Boeing Starliner OFT-2

GW Johnson · 2024-06-19 16:05:22

Brian:

My old 170 had old-time round analog gauges for everything. It had a decent radio and a decent transponder, adequate before the switch to the ADS-B thing. It was a perfect example of a well-equipped stick-and-rudder airplane from the paper chart and E6B era. It had a VOR that was all my dad and I ever needed. No glass cockpit there! I inherited it from my dad when he passed away. He rebuilt it from a wreck. I bucked rivets for him as a young teenager, when he was doing that.

I had a very mild stroke that did no damage anyone could see, just before I could solo. I had no idea who I was or what was going on, during the hours after that stroke. I did not get grounded by the FAA, I grounded myself. There was no way in hell I would want such a thing to ever happen again, with me alone at the controls. After a while, I sold the airplane to a fellow EAA member who would use it for basic flight instruction. It was a more-than-perfect airplane for that purpose. Even better than a cub!

And my dad's original airplane was a J-5 Piper Cub Cruiser, rebuilt from a wreck. That's a 3-seat cub with a real door. I sanded the airframe tubes with crocus cloth when I was 8-10 years old. My dad was both an aeronautical engineer and a certified A&P. He retired from LTV aerospace back in the 1980's as their chief of airframe design. The F-8 Crusader and A-7 Corsair-2 are his proudest designs, among many things.

My proudest achievement was becoming an advisor to him at home, that he trusted.

GW

kbd512 · 2024-06-21 09:22:33

GW,

That's a shame, but we're all getting old and eventually all good things come to an end.

You'll be pleased to know that we're still using E6Bs, our "paper" flight computers. They still work. All the gauges in the planes I've flown have been dial gauges. They're easy to understand, but the first time I was in their "RedBird" simulator with "Garmin" electronic instruments, I knew that was better than the old dial gauges in most of their planes. High quality glass is golden. All the info is in one place, you don't have to scan the entire panel, because it's all on one screen. It's just faster. With the exception of some nav and comm functions, it's pretty intuitive, too. The planes they had set up with glass have multiple redundant displays and they have their own batteries behind the panel if the alternator fails, so power is fairly well covered. If they have electronic circuit breakers, then you're very well covered. It'd be almost impossible to fry the instruments. That only leaves software and chip failures, but both the MFDs and iPads are pretty reliable, and you can have multiple complete instrument backups if your iPad can connect to the sensor input. You definitely can't do that with dial gauges.

We flew one cross-country with paper maps just to say we did it, and then my CFI told me to stuff the maps in my bag and started teaching me to use visual reference landmarks and the maps loaded into the iPads strapped to our kneeboards. He'd point out important landmarks to remember for navigating back home, and then we'd plot a course to and from the practice area using those landmarks. We used the highways, the church steeple and HEB near the airport to "know" if we were on course and where to turn on base or final, etc. We had one instrument training flight into real clouds, which was fun and surprisingly easy to do. We repeated cross-wind landings at least a dozen times in one hop, but the repetition really helped cement what to do to grease it on when the wind doesn't cooperate.

The F-8 and A-7 airframes were exceptional at their jobs, so thanks to your father and his engineering staff for designing them. Simple, rugged, and easy to maintain airframes are sorely lacking today. Navy maintainers were quite pleased with the A-7, and still spoke fondly of them after they were gone. The F-14s and F/A-18s were not well-liked. Tomcats were hangar queens while I was still in, all were subsequently retired, and the Hornets had incessant landing gear and avionics issues. We badly need a single-engine general purpose heavy all-weather attack aircraft that won't break the bank to maintain.

A new A-7 facsimile could mount the F-35's GAU-22 25mm cannon for strafing, use the version of the F-35's engine without the afterburner to reduce per-unit production costs by increasing production rates for the engine cores, drop JDAMs or fire AGM-65s and AGM-84s, with Sidewinders for self-defense. It really doesn't need to carry much else. Raytheon's 1/3rd scale full-featured APG-79 equivalent, which was miniaturized for drones using modern electronics, would easily fit in the nose. Add the F-35 EOTS (not the full DAS suite) and you have a superb attack platform. This doesn't describe our current F-16 or F-35 designs, unfortunately. F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 programs ultimately transformed into absurdities which required too many maintenance hours and too much money to justify the number of hours flown. The type would emphasize climb rate, turning rate, swift acceleration to high subsonic speeds to gain energy back quickly, and a powerful armament- all the hallmarks of a good fighter. In practice, it would easily out-turn the faster MiGs and Sukhois, even if it can't chase them down. That's what missiles are for. It would be a simple and unpretentious design, and while not "the best" at anything in particular, it will get the job done at a reasonable cost.

GW Johnson · 2024-06-21 09:42:01

About 3+ decades ago, there were war games being flown at Nellis to evaluate the F-15 being introduced back then. Because of the longer range radar, it was outflying the aggressor squadron using F-5's to simulate Migs. No radar warning receivers in the F-5.

American ingenuity always surfaces, even in pilots trained to think and behave like Russians. They got tired of losing in the war games. They went to Radio Shack and bought police radar warning receivers, plus the gear to jerry-rig them to aircraft power. This stuff was not large, and fit in the flight suit pockets along with rolls of duct tape.

Preflight inspections revealed no contraband, so once they were ready to taxi, the warning receivers were duct-taped to the glare panel and plugged into aircraft power. The games suddenly went lopsidedly in favor of the aggressor squadron, which really pissed of the generals, who for the longest time, could not figure out why. (Eventually the truth was revealed.)

The point is, you put a really good pilot into a just-barely-good airplane, and you still have a winner!

I agree with you, simpler is better and more reliable. Which is also more combat-capable.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-06-21 09:43:56)

GW Johnson · 2024-06-22 09:31:14

In todays news: NASA has pushed back Starliner's return to an undetermined date in July. This is to give them more time to figure out what has been going wrong with the helium leaks and the thrusters. This particular story gave enough detail to pin down the faulty thrusters to those on the service module, not the capsule itself, as I first thought. Supposedly, helium supplies are sufficient to re-enter at any time. The problem seems to be not fully understanding the sources of the problems.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2024-06-24 23:18:17

This delay gives them more time to come up with a rationale to sell if the return of Starliner manages to kill Butch and Sunni. I just watched an interesting and highly detailed plan for having a standby rescue vehicle available to rescue the entire crew of the ISS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPs19M2 … WL&index=5

Oldfart1939 · 2024-06-24 23:30:41

GW- Thanks for the wonderful history lesson that you shared about your Dad at LTV. The F-8 was a wonderful design and became a fearsome MiG killer.
I can empathize with you about selling your bird, and I finally sold mine in 2019 after having a mild heart attack in June of 2018. Mine was a PA28-235 Dakota, complete with a Garmin 530W navigation and flight control system. It was fully IFR certified at the time I sold it.

GW Johnson · 2024-06-25 09:12:29

My Dad took his 170 to Oshkosh one year. He and a friend camped under its wing. That's a long way from Texas at only 110 mph and with only a VOR, but he said he had a great time flying it there and back.

Before the 170, Dad took me from D-FW area to San Angelo in the old J-5. It cruised at only about 75 mph, and we fought an enormous headwind getting there. That was back in the early 1960's, and the J-5 had no lights and no radio. It did not have a starter or a battery. It was restricted to day VFR, and it was a hand-prop start.

Took all day plus a refueling stop to get there. But the return flight sure seemed fast! Massive tailwind.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2024-06-25 16:35:30

GW-
My first flight in my Dakota was memorable after I took delivery in Murieta, CA in 2011. I was a certificated Private Pilot, but didn't have my high performance endorsement yet, so the seller arranged for an Airline pilot to pick up some cash and a free ride back from Casper (KCPR) at my expense. We had an very early departure planned and the visibility was strictly IFR departure, so I got some real instrument time as a result. I already was partway through an instrument rating and had about 20 hours of hood time, so the ALP called and got a departure clearance for our departure. I took off and managed a really nice takeoff under zero visibility conditions and simply followed his directions regards altitude rate of climb, and heading. What a cool experience to break through to VFR "on top," and fly towards the Sierras at 11,500 feet. The cloud cover cleared and we flew directly over Big Bear Lake, and using a combination of VOR Nav and my partner's Garmin tablet GPS system, skirted Las Vegas. We did my first landing at Bryce Canyon, after flying over Zion NP at 9500 feet.
The the real fun began as we flew over Dinosaur National Monument and picked up a powerful tailwind we had a ground speed of 209 kts with an airspeed of 142 kts, according to the ASI! What a thrilling ride for my first time in my very own bird!

SpaceNut · 2024-06-25 18:26:06

Boeing has just 45 days before the capsule is considered expired and no longer capable to return on a safe trajectory from the launch date.

GW Johnson · 2024-06-25 18:30:41

Given the crappy valves they used in the NTO tankage and supply systems, I'm surprised it is rated for 45 days yet!

GW

GW Johnson · 2024-06-29 12:16:53

Still no change for the Starliner crew that is supposedly "not stranded" aboard the ISS. The lack of change in the situation for over 3 weeks suggests nobody on the ground has yet figured out why all these troubles cropped up. Reporting on this is sparse, and from a technical standpoint, unreliable, but it appears the thrusters have some unspecified problem that causes the control software to lock the misbehaving thrusters out.

Pressure-fed bipropellant hypergolic-ignition thrusters are a technology that has been flying for over 6 decades now. There is no excuse for these troubles to be cropping up like this. But there might be a reason: crappy quality. The thruster technology is dangerous enough that you have to do it "right", in order to get reliable, safe results. "Right" means very careful attention to details, and very high quality.

Apparently 5 of the 28 on the service module "tanked" and got locked out, which is what delayed docking, because that was too many to lose, as programmed into the flight control software. They somehow manually restored 4 of the bad 5 thrusters, good enough to be able to override the control lockouts, and thus be able to dock. I may well be wrong, but I get the definite impression that thrusters are still showing up "unusable" in the software, and nobody can figure out why.

And, there's also the helium leaks, which threaten getting propellant into the thrusters. They flew with 1 small leak, but 4 more showed up on the way up, one which was actually very large. They may or may not yet understand what has been going wrong there, either, I dunno for sure. Only some of the reporting talks about flanges and seals. If so, there's no excuse for this, either. Even with easy-to-leak helium, the plumbing technology has been flying for over 6 decades now. Although a reason could be crappy quality.

Despite the press releases, NASA (and Boeing) have been very close-mouthed about all this trouble. I understand the delay, since there is no "smoking gun" hardware to look at, once the service module is discarded for entry after making the de-orbit burn.

What I'd hazard a guess about, is crappy quality building these things, forced by the same evilly-greedy corporate culture that screwed up the 737 MAX big time (killing 2 planeloads so far), and which has also screwed up the 777X and 787 programs, although those have yet to kill passengers.

Nobody has run into troubles with the entry capsule yet, so far. But that's coming! It was made by the same Boeing.

The batteries that power stuff aboard Starliner "time-out" after about 45 days, or so I heard. About half that time is now gone. If Boeing and NASA can't figure this out by then, they are faced with a choice fraught with consequences either way: either bring the crew home with untrustworthy batteries powering their capsule, or bring the crew home in a SpaceX Dragon.

Boeing management will likely push for risking the crew on bad batteries to avoid more bad publicity (to keep stock price from dropping further). And, after Columbia and Challenger, I do not trust NASA upper management to value crew lives above bad publicity. They didn't before, in either case, and actually attempted a cover-up during the Challenger investigation.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-06-29 12:36:45)

SpaceNut · 2024-06-29 14:37:32

Without a spacewalk it's going to be hard to open the craft to see what the real issues are.

Just one more reason to add a space shipyard port so as to be able to make repairs by allowing it into a shuttle sized bay or larger as required so that a crew can go into it once the bay doors are closed. Inside the bay would be a shuttle arm to catch and secure anything brought in for repairs. This could also include satellites.

GW Johnson · 2024-06-30 00:06:39

Hi Spacenut:

From what I understand, it is very difficult getting inside the service module to examine or replace anything. It has to go back to the assembly building and be demounted from the rocket, in order to do tasks like that before launch. You almost have to take it completely apart to get inside it at all. That's what the 45 day battery life thing is really all about. And that kind of work cannot be done hanging in zero gravity and vacuum, wearing space suits.

Any sort of small bay to work on things like that, needs to be able to close and pressurize. With the object firmly held, and supports for the work crew to "stand" on while exerting forces. Being enclosed and pressurized, temperatures can be controlled with the power of the lighting, so that technicians in street clothes can work bare-handed without risking thermal injury. And there is the inevitable risk of a toxic propellant leak, which would kill any such work crew.

A work space like that is a tall order to supply, especially one big enough to put a Dragon or a Starliner (or especially a Dreamchaser) inside. Besides the size and expense, I think the toxic leak is a killer for that concept.

Better to just do the high-quality design with careful attention to detail, so that these systems are simply very reliable. But you cannot rip the government customer off to make a high corporate profit, if you do these jobs "right". And THAT motivation is why Boeing did the crappy job it so apparently did on Starliner (and those airliners).

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-06-30 00:12:17)

GW Johnson · 2024-07-01 09:20:10

From AIAA’s “Daily Launch” for Monday 7-1-2024:

ARS TECHNICA
NASA orders more tests on Starliner, but says crew isn’t stranded in space

NASA and Boeing officials pushed back Friday on headlines that the commercial Starliner crew capsule is stranded at the International Space Station but said they need more time to analyze data before formally clearing the spacecraft for undocking and reentry. Commander Butch Wilmore and pilot Suni Williams will spend at least a few more weeks on the space station as engineers on the ground conduct thruster tests to better understand issues with the Starliner propulsion system in orbit.

My take on it:

No change at all in status. Just confirmation of my suspicions. Note the wording of the second sentence (there are two).

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-01 09:21:00)

GW Johnson · 2024-07-04 08:28:12

The reporting on this is so lousy that you really have to hunt hard to figure out what is really going on. They cannot open up the spacecraft on orbit in a spacewalk, and look inside to see what is going wrong. It is simply not built to be serviceable. All Butch and Sunni can do is go run tests from the cockpit and report the data to people on the ground. Period.

Meanwhile, Boeing and NASA on the ground have been running some sort of simulations on the ground, in some sort of representative hardware, trying to duplicate what Butch and Sunni are seeing in their tests. I have yet to see anything that would provide the identity and nature of that ground test hardware.

They cannot bring the malfunctioning hardware home to open it up and find out what really went wrong. The troubled systems (so far) have been in the service module, discarded for entry, and lost. That begs the question of what might go wrong in the entry capsule itself. That was built by the same Boeing, and it also has essential attitude thrusters to prevent a tumble during entry, and those are the same type of hypergolic bipropellants, pressure-fed, as what's on the service module, powered by the same type of helium pressurant.

So far, after a month, they clearly have been unable to figure out what actually went wrong on the flight vehicle, or why. They are now planning to keep Starliner at the station past the nominal 45 day battery life (the same battery life expiration that stopped one of the launch attempts). Supposedly, the batteries are being charged at ISS, extending the time before they become untrustworthy (although that didn't seem to be an option for the launch attempt, as I recall).

I really do not like what I see happening.

My opinion: Leave the thing at ISS until there is a Starship flying well enough to come get it and take it home intact. That may be a year or so in the future, depending upon how soon SpaceX can solve the remaining troubles and actually equip one of these prototypes with a real cargo deck, payload door, and handling gear. Bring the Starliner crew home in a Dragon now.

Reality: they will delay until they have no choice (batteries starting to fail). Then they will risk the crew's lives coming home in a spacecraft so very clearly not yet ready to be man-rated.

Prediction: And we WILL see thruster issues pop up on the entry capsule, during that entry to bring the crew home. If the failures get bad enough, the capsule may tumble and break up, killing the crew. And we will see another attempted cover-up during the inquest hearings, should that happen.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-04 08:43:56)

SpaceNut · 2024-07-05 12:46:32

NASA Praises Flawed Boeing Starliner's Ability To Remain Stranded At The ISS

The NASA flight test was initially scheduled to last 10 days, but the mission surpassed the 26-day mark on Friday.

The helium leaks that delayed the initial May 6 launch stabilized, and all but one of the 28 thrusters are back online. The mission’s nature as a test flight meant the agency was prepared to spend as much time as possible ironing out faults. Space.com reported:
The Boeing Starliner’s stay in orbit is limited by the crew module’s battery capacity. While the spacecraft is rated for 210 days, NASA stated there would be a 45-day limit, enough time for engineers on the ground to test fixes before re-entry. The agency is confident enough in the battery’s performance while recharging from the ISS that the Starliner will likely surpass the 45-day mark in orbit

GW Johnson · 2024-07-11 09:57:11

News reports indicate that NASA and Boeing on the ground still do not not understand where the problems came from. The plan (such as it is) now goes past the 45 day battery life, justified by charging at the ISS.

News reports still lie about "stabilized helium leaks". They shut off the shut-off valves. Open them back up to operate the systems, and the leaks resume. They are just counting on getting away from ISS, doing the deorbit burn, and jettisoning the service module before the helium can run out.

And I have not seen one single word about the status of the attitude control thrusters on the capsule itself, critical for entry attitude control! If the service module has problems, why not the capsule, too? Both were made by the same Boeing! They just haven't surfaced yet because those systems have not yet been activated in flight.

Other than that, I stand by what I said in post #90 just above.

GW

GW Johnson · 2024-07-19 08:08:39

From AIAA's "Daily Launch" for Fri 7-19-2024:

AP NEWS

Boeing is closer to understanding thruster failures on its first astronaut flight with latest test

Boeing is closer to understanding what went wrong with its astronaut capsule in orbit, now that testing is complete on a spare thruster here on Earth. Officials said Thursday there’s still no return date for astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. Engineers will first disassemble the thruster that was test-fired in New Mexico over the past couple of weeks. Then they’ll analyze the data before clearing Starliner for the trip home.

My take:

They haven't been testing a whole system, just one thruster. I'm not sure I like the sound of that. But I know zero about what the nature of the thruster problem really was on Starliner going to ISS. Note also that there is not one single word about helium leaks.

Look closely at the wording of the last sentence in that press release: clearing them to ride Starliner back to Earth is apparently a foregone conclusion! So, either things are not as bad with the thrusters as has been ballyhooed, or else a really bad management decision has already been made. If the crew survives coming home, we'll never know which!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-19 08:10:29)

tahanson43206 · 2024-07-27 07:37:34

Here is a long article covering the investigation. The article includes both the thrusters and the helium leak issues.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/science/ … index.html

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-07-27 13:34:17

My point is that there is NO EXCUSE for these problems with NTO-any hydrazine thrusters to be cropping up at all! Not with something that has been flying for over 60 years!

The article all but blames bad material choices for seals. That kind of thruster has been flying since Mercury in 1961. They were on Gemini, they were on Apollo. They were on the warhead busses of all the ICBM's. They have been on everything since. And Boeing has gobbled up almost all the former contractors who made all those things.

There being no excuse, I blame greedy corporate management mandating cheap shit that doesn't work right just so they can have more revenue off everything. If you value money over safety and quality, without regard to laws, regulations, or ethics, that happens EVERY SINGLE TIME! Throughout history!

Besides, Boeing was paid almost twice what SpaceX was paid, and has taken almost twice as long. They were paid NOT to have these problems, and were given the time NOT to have these problems!

It appears to me that Boeing corporate management just took the money, ordered the cheap shit be used, and walked away from owning any of the risks banking on not getting caught. That is NOT the Boeing that built the B-17 or the B-29. Or the B-47. Or the B-52. That is NOT the Boeing that built the B-707, or the -727, or the -747. It is NOT the Boeing that built the early-model -737's.

But is IS the Boeing that built the B-737-MAX and killed two planeloads of people with it, before they got caught being cheap and greedy, and more than a little illegal (!!!), under the FAR's!

In view of all that, why is dangerous trouble with Starliner in the least unexpected?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-27 13:39:45)

tahanson43206 · 2024-07-27 13:48:59

For GW Johnson....

Boeing is not the first corporation to be destroyed by capitalism.

The question that we (as a society) must ask is whether the company can be restored?

It seems to me that society has an interest in healthy capitalist enterprises, and a corresponding interest in preventing destruction of healthy, productive enterprises. As things stand, creative persons create these entities, and then they or their heirs sell them off to less admirable interests.

It seems to me we (in the US at least) have no mechanism ** other ** than the market to decide the fate of such entities.

There is a term that has been in play in the past... "Creative Destruction".

In this case, the folks who took charge of Boeing seem to have gotten the "Destruction" part down, but they appear to have gone astray with the "Creative" part.

Creative destruction is a concept introduced by economist Joseph Schumpeter that refers to the process of innovation and technological change that leads to the destruction of existing economic structures, such as industries, firms, and jobs.
Creative Destruction: Out With the Old, in With the New - Investopedia
www.investopedia.com › Economy › Economics

I think what happened to Boeing is ** not ** part of whatever Schumpeter was talking about.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2024-07-27 15:59:49

Tom:

The Boeing problem is a far older problem. "Capitalism" is focused on maximizing revenue, to the exclusion of all else (!!!), unless well-regulated by government (or whoever) for ethics. I've seen it in business school myself firsthand over half a century ago, and in business school grads for decades ever since. Let's just say I have zero respect for the morals and ethics of such business school grads, who almost exclusively comprise corporate management in America (and abroad). Without severe legal consequences, they invariably refuse to comply with society's rules and needs.

Boeing was an oddity, whose corporate management was former product engineers, not business school grads, and who were co-located in Seattle with the current engineers, from WW1 until the late 90's, when they "merged" with McDonnell-Douglas. Right after that acquisition, Boeing's new corporate management moved first to Chicago, to get away from the engineers, and a few years later to DC, the better to lobby Congress. Most of Boeing's actual products are made in Seattle, and Wichita, KS. The troubles with Boeing products routinely threatening the public's lives began then, right after corporate management moved, and publicly announced they were all about shareholder value, NOT the top quality engineering in the world! That timing and that announcement says it all!

I'm entirely unsure what else to point at, as the problem. It seems quite self-evident to me.

And I think the plea bargain over the 737MAX debacle is quite wrong! It les all the guilty parties off the hook! Those corporate managers should instead stand criminal trials. Nothing else will change the way Boeing now does its business.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-07-27 16:02:17)

RobertDyck · 2024-07-27 22:11:36

In 1990 I worked as a computer software developer for the SuperStore. My manager asked if the upgrade I was assigned was finished. I said I had written the change, but one section of code did not make sense. I don't remember touching it, but something is wrong. It doesn't make sense so I believe the program will crash as soon as it runs. My manager asked what it does. I said it processes data from Telxon brand handheld stock keeping devices. My manager said we don't support that,.it was highly controversial and don't ever mention it again. I wasn't comfortable putting into production software with a known problem, but he said do it now. He then told me to carry the department pager. That night it filled exactly where I said it would, for exactly the reason I said. But I had the pager so had to fix it in the middle of the night. I had difficulty, after all I said I needed another day during regular hours when I was awake. So called a senior analyst for backup. Who called another. Who called the manager. We all went into the office for the entire night. Once the manager was there I was told to stay out of the way. The Calgary store had used the Telxon unit, and they couldn't open the store until data was uploaded from the store controller to the company mainframe. They got the data uploaded just one hour before the store was scheduled to open.

The next day the store manager arrived. He must have flown in. He glared at me but I kept my mouth shut. I shouldn't have. Other employees nearness me the manager had a habit of blaming subordinates for his mistakes, so don't take it personally. The next day I spoke to the manager. I pointed out in my previous job I could carry the pager for two weeks without it ever going off, but here it goes off several times each night. At university we were told not to use "goto" statements. Use of a single "goto" would result in an automatic zero for that assignment. That started with first month of first year. Yet this department had a policy of adding goto statements bwith every code change. Two coworkers were in my class at university, and all the others attended the same university, just different years. So they know how to do it. I said removing "goto" statements wouldn't ncost anything, just remove.them as we work on code so over time they will be removed. He told me it's not job to teach other programmers how to do it. I thought it would be easy, the lady in the next cubicle sat next to me in 3rd year COBOL class. But I got pushback.

I have to point out that using "goto" statement results in "spaghetti code". This is a software equivalent to building a vehicle bridge put together with duct tape.

Then the manager called me into his office. He demanded I stop pushing to remove goto statements. I pointed out he ordered me to do it, to teach the others. He claimed he never said that. I said he's the manager, if he wants to change his mind, reverse his order, he can do that. What he can't bdonis claim he never gave the order. So he fired me.

I should have fought it, but didn't know how.

A few months later the entire Winnipeg computer office was closed. Due to mergers the company had 3 full-size computer departments. They kept the Calgary and Vancouver offices, closed Winnipeg. So everyone in Winnipeg lost their jobs.

What's going on with Boeing reminds me of this.

RobertDyck · 2024-07-27 22:22:51

Also a 1994 film "Disclosure". A female corporate executive wants promotion to VP. A male manager ran a program to manufacture CD-ROM drives, and they had a factory overseas. The female executive changes air filters.to something from a local supplier because they were cheaper. Result was soany defecta that repairing them cost much more that the savings. In a shareholder meeting bshe tried to deny it, but the male manager had documents showing her orders and video from local news at the factory site showing her there. So she blatheree in about cost to investment ratios or something like that. One of the share holders said "I thought we were building something". The CEO walked her out of the meeting and fired her.

The new president of Boeing reminds me of that woman. The Boeing CEO is male, but you get the point.

A couple other themes in the movie that aren't relevant. You get the point.

GW Johnson · 2024-07-28 11:06:27

Last thing I have seen in the news is that there is no firm date for Butch and Suni's return, but not before sometime after the first week in August.

I still have to worry about the thrusters on the entry capsule itself, having seen or heard NOTHING about the them. All the focus has been on the misbehaving service module, which is discarded for destruction before actual entry. I am presuming they've also been tested and checked out, bit I have seen nobody actually say so.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2024-06-19 16:05:22

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#77 2024-06-21 09:22:33

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#78 2024-06-21 09:42:01

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#79 2024-06-22 09:31:14

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#80 2024-06-24 23:18:17

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#81 2024-06-24 23:30:41

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#82 2024-06-25 09:12:29

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#83 2024-06-25 16:35:30

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#84 2024-06-25 18:26:06

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#85 2024-06-25 18:30:41

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#86 2024-06-29 12:16:53

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#87 2024-06-29 14:37:32

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#88 2024-06-30 00:06:39

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#89 2024-07-01 09:20:10

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#90 2024-07-04 08:28:12

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#91 2024-07-05 12:46:32

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#92 2024-07-11 09:57:11

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#93 2024-07-19 08:08:39

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#94 2024-07-27 07:37:34

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#95 2024-07-27 13:34:17

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#96 2024-07-27 13:48:59

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#97 2024-07-27 15:59:49

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#98 2024-07-27 22:11:36

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#99 2024-07-27 22:22:51

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#100 2024-07-28 11:06:27

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

Board footer