►Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacerace.news/subscribe ►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt ►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/ ► Join Our Discord Server: / discord ► Patreon: / thespacerace ► X/Twitter: / thespaceraceyt
12:50 Actually just bc they’re a third party that Boeing clearly decided to use doesn’t mean it’s not Boeings problem. It most certainly still falls on Boeing for deciding to use that company to build its rockets.
If I had to fly on starliner on the next flight with only 2 crew, I'd want $10mil to be on it. If I had to fly on crew dragon, I'd want a cool million.. but I'd also feel 10x safer than I would on Boeing's starliner
@photobobo Yup. I remember that too. The were considered the enemy. The marketing folks were a tolerable annoyance. In the early days it was engineering saying "Just give us the specifications, then go away and we'll let you know when we're done". 9 times out of 10 they'd ooh and ahhh and get all giddy over the technical marvel we delivered - then sales would get rich selling it. The formula worked because the engineers were incredibly brilliant, not what schools put out these days. Used to be the most profitable companies were the ones where the engineers were left alone to create awesomely amazing products and everyone else got rich just by respecting the engineering department and letting them make all the engineering decisions.
As a current engineer, how I wish this were still the case today. I harbor great concern about the future of our industries the way engineering is treated in many companies nowadays.
Keep in mind Starliner only completed a pad abort test, not an in flight abort test like Dragon. Boeing was given a pass on this critical safety requirement and this is almost never mentioned. Glaring in light of all the new issues that have been discovered.
NASA is literally holding Boeing's hand while closing their eyes for a moment.. Kinda like the FAA did just before those 2 737MAX's fell into the ocean.. Embarrassing & Sad.
@@ericstyles3724 Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Boeing was still a known, reliable, reputable company in aerospace. It's not too hard to see why the FAA took their word at face value when the 737 Max was released. Same with Starliner. Boeing was still a known company with a very good reputation at that time. NASA and the FAA allowing them to complete the contract with an IFA simulation rather than an actual live flight test is understandable in context. With hindsight, though, it's obvious that it shouldn't have happened.
Yea, he was disappointed in the culture of the Starliner team and I think this culture culminated in the terrible Demo 1 mission. While Starliner is more capable than Dragon on paper and *should* have appealed more to astronauts as it includes more manual flight controls, Dragon was simply executed better while Starliner was mismanaged.
Doug Hurley alias Chunky appears to have the good sense of a SNAFU big Corp circus BOEING and the inability to manage there aerospace projects and communicate honestly with there suppliers and customers. I hope men like DOUG HURLEY are consulted by key decision makers to oversee the boon doogle Starliner project. I hope the AMERICAN Public can get some measure of value from its expensive Starliner Space program and the other key contractors necessary to advance AMERICA space science program.
Did the star liner make it back? Yes… Were there issues? Yes, but the fact of the matter was and still is that the star liner did just what it’s supposed to do. I have worked on several Boeing aircraft and worked with several Boeing engineers on various projects. They are a big, cumbersome company at times but generally they do an excellent job at what they do. The fact the star liner made it back with the issues it had is mildly impressive and speaks volumes to its engineering AND the skill of it’s designers. Before you people all go jumping on the Elon Musk bandwagon just remember that he has given us the utterly stupid hyper loop, the starship that has blown up during launch multiple times (all while he swears that’s normal), and that god awful cyber truck.
This story reinforces the respect I have for what our military, with help from civilian contractors, were able to achieve back 60 years ago. My father was launch director of the Gemini program over all its missions. They had problems, and they solved them. It was run by the military so while they did have to operate under a budget, they were never concerned with profits. The astronauts were friends and often were guests for dinner at our home. Their safety was by far paramount to the success of any launch. There is a reason they have been recognized as “the greatest generation”.
In the 60's the median income tax was 20% and highly progressive, compared to 16 or 17% and flatter today, so a lot of money was available. Military spending was crazy high, and NASA benefitted from the industrial base that created. NASA contracts were almost all cost plus. That made a big difference in the successes of the programs. The "bean counters" were not concerned about profits because they were a sure thing. When you long for the good old days you are longing for a 20% median income tax.
@ Funny how some can’t recognize success in spite of themselves. Military spending was high in the 60s because of a war we were fighting in Vietnam. Cost-also describes the failed program we just watched with Bowing. The high tax rates were spent predominantly on the new social programs and welfare state created by Johnson. The tax and spend mentality of the 60s resulted in divisions and a stagnant economies of the 70s. If you are looking for success, go back to the 50s when all Americans benefited because we were all working together.
@@michaelalbert8474 In 1958, the middle of the Eisenhower administration, and before significant US involvement in Vietnam, the US minimum tax bracket was 20% and the maximum was 65%. In 1968 the minimum rate was 14%, but the median remained 20% and the maximum remained 65%. OK to honor the generation that achieved so much, but don't to forget to honor the same generation of taxpayers who paid for it and didn't leave their bills for the next generation.
Retired from United Space Alliance, when MD and Boeing merged the first thing the new management did was send us a "cost reduction expert". The writing was on the wall at that point.
Yup, I was a quality control vendor (metrology/gaging/traceability, etc.) during that...scary, got out and never looked back. My instincts tell me that unknown valve expansion problem will lead to a mat'l substitution of some sort. (I.E. 400SS vs. 17-4PH, etc.)
This type of thing goes back years. I remember John Glenns statement. "I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts - all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
There was a different spirit during the years when we first went to the moon. We wanted to make things that lasted forever and we made mighty good stuff.
@@jrose7849 That is absolutely not true. We have awarded a bid to a higher bidder because a background check of the low bidder turned up some serious dependability problems.
I was an engineer in the tech industry starting in the late '70s. It was alot of fun and we produced some amazing and nearly flawless technology during the 20th century. It was exactly as this video says, those companies were created by engineers and run by engineers. Engineers were judged on their technical abilities above anything else. Honesty and high ethical standards were the rule, not the exception. Then came the 21st century. Almost overnight technology companies began to replace their upper management engineers with what I call "Wall Street money men". Everything changed rapidly. Profit margins became not just high priority, in many cases they were the only priority. Ethics took a backseat to profits. Engineers became less valued for their technical abilities and more valued by their willingness to take orders from non-technical management without question or technical debate. Engineers who would perform their work as dictated to them by non-technical management were rewarded, whereas engineers who insisted on maintaining high ethics and technical quality were marginalized or simply shown the door. This was my true experience over the span of 40+ years as an electronic and software engineer for well over a dozen different tech companies on both US coasts, much of that working for medical device companies some of which made no secret about letting me go for being too ethical in my refusal to cut corners that could possibly affect patient safety. Everything I've written here is 100% truth. ----------> The question has come up as to the validity of my engineering credentials. At the very end of this already too long posting I have included a synopsis of my career. ---------> Added Sept. 19th as a response to many here who have related to me as being at a loss as to a solution to this issue. ‐---‐------------------ The root cause is in the human heart. We are now in a time that was spoken about long ago, a time when more and more people would become very self-centered and driven by greed. They would lose their concern for the well being of others and their thoughts and desires would be focused exclusively on themselves to an extent that never had existed before. I have personally had interactions with numerous such persons in the workplace, strangely increasing exponentially since the turn of the century. I have learned in my life that to understand any human problems you must drill down to the core issue, everything else is just a symptom of the "disease". The core issue is honestly a spiritual issue, a disease of the human heart. An effective solution cannot be legislated. Hearts and minds must change on the most basic level, and in my life's experience this has only been known to happen when a person truly repents of their self-centered ways and gains a greater concern for others than for themselves. The time proven solution only exists in a single book, and was only successfully lived out by one person. To effect any meaningful change one must come to the point of realizing that they can't succeed in changing by their own power - this is a supernatural spiritual issue after all. The only time proven solution known is for a person to realize and admit their sins by accepting the spiritual change and forgiveness offered by the only person who was ever sinless and is the model for loving and caring for the well-being of others. This person is Jesus, God who became human and allowed Himself to be put to death in order for us to escape from our sins by His paying the price of our sins so we ourselves would not have to. Only in admitting this truth and giving control of one's own life over to Him can any core change in the state of one's heart be effective. The Bible tells us explicitly that God is not only loving, but He is love itself. Love is the answer. ‐------- Career synopsis I worked as a non-degreed engineer until 1984 when I received my BS in Computer Science, Summa Cum Laude - GPA 3.875. I worked continously as a Software Engineer specifically in the specialty of Embedded Systems, which also required me to do engineering of electronics as well for which I studied and practiced since 1970. I have a patent as co-inventor of the world's first genetic analysis device approved by the FDA for patient diagnostics, which also won an R&D Magazine award as one of the most significant inventions of 2003. I held positions from entry level Engineer to Senior Staff Engineer, at one point being Director of Engineering for a Boston area medical device company. I finally retired in 2018, having worked 40 years developing Embedded Systems firmware and electronics.
I was a young engineer out of college and I got a job with the DoD doing EMP Testing. I helped Boeing test the new Air Force 1 communications suite in TX. Those Boeing engineers and those managing were the best. I have fond memories of helping with that testing.
Yes... I thought it was just the SD aerospace company I worked for for 22 years, retiring early @ 58 in 2017... I loved the job for 20 years, but the last 2 years were tortuous... my stomach felt like it had a burning rock in it every morning when I got up and went to work... I'm so happy to be free of that boolshytte.
@stewartteaze9328 I'm equally happy for you! Thankfully I have my home paid off and am able to no longer have to work. I might have a meger retirement but the joy of being out of that corrupt industry makes it all worthwhile. I feel very bad for younger engineers who don't yet have the ability to retire.
I was at Hughes Space and Comm. when Boeing took us over. At first I thought that was a good thing, but found out quickly how ruthless and extremely arrogant they were. They had one of their hitmen come and talk to us, he was so proud of extinguishers personnel from the previous smaller aerospace companies Boeing gobbled up, it was frightening to hear him threatening us! I saw how intensely severe and arrogant they were when they rolled in. So many awful decisions so many layers of useless know nothing management making decisions sometimes holding important decisions up. Before I retired I could not believe they cut back on quality control inspectors…WTF! In aerospace testing, specifications and quality rules the day!
I worked at Aerojet (now Aerojet Rocketdyne) for 35 years. About 12 years I was test engineer on various hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide pressure fed systems. I am retired now. While I did not work on this program I knew several engineers and managers who did and can say they were Aerojet’s finest, hard working, committed, and brilliant people. As for the technology I can say that you have to have a very good design and a very good assembly process to not leak He. We would always use He to leak check our hypergolic lines. Heavy vibration can cause tiny leaks as well. As for the hypergolics, especially the N2O4, is very caustic. But all of the wetted surfaces of those lines and valves use materials that are unaffected by them. So the corrosion you showed must be from external leaks that got into the valve drivers. That can happen. I would be curious as to who made the valves. Typically they are bought and not made at Aerojet. On the test stands we used Marotta valves. Very dependable… but every now and then they get stuck. Cycling the valve mostly fixes or banging on the exterior (probably not easy in space). Cleanliness is another big factor. There are bits of tiny things everywhere. a little bit of teflon or metal, or dirt can easily keep a valve from completely closing. The number of failures 26:17 is surprising and not typical…. it makes me think there was a system process failure of some sort. Anyhow that is my take.
Mr. Keenan, you and the other engineers commenting in this section are amazing to me, and even ordinary heroes after a fashion. My father was also an engineer, albeit in the civil and structural fields, and I remember his dedication to correctness in design and fidelity in the manufacturing and installations that followed. Men like you and him represent everything that made America great in the past, and hopefully, if our newer generations can recapture that spirit, once again in the future. America and its industry have not yet yet fallen, but we are teetering, and it is so very far down to plummet if we do. God bless.
I am chuckling at the idea of banging on the valve, as a former janitor I did this on a certain type of toilet valve to get it to stop flushing constantly. Guess it's all pipes! But seriously, thanks for sharing your expertise on this. Hope they will get it figured out and get it flying soon.
I have a question maybe you can answer. Why is it not okay to release small amounts of toxins into our atmosphere, but if you're going to put it in a rocket that shoots thousands of tons of it into our atmosphere,,, then it's okay???? None of us consented to breathing all this poisonous crap just so some nerds can play with their space toys. And it's our tax money being used to poison us. Our tax money should be going to fixing this planet instead of poisoning it and trying to find a way to escape.
I like this statement, the fuel was moved by "pressure gas." I thought any liquid (even gas that is under pressure and is in a liquid state) requires a non pressurize pump like centrifugal non pressurize pump to move mass. The statement points to ego problems. I pretty sure if they read Naval Technical Manuals they even state the obvious... There a picture of both acting as Engineering managers or QA...TOO much QA and exposure to the negativity of real engineering documents, real engineers, test and engineering politics...Ignorance is blissed.
@@davidrussellhamrick1828 Too many old folk engineering trying to be the hero engineering instead of actually doing engineering and fading into the background.
Boy things have changed. In the old days, "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" And now, rather domestic or space related, "If it's a Boeing, I ain't going"
its "if it says boeing, i aint goin." idk how people from where yer from talk.... no one uses correct grammar and sentence structure..... "if its a boeing, then i shant be bothered with going" hell almost reads victorian. but i digress.... and uh ya... domestic or space related...... oh wow, ironically EXACTLY the business segments boeing is in.... IMAGINE that...... geez. dead internet theory people, its real... and yall aint.
First, McDonnell/Douglas failed its legacy test, resulting in near bankruptcy prior to its controversial merger with Boeing. Then, the once famous engineering company that bear any burden and successfully solve any problem sacrificed its reputation of excellence in order to maximize its profits. Instead of “build it and they (customers) will come”, became a legacy of how cheaply can customer requirements be met. Talk about a very incredible fall from grace.
I have a college buddy who used to work at Boeng. After he quit, he told me that after Boeng bought McDonnell Douglas, the upper management turned into a snake pit, where everyone was trying to stab each other in the back. The cost cutting wasn’t necessary, it was simply to make the department heads look better. He saw where it was going and left before any of it got stuck to him. He took a pay cut for his last two years before retiring. He predicted the problems with both the 737 Max and Starliner. I thought it was just sour grapes, but he was right. Now I owe him a bottle of scotch.
I used to work for a US medical equipment manufacturer. One of the big 3. Trust me. It is the same there. Cost reduction. Cost savings. One engineer tried to fight back qualifying a crappy component. Was fired within weeks.
Sadly the old McDonnell Douglas was destroyed as well. Seems the merger, or something else at that time, drove out all the good managers and policies. Stockholders demanding focus on profit margins or DEI? The wrong folks forced to retire? Seems we’re running damn thin on top list aerospace industry. Something the US used to excel at.
It's a well worn joke already but Boeing deserves all of it, this was all avoidable but profit maximixers will never, EVER, see real success except in selling off the corpse of a company before it spoils
Carl Sagan always had to make that very distinction every time he said crewed flight. I always found it funny when he did that. I was just a kid back then.
I worked for a British aerospace company for a while in the 90s. As part of my job I had to write test schedules to test the aircraft computer systems on test rigs. Most of the time we'd just adapt previous tests. One time I decided to write a new one from scratch, which revealed four faults in previously tested (and passed as OK) software. That did not go down well with my team leader. Their only interest was rubber stamping a passed test and passing it on, even though a problem gets an order of magnitude more expensive to fix if it is found later by actual flight tests! I left a few months later. I couldn't work in a company run by bean counters.
It’s not just about money. I knows these types. There are often some really greedy guys up top, but they could not get or stay there without the support and protection of the “team players” who go along for the sake of the organization and hate anyone they perceive as not drinking the Kool Aid. The smarter and more competent you are, the more they want to eject you like a virus. The worst thing that can happen is that they figure out you are correct and saved the company. It only makes them hate you more.
How does SpaceX accomplish their missions on 1/3 of Boeing's budget? Launching a Falcon Nine rocket every 3rd day. Recently putting Astronauts in high Earth orbit to exercise a private space walk. Now tasked with saving the crew of the Starliner, at the same time being politically and financially attacked by this current government.
@@HighCountryRambler Unfortunately the owner of SpaceX is most definitely attacking the current US government politically. He seems to have a short memory of the 2016 to 2020 government where he was invited to be a member of a presidential tech advisory committee but resigned in disgust pretty rapidly.
Well that lobbying money buys them better press than Space X. Boeing gets 164B of the us defense budget in exchange. Meanwhile, 737 max is crashing, and doors are coming off aircraft.
They planned and hoped SpaceX would fail only it didn't quite work out the way they planned. So now they sit with egg on their faces and are looking for ways to make SpaceX look bad.
Elon's ego is so large that he must take credit even for his many failures. He calls them 'successful failures'. That's the difference between a corporation ran by penny-counting businessmen and a corporation ran by a megalomaniac.
Private space companies are all dogshit. SpaceX blows things up because they're impatient and incompetent. Boeing blows things up because they're cheap
I worked at Boeing for a few years, through the 737 crashes to the start of the pandemic. After the CEO left, the new one reorganized all the engineers to (sort of) report/work under him. I had said in a meeting that this was a good move that might bring back the engineering centric focus. Our team manager replied, “That's not how you run a business.” I feel like that sums thing up well like the ending remarks in this video.
Education for Business Management does not prepair administrators to make engineering decisions. Education for Engineering does little to prepair engineers to make business decisions. When egos are mixed in then failure is all but assured. I believe that cost plus government contracts only incentivize the contractors to continue to raise the cost of their projects. There is little to no incentive to meet dead lines or finish the project. Finishing means the cash flow ends. No business would deliberately end it's cash flow.
What I saw when they took Space n Comm over where I worked was a ton of arrogance..oh my gawd it was horrible. Not a team effort but do as I say or else! Get rid of their arrogance and way too much useless middle management is the key. Bring back quality control, tight engineering, let the older more experienced engineers run the show, have the older ones teach the new ones coming on board. Cmon Boeing you just need to get real!
You left out the part where Boeing had modified the Starliner software, disabling its ability to autonomously undock and return, WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.
All software has to be rigorously tested for unintended behavior. Maybe it was too complex, and so if it wasn’t required, then it was safer to remove it.
@@jurgenbuchelt4384 sensible engineer (in writing): I note your demand, here are my objections and I want that verbal order in writing, thanks - for legal liability reasons.
30 years ago I served on a special team investigating launch errors on USAF launch vehicles. The biggest recommendation was the loss/retiring of too much institutional knowledge. Thinking some young, hotshot, but cheap engineer is no different than that crusty old dude with 20+ years building and busting stuff has proven foolish. I sense history is repeating itself.
It certainly isn't helped by the fact that the crusty old dude with 20+ years of experience frequently thinks he's too good to be teaching the hotshots. Then 10 years roll around and he wants to retire, forgetting that he hasn't transferred a lick of knowledge to the guys now expected to run the show because he thought their inexperience was too annoying...
@@luvmydeck SpaceX has been 'building and busting' for some time before they got it right. SpaceX is seems to be 'engineering first', like Boeing used to be.
The fact that Boeing’s module has had so many issues and is behind schedule, comes as no big surprise to me. My husband and I both worked for a McDonnell-Douglas subcontractor on the International Space Station. Working with McDonnell-Douglas was a nightmare. We definitely felt that McDonnell-Douglas personnel loved to create an adversarial relationship with their subcontractors. Nothing was ever their issue. Things were always caused by NASA changes or subcontractor screwups. Pointing fingers was their specialty. Working on Space Station was an honor, but “teaming” with McDonnell-Douglas was an absolute nightmare. It’s been over 25 years and hearing “You people” is still triggering. The astronaut that won’t fly on Boeing’s (aka McDonnell-Douglas) module, absolutely nailed it.
So many thruster failures. Shouldn't thruster and valve technology be perfected by this point? At least it sounds like the the software was designed for positive failure... meaning, shut down prematurely before a worse situation arises. But from what was described, it also sounds like a tremendous oversight on materials behavior. Valve seals couldn't handle the stress tests. This should be so basic and a non-issue. So embarrassing and ridiculous that Boeing couldn't get this right.
Legend has it, Boeing used to test their designs thoroughly before putting them into orbit. Now they just kill whistleblowers. They should definitely accept their failures and scrub the entire Starliner project.
They forced the launch, even when early in the fueling slight leaks were identified, because Boeing needed the positive press after their recent issues (the last year has been bad for them)... They chose poorly.
Please get the history correct. Boeing did not build the Apollo, North American Aviation was the general contractor. They provided the first stage, engines were built by Ricketdyne. Boeing did not build the space shuttle, North American Aviation did.
The entire opening is propaganda. MD was just as engineer culture based as any other. Two of my uncles were engineers there(my dad would have too but " Monsanto paid more in 73'") and two more were line workers there(one building F15's). Never once has any of them said a disparaging word about MD in 76 years of combined employment....until Boeing came in.
@@BalzarRitchin It was North American - Rockwell when I worked there. Very soon after it became Rockwell International, maker of electric hand drills, skill saws, and space shuttles.
The truss module on the ISS was actually built by Lefiell MFG in Santa Fe springs California and was assembled at Boeing. I was one of two people roll flowed the 7075 aluminum to the length diameter and wall thickness. Fun fact Lefiell’s name is painted on every piece in blue and wasn’t suppose to
Let's not forget that in addition to developing their own capsule, SpaceX had developed their own launch vehicle powered by their own engines. Boeing just had to build and verify a capsule.
Plus, Boeing and Aerojet have been in this business for many decades. The experiential knowledgebase is vast... or at least it should be. I wonder how much brain trust gets lost with retirements, not preserved and passed down to successors. VALVES... valves should be a 100% known deal. If you change the materials in making them, stress test beyond specifications. Always. It seems Boeing and Aerojet didn't do it. Cost cutting? Who knows. The engineers need to be back in control of decision making.
@@cytherians agreed 100% with you and>>>. @user-rr9lv9ll4x CORROSION SPECIALIST in the USAF, and I will confirm that the problem with those thrusters and CORROSION is no excuse, as in, it should have never happened! using parts in those types of systems, they knew the problems were in the future, then they are trying to claiming they didn't know what caused problems.....HELL THEY KNEW they just wont admit to it! I back then, worked on both B-52s and KC-135s! most of the problems I worked on were, the skin of the aircraft. When corrosion was present, it would be a fine white powder type that could be brushed off with ya fingers! Stress, this would include NDI inspection of the dead bolts, BOLTS that held those huge engines onto the wings! and it goes on from there, We even dealt with piss causing the STEEL under the HEADS as the urine flowed down when some pissed the target, the toilet, common problem in combat aircraft that had HEADS/JOHNS! Put profit ahead of just plan doing it right, and having a product that does not fail when lives are on the line, IS A FAIL AT THE GET GO!
@@jeromeprater183 Rockwell also built the command modules and the shuttles. Also Rocketdyne was a subsidiary of Rockwell so Boeing owns them too. Although I'll be the first to say that the idea of renaming stuff like "Boeing DC-3" can go pound sand.
Rocketdyne (formerly a division of North American Aviation) is a rocket engine manufacturer. They built the F-1 engine for the first stage (S-1C) of the Saturn V rocket, which was manufactured by the Boeing Company. Since the 1990's, Boeing owns the human spaceflight heritage of Rockwell (North American Aviation) and McDonnell/Douglas, and thus own the know-how and IP of some of the Saturn V rocket, Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle), Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo craft. The Boeing Starliner spacecraft incorporates technologies developed by the heritages of the Apollo spacecraft and the Space Transportation System.
There were so many inovative talented manufacturers that came out of the WWII conflict, but they were like sparklers and fizzled out, choked out by greed. It seemed to me and others, that Americans don't take pride in their work or their products any longer.
My uncle was a solid fuel engineer for NASA during the Apollo program. It’s like you are reading directly from the transcriptions of many of our conversations in the 90s.
I was working for Boeing at the time of the MD buyout, and it was like you could feel the atmosphere change from one day to the next. I have never been so happy that my time there was very temporary.
Fabulous video - thank you for the information. As a devout American and a young teenager during the original "space race" and moon landings, I am embarrassed at what has transpired at Boeing. We went to the moon in 8 years. Now the world laughs at us.
Whenever you remove engineers from the top of an engineering company and replace them with bean counters, it is no surprise that the failures will mount.
Suni certainly isn't upset. She's a former commander of the ISS, and obviously enjoys space a ton. Since this was going to be her last mission, I'm sure she considers the extra time a bonus.
@@atticstattic lol what else is she going to say? No one in that situation would be honest. You folks are hilarious. This is precisely the kind of kool aid drinking propaganda laced group think that led to this fiasco. They are stranded and not happy. They went on a 4 hour cruise and got stranded but sureeee nothing to see no big deal. Tell that to their family and friends and even them.
@@jreynolds2184 I doubt too many ppl here will know what you're referring to... and yeah... I hope they learned with that one! It was a "known" issue that should've never happened.
I was there at Boeing when the McDonnell "merger" happened. As you stated, it was a disaster for quality. I was so excited when I was accepted to Boeing Flight Test in the mid 80s. Quality was everything. That went out the window. I left soon after the merger.
@@angelgallegos199 A company cannot exist on greed alone. Just as we're currently seeing with Boeing, poor quality will eventually lead to a drastic reduction in market share, and thus no more profits to be had. They will either be "forced" to return to producing a quality product, or they will cease to exist.
it's happening all around us. Ford Motor Company struggles to manufacture reliable gasoline engines. They have been building engines for over 100 years and at one time, superlative at it.
Boeing stock was $249 at the start of 2024; Eleven months later it is $151. These business "geniuses" did a great job of "maximizing shareholder value." Do I think they should get a bonus?
Boeing is the prime example these days that the best way of "maximizing shareholder value" often involves, well, not trying maximize shareholder value. Investors are often their own worst enemies.
They do not really care about ""maximizing shareholder value" They care about their bonus which is based on ""maximizing shareholder value" [at a particular time even if it causes shareholder value to decline in the long term.. Updated per input from edwardkuen5751 ]
@@brooklynguy-b4mThe bonus is based on maximizing share price at a particular point in time. Truly maximizing shareholder value required an indefinite time horizon.
I believe it involves more than that. It has elevated "stake" holders above "share" holders and the "oppressed" above the "oppressors", promoting DEI into the company culture above all else. Remember, it's the "financiers" who are taking over the world (the Blackrocks, Vanguards, State Streets) with Klaus Schwab and George Soros at the helm. Now, *HOW DARE YOU*
This is such a common problem right now, with companies focusing on profits over quality nowadays. It literally everywhere: movies, video games, cars and motorcycles, airplanes and rockets. This is what we should spend money on: safety auditing for such important and critical products.
@@Tommy2tone762 It is interesting how two companies from the same person have such different approach. Constant testing and rework for the shuttle. Meanwhile Tesla... sigh.
I've witnessed profit over quality over the past 10 years more than any time in my lifelong career in. This goes for the military as well as the biggest names in the aviation and space industries....
@@Elmithian Its probably because for SpaceX he hired a bunch of competent engineers, told them what he wanted to do, and worked with them on it. For a long while, that was just the only way to do aerospace engineering anyway. Cars however... Oh boy the automotive industry... beancounters are probably in charge there XD
It says something when the engineers on Boeing's factory floor wont fly Boeing. But folks knew this was going to happen. When Boeing & McDonnell Douglas first merged The Economist featured a cover article with 2 camels ****ing and the caption "The trouble with mergers" with the emphasis of the article being "Who's on top?"
@@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf NASA ...... Sex in space is highly discouraged and nobody has admitted to it so far. Around a nine month window in space for a female astronaut so it's entirely feasible if started on Earth.
Two things........With the extreme environment of space; “cost cutting for profits IS INSANE”. If that’s the attitude of corporations seeking to make space a consumer experience?......you’ll never find me in one of their elcheapo tin cans.... Second, space stations “should have extra living quarters and supplies reserved” for occasions where crew rotations; and visiting mission professionals may not be able to come and go because of mechanical, or other disruptions to schedules.
As the video suggests, Boeing is NOT the company they used to be. The problem now is that the clock of opportunity has stopped ticking. NASA needs to cut Boeing loose, for good, and give contracts to companies that can actually live up to their arrogance. Space is hard, but for today's Boeing, its impossible.
I have not seen any public news indications that Boeing's management wants to change to go back to, as you put it, the company they used to be. They seem to like what they are now, whatever it is, and they're going to stick with it unless forced to do otherwise. Maybe they're hoping the public will accept them as they are now, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is their stockholders.
NASA wont be doing that. Boeing has the best lobbiest and has employee in nearly every state. Also, redundancy is always good in business. BUT Boeing should consider selling or spinning off that division or in the video said cut its losses and not fulfilled its NASA contract.
Unfortunately in a company where ultimately engineering is everything, and safety can not be ignored without great peril to the company, solid engineering would take care of the stockholders. In an aerospace company where stockholders come first, the company is heading for the dustbin. i don't think Boeing will be or could be saved , it is only a question of how much debt they will run up before they go under.
Within 24 hours and you already have 150k views, that is awesome. I am stoked for you all Boeing buying McDonnell Douglas and the results of that are a classic case of mergers, monopolies, and not enforcing antitrust laws. Love your channel
Boeing needs to rehire that whistleblower and make him the Director of Quality Control and drive to make the changes necessary to change their failing reputation.
They ARE stranded though. Just because they have experience and are currently okay with being there doesn't mean that they SHOULD be there. Also, their primary escape route left them behind. By definition, they are stranded there. Also, I had no idea of the time and budget differences between Dragon and Starliner. SpaceX had 4 fewer years and half the money, and they absolutely blew Boeing out of the water.
Did you see the relatively recent XKCD featuring the two stranded crew members looking out a port hole at Earth and saying "Oh Gosh, just think that until they solve the Starliner problems all those 8 billion people are *STUCK DOWN THERE!!!* "
And Boeing was using a pre-existing disposable rocket platform, Atlas 5. For all the money they received, they only needed to come up with a crew capsule and the rest!
This does an impressive job of explaining the situation to anyone who will sit through the video. The situation is complicated and the problems are complex, but I find myself agreeing with your conclusion. Well done!
I think that statement is directed at Boeing's bean counters and arrogant engineers screwing up their own capsule. A redundant option was a good idea but the company developing it shot themselves in the foot.
@@okidoki5977 Boeing got more money because they argued SpaceX already had a developed cargo capsule thus had a head start, that said Dragon 1 cargo is vastly different than the Dragon 2(both crew and cargo versions). This was an unfair argument but lobbyist for Boeing were able to squeeze more money out of the deal. That said, if you look at the Dragon 1 cargo missions, they never experienced the issues Starliner has had, by their 3rd launch it was effectively flawless. Those trying defend Boeing seem to hate Elon Musk or are Boeing shills trying to minimize social media damage. On these comments sections, one guy tried to use Starship as a comparison to Starliner because it keeps 'blowing up', completely ignoring the rapid iteration testing that SpaceX is doing with that project.
@@JarrodFLif3r starship Will Not fly even to the Moon. Never. Starliner IS for the same Moon mission than starship. Starship cant even reach orbirt empty. There IS No need to hate Elon, just see what happens in the real world, Not your Melón Husky boot liking fantasy.
Full Credit is due please: Original Moon Rover for the Apollo missions to the moon was designed and built by 3 major companies and their subsidiaries. The Boeing Company and its PRIMARY subcontractor, the Delco Electronics Subdivision of GENERAL MOTORS, designed and built the first lunar rover in 18 months…and it worked!!! Just trying to keep things straight. I do enjoy your channel and view with great enthusiasm. Thank you.
@@idris4587 Yes, it is astounding to think how many folks worked on the Apollo and other NASA space programs, in every state, with good paying jobs for the time, in the 60's. It did "boom" the economy, with no talk of recession or depression, or inflation, like now!
@ronschlorff7089 And to think people thought apollo program was a waste of money. The amount of good it created when compared to what could of been spent on the military. Too many people today don't even consider the idea that people who were in welding, fabrication, grinding, and extruding are as important as the engineers who designed these parts to begin with.
@@ronschlorff7089 The Cold War made NASA a priority. They were well funded with significant % of GDP going toward it. Today's NASA is underfunded and has too many milestone. It used to be just land people on the moon. Now it focus on Mars, Moon and Asteroid with less money.
Why isn't some Boeing top executive / manager not already in jail for all of their crimes? Why is our Gov still contracting with this criminal organization?
The successful return home - unmanned - doesn't change the perception of this troubled program. Every one of its test flights have raised separate concerns, from hardware to software deficiencies. If NASA certifies this thing for manned missions, then I would suspect a deal was made to bend the criteria. Too expensive to fail, or too politically connected to fail?
true, let's see if a change of administration affects things, and congressional oversight may have to take a more active role. They authorize this spending on contractors, for all of the gov't agencies!! Maybe Musk can help ferret things out going forward! :D
Boeing is impossible to fix. The MD poison has seeped so far in, that removing it would leave it with 0 manned leadership positions, probably a 1-digit amount of managers, and a employee base which stopped caring long ago.
This has got to be the best piece I've seen on the Starliner issues. Very well done and presented. There is no way I would ever fly on a vehicle with this many problems. The best solution for this is to just shut the program down and move on. Sad to see a once vibrant company go down the tubes.
The rampant problems that Boeing is having with all its business units is directly related to the switch from Engineers to MBAs. U.S. corporations have done this en mass since the 90's. Either releasing engineers for MBAs or swapping U.S. trained engineers (who are expensive) with cheaper, off-shore engineers who are less experienced and, in some cases, poorly trained.
I’m the daughter of an engineer who worked on parts of the Rocketdyne engines that powered the Saturn V moon rocket. I’m not an engineer myself but I’m still fascinated by what the human mind can accomplish and what dedicated engineers can build. This was a great explanation of the sequence of events that led to the Starliner failure and its aftermath. I hope that Boeing can get its act together and return to being a great company with a culture of safety over profits. I still don’t understand why Boeing allowed legacy leadership from a failing company to take control after the merger. It remains to be seen if the change in leadership will be able to save this once great company.
The problem is that dubious management tends to be better at covering up failure and inflating the bottom line than good ones. After the merger, they make their achievements look good to shareholders. And we all know auditors never make mistakes - cough, cough, Enron, Time Warner. Intelligent people can be easily deceived because they tend to assume other people are like them rather than being twisted, devious psychopaths.
Like most people my age, I grew up wanting to go to the Moon. If someone offered me a trip to space today but the only condition is I had to take Starliner, I would absolutely not get on that lemon. The entire program has just been one huge clusterf*ck and Boeing needs to be kicked to the curb. Meanwhile SpaceX continues to innovate and push forward more every day.
It's really wild that one option has such an incredibly high success rate that you may not even be too nervous riding it up while the other is a lemon.
I grew up in the 60's in the San Fernando Valley. I remember when RocketDyne would test the Saturn-5 engines which could be heard all around the Valley. Sadly, there is nothing left of RocketDyne in Canoga Park, nor is there anything left of Lockheed in Burbank. That was a phenomenal time of engineering, guts, and an attitude of failure is not an option. The problems we see today are as this excellent video points out, the engineers were pushed aside in favor of money people. The main problem with software is that with few exceptions, the people writing software know little, nor want to know about hardware and the intricacies that go with the hardware. The kids at SpaceX seem to have the right attitude due in no small part of who heads the company.
The top three levels of management in a technical / scientific / engineering company should NEVER be bean counters (MBAs, economists, accountants, stock traders). These should be relegated to basement offices with no outside windows.
My family was a McDonnell-Douglas family. My dad met my mom at Douglas in Long Beach, CA. After my mom died, my dad married another Douglas lady. My step-sis also worked for Douglas for a time. I myself worked for Douglas during the summer one year. All of this happened before the merger with McDonnell. After the McD-D merger, my dad continued to work for the company, and ultimately died of a heart attack in 1976 while still working for them. So I had a good overall feeling for Douglas. I was a bit dismayed at the Boeing merger, because of course they were the competition to what I still kind of felt like was "my" company. But, oh well. Many years later when I was attending an air show at an US air base, I happened to run into a couple of Boeing employees who were doing something around the KC-10 display aircraft. They were old Boeing pre-merger employees, and expressed to me some frustration with the post-merger Boeing. This made me dismayed from an entirely different perspective! So sad to see what Douglas has done to Boeing.
I think this is the less-mentioned true seed of a lot of these current circumstances: It wasn’t so much McDonnell who had issues, they building the Gemini capsule if I’m not mistaken, but the acquisition of the failing Douglas that started this ball rolling. Edit: And don’t get me wrong: I have a great admiration for Douglas and their aircraft.
Proudly claiming historical engineering skills from the 60s and 80s is fine in books and documentaries. It means 'jack' when it comes to efficiently build spacecraft 30-60 years later. All of the engineers who did the design work and manufacturing are at best lounging around in retirement homes.
I'd wager that there is a GREAT deal of wisdom and common sense that those retirees took with them, essentially lost because of the broken lines of succession. Today's engineers have to learn the hard way, again. Also, back in the day, there was the urgency of beating the Soviets to the moon... the stakes were critical, and everyone was at the their best. But now, arbitrary deadlines in a system that is all about maximizing shareholder returns will only lead to missed deadlines... or shortcuts to make said deadlines. It's not the Soviets we're are up against now... it's SHAREHOLDERS.
The industry no longer wants the best engineers. They want engineers, even less talented ones, who are willing to take technical direction without question from non technical money men. I know, I lived it for decades.
The video glossed over the many actual hardware issues in the capsule itself - from faulty parachute links to flammable wiring. A lot that isn't "miscommunications" with Rocketdyne, but pure conspiratorial cost-cutting actions that violated detailed specifications, that Boeing hoped will not be discovered. Given that - can NASA trust that they've discovered all the spec-violations that Boeing perpetrated? I'm sure they are confident that they did, as much as I'm sure that Boeing has more surprises instore for us.
This could have been sensationalized, but thankfully it's accurate and professional. Thank you for that. Many of us may already know much of what's discussed here, but it's a great summary for those that don't and even includes a few things that I'd either forgotten or not been told. I'm sick of the media using the word "stranded". Had this happened during the Shuttle days, Butch and Suni would have simply returned home in Starliner... perhaps even with a hole in the heat shield. Yes, the entire program is an embarrassment and should have been cancelled long ago, but global news that the astronauts were "stranded" when they had a ~99.4% chance of returning safely when NASA requires 99.64% is not nearly as dramatic as the media claims. The biggest issue was that no one could determine an *accurate* risk factor as the thruster problem remains difficult to reproduce, but that uncertainly led NASA to make the right choice and simply push Butch and Suni to Crew 9. The downside is that 2 people lost their slots on Crew 9, but NASA made the safest choice and that's exactly what Congress and the public have demanded that they do in the post-Columbia era. With all of that said, if I were a NASA astronaut on rotation to the ISS, I would want my name to appear beside the word Dragon, not Starliner ;). After that first test flight, I guarantee that NASA astronauts and their families were not keen on Starliner. NASA could have selected Dream Chaser, but they wanted a "reliable" name like Boeing and the rest is History.
The media is properly using the word "stranded" in exactly the same sense that they speak of jet passengers stranded in, say Timbuktu, when their jet isn't satisfactorily operable. If the plane becomes deemed to have been brought to a safely operable condition, or an alternative airline can take them home, they are no longer "stranded". Yes. Butch and Sunni are stranded. They are stuck. Their fellow astronauts are not stranded, because they are scheduled to remain on the ISS.
I'm not sure where you are getting the 99.4% vs 99.64% figures (from some real world calculations or as illustrative figures to make a conceptual point), but as you note - there is no way to determine accurate safety figures, given the unknowns that cannot be quantified. When they don't know why the problem occurred, how can they know how likely it is that more or fewer will fail?
Appreciate your thorough start-to-finish chronicling of all the key steps on the Boeing path to failure First video I’ve seen that has concisely put it all together Thank You RIP Boeing
#1. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read a comments section that's literate and free of postmodern pidgin. do U think so 2? #2. Does anyone else have an intrusive voice in their head murmuring, "Butch and Sunnydance" every time the astronauts are mentioned? Oh, heavens. Now it's doing a bad impression of B.J. Thomas singing, "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head".
@@FredCacti Not sure how Trump could affect the situation in the positive. He doesn't have the slightest understanding of anything engineering related. "Hydra-zine... Well, hydra means water... zine sounds short for magazine. Ah, Boeing needs to read more magazines about water, that'll fix it!"
I have recently been wondering WTF has happened to the once great Boeing. This video was exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you very much for an excellent and informative explanation.
The issue people outside of government contracting don’t realize is that when you are the prime contractor you don’t just take the glory when your subcontractor’s perform well, you are also on the hook when things go poorly. Ultimately, it’s Boeing’s responsibility to ensure Aerojet Rocketdyne provides a quality functional product.
Doug Hurley must be so satisfied with his decision to refuse to fly in the Boeing craft. He was not punished for this but rewarded with a much earlier flight into space.
Calling a machine with "catastrophic problems" leading to massive explosions prior to launch and software bugs both before docking with the space station and again prior to return flight (only discovered two hours before the astronauts would have crawled in for a return trip) that would cause the crew capsule to collide with the service module and explode in space, relying on a clock that was not set properly and so took the craft dramatically off-course on the way out, with (multiple, identified) faulty hardware, with helium leaks, failing thrusters, etc. etc. etc. cannot possibly referred to as a "surprising turn of events" or an "easy fix." It CAN be called a cluster-FK.
Excellent video. I'm not a pilot and even less of an astronaut - except for a few incredible acid trips 30 years ago, but I will never again fly on a Boeing aircraft and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind flying into space on a Boeing.
Boeing told CNN: “Every day, more than 80 airlines operate about 5,000 flights with the global fleet of 1,300 737 MAX airplanes, carrying 700,000 passengers to their destinations safely. The 737 MAX family's in-service reliability is above 99 per cent and consistent with other commercial airplane models.” Mar 4, 2024, It's been 5 years since the last 737 MAX crash. That's 5 x 365 x 5000 = 9,125,000 successful takeoffs and landings since last fatality and 5 x 365 x 700,000 = 1.28 billion passengers safely travelled on the 737 MAX during that time.
Probably because of the two other variants the E which most of its life was under Boeing and the EX which is all Boeing. Also most people don't differentiate between companies post merger. Especially when MD somehow kept their c-suite on after the merger.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
►Sign up for the weekly Space Race newsletter here: www.thespacerace.news/subscribe
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / thespacerace
► X/Twitter: / thespaceraceyt
Nope, boeings problem is DIE (DEI) and woke policies. Go woke, go broke
Guess we aren't winning the race this year. There's always next year. 😂😅😊
12:50
Actually just bc they’re a third party that Boeing clearly decided to use doesn’t mean it’s not Boeings problem. It most certainly still falls on Boeing for deciding to use that company to build its rockets.
If I had to fly on starliner on the next flight with only 2 crew, I'd want $10mil to be on it.
If I had to fly on crew dragon, I'd want a cool million.. but I'd also feel 10x safer than I would on Boeing's starliner
As long as there is no loss of life, or Alien creatures brought onboard. Then I am copacetic :)
I am an engineer. Retired now. Back in my time, it was an unwritten rule to never let a bean counter into the engineering department, ever.
I'm a retired electrical engineer. I remember meetings with sales staff telling us we had to remove parts to make the margin.
Harris: I’m born in a middle class family
@photobobo Yup. I remember that too. The were considered the enemy. The marketing folks were a tolerable annoyance. In the early days it was engineering saying "Just give us the specifications, then go away and we'll let you know when we're done". 9 times out of 10 they'd ooh and ahhh and get all giddy over the technical marvel we delivered - then sales would get rich selling it. The formula worked because the engineers were incredibly brilliant, not what schools put out these days. Used to be the most profitable companies were the ones where the engineers were left alone to create awesomely amazing products and everyone else got rich just by respecting the engineering department and letting them make all the engineering decisions.
😂😂😂 Bean counter!
As a current engineer, how I wish this were still the case today.
I harbor great concern about the future of our industries the way engineering is treated in many companies nowadays.
Keep in mind Starliner only completed a pad abort test, not an in flight abort test like Dragon. Boeing was given a pass on this critical safety requirement and this is almost never mentioned. Glaring in light of all the new issues that have been discovered.
I did not know this. 😮
WOW !
NASA is literally holding Boeing's hand while closing their eyes for a moment..
Kinda like the FAA did just before those 2 737MAX's fell into the ocean..
Embarrassing & Sad.
FAA cronieism
They don't give SpaceX passes like that.
@@ericstyles3724 Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, Boeing was still a known, reliable, reputable company in aerospace. It's not too hard to see why the FAA took their word at face value when the 737 Max was released. Same with Starliner. Boeing was still a known company with a very good reputation at that time. NASA and the FAA allowing them to complete the contract with an IFA simulation rather than an actual live flight test is understandable in context.
With hindsight, though, it's obvious that it shouldn't have happened.
Thank you.
I had no idea that Doug Hurley said he would NOT fly on Starliner. This tells me he had no confidence in Boeing's engineering team.
Yea, he was disappointed in the culture of the Starliner team and I think this culture culminated in the terrible Demo 1 mission. While Starliner is more capable than Dragon on paper and *should* have appealed more to astronauts as it includes more manual flight controls, Dragon was simply executed better while Starliner was mismanaged.
Doug Hurley alias Chunky appears to have the good sense of a SNAFU big Corp circus BOEING and the inability to manage there aerospace projects and communicate honestly with there suppliers and customers. I hope men like DOUG HURLEY are consulted by key decision makers to oversee the boon doogle Starliner project. I hope the AMERICAN Public can get some measure of value from its expensive Starliner Space program and the other key contractors necessary to advance AMERICA space science program.
They stated exactly what he said about Boeing in this video
Wise choice
Did the star liner make it back? Yes… Were there issues? Yes, but the fact of the matter was and still is that the star liner did just what it’s supposed to do. I have worked on several Boeing aircraft and worked with several Boeing engineers on various projects. They are a big, cumbersome company at times but generally they do an excellent job at what they do. The fact the star liner made it back with the issues it had is mildly impressive and speaks volumes to its engineering AND the skill of it’s designers. Before you people all go jumping on the Elon Musk bandwagon just remember that he has given us the utterly stupid hyper loop, the starship that has blown up during launch multiple times (all while he swears that’s normal), and that god awful cyber truck.
This story reinforces the respect I have for what our military, with help from civilian contractors, were able to achieve back 60 years ago. My father was launch director of the Gemini program over all its missions. They had problems, and they solved them. It was run by the military so while they did have to operate under a budget, they were never concerned with profits. The astronauts were friends and often were guests for dinner at our home. Their safety was by far paramount to the success of any launch.
There is a reason they have been recognized as “the greatest generation”.
Because at the time, everyone cared about a job well done. Now everyone cares about covering their rears.
Must have been amazing to be around that. Setting records and proving new tech on every flight! Gemini was an amazing ship.
In the 60's the median income tax was 20% and highly progressive, compared to 16 or 17% and flatter today, so a lot of money was available. Military spending was crazy high, and NASA benefitted from the industrial base that created. NASA contracts were almost all cost plus. That made a big difference in the successes of the programs.
The "bean counters" were not concerned about profits because they were a sure thing. When you long for the good old days you are longing for a 20% median income tax.
@
Funny how some can’t recognize success in spite of themselves. Military spending was high in the 60s because of a war we were fighting in Vietnam. Cost-also describes the failed program we just watched with Bowing. The high tax rates were spent predominantly on the new social programs and welfare state created by Johnson. The tax and spend mentality of the 60s resulted in divisions and a stagnant economies of the 70s. If you are looking for success, go back to the 50s when all Americans benefited because we were all working together.
@@michaelalbert8474 In 1958, the middle of the Eisenhower administration, and before significant US involvement in Vietnam, the US minimum tax bracket was 20% and the maximum was 65%. In 1968 the minimum rate was 14%, but the median remained 20% and the maximum remained 65%. OK to honor the generation that achieved so much, but don't to forget to honor the same generation of taxpayers who paid for it and didn't leave their bills for the next generation.
Retired from United Space Alliance, when MD and Boeing merged the first thing the new management did was send us a "cost reduction expert". The writing was on the wall at that point.
And we all know that will inevitably lead to lower quality. There are other ways, but that's the Boeing way.
Yup, I was a quality control vendor (metrology/gaging/traceability, etc.) during that...scary, got out and never looked back. My instincts tell me that unknown valve expansion problem will lead to a mat'l substitution of some sort. (I.E. 400SS vs. 17-4PH, etc.)
US is becoming the next India
@@ronjones-6977 You mean McDonnell Douglas
"United Space Alliance (USA) " ... That's kind of weird isn't it?
This type of thing goes back years. I remember John Glenns statement.
"I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts - all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract."
I remember when John Glenn said that when I was a kid. It started my awakening that still has momentum to this day.
EVERYTHING is built by the lowest bidder on a contract... Gov't or Private sector.
There was a different spirit during the years when we first went to the moon. We wanted to make things that lasted forever and we made mighty good stuff.
It's been said since then that each moon mission had a success rate of 13% which I guess was because it was all wisbang low volume stuff.
@@jrose7849 That is absolutely not true. We have awarded a bid to a higher bidder because a background check of the low bidder turned up some serious dependability problems.
I was an engineer in the tech industry starting in the late '70s. It was alot of fun and we produced some amazing and nearly flawless technology during the 20th century. It was exactly as this video says, those companies were created by engineers and run by engineers. Engineers were judged on their technical abilities above anything else. Honesty and high ethical standards were the rule, not the exception. Then came the 21st century. Almost overnight technology companies began to replace their upper management engineers with what I call "Wall Street money men". Everything changed rapidly. Profit margins became not just high priority, in many cases they were the only priority. Ethics took a backseat to profits. Engineers became less valued for their technical abilities and more valued by their willingness to take orders from non-technical management without question or technical debate. Engineers who would perform their work as dictated to them by non-technical management were rewarded, whereas engineers who insisted on maintaining high ethics and technical quality were marginalized or simply shown the door. This was my true experience over the span of 40+ years as an electronic and software engineer for well over a dozen different tech companies on both US coasts, much of that working for medical device companies some of which made no secret about letting me go for being too ethical in my refusal to cut corners that could possibly affect patient safety. Everything I've written here is 100% truth.
----------> The question has come up as to the validity of my engineering credentials. At the very end of this already too long posting I have included a synopsis of my career.
---------> Added Sept. 19th as a response to many here who have related to me as being at a loss as to a solution to this issue.
‐---‐------------------
The root cause is in the human heart. We are now in a time that was spoken about long ago, a time when more and more people would become very self-centered and driven by greed. They would lose their concern for the well being of others and their thoughts and desires would be focused exclusively on themselves to an extent that never had existed before. I have personally had interactions with numerous such persons in the workplace, strangely increasing exponentially since the turn of the century. I have learned in my life that to understand any human problems you must drill down to the core issue, everything else is just a symptom of the "disease". The core issue is honestly a spiritual issue, a disease of the human heart. An effective solution cannot be legislated. Hearts and minds must change on the most basic level, and in my life's experience this has only been known to happen when a person truly repents of their self-centered ways and gains a greater concern for others than for themselves. The time proven solution only exists in a single book, and was only successfully lived out by one person. To effect any meaningful change one must come to the point of realizing that they can't succeed in changing by their own power - this is a supernatural spiritual issue after all. The only time proven solution known is for a person to realize and admit their sins by accepting the spiritual change and forgiveness offered by the only person who was ever sinless and is the model for loving and caring for the well-being of others. This person is Jesus, God who became human and allowed Himself to be put to death in order for us to escape from our sins by His paying the price of our sins so we ourselves would not have to. Only in admitting this truth and giving control of one's own life over to Him can any core change in the state of one's heart be effective. The Bible tells us explicitly that God is not only loving, but He is love itself. Love is the answer.
‐------- Career synopsis
I worked as a non-degreed engineer until 1984 when I received my BS in Computer Science, Summa Cum Laude - GPA 3.875. I worked continously as a Software Engineer specifically in the specialty of Embedded Systems, which also required me to do engineering of electronics as well for which I studied and practiced since 1970. I have a patent as co-inventor of the world's first genetic analysis device approved by the FDA for patient diagnostics, which also won an R&D Magazine award as one of the most significant inventions of 2003. I held positions from entry level Engineer to Senior Staff Engineer, at one point being Director of Engineering for a Boston area medical device company.
I finally retired in 2018, having worked 40 years developing Embedded Systems firmware and electronics.
I was a young engineer out of college and I got a job with the DoD doing EMP Testing. I helped Boeing test the new Air Force 1 communications suite in TX. Those Boeing engineers and those managing were the best. I have fond memories of helping with that testing.
@@rockpadstudios I'm very happy that you had a good experience at that job 😊
Many in my early career went equally as well. I miss those times.
Yes... I thought it was just the SD aerospace company I worked for for 22 years, retiring early @ 58 in 2017... I loved the job for 20 years, but the last 2 years were tortuous... my stomach felt like it had a burning rock in it every morning when I got up and went to work... I'm so happy to be free of that boolshytte.
@stewartteaze9328 I'm equally happy for you! Thankfully I have my home paid off and am able to no longer have to work. I might have a meger retirement but the joy of being out of that corrupt industry makes it all worthwhile. I feel very bad for younger engineers who don't yet have the ability to retire.
I was at Hughes Space and Comm. when Boeing took us over. At first I thought that was a good thing, but found out quickly how ruthless and extremely arrogant they were. They had one of their hitmen come and talk to us, he was so proud of extinguishers personnel from the previous smaller aerospace companies Boeing gobbled up, it was frightening to hear him threatening us! I saw how intensely severe and arrogant they were when they rolled in. So many awful decisions so many layers of useless know nothing management making decisions sometimes holding important decisions up. Before I retired I could not believe they cut back on quality control inspectors…WTF! In aerospace testing, specifications and quality rules the day!
I worked at Aerojet (now Aerojet Rocketdyne) for 35 years. About 12 years I was test engineer on various hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide pressure fed systems. I am retired now. While I did not work on this program I knew several engineers and managers who did and can say they were Aerojet’s finest, hard working, committed, and brilliant people. As for the technology I can say that you have to have a very good design and a very good assembly process to not leak He. We would always use He to leak check our hypergolic lines. Heavy vibration can cause tiny leaks as well. As for the hypergolics, especially the N2O4, is very caustic. But all of the wetted surfaces of those lines and valves use materials that are unaffected by them. So the corrosion you showed must be from external leaks that got into the valve drivers. That can happen. I would be curious as to who made the valves. Typically they are bought and not made at Aerojet. On the test stands we used Marotta valves. Very dependable… but every now and then they get stuck. Cycling the valve mostly fixes or banging on the exterior (probably not easy in space). Cleanliness is another big factor. There are bits of tiny things everywhere. a little bit of teflon or metal, or dirt can easily keep a valve from completely closing. The number of failures 26:17 is surprising and not typical…. it makes me think there was a system process failure of some sort. Anyhow that is my take.
Mr. Keenan, you and the other engineers commenting in this section are amazing to me, and even ordinary heroes after a fashion. My father was also an engineer, albeit in the civil and structural fields, and I remember his dedication to correctness in design and fidelity in the manufacturing and installations that followed. Men like you and him represent everything that made America great in the past, and hopefully, if our newer generations can recapture that spirit, once again in the future. America and its industry have not yet yet fallen, but we are teetering, and it is so very far down to plummet if we do. God bless.
I am chuckling at the idea of banging on the valve, as a former janitor I did this on a certain type of toilet valve to get it to stop flushing constantly. Guess it's all pipes! But seriously, thanks for sharing your expertise on this. Hope they will get it figured out and get it flying soon.
I have a question maybe you can answer. Why is it not okay to release small amounts of toxins into our atmosphere, but if you're going to put it in a rocket that shoots thousands of tons of it into our atmosphere,,, then it's okay???? None of us consented to breathing all this poisonous crap just so some nerds can play with their space toys. And it's our tax money being used to poison us. Our tax money should be going to fixing this planet instead of poisoning it and trying to find a way to escape.
I like this statement, the fuel was moved by "pressure gas." I thought any liquid (even gas that is under pressure and is in a liquid state) requires a non pressurize pump like centrifugal non pressurize pump to move mass. The statement points to ego problems. I pretty sure if they read Naval Technical Manuals they even state the obvious... There a picture of both acting as Engineering managers or QA...TOO much QA and exposure to the negativity of real engineering documents, real engineers, test and engineering politics...Ignorance is blissed.
@@davidrussellhamrick1828 Too many old folk engineering trying to be the hero engineering instead of actually doing engineering and fading into the background.
Boy things have changed. In the old days, "If it ain't Boeing I ain't going" And now, rather domestic or space related, "If it's a Boeing, I ain't going"
Or from the astronauts perspective "it's Boeing so we're not going home."
its "if it says boeing, i aint goin."
idk how people from where yer from talk.... no one uses correct grammar and sentence structure..... "if its a boeing, then i shant be bothered with going" hell almost reads victorian. but i digress.... and uh ya... domestic or space related...... oh wow, ironically EXACTLY the business segments boeing is in.... IMAGINE that...... geez.
dead internet theory people, its real... and yall aint.
First, McDonnell/Douglas failed its legacy test, resulting in near bankruptcy prior to its controversial merger with Boeing. Then, the once famous engineering company that bear any burden and successfully solve any problem sacrificed its reputation of excellence in order to maximize its profits. Instead of “build it and they (customers) will come”, became a legacy of how cheaply can customer requirements be met. Talk about a very incredible fall from grace.
I would rather fly on a North Africa 727 livestock flight.
@@Bramon83 Who is talking? I would recommend you to seek out a professional..
I have a college buddy who used to work at Boeng. After he quit, he told me that after Boeng bought McDonnell Douglas, the upper management turned into a snake pit, where everyone was trying to stab each other in the back. The cost cutting wasn’t necessary, it was simply to make the department heads look better.
He saw where it was going and left before any of it got stuck to him. He took a pay cut for his last two years before retiring. He predicted the problems with both the 737 Max and Starliner. I thought it was just sour grapes, but he was right. Now I owe him a bottle of scotch.
My neighbor has bees and collects honey. The other neighbor worked for Airbus and also engineering EASA toilets.
@@jayerjavec So are the EASA toilets the bees knees?
Huh, sounds like Spirit Aerosystems too.
Boeing
I used to work for a US medical equipment manufacturer. One of the big 3. Trust me. It is the same there. Cost reduction. Cost savings. One engineer tried to fight back qualifying a crappy component. Was fired within weeks.
This is exactly what went wrong. Don’t buy another company and then put their failures of management in charge of your company.
DEI happened.
Seen it happen many times..
People will never learn . 😢
😢
@@_________________404 i bet you the disaster and obsession with costs and shareholders where all brought to you buy old rich white men.,,🙄
@@_________________404 I agree with you. DEI or quotas is happening all over the Western world.
Don't buy the bullsht. The reason why boeing is going broke is diversity, feminism and woke policies. Go woke, go broke
Let's just change Boeing's name to MD-Boeing to remind ourselves that old Boeing doesn't exist anymore..
Sadly the old McDonnell Douglas was destroyed as well. Seems the merger, or something else at that time, drove out all the good managers and policies. Stockholders demanding focus on profit margins or DEI? The wrong folks forced to retire?
Seems we’re running damn thin on top list aerospace industry. Something the US used to excel at.
@@KellyStarksYou had a damned good point until you pretended DEI has any statistical effect on performance drops.
I think Boeing confused "crewed flight" with "crude flight"
“Screwed flight” is more like it.
LOL, but anyway, Spice must flow
The subtitles say exactly that! 😁
It's a well worn joke already but Boeing deserves all of it, this was all avoidable but profit maximixers will never, EVER, see real success except in selling off the corpse of a company before it spoils
Carl Sagan always had to make that very distinction every time he said crewed flight. I always found it funny when he did that. I was just a kid back then.
I worked for a British aerospace company for a while in the 90s. As part of my job I had to write test schedules to test the aircraft computer systems on test rigs. Most of the time we'd just adapt previous tests. One time I decided to write a new one from scratch, which revealed four faults in previously tested (and passed as OK) software. That did not go down well with my team leader. Their only interest was rubber stamping a passed test and passing it on, even though a problem gets an order of magnitude more expensive to fix if it is found later by actual flight tests! I left a few months later. I couldn't work in a company run by bean counters.
you should have been rewarded for finding errors.. sheesh.. that's literally the job.
It’s not just about money. I knows these types. There are often some really greedy guys up top, but they could not get or stay there without the support and protection of the “team players” who go along for the sake of the organization and hate anyone they perceive as not drinking the Kool Aid. The smarter and more competent you are, the more they want to eject you like a virus. The worst thing that can happen is that they figure out you are correct and saved the company. It only makes them hate you more.
How does SpaceX accomplish their missions on 1/3 of Boeing's budget? Launching a Falcon Nine rocket every 3rd day. Recently putting Astronauts in high Earth orbit to exercise a private space walk. Now tasked with saving the crew of the Starliner, at the same time being politically and financially attacked by this current government.
@@HighCountryRambler One thing, they build their parts in-house only. At least they did a few years ago
Ruthless efficiency is their motto
@@HighCountryRambler Unfortunately the owner of SpaceX is most definitely attacking the current US government politically. He seems to have a short memory of the 2016 to 2020 government where he was invited to be a member of a presidential tech advisory committee but resigned in disgust pretty rapidly.
Funny how Boeing hides behind NASA when it hits the fan, calling it a NASA mission. While Space X, when things blow up... it's still Space X.
Well that lobbying money buys them better press than Space X. Boeing gets 164B of the us defense budget in exchange. Meanwhile, 737 max is crashing, and doors are coming off aircraft.
They planned and hoped SpaceX would fail only it didn't quite work out the way they planned. So now they sit with egg on their faces and are looking for ways to make SpaceX look bad.
@@OOL-UV2Such a bureaucratic thing to do!
Elon's ego is so large that he must take credit even for his many failures. He calls them 'successful failures'. That's the difference between a corporation ran by penny-counting businessmen and a corporation ran by a megalomaniac.
Private space companies are all dogshit. SpaceX blows things up because they're impatient and incompetent. Boeing blows things up because they're cheap
Imagine your spacecraft fucking up and then having your main competitor rescue your crew.
I worked at Boeing for a few years, through the 737 crashes to the start of the pandemic. After the CEO left, the new one reorganized all the engineers to (sort of) report/work under him. I had said in a meeting that this was a good move that might bring back the engineering centric focus. Our team manager replied, “That's not how you run a business.” I feel like that sums thing up well like the ending remarks in this video.
Honestly, it's stunning how many problems in the modern world simply boil down to companies putting profits and shareholder interest above all else.
@@drenrin2120 Seagull management. Look it up
Sounds like the rot may be throughout much of the company and nearly impossible to ferret out
Education for Business Management does not prepair administrators to make engineering decisions. Education for Engineering does little to prepair engineers to make business decisions. When egos are mixed in then failure is all but assured.
I believe that cost plus government contracts only incentivize the contractors to continue to raise the cost of their projects. There is little to no incentive to meet dead lines or finish the project. Finishing means the cash flow ends. No business would deliberately end it's cash flow.
What I saw when they took Space n Comm over where I worked was a ton of arrogance..oh my gawd it was horrible. Not a team effort but do as I say or else! Get rid of their arrogance and way too much useless middle management is the key. Bring back quality control, tight engineering, let the older more experienced engineers run the show, have the older ones teach the new ones coming on board. Cmon Boeing you just need to get real!
You left out the part where Boeing had modified the Starliner software, disabling its ability to autonomously undock and return, WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.
It's like they learned nothing from the MCAS fiasco on the 737MAX
Retaining the autonomous flight software would have meant a cost increase.
Engineer: "I want to retain it, for redundancy."
Bean counter: "Remove it!"
This youtuber is only interested in the generating of income, not getting the facts straight!
All software has to be rigorously tested for unintended behavior. Maybe it was too complex, and so if it wasn’t required, then it was safer to remove it.
@@jurgenbuchelt4384 sensible engineer (in writing): I note your demand, here are my objections and I want that verbal order in writing, thanks - for legal liability reasons.
30 years ago I served on a special team investigating launch errors on USAF launch vehicles.
The biggest recommendation was the loss/retiring of too much institutional knowledge.
Thinking some young, hotshot, but cheap engineer is no different than that crusty old dude with 20+ years building and busting stuff has proven foolish.
I sense history is repeating itself.
I was working for Boeing as an engineer for 30 years.
It certainly isn't helped by the fact that the crusty old dude with 20+ years of experience frequently thinks he's too good to be teaching the hotshots.
Then 10 years roll around and he wants to retire, forgetting that he hasn't transferred a lick of knowledge to the guys now expected to run the show because he thought their inexperience was too annoying...
@@WeAreChecking “The more you know, the more you owe.”
How did Spacex do it then?
@@luvmydeck SpaceX has been 'building and busting' for some time before they got it right. SpaceX is seems to be 'engineering first', like Boeing used to be.
On a significant aerospace team years ago, the program manager told his engineering staff "I don't want to hear about your problems!"
The fact that Boeing’s module has had so many issues and is behind schedule, comes as no big surprise to me. My husband and I both worked for a McDonnell-Douglas subcontractor on the International Space Station. Working with McDonnell-Douglas was a nightmare. We definitely felt that McDonnell-Douglas personnel loved to create an adversarial relationship with their subcontractors. Nothing was ever their issue. Things were always caused by NASA changes or subcontractor screwups. Pointing fingers was their specialty. Working on Space Station was an honor, but “teaming” with McDonnell-Douglas was an absolute nightmare. It’s been over 25 years and hearing “You people” is still triggering. The astronaut that won’t fly on Boeing’s (aka McDonnell-Douglas) module, absolutely nailed it.
More like McDonald-Douglas huh?
"What do you mean, you people?" 😂
I think it has become pretty much the same every where. Todays engineers are being taught with same attitude as the profiteers and same teachers.
So many thruster failures. Shouldn't thruster and valve technology be perfected by this point? At least it sounds like the the software was designed for positive failure... meaning, shut down prematurely before a worse situation arises. But from what was described, it also sounds like a tremendous oversight on materials behavior. Valve seals couldn't handle the stress tests. This should be so basic and a non-issue. So embarrassing and ridiculous that Boeing couldn't get this right.
@@bowman4275no, it’s not fast food
Legend has it, Boeing used to test their designs thoroughly before putting them into orbit. Now they just kill whistleblowers. They should definitely accept their failures and scrub the entire Starliner project.
It saves their shareholders money that way
And refund the government for the wasted tax dollars.
boeing is run by diversity
That would be accountability and since 2010 there hasn't been any of it anymore also by admitting that they are incompantent and they wou
They forced the launch, even when early in the fueling slight leaks were identified, because Boeing needed the positive press after their recent issues (the last year has been bad for them)...
They chose poorly.
Please get the history correct. Boeing did not build the Apollo, North American Aviation was the general contractor. They provided the first stage, engines were built by Ricketdyne. Boeing did not build the space shuttle, North American Aviation did.
And North American Aviation became Rockwell, which of course, developed the Space Shuttles.
The entire opening is propaganda. MD was just as engineer culture based as any other. Two of my uncles were engineers there(my dad would have too but " Monsanto paid more in 73'") and two more were line workers there(one building F15's). Never once has any of them said a disparaging word about MD in 76 years of combined employment....until Boeing came in.
Correct , And I pointed out that GM built the Lunar Rover ! 😅. Other than being wrong ,
This is a shit video ! 😂. Thanks !
@@BalzarRitchin It was North American - Rockwell when I worked there. Very soon after it became Rockwell International, maker of electric hand drills, skill saws, and space shuttles.
@@brianking9446 wow
The truss module on the ISS was actually built by Lefiell MFG in Santa Fe springs California and was assembled at Boeing. I was one of two people roll flowed the 7075 aluminum to the length diameter and wall thickness. Fun fact Lefiell’s name is painted on every piece in blue and wasn’t suppose to
Let's not forget that in addition to developing their own capsule, SpaceX had developed their own launch vehicle powered by their own engines. Boeing just had to build and verify a capsule.
🤣👍 On point, and noted.
SpaceX was also a fraction of the cost.
Plus, Boeing and Aerojet have been in this business for many decades. The experiential knowledgebase is vast... or at least it should be. I wonder how much brain trust gets lost with retirements, not preserved and passed down to successors. VALVES... valves should be a 100% known deal. If you change the materials in making them, stress test beyond specifications. Always. It seems Boeing and Aerojet didn't do it. Cost cutting? Who knows. The engineers need to be back in control of decision making.
@@cytherians agreed 100% with you and>>>. @user-rr9lv9ll4x CORROSION SPECIALIST in the USAF, and I will confirm that the problem with those thrusters and CORROSION is no excuse, as in, it should have never happened! using parts in those types of systems, they knew the problems were in the future, then they are trying to claiming they didn't know what caused problems.....HELL THEY KNEW they just wont admit to it! I back then, worked on both B-52s and KC-135s! most of the problems I worked on were, the skin of the aircraft. When corrosion was present, it would be a fine white powder type that could be brushed off with ya fingers! Stress, this would include NDI inspection of the dead bolts, BOLTS that held those huge engines onto the wings! and it goes on from there, We even dealt with piss causing the STEEL under the HEADS as the urine flowed down when some pissed the target, the toilet, common problem in combat aircraft that had HEADS/JOHNS! Put profit ahead of just plan doing it right, and having a product that does not fail when lives are on the line, IS A FAIL AT THE GET GO!
@@cytherians Boeing has also been replacing engineers with "Engineers" selected under the DEI programs.
FYI Boeing did not build stage one of the Saturn V - Rocketdyne/Rockwell did - Boeing acquired Rockwell in the ‘90’s
NASA and Wikipedia beg to differ. Rocketdyne built the engines. Boeing built the structure at their Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans.
@@jeromeprater183 Rockwell also built the command modules and the shuttles. Also Rocketdyne was a subsidiary of Rockwell so Boeing owns them too. Although I'll be the first to say that the idea of renaming stuff like "Boeing DC-3" can go pound sand.
Rocketdyne (formerly a division of North American Aviation) is a rocket engine manufacturer. They built the F-1 engine for the first stage (S-1C) of the Saturn V rocket, which was manufactured by the Boeing Company. Since the 1990's, Boeing owns the human spaceflight heritage of Rockwell (North American Aviation) and McDonnell/Douglas, and thus own the know-how and IP of some of the Saturn V rocket, Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle), Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo craft. The Boeing Starliner spacecraft incorporates technologies developed by the heritages of the Apollo spacecraft and the Space Transportation System.
Good to know. Thank you.
There were so many inovative talented manufacturers that came out of the WWII conflict, but they were like sparklers and fizzled out, choked out by greed. It seemed to me and others, that Americans don't take pride in their work or their products any longer.
My uncle was a solid fuel engineer for NASA during the Apollo program. It’s like you are reading directly from the transcriptions of many of our conversations in the 90s.
in it's hay day, more than 500,000 Americans were involved in the Apollo program. congrats?
@@danger3_255 Its still cool
@@danger3_255 No need to lash out just because the older boys BF'd you at the orphanage.
I was working for Boeing at the time of the MD buyout, and it was like you could feel the atmosphere change from one day to the next. I have never been so happy that my time there was very temporary.
SUMMARY OF VIDEO: First pregnancy is space being tested......
Fabulous video - thank you for the information. As a devout American and a young teenager during the original "space race" and moon landings, I am embarrassed at what has transpired at Boeing. We went to the moon in 8 years. Now the world laughs at us.
Whenever you remove engineers from the top of an engineering company and replace them with bean counters, it is no surprise that the failures will mount.
The same could be said for Banks (I know from personal experience).
Corpos only care about cost and how much to profit. Nothing else matters to them
Suni certainly isn't upset. She's a former commander of the ISS, and obviously enjoys space a ton. Since this was going to be her last mission, I'm sure she considers the extra time a bonus.
Well there is that!😁
Hopefully she’s not on a salary that OT would be amazing
I'd like to hear that from her own mouth.
@@1991RedRocker
"I'm in my happy place."
-- Sunita Williams
During CBS interview 9-13-24
@@atticstattic lol what else is she going to say? No one in that situation would be honest. You folks are hilarious. This is precisely the kind of kool aid drinking propaganda laced group think that led to this fiasco. They are stranded and not happy. They went on a 4 hour cruise and got stranded but sureeee nothing to see no big deal. Tell that to their family and friends and even them.
I totally agree if the focus is not on engineering then the focus must be on failure.
The reason NASA has a project plan is so they know what they are deviating from.
NASA does NOT listen to their engineers [can you spell o-r-i-n-g] and it cost the lives of dedicated crew ... shameful
@@jreynolds2184 I doubt too many ppl here will know what you're referring to... and yeah... I hope they learned with that one! It was a "known" issue that should've never happened.
Let us make shure they all "Learn" from their mistakes in future. This whole "Fiasco" is doing one thing only, keeping " Space" on the front page.
@@accumapmodels is this in reference to the crew that burned to death?
A Bean Counter is not an Engineer and an Engineer is not a Bean Counter, the two are not interchangable.
Starliner. Built by accountants, not engineers.
Nope, built by feminists and diversity hires
Listen to the engineers. They know what they are talking about. If they say you’ve got a problem let them solve it 🇺🇸🚀❤️
built by assistant managers
Where is your evidence, or is it just feeling? I think it is a bit more complicated.
Also the problem with having a so called “businessman” as president
I was there at Boeing when the McDonnell "merger" happened. As you stated, it was a disaster for quality. I was so excited when I was accepted to Boeing Flight Test in the mid 80s. Quality was everything. That went out the window. I left soon after the merger.
It's heartbreaking to see an industry innovator fall this far and completely lose its way.
All in the name of profits at all cost. Greed truly destroys us all.
@@angelgallegos199When you place an accountant as a CEO in an engineering company this is the result.
@@angelgallegos199 A company cannot exist on greed alone. Just as we're currently seeing with Boeing, poor quality will eventually lead to a drastic reduction in market share, and thus no more profits to be had. They will either be "forced" to return to producing a quality product, or they will cease to exist.
it's happening all around us. Ford Motor Company struggles to manufacture reliable gasoline engines. They have been building engines for over 100 years and at one time, superlative at it.
Well, I gather when your head grows that big...
Boeing stock was $249 at the start of 2024; Eleven months later it is $151. These business "geniuses" did a great job of "maximizing shareholder value." Do I think they should get a bonus?
Your coverage of this saga has been the best there is. Thank you
Thank you!
@@TheSpaceRaceYT I agree also.
@@TheKetsa fixed it ta
ALSO: SUMMARY OF VIDEO: First pregnancy is space being tested.
Boeing is the prime example these days that the best way of "maximizing shareholder value" often involves, well, not trying maximize shareholder value. Investors are often their own worst enemies.
They do not really care about ""maximizing shareholder value" They care about their bonus which is based on ""maximizing shareholder value" [at a particular time even if it causes shareholder value to decline in the long term.. Updated per input from edwardkuen5751 ]
@@brooklynguy-b4mThe bonus is based on maximizing share price at a particular point in time. Truly maximizing shareholder value required an indefinite time horizon.
@@edwardkuenzi5751 I think you have identified the problem very well.
I believe it involves more than that. It has elevated "stake" holders above "share" holders and the "oppressed" above the "oppressors", promoting DEI into the company culture above all else.
Remember, it's the "financiers" who are taking over the world (the Blackrocks, Vanguards, State Streets) with Klaus Schwab and George Soros at the helm. Now, *HOW DARE YOU*
Watch for the word "stakeholder". A very big red flag
This is such a common problem right now, with companies focusing on profits over quality nowadays. It literally everywhere: movies, video games, cars and motorcycles, airplanes and rockets. This is what we should spend money on: safety auditing for such important and critical products.
Funny how SpaceX is able to reduce costs and keep quality pretty high. They’re not perfect but landing boosters is just incredible.
@@Tommy2tone762 It is interesting how two companies from the same person have such different approach. Constant testing and rework for the shuttle.
Meanwhile Tesla... sigh.
I've witnessed profit over quality over the past 10 years more than any time in my lifelong career in. This goes for the military as well as the biggest names in the aviation and space industries....
@@Elmithian Its probably because for SpaceX he hired a bunch of competent engineers, told them what he wanted to do, and worked with them on it. For a long while, that was just the only way to do aerospace engineering anyway.
Cars however... Oh boy the automotive industry... beancounters are probably in charge there XD
Nothing to do with cost cutting, its who they hire for the cost cutting 8$ an hour poopjeets that couldnt code their way to a toilet to crap in it.
Fire the Bean Counters and Hire the Engineers.
It says something when the engineers on Boeing's factory floor wont fly Boeing. But folks knew this was going to happen. When Boeing & McDonnell Douglas first merged The Economist featured a cover article with 2 camels ****ing and the caption "The trouble with mergers" with the emphasis of the article being "Who's on top?"
The truth is out there, people just do not want to listen.
SUMMARY OF VIDEO: First pregnancy is space being tested.
At this point they should be using Boeing management for the test flights as a requirement. I bet the quality will have a nice improvement.
This is one of the best and complete story of the Starliner saga !!
Two thumbs up man....truly appreciated. Keep them coming brother....
It made it back without killing anyone! Oh wait. No one was riding in it.
Well, at least it didn't land on anyone.
At least it didn't just fall out of the sky and disappear completely
SUMMARY OF VIDEO: First pregnancy is space being tested..
@@ASDasdSDsadASD-nc7lf
NASA ...... Sex in space is highly discouraged and nobody has admitted to it so far.
Around a nine month window in space for a female astronaut so it's entirely feasible if started on Earth.
That’s IT!!! Space exploration without people on board. GENIUS!! 🫤
Two things........With the extreme environment of space; “cost cutting for profits IS INSANE”. If that’s the attitude of corporations seeking to make space a consumer experience?......you’ll never find me in one of their elcheapo tin cans....
Second, space stations “should have extra living quarters and supplies reserved” for occasions where crew rotations; and visiting mission professionals may not be able to come and go because of mechanical, or other disruptions to schedules.
As the video suggests, Boeing is NOT the company they used to be. The problem now is that the clock of opportunity has stopped ticking. NASA needs to cut Boeing loose, for good, and give contracts to companies that can actually live up to their arrogance. Space is hard, but for today's Boeing, its impossible.
I have not seen any public news indications that Boeing's management wants to change to go back to, as you put it, the company they used to be. They seem to like what they are now, whatever it is, and they're going to stick with it unless forced to do otherwise. Maybe they're hoping the public will accept them as they are now, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is their stockholders.
NASA wont be doing that. Boeing has the best lobbiest and has employee in nearly every state. Also, redundancy is always good in business. BUT Boeing should consider selling or spinning off that division or in the video said cut its losses and not fulfilled its NASA contract.
@@Tabula_Rasa1 doesn't matter what Boeing wants, if new companies start doing better than Boeing, well NASA will have no chance
Unfortunately in a company where ultimately engineering is everything, and safety can not be ignored without great peril to the company, solid engineering would take care of the stockholders. In an aerospace company where stockholders come first, the company is heading for the dustbin. i don't think Boeing will be or could be saved , it is only a question of how much debt they will run up before they go under.
They aren't? What was the most expensive project of WWII? Building an atomic bomb for the very first time from start to finish? Nope. The Boeing B-29.
Within 24 hours and you already have 150k views, that is awesome. I am stoked for you all
Boeing buying McDonnell Douglas and the results of that are a classic case of mergers, monopolies, and not enforcing antitrust laws.
Love your channel
You labeled it the "Startliner" in the opening scene. Oddly enough, the Endliner seems more appropriate.
Flatlining.........
more like the Bottom Liner
Maybe Boeing meant "crude flight test," rather than "crewed."
Turn on the TH-cam captions, and you are likely to see some amusing homonyms.
More like "Screwed Flight Test".
Boeing needs to rehire that whistleblower and make him the Director of Quality Control and drive to make the changes necessary to change their failing reputation.
I think potential whistleblowers are concerned about their life expectancy.
Unfortunately boeing cannot hire dead people.
Need to be ask why they dead though
In some countries whistleblowers tend to accidentally fall out of 3rd-floor hospital windows. But that can't happen here, right?
Theyd have to unmurder him first
@@tompantle3884not again with electronic brakes
I worked at MDC from 1994-1999. Many of us were dumbfounded when Boeing inserted inept MDC executives into its executive team.
I suspect that was one of the conditions of the merger - although Boeing should have been well aware of the culture difference.
@@buggsy5 Nothing to do with cultures. That is not how executive management works. Culture is for lower managers and employees only.
@@buggsy5 True. We knew it. Now Boeing is in serious trouble.
If the flight is on a Boeing, I'm not going. It's terrifying to imagine how many poorly built aircraft are in the air this very moment.
cough Stonecipher cough
They ARE stranded though. Just because they have experience and are currently okay with being there doesn't mean that they SHOULD be there. Also, their primary escape route left them behind. By definition, they are stranded there.
Also, I had no idea of the time and budget differences between Dragon and Starliner. SpaceX had 4 fewer years and half the money, and they absolutely blew Boeing out of the water.
Did you see the relatively recent XKCD featuring the two stranded crew members looking out a port hole at Earth and saying "Oh Gosh, just think that until they solve the Starliner problems all those 8 billion people are *STUCK DOWN THERE!!!* "
Astronauts prepare for issues like this
And Boeing was using a pre-existing disposable rocket platform, Atlas 5. For all the money they received, they only needed to come up with a crew capsule and the rest!
This does an impressive job of explaining the situation to anyone who will sit through the video. The situation is complicated and the problems are complex, but I find myself agreeing with your conclusion. Well done!
Thank you for this very clear exposition of the cascading failure that is the Starliner.
“Starliner never got a fair chance at success”
dude… Boeing literally got waaaaay more funding for Starliner. 🙃🙃
Plus boeing has kept finding delay after delay while SpaceX has made 12 successful manned flights to ISS.
I think that statement is directed at Boeing's bean counters and arrogant engineers screwing up their own capsule. A redundant option was a good idea but the company developing it shot themselves in the foot.
@@okidoki5977
Boeing got more money because they argued SpaceX already had a developed cargo capsule thus had a head start, that said Dragon 1 cargo is vastly different than the Dragon 2(both crew and cargo versions). This was an unfair argument but lobbyist for Boeing were able to squeeze more money out of the deal.
That said, if you look at the Dragon 1 cargo missions, they never experienced the issues Starliner has had, by their 3rd launch it was effectively flawless.
Those trying defend Boeing seem to hate Elon Musk or are Boeing shills trying to minimize social media damage. On these comments sections, one guy tried to use Starship as a comparison to Starliner because it keeps 'blowing up', completely ignoring the rapid iteration testing that SpaceX is doing with that project.
@@JarrodFLif3r starship Will Not fly even to the Moon. Never.
Starliner IS for the same Moon mission than starship.
Starship cant even reach orbirt empty.
There IS No need to hate Elon, just see what happens in the real world, Not your Melón Husky boot liking fantasy.
@@xiro6 A version of Starship will fly to the moon and eventually Mars!!!
You are naive if you think otherwise.
Full Credit is due please:
Original Moon Rover for the Apollo missions to the moon was designed and built by 3 major companies and their subsidiaries.
The Boeing Company and its PRIMARY subcontractor, the Delco Electronics Subdivision of GENERAL MOTORS, designed and built the first lunar rover in 18 months…and it worked!!!
Just trying to keep things straight.
I do enjoy your channel and view with great enthusiasm.
Thank you.
Thanks I thought there was others involved considering over 400,000 people worked on the apollo missions at its peak
@@idris4587 Yes, it is astounding to think how many folks worked on the Apollo and other NASA space programs, in every state, with good paying jobs for the time, in the 60's. It did "boom" the economy, with no talk of recession or depression, or inflation, like now!
@ronschlorff7089 And to think people thought apollo program was a waste of money. The amount of good it created when compared to what could of been spent on the military.
Too many people today don't even consider the idea that people who were in welding, fabrication, grinding, and extruding are as important as the engineers who designed these parts to begin with.
@@ronschlorff7089 The Cold War made NASA a priority. They were well funded with significant % of GDP going toward it. Today's NASA is underfunded and has too many milestone. It used to be just land people on the moon. Now it focus on Mars, Moon and Asteroid with less money.
@@idris4587 Yes, it was essentially a skilled job and almost "full employment" program and it could be again, with proper leadership!
Why isn't some Boeing top executive / manager not already in jail for all of their crimes? Why is our Gov still contracting with this criminal organization?
The successful return home - unmanned - doesn't change the perception of this troubled program. Every one of its test flights have raised separate concerns, from hardware to software deficiencies. If NASA certifies this thing for manned missions, then I would suspect a deal was made to bend the criteria. Too expensive to fail, or too politically connected to fail?
true, let's see if a change of administration affects things, and congressional oversight may have to take a more active role. They authorize this spending on contractors, for all of the gov't agencies!! Maybe Musk can help ferret things out going forward! :D
Boeing is impossible to fix. The MD poison has seeped so far in, that removing it would leave it with 0 manned leadership positions, probably a 1-digit amount of managers, and a employee base which stopped caring long ago.
@@ronschlorff7089 Sadly there will be no further changes of administration. Just which party member gets to say they are the President.
@@gelf1907 we'll see, early voting starts here in AZ soon and it's a sea of red Trump and Lake signs, so maybe, just maybe!! ;D
This has got to be the best piece I've seen on the Starliner issues. Very well done and presented. There is no way I would ever fly on a vehicle with this many problems. The best solution for this is to just shut the program down and move on. Sad to see a once vibrant company go down the tubes.
The rampant problems that Boeing is having with all its business units is directly related to the switch from Engineers to MBAs. U.S. corporations have done this en mass since the 90's. Either releasing engineers for MBAs or swapping U.S. trained engineers (who are expensive) with cheaper, off-shore engineers who are less experienced and, in some cases, poorly trained.
You missed out the "slightly" flammable wiring insulation...
I’m the daughter of an engineer who worked on parts of the Rocketdyne engines that powered the Saturn V moon rocket. I’m not an engineer myself but I’m still fascinated by what the human mind can accomplish and what dedicated engineers can build. This was a great explanation of the sequence of events that led to the Starliner failure and its aftermath. I hope that Boeing can get its act together and return to being a great company with a culture of safety over profits. I still don’t understand why Boeing allowed legacy leadership from a failing company to take control after the merger. It remains to be seen if the change in leadership will be able to save this once great company.
And I am your father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate.
The problem is that dubious management tends to be better at covering up failure and inflating the bottom line than good ones. After the merger, they make their achievements look good to shareholders. And we all know auditors never make mistakes - cough, cough, Enron, Time Warner.
Intelligent people can be easily deceived because they tend to assume other people are like them rather than being twisted, devious psychopaths.
@@EbenBransome
Indeed so! Well said! ... unfortunately true😂
McDonnell probably had some corporate psychopaths that Boeing lacked an immune system for.
I am a son of the Apollo program engineer.
Like most people my age, I grew up wanting to go to the Moon. If someone offered me a trip to space today but the only condition is I had to take Starliner, I would absolutely not get on that lemon. The entire program has just been one huge clusterf*ck and Boeing needs to be kicked to the curb. Meanwhile SpaceX continues to innovate and push forward more every day.
ok boomer
@@robertthallium6883 How original.
It's really wild that one option has such an incredibly high success rate that you may not even be too nervous riding it up while the other is a lemon.
I grew up in the 60's in the San Fernando Valley. I remember when RocketDyne would test the Saturn-5 engines which could be heard all around the Valley. Sadly, there is nothing left of RocketDyne in Canoga Park, nor is there anything left of Lockheed in Burbank. That was a phenomenal time of engineering, guts, and an attitude of failure is not an option. The problems we see today are as this excellent video points out, the engineers were pushed aside in favor of money people. The main problem with software is that with few exceptions, the people writing software know little, nor want to know about hardware and the intricacies that go with the hardware. The kids at SpaceX seem to have the right attitude due in no small part of who heads the company.
The Calypso name is an homage to Jacques Cousteau’s exploration vessel (given Suni’s earlier work as a Navy diver).
The top three levels of management in a technical / scientific / engineering company should NEVER be bean counters (MBAs, economists, accountants, stock traders). These should be relegated to basement offices with no outside windows.
No separate offices but portable partitions.
MBA stands for Morally Bankrupt A$$hole
This video was fantastic. You’re on your way to be a titan of TH-cam.
I doubt it
My family was a McDonnell-Douglas family. My dad met my mom at Douglas in Long Beach, CA. After my mom died, my dad married another Douglas lady. My step-sis also worked for Douglas for a time. I myself worked for Douglas during the summer one year. All of this happened before the merger with McDonnell. After the McD-D merger, my dad continued to work for the company, and ultimately died of a heart attack in 1976 while still working for them. So I had a good overall feeling for Douglas.
I was a bit dismayed at the Boeing merger, because of course they were the competition to what I still kind of felt like was "my" company. But, oh well. Many years later when I was attending an air show at an US air base, I happened to run into a couple of Boeing employees who were doing something around the KC-10 display aircraft. They were old Boeing pre-merger employees, and expressed to me some frustration with the post-merger Boeing. This made me dismayed from an entirely different perspective!
So sad to see what Douglas has done to Boeing.
I think this is the less-mentioned true seed of a lot of these current circumstances: It wasn’t so much McDonnell who had issues, they building the Gemini capsule if I’m not mistaken, but the acquisition of the failing Douglas that started this ball rolling. Edit: And don’t get me wrong: I have a great admiration for Douglas and their aircraft.
How do you get a lemon to fall to Earth? First you detach it from the ISS.
11:30 We had a system called Calypso at my old job, we called it Calapso, because it always failed. Probably a more fitting name in this case too.
Boing is on a bancruptcy speedrun 😂
Uncle Sam will bail them out. Too big to fail.
I've never shorted a stock ..
But this would be the one to do ..
😂
@@JarretXu what if they're doing a US bancruptcy speedrun too 💀 Boingnomics is working 💀💀💀🤣
spellcheck is free ...
7:43 To keep things in perspective, Boeing ex CEO David Calhoun's severance pay was $33 millions and his predecessor's pay was comparable too.
$33 million for running (or flying) a company into the ground. I'm a capitalist but these exorbitant payouts to ex CEOs need to stop.
@@michaelclausen9331 YEP.
@@michaelclausen9331 Not only CEO payouts. The top executive salaries/incentives are outrageous as well.
We need something more like Executive Responsibility: if you crash the company, you have to pay it back.
The CEO during the disgusting 737 Max MCAS scandal resigned with 60 plus million dollars!!
This report is oustanding in its clarity and content-- we are glad to subscribe.
Proudly claiming historical engineering skills from the 60s and 80s is fine in books and documentaries. It means 'jack' when it comes to efficiently build spacecraft 30-60 years later. All of the engineers who did the design work and manufacturing are at best lounging around in retirement homes.
I'd wager that there is a GREAT deal of wisdom and common sense that those retirees took with them, essentially lost because of the broken lines of succession. Today's engineers have to learn the hard way, again. Also, back in the day, there was the urgency of beating the Soviets to the moon... the stakes were critical, and everyone was at the their best. But now, arbitrary deadlines in a system that is all about maximizing shareholder returns will only lead to missed deadlines... or shortcuts to make said deadlines. It's not the Soviets we're are up against now... it's SHAREHOLDERS.
The industry no longer wants the best engineers. They want engineers, even less talented ones, who are willing to take technical direction without question from non technical money men. I know, I lived it for decades.
The video glossed over the many actual hardware issues in the capsule itself - from faulty parachute links to flammable wiring. A lot that isn't "miscommunications" with Rocketdyne, but pure conspiratorial cost-cutting actions that violated detailed specifications, that Boeing hoped will not be discovered.
Given that - can NASA trust that they've discovered all the spec-violations that Boeing perpetrated? I'm sure they are confident that they did, as much as I'm sure that Boeing has more surprises instore for us.
You understand the business pretty well!
This could have been sensationalized, but thankfully it's accurate and professional. Thank you for that. Many of us may already know much of what's discussed here, but it's a great summary for those that don't and even includes a few things that I'd either forgotten or not been told.
I'm sick of the media using the word "stranded". Had this happened during the Shuttle days, Butch and Suni would have simply returned home in Starliner... perhaps even with a hole in the heat shield. Yes, the entire program is an embarrassment and should have been cancelled long ago, but global news that the astronauts were "stranded" when they had a ~99.4% chance of returning safely when NASA requires 99.64% is not nearly as dramatic as the media claims.
The biggest issue was that no one could determine an *accurate* risk factor as the thruster problem remains difficult to reproduce, but that uncertainly led NASA to make the right choice and simply push Butch and Suni to Crew 9. The downside is that 2 people lost their slots on Crew 9, but NASA made the safest choice and that's exactly what Congress and the public have demanded that they do in the post-Columbia era.
With all of that said, if I were a NASA astronaut on rotation to the ISS, I would want my name to appear beside the word Dragon, not Starliner ;). After that first test flight, I guarantee that NASA astronauts and their families were not keen on Starliner.
NASA could have selected Dream Chaser, but they wanted a "reliable" name like Boeing and the rest is History.
Well put
The media is properly using the word "stranded" in exactly the same sense that they speak of jet passengers stranded in, say Timbuktu, when their jet isn't satisfactorily operable. If the plane becomes deemed to have been brought to a safely operable condition, or an alternative airline can take them home, they are no longer "stranded".
Yes. Butch and Sunni are stranded. They are stuck. Their fellow astronauts are not stranded, because they are scheduled to remain on the ISS.
@@-danR Gilligan eventually returned too. But he was stranded until then.
I'm not sure where you are getting the 99.4% vs 99.64% figures (from some real world calculations or as illustrative figures to make a conceptual point), but as you note - there is no way to determine accurate safety figures, given the unknowns that cannot be quantified. When they don't know why the problem occurred, how can they know how likely it is that more or fewer will fail?
If anything is was underplayed surprisingly enough.
Bean counters have no skin in the game! Their favorite quote is “CUT COST, BUILD IT CHEAPER” investors want more!
[Strange Beavis noises heard from the starliner] : BOIOIOIOIOINGGGG ...
That was the self-destruct timer.
Boeing Test Plane in 70's: "That plane was build so sturdy I had to test a barrel roll on its maiden test flight
Boeing Today: Grounded
@@johnp5250
“what the hell were you doing?”
“Selling airplanes”
True story 😂
Boeing software is actually suicidal today.
Appreciate your thorough start-to-finish chronicling of all the key steps on the Boeing path to failure
First video I’ve seen that has concisely put it all together
Thank You
RIP Boeing
#1. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read a comments section that's literate and free of postmodern pidgin. do U think so 2?
#2. Does anyone else have an intrusive voice in their head murmuring, "Butch and Sunnydance" every time the astronauts are mentioned?
Oh, heavens.
Now it's doing a bad impression of B.J. Thomas singing, "Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head".
This is the best video on the failure of Boeing and Starliner on the Internet. Great job.
"putting engineers back at the top priority list" Amen!!!
Not going to happen in the U.S. The trend has been going on for at least the last 20 years.
@@shooting4star2023 I actually think that if trump wins, engineers will have a renaissance as a result of incentivising manufacturing in USA.
@@FredCacti he's back, barring more "lone shooter" assassination attempts.
@@FredCactiHahahaha! Oh wait, you're being serious, let me laugh even harder, HAHAHAHAHA!
@@FredCacti Not sure how Trump could affect the situation in the positive. He doesn't have the slightest understanding of anything engineering related. "Hydra-zine... Well, hydra means water... zine sounds short for magazine. Ah, Boeing needs to read more magazines about water, that'll fix it!"
This is the first I learned of the silicon seal problem on Starliner. Good storytelling, thanks.
teflon seal not silicon . and silicon is a crystaline solid you mean silicone
As an American tax payer Boeing should be required to pay back the $BILLIONS$ with interest.
I have recently been wondering WTF has happened to the once great Boeing. This video was exactly what I was hoping for. Thank you very much for an excellent and informative explanation.
My first comment is there is no such thing as government funding. The correct term here is taxpayer funding.
ok
THE BEST VIDEO ON THIS ANYWHERE.👏
Quality content.
I want Boeing and ULA. Reform them.
The issue people outside of government contracting don’t realize is that when you are the prime contractor you don’t just take the glory when your subcontractor’s perform well, you are also on the hook when things go poorly. Ultimately, it’s Boeing’s responsibility to ensure Aerojet Rocketdyne provides a quality functional product.
Doug Hurley must be so satisfied with his decision to refuse to fly in the Boeing craft. He was not punished for this but rewarded with a much earlier flight into space.
Calling a machine with "catastrophic problems" leading to massive explosions prior to launch and software bugs both before docking with the space station and again prior to return flight (only discovered two hours before the astronauts would have crawled in for a return trip) that would cause the crew capsule to collide with the service module and explode in space, relying on a clock that was not set properly and so took the craft dramatically off-course on the way out, with (multiple, identified) faulty hardware, with helium leaks, failing thrusters, etc. etc. etc. cannot possibly referred to as a "surprising turn of events" or an "easy fix." It CAN be called a cluster-FK.
Excellent video. I'm not a pilot and even less of an astronaut - except for a few incredible acid trips 30 years ago, but I will never again fly on a Boeing aircraft and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind flying into space on a Boeing.
737 Max - That's all that needs to be said about Boeing's competency (or lack thereof).
Boeing told CNN: “Every day, more than 80 airlines operate about 5,000 flights with the global fleet of 1,300 737 MAX airplanes, carrying 700,000 passengers to their destinations safely. The 737 MAX family's in-service reliability is above 99 per cent and consistent with other commercial airplane models.” Mar 4, 2024,
It's been 5 years since the last 737 MAX crash.
That's 5 x 365 x 5000 = 9,125,000 successful takeoffs and landings since last fatality
and 5 x 365 x 700,000 = 1.28 billion passengers safely travelled on the 737 MAX during that time.
Boeing actively witheld information about the aircraft to pilots. Thats unforgivable @@rays2506
@@rays2506 - The meaning is that PEOPLE HAD TO DIE before Boeing got it right.,
@@rays2506Tell that to those who died.
@@MikeJones-rk1un Tell that to those who don't died. Idiot
We were not captivated,in fact we were not surprised at all that a Boeing product failed
As an engineer this is simultaneously hilarious and horrifying. At what point do we finally tell the accountants to shut up and sit down?
That ship has already sailed
Best summary Video about the current Starliner situation and background information, i've seen - Thank you very much!
Not sure how the F15 became a Boeing success when it is actually a McDonald Douglas fighter before the merger
Probably because of the two other variants the E which most of its life was under Boeing and the EX which is all Boeing.
Also most people don't differentiate between companies post merger. Especially when MD somehow kept their c-suite on after the merger.
Boeing employs the same engineers.
@@deancarter9688 most of the OG guys from the F15 are retired
@@TheMysteryDriver you don't think they mentored the younger folks or documented their best practices before they left?
I once heard an engineer at old Boeing say, we have never heard what overdue or over budget... until after the acquisition
Fixed Cost vs Cost Plus is a big game changer with unanticipated consequences that need to be well thought through early on.