Starliner gone for a stroll, didn't get to right orbit...
Boeing’s new Starliner spacecraft is in the wrong orbit during first trip to space
Things didn’t go as expected this morningwww.theverge.com
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"?
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"?
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?
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.
Bad timing. The timer that controlled the burn didn't go off at the planned moment. Whoops.Starliner gone for a stroll, didn't get to right orbit...
Boeing’s new Starliner spacecraft is in the wrong orbit during first trip to space
Things didn’t go as expected this morningwww.theverge.com
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.Someone forget "Fall Back, Spring Ahead"?
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.Agreed; however, to hear Boeing say this after the 737Max fiasco, just didn't sit quite right.
Boeing clearly has serious mismanagement issues. Not a good sign for a company that can't afford that type of problem.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.
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.Boeing clearly has serious mismanagement issues. Not a good sign for a company that can't afford that type of problem.
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: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.
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?
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.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>
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.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.
No such thing as 747 Max.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.
Well theres no such thing as a 737 max as an actual flying aeroplane at the moment either.Still no such thing as a 747 Max. There are 737 Maxes.
Apollo 11? that is what Armstrong did when landing on the moon.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?
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.