Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

very_humble t1_je7j535 wrote

It's Boeing, they are going to hire 100 more MBAs to analyze the problem


thawingSumTendies OP t1_je7o604 wrote

Engineering companies should always have an engineer at the helm, having MBAs they’ll just try to cut costs


JungleJones4124 t1_je87o1w wrote

Guess what Boeing did? There are a lot of interesting reports on what has gone on at Boeing in the past 20-30 years. The biggest is that they cut costs on safety and reliability... hence this massive delay and cost overrun. They need to get back to the Engineering... and fast.


thawingSumTendies OP t1_je889jm wrote

Yup ever since they merged with McDonnell Douglas, I’ve read that they been on the downhill in terms of engineering.

The financial aspects started mattering more than the engineering aspects.

737 MAX was just a complete fiasco. I was shocked to read anything in engineering, never mind aeronautical engineering - having a single point of failure with no redundancy.

Like you said, it happened in the name of cost cutting.


_MissionControlled_ t1_je89dkt wrote

Anything human rated should have double redundancy. If a spacecraft, triple. My biggest concern with Starship. A human spacecraft should be over engineered.


thawingSumTendies OP t1_je89vop wrote

I agree, I’m concerned that Starship has no escape module.

I imagine that Starship can escape from the booster section if something goes wrong, but there should also be an escape method if something was wrong with Starship itself.


_MissionControlled_ t1_je8aayi wrote

I think the entire top 25% should be a large detachable capsule in any human variant. Cargo and tankers no.

But the shuttle didn't have an escape system either.


Spiritual-Act9545 t1_jeay2oi wrote

Boeing didn’t merge with but were devoured by MDD. Ever since the company has been trying to move away from commercial aviation and into the D.C. Area.

One thing about commercial sales; your goal is to keep your customers happy and well-supported. Something Boeing appears to have given up on. With government sales its all about keeping key Representatives and Senators happy by keeping constituents employed. Once a procurement pipeline opens the goal is then to keep it open.

Thomas P.M. Barnett gave a talk about this to TED back in 2007. He described how government agencies come to congress for appropriations. If NASA, say, said “SLS will be billions over budget and launch twice in 8 years” then congress wouldn’t fund it. But, if you say “Its a new rocket and spacecraft with amazing engines that will take us to Mars and beat the Chinese/Russians” then they ask “Will you build it in my district?”

Old cartoon in the New Yorker during the Reagan years: “It doesn’t have to fly. It just has to fund...”


_MissionControlled_ t1_je895iw wrote

I used to work for another large defense and aerospace company (ATK) and this was my biggest complaint. Management would laugh at me when it frankly said it a few times.