Airplanes grounded for being crappy...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

You rather contradict yourself there. The US government space program only had one rival (the Soviet program). If that constitutes useful competition, how is the Airbus/Boeing competition different?

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

[Malgrave]

You rather contradict yourself there. The US government space program only had one rival (the Soviet program). If that constitutes useful competition, how is the Airbus/Boeing competition different?

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

BBC4 aired an incredibly interesting documentary on the British space programme a while ago, it was quite remarkable to see how much progress was reach with such little funding (especially compared to the American and Soviet projects)

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

BBC4 aired an incredibly interesting documentary on the British space programme a while ago, it was quite remarkable to see how much progress was reach with such little funding (especially compared to the American and Soviet projects)

I had heard of it but missed it as I was abroad at the time...so was quite gutted.

Doing tech stuff on a small budget is the British way...always.

[AiliailiA]

You rather contradict yourself there. The US government space program only had one rival (the Soviet program). If that constitutes useful competition, how is the Airbus/Boeing competition different?

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

Yes to collaboration. And there is scope for competition within a collaboration. For instance, the two different detectors in the LHC both aiming to discover the Higgs Boson, or the nationally separated manufacture of superconducting magnets for ITER.

Or, just because it's funny: in the international collaboration to build the Eurofighter, the right wings are made by a French/Spanish company, while the left wings are by an Italian company. If one wing works better than the other, it will show.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

Yes to collaboration. And there is scope for competition within a collaboration. For instance, the two different detectors in the LHC both aiming to discover the Higgs Boson, or the nationally separated manufacture of superconducting magnets for ITER.

Or, just because it's funny: in the international collaboration to build the Eurofighter, the right wings are made by a French/Spanish company, while the left wings are by an Italian company. If one wing works better than the other, it will show.

Competition is good...even within a collaborative frame work as long as the deliverable is not compromised. It takes a careful eye to ensure that things do not get out of hand.

[Malgrave]

BBC4 aired an incredibly interesting documentary on the British space programme a while ago, it was quite remarkable to see how much progress was reach with such little funding (especially compared to the American and Soviet projects)

I had heard of it but missed it as I was abroad at the time...so was quite gutted.

Doing tech stuff on a small budget is the British way...always.

I've known for some time that the British managed to advance technological without flinging much cash around, it is also something I heard of the intelligence gathering community. The scientists and engineers interviewed in the documentary however spoke like they were moments and a few extra pounds away from success, the lack of political will for the British space project was disturbing and something I would certainly change if I had access to a TARDIS.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I had heard of it but missed it as I was abroad at the time...so was quite gutted.

Doing tech stuff on a small budget is the British way...always.

I've known for some time that the British managed to advance technological without flinging much cash around, it is also something I heard of the intelligence gathering community. The scientists and engineers interviewed in the documentary however spoke like they were moments and a few extra pounds away from success, the lack of political will for the British space project was disturbing and something I would certainly change if I had access to a TARDIS.

Heath Robinson is a national hero

[Demara]

The sad part is that the Dreamliner is a gorgeous plane, extensive, and just a plain (heh, I wanted to write "plane" here as a joke) beautiful interior. Wish they'd made it better - then I probably would have flown one relatively soon! But I guess not.

[Divair]

The sad part is that the Dreamliner is a gorgeous plane, extensive, and just a plain (heh, I wanted to write "plane" here as a joke) beautiful interior. Wish they'd made it better - then I probably would have flown one relatively soon! But I guess not.

It doesn't look that great, really

[The Corparation]

The sad part is that the Dreamliner is a gorgeous plane, extensive, and just a plain (heh, I wanted to write "plane" here as a joke) beautiful interior. Wish they'd made it better - then I probably would have flown one relatively soon! But I guess not.

They made it great the only real issue they've had is with the batteries. Which means that the rest of the radical technologies like the extensive use of Composites is working great.

[Greed and Death]

We tried (although never manned flight...we did satellites) until packing up after Black Arrow...which put Prospero into orbit. Our only all British attempt. After that it finally dawned on the powers that be that the UK was just never going to compete on its own (after Blue Streak and Black Knight failed). Really we should have understood that in 1959 when we set up our own programme...requiring close work with NASA anyway. We needed to collaborate.

Then ESA came along.

BBC4 aired an incredibly interesting documentary on the British space programme a while ago, it was quite remarkable to see how much progress was reach with such little funding (especially compared to the American and Soviet projects)

They had a documentary on the Polish space program.

[Malgrave]

BBC4 aired an incredibly interesting documentary on the British space programme a while ago, it was quite remarkable to see how much progress was reach with such little funding (especially compared to the American and Soviet projects)

They had a documentary on the Polish space program.

Well Poland will be launching a satellite into orbit this year.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Coming back to the Dreamliner. This article is pretty interesting and pretty much backs up what I was saying about the role of McDonald Douglas MBA's in Boeing.

1 - An conceived idea that was driven from management rather than engineers
2 - Main objective was to produce a cheap airplane using parts from across the globe
3 - Boeing lost its supply chain
4 - No due diligence of any relevant standard performed on any of the suppliers
5 - Management pressure to deliver to tight (unrealistic) time scales
6 - Not enough engineering time spent on testing not only the concept but also the "new technology"

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/start-dr ... was-rushed

[Northern Dominus]

Coming back to the Dreamliner. This article is pretty interesting and pretty much backs up what I was saying about the role of McDonald Douglas MBA's in Boeing.

1 - An conceived idea that was driven from management rather than engineers
2 - Main objective was to produce a cheap airplane using parts from across the globe
3 - Boeing lost its supply chain
4 - No due diligence of any relevant standard performed on any of the suppliers
5 - Management pressure to deliver to tight (unrealistic) time scales
6 - Not enough engineering time spent on testing not only the concept but also the "new technology"

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/start-dr ... was-rushed

Isn't this in spite of multiple re-assurances on the part of Boeing that they were taking everything into consideration and overbuilding the aircraft to begin with because of all the unknowns IE the electronics and computers?

The sad part is that the Dreamliner is a gorgeous plane, extensive, and just a plain (heh, I wanted to write "plane" here as a joke) beautiful interior. Wish they'd made it better - then I probably would have flown one relatively soon! But I guess not.

It doesn't look that great, really

At first glance yes it may look not that much different that Boeing's other efforts, just another jetliner.

But look closer and the engineering advances start to stick out. Look at the swoop in the nose into the fuselage, the thinness and sweep of the wings, the symmetry of those wings and the horizontal stabilizers. It takes a second but those engineering changes make for a bit of aesthetic change that is subtle but beautiful once you see it.

It's a shame that the wiring harness and batteries were made by the lowest bidder.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Coming back to the Dreamliner. This article is pretty interesting and pretty much backs up what I was saying about the role of McDonald Douglas MBA's in Boeing.

1 - An conceived idea that was driven from management rather than engineers
2 - Main objective was to produce a cheap airplane using parts from across the globe
3 - Boeing lost its supply chain
4 - No due diligence of any relevant standard performed on any of the suppliers
5 - Management pressure to deliver to tight (unrealistic) time scales
6 - Not enough engineering time spent on testing not only the concept but also the "new technology"

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/start-dr ... was-rushed

Isn't this in spite of multiple re-assurances on the part of Boeing that they were taking everything into consideration and overbuilding the aircraft to begin with because of all the unknowns IE the electronics and computers?

It's a shame that the wiring harness and batteries were made by the lowest bidder.

It's one reason they pre-sold so many planes yes.

Harness and batteries - push your suppliers to the brink and if they crack and if they don't hit your costing buy cheap off someone else.

[Northern Dominus]

Isn't this in spite of multiple re-assurances on the part of Boeing that they were taking everything into consideration and overbuilding the aircraft to begin with because of all the unknowns IE the electronics and computers?

It's a shame that the wiring harness and batteries were made by the lowest bidder.

It's one reason they pre-sold so many planes yes.

Harness and batteries - push your suppliers to the brink and if they crack and if they don't hit your costing buy cheap off someone else.

"Made in America" just isn't what it used to be...

Because "Made in America" gave us this:

Which had its own teething problems, but they were pretty damn minor by comparison to what the 787 is experiencing today.

[Ethel mermania]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/busin ... .html?_r=0

much like franco still being dead, the boeing plane remains on the ground, with the NTSB saying "i dunno"

seriously, some folks at boeing need to lose jobs.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

It's one reason they pre-sold so many planes yes.

Harness and batteries - push your suppliers to the brink and if they crack and if they don't hit your costing buy cheap off someone else.

"Made in America" just isn't what it used to be...

Because "Made in America" gave us this:

Which had its own teething problems, but they were pretty damn minor by comparison to what the 787 is experiencing today.

Considering that jet airline flight was roughly fifteen years old (first jet liner flight 1949 and start of the 747 design process proper being 1965) the entire 747 project was...colossal.

Sure it had lots of problems. Not surprising for not only new technologies but also for an entirely new kind of industry.

[Northern Dominus]

"Made in America" just isn't what it used to be...

Because "Made in America" gave us this:

Which had its own teething problems, but they were pretty damn minor by comparison to what the 787 is experiencing today.

Considering that jet airline flight was roughly fifteen years old (first jet liner flight 1949 and start of the 747 design process proper being 1965) the entire 747 project was...colossal.

Sure it had lots of problems. Not surprising for not only new technologies but also for an entirely new kind of industry.

And because it was so collosal and so new, Boeing took the time to make sure they did it right the first time. Hell they seriously tested it for 2 years before deliveries were ordered, and it showed because it didn't have any of the major issues that the Dreamliner is having.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

if Boeing has to ground it's planes, then they suck.

[Las Tierras Verdes]

When I saw the title, I instantly though "Russia".

Then I find out: Gringos.

Mind blown.

[Thafoo]

They deserve this for shitting on Kansas.

[Northern Dominus]

if Boeing has to ground it's planes, then they suck.

Except they don't. Boeing has demonstrated that they're capable of amazing engineering perfection and audacity. They gave us the 707, the 747, the 307, and other great passenger aircraft. Boeing also has a rich history in military aircraft, most notably building the big bombers from the iconic B-17 and B-52 to lesser known but effective aircraft like the KC-135 Stratotanker and the E-3 Sentry.

Boeing doesn't suck. They're highly capable of producing amazing feats of engineering to take people across thousands of miles in mere hours and in comfort or provide an extreme logistical or offensive edge to our military. But they've gotten lazy about it because they're not fighting it out tooth and nail with other companies for market share, most of their competitors have been bought up by either them or Lockheed-Martin by now.

The simple fact of the matter is if Boeing was under direct threat, if they were forced to do things better for less or face profit loss, the Dreamliner wouldn't be having the problems it does right now.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

When I saw the title, I instantly though "Russia".

Then I find out: Gringos.

Mind blown.

yeah...this Gringos kick yer on? Its getting real old, real fast.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/business/787s-grounding-leaves-airlines-with-uncertainties.html?_r=0

much like franco still being dead, the boeing plane remains on the ground, with the NTSB saying "i dunno"

seriously, some folks at boeing need to lose jobs.

Cannot disagree...but this is a malaise that runs through all of corporate America...the mantra, post 1987, is "Greed is Good". Fuck quality.