[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 20752)
Message
File  []
close
2018-05-05-015719.jpg
207522075220752
>> No. 20752 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 1:29 pm
20752 Another bad day for Boeing
Starliner launched this morning, at last. But the orbital insertion went wrong as the spacecraft was pointing the wrong way - they had better pray it wasn't an angle-of-attack sensor problem...

It's not until you see other people try and fail to do this stuff, that you really appreciate how far ahead SpaceX are, and how we'll they're doing. Boeing were charging NASA 50% more than them for this mission.
Expand all images.
>> No. 20753 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 1:33 pm
20753 spacer
>>20752
There is now way it will get to the ISS now - the big question is where/how do they land this thing safely..
>> No. 20754 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 1:49 pm
20754 spacer
Object 44900/19094A: 77km x 192km @ 51.63 deg inclination

For those of you that also play Kerbal Space Program, you'll know that 77km orbit is much too low! The ISS is about 400km orbit.
>> No. 20755 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 1:54 pm
20755 spacer

badclocks.png
207552075520755
This thing is coming down.
>> No. 20756 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 8:34 pm
20756 spacer
>>20752

I'm of the opinion boeing deserves to fail at this point. the fact that they have the hubris to keep on producing a defective grounded plane on the expectation of 'well they will just reapprove it anyway, they have to, we are too big to not', after it killed 300 people is beyond me.
>> No. 20757 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 8:37 pm
20757 spacer
>>20756
I've got an idea of where they can down it with only 650ish casualties.
>> No. 20758 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 9:15 pm
20758 spacer
>>20756
The 737 MAX thing is quite ridiculous - Boeing are too big to fail, in the US; they would get bailed out, somehow. From the outside, what has happened there looks quite corrupt, but much of it is on the regulator who let it happen.

For more technical details, I can highly recommend the PPRune site, which is full of pilots, geeks and engineers involved.
>> No. 20759 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 10:25 pm
20759 spacer

starliner.jpg
207592075920759
Does look a bit bodged together compared to SpaceX Dragon 2.
>> No. 20760 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 11:05 pm
20760 spacer

dickjonesDICKJOOOONES.jpg
207602076020760
>>20758

>From the outside, what has happened there looks quite corrupt,

Well. They practically are the military.
>> No. 20762 Anonymous
20th December 2019
Friday 11:53 pm
20762 spacer
>>20758

Thanks for the recommendation. I am fairly familiar with the details. My understanding is it seems to come from a combination of Airbus being technologically ahead and them needing a competing product immediately. Looking for a loop hole to not require rectifying pilots, and them being allowed to sign off their own products for the FAA. The 737 just isn't fit to have that engine on it. I full expect the FAA to sign it off again and every other Aviation authority refusing to out of principle.
>> No. 20763 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 12:04 am
20763 spacer
>>20762

Recertifying obviously auto correct got me
>> No. 20764 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 12:12 am
20764 spacer
>>20762
>them being allowed to sign off their own products for the FAA. >The 737 just isn't fit to have that engine on it

Agree completely - and certainly agree that there are future shenanigans to come around the recertification by the FAA. One can easily imagine this becoming part of a future US/Euro trade war.
>> No. 20765 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 1:31 am
20765 spacer
Space is no place for private companies.
>> No. 20766 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 2:19 am
20766 spacer
>>20765
Come on lad!

That's a whole debate. Why?
>> No. 20768 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 12:44 pm
20768 spacer
Perhaps they just needed cover to launch reconnaissance probe, or something.
>> No. 20769 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 12:53 pm
20769 spacer
>>20758

While I agree much of the blame is on the FAA, I do still think Boeing shoulder the responsibility for trying to rush market the MAX as needing no additional training or rating. That was what killed people - flying a 737 to book, where the rules had changed.

As for the MAX entering service, it's interesting. From talking to 737 pilots and from reading PPRune, probably half of them would refuse to fly one regardless at this point, either due to distrust of the engineering or just down to knowing that passengers will also refuse to fly them. And I think that's the main point - I don't believe passengers will board a MAX. Sure most people aren't going to know what they're getting on, but I can absolutely imagine what could happen when they hear "welcome aboard this Boeing 737-MAX 8 200" on the announcement.

Funnily enough this article just popped up on my phone as I was typing this : https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-boeing-737-max-plane-crash-passenger-safety-aircraft-michael-oleary-a9255601.html
>> No. 20770 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 1:11 pm
20770 spacer
>>20769

>for trying to rush market the MAX as needing no additional training or rating.

I mean that was the entire point of the project. If they weren't trying to get away with as much as they could whilst still calling it the same aircraft they probably wouldn't have made the decisions they did. There would almost certainly have been a conversation where an engineer came up with a more practical and safer design, but it would have either met the legal definition of a new plane or would have required enough variation in opperation to mean pilots required recertification.
>> No. 20771 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 1:39 pm
20771 spacer
>>20770

Even with additional MCAS training the MAX could have retained a 737 type rating, but Boeing didn't even allude to the existence of the system in crew manuals, didn't program their simulators to accurately reflect the operation, and claimed they didn't expect MCAS to 'not operate under normal flight envelope conditions'. If that were true, though, of course, it would still be prudent to mention in the crew documentation that it exists.

There's more than one way Boeing could have implemented this system without losing the 737 type and while still remaining competitive to Airbus. Even Ryanair would choose 40 of MCAS-focused sim training to keep a consistent 737 fleet over splitting their pilot pool between entirely different aircraft, but I don't believe they even needed that. Just proper documentation and not giving the system priority over pilot input would have been enough. They could still have bribed/convinced the FAA to let them call it a flight control system under those conditions.
>> No. 20772 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 4:57 pm
20772 spacer

EMULJK8WoAI6I6_.jpg
207722077220772
Of course there are rocket memes.
>> No. 20774 Anonymous
21st December 2019
Saturday 7:37 pm
20774 spacer
>>20772>>20773
Oh, God, fuck off already.
>> No. 20777 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 1:50 pm
20777 spacer

EMZTUb0U4AEdK5X.jpg
207772077720777
Safely landed!
>> No. 20778 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 2:54 pm
20778 spacer
I'm impressed they could land it properly from such a wrong orbit.
>> No. 20779 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 3:17 pm
20779 spacer
>>20778
The issue was that that it wasn't boosted high enough. The only major difference I know of is that they've got to burn a lot less fuel to de-orbit it than they would have if it had reached orbit successfully.
>> No. 20780 Anonymous
22nd December 2019
Sunday 10:20 pm
20780 spacer
>>20779

Landing from orbit if you want to hit a perfect spot requires making very precise maneuvers at the right point (mostly from the other side of the planet). Which you can do because you are starting from a stable position of not falling down.

If your trajectory is messed up massively because you didn't make a stable orbit than landing remotely near where you would like is a miracle.
>> No. 20787 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 5:39 pm
20787 Boeing fires embattled CEO Dennis Muilenburg
Symbolic firing to cover their arses....


https://abcnews.go.com/Business/boeing-ceo-dennis-muilenburg-fired/story?id=67895218
>> No. 20788 Anonymous
23rd December 2019
Monday 5:47 pm
20788 spacer
>>20787
Very much so.
>> No. 20790 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 5:00 pm
20790 spacer
>>20787
I think this has more to do with the 737 MAX killing loads of people then getting grounded since March.
>> No. 20791 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 5:09 pm
20791 spacer
>>20790

They should have fired him in March then.
>> No. 20792 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 5:34 pm
20792 spacer
>>20790
I mean, it's definitely about the 737 - but this hasn't helped.
>> No. 20793 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 8:14 pm
20793 spacer
>>20792

Exactly all eyes are on them that they aren't potentially lethal fuck wits and they just went and confirmed they are.
>> No. 20794 Anonymous
24th December 2019
Tuesday 8:20 pm
20794 spacer
>>20791
I read something that said most of the issues with Boeing recently were inherited from the previous CEO and he was slowly starting to get them back on track. Apparently his successor isn't going to try to change the poor managerial culture they have and will instead make the problems worse through cost cutting and laying people off.
>> No. 20817 Anonymous
30th December 2019
Monday 2:33 pm
20817 spacer
If you're interested in the 737 MAX story, this presentation is brilliant - it recreates in the simulator how hard it was to recover from runaway MCAS failure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlaMQBEg-9M

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password