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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

"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

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...

--

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

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

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

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?

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.

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."

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"

wrote:
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.

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.

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 !

wrote:

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.

And Bo_ing is now laying off another few thousand employees, not
management of course...

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:57:44 -0400, wrote:

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.
Many of the parts are now being made by Boeing. All sorts of problems
with contracted out parts and assemblies have delayed the production
of the plane. 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

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.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:41:51 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:57:44 -0400, wrote:

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.
Many of the parts are now being made by Boeing. All sorts of problems
with contracted out parts and assemblies have delayed the production
of the plane. 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.

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

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
.............

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

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.