mikegarrison

NASA launches safety investigation of SpaceX and Boeing

Recommended Posts

What's difference if the investigation is motivated by the safety reasons or by the brutal world of capital and politics?

It's a game of thrones. A wise one should not do questionable things if others don't when he has such rivals.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, monophonic said:

Wait? Three pages about Musk and safety in general? But no-one has mentioned even in passing that the other company under scrutiny has recently been implicated in omitting safety critical information from the operating manuals of a flagship product? And that has possibly contributed in a loss of passenger lives event?

[...]

Does the plane side of Boeing affect NASA's opinion of their space side? And does the investigation cover all of Boeing or just the commercial crew stuff? For that matter, does the investigation cover all of SpaceX? If this is a safety culture investigation, it seems like you would have to investigate the entire company, but NASA doesn't really have any stake in what these companies are doing other than commercial crew stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, monophonic said:

the other company under scrutiny has recently been implicated in omitting safety critical information from the operating manuals of a flagship product? And that has possibly contributed in a loss of passenger lives event?

Is the CST-100 an extended, improved version of an existing 50 yrs old design ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, YNM said:

Is the CST-100 an extended, improved version of an existing 50 yrs old design ?

Yes. Practically all current spaceflight hardware are improved, extended age old hardware.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All current american vehicles build on the experience and work of previous generations. How much are copycats and how much are new innovation i do not know, but that is how civilization advance.

Same for the russians and chinese and indians.

Any chance this leads to the cancel of the commercial crew program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Does the plane side of Boeing affect NASA's opinion of their space side? And does the investigation cover all of Boeing or just the commercial crew stuff? For that matter, does the investigation cover all of SpaceX? If this is a safety culture investigation, it seems like you would have to investigate the entire company, but NASA doesn't really have any stake in what these companies are doing other than commercial crew stuff.

Yes, they share the same corporate leadership. Ergo they potentially share corporate culture including corporate safety culture. Therefore potential safety concerns at Boeing's aviation side can be a reason to do an audit of the safety culture at their space side.

You are right in that NASA does not have to concern themselves with actually inspecting the aviation side. As long as things are known to be fine in the space side of Boeing, it would not matter for Commercial Crew if 737s were dropping like flies...

Plus FAA will be doing a number on the aviation side anyway if the allegations are found to be true.

6 hours ago, YNM said:

Is the CST-100 an extended, improved version of an existing 50 yrs old design ?

Of absolutely no relevance to the allegations raised. Whether a design is a derivative or a cleansheet one it is not a factor in choosing what to include in the operating manuals.

1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

Any chance this leads to the cancel of the commercial crew program?

None. Cancelling CC would leave Orion the only crew bus in the west. Thus Orion would have to be integrated to other launchers because SLS cannot provide the launch cadence to support the ISS. Then credibility of SLS' published reason of existence would get compromised. The rest is politics and thus out of bounds on this forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this has come up a few times, Boeing’s corporate structure is huge: https://www.boeing.com/company/bios/

I highly highly doubt that 2 divisions whose first manager in common is the CEO behave the same.

Also worth noting, according to Boeing’s website:

  • Every American spacecraft that has carried astronauts into space was designed and built by Boeing or Boeing’s heritage companies.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Racescort666 said:
  • Every American spacecraft that has carried astronauts into space was designed and built by Boeing or Boeing’s heritage companies.

I would bet the guys at Grumman Northrop Grumman would not really like to read this. For the rest it is quite easy when one absorbs the absolute majority of the old companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XB-70A said:

I would bet the guys at Grumman Northrop Grumman would not really like to read this. For the rest it is quite easy when one absorbs the absolute majority of the old companies.

Ha! True story. McDonnell and Rockwell (in its various iterations) built basically everything else that went to space while Grumman only built the LEM which was effectively used once it was already in space. So maybe they’ve got them on a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@monophonic, there’s such a huge organizational distance between Boeing Commercial Airplanes and Boeing Defense, Space and Security’s Space and Missile Systems division that they might as well be two unrelated entities.

Edit: damn, preaching to the choir.

7 hours ago, monophonic said:

Yes, they share the same corporate leadership. Ergo they potentially share corporate culture including corporate safety culture.

Absolutely does not follow. If safety culture were top-down-driven, it would bave never been such a problem for everyone.

Edited by DDE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, monophonic said:

Whether a design is a derivative or a cleansheet one it is not a factor in choosing what to include in the operating manuals.

Well, "difference training".

They must've went complacent a 'little bit'. Which is scary, but don't think they can go complacent on a new thing. (if they do then it's reeally scary.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2018 at 4:29 AM, Xd the great said:

Any chance this leads to the cancel of the commercial crew program?

No. There's no real alternative available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 12:40 AM, monophonic said:

But no-one has mentioned even in passing that the other company under scrutiny has recently been implicated in omitting safety critical information from the operating manuals of a flagship product? And that has possibly contributed in a loss of passenger lives event?

It's better to wait for the final report before throwing stuff like this out.

But the Boeing CEO said, “The relevant function of [the stall-prevention system] is described in the Flight Crew Operations Manual." Some (not all) airline pilots have complained that the system was not mentioned in the "differences" training they got that updates their training from 737 NG to 737 MAX. According to the reports I have read, the system was described in the full Ops Manual, but it was left out of the cheat sheet that is routinely used to teach pilots of older 737s how to switch to the new version.

 

(I'll bet you anything that the first thing it says in that "differences training" is that a pilot should always rely on the real Ops Manual for the full details of how the new airplane works.)

Edited by mikegarrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 12:08 AM, DDE said:

Absolutely does not follow. If safety culture were top-down-driven, it would bave never been such a problem for everyone.

The opposite does not follow either. If profit culture wasn't so prevalent no-one would have ever been fired for raising concerns about safety issues. Yet that has happened repeatedly.

On 11/26/2018 at 2:22 AM, YNM said:

Well, "difference training".

They must've went complacent a 'little bit'. Which is scary, but don't think they can go complacent on a new thing. (if they do then it's reeally scary.)

People can do extraordinarily stupid things if they are pushed for results. I wouldn't believe anyone would have done such a thing again after SK751, but am certain that I do not know it. NASA can't leave astronauts lives hanging on beliefs and thinkings, they have to do better than that. They need to know.

Of course political pressure has been mentioned, but all that means is even weaker arguments suffice for an excuse to conduct an investigation. Not even Boeing gets unanimous love in the senate. Maybe a couple of senators threw a bet over which of their respective pet companies does safety better?

9 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

It's better to wait for the final report before throwing stuff like this out.

But the Boeing CEO said, “The relevant function of [the stall-prevention system] is described in the Flight Crew Operations Manual." Some (not all) airline pilots have complained that the system was not mentioned in the "differences" training they got that updates their training from 737 NG to 737 MAX. According to the reports I have read, the system was described in the full Ops Manual, but it was left out of the cheat sheet that is routinely used to teach pilots of older 737s how to switch to the new version.

 

(I'll bet you anything that the first thing it says in that "differences training" is that a pilot should always rely on the real Ops Manual for the full details of how the new airplane works.)

Should we have waited for a final report on Mr. Musk's smoking habits before taking that up too? I did mention they were allegations didn't I? It doesn't look as bad if the omission was only in the differences training material. Then again what point does a "differences training" serve if it doesn't train one on all the differences? Luckily there are smarter people than I looking into that. Oh and just to make one thing clear I wouldn't cancel a flight for getting scheduled on a 737MAX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 6:03 PM, monophonic said:

Maybe a couple of senators threw a bet over which of their respective pet companies does safety better?

In any case, don't do bongs in public and don't leave out too many details - the public deserves to know.

On 11/27/2018 at 6:03 PM, monophonic said:

Oh and just to make one thing clear I wouldn't cancel a flight for getting scheduled on a 737MAX.

I would cancel it - no-one has pinned down how the AOA sensor failed in the first place, which triggered the failure mode. I still have my bets on the cables corroding (if the statement/rumours that "the sensor was replaced, but failed again" is true), and for all I know it might be possible that a good amount of 737MAX that flies here hasn't got a good cable (might be better there because you get less warm, humid weather, so maybe they'd last longer).

Edited by YNM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now