Boeing Starliner upcoming launch, first w/crew - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2024, 12:33:11 am
content: "Starliner Crew Flight Test will launch on a week long mission to the ISS from Space Launch Complex 41 of the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida on May 6. Liftoff is set for 10:34 p.m. EDT (0234 May 7 GMT), with landing set for a week later in the southwestern U.S."https://www.space.com/news/live/boeing-starliner-live-updates"...a $4.2 billion fixed-priced contract with NASA." OUCH for that dinky thing.Place your bets. I think Boeing has long lost its mojo.

author: JustMeHere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2024, 12:35:52 am
content: Scrubbed.O2 valve not working well on 2nd stage.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2024, 07:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: JustMeHere on May 07, 2024, 12:35:52 amFor those that don't follow spaceflight that closely - that is an issue with the Atlas rocket not the Starliner

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2024, 08:14:38 pm
content: And for those with short memories think of all the scoffing when SpaceX got a competing contract. All the industry experts were saying that the huge advantage given by Boeing's history and expertise in spacecraft would result in a better product and earlier, making the SpaceX contract a waste of money.

author: temperance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2024, 11:14:45 pm
content: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/what-is-this-8-knobbed-ibm-human-interface-device-in-a-1980s-boeing-photo/msg5488525/#msg5488525Rumor has it that the knobs are operated by house DJ's also featured on tomorrorland.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 07:04:39 pm
content: June 1 launch aborted, countdown halted at 3:50 no scrub meeting results yetSpace.com

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 07:14:39 pm
content: If this trend continues, Boeing will have to change the name from Starliner to Scrubliner.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 07:23:17 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 01, 2024, 07:14:39 pmI prefer Flatliner, even though standing vertically is its greatest success to date.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 09:00:03 pm
content: I wonder how much Starliner will cost per launch compared to Falcon 9 (often part reusable) + Dragon?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 09:20:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 01, 2024, 09:00:03 pmCost who? The makers or the customers? NASA have set a considerably higher price per seat for Starliner than for Dragon, for no obviously justifiable reason. However, the actual cost to Boeing and ULA, with their fixed price contracts and long delays seems to be getting astronomical. They don't even have a path to being able to consistently launch, and earn over the long term, as they are not currently preparing to human rate the new VuIcan rocket, and they are running out of engines for the existing Altas 5.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2024, 10:23:42 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 01, 2024, 09:00:03 pmLet's wait till it launches at least once before making plans.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 10:10:25 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 01, 2024, 10:23:42 pmThe starliner capsule on this launch is being reused - it is the one that was on the first orbital launch (the one that didn't reach the ISS).Also - the scrub was caused by Ground Support Equipment not configuring correctly. Nothing wrong with Starliner or the rocket (this time)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 10:48:45 am
content: So on this one, the windows are designed to stay in?Good thing it doesn't have wings to fall off.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 12:24:44 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on June 02, 2024, 10:10:25 amThese rockets do not exist in isolation. The ground support equipment is as much a part of the launch vehicle, and the responsibility of the launch provider, as anything that lifts off the ground.That said, my understanding is its actually one the triplicated flight computers that misbehaved.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 12:45:08 pm
content: NASA said that if Starliner doesn't launch by 6th June a battery will have expired, and need to be replaced. This is fine. Everything has an expiration date. However, they said its a 10 day job to replace it. Who builds systems where things that expire quickly take 10 days to replace?

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 02:56:11 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 02, 2024, 10:48:45 amThey have a 5 pack duct tape with them, just in case.......

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 05:46:40 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 02, 2024, 12:45:08 pmApparently Boeing. The important parts, like the ESG score is luckily still good.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 06:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on June 02, 2024, 10:10:25 amI read a puzzling story about this on a news site this morning. It said that the three computers that conduct the final launch sequence are setup to "boot up" at T-4:00 and the launch was aborted when one of the three had not completed booting by T-3:50.This doesn't make sense to me. Why wait until T-4:00 to boot these computers? Why not have them up and running well in advance?I suspect this is just idiosyncratic reporting that I read and the event that actually happens at T-4:00 isn't a "boot up" but a switch over or something like that.Anyone have more info on this?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2024, 08:13:31 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on June 02, 2024, 12:45:08 pmIt's probably a Durahell one. Half a day to change the battery, 9 1/2 days to clean up the corrosion.

author: mikerj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2024, 06:45:59 am
content: Quote from: coppice on June 02, 2024, 12:45:08 pmThey must have taken advice from Chrysler, start with a battery and build the vehicle around it.

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2024, 11:34:27 pm
content: And the (latest) problem was...a failed power supply!https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/02/nasa-mission-partners-target-june-5-crew-flight-test-launch/

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2024, 11:37:10 pm
content: That's unfortunate.

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2024, 03:41:44 pm
content: If they have Prime, they can get another Xylivxxy power supply in time for Wednesday's launch window.

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2024, 06:11:10 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on June 02, 2024, 08:13:31 pmI believe it is the battery on the flight termination system on the booster. They are only certified to be fitted for a limited time as they are effectively supplying power to the FTS from when they are installed.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 04, 2024, 06:13:35 pm
content: couldnt they put one of those paper/plastic tabs over the battery connections and pull it off just before they light the blue torchpaper

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 08:17:40 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 04, 2024, 06:13:35 pmMeanwhile in the Boeing development labs...

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 02:57:30 pm
content: And they're off! Right on time. They're reached orbit.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 03:22:58 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 02:57:30 pmIgnoring the 7 years delay, yes they are

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 03:39:26 pm
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on June 05, 2024, 03:22:58 pmRemind me when the Netherlands plans to launch something...

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 04:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 03:39:26 pmTypical septic, never heard of ESA...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 04:26:10 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 03:39:26 pmThe Ariane 5 had 114 successful launches, 2 failures and 1 partial failure.Ariane 6 is scheduled to be launched next month.Netherlands has been a member of ESA for the past 45 years.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 04:31:29 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 05, 2024, 04:26:10 pmHow many of those had crews on board?

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 05:07:19 pm
content: I find pissing matches rather childish. I feel humanity would do well to collaborate and make space exploration a joint project and all feel proud of what we can do together.But if we are going to make a pissing contest out of this then I would point out that both Russia and China are pissing rather well.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 05:24:57 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 05, 2024, 05:07:19 pmI agree.I'm not one usually to defend Boeing, but they did accomplish what few others have done, even if it took them years longer than anticipated. And in case anyone has forgotten, Boeing does have a long history in spaceflight--they built the S-1C first stage of the Saturn V that took us to the moon fifty years ago.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 05:30:57 pm
content: QuoteOnly by using the brains from the first "european" space agency

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 05:47:48 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 05, 2024, 05:30:57 pmFixed that for you. And that's why we beat the Russians to the moon--our Germans were better than their Germans.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 05:57:36 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 05:47:48 pmYep. A couple of weeks ago I've took a good look at the V2 rocket displayed at the Science museum in London. If you can overlook the fact it is a weapon which took a horrific amount of human suffering to create it for a second, you have to conclude it is a mighty complex piece of machinery and certainly a big achievement from a technical point of view.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 06:59:58 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 05, 2024, 05:30:57 pmSick burn.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:07:39 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 05, 2024, 06:59:58 pmOh, I almost forgot. Lots of rockets have indeed been launched from the Netherlands. Most of them aimed at London or Antwerp.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:13:02 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 05:47:48 pmIf you look at the timeline the Soviets had many firsts.https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/space-race-timeline

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:21:42 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 05, 2024, 07:13:02 pmOh, absolutely. The first satellite in orbit, the first living thing in orbit, the first manned flight, the first spacewalk, and a number of others. The U.S. was playing catch-up for years until we finally overtook the Russians. We got off to a slow start, but caught up quickly, and then squandered it after the early 70s.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:23:47 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 07:07:39 pmVon Braun wrote his autobiography, titled "I aim at the stars ... but sometimes I hit London".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Aim_at_the_StarsEnglish historian Mark Felton appears to be displeased with the USA using and honoring Nazi war criminalsNASA's Nazi Memorials - Honouring War Criminals 2024In 2024, several Nazi war criminals that were brought to America under Operation Paperclip in 1945 to work on the US ballistic missile and space programmes, are widely honoured. These men were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, mostly of slave labourers forced to build Nazi rockets, and were also active Nazi Party members and SS officers. It is an interesting moral problem for NASA, other space organisations and the American public to wrestle with - should such men, that got America to the Moon in 1969 still be accorded such honours?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:35:21 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 07:21:42 pmI suspect that it was the death of Sergei Korolev, aka The Chief Designer, in 1966, that put back the Soviet space program and allowed the US to catch up and overtake. The first moon landing might have been very different otherwise.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:37:49 pm
content: Quote from: soldar on June 05, 2024, 07:23:47 pmI disagree with this. I think we should have taken the V-2 parts and documentation and left the personnel in Germany. The Nazi stain has tainted our space program, unfortunately.I think one of the primary reasons we brought them here was to keep them out of the hands of the Russians.

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:40:26 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on June 05, 2024, 07:35:21 pmThe seriesFor all Mankindon Apple TV+ offers an alternate history perspective on this--the Russians are the first to land on the moon.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 07:47:52 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 07:37:49 pmAs I understand it, it was Von Braun (and his key team) who took the decision to head for the US lines as they thought they would get better treatment (a better deal?) than they would from the Russians. Clearly the temptation to take them [Edit: spirit them away to the US was too great, regardless of the ethics and the normal approach of taking them prisoner to face war crimes trials.]

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 10:33:12 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 05, 2024, 07:37:49 pmWell, there are lots of other areas where war criminals escaped justice. The German and Japanese 'doctors' performing medical experiments on people for example. Except for the mad scientist kind, they all got cosy, sometimes even high ranking, jobs at pharmaceutical companies. It is truly sickening.The problem is though that formulas and technical drawings are not enough to recreate something. You need the people as well. Recently I watched a documentary about the French / British Concorde airplane. The Concorde had special, super efficient engines which allowed the Concorde to have a useable range. The Russians had all the drawings for this engine but where unable to re-create it due to the lack of knowledge and understanding.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2024, 11:22:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2024, 10:33:12 pmNot only individuals but teams. A team works as a unit with shared knowledge and know-how. Losing a large part of a team is a very big setback.That is why a country cannot just copy a design. It needs years of building a team and know how.

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 03:58:08 am
content: Not out of the woods yet - two new helium leaks:https://x.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1798528269416911143

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:02:02 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2024, 10:33:12 pmFor a lot of engineering, what you need most is the knowledge the key material suppliers. That never really documents well. A drawing for the blades in a modern gas turbine are nothing, but the technology to make the high temperature tolerant mono-crystalline material they are made from is a big deal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:03:29 pm
content: Quote from: AlbertL on June 06, 2024, 03:58:08 amTwo additional ones, plus the one they knew about before they launched. Before launch they said one small leak like this was OK, as they could tolerate 4. Well, they are up to 3 now.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:07:03 pm
content: Live NASA feed of the Starliner as it approaches the ISS. Some thruster issues, but still a go:

author: globoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2024, 05:51:14 pm
content: Congratulations to both the Boeing and SpaceX teams for a pretty big day in space!

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2024, 08:51:54 am
content: Will they need go back on Dragon?https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-earth-return-delay-june-26-thruster-issues

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2024, 09:14:40 am
content: QuoteHmm, that "understanding" has to be based on some hard facts how the stuff got fixed by itself..

author: AlbertL
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 10:32:32 am
content: Return delayed yet again:https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/nasa-indefinitely-delays-return-of-starliner-to-review-propulsion-data/. Announced Friday (6/21) evening - traditionally the time to roll out bad news.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 12:18:14 pm
content: Quote from: AlbertL on June 22, 2024, 10:32:32 amHmm, indeed, it certainly isn't good news for Boeing.QuoteGiven that the Starliner has a 45 day rated duration, starting from June 6th, what do they do then? Presumably they can't allow it to take up a docking port indefinitely. If it significantly passes the 45 day limit do they grab it with the arm, undock it andgentlythrow it away? Is it capable of an unmanned return?P.S. It also has a crew that is intended to return with it. It might get a tad cozy up there.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 02:08:45 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on June 22, 2024, 12:18:14 pmThe heads of Boeing need a Marcus Aurelius style servant, not constantly reminding them that they are only men, but that the Starliner project is not cost plus. I've been in a place transitioning from cost plus to fixed price, and the change is very hard for entrenched people to keep in clear view.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 09:00:00 pm
content: I think they are delaying and trying to figure out (on earth) what is leaking, as far as gonna get worse or not? for the way home.If a seal or gasket is getting etched out, that would be very bad.I wonder what leaking valves these are, they seem to be pilot-assist using helium?2021 OFT-2 "... before liftoff revealed that 13 of the 24 oxidizer valves in the propulsion system in Starliner's service module were stuck".

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 10:09:33 pm
content: Valves are just super tricky to get right. I had to assemble a few that took like three PhD theses to design for some tests. You wouldn't believe the finesse required in actually assembling a working valve, even with all the parts and written documentation available. Without the correct parts in stock and someone very intimately familiar with the design? You probably get something like what is currently happening with Starliner.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 10:18:31 pm
content: Feels like too much of the NASA money went to the Boeing executive and shareholders and not enough money went to the engineers and the testing team. Space is hard but executive and shareholders love more money.Also, it may have been hard for Boeing to maintain skilled staff for the entire project. High staff turnover is super bad for this kind of project.I imagine they were left with the pool of people that all the other Space company's didn't want or just didn't need.Often that means people who have the needed skills but are harder to work with as a team.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 22, 2024, 10:44:43 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on June 22, 2024, 10:09:33 pmThis becomes much more of an issue when the valves need to handle helium (or hydrogen). Any plumbing for those tiny molecules is a PITA.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 09:54:49 pm
content: It looks more and more astronauts will need to return on Dragon. The problem is that Starliner cannot return by itself with its current software.https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-significantly-delay-the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:04:52 pm
content: Holy moly, that's one hell of a screwup for Boeing, if the astronauts have to return on their competitor's product.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:12:08 pm
content: But basically they are currently stuck there just to save Boeing's face?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:25:19 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 06, 2024, 10:12:08 pmI don't think so. NASA is legitmately concerned that if they undock the Starliner autonomously, and the software isn't just right, then it could crash into the ISS. That would be a catastrophic event, and could well lead to the deaths of crew if significant impact energy occurs. I suspect in this case NASA don't really know what they can do. They are probably privately very pissed off at Boeing for not including the autonomous operation software in the current build.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:41:56 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2024, 10:25:19 pmSo, there's no guarantee at this point that they can safely return on Dragon? Meaning that for now, they just don't know what to do and the astronauts may be stuck forever?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:44:20 pm
content: There are two docking ports. One is unoccupied, the other has Starliner attached to it. Worst case, I think they can use the spare port to return astronauts home via Dragon, and then figure out how to sort out Starliner later. If it is really bad, they might just have to detach it and maneuver ISS well away from the craft and it becomes another bit of space junk. I do expect Boeing will figure it out - but they will lose a lot of face in the meantime.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:52:26 pm
content: it sounds like they should hustle incase the 2ndary exit gets damaged by something like debris. They should not be up there if one of two safety systems is possibly failedbet they wish they built a 3rd docking port

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 10:52:38 pm
content: Didn't notice before posting that NASA just officially confirmed Crew-9 launch is delayed by 5 weeks until they figure things out.https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2024/08/06/nasa-adjusts-crew-9-launch-date-for-operational-flexibility/

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2024, 11:26:59 pm
content: Quotewonder whose shirts they wear

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 12:54:21 am
content: I want to see........an AMAZON van pull up, with the parts, boxes up; for a successful mission.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 02:44:57 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2024, 10:44:20 pmCan't they prod it with a stick so it burns up?I imagine something like a really long old style rubber toilet plunger

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:38:41 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 06, 2024, 10:25:19 pmI think it was a mistake to ask SpaceX to deorbit the ISS, if they would've asked Boeing to do it, it would be already halfway to MarsQuoteI'm offended, that it's not DEI like it was all the way up to this point. Now it's suddenly ‘crew safety’ with quote marks.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 01:29:39 pm
content: Last I heard, the Starliner had a 45 day rated duration, starting from June 6th. After that, it wasn't deemed usable. The way the valves were leaking, I wonder if it has sufficient Helium left for a return, manned or otherwise.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 04:00:14 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on August 07, 2024, 01:29:39 pmThat 45 day thing is odd. Apparently it relates to a battery rating, but the Starliner is supposed to be built to sit on the ISS for very long periods.The helium leak issues don't seem impact the length of their stay. The valves holding the helium in the main tanks apparently aren't the leaky ones.The latest report that the Starliner doesn't contain software capable of an unmanned return is weird. Since the earliest space flights everyone seems to have considered being able to get a ship home if the crew is incapacitated in some way a key requirement. They clearly have such software available. The last Starliner flight worked entirely through a combination of automation and remote control. I understand them being concerned about the reliability of automation, when the thrusters seem to be flaky, but surely the relevant software should be present in the ship's systems?

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 04:27:04 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on August 06, 2024, 11:26:59 pmMore importantly- whose underwear.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 06:11:14 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 07, 2024, 04:00:14 pmHmm, not wanting to trust / even include the relevant automation versus the certainty of a live crew being able to successfully work around flaky thrusters? That must have been a tricky one!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 06:19:31 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on August 07, 2024, 06:11:14 pmCertainty? You might want to look that word up. It seems like they had a narrow escape on the way to the ISS, and were fortunate to make it, due to flaky thrusters. The look on Sunni Williams face as she entered to ISS was priceless.Beside that. Not trusting, and not even having automation available are two entirely different things. In the 1960s the US and USSR used to bait each other about who cared more about their astronauts/cosmonauts on the basis of how well things could be handled in problem situations.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 07:16:07 pm
content: Good video on the subject.It does appear that for whatever reason the are using flight software that does not allow for antonymous return.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 07:42:33 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 07, 2024, 06:19:31 pmMy certainty was followed by a question mark, as in how certain. Nothing is certain up there.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 07:50:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 07, 2024, 06:19:31 pmI would imagine that depends on the nature of the "flakiness".For example, if the thrusters couldn't fire or steer in fine increments for docking/undocking, it would surely still be ok with coarse firing for atmospheric re-entry.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 08:44:41 pm
content: I wonder if they can wear space suits, and cut a hole in the side to make a manual thruster control stickI should not be too much harder then steering a motor boatI never imagine that alot of people will go up there unless you have a manual control solution. Its so many layers of things that can go wrong.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 09:45:48 pm
content: "Boeing took a flight thruster from another Starliner to a NASA test facility in White Sands, New Mexico, and ran it through two rendezvous sequences that replicated what theStarliner in orbit experienced along with five return-to-Earth, or "downhill," scenarios."Excellent that Boeing is doing testing, uh er mid-mission"Similar thrust degradation was seen and when engineers disassembled the test thruster, a Teflon seal was found to be slightly deformed, likely due to exposure to one of the propellants, nitrogen tetroxide."I'd also read that it is due to heat, teflon deforming. I think I'll use the word "melted". Nonetheless, permanent damage occurs. The Starliner ( ISS docked) test firings for all 27 of them, I think they are still analyzing the data supposedly.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 09:55:26 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 07, 2024, 08:44:41 pmI don't think modern astronauts even undergo "test pilot" training to understand the maneuvering dynamics of the ship.Fly-by-wire means that pilots nowadays are completely disconnected from the control surfaces (or in the case of space ships, thrusters).Such vehicle dynamics training was commonplace during the 1960s-70s space programs. Not any more me thinks.Incidentally, a motor boat is a bad comparison, due to the friction of water greatly assisting in vehicle stability. A closer analogy is attempting to maneuver your vehicle in free-fall (e.g. the scene from Blues Brothers required several takes to drop the Nazi vehicle in a stable position without tumbling).The biggest difficulty with manual control of multiple thrusters, is ensuring the vectors correctly add up, the vector goes through the center of mass, and doesn't send the vehicle in a spin!Apollo 13 also comes to mind, where the astronauts had to learn the vehicle dynamics of the combined LM,CM & SM, being pushed by the LM descent motor.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 11:03:45 pm
content: I'm not sure about "astronauts", but fighter pilots, which eventually pilot ultra-assisted machines pumped full of computers, are certainly trained first and for a pretty long time on small, completely manual aerobatic planes, and the training is extremely tough.These days, I suppose that behind the "astronaut" term, there are quite a few completely different profiles, some of which having possibly never piloted a plane. Pretty sure the astronauts that did pilot the space shuttle were either ex-fighter pilots, or at least had received a similar training.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 11:16:33 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on August 07, 2024, 09:55:26 pmI doubt that would be of any help to an astronaut until DreamChaser starts carrying people. A capsule is so unlike a plane.Quote from: Andy Chee on August 07, 2024, 09:55:26 pmModern fighters are unstable. Computers make them act in a stable manner and present a response to the pilot that tries to roughly mimic a traditional plane. They still need to learn flight dynamics, how to conserve energy in maneovures to be ready to attack, and so on, just like a 60s or 70s pilot, if they want to survive.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 11:19:43 pm
content: The astronauts are apparently going to be stuck at least until next february. I hope they enjoy the view.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 11:22:22 pm
content: "Boeing engineering perfection.... Boeing engineering sufficience..."

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2024, 11:48:57 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 07, 2024, 11:16:33 pmMissing my point, which was that modern astronauts do not get trained in the handling dynamics of the vehicle, as thoroughly as astronauts of the 60s-70s.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 12:19:15 am
content: I wonder if aerospace engineering in the far future is going to be about bringing unstable things into stable by hand... i.e. bringing back mechanical controls for difficult surfaces

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 01:02:31 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 08, 2024, 12:19:15 amManual control is only viable when there are few surfaces to control (or in the case of spacecraft, thrusters).For example, I believe the B-2 Spirit "flying wing" stealth bomber has eight main control surfaces. Getting a pilot to control them manually would be impossible.Or how about a simpler example, an RC pilot coordinating the four individual rotor speeds of a quadcopter without a flight controller.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 10:02:11 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 07, 2024, 11:19:43 pmThis is getting like the old airliner joke. A 747's engine fails, and the pilot says to the passengers that there is no problem. The plane will just be a little late. A second engine fails. The pilot says there's no problem, they will just be a little later. A third engine fails, and the pilot repeats their calming message. A passenger then says "if any more engines fail, we'll be up here all night:".

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 08:15:14 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 08, 2024, 10:02:11 amSomething like that!

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 08:43:26 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 08, 2024, 10:02:11 amOr ATC's response to a B-52 pilot who declared an emergency on final approach when an engine failed: "Ah, the dreaded seven engine landing".

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2024, 10:01:44 pm
content: The first Grandma in space.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 04:44:28 am
content: that design was right, they knew not to trust a complicated moving metal object.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 10:01:57 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 08, 2024, 10:01:44 pmJohn Glenn was probably the first grandparent when he took a Shuttle flight in 1998 at age 77. Isn't grandparenting a fully mixed-gender event?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2024, 09:55:08 pm
content: I dunno if that's just me, but while the girl seems alright (apart from the hairstyle), the guy doesn't look to be all that well.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2024, 05:51:55 pm
content: NASA Taps SpaceX to Return Starliner Astronauts, Dealing Blow to BoeingAstronauts Barry Wilmore and Sunita Williams are now expected to stay on the International Space Station until next yearWall Street Journal:https://www.wsj.com/science/space-astronomy/nasa-taps-spacex-to-return-starliner-astronauts-dealing-blow-to-boeing-0d267d07So the decision has been made. As I recall, when the Starliner returns to earth at least some of the questionable hardware will be destroyed in re-entry, obviously making it more difficult to analyze the problem(s).

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2024, 06:16:07 pm
content: Not a surprise. The way Boeing does engineering is not working well at all, it's a fail. The fiasco with the valves, changing contractor then the lawsuit over stolen IP showed it's all about the money.The spacesuits being incompatible between SpaceX and Starliner's is interesting. They're too big to use so they'll have to send up extra SpaceX suits that fit I guess but I thought they are custom fitted.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2024, 06:19:02 pm
content: QuoteHope there getting paid overtime and not time off in lieu

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2024, 06:24:26 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on August 24, 2024, 05:51:55 pmI think you are referring to the ship being in two parts, only the crew module of which is designed for a safe descent. The part where all the hardware problems seem to be always burns up on re-entry. That said, the Strarliner is not loaded with the software needed for automated descent. They apparently can't even safely detach the ship from the ISS, and make it go safely away without a crew right now. They need to get appropriate software prepared and loaded into the ship. It sounds like there is still plenty of opportunity to screw things up. Maybe nothing will get back for analysis.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 24, 2024, 08:37:01 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on August 24, 2024, 06:19:02 pmThey should sue.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 05:06:30 am
content: They should have known about "if it's Boeing I'm not going"Think positively: the automatics could have crashed them, but they made it to the station. With the door.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 05:31:16 am
content: They could have crashed into the ISS while attempting to dock, wreck the whole thing and make it deorbit.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 06:04:20 am
content: Its funny though because we were talking seriously about going to live on mars but we can't get the proverbial cat out of a tree.I think they need to put serious money and R&D into space instead of just constantly trying to go further like some dare devil stuntThis really high lights the effects of all that NASA budget slashing IMO. A 6 month delay is a disgrace. I don't disagree with it because the facts are the facts but this scenario really tells you about the state of affairs regarding space.At least safety culture is OK in NASA because their not telling him to jump out of the window for good publicity.Congress finally got the egg on their face from years of budget slashing NASA. Now the USA looks like a clueless joe with his cat stuck in a tree. I get the same feeling about buildings, we can build them tall, but we can't get people out when they catch on fire. It makes all these achievements feel like stunts because they do not work right.People already rage after getting a flight delay for 6 hours lol

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 06:24:13 am
content: What "we"?It's Elon Musk whose ambition is to drive his Tesla on Mars and it's US gov and its beloved contractors who stranded their cat on a tree.Myself, I look at all of that and I'm not going anywhere

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 06:40:39 am
content: its like alot of people that seemed to be getting serious about it

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 11:34:33 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 25, 2024, 06:04:20 amIf astronauts are OK to remain at ISS, then it's ok to extend their mission. Astronaut is not some passionless job you get just to earn the money. As of NASA budget, Boeing received almost 2x the money for Starliner compared to SpaceX. And look what a dumpster fire it became while SpaceX's dragon is safely doing its job for years. SLS is an utter money waster built on 50 year old technology. So it's more about spending the money wisely rather than insufficient money as such.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 11:52:30 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 24, 2024, 06:16:07 pmI also got my Kerbals stranded a few times. But then again, I just slapped some rocket parts together and launched it at another planet, and told them good luck. Hopefully I didn't forget to place RCS or parachutes on it. The stranded ones, if they got lucky, I even sent them a rescue mission that got there years later. If they didn't , then they are the residents of the first colony or space station.Apparently Boeing has the same rocket engineering skills as me.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 06:28:20 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on August 25, 2024, 06:04:20 amHow do the current problems have anything to do with budget slashing? Its not the size of the budget, but how poorly its used that causes these problems. A small budget just means you do less things. It doesn't make you do them badly. That's a choice. A bad choice. Often a rather corrupt choice.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 06:39:36 pm
content: I seriously doubt its just contained to one or the other thing, I think in general it has a chilling effect, which I saw many times for similar cost savings initiatives. Once the budget goes down there is all sorts of un-written interactions and suggestions that start to occur within a organization to generally make everything more shitty. For the people directly effected its a mandate, for the peripheral people, its like a strong suggestion, with the promise that heat will reach you if you spend too much, and it ends up changing "far reaching" policies that eventually have a negative effect on performance.People start to get scared that "their project is next" and they need to maintain a low profile (on the spreadsheet).I find usually the base level low cost research stuff is not effected (i.e. lab tools budget) but the things that make a difference are (expensive equipment that is "nice to have" (making a big improvement in the labs) ). That is on the smallest scale that I saw. Also headcount, you might keep your tools but suddenly hiring becomes difficult.I would bet a large sum of money on people feeling that their life got more difficult and progress is stunted whenever an organization takes a big hit like that.ALso people start second guessing themselves, they had a good plan to begin with to do something, then people start getting hit, and they end up rethinking everything for no reason with the idea that it might somehow please the people demanding budget cuts.I don't know of anyone that is totally oblivious and unaffected by a nearby thing related to them being shut down. Its like threatening your employment or the possibly of a project or even job shift that you probobly don't want. Did you ever get reassigned? No one is happy about that, they work to avoid it. You get used to doing a job and thinking about something and you wanna finish. Unless its one of those people thats been being constantly reshuffled every 6 months and their used to that (canceled projects engineering specialist, aka NOMAD)Come on, everyone knows this, it would probobly make a top 10 most watched sitcoms if someone studied some cases and made a show about the shenanigans that occur with project budgets and the ramifications of canceling stuff... its the reason why your boss is probobly equivalent to a politician

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 08:08:10 pm
content: "Under the terms of a fixed-price contract, a company is responsible for paying for any expenses above a certain price ceiling. Boeing is locked into fixed price agreements a host of major aircraft programs, such as the KC-46 tanker, MQ-25 tanker drone, T-7A trainer jet and the VC-25B". {Starliner is also a fixed-price program}.KC-46A Pegasus refueler $4.9 billion contractBoeing’s tanker losses top $7 billion"The Air Force and Boeing are in varying stages of resolving seven Category 1 deficiencies." "...now dealing with seven issues that could result in significant damage to the air vehicle or death of an operator".VC-25B Air Force One $3.9 billion contractmore than $1.1B in overrunsand then there is the T-7A trainer.Starliner $4.2B contract, plus extra $300M in 2019,$1.5B in overruns.The "prototype" test flight is a failure, I don't see Boeing getting paid much.At what point do people realize Boeing is a failure? It's all fine because greed and corruption are fabulous, people collect a paycheque, some kickbacks too and Wall Street reaps benefits...I feel bad for the engineers because you can't design anything decent in a corrupt, diseased environment. It's something everyone here needs to realize, instead of struggling to get work done when there is no support and then getting flogged for it being late.Then the engineers take the blame for the failures- not the management or exec that created the hot, steaming turd.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 08:26:52 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 25, 2024, 08:08:10 pmThe trick with fixed price used to be as follows. I don't know if things are still working like this.You negotiate and sign a fixed priced deal for some major defence system with the Department of Defence, Ministry of Defence, or whatever its called in the appropriate region. This is not the end user, though. That will be some army, navy or air force. You now start working on that actual service, pointing out all the shortcomings in what has been ordered, and how for some extra cash it could be so much better. They then pressure the department/ministry about how changing threats and circumstances mean they now need all these extra bells and whistles, and can't defend the country without them. Now, you've opened the door to increasing the price. Rinse, repeat, and soon you've worked the bill up way beyond the originally signed contract price.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 09:37:13 pm
content: ^Boeing was used to cost-plus contracts where the more inefficient you are, the more you get paid. Literally rewards wasting resources and being late. Looks like they became too complacent and forgot how to do things properly.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2024, 11:34:16 pm
content: This really stings for Boeing. Remember when the joke was that every Airbus flew on Boeing wings? Well, soon it’ll be Boeing astronauts catching a lift on SpaceX wings.Apparently NASA has sacked their commercial crew director Phil McAlister, because he strongly disagreed with this decision. Perhaps he really bet his career on Boeing managing it.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 11:28:37 am
content: I'm really happy they made the right decision and didn't pander to Boeing.Well.. other than making the announcement to match up with closed stock markets. That bit kind of annoys me a little, but it's possible it was a coincidence.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 06:33:12 pm
content: Boeing stock price unaffected, when the project losses come I suppose it will then flinch. Just pound out more 737 Max lol.One advantage to outsourcing is you can pull the plug and dump a project with less in-house losses. The engineering team, test equipment, test facilities in the old days a corporation would grow that and develop the expertise. Ending a program back then would be a blood bath.But today, it's a jumbled "pick up the phone, order thruster valves!" mentality. "catalogue engineering" as I call it. Dumping a vendor is no pain.I can't see Boeing has any reason to stay in space or work with NASA. Can the Starliner autonomous firmware be installed and work? This isn't over yet.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 08:17:54 pm
content: ^Boeing and Lockheed Martin are actually looking to sell their 50:50 stakes in ULA.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 08:25:24 pm
content: My feeling is that Boeing isn't quite done surprising us. Not necessarily in a good way.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 08:47:36 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 26, 2024, 08:17:54 pmULA has no practical plan to implement reusability on Centaur*... How do you imagine they will cope with SpaceX undercutting them by 2/3rds? I just wonder who would actually buy them, because they'd need to have a serious turn-around plan to compete with new space.*They have said they plan in the 'future' to use Centaurs that are already left in space, but have not even begun to engineer a system that could actually get close to demonstrating this.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 26, 2024, 08:52:34 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 26, 2024, 08:47:36 pmAmazon, just to not buy from Elon.https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2022/04/05/amazon-signs-contract-with-united-launch-alliance-for-38-project-kuiper-launches-on-vulcan-centaurQuote

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 11:23:18 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 26, 2024, 08:47:36 pmI don't see anyone buying ULA for their products or technology. It would have to be for their order book and cosy positions with government agencies

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 12:01:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 25, 2024, 08:26:52 pmSuch overruns are usually the result of bad project planning. A quality program/project managers know well how to write and negotiate a fixed-priced contract.With FP contracts you need to have a pretty detailed specifications for the project, those specs agreed and signed by the customer.With such precise specs any costs related to ANY changes (against those specs) are charged on top of the FP contract price and paid by the customer (process called "change management").The problem today is the customers want to sign a FP contract, but delivered by the Agile methodology - and that does not work, of course.One of the reasons with introduction of Agile methodology is you will not need a pretty detailed specs for the resulting product (you are creating the detailed product specs "on the fly" during the project), thus good for smaller products where the "time to market" is important (so similar to the "Time and Material contracts" from the past, fully safe for the vendor).With large GOV projects there is typically not such a need, so you may spend significant time with detailed spec preparation (and get the final specs and the final price signed by the customer before the detailed design and implementation phases) and then go with the FP contract which will be quite safe for the vendor, imho.The customer buys the "analysis phase" only (with the detailed spec as the result, might be an expensive exercise), based on the result of that phase the final price is quoted (a "Waterfall methodology" I would always prefer with GOV customers and larger project).

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 01:00:30 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on August 27, 2024, 12:01:11 pmIf Boeing negotiates a fixed price for supplying some 737s to an airline, gets it wrong, and the world hasn't gone crazy - hard to foresee supply issues, COVID disruption, massive inflation, etc. - this is a program management problem.If a supplier negotiates a fixed price for supplying some machines that are either in development or in the research stage, there is so much ambiguity in what the final cost may be that it is understandable they won't be very accurate. No amount of tight program management can fix that, other than eliminating all ambiguity by eliminating all innovation.So, fixed price contracts for things that are not rolling off the line, or a well understood variant of something rolling off the line, are a problem for both the supplier and the customer. However, there are people who are reasonably realistic about about the levels of ambiguity in what they are doing, and there are people who always look at the rosiest of possibilities, thinking realism will lose them all bids. There are people who keep a close check on the ambiguous areas, to spot early on when things are going to be a problem and see what they can go with available resources to get them back on track. There are people who are in denial or just don't care, and let things go completely off the rails. If you look at how badly Boeing has been performing in several fronts at the same time, it looks like an environment where people are too afraid to be honest and get any problems fixed.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 02:27:36 pm
content: I remember some years ago a guy jumped from outer space to earth. Some Red Bull stunt or something. So, why all the fuss, why the astronauts don't just jump out from the space station back to Earth?

author: Silicium81
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 02:33:09 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on August 27, 2024, 02:27:36 pmbecause the laws of physics do not allow it!the one who jumped had zero speed relative to the earth (it was rotating at the same speed as it)The ISS makes one turn in 90 minutes...the energy dissipated is then very important and will burn any suit (unless you are an Avenger)

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 02:33:13 pm
content: You may mount a small retro rockets on their spacesuits, and while on orbit you will fire them such they slow down to 0km/h, and then simply slowly jump down from the 400km altitude

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 02:41:39 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on August 27, 2024, 02:33:13 pmThe small retro rockets would need to slow down from 28,000km/h to 0km/h. I hope your spacesuit carries enough rocket fuel!

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 02:58:08 pm
content: If speed is an obstacle, maybe a flying carpet would turn speed into an advantage.Are there any floor carpets on the corridors of a space station?

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 03:06:07 pm
content: The two stranded astronauts have got enough free time to weave two rugs..Quote from: RoGeorge on August 27, 2024, 02:58:08 pm

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 03:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on August 27, 2024, 02:33:13 pmI'm assuming you are joking, but just in case you aren't, a quick Delta-V calculation would tell you that you will end up with cremated astronauts if you try this.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 03:52:41 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 26, 2024, 08:25:24 pmBoeing will never be truly done, as the US Military and Air Force doesn't want to rely on a single supplier for their fighter aircrafts, and Boeing now owns the plans for the F15 and F18 airplanes.So they can do all the stupid things now, focus on DEI and reduction of quality control, assassinating whistleblowers. The worst can happen to them is a bailout.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 04:10:12 pm
content: I'm thinking of an emergency lifeboat for space stations, for individual use. I imagine something like a reversed parachute. By reversed, I mean pointing upside down when compared to a normal parachute.The idea is to slowly descent during a couple of days, and to try to keep the save boat as cool as possible. The conventional way I've seen is to use refractary materials.Since the reversed parachute is already like a dish that is pointing to outer space, I wonder how much of the breaking heat can be dissipated into outer space. Outer space is very, very cold (3-4*K), yet there is no cooling by conduction or convection in vacuum, so the main problem is to turn the breaking energy into EM radiation.Then, the big reversed parachute is supposed to reflect the breaking energy as EM radiation towards the empty space.First thought would be to use a heat pipe (or more) to drive the heat from the refractary bricks in the thermal shield, to the focal point of the reversed parachute, and from there the infrared will be reflected into space. If the reversed parachute is big enough, might have enough radiative cooling power to avoid burning and melting during a reentry.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 04:10:45 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 27, 2024, 01:00:30 pmThere is no feedback loop at the project management level. In every company I have worked for.Blame gets tossed here and there, there are infinite excuses why the shortfall is due to this or that. People default to a CYA stance to keep their job and paycheque.In the end, the project is failing. It's late and over budget, Gantt chart on fire, flog the engineers to hurry up etc. etc. - the same old song played.Any project management corrective mechanism does not exist and cannot exist.Add in the corruption, bullying, politics and I'll say it another way - Boeing will never be able to design and build something excellent.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 04:43:27 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 27, 2024, 04:10:45 pmThere are far more badly run organisations than well run ones, but its a bit pessimistic to think there are none. Even if you haven't ever worked in one, which is a common experience, surely you've observed some getting at least some key things right.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 05:01:41 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 27, 2024, 04:10:45 pmAt SpaceX engineers and management work at the same open space, can go to production area and talk to each other between departments. Also it was said that engineers have a direct access to Elon.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 05:21:32 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2024, 05:01:41 pmHow many hours are they putting in, for free? How's that workload or are they adequately staffed like twitter lol.Direct access to Elon - he is not a technical god, a Messiah. After I saw that he would hire people with no formal education I had to cringe.The notion of "genius" knowing-it-all is another trap. We learn through practice, education, experience. Knowledge is not magically in our head. Who do I want writing self-driving software? A smart nerd that started out programming in BASIC and made a video game or someone that took training in embedded systems, S/W engineering and functional safety?Quote from: coppice on August 27, 2024, 04:43:27 pmGetting key things right is not rewarded or really understood how that got pulled off. Everyone wants to take credit for that home run. It's out of the feedback loop as well.Project management has all these formal methods. Some from academics as scientific theory and thus useless IMHO. The difference between software and the cement of hardware is not understood for example by the idiots thinking agile can do hardware projects. So you get a misapplication of a proj. mgmt. method as yet another cause for project failure.A big problem is the managers don't have direct experience or technical knowledge in what they are managing. This is at the project level though.It's in the nature of engineers to want things to work.It's in the nature of CEO's to be greedy and cater to Wall Street.Let's just mix these two together. This is what I see popular in business today and it's a plague.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 05:23:00 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 27, 2024, 04:43:27 pmThis is why I enjoyed working at tech start-ups (in the 1980's and 1990's): Highly-focused goals and motivated team. Clean sheet of paper. No dead-wood employees. Nobloatedproject management organization. Acceptance of risks. Meaningful deadlines (competition and financial runway) that make sense. I suspect that the environment at SpaceX is much like this.This of course changes over time, and the overhead becomes burdensome. That's when I would start to look for other opportunities.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 05:37:02 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 27, 2024, 05:21:32 pmI have no "formal education" that you would recognize. But in the early days of my last start-up I ran a highly skilled and motivated engineering team. I was essentially the product architect (the "Cerent 454", look it up if you like), and myself designed and contributed to many parts of the system.And Elon doesn't have to be a technical god. But if there's a problem, it sounds like he can make sure it gets solved. I truly don't understand why people are criticizing Elon for not being personally able to design all the parts of a rocket, or even not understanding all the subtleties. That's not his job.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 05:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 27, 2024, 05:21:32 pmInteresting. Do you know some type of formal qualification that is an accurate determiner of raw ability, current skill, or competence? Are you cringing because your sandpaper might not keep you in employment if your inadequacies show up?

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 06:01:31 pm
content: If my back envelope calculations are correct, a 5 days long descent to earth will have to dissipate only 14kW (for an astronaut + lifeboat of 200kg total).14kW continuous wave is not a trivial power for a radio transmitter, yet it looks achievable with the existing technology (thinking of microwave magnetrons as a first candidate).

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 06:11:38 pm
content: I self-taught electronics for many years and then went to tech college and then uni. I understand both methods of gaining knowledge.If you're doing brain surgery, as I have on a few neighborhood pets augmenting their intelligence, I am ready to do brain surgery on people. No formal training but I've had good success. Please evaluate my skill, competence, raw ability etc. as I drill into someone's head. I'm a self-proclaimed genius, so is MuskI think a huge problem in society and business today is the competency crisis due to people in positions above their qualifications or ability.CEO's, managers (and politicians) have zero formal requirements for their position. Anyone can and does lead.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 06:21:28 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on August 27, 2024, 05:21:32 pmWhat nonsense must be in ones head to be unhappy on the fact that engineers can bypass management hierarchy tiers and report to the top if there is a problem that does not get solved? I guess Boeing like structure must be better where issues do not get fixed for years or ever.QuoteFormal education only means person had gone through formal education and does tell very little about actual skill. Heck, in a software field formal education more often than not means you should better pass on that applicant and hire someone that got into trade through a hobby instead.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 06:52:14 pm
content: BTW, for example, analog guru Jim Williams of Linear Technology had no formal education.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 07:06:11 pm
content: My "diploma" is my career accomplishment and the opinion of my superiors and peers. I had been asked to join the last few companies, the last one as a founder. I was hardly an unknown quantity.But when do we learn about the Boeing automous return program? How different is this from what ran on the first un-manned launch / return?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 07:06:39 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2024, 06:52:14 pmInherently 100% of the people doing anything really interesting have no formal education in the critical parts of what they are doing, as nobody has done it before.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 07:09:02 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on August 27, 2024, 07:06:11 pmMy guess is there will be zero overlap, as these will have been treated as 2 entirely separate projects.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 07:44:23 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on August 27, 2024, 04:43:27 pmWhile being no fanboy whatsoever, I would think Apple is a well run company with no major management problems (which wasn't always the case in the past).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 08:11:30 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2024, 06:21:28 pmIt doesn't. But if I hire someone (happens sometimes) I will ask for formal education.Because if I hire someone who didn't know how to calculate power dissipation in a resistor, or didn't care enough to do it, it slips through the certification process, and the device sets an oil refinery on fire... Then I will have a very hard time not blaming myself.If I hire someone who has at least a BSC, at least they are supposed to know. They don't know how to calculate all the time, but at least it's not my fault.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 08:32:16 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 27, 2024, 08:11:30 pmOf course formal education is an important factor and is a must for some jobs, but floobydust's argument was about hiring at all with no formal education.Quote

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 08:59:45 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 27, 2024, 08:11:30 pmSo your thinking is not about the team being product, or reliable, its all about blame shifting? Would you really be OK if you had hired someone based on sandpaper, and never checked if they had a clue about such basics as calculating power dissipation? Moreover, the sandpaper only gives you a clue about whether they know how to calculate it. It tells you nothing about whether they give a shit, and will bother to. Giving a shit is a very important quality in safety related engineering, for which there are absolutely no formal qualifications.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 10:41:54 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2024, 06:21:28 pmReporting to the top "if a problem does not get solved" gets you on the list.Why? Because you just dissed your manager and his manager etc up for their inability to solve something. I've done it before- if you go over your manager to his manager - you just fucked yourself. Try it sometime and see what happens. The tiers are protected by the apes.Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2024, 06:21:28 pmI find there is no substitute for example learning computing science, software engineering - in school. Picking it up on your own as some trivial hobby task, I would say nope. Stick to using GOTO lol. It's not about how smart you are or aren't, it's just that knowing the right way to do something is essential sometimes and formal methods are taught in school. The notion "genius" can learn everything with ease no longer applies because things are much more complex nowadays. The human ego of course thinks it knows everything but not true in practice.Something is wrong that they keep stuffing accountants in for CEO's in Boeing Commercial Aircraft. Future CEO Stephanie Pope background included. Imagine not knowing what an MCAS or aileron is, and you are in command.I predict Boeing will announce they are ditching the Starliner program. Let's say a $2B hit to the books. That feedback loop involves no negative consequences other than some humiliation and tossing blame around.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 10:43:46 pm
content: When hiring engineers, formal education is a plus, not a requirement. At least for me.If I was hiring someone (midlevel/senior) and I had two CVs in front of me...* One with no university degree but 15 years industry experience* One with a university degree but 10 years industry experienceI'd probably weight the 15 years person over the other one. Both would get interviewed, of course, but if they came out roughly equal on interview scoring they'd probably get picked on experience over a degree.The problem comes for juniors. There aren't many juniors that would pass the bar here without a degree, so the degree becomes mandatory in a sense to get your foot on the ladder.Engineering degrees vary significantly and, especially in electronics, contain frequently irrelevant and limited knowledge. For instance by my fourth year I could design a semiconductor laser in CAD, but no one had taught anyone in the class how to do SMD soldering. The soldering is a far more useful skill for an every-day hardware engineer, but the semiconductor knowledge is useful for someone doing a PhD in that subject (my university had a strong focus in lasers, pun not intended, so many of the PhD students were doing one thing or another with lasers).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 11:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 27, 2024, 10:43:46 pmI would still hire the one with the degree. I've seen people without formal education telling they had experience which was: Screwing around without a clue of how and what to do until something worked without understanding why. And getting angry when you set some standards for work.There were zero engineers from my university that didn't have a clue. They never made it through, as more than 50% were dropouts. I'm sorry that other universities have their standards set very low.And you can learn how to solder in a week, or someone in a trade school can teach you that, but you would never get the chance to learn semiconductors or quantum physics.

author: HuronKing
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2024, 11:59:05 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 27, 2024, 10:43:46 pmIn this scenario, for me, easily the person with the university degree provided it was an ABET accredited engineering school.If the person without the degree had taken and passed the FE Exam, I'd favor them at that point on experience.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 12:59:07 am
content: Fortunately for me, I've never worked for a company that was contractually required to hire only degreed or certified engineers. In my early days, after my first few jobs (as a technician) I was hired or recommended by my associates who had moved on to greener pastures. I evolved into the "engineer" role and title, again working with an expanding pool of engineers and managers. At my last job, I hired one of my old bosses.Sure, If I didn't know someone from Adam I would seriously look at their education and other credentials. But I was usually hiring seasoned pros, often recommended by someone I trusted, or at least with a good string of verifiable projects. And yes, they usually had at least a BSEE. But I've seen enough outliers to not let that degree be the make-or-break criterium. FWIW, the few times we were burned when making a poor hire, the person had a degree. But since most do have that degree, this isn't surprising, or indicative.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 04:36:11 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 27, 2024, 10:43:46 pmHire the one without degree and pay them a wage that reflects the lack of a degree 😂(Obviously, it is different in different countries, local agreements can have wage ranks that depend on having a degree. No amount of experience will get you a government job if you don’t have a university degree, etc.)The example above is really provocative, with many assumptions. The 5 years difference is a typical time to earn an MSc in Finland. I would like to believe that the 10 years experience on top of the MSc is probably more effective in terms of learning. Who taught the non-degree person the technical basics, or is that included in the first 5 years of their experience of effing around to find out?Sure, there are some very smart people who for whatever reason dropped out of uni and are just as skilled as someone who wrote a thesis. I just don’t think it’s the vast majority.Regarding engineers and soldering. My personal opinion is, there is a reason engineers don’t learn how to solder in universities… any good technician does a better job (because he does it all the time), and it also doesn’t cost an engineer’s wage. Should an engineer be able to solder? It sure is a useful skill. The field is way too big for it to be necessary though.I mean, by all means, pay me enough and I’ll solder all day 😃 instead of massaging Altium or sitting at the emc chamber all day. (UntilI eventually get bored after a week, I guess haha)

author: JustMeHere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 05:00:54 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 27, 2024, 10:43:46 pmI'd take a true Comp Sci programmer over a converted engineer every day. There are things a typical person never does in their career (Assembly, I'm looking at you) that is covered in school. It gives the Comp Sci guys an understanding of how programs work that you don't get with practical experience. Hell, I'd never hire a converted Comp Sci guy to design an airplane....even if he has been doing it for 10 years.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 09:27:06 am
content: My reasoning for the five years is it was my feeling that everything I did in my degree course could have been condensed into two years if it focused on the critical requirements for electronics engineers. I did a four year master's course (at a top 10 UK university), with a year in industry. I found the amount of experience I got when I was hands on with actual hardware in an actual company at my industry year was extremely valuable. Meanwhile, it's very interesting to know how a semiconductor laser works, but I have never used that knowledge.It was also interesting to me how little focus there was on software engineering too, when it's so very essential for a modern hardware engineer to be at least be able to understand how software works and how to debug problems that occur in software, if not actually design software properly. There's no debugging or understanding of things like how I2C works (and how it goes wrong!) Or understanding SMPS design beyond the basic principles (here's how you properly layout a buck converter, for instance.)It's that knowledge, which is gained from making things that work and don't, that I value over a higher education. But perhaps my experience was tainted.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 10:50:05 am
content: Quote from: Neganur on August 28, 2024, 04:36:11 amAfter 15 years working the lack of a degree does not reflect on salary at all. Even 5 years out from university your degree is a weak indicator of what you are worth in the job market. A degree can make it far easier to get past the human resources idiots, who understand a CV's description of actual real world results so poorly they fall back on no degree, no interview. However, places run like that aren't the most desirable places to work anyway.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 08:52:54 pm
content: Accessing certain positions (higher management) without a degree, unless you're the owner of the company, is still a problem in most cases.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2024, 09:07:49 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 28, 2024, 08:52:54 pmThis depends on the company, and I suspect the country. Big, established, publicly-traded, risk-adverse, government-contract companies will be like this. I've tried to avoid those -- they seem to be soul-killers.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2024, 07:12:33 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on August 28, 2024, 09:07:49 pmMaybe before. Nowadays you can rise if you are a DEI hire.Don't believe me? Boeing's CEO's bonus is directly tied to DEI now. Not profits.Companies like that don't deserve to continue to exists.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2024, 07:26:40 pm
content: By the time they get back, they will be in the possibly (probably?) unique position of being able to compare the comfort of flying Boeing versus Spacex! Space travel writers in the making.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2024, 01:19:11 am
content: Food for thought....

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2024, 06:07:26 am
content: https://www.iflscience.com/unexplained-pulsing-sounds-coming-from-starliner-docked-to-the-iss-75781Maybe they need some filter circuitsI would be concerned that its cracked filter capacitors, shorted inductor, etc.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2024, 01:40:01 pm
content: NASA says the pinging sound was feedback (audio ?) And has been corrected.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2024, 06:02:09 pm
content: It was CapXon and the LM386 lol.mp3 creepyhttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61434.0Not sure about the failed CO2sensor

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 03, 2024, 07:10:42 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on September 03, 2024, 01:40:01 pmIt's the same as when you have a call and audio from speakers gets into microphone and goes in circles.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 03, 2024, 09:10:43 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on August 29, 2024, 07:26:40 pmBy the time they get back, their sense of comfort will have been greatly altered, so it will probably not make a difference.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 03:26:45 am
content: Well, it undocked from the ISS and is scheduled to touchdown 12 a.m. ET (0400 GMT) tonight.I'll bet the uploaded MCAS firmware is fabulous oh wait...There should be less thruster use with the lower (crewless) weight, greater chance of it not overheating their valves?

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 04:04:49 am
content: One would assume thruster telemetry is logged in the black box in the capsule.But knowing Boeing who knows, maybe the black box is physically located in the service module, and the data logs will be lost when the module detaches from the capsule and burns up in the atmosphere!

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 04:17:04 am
content: loose mounting bracket

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 09:42:59 am
content: It's landed successfully (apart from missing its crew).Interesting dynamics regarding the press briefing. The two Boeing representatives were missing, having 'deferred to NASA'...Quotehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx29wzk4r19o

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 02:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on September 07, 2024, 09:42:59 amThat makes sense. At this point Boeing looks so bad nobody will believe a word they say, so let NASA do the talking.

author: JustMeHere
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 04:01:45 pm
content: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and STS all had thruster issues and humans on board....Oh yeah Dragon has had them too.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 04:11:49 pm
content: Quote from: JustMeHere on September 07, 2024, 04:01:45 pmWell, it is rocket science. The regularity of problems with thrusters is sufficiently well known that designers put a lot of redundancy into these systems. Individual failures are quite common, but usually the combinations of problems don't get people excessively worried about the redundancy coping with the individual problems. The problem with Starliner is the number of concurrent failures has been sufficient to get people worried enough about them overwhelming the redundancy to the point of a flight failure that they have thrown 2 seats to orbit (well over $100M) at the problem. That must be some serious concern.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 10:02:59 pm
content: Boeing must have been so relieved that it landed fine after repeatedly telling NASA that it was safe to return crew on Starliner.Boeing's reputation has been negatively effected already but if it had crashed, even due to some totally unrelated and random failure, it would be hard to see them ever coming back from that.You always run a big risk when a problem is discovered and you say, "na, it's fine". Even if you did everything right there's always the chance a 2nd problem will appear and trash your reputation with a... "but you said it was fine" scandal.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 11:12:28 pm
content: Only 1 of 12 (crew module) thrusters newly failed and of the triple-redundant guidance system (SIGI?)one died and another was acting up.Boeing's absence from the press conference, I guess they did no wrong. Immediate invoice payment is expected lol

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 07, 2024, 11:47:13 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on September 07, 2024, 10:02:59 pmYes but also theoretically no. A failed return to earth would have been catastrophic but if they were worried about it at all they shouldn't have disagreed with NASAs safety assessment. The whole debate should have been whether the vehicle had a 99% or 99.9% chance of successfully returning. 99% being not good enough. 1 in a thousand events do happen of course, but any major failure that even potentially put the vehicle at risk would have called into question whether they were even in the right ballpark.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2024, 01:40:58 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 07, 2024, 11:12:28 pmsomething is seriously wrong with the guidance system, if its acting up it means basically its not safe to use. That means they screwed up 2/3 redundancies. Their not exactly ancient systems, you would think it would all work fine.The thruster has alot of mechanical crap which you expect to break. 2/3 electronics modules having problems is shady, their low energy circuits. You would think that the redundancy is "for show" on the guidance system.I wonder if they had sufficient shift rotation installing the redundancies, or if they had the same guys do all three? If the same person is installing it redundancy does not mean alot because it just makes they made the same mistake 3 times without realizing it. Kind of like if you have bad device programmer, you can wreck as many devices as you have.I noticed if you have repeditive work people always find hacks to make it go faster, even with writing, instead of writing the same sentence 3 times, you can write each word in a column and go word by word, if its more comfortable. I finished a foreign language home work before a long time ago mis spelling the same word ~30 times, because I decided instead of writing the sentence and sounding it out, I would just fill in a "spreadsheet" column by column without ever reading the sentences.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 09, 2024, 09:30:46 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on September 07, 2024, 11:12:28 pmHmm, that's about my level of success in Kerbal. I can't imagine two out of three guidance computers going bad and being happy with that outcome.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2024, 06:21:00 am
content: but it does make me think twice about the cutting edge "best practices" for electronics everyone is rapidly adopting . I am sure boeing is on top of adopting all that shit.I sometimes wonder about all the blame going on cables and connectors and simple explanations like "oops I forgot to tighten that" that basically TOTALLY blame everything on QC or "electricians". Its all like "oh our manufacturing process is fine!! please don't look there!"Because I know the best way to keep a project going is to blame something that your boss that you can easily fix, even if its expensive, it has to be easy. Meaning that its never a engineering problem.I am starting to think boeing might be giving us "easy to understand" explanations that make people feel "related" to the problem, because its just like that light you let the handy man put in.What if its analog design problems and mechanical issues, You know, like high density BGA flex boards breaking and stuff like that, thermal management, noise, etc. Given that we hear EMI coming from a pod through the god damn audio system before a 1.5-2/3 failure of a guidance computer, it makes me wonder. IMO there is a massive push for manufacturers trying to say "yeah that high density stuff in your phone is reliable for rockets and elevators".Because the "partial" failure to me... it might be basically a hard failure. How much PR speak do they use for rocket stuff? Explosion got replaced with rapid disassembly? What's that mean, the shockwave is less then mach 6? so it gets a new name? They try to make it relatable with non technical people with dodgy analogies like comparing it to the richter scale or something to make joe public feel at ease lolJust seeing the trends in.. descriptions.. recently makes me basically even question the results of "serious" analysis. It makes me wonder if their analyzing a problem or analyzing how to sugar coat a problem to the public. It feels so freaking corporate. You never get a strait answer from corporate stuff, it ALWAYS has some other motive. Sometimes, when you see something like a explosion, the fact is, the analysts see the same thing you saw, that something exploded. They don't have another opinion, it exploded. All they know is MAYBE why. But instead its "while you think you saw a explosion.... our experts determined the glass is actually 2/3 full"I think it also relates to "data rescue" or "data error correction" efforts that are so common in the same ballpark. When you get bad experimental data and it magically becomes reliable data with enough math because of dr. spindoctor's new algorithm, but that is a another discussion... usually made up to ensure 'projections" materialize

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 10, 2024, 02:31:59 pm
content: For a one of, high reliability requirement system like this it speaks to me of a failure to test, or failure to properly evaluate test results. Yes, I know you can't test in reliability. But when you are building single unit quantities of something you can certainly do thermal and vibration screening to uncover bad joints, loose connections and other "infant mortality" type failures. It would be interesting to know what testing was performed, and how carefully they looked at the results.There may also be a clue here to a failure to actually understand the environment. There are two kinds of redundancy. In one multiple copies of a system are implemented, with the hope that failures are random and that there is reduced likelihood of multiple units failing at the same time. In the other different implementations of the function are implemented in the hope that one or more of the implementations is not susceptible to an unsuspected input or environment. They may have mixed these approaches with two copies of one system and an independent implementation. And unfortunately the one with two copies ran into an unpredicted issue.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2024, 06:44:40 pm
content: In case you haven't seen this:Splashdown! NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8 Returns Safely to Earthhttps://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2024/10/25/splashdown-nasas-spacex-crew-8-returns-safely-to-earth/

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 25, 2024, 06:53:46 pm
content: Unfortunately not the two who went up in the Starliner. They're still up there until next year.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 07:52:38 pm
content: FYI, the US TV news reported last night that Boeing is going to put it's "Space Division" up for sale.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:11:17 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on October 26, 2024, 07:52:38 pmIs that a joke?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:14:03 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on October 26, 2024, 07:52:38 pmReally? They must be really struggling - in fact they are, their commercial aircraft arm lost $4bn in the last 3 months and even their defense division lost $2.4bn (how do they make a loss in the defense industry?)...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9zrylmdk0oI can't think of a worse time to put their Space division up for sale though!

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:18:05 pm
content: Nothing that can't be fixed by appointing a new CEO, doubling their salary and laying off half of the workforce, mostly engineers if possible.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:36:44 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on October 26, 2024, 07:52:38 pmWith all the business they are losing they just don't need as much space any more.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:44:25 pm
content: @GyroI have no love for Boeing, but I do have mixed emotions about its potential sale. Like what is its failed space division worth? It basically has not achieved commercial flight with humans. Maybe Musk needs some new space, but I doubt it will be in Seattle. The last time there was talk of Boeing going belly up, the memes said about Seattle, "Will the last person leaving be sure to turn out the lights." It is an icon and helped win WWII.For those who haven't seen pictures of how it was camouflaged after Pearl Harbor, its roof tops were made to look like civilian towns.Source:https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/boeing-fake-rooftop-town/I agree in part with Silicon Wizard. The only way to change a company's culture is to cut at the top and give the new leaders a little time. That is in contrast to the usual way in America of cutting at the middle and bottom and selling capital, because our BOD's are highly conflicted.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 08:54:53 pm
content: TheMachinist's strikeis hurting them a little at the 6 week mark. The union is pissed off.Imagine removing employee's pensions and underpaying them for many years. What could possibly go wrong?Last strike Boeing even threatened to move manufacturing somewhere else. Oh yeah it's easy to beanheads.Wall Street mentality running a corporation is pure greed and poison with zero regard for employees. Replacing a few managers ain't gonna fix it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:01:28 pm
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on October 26, 2024, 08:44:25 pmMusk for sure does not need his company hijacked by shit corporate culture like it happened with Boeing in the past. The joke is MacDonnell-Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money. Nor Musk needs any inefficient production facilities that need to be adapted for his business to begin with. I really doubt he wants to overtake/continue any existing Boeing's products.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:09:29 pm
content: Boeing is de facto a state owned company (like Intel or others). They contribute to defense and build jets. Musk is not operating in such a mission critical business like building commercial planes, for example. When his gadgets fall down from sky nothing happens. Boeing is in different business in that regard. The space division could be eventually sold, but Boeing will survive, imho..

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:12:08 pm
content: Boeing is a critical supplier for the US military. It would be advantageous to many hostile foreign countries to undermine them, ruin them.I say this because the clown actions of Boeing are absurd for many years now and no sign of that improving. It can't.The MBA and Wall Street business practices are against good engineering and good manufacturing. That's expensive and time consuming, we want shareholder value now.I wonder how much tech Boeing has, they outsource as much as possible (like thruster valves) and fired all the old guard engineers eons ago.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:23:13 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on October 26, 2024, 09:09:29 pmLMAO, Musk certainty "not doing mission critical business" such as launching astronauts to ISS, national security satellites, developing Starshield for military, Moon lander for NASA.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:26:40 pm
content: Well, I think Musk should be taking lessons from businesses that are collapsing.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:29:32 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 26, 2024, 09:23:13 pmISS - max 5 dead bodiesSatellites - none dead bodiesStarshield, Moon Lander - futuristic visions..One crashed Boeing - 300 dead bodies..

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:42:05 pm
content: Quote from: floobydust on October 26, 2024, 09:12:08 pmMassive outsourcing has always been normal in aerospace. There is nothing inherently wrong with finding people who have specialised enough to get really good at one thing, and use modules from them. There are lots of small specialist players in aerospace whose names you only know if you are in that business. Its amazing they survive through the up and downs of the market.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:42:16 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on October 26, 2024, 09:29:32 pmThus make a single point of failure (non redundant sensor driven MCAS) you don't tell anyone about. BTW potential sale ofspace divisionis what's discussed here.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:48:39 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 26, 2024, 09:42:16 pmThe difference between Elon's hobbies (I am a big fan of him, btw) and Boeing's business:Quote

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:58:57 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on October 26, 2024, 09:48:39 pmFWIW Elon's hobbies are larger and worth quite a bit more than Boeing's "business".

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 09:59:44 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 26, 2024, 08:18:05 pmIt's the American Way!And you forgot about outsourcing all of the programming to Bangladesh! Because, you know, they have such a successful aerospace industry.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 10:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on October 26, 2024, 09:48:39 pmThere are about 6500 737s in service, and 10,700 A320s. How is the 737 the most widely used? Boeing have been messing up on every front. If they don't start getting their act together Airbus are going to eat their long haul business with the A350. It is proving very popular.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 11:51:11 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 26, 2024, 09:42:05 pmTrue. So nothing wrong if those people are more specialized than Boeing is on a particular piece of equipment.A bit more problematic when they are absolutely not.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2024, 11:57:34 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 26, 2024, 11:51:11 pmx10.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 12:43:00 am
content: When you outsource everything, you become competent in nothing. Sure you can slap things together, however you lose control over the bits that go into the thing, and how they come together. If you control the whole picture say you could replace 3 things by 1 that actually would work much better and for lower cost. But you can't do that as you have 3 suppliers that are not competent in other bits, not to say somehow organizing all of them to produce the single thing (while being not competent in those things) would be hell. For example Raptor 3 engine, any other rocket engine looks like Christmas tree in comparison. It would be simply impossible to make the thing while outsourcing most of the stuff. Simply due to extreme level of integration of various functions into a single piece of hardware.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 06:39:22 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on October 26, 2024, 07:52:38 pmPerhaps something to do with one of their satellites blowing up?https://www.intelsat.com/newsroom/intelsat-reports-is-33e-satellite-loss/https://spacenews.com/intelsat-33e-loses-power-in-geostationary-orbit/(of course, could've been; asteroid/meteoroid strike, space junk, or intentional attack by a state actor with the necessary weapon technology to take down satellites)

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 09:18:43 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 26, 2024, 11:51:11 pmThese specialized equipment vendors are vulnerable. Sales volumes for space a bit low. How many people need thruster valves today?"In recent years there have been as few as two firms – Northrop Grumman and Aerojet Rocketdyne – providing rocket engines to the US government..."source"US aerospace manufacturers are again expanding production capacity for rocket engines, reversing a long-term trend of decline driven by industry consolidation and stagnantdemand."----------------------"In 2011, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne—now known as Aerojet Rocketdyne, a division of L3 Harris—hired ValveTech to build valves for the Starliner’s propulsion system. After disputes over design between the two firms, Aerojet ended the relationship in 2017; ValveTech sued the company for violating NDAs and misusing its trade secrets to design new valves.After years of motions, depositions, and a trial, a jury found in November that Aerojet had violated NDAs with ValveTech, but hadn’t misappropriated any trade secrets. ValveTech was awarded $850,000 in damages, but it sought further restrictions on Aerojet and court fees. On May 6, a US District Court judge denied those motions and closed the case.Faville, who says her company supplied other valves for Starliner, told Payload she has concerns that Aerojet-built valves on Starliner were not properly qualified for human flight..."sourceViewing technology as a commodity is an MBA mistake. It's not like buying a can of soup at the grocery store.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 10:18:29 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on October 27, 2024, 06:39:22 amProbably has something to do with its main engine not working from the beginning, and needing to use other low-thrust engines instead to reach the orbit. Nor it was the first such failure of this Boeing's satellite platform.Quote

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 11:09:47 am
content: Quote from: wraper on October 27, 2024, 12:43:00 amuntil someone developers a better coupler. I used to wonder if by now we would all run on giant monolithic integrated circuits by now. But they develop reliable high density PCB connections and awesome sockets, and we don't even see that level of integration in the most miniaturized devices like phones.Every time a great coupler or bonding method is created, monolithic systems are threatened. Then it just becomes a fancy bracketA distributed design capable of more modification is usually better, but also harder. Some might even say the monolith is a low hanging fruitI think in the future the best engines will be the one you can get off brand parts for. Its like proven. Its adaptive and free.And there is expertise, its in knowing what you can 'feed' your design, even if you don't make everything. Just like basically everything we do as normal EE. At some point integration becomes stupid. Like if you were to buy transformers and power inductors from analog devices.Or if someone figures out how to make some bad-ass multi purpose valve. Then they can sell it to multiple customers with totally different systems. Like discrete transistors. I noticed that the cutting edge integrated system is usually lagging in performance and value behind a more discrete design.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 02:04:00 pm
content: There isn't any one size fits all answer. When a company builds everything in house they avoid all the friction of finding and selecting suppliers, set the priorities for delivery of parts, and collects all the value added profits. But they lose economy of scale in producing common parts, must fund development to keep up with progress in every area and other drawbacks. Finding the right decision for a product area is challenging and obviously companies lose the bubble from time to time.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 05:46:39 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 27, 2024, 12:43:00 amThat's not the case. Numerous areas of engineering, especially architectural and civil engineering, are mostly consultancies (real ones, not the management kind) who use their expertise to design, and outsource all the physical work to others. They tend to be in areas where the flow of work is so lumpy that its hard to keep a long term steady team. However, if subcontractors serve multiple consultancies, and each consultancy works with multiple subcontractors, things can be somewhat smoothed out.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 06:11:08 pm
content: Relevant to EE's and our lives - outsourcing, in high technology- ends up destructive. I think the myth of the cute consultancy needs to get buried.Unfortunately it's an MBA/Wall Street business management strategy to do nothing in-house and just farm out as much as possible. It makes a company's financials look better, less capital outlay, less staff etc. etc. Great for short-term profits- which is what we want as priority #1.Thus Boeing wants to be just a systems integrator and has spun off and sold IP etc. as much as possible. This is the new model for corporations. No different than the semiconductor companies whose goal is to be "fabless". Just contract that out, right?Yes you can have a company specializing in a technology but space isn't a big enough market. Aerospace contractors are only being kept alive by the defense industry where price has no limit and there are very few competitors, almost a monopoly exists, plus government dependence on these contractors.I have to laugh when the consequences of outsourcing come to roost and then it's multi-billion $ in government concessions and grants offered to "bring it back home".Good luck Texas. Samsung and TSMC are surely in it for 'Merica and those plants will come on-line someday

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 07:20:15 pm
content: The problem is unreasonable levels of outsourcing and improper evaluation of what should be outsourcedif you run everything hermetic like your on mars then its going to be lagging and inefficient and insane.However, alot of companies have 'crackhead' leadership that will try to sell literary everything (like selling the mattress) for the ultra short term gainbut there is another side, I noticed that the more they outsource the more incompetent they are, and realistically they outsource things without running the proper amount of QC and analysis on their external dealings, which basically means they are just gambling. They literally cannot outsource what they are outsourcing while maintaining quality with the amount of money they went to spend, so its a scam to outsource in this common case.meaning that if they properly outsourced it to someone that canactuallygive all the analysis and assurances, it would be less profitable then doing it yourself. but they are allowed to gamble and bullshit their way through these decisions.Because usually when you outsource, the person doing what you want is doing something SIMILAR to what you want but it would require TESTING, management and VERIFICATION to ensure that it becomes IDENTICAL to what you want. But its cheaper to say that 'similar equals identical' (lie) and then you have a BIG PROBLEMand on top of all that, by outsourcing you increase your SYSTEMIC RISK even if you do it perfectly right. Basically its known they don't do any of this and their shooting from the hip hoping for dollars while coasting on lies.then its so bad you think maybe it only could work if its hermetically sealed on mars LOL

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 07:27:35 pm
content: The massive challenge with outsourcing becomes integrating and test. You still need in-house expertise unfortunately which is annoyingly expensive and best deleted.For total failure, let's rely on Boeing... who relies on elcheapo piece-wise simulations and fucked it up spectacularly many timesThis is hilarious:“If we would have run the integrated test with ULA through the first orbital insertion burn timeframe, we would have seen that we would have missed the orbital insertion burn,” said John Mullholland, Boeing’s Commercial Crew program manager."Instead of simulating an entire mission from launch to docking, “the team decided they would rather run multiple tests with chunks of the mission,”"In addition to the clock error, they found a coding error that could have complicated Starliner’s return to Earth had the capsule been able to reach the station. After undocking, the service module must separate from the capsule, and position itself for reentry with valve-mapping software that determines the combination of thrusters to fire. The coding error could have propelled the service module into the capsule instead of away from it."

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 07:32:28 pm
content: the 'verification' and 'quality assurance' in their case means lowering the bar to test reading comprehension at a third grade level to allow for a masters degree in literature for spelling CAT when it comes to approving the designs and outsourced workthe vetting process is totally shot, wrapped in fence and dumped off a bridge there

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 07:37:48 pm
content: without in house testing and inhouse expertise you can't perform out sourcing !its just a lie that its cheap (especially if you factor in a business charter to be 'sustainable' in the long range)

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 07:55:29 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 27, 2024, 05:46:39 pmYour example is basically outsourcing commodity. Not much different than outsourcing PCB production, anyone competent enough can do that. No need for design iteration to get things working, complicated production processes barely anyone can do, whatever that takes to build rocket technology. On other hand you cannot just design a rocket engine, give drawings to someone, and they'll get it made.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 08:01:35 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 27, 2024, 07:55:29 pmHow else will you get the thing made? Do you think the designers go down to the machine shop and get their hands dirty. Every time I have handed off the making of something to someone it has been irrelevant whether they were in house or external. Its some other group in both cases. Similarly testing of the thing after manufacture is often so specialised even large companies outsource much of it to specialist third parties. What needs to remain in house is the overall control of what is done.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 08:30:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 27, 2024, 07:20:15 pmNothing that can't be done using Excel sheets, a bunch of product owners and some chief happiness officers.And ChatGPT to help the project managers make some tough decisions.Last I heard, they hired away an army of project managers from the textile industry, those guys are tough.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 08:31:31 pm
content: unless you have a really good machinist that knows you and makes things on point every timeyou want THAT GUY in your company because hes worth more then the shop and you don't want him to go missing because of some failed raise negotiation at a third party!at least for prototypes. maybe you can iron out manufacturing because enough people are going to get interested.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 08:34:02 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 27, 2024, 08:30:03 pmrobbed by a gang of confidence menits scary, it seems I figured out who I knew would be rich by the time I was like a teenager because of the way things seem to work.and the 'gang of confidence men' is so dangerous, it makes it seem that just deciding to be as hermetic as possible is actually the only reasonable option. because someone might walk into facilities and can physically see what is happening LOL . harder to make some elaborate paperwork smoke screen etcI noticed that any attempt at 'inspection' between companies is just so highly orchestrated. its like the olympics. always a scandal within the lead up to the 'event'.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 08:56:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on October 27, 2024, 08:34:02 pmWord salad. Please post something coherent tomorrow.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 09:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 27, 2024, 08:01:35 pmYes, they do/should. At least for critical/complex parts.Not that the business processes at most corporations would forsee that, but, you really can just walk into the machine shop and talk to the machinist who makes your part.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2024, 10:44:28 pm
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on October 27, 2024, 08:56:04 pmyou got so excited you fucked up the quotation function lolis it your job to push those 3rd party parts and projects through by any means necessary? or do you push contractors?I can see if you got upset if your one of those 'head project engineers' that has literally0people under him... too many 7 month stints with vanishing product lines?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 12:17:25 am
content: Quote from: coppice on October 27, 2024, 08:01:35 pmEngineers actually do go down to the machine shop at SpaceX. You know why? Because watch this video:

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 03:17:29 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 28, 2024, 12:17:25 amI said designers, not morons. If you have a design team composed of morons, a few trips to the workshop aren't going to solve your problems.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 03:29:25 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on October 27, 2024, 08:30:03 pmThe real PMs and PGMs are all extinct species.. The Agile killed them all some 15y back.. There are none PMs in Agile anymore..

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 03:57:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 28, 2024, 03:17:29 pmHow designers are supposed to know what and how something can be made, and if it makes sense to do something to begin with if they know nothing about manufacturing? When pushing the limits of technology, you cannot design something you have no idea about intricacies of actual manufacturing. BTW I despise engineering with no regards to costs and manufacturability.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 04:13:19 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 28, 2024, 03:57:38 pmWhen you've designed something and hand it off for prototypes to be made, you ask for a quote. If the quote is high you interact, work out why, and figure out if something can be done about it. Over time you pick up what works well, and what causes trouble. Visiting the workshop may be interesting, but its the interactions that let you learn.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 04:34:27 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 28, 2024, 04:13:19 pmQuote does not tell you how to make something more manufacturable, how cheap it can be made and what needs to be done. External consultants will not come anywhere close to be able to talk with manufacturing guys directly at basically any time either. Approach like this is what seems to be the reason why rocket technology stagnated if not degraded for half a century with ever increasing launch costs. There is a big difference between rocket launch costing $50 million or $200 million. Latter makes it commercially unviable for most things. Once SpaceX came into the game and made some actual advancements it forced good old boys to start moving their asses. If you don't remember, basically no commercial launches were made from US soil for decades before SpaceX, and ~10 (government paid) launches a year seemed to be normal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 04:56:02 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on October 28, 2024, 04:34:27 pmYou are giving excellent reasons for more interplay between design people and manufacturing people. None of it says hand on for the designers has benefits, or that in house versus outsourcing has benefits. What's your point?

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2024, 08:28:35 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on October 28, 2024, 04:56:02 pmWhy would you make the exchange needlessly inefficient? I really don't think you should design anything without knowing how to manufacture and test it. So in a way, you really should get your hands dirty and machine parts yourself if your company has a prototyping machine shop.