Weird, I always assumed 'test flights' were done with everything but the human, then they include the human after the tests are done.
Are those 'test plus human' still considered test?
Weird, I always assumed 'test flights' were done with everything but the human, then they include the human after the tests are done.There has to be a first flight with people on board. Flying people is part of the certification process.
Err there is a reason test pilots exist.Weird, I always assumed 'test flights' were done with everything but the human, then they include the human after the tests are done.
Are those 'test plus human' still considered test?
Well, a test pilot for a flight system that requires a pilot makes sense. Orbital flight vehicles don't require a pilot necessarily, they've been remote capable for what, decades? I can't fathom why your first fully assembled test flight of a system would include a human that can't affect change if anything goes wrong.Err there is a reason test pilots exist.
This isn't the first flight, it is the third flight and it is a test flight.Well, a test pilot for a flight system that requires a pilot makes sense. Orbital flight vehicles don't require a pilot necessarily, they've been remote capable for what, decades? I can't fathom why your first fully assembled test flight of a system would include a human that can't affect change if anything goes wrong.
I wasn't aware they had multiple launches already, that's on me.This isn't the first flight, it is the third flight and it is a test flight.
For the record, SpaceX also did a test flight with people and has also scrubbed launches of Crew Dragon.
BTW: This was an Atlas V problem, not a Boeing issue. Yet, Boeing still gets the shit for it. Why don't you complain about ULA/Lockheed Martin?
The O2 systems on Lockheed F-22 were giving pilots blood poisoning and making them pass out in flight resulting in at least one accident. The Lockheed F-16 is nicknamed "The Lawn Dart" because they crash so much.I wasn't aware they had multiple launches already, that's on me.
I'll complain about ULA/Lockheed when they demonstrate a cultural issue the way Boeing has. I shit on Boeing because Boeing decided to shit on engineers at some point in the last 20-30 years, and promote all the MBAs and marketing goons. ULA/Lockheed (and others) may have done the same, but it hasn't resulted in people dying.
Probably true, but thems the breaks. I didn't put the blood in the water. Enough emotional pressure and the next MBAs that come along might remember to not fire half their engineers.The O2 systems on Lockheed F-22 were giving pilots blood poisoning and making them pass out in flight resulting in at least one accident. The Lockheed F-16 is nicknamed "The Lawn Dart" because they crash so much.
This problem was an ULA problem, yet you blame Boeing instead of ULA. I'm guessing the Key Bridge failure was also Boeing's fault because Boeing paid them to ship some parts, just like Boeing is paying ULA to transport their capsule.
I'm not saying Boeing doesn't deserve some extra criticism right now, but right now it's just an emotional dog pile.
Spreadsheet says work is fine.Probably true, but thems the breaks. I didn't put the blood in the water. Enough emotional pressure and the next MBAs that come along might remember to not fire half their engineers.
I seem to remember footage of an early test flight of an F-16 that could barely get off the ground and once airborne was difficult to land. Modeling has gotten somewhat better now.Weird, I always assumed 'test flights' were done with everything but the human, then they include the human after the tests are done.
Are those 'test plus human' still considered test?
I do agree with your premise they did make their bed with decades of laying off the experienced people and union busting. MBAs won't learn though.Probably true, but thems the breaks. I didn't put the blood in the water. Enough emotional pressure and the next MBAs that come along might remember to not fire half their engineers.
YF-22 crashed in the test competitions. Lockheed set the flight control against wrong at landing, leading to severe pilot induced oscillation.I seem to remember footage of an early test flight of an F-16 that could barely get off the ground and once airborne was difficult to land. Modeling has gotten somewhat better now.
Are they still confusing meters and feet?YF-22 crashed in the test competitions. Lockheed set the flight control against wrong at landing, leading to severe pilot induced oscillation.
See above, flight platform that requires a pilot vs one that doesn't. Humans are passengers on space launch vehicles, unless there's some new space planes I'm unfamiliar with.I seem to remember footage of an early test flight of an F-16 that could barely get off the ground and once airborne was difficult to land. Modeling has gotten somewhat better now.
All of our capsule have manual flight capability for orbital ops. Manual handling characteristics is a part of the certification process.See above, flight platform that requires a pilot vs one that doesn't. Humans are passengers on space launch vehicles, unless there's some new space planes I'm unfamiliar with.
Right, but it's not necessary. You could do a hundred test flights with an unmanned capsule prior to manning it, that's all I was saying. If they've done unmanned launches of these specific capsules then I stand corrected.All of our capsule have manual flight capability for orbital ops. Manual handling characteristics is a part of the certification process.
They've already done 2 unmanned flights.Right, but it's not necessary. You could do a hundred test flights with an unmanned capsule prior to manning it, that's all I was saying. If they've done unmanned launches of these specific capsules then I stand corrected.
Which apparently wasn't enough to tease out a faulty valve and a He leak.They've already done 2 unmanned flights.
Man, I just wanna see you get full control from the Boeing board and start firing the guilty people left and rightWhich apparently wasn't enough to tease out a faulty valve and a He leak.
I'd love that, but I'd be wholly unqualified for such an adventure. I'd probably just fire anyone with their own office as a start.Man, I just wanna see you get full control from the Boeing board and start firing the guilty people left and right
I was thinking about this the other day. SpaceX takes investment money and uses it to do cool things. Boeing does cool things to give investors money. Obviously the sustainable spot is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.I do wonder if the travails of Boeing are, in essence, the long tail of neo-liberalism.
Given that much of the commentary seems to trace the problem back to the McDonnel-Douglas merger, and the switch from being an engineer-run business that happened to make money to being a money-making business that happens to do some engineering, I wonder if it's not just another example of the shift towards an obsession with share-holder returns that began in the Reagan/Thatcher era? It just took a long time to start having noticeable effects in the aerospace sector, because there's so much inertia in that sector.
I mean, a lot of the bad effects of Thatcherism/Reaganism seem to have taken a very long time to become apparent (our water companies going bust, the rise of both China and Trumpism...). Maybe the decline of Boeing is just another one of them?
I don't think Helium leaks are that uncommon, helium is a bitch to seal up. It's actually used for leak detection a lot because it's so small it can get through any leak path. But a tiny He leak is unlikely to hurt anything.Which apparently wasn't enough to tease out a faulty valve and a He leak.
I was thinking about this the other day. SpaceX takes investment money and uses it to do cool things. Boeing does cool things to give investors money. Obviously the sustainable spot is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.