The program, the astronauts, the flight control team, the hardware developers) understand the risks they’ve accepted

Every vehicle we fly has catastrophic hazards related to its design and operation. Ideally you have controls to those hazards. While I’m not going to talk about Boeing CFT for obvious reasons, I’ll cover some safety basics.

For some systems hazard control means fault tolerance, similar capabilities that can be used if one capability fails. Multiple primary computers for command and control, or primary and auxiliary engines for critical burns.

For other systems, mostly structural , it means factor of safety. Tanks and pressure vessels use this method. You want a factor of safety 1.4, 2.0, or even 4.0 times the worst case pressure the system should see.

Safety engineers review hazard reports as these vehicle are designed at built.

• At phase 0/1 you identify the catastrophic hazards and potential controls
• At phase 2 you’ve firmed up the hazards and the controls and identified all the verifications to prove those controls will be in place
• At phase 3 you provide the completed verifications or identify the dates / tests they will be completed

During development the hardware providers might come and say, “Hey we can’t finish verification 6 in the prop system structual hazard report. We said we would x-ray all these welds on the propellant lines but we couldn’t easily reach these 5 welds. Our subcontractor didn’t tell us they weren’t x-rayed until we’d already integrated the engines into the flight vehicle. Is that ok? We did pressurize the lines to flight pressure and didn’t find any leaks above our maximum allowable. If it’s not ok we’ll have to take 6 months to tear them out and risk damaging other systems”

So we’d have to evaluate the risk. Are there any other similar welds that have had problems? What’s the worst case scenario if it does leak? Can we detect a leak before it becomes hazardous? Is there something the flight control team can do once it is detected or to minimize any the risk of it happening.

Sometimes it’s obvious what the right thing to do is. Most of the time it’s very gray. Many time the right decision is to accept an increase of risk for one issue so you can spend the money and manpower fixing a more critical issue.

At the end of the day there are always combinations of failures that can result in the loss of our crews and those combinations are difficult to address before hand and blindingly obvious afterwards.

What is helium used for also might determine the degree of risk. Cooling what? Inerting what? Gas mix for the crew?

 

[thilanliyan]

What is helium used for also might determine the degree of risk. Cooling what? Inerting what? Gas mix for the crew?

From the article on Arstechnica it sounded like one use was to pressurize/push propellants throughout the system.

 

[hal2kilo]

From the article on Arstechnica it sounded like one use was to pressurize/push propellants throughout the system.

I guess it depends on the leak rate and the capacity of the tank to calculate the risk.

 

[iRONic]

Ohman… I have an inherent bias because I'm a retired wrench bender. Granted, I've never worked in a factory building airplanes but I have received airplanes from a factory. (Beechcraft/Raytheon)

Boeing’s largest plant in ‘panic mode’ amid safety crisis, say workers and union officials | Boeing | The Guardian

One mechanic at the complex, who has worked for Boeing for more than three decades, has claimed it is “full of” faulty 787 jets that need fixing.

Many of these jets are flown from Boeing’s site in South Carolina, where the company shifted final assembly of the 787 in 2021 in what was characterizedas a cost-cutting measure.

“There is no way in God’s green earth I would want to be a pilot in South Carolina flying those from South Carolina to here,” the mechanic, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “Because when they get in here, we’re stripping them apart.”

 

[Zorba]

Ohman… I have an inherent bias because I'm a retired wrench bender. Granted, I've never worked in a factory building airplanes but I have received airplanes from a factory. (Beechcraft/Raytheon)

Boeing’s largest plant in ‘panic mode’ amid safety crisis, say workers and union officials | Boeing | The Guardian

One mechanic at the complex, who has worked for Boeing for more than three decades, has claimed it is “full of” faulty 787 jets that need fixing.

Many of these jets are flown from Boeing’s site in South Carolina, where the company shifted final assembly of the 787 in 2021 in what was characterizedas a cost-cutting measure.

“There is no way in God’s green earth I would want to be a pilot in South Carolina flying those from South Carolina to here,” the mechanic, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “Because when they get in here, we’re stripping them apart.”

There are a bunch of them at Boeing in San Antonio too. I thought they were getting specific mods, not getting quality fixes, but I don't really know.

 

[cytg111]

OH for fucks sake just copy what spacex has been doing already. Spacex's genie in that bag has been out for a decade: Reusability works. Now get on the fucking page and start testing/failing like spacex did. you a dinosaur you dead why you still walking? go to sleep...

 

[Zorba]

OH for fucks sake just copy what spacex has been doing already. Spacex's genie in that bag has been out for a decade: Reusability works. Now get on the fucking page and start testing/failing like spacex did. you a dinosaur you dead why you still walking? go to sleep...

People think it's cool when SpaceX fails launches, Boeing would not be given the same latitude.

In general though, aerospace has walked way too far away from prototyping and testing. At multiple companies I've seen debates go on for months, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, when a simple prototype would show who was right.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

People think it's cool when SpaceX fails launches, Boeing would not be given the same latitude.

When was the last time SpaceX failed a launch that wasn't a test (basically Starship at this point)?

Friendly reminder that boingboing's ship had people on it today.

 

[Zorba]

When was the last time SpaceX failed a launch that wasn't a test (basically Starship at this point)?

Friendly reminder that boingboing's ship had people on it today.

Thanks for proving my point, since you are comparing a scrubbed launch to a failed launch.

If Boeing blew up a rocket on a test flight everyone would hound Boeing relentlessly, just like they currently are for the previous Starliner flights.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Thanks for proving my point, since you are comparing a scrubbed launch to a failed launch.

If Boeing blew up a rocket on a test flight everyone would hound Boeing relentlessly, just like they currently are for the previous Starliner flights.

When SpaceX was failing launches of any particular variety, it was a brand new company testing brand new concepts within the field of space launches. Boeing has been around for an exceedingly long time in comparison, doing things like launching rockets for actual decades. Their screws should be a lot tighter than SpaceX, so to speak.

I'd give Boeing the same latitude if they were working on a new testbed, trialing new concepts, etc. But they aren't. They're being a dinosaur, doing dinosaur shit, and still scrubbing launches with humans on-board so they probably need to be called out. I mean flight vehicle failures that involve passengers is kind of their bread-and-butter right?

 

[Zorba]

When SpaceX was failing launches of any particular variety, it was a brand new company testing brand new concepts within the field of space launches. Boeing has been around for an exceedingly long time in comparison, doing things like launching rockets for actual decades. Their screws should be a lot tighter than SpaceX, so to speak.

I'd give Boeing the same latitude if they were working on a new testbed, trialing new concepts, etc. But they aren't. They're being a dinosaur, doing dinosaur shit, and still scrubbing launches with humans on-board so they probably need to be called out. I mean flight vehicle failures that involve passengers is kind of their bread-and-butter right?

Thank you for 100% proving my point of why Boeing can't test and fail like SpaceX can.

Manned launches (and unmanned) are scrubbed all the time and this is still technically a test flight.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Thank you for 100% proving my point of why Boeing can't test and fail like SpaceX can.

Manned launches (and unmanned) are scrubbed all the time and this is still technically a test flight.

If it's a test flight, why are people on it?
Boeing can absolutely test and fail, they can blow up rockets for all I care, though it'll be a pretty big waste of taxpayer resources if they aren't doing anything interesting with it.

SpaceX did interesting things with their 'learning process', what has Boeing brought to the table?

 

[Paratus]

If it's a test flight, why are people on it?
Boeing can absolutely test and fail, they can blow up rockets for all I care, though it'll be a pretty big waste of taxpayer resources if they aren't doing anything interesting with it.

SpaceX did interesting things with their 'learning process', what has Boeing brought to the table?

There has to be a first flight with people on board. Flying people is part of the certification process.