Boeing are such a large aviation manufacture that their recent shut down of the 737-Max plane production line looks set to reduce US economic output by a staggering 0.6% next quarter.
But as so often, such largeness is accompanied by hubris. In the worst case, ongoing investigation as to whether they knowingly sent 346 victims to their death in 737-Max “flying coffins”.
In this month’s case, space flight failure. Their Starliner could not reach the International Space Station for docking as planned.
Rosie, the name of their dummy astronaut, launched all fine. But then the rocketship stalled once beyond Earth’s atmosphere and had to come back home, mission not accomplished.
Unsuccessful projects are frequent at the outer limits of tech, and especially so in space. Yet the weight of press coverage prefers to focus on the trend of general Boeing-bashing.
Boeing themselves tried to spin. Their own pr instead leading with; “The Boeing CST-100 Starliner’s first mission ended historically today when it became the first American orbital space capsule to land on American soil rather than in an ocean”. Slanting which appears widely slammed.
Trying to gloss over the “timing anomaly” that prevented expected docking.
Earlier reporting had them stating the misfire as “off-nominal orbit insertion”.
These pair are startling terms attempting to reframe failure as anything but.
Perhaps understandably given their recent record, they did not escape opprobrium. Unlike the recent Cyber Truck demo.
There are many a reason for Sale disaster. The reason stuck to here, is some kind of clock bug, making the machinery think it was at a different point in time along its mission flight plan.
Now, this “Mission Elapsed Time (MET) anomaly” is definitely something we can see on a solution bid.
And we also must be ready to spot it, act on it, and bring things back to a “stable orbit”.
Are you geared up to check whether your ‘extra fuel burn’ kicks in before it is really needed?