July 10, 2024 - No. 28 In This Issue : The proton engine Einstein predicted is ready: It challenges the laws of the universe and benefits the cars : Stranded in Space: Boeing's Starliner Faces Crisis Due to Material Substitution and Trade Barriers : Boeing accepts a plea deal to avoid a criminal trial over 737 Max crashes, Justice Department says : At the factory that builds the 737 Max, Boeing rethinks how it trains new hires : The “Hercky Bird” transport plane... : American Airlines Eyes Hydrogen-Powered CRJ700s : Boeing’s biggest rival Airbus to launch ‘game changing’ plane this year : 5 Major Differences Between Airbus And Boeing : Northrop Grumman successfully tests first fully digital rocket motor : Boeing’s Starliner Appears to be Making an Indefinite Stay at the International Space Station The proton engine Einstein predicted is ready: It challenges the laws of the universe and benefits the cars by D. García 07/08/2024 in Mobility Do you know what they’ve discovered? This is the proton engine that Einstein predicted decades ago and that, for the first time, they’ve managed to materialize. The best part? It challenges even the laws of physics and the universe, and it’s going to decarbonize transportation. Einstein predicted a nuclear fusion engine: now they’ve just created it! Nuclear fusion has long been a sought-after but elusive goal for science. It involves joining atomic nuclei to release energy, the same process that occurs in the Sun and other stars. In fact, it’s a process similar to what we saw two weeks ago with the plasma engine. Unlike nuclear fission used in current nuclear power plants—which, remember, we are highly critical of due to its lack of being an eco-friendly or renewable option—fusion offers the promise of a virtually inexhaustible and clean energy source. As early as 1929, Albert Einstein had theorized about the possibility of creating a “proton engine” based on nuclear fusion, which could propel spacecraft at speeds close to the speed of light. The idea was to use the high fusion temperatures to expel a stream of protons and generate thrust. Technology has advanced since then: a tireless evolution Previous attempts to create a nuclear fusion engine failed due to technological limitations. However, in recent decades, there have been significant advances in several areas that now make it possible to attempt to build this revolutionary engine. One of the main advances has been in new materials capable of withstanding the incredibly high temperatures inside a nuclear fusion reactor. Special alloys and advanced ceramics have been developed to contain the super-hot plasma necessary for fusion. Another key factor is progress in understanding plasma physics and nuclear fusion. Scientists now have much more precise computational models to simulate and control fusion reactions. This gives them greater capacity to stabilize and sustain the necessary reactions. Furthermore, new techniques for magnetic confinement and electric fields have been achieved to contain the hot plasma. This prevents the plasma from touching the walls of the reactor, which would cool it down and stop the reaction. The new superconducting magnets are key to this. The first proton engine, ready to decarbonize transportation (also on Earth) RocketStar is a startup founded in 2021 that is developing a nuclear fusion propulsion engine. Their goal is to create a revolutionary rocket engine that uses the fusion of hydrogen nuclei to generate extremely high specific impulse. RocketStar’s design is based on proton fusion (hydrogen nuclei) through a funnel-shaped magnetic field. The protons are injected into the wide end of the funnel and then compressed as they approach the narrow end, reaching extremely high temperatures and densities. Fusion releases large amounts of energy that is converted into a plasma jet directed outward at high speed. This provides thrust to the rocket without the need for chemical propellants. The advantage is that fusion fuel (hydrogen) is virtually inexhaustible, and in the long term, it could be used in vehicles. As you can see, this proton engine demonstrates that when it comes to making transportation sustainable, physics and mobility can come together. They also did it with this trick to double the range of electric cars, something that now puzzles factories for one simple reason: it’s too good to be true, but thousands of drivers are already experiencing how well it works. Stranded in Space: Boeing's Starliner Faces Crisis Due to Material Substitution and Trade Barriers Note: See photos in the original article. Chao Qun L. Versatile Digital Marketer & Project Manager | Expert in Security Solutions & Strategic Analysis | Accomplished Chinese-English Interpreter (TAC) | Dynamic Entrepreneur July 2, 2024 Recently, Boeing handed over the order for titanium alloy valves for Boeing Starliner spacecraft to an Indian manufacturer. Unexpectedly, the Indian manufacturer, considering cost factors, replaced the material with aluminum alloy. This led to numerous problems in the space environment, including five helium leaks and propulsion failures, which severely affected the spacecraft's performance and left two astronauts unable to return to Earth. The International Space Station (ISS) allows a maximum docking period of 45 days for the Boeing spacecraft. If this period is exceeded, the spacecraft must detach. Originally designed to support seven astronauts with survival supplies including food, water, and oxygen for up to three months, the spacecraft now faces a supply shortage due to the presence of two additional astronauts.In early June, two American astronauts who were sent to the ISS aboard the Boeing spacecraft were stranded in space due to the spacecraft's malfunctions, making their return to Earth impossible. Previously, the U.S. had implemented various trade barriers against China, prohibiting the use of any Chinese-made components, including a series of bills like the "Wolf Amendment," which bans any aerospace cooperation between the U.S. and China. In this context, the U.S. could not obtain the necessary shuttle parts for repair and assembly from China and had to seek help from other countries, leading to the use of inferior Indian-manufactured components. This resulted in fatal safety issues like the helium leaks. India's commercial practice of substituting titanium alloy with aluminum alloy ultimately caused the two astronauts to be unable to return to Earth. Facing this predicament, only three countries in the world have the capability to rescue these two stranded astronauts: the U.S., Russia, and China. However, given the current tense U.S.-Russia relations, with the U.S. supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, it is almost impossible for Russia to assist the U.S. Tiangong Space Station This leaves China and the U.S. as the only options. However, the "Wolf Amendment" passed by the United States Congress in 2011, prohibits any space cooperation with China. This means that even if China were willing to help on humanitarian grounds, it would not be possible due to U.S. law. Additionally, the different docking interfaces between China's Tiangong space station and the ISS make technical cooperation unfeasible. Therefore, hoping for Chinese assistance in rescuing American astronauts is unrealistic. The U.S. will ultimately have to rely on Elon Musk's "Dragon" spacecraft for the rescue. This incident not only exposed issues in the U.S. supply chain but also emphasized the importance of global cooperation in the field of aerospace. Stranded in Space: Boeing's Starliner Faces Crisis Due to Material Substitution and Trade Barriers Boeing accepts a plea deal to avoid a criminal trial over 737 Max crashes, Justice Department says Boeing is expected to plead guilty to fraud in connection with approval of its 737 Max before two of the planes crashed, killing 346 people. Victims of the plane crashes families are disappointed that Boeing will now have the option to accept a plea deal shielding the aerospace giant from accountability. BY DAVID KOENIG AND ALANNA DURKIN RICHER Updated 1:15 PM CDT, July 8, 2024 Boeing will plead guilty to a criminal fraud charge stemming from two crashes of 737 Max jetliners that killed 346 people, the Justice Department said late Sunday, after the government determined the company violated an agreement that had protected it from prosecution for more than three years. Federal prosecutors gave Boeing the choice last week of entering a guilty plea and paying a fine as part of its sentence or facing a trial on the felony criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors accused the American aerospace giant of deceiving regulators who approved the airplane and pilot-training requirements for it. The plea deal, which still must receive the approval of a federal judge to take effect, calls for Boeing to pay an additional $243.6 million fine. That was the same amount it paid under the 2021 settlement that the Justice Department said the company breached. An independent monitor would be named to oversee Boeing’s safety and quality procedures for three years. The deal also requires Boeing to invest at least $455 million in its compliance and safety programs. The plea deal covers only wrongdoing by Boeing before the crashes in Indonesia and in Ethiopia, which killed all 346 passengers and crew members aboard two new Max jets. It does not give Boeing immunity for other incidents, including a panel that blew off a Max jetliner during an Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon in January, a Justice Department official said. What to know about the plea deal offered Boeing in connection with 2 plane crashes The deal also does not cover any current or former Boeing officials, only the corporation. In a statement, Boeing confirmed it had reached the deal with the Justice Department but had no further comment. In a filing Sunday night, the Justice Department said it expected to submit the written plea agreement with a U.S. District Court in Texas by July 19. Lawyers for some of the relatives of those who died in the two crashes have said they will ask the judge to reject the agreement. “This sweetheart deal fails to recognize that because of Boeing’s conspiracy, 346 people died. Through crafty lawyering between Boeing and DOJ, the deadly consequences of Boeing’s crime are being hidden,” said Paul Cassell, a lawyer for some of the families. Federal prosecutors alleged Boeing committed conspiracy to defraud the government by misleading regulators about a flight-control system that was implicated in the crashes, which took place than less five months apart. As part of the January 2021 settlement, the Justice Department said it would not prosecute Boeing on the charge if the company complied with certain conditions for three years. Prosecutors last month alleged Boeing had breached the terms of that agreement.U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who has overseen the case from the beginning, has criticized what he called “Boeing’s egregious criminal conduct.” O’Connor could accept the plea and the sentence that prosecutors offered with it or he could reject the agreement, likely leading to new negotiations between the Justice Department and Boeing. The case goes back to the crashes in Indonesia and in Ethiopia. The Lion Air pilots in the first crash did not know about flight-control software that could push the nose of the plane down without their input. The pilots for Ethiopian Airlines knew about it but were unable to control the plane when the software activated based on information from a faulty sensor. The Justice Department charged Boeing in 2021 with deceiving FAA regulators about the software, which did not exist in older 737s, and about how much training pilots would need to fly the plane safely. The department agreed not to prosecute Boeing at the time, however, if the company paid a $2.5 billion settlement, including the $243.6 million fine, and took steps to comply with anti-fraud laws for three years. Boeing, which blamed two low-level employees for misleading the regulators, tried to put the crashes behind it. After grounding Max jets for 20 months, regulators let them fly again after the company reduced the power of the flight software. Max jets logged thousands of safe flights and orders from airlines picked up, increasing to about 750 in 2021, about 700 more in 2022 and nearly 1,000 in 2023. That changed in January, when a panel covering an unused emergency exit blew off a Max during the Alaska Airlines flight over Oregon. Pilots landed the 737 Max safely and no one was seriously injured, but the incident led to closer scrutiny of the company. The Justice Department opened a new investigation, the FBI told passengers on the Alaska plane that they might be victims of a crime and the FAA said it was stepping up oversight of Boeing. A criminal conviction could jeopardize Boeing’s status as a federal contractor, according to some legal experts. The plea announced Sunday does not address that question, leaving it to each government agency whether to bar Boeing. The Air Force cited “compelling national interest” in letting Boeing continue competing for contracts after the company paid a $615 million fine in 2006 to settle criminal and civil charges, including that it used information stolen from a rival to win a space-launch contract. The company based in Arlington, Virginia, has 170,000 employees and dozens of airline customers spanning the globe. The best customers for the 737 Max include Southwest, United, American, Alaska, Ryanair and flydubai. But 37% of its revenue last year came from U.S. government contracts. Most of it was defense work, including military sales that Washington arranged for other countries. Boeing also makes a capsule for NASA. Two astronauts will remain at the International Space Station longer than expected while Boeing and NASA engineers troubleshoot problems with the propulsion system used to maneuver the capsule. Even some Boeing critics have worried about crippling a key defense contractor. “We want Boeing to succeed,” Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said during a Senate hearing last month on what he termed the company’s broken safety culture. “Boeing needs to succeed for the sake of the jobs it provides, for the sake of local economies it supports, for the sake of the American traveling public, for the sake of our military.” Relatives of the Max crash victims have pushed for a criminal trial that might illuminate what people inside Boeing knew about deceiving the FAA. They also want the Justice Department to prosecute top Boeing officials, not just the company. “Boeing has paid fines many a time, and it doesn’t seem to make any change,” said Ike Riffel of Redding, California, whose sons Melvin and Bennett died in the Ethiopian Airlines crash. “When people start going to prison, that’s when you are going to see a change.” At a recent Senate hearing, Boeing CEO David Calhoun defended the company’s safety record after turning and apologizing to Max crash victims’ relatives seated in the rows behind him “for the grief that we have caused.” Hours before the hearing, the Senate investigations subcommittee released a 204-page report with new allegations from a whistleblower who said he worried that defective parts could be going into 737s. The whistleblower was the latest in a string of current and former Boeing employees who have raised safety concerns about the company and claimed they faced retaliation as a result. At the factory that builds the 737 Max, Boeing rethinks how it trains new hires By Joel Rose Published June 27, 2024 at 5:01 AM EDT Note:: See photos in the original article. Boeing is changing how it trains new recruits at the factory near Seattle where it assembles the 737 Max, part of a broader effort to improve quality after a midair blowout. 737 Max aircraft are seen in various states of assembly at the Boeing factory in Renton, Wash., on Tuesday. RENTON, Wash. — Boeing assembles the 737 in a massive factory here that can hold more than a dozen unfinished planes, with their shiny green fuselages lined up nose to tail. But before Boeing’s new hires get to work on these jets, they spend a few months next door at Boeing’s training center, learning the basics. “Everything has a name, everything has a measurement, everything has a place. And it's just mind-blowing, the details,” said Derrick Farmer, who is about two months into his training at Boeing. Farmer worked as an aviation mechanic in the Army, helping to keep Boeing helicopters in the air, for nine years. Now that he’s learning how to build the planes, Farmer says the level of detail is a lot to take in — even for him. “Every bolt, every washer, every rivet,” he said. “It all matters.” Boeing has been on a hiring spree, adding thousands of new workers to make up for the experienced employees who left in droves during the COVID pandemic. “Every bolt, every washer, every rivet. It all matters,” said Derrick Farmer, right, as he trains on electrical systems with Timothy Well at Boeing's Foundational Training Center on Tuesday. Now Boeing is changing the way it trains new recruits at the factory where it assembles the 737 Max, part of a broader effort to improve quality control after a door plug panel blew off a relatively new plane in midair. This week the company gave reporters a rare glimpse inside its 737 factory near Seattle — the same factory where a Boeing worker or workers failed to reinstall four key bolts that were supposed to hold that door plug in place. “I am extremely confident that the actions that we took have ensured that every airplane leaving this factory is safe,” said Elizabeth Lund, Boeing’s senior vice president for quality. “I feel very confident that it will not happen again.” Lund says Boeing has made a lot of changes since the door plug incident. The company has added new steps to make sure work is performed in the right sequence, and that it is documented correctly. And Lund says Boeing is rethinking how the company trains new hires. “It worked before when we didn’t have the high quantity of new people coming in,” she told reporters this week. But with so many new people coming on board, Lund says they weren’t getting as much on the job training from experienced employees. “Having that person who is there with them, helping them do their job. That relationship wasn't as strong as it had previously been,” she said. Boeing has responded by creating a formal mentoring program, Lund said. It’s added several additional weeks of foundational training, from a maximum of 12 weeks before to 14 now. And the company is revising its training materials to make them more hands-on. Elizabeth Lund, senior vice president of quality at Boeing, speaks to gathered media on Tuesday in front of a slide detailing the door plug blow-out that occurred on Jan. 5, 2024, on Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. “We have definitely incorporated more repetition, a lot more hands-on repetition,” said Kayla Abusham, a trainer in the electrical department. “It's a lot more complex,” Abusham said, forcing the trainees to focus on the details of how they log the work as they go, “just like how they would do on the floor.” At another station in the training center, Zach Jackson shows reporters the proper way to drill holes in sheet metal. Jackson started working at Boeing in 1978. He left during the 1990s. And then decided to come back a few years ago, to help train the next generation. “I love this place. That’s why I’m still here. I’m here to help,” Jackson said. “My son works here now. He never did want to work for Boeing, but I convinced him.” How did Jackson persuade him? “I showed him my paycheck,” he says with a laugh. Boeing is not the only company in the aviation industry that’s lost a lot of experience on the shop floor. So has Spirit AeroSystems, a key supplier that builds the fuselage for the 737 in Wichita, Kan. Boeing is in talks to buy most of Spirit, reacquiring the factory it sold off almost 20 years ago. The two companies have already made some changes to cut down on the number of production errors before the fuselages arrive at Boeing’s factory. Orange tape points to a slightly raised rivet near a mid-cabin door plug on a 737 Max aircraft at the Boeing 737 factory in Renton, Wash., on Tuesday. “You can see right over the door here, there's a piece of orange tape,” said Katie Ringgold, the vice president and general manager of Boeing’s 737 program, and the head of the factory where the jets are assembled. Ringgold points to a piece of tape marking one single rivet on the fuselage of a plane in production that’s sticking out too far from the skin. But overall, Ringgold says problems with new fuselages have dropped in recent months. “So while still not perfect, we've seen a significant reduction in the defects found here that were caused by our supplier,” Ringgold said. Federal regulators have limited Boeing’s production of the 737 to 38 jets per month, and Ringgold says the company is making even fewer than that. “My focus is not rate. My focus is stabilizing this factory with the safety and quality changes that are paramount,” she said. Eventually Boeing will have to speed up production if it’s going to satisfy the airlines that are eager for new planes, not to mention investors and analysts on Wall Street. But for now the company’s leaders say their focus is on getting every bolt and rivet right. The “Hercky Bird” transport plane is one of the great success stories of American industry in general and aircraft in particular. In demand everywhere, the C-130 is a big earner of foreign exchange for our country. JS Squidley Former Senior Chief Petty Officer BMCS (SW/AW)(E-8) at United States Navy (USN) (1995–2021)Jun 23 Note: See photos in the original article. Will the US Air Force replace or upgrade their current fleet of Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules aircraft with a newer model in the future? I know what you are thinking…the C-130 was designed in the 1950s and first flew in 1954. It's 70 years old right? Wrong. The fork you eat with was first designed 10000+ years ago, so it must be obsolete right? Wrong. Instead of bronze your fork is likely made of stainless steel or maybe sterling silver. The sa YC-130 first flight 23 August 1954 (coming up on 70 years old in 2 months) There have been over 1,600 C-130s built for the USAF alone. They were build over a very long period of time. The first was 53–129 delivered in 1958. It was converted to a JC-130A in the early 60s. It was converted to a AC-130A gunship in the late 60s. It was retired in 1994 and sits statically on display outside Eglin AFB in Florida. So you can see it was rebuilt twice. 53–129 in 1987 Most C-130’s flying today for the USAF are either models based on the C-130H or the C-130J. H’s were produced from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. The J, also known as the Super Hercules, are the model produced still today first flying in 1996. The J is an entirely new aircraft with different dimensions, different structure, different engines….everything is new. The J has seen 2 versions, the J and J-30 which is 15 feet longer. Between the J and J-30 there are successively 4 blocks of modification, effectively 1 block advancing the last several decades. C-130J-30 #20–5965. Delivered in 2024. It's newer than any C-17 or C-5 in the USAF inventory. C-130J-30 Glass Cockpit The C-130J/J-30 is the top of the line and will remain so for at least the next few decades. There are no new aircraft in development or planning to replace the type. American Airlines Eyes Hydrogen-Powered CRJ700s By Russ Niles Published: July 3, 2024 American Airlines issued a news release Tuesday saying it has signed a conditional purchase agreement to buy 100 hydrogen-electric engines from ZeroAvia with a goal of powering a fleet of regional airliners, possibly retrofitted CRJ700s, with them. The ZeroAvia system uses hydrogen in fuel cells to create electricity that runs conventional electric motors turning propellers. American is an investor in the European startup and also upped its stake in the company, although it didn’t say by how much. The company is currently flight testing a 20-seat aircraft and developing a bigger system that would be capable of powering the CRJ700, American said in the release. “Advancing the transition of commercial aviation to a low-carbon future requires investments in promising technologies, including alternate forms of propulsion,” said American’s CEO Robert Isom. “This announcement will help accelerate the development of technologies needed to power our industry and uphold our commitment to make American a sustainable airline so we can continue to deliver for customers for decades to come.” American said it’s part of American’s quest to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas Boeing’s biggest rival Airbus to launch ‘game changing’ plane this year • With Boeing being occupied with other matters, Airbus seems to be taking the lead • The European aircraft manufacturer is launching a new aircraft this year • It is called the A321XLR Published on Jul 02, 2024 at 3:49 PM (UTC+4) by Nalin Rawat Last updated on Jul 03, 2024 at 11:34 AM (UTC+4) Edited by Tom Wood Note: See photos in the original article. With Boeing’s absence at an upcoming international airshow, all eyes will be on its European rival, Airbus. The A321XLR stands for ‘Xtra Long Range’ model and is part of the A320 family. The Airbus A321XLR is the European aircraft manufacturer’s soon-to-be-certified single-aisle aircraft. It seems the aircraft is quite highly anticipated as the company has secured over 550 orders for the plane. This aircraft is an extra long-range variant of the A321neo family. It also comes with an extra rear center fuel tank that helps the narrowbody fly up to 4,700 nautical miles (approximately 8,700 kilometers) or 11 hours nonstop. The Airbus 320 family has already been outselling the Boeing 737 since 2019. And this might be the final nail in the coffin. With Boeing choosing not to bring any planes to the Farnborough International Airshow this year, the Airbus A321XLR will likely enjoy the limelight. According to Airbus, the A321XLR boasts a 30% reduced fuel burn compared to previous-generation competing aircraft. It will also be half the trip cost of dual-aisle planes, like the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380. This will certainly increase the profit margin of airlines but only time will tell if it help reduce flight ticket costs. Airbus has already received orders from American Airlines, United Airlines, Spain’s Iberia, India’s IndiGo, Qantas, AirAsia X, Chile’s Sky Airlines, Czech Airlines, and others. According to Spain’s Iberia airline, its new XLR planes will feature 182 seats across economy and business cabins. However, the Airbus A321XLR can carry up to 220 people in two classes. This is not the only thing that Airbus is currently working on as they are also developing a blended-wing-body aircraft called Maverick. Then there’s the Airbus Racer — a half-plane, half-helicopter hybrid. It certainly seems like the European manufacturer has a lot on its plate. 5 Major Differences Between Airbus And Boeing By Simple Flying Staff & Dr. Omar Memon Updated Jun 23, 2024 Note: See photos in the original article. SUMMARY • Control mechanisms differ: Airbus uses the sidestick, Boeing uses the control column. • Door configurations: Airbus doors open parallel, Boeing doors move crossway. • Hydraulics sound: Airbus emits a "dog bark" due to PTU, not heard on Boeing planes. If you are fond of commercial aviation, you have no doubt been asked if you were team Airbus or team Boeing. The two leaders in aircraft manufacturing have been competing since the 1970s when the European consortium entered the market as an alternative to the American colossus. Since then, Airbus and Boeing have been shaping the fleets of the world's airlines, progressively upgrading their successful products to align with the evolving requests of an ever-changing and complex industry. While some carriers operate mixed fleets of Airbus and Boeing aircraft, others decide to invest completely in one particular manufacturer. The logic behind this decision has different natures, among which one finds economic advantages. However, an Airbus and a Boeing aircraft are entirely different products from many perspectives. 1 "I have the airplane." Aircraft control mechanisms are different • Airbus: the sidestick • Boeing: the control column Resisting the urge to peek inside the cockpit to admire where the magic happens can be difficult when boarding an aircraft. This would allow you to identify one of the main differences between an Airbus and a Boeing aircraft. For the former, you would not spot the classic yoke in front of the pilots' seats. Indeed, Airbus pilots use a sidestick similar to a console joystick to steer their aircraft. Boeing generally adopts a more classical approach to flight controls. The aircraft's control surfaces, such as ailerons, elevators, and rudders, are activated by maneuvering the yoke. On the other hand, Airbus was the first manufacturer to introduce the Fly-By-Wire (FBW) concept. Unlike manual flight controls, the FBW system translates the pilots' inputs into electrical signals. After processing the information received, this is transmitted to a computer that identifies the optimal way to activate the aircraft's control surfaces. RELATED A Look At The Fly By Wire Control SystemThe fly-by-wire system has been a revolution in flight control systems design and is a feature found in many aircraft that are being designed today. No matter how hard Airbus pilots want their aircraft to pitch or roll, computer programming prevents the plane from performing maneuvers that are considered unsafe at specific stages of the flight. In other words, assuming there were no aircraft issues, where Boeing pilots could theoretically cause the aircraft to stall, their Airbus colleagues may find this more difficult, as an Airbus computer would prevent the aircraft from exceeding its operational limits. 2 Look at the door! Which way does the door open? • Airbus: Doors open parallel to the fuselage • Boeing: Doors move crossway If you are flying on a short/medium-haul aircraft, it is pretty easy to tell if you are onboard an Airbus or Boeing plane. All you have to do is look at the door while boarding. The Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families are the most popular short/mid-range aircraft families in the world. However, they differ in many ways. One of the most noticeable is how the aircraft's doors are designed. When opened, Airbus doors run parallel to the fuselage, while a Boeing door moves crossway. Additionally, opening a Boeing door almost always implies turning a lever from left to right, whereas the movement is from the bottom up to open an Airbus door. RELATED Uganda Airlines Is Now Using The World’s 2nd Oldest Active Airbus A320The aircraft was built in 1989. 3 The "barking dog" sound Are aircraft hydraulics functioning properly? • Airbus: A typical noise in aircraft hydraulics • Boeing: No apparent unusual noise If you fly on an Airbus A320 family aircraft or an Airbus A330, you will most likely hear what is described as a "dog bark" sound at specific flight stages. If this is the case, you have nothing to worry about. The sound is a sign that the aircraft's hydraulics are functioning correctly - phenomenal news. As Britannica highlights, this unusual noise is caused by the aircraft's Power Transfer Unit (PTU) system, a hydraulic pump that ensures minimum pressure is maintained across the aircraft's hydraulic systems. Although some Boeing aircraft also feature a PTU, it operates differently, making it almost impossible for passengers on a Boeing aircraft to hear this noise. RELATED Where The World's Oldest Active Airbus A320 Is FlyingDespite being more than 35 years old, it is not the airline's oldest aircraft. 4 Special historical ties Ties with major airlines for large projects • Airbus: European legacy carriers • Boeing: United Airlines Boeing and Airbus have played a fundamental role in shaping commercial aviation as we know it today. However, one of the two expert manufacturers has a history dating back to the very early days of aviation. As highlighted by the Pilot Institute, William E. Boeing was an American timber merchant who founded Aero Products Company in 1916 after developing a single-engine, two-seat plane. The following year, the business name was changed to Boeing Airplane Company, and it started manufacturing flying boats for the US Navy during World War I. Get the latest aviation news straight to your inbox: Sign up for our newsletters today. After launching airmail services in 1928, William Boeing founded Boeing Airplane & Transport Corporation to expand into airline operations. The following year, the company was renamed United Aircraft and Transport Corporation and acquired smaller aircraft makers and engine manufacturers, including Pratt & Whitney. In 1931, four small airlines were added to the business, giving birth to United Airlines. RELATED United Airlines Hubs: A Look At The Airline's 5 Most Important CitiesThe title of United Airlines' largest hub in terms of flights will change throughout 2024. In 1934, new US antitrust legislation prohibited aircraft manufacturers from being involved in air transport. Therefore, the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was dissolved, resulting in the Boeing Aircraft Company, United Technologies Corporation, and United Airlines—the same ones flying all over the globe today. 5 More than just aircraft manufacturers Other aviation products • Airbus: Commercial aircraft, helicopters, defense, and space • Boeing: Commercial, space, and defense. Although Airbus and Boeing are usually associated with plane manufacturing, both companies offer a more comprehensive range of products and services. Airbus, for instance, operates in the commercial aircraft, helicopter, defense, and space sectors. Boeing's business areas entail commercial space and defense. Therefore, Airbus ventured into a market that does not compete with its all-time American rival - civilian helicopters. Airbus delivered 338 helicopters in 2021, 344 in 2022, and 346 in 2023, with a market share of 54%, making it one of its steady aviation streams. That said, Boeing is notable for producing one of the most critical military helicopters, the CH-47 Chinook. Northrop Grumman successfully tests first fully digital rocket motor The company explains that the test validates its decision to take an entirely digital design approach for the rocket motor. Updated: May 23, 2024 08:21 AM EST Christopher McFadden 2 months ago Note: See photos in the original article. Image of the Common 50HP upper stage solid rocket motor during testing. Northrop Grumman Northrop Grumman has announced it has successfully tested its first entirely digitally designed rocket motor. Named the Common 50 High-Performance (C50HP), this upper-stage solid rocket motor is intended for use in the United States Next-Generation Interceptor (NGI) program. The company reports that the rocket completed a static fire test at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Complex. The C50HP has been devised as a high-performance upper-stage rocket motor adaptable to various missions. Northrop Grumman states that these missions will include space travel beyond Earth’s atmosphere and other final propulsion stages. C50HP is the company’s inaugural large solid rocket motor system, developed digitally using model-based systems engineering. “Our implementation of digital solutions across our business is transforming how we design, test, and manufacture next-generation propulsion systems,” said Jim Kalberer, vice president of propulsion systems at Northrop Grumman. “C50HP increases productivity for our customers by allowing the team to more quickly design and test additional solid rocket motor capabilities.” Digital design to improve performance Northrop Grumman reports that the static test qualified the versatile motor for flight, validated digital modeling and simulations, and demonstrated the design’s maturity and motor performance. Full pressure and structural qualification testing were also completed for the C50HP motor. The company explains that this validates the advanced design’s ability to withstand various loads and extreme environments. The company also reports that the motor’s entirely digital design will improve technical performance by enabling engineers to integrate design and performance requirements efficiently into the physical product. The C50HP test enhances Northrop Grumman’s current and future rocket motor systems, offering increased capability for national defense and commercial applications. Northrop Grumman NGI solution is designed to defend the US homeland from Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) threats within the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system. The test is an important milestone in the company’s delivery of this critical component. “We are doing everything we can to accelerate our schedule while maintaining the deep technical rigor for which we are known. Northrop Grumman is committed to delivering this crucial capability to our warfighters as soon as possible while meeting the key mission requirements,” said Wendy Williams, Vice President and General Manager of Launch and Missile Defense Systems at Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman aims for 2027 deployment The NGI project is a collaboration between Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It involves using advanced digital engineering techniques to speed up design maturity phases and quickly achieve operational capability. The planned Stage Three solid rocket motor (SRM) will assist in powering the NGI booster, and data from the static test will help validate the ballistic predictions of NGI’s solid rocket motors. This, the company explains, will also help inform other SRM designs before entering qualification testing. The company plans to conduct further full-scale static test firings for each of its NGI SRMs in 2024 to gather comprehensive data to support its All-up Round design, which is expected to be completed later this year. The anticipated deployment of the first operational NGI is targeted for as early as 2027. Boeing’s Starliner Appears to be Making an Indefinite Stay at the International Space Station By lenrosen4 Boeing's Starliner in its Demo-2 mission has run into a number of problems which for the moment leaves it unable to de-orbit (Image credit: NASA) The star-crossed exploits of Boeing continue with the Starliner, the company’s commercial space taxi unable to leave unless an emergency evacuation is declared on the International Space Station (ISS). Even before the Demo-2 mission to prove Starliner was crew-ready, concerns about it being fit to fly were circulating. When Starliner flew its Demo-1 mission in May of 2023, several issues were observed including a leaky hatch. Problems with a hatch are not trivial in space. A failed hatch on Soyuz 11 back in 1971 caused rapid depressurization of the capsule during its reentry and killed the three cosmonauts on board. Boeing needed to redesign Starliner’s hatch and add redundancy with a backup. The new equipment and testing led to a long delay between the Demo-1 and the June 2024 Demo-2 mission. Then came Demo-2’s navigation and propulsion issues. Rendezvous and docking are critical stages in spaceflight. Any malfunctions to the maneuvering system of the spacecraft put crews in peril. A misfiring thruster during the Gemini 8 mission in 1966 led to a near-disaster with the crew including future Moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, gaining control of the tumbling capsule by first identifying the equipment problem and then overriding the automatic systems and manually flying the spacecraft. Fortunately, the two crew members on board Starliner and the grounds crew were already aware of systems problems before the launch which included a persistent helium leak. Helium is used as a pressurant in Starliner’s propulsion system. The helium exerts pressure on the thruster’s liquid fuel and oxidizers to enable it to fire during flight and docking. With helium leaks reported during flight, there were resulting thruster malfunctions. Five of eight on the service module malfunctioned delaying docking as the crew and ground staff looked for workarounds. Then there was a corroded valve issue inside the service module which was also compromising the ability to fly the spacecraft. What was the cause? The current theory is that exposure to moisture that seeped into the spacecraft while being prepared for flight interacted with the nitrogen tetroxide fuel used by the thrusters for navigation. The exposure turned some of the fuel into nitric oxide causing corrosion. A temporary resolution adjusted Starliner’s systems and software to help mitigate the risk. Docking with the ISS was delayed but eventually succeeded. After docking, the Starliner crew tested the new hatch repeatedly before joining the astronauts and cosmonauts on board the ISS. Is Starliner ready to fly astronauts to and from the ISS on future missions? The jury is out. NASA has declared it can only be used in an emergency requiring a crew evacuation. The plan for now is a prolonged stay with Starliner mated to the ISS while NASA conducts hot-fire thruster and other tests. So far, of the five malfunctioning thrusters, the Agency has identified one that cannot be used if and when the spacecraft undocks and returns to Earth. The remaining four are operating normally after software fixes have been applied. The problems that Starliner is having appear to be mostly within the service module. When Starliner eventually undocks and returns to Earth it needs a window of seven hours to complete the end-of-mission deorbit and re-entry. There appears to be enough remaining helium onboard the service module for these maneuvers. But NASA has stated it has no intention of using Starliner again until the helium leaks and other problems are addressed and resolved which probably means return-to-flight will be delayed into 2025. During a post-docking news conference, Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manager said the Starliner could remain with ISS for 45 days before there would be a potential scheduling conflict. Meanwhile, because the service module hardware gets jettisoned during Starliner’s return to Earth and burns up in the atmosphere, the only way to investigate its systems is to keep the spacecraft attached to the space station. Once Starliner returns to Earth, NASA will do an agency-level review of the capsule, the service module, and the system software just as they did with the Demo-2 mission for the SpaceX Dragon. Meanwhile, when it comes to the ISS the last laugh will go to SpaceX. The company just was awarded the contract to de-orbit the station sometime in 2030 or later and have the vehicle and solution ready to go by no later than 2029. NASA budgeted $1 billion for this project and awarded Elon Musk’s company $843 million plus launch costs. It is not known if SpaceX will use a modified Starship or a new design to safely bring an end to the ISS. NASA has no intention of seeing the ISS’s demise without commercial station replacements in orbit by then. The ISS ways more than 400,000 kilograms (over 440 tons). The plan is to find a resting place for the ISS far from land somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Curt Lewis