Boeing Has A Lot Of Problems These Days
Keith’s 24 Jan note: Boeing has a lot of damage control to do these days – managerially and PR-wise. Interestingly, as these various problems have popped up for Boeing, they have stopped most of the in-your-face social media (see below) and traditional PR efforts – especially here in Washington DC. Add in the $62 million that its fired CEO gets as he walks out the door it is probably a good idea for the Boeing PR shop to lay low and let the company focus on fixing things.
Keith’s 25 Jan update: I was contacted by Boeing who agreed that a tweet by one of their communications staff was inappropriate and it has since been removed. My personal appreciation to Boeing for reaching out to contact me in a professional manner on this issue.
Boeing-built DirecTV satellite may explode in orbit after suffering unexpected malfunction, CNBC
“But DirecTV is now under a time crunch, as a Boeing review of the satellite’s data found Spaceway-1?s batteries “cannot be guaranteed to withstand the pressures needed to support safe operation of the spacecraft in eclipse operations.” Spaceway-1 is currently relying on solar power but, with the satellite set to pass into Earth’s shadow on Feb. 25, the company said Spaceway-1 must be taken out of orbit and decommissioned. Additionally, the satellite should discharge its remaining fuel, the company said, “to reduce the risk of accidental explosion.”
Boeing drops out of DARPA Experimental Spaceplane program, SpaceNews
“In a Jan. 22 statement to SpaceNews, DARPA spokesman Jared Adams said that Boeing had notified the agency of its decision to exit the Experimental Spaceplane Program “immediately.” DARPA didn’t state why Boeing was dropping out of the program. “Following a detailed review, Boeing is ending our role in the Experimental Spaceplane (XSP) program immediately,” Boeing spokesman Jerry Drelling said. “We will now redirect our investment from XSP to other Boeing programs that span the sea, air and space domains.”
Fallout from Boeing 737 MAX spreads in Kansas, Oklahoma, Yahoo
“The layoffs follow Spirit’s Jan. 10 announcement that it was laying off 2,800 workers in Wichita, where the company is based. Austin said in an email that Spirit is laying off the workers because of uncertainty about when production might resume for the 737 MAX, which was grounded last March after crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people.”
NASA OIG: NASA’s Management of Crew Transportation to the International Space Station
“In our examination of the CCP contracts, we found that NASA agreed to pay an additional $287.2 million above Boeing’s fixed prices to mitigate a perceived 18-month gap in ISS flights anticipated in 2019 for the company’s third through sixth crewed missions and to ensure the company continued as a second commercial crew provider. For these four missions, NASA essentially paid Boeing higher prices to address a schedule slippage caused by Boeing’s 13-month delay in completing the ISS Design Certification Review milestone and due to Boeing seeking higher prices than those specified in its fixed price contract. In our judgment, the additional compensation was unnecessary given that the risk of a gap between Boeing’s second and third crewed missions was minimal when the Agency conducted its analysis in 2016.”
Starliner’s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA, Ars Technica
“Although it did not fly up to the altitude of the space station and perform a rendezvous and docking during its test flight, Starliner did fly an “abort demonstration” that simulated approaching and backing away from the space station. The NASA source said Boeing may also have failed this test due to thruster issues. Boeing denied this. “In testing the system the spacecraft executed all the commands, but we did observe a lower than expected delta V during the backing away phase,” Boeing said in a statement. “Current evidence indicates the lower delta V was due to the earlier cautionary thruster measures, but we are carefully reviewing data to determine whether this demonstration should be repeated in the subsequent mission.”
– The Boeing Company Has A Big Safety Culture Problem, previous post
– Boeing’s Starliner Mission Flops Due To A Broken Clock, previous post
– Boeing Uses Deceptive Social Media To Grab Your Browsing Data , previous post
– Boeing’s Misleading Anti-SpaceX Pro-SLS Facebook Ad Campaign, previous post
– Join Boeing’s SLS Fan Club So They Can Track Your Activity, previous post
– Boeing’s Creepy Petition Wants To Track Your Online Activity, previous post
There’s one quote in the Ars article that indicates NASA is going to require them to re-fly the test. I just wonder how much extra Boeing will charge for that….
Redoing the test will probably set Boeing back a year or so, given how slow they do things. And given the financial losses Boeing has from the B737 Max mess, they probably won’t be able to do it without NASA paying them. I expect Boeing will use their “Shelby Card” to wiggle out of it.
Given that this is a safety issue, and what ASAP and the Astronaut office will have to say about it, I think Boeing’s congressional allies will have a more difficult time killing any second OFT than they will scrounging up the money to recompense Boeing in part of full for doing it.
True, and given the financial troubles of Boeing it would give them a way to steer more funding to Boeing to help them out without looking like a bailout.
https://www.upi.com/Top_New…
Boeing stock trading temporarily halted after stock falls 6 percent
by Sommer Brokaw
Jan. 21, 2020 / 4:52 PM
How would they play their “Shelby Card” when it has nothing to do with the SLS?
Because it’s “The” Shelby Card! ??
You forget that Boeing has other interests in Alabama besides SLS. The Atlas V used for Starliner is built in Huntsville, as are components of the Starliner.
Anything that hurts Boeing,hurts Shelby’s cause.
If you’re referencing the “…subsequent mission…” comment, I’m guessing the author of the statement meant the second mission, the crewed flight test.
All I can compare to is that of SpaceX: Had this been them with such a mishap then CNN would be leading with such a story.
That’s potentially something they could solve with changes to the flight software. They’ve taken that approach to engine-related issues before.
I don’t know?
Boeing has not had much luck lately solving such problems with just flight software hacks.
My sarcasm meter was reading pretty high on fcrary’s comment.
Ha. Software fixed everything.
“Chitty-Chitty Boeing-Boeing?!”
Why isn’t Boeing required to perform an in-flight abort – is it their stellar record in software and simulation? Boeing should have to refly the failed orbit demonstration AND do an abort – at no cost.
Both Boeing and SpaceX are required to do whatever test program they proposed when they bid on the contract. By selecting the proposal, NASA (in effect) said that was sufficient. If (since) Boeing and SpaceX put different sorts of test programs in their proposals, they are required to do different sorts of test programs.
How has such a formerly great company fallen so fast? Maybe they should beg Alan Mulally to come back.
Taking Boeing’s explanation at face value (I know that’s not easy to do nowadays)
“Current evidence indicates the lower delta V was due to the earlier cautionary thruster measures,”
There had been reports, I don’t know if they were ever verified, that when the controllers manually initiated the orbit insertion burn they used the regular RCS because they didn’t know if maybe something was wrong with the OMAC thrusters. Using the smaller RCS thrusters took longer and supposedly some of them began to overheat and had to be shut down early.
If those reports are correct then I would guess that Boeing is surmising, or has evidence, that this led to the lower RCS thruster force available during the later tests when they were simulating backing away from the station.
Either way they will likely have to perform that test again, although my guess is that they will be allowed to do the test during CFT. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if after reaching orbit they will have to do a complete run through of docking and undocking prior to rendezvousing with the station. Unless there wouldn’t be enough fuel to do all of that and still have enough margin.
Assuming more serious problems arent uncovered in the investigation, this might not be a bad compromise.
Stay tuned. Boeing is doing its first wheels up maiden flight of the 777-X airliner today…
Meanwhile, the all new next gen Boeing airliner the 797 initiated in 2015 is being sent back to the drawing board…
Speculation is that the planned 797, which was essentially going to be a clean sheet replacement for the 767, was starting to look like it would not compete as well as they would like with the upcoming A321XLR. Meanwhile it seems like a perfect time to start developing a clean sheet replacement for the 737, so that is what will likely happen instead.
Meanwhile the 767 is still a very popular freighter, so much so that there are reports that Boeing is planning a re-engined 767 freighter, and that this could also provide a low cost passenger version. Same concept then as 737 MAX, but without anything like MCAS needed as they apparently just need to extend the landing gear a bit to accommodate the new larger engines, something which was not possible on the 737.
So the current task seems to be – upgrade the 767, and do a clean sheet replacement for 737. And don’t botch either of them.
To be fair, that Boeing 702 communications satellite was launched fifteen years ago and was designed for a twelve year lifetime. But bailing on the DARPA program isn’t a good sign.
I was thinking that maybe DARPA should approach SpaceX about that space plane launcher? 3000 pounds to LEO isn’t much, a Falcon 1 could handle that, but it would’t be fully resuable and couldn’t be launched every day. Maybe SpaceX could scale down the Starship upper stage to a single engine?
SpaceX doesn’t have any experience with space planes (lifting bodies or things with wings), and that seems like what DARPA is looking for. Boeing probably relied on their X-37B experience, but they’re out. I guess that leaves Sierra Nevada and Dream Chaser or perhaps Lockheed Martin (the subcontractor doing the airframe for Dream Chaser.)
True. But ‘experience’ has taken on a bit of different color in the past 10 or 15 years. Nowadays we have small sat launchers homegrown everywhere; and don’t forget what SX did in the space of 5 years or so: develop a heavy lift launcher and new engine.
The line between old and new is becoming more pronounced.
Actually what it really looks like is a much smaller version of the liquid flyback booster Boeing proposed for the Shuttle decades ago.
The new management has entered the candy store and gutted the chocolates, the gummys, and the caramels. And they are running for the door with their loot while the store is a shell of its former self.
As we’re looking at the 737Max problems, among their many other news headlines, it would be remiss not to mention the problematic path the 777X has been on. https://www.seattletimes.co… Not that I’m piling on the anti-Boeing farm cart or anything. But I will say it has all the earmarks of a company where the bean counters and paper shufflers have taken over all control from the engineering folks. And yes, add me to the list of those who think they should have to rerun the unmanned test to prove they can get it right before we put crew aboard.