Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Once again - "If it's Boeing, it ain't going"

Once again - "If it's Boeing, it ain't going"

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
css
16 Posts 10 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O obermd

    Less than an hour after the Boeing/ULA rep made the (provably false) statement on live NASA TV that Starliner was riding on top of the most reliable rocket ever built, the launch was scrubbed due to an oxygen valve failure in the 2nd stage. The slogan used to be "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Roger Wright
    wrote on last edited by
    #6

    obermd wrote:

    They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

    Entirely correct. Of the three major defense companies I worked for in the past, none still exist. The end was clear once the MBAs and other unqualified suits took over management from the engineers who successfully ran the companies for decades.

    Will Rogers never met me.

    C C 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • O obermd

      Morton Thiokol told NASA not to launch the Challenger that day. NASA overruled them because President Reagan was visiting.

      J Offline
      J Offline
      jeron1
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      Morton Thiokol ultimately approved the launch, against engineers recommendations.

      "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

      O 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • J jeron1

        Morton Thiokol ultimately approved the launch, against engineers recommendations.

        "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

        O Offline
        O Offline
        obermd
        wrote on last edited by
        #8

        Morton Thiokol only approved the launch after NASA threatened to blacklist them for future contracts.

        J 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • O obermd

          Morton Thiokol only approved the launch after NASA threatened to blacklist them for future contracts.

          J Offline
          J Offline
          jeron1
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          Agreed, it's a tough spot for them, nevertheless they bowed to the pressure.

          "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

          B 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Maximilien

            Nothing wrong here. How many nasa launches were scrubbed because of a sensor glitch ?

            CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair

            D Offline
            D Offline
            Daniel Pfeffer
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            Maximilien wrote:

            How many nasa launches were scrubbed

            Not enough. At least one launch (the Challenger mission) should have been scrubbed, but wasn't.

            Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • O obermd

              Less than an hour after the Boeing/ULA rep made the (provably false) statement on live NASA TV that Starliner was riding on top of the most reliable rocket ever built, the launch was scrubbed due to an oxygen valve failure in the 2nd stage. The slogan used to be "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

              Sander RosselS Offline
              Sander RosselS Offline
              Sander Rossel
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              Maybe any other rocket would've had at least two oxygen valve failures :D

              Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J jeron1

                Agreed, it's a tough spot for them, nevertheless they bowed to the pressure.

                "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                B Offline
                B Offline
                BernardIE5317
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                2:35:00 & 4:48:00 https://www.c-span.org/video/?126036-1/presidential-commission-space-shuttle-challenger-accident[^]

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • R Roger Wright

                  obermd wrote:

                  They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

                  Entirely correct. Of the three major defense companies I worked for in the past, none still exist. The end was clear once the MBAs and other unqualified suits took over management from the engineers who successfully ran the companies for decades.

                  Will Rogers never met me.

                  C Offline
                  C Offline
                  cegarman
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  Case in point: the 3 top level people at SOuthwest airlines are all accountants. They gave out over $5 Billion US dollars in stock dividends. They ignore the 1908s' level tech running their IT operations. IT cost them fines and passengers back in 2022(?) when they cancelled thousand of flights do to issues with their IT. Their IT is admittedly underfunded.

                  Cegarman document code? If it's not intuitive, you're in the wrong field :D Welcome to my Chaos and Confusion!

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R Roger Wright

                    obermd wrote:

                    They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

                    Entirely correct. Of the three major defense companies I worked for in the past, none still exist. The end was clear once the MBAs and other unqualified suits took over management from the engineers who successfully ran the companies for decades.

                    Will Rogers never met me.

                    C Offline
                    C Offline
                    charlieg
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    and outsourced their software to people who don't know planes. Understanding the domain of where your code is going to work is critical, especially so in things that can go boom.

                    Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.

                    R 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • C charlieg

                      and outsourced their software to people who don't know planes. Understanding the domain of where your code is going to work is critical, especially so in things that can go boom.

                      Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Roger Wright
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      I can clearly recall the years when I worked for Ace Hardware for lack of a "real" job. The software they used was top of the line - a proprietary multi-tasking version of DOS called SuperDOS - and it was crap. One IBM PC ran three stores, two in our area and one in Reno, NV - using RS232 serial ports. It was easily the least reliable system I've ever seen, but it worked. The problem was, the software didn't do the things that a hardware store and lumber yard need it to do. I decided then and there that any programmer who intends to work on an industry-specific software product should be required to work in the target industry for 2 - 5 years before being allowed to code a single line.

                      Will Rogers never met me.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • O obermd

                        Less than an hour after the Boeing/ULA rep made the (provably false) statement on live NASA TV that Starliner was riding on top of the most reliable rocket ever built, the launch was scrubbed due to an oxygen valve failure in the 2nd stage. The slogan used to be "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going". They lost this when they removed engineers from the C-Suite.

                        D Offline
                        D Offline
                        den2k88
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #16

                        Boeing used to make planes to blow up things, now they make things to blow up planes.

                        GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++*      Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups