Leaderboard

I wonder if the strong focus on short-term goals of saving money and servicing the stockholders contributes. I do know that Boeing’s federal division had a lot of very good employees who were encouraged to find ways to save money in the 90’s and early 2000’s (my company was a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin). During Shuttle, IBM was wholly focused on quality; as a company, at my level at least we were encouraged to support the mission, not to come up with boondoggles. I have a feeling that was the same for most of the companies at the first and second-line levels, and very possibly the third. This strong focus on quality led to risk aversion, which increases costs. And, of course, taxpayers are all about cost, as are stockholders. The systemic things I see that really concern me all have to do with money, which here in the US at least (and much of the world) is power. And we all know that people like power. I don’t have the solution; this forum (and SC) are more like the donut counter where the old guys in the corner sit every morning and identify the world’s problems. Upper management at Boeing will be replaced at the discretion of the stockholders, and only if the stock price takes a tumble. And they won’t hire someone who doesn’t want a large compensation package, because he (it’ll be a he) won’t have a “track record of stockholder satisfaction.” Any more, that’s all that matters. Money makes most people pretty short-sighted. What Boeing needs is a longer-term goal, and the time and resources to address it. So yeah, a huge stock loss will help, but once they get a good quarter and some rich people have gotten their money back, things will go back Wendy P.

This place is starting to look more and more like a bad day on my FB feed.

After the Starliner space vehicle launch, Boeing detected two additional problems with the vehicle. One was an increase in the helium leak rate (minor) - a second was a failure of five vehicle thrusters (major.) It still managed to dock with the ISS after a delay while they dealt with the thruster issue. They have so far delayed its return five times. This time they haven't given a date for the return; it is on indefinite hold. The clock is ticking, though. The vehicle only has enough consumables to last 45 days on-station, so unless they can return by July 21st, the vehicle will be stuck there. More likely they will plan an unmanned return before then if they are still having problems. What I worry about is the pressure that Boeing and NASA are under. Having to do an unmanned return will look horrible for Boeing; they will appear to be able to do nothing right. And since the crew will probably then come back in a Dragon, Musk will spend the next year crowing about how the safe, reliable Dragon rescued the poor astronauts from the deadly, defective Boeing vehicle ordered by those tax-money-wasting idiots at NASA. And NASA is then going to have to explain why they spent $4.3 billion on the Boeing system, given that they spent only $2.5 billion on the Dragon, which has been flying for two years and costs half as much per mission than the Boeing will. Saying "so yeah it needs some more work and another test flight" will not be a good look for them. In both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, one of the big factors called out was "normalization of deviance" - the approach "well, it worked before and it's no worse now, so why worry?" I hope they don't take that approach this time.

Right. But since it MIGHT have risen to 45%, it has really dropped by 5%! MAGA math.

I finally got the time to listen to this uninterrupted. This is a very good interview. And enjoyable. Perhaps now you have an idea why Tom Kaye was selected, and recommended to Agent Carr. Key was Tom's spectroscopic skills/experience based on my familiarity with his work on an advanced astronomical spectroscopy Yahoo Group where Tom had also illustrated his work in archaeological spectroscopy applications. The question at the time was 'would Tom even be interested'. The analysis of money from the Cooper find looked like a straightforward task Tom could do, looking for forensic evidence that would shed light on where the money had been prior to being on Tina Bar. One FBI theory at the time was that the Cooper money had flowed down the Washougal into the Columbia before arriving at Tina Bar. The Washougal and Tina Bar are in different geological regions. We were curious to see if the money had preserved any particle-elemental evidence of having ever been in the Washougal vs. the Columbia (a sedimentary zone). Tom has proven to be very flexible, inventive, persistent, and thoroughly scientific in his whole approach to the problems he has encountered in his Cooper work to date - and very sociable and agreeable with everyone he has had to deal with. Thanks for a remarkable interview! PS: And thanks to SA Larry Carr and the FBI for their support of Tom and his team.

Guys, you sound like a couple of 8-year-olds. Cut it out Brent, if you want people to say something specific, you’re going to have to direct them, and expect them to post what they want to anyway. For one thing, the OP didn’t specify on topic. If you consider the topic to be the unique evils of renewable power waste, and absolutely nothing else, why post? Because obviously the only response you’d accept is “either yes, master,” or something like piling it on. Those people don’t post here. Thread drift happens. As someone who contributes to it in other threads, you should understand. Olof, goading Brent is reeeeeal close to trolling Wendy P.