I am a bit worried that with the attention on Boeing’s recent major problem with the 737 Max, everyone is now in a mood to “pile on” with other problems. This is easy to do, since Boeing itself has replaced its CEO, apparently due to problems on multiple high visibility programs. We all are now wondering whether there is a culture at Boeing that does not prevent problems. However, listing lower level problems may not be fair to the company, just as it would not be fair to do to other companies.

One thing that differentiates the withdrawal from the Phantom Express project from many of the minor problems now being listed is that the 737 Max problem could be a cause of this withdrawal. Boeing has to borrow $10 billion in order to correct this problem, and the production line has been shut down, showing us that Boeing is having financial troubles and can no longer afford to operate in a business-as-usual way while the 737 Max problem is solved so that the fleet can fly again.

Perhaps there may be more programs that Boeing shuts down as it tries to recover from this enterprise threatening fiasco, which would suggest that the 737 Max is the likely cause to withdraw from Phantom Express rather than the first reason that Douglas Messier at Parabolic ARC suggested (see Robert’s update, above). If Boeing does not shut down additional projects, then maybe Messier’s friend was right after all.

The last I heard, the most expensive software bug was the one that caused the first Ariane 5 to explode on launch, at $7 billion. It looks like the 737 Max bug may surpass that one, at $10 billion or more.

Scott M.,
The Direct TV satellite built by Boeing is probably not a design or assembly problem but a problem that occurred during operation. This is different than Boeing’s other problems, because these batteries are largely the same as are used on many other U.S. built geostationary satellites. The design and use of these batteries is not specific to Boeing.

Although this battery design works well, they must be operated carefully, because thermal problems can result in explosion. The design uses a gas phase, so high temperatures can cause the internal pressure to exceed the battery’s strength. Something went wrong that makes these particular batteries more susceptible to burst.

https://spacenews.com/directv-fears-explosion-risk-from-satellite-with-damaged-battery/

Although in Boeing’s defense the spacecraft is 15 years old and ‘only’ had a 12 year design life.

Michael Schnieders: My gosh, I had forgotten Boeing’s recent satellite failures as well. This list keeps getting longer.

If it was just a training thing they would have said so and basically just blamed the pilots.

If it was a slats problem a simple programming correction would have long ago fixed it.

It can not be the increased landing gear height because once its off the ground the gear no longer matter.

If it was as simple as the new engines putting the plane out of balance, like some are saying is the same as Airbus, then the same fix they used would work here.

Why can’t this plane take off?

Matthew: There has been some discussion about that story on a different Boeing thread here at BtB. I did not link to it because I am unsure how real it is. All its sources are anonymous. While I have great respect for Eric Berger, I would like more confirmation.

I also think it might be overstating the issues. I prefer to wait for more info.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-and-boeing-are-closely-looking-at-starliners-thruster-performance/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_brand=ars&utm_social-type=owned

I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.