|
Update on 787 Battery Problems
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29,
there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Joe Gwinn http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....AW_03_18_2013_ p28-559071.xml |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. -- If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world. --Robert Schaeberle |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. Joe Gwinn |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:55:12 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. One would think that, given the frequency of problems in the automotive and cell phone industries with lithiums, that someone would have required some testing of a product which could kill hundreds of people at a time if it malfunctioned in the same manner. But it wasn't, in one of the highly most regulated industries in our nation. Go figure. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. What a horrible place to be, heading that dep't at that time, eh? Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. So thorough that it passed right by them the first time. Hasn't he already blown the doors off previously NASA-only records in numerous events? That's weight to me. shrug -- If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world. --Robert Schaeberle |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
NASA didn't grind the mirror - Another very respected company did -
I want to say Perkin-Elmer - who had made others for years. It was a simple grinding tech goof that wasn't caught locally and not at NASA upon reception. The precision had to be out of the world for that lens, but we do them much larger and better now. Martin On 3/24/2013 6:55 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. Joe Gwinn |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55:12 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. And had the FAA insisted, you can bet that SOMEONE certainly would have complained about excess government regulation driving up the costs. But yes, this testing should have been done, regulation or no regulation. |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mar 24, 6:55*pm, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. *On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. *They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh *"We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. *It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. *The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. *Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. *Oops. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? *He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. *Nor would I have, were I in charge. *The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. *SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - It reminds me of the Challenger blowup. And air safety crowd dropped the ball on this big time. They are very lucky hundreds of lives and a Dreamliner weren't destroyed in a ball of fire. TMT |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mar 24, 1:50*pm, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. *On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. *They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Joe Gwinn http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....AW_03_18_2013_ p28-559071.xml It's good that they are keeping the problem contained, but it doesn't seem to address the issue of removing heat generated by the batteries. They are asking a 30V battery about twice the size of a car battery to start an 1100 hp APU (genset) and not get excessively hot. Internal resistance always gets worse in a battery. (I'll bet that the mgt system for cell charging won't be the issue.) I don't know why space is so tight that they cannot spread the 8 cells apart and have proper heat sinks for them. |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mar 24, 10:56*pm, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55:12 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote: Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. *It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. And had the FAA insisted, you can bet that SOMEONE certainly would have complained about excess government regulation driving up the costs. But yes, this testing should have been done, regulation or no regulation. That someone being Republican. TMT |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
... On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:55:12 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote: Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. And had the FAA insisted, you can bet that SOMEONE certainly would have complained about excess government regulation driving up the costs. But yes, this testing should have been done, regulation or no regulation. Exhausive regulations protect those who permit a failure while following them, but not those who step outside them to catch an embarrassing oversight. Here is a well-documented example: http://www.ww2pacific.com/torpedo.html To compound the problem the commander of US subs in Australia (ComSubSWPac) had been one of the torpedo's developers and refused to listen to complaints. jsw |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On 3/24/2013 6:55 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
.... Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. .... That's Monday-morning hindsight talking, there, mostly... -- |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
In article ,
Martin Eastburn wrote: NASA didn't grind the mirror - Another very respected company did - I want to say Perkin-Elmer - who had made others for years. It was a simple grinding tech goof that wasn't caught locally and not at NASA upon reception. The precision had to be out of the world for that lens, but we do them much larger and better now. The problem was not a grinding error per se, it was that the fancy null corrector was made wrong. If I recall, one of the lens spacers was one millimeter too long or too short, and the mirror was ground to match the fancy null corrector. Joe Gwinn Martin On 3/24/2013 6:55 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. [snip] Joe Gwinn |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
In article , Larry Jaques
wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:55:12 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. One would think that, given the frequency of problems in the automotive and cell phone industries with lithiums, that someone would have required some testing of a product which could kill hundreds of people at a time if it malfunctioned in the same manner. But it wasn't, in one of the highly most regulated industries in our nation. Go figure. They did know. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. What a horrible place to be, heading that dep't at that time, eh? One assumes (well, hopes) that this manager is now running a 7-11. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. So thorough that it passed right by them the first time. Hasn't he already blown the doors off previously NASA-only records in numerous events? That's weight to me. shrug Wrong organization. It's the development organization that forgot to do the full-up test. SpaceX and competitors have the advantage of not being big bureaucracies, and being in competition. Most will fail, and a few will be the future. Joe Gwinn |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:58:04 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:55:12 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. One would think that, given the frequency of problems in the automotive and cell phone industries with lithiums, that someone would have required some testing of a product which could kill hundreds of people at a time if it malfunctioned in the same manner. But it wasn't, in one of the highly most regulated industries in our nation. Go figure. They did know. Then where are the hats? Someone deserves to be handed to. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. What a horrible place to be, heading that dep't at that time, eh? One assumes (well, hopes) that this manager is now running a 7-11. Or asking "Do you want fries with that?" It's much less dangerous when they screw up again. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. So thorough that it passed right by them the first time. Hasn't he already blown the doors off previously NASA-only records in numerous events? That's weight to me. shrug Wrong organization. It's the development organization that forgot to do the full-up test. smacks forehead You're right. SpaceX and competitors have the advantage of not being big bureaucracies, and being in competition. Most will fail, and a few will be the future. Ain't that the way? -- If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world. --Robert Schaeberle |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. yet the kodak made mirror which was perfect was left in a warehouse or something like that. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. Joe Gwinn the investigators made by good, but it's clear nobody as boeing knows what the're doing. While you can blame subcontractors, it's boeing that sells the planes so it's their problem for picking jr level, unsupervised suppliers. It's just weird. Being can design an airplane, but can't put together a battery and charger themselves? |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:29:29 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote: Joe Gwinn wrote: In article , Larry Jaques wrote: On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:50:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: I just read the 18 March 2013 issue of Aviation Week. On pages 28-29, there are two articles on the 787 battery investigation results and proposed fixes. What caught my eye, and apparently that of the investigators, was that there was never an all-up test of the 787 battery charging system with the actual Yuasa-made production battery. They were tested independently, but there is no record of them ever being tested together. So, they're doing things like our CONgress critters do now, eh? deep sigh "We need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it." said Nancy Pugnosy. Well, the individual companies (for battery and for charger) no doubt satisfied their respective contracts. It's Boeing that should have insisted of a full-up test, and it's the FAA that should also have insisted that Boeing insist. This reminds me more of the NASA screwup that caused the Hubble to be nearsighted - there was never a full-up optical test on the ground. The problem was that they had two null-corrector results. The big fancy null corrector said the optics were perfect, while the simple crosscheck corrector said the optics were off. Perkin-Elmer, the optics house that made the mirrors, offered to do a full up test for something like $20 million, but NASA declined, and chose to believe the complex null corrector. Oops. yet the kodak made mirror which was perfect was left in a warehouse or something like that. Anyway, the fixes are basically to isolate the cells better so if one self-destructs, it cannot take the other cells with it, venting of smoke overboard, better electrical insulation all around, and a lot of black-box data recording so they can figure out root cause next time. Did they ever ask Elon Musk what he had in mind? He offered to fix it for them gratis. No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. Joe Gwinn the investigators made by good, but it's clear nobody as boeing knows what the're doing. While you can blame subcontractors, it's boeing that sells the planes so it's their problem for picking jr level, unsupervised suppliers. It's just weird. Being can design an airplane, but can't put together a battery and charger themselves? Boeing didn't design the plane, or build it. That's the problem. The whole shooting match was contracted out, with final assembly by Boeing. Everything between "concept" and "final assembly" was contracted out to the lowest bidder. |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
Boeing didn't design the plane, or build it. That's the problem. The
whole shooting match was contracted out, with final assembly by Boeing. Everything between "concept" and "final assembly" was contracted out to the lowest bidder. It was Alan Shepard, the US astronaut, who said "It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:16:06 -0700, DaveC wrote:
Boeing didn't design the plane, or build it. That's the problem. The whole shooting match was contracted out, with final assembly by Boeing. Everything between "concept" and "final assembly" was contracted out to the lowest bidder. It was Alan Shepard, the US astronaut, who said "It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." Definition of an airplane - "a collection of compromises flying in close formation" |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
|
Update on 787 Battery Problems
Cydrome Leader wrote:
It must be a fascinating process to get everything from various suppliers to even fit together in the first place. Having worked on man-rated systems long ago in a life far away I can tell you that everything involved traces back directly to a standard . Whether that standard is the wavelength of red light or the length of Mrs. O'Malley's toenail on November 27th , as long as it traces back to the standard it'll all fit . -- Snag Learning keeps you young ! |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
|
Update on 787 Battery Problems
|
Update on 787 Battery Problems
A documentary (PBS/BBC) showed many details of the development and building
of the Boeing 777. 21st Century Jet: Making the Boeing 777. Design developed on computers, then subcontracted to many vendors including small independent metalworking shops. New fabrication techniques which hadn't been used previously were applied to the construction of miscellaneous parts and airframe components. I've seen the series more than once and would watch it again, it's that interesting, to me at least. -- Cheers, WB .............. "Cydrome Leader" wrote in message ... somebody had to say this is the final shape and these are the functional components we need, and that had to have been boeing. It must be a fascinating process to get everything from various suppliers to even fit together in the first place. |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:21:37 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
No, they did not take Elon Musk up on it. Nor would I have, were I in charge. The air safety crowd that does investigations is very good at this stuff, and bone-crushingly thorough. SpaceX simply hasn't the throw weight to compete. So thorough that it passed right by them the first time. Hasn't he already blown the doors off previously NASA-only records in numerous events? That's weight to me. shrug Doing something astonishing is different than doing something safe. Safe is boring. Crashes, exploding airplanes, and in-air fires are astonishing. -- My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook. My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook. Why am I not happy that they have found common ground? Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software http://www.wescottdesign.com |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:56:57 -0400, "Wild_Bill"
wrote: of the Boeing 777. 21st Century Jet: Making the Boeing 777. Design developed on computers, then subcontracted to many vendors including small independent metalworking shops. They have been doing this since long before the Wright Brothers. New fabrication techniques which hadn't been used previously were applied to the construction of miscellaneous parts and airframe components. And that...is not always a good thing. I've seen the series more than once and would watch it again, it's that interesting, to me at least. -- Cheers, WB ............. |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
wrote in message
... On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:41:51 -0700, wrote: What is interesting is that I know several folks who work for Boeing in many different types of jobs, from engineering to assemblers to tooling makers to inspectors. And they all predicted these problems. Eric Anyone with half a brain could have predicted it. It's hard enough to turn the prototype into working product when engineering and production are in the same building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_Change_Order "ECOs can compensate for design errors found during debug or changes that are made to the design specification to compensate for design problems in other areas of the system design." Considerable effort is needed to make sure they don't interact, and can be applied out of sequence if necessary. jsw |
Update on 787 Battery Problems
Jim Wilkins wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:41:51 -0700, wrote: What is interesting is that I know several folks who work for Boeing in many different types of jobs, from engineering to assemblers to tooling makers to inspectors. And they all predicted these problems. Eric Anyone with half a brain could have predicted it. It's hard enough to turn the prototype into working product when engineering and production are in the same building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_Change_Order "ECOs can compensate for design errors found during debug or changes that are made to the design specification to compensate for design problems in other areas of the system design." Considerable effort is needed to make sure they don't interact, and can be applied out of sequence if necessary. Some OEMS will do any missing ECOs on equipment returned for any reason, Other don't give a damn. -- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them. Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :( |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter