Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#141

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:22 AM UTC

joezydeco wrote: post #64

lostlogin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting - why are the batteries onboard and not ground equipment? Obviously restarting a stalled engine would be handy, but is this something that actually happens? And if it is, couldn't the running jets provide the power somehow? I seem to remember that some old WW2 prop aircraft had ground equipment requirements to start them from cold (power or warmed air or something?) Obviously this isn't an area I k…

I found a Boeing technical publication that discusses the power architecture of the 787 and how the battery comes into play. Kind of interesting: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4... Page 4 says this: "The power source for APU starting may be the airplane battery, a ground power source, or an engine-driven generator. The power source for engine starting may be the APU generators, engine-dri…

I was wondering about that. They could probably fly the things without APU start batteries, as long as they avoid having to do a cold start at a grass strip. So, new AD, no landing 787's at podunk facilities with no ground carts, or, electrical service.

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#142

Post by mossplix » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:25 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #68

While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…

The problem is not the engineers.. The problem is most of the engineering was outsourced. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/01/21/what-wen...

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#143

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:26 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #79

joezydeco wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a Boeing technical publication that discusses the power architecture of the 787 and how the battery comes into play. Kind of interesting: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4... Page 4 says this: "The power source for APU starting may be the airplane battery, a ground power source, or an engine-driven generator. The power source for engine starting may be the APU generators, engine-dri…

So the battery seems to be very important when you're somewhere with no ground generator. Like in the sky? After your engines have stopped for some reason? That could be exciting!

That's what I was wondering, but does this happen? And if the other engines can start it as Joezydeco suggests, does not having them matter? Surely the number or airports without decent facilities to help start them must be small?

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#144

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:28 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #68

While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…

You're misstating the wing flex test results.

The 787 Dreamliner saw wing flex of 154% of design maximum, at "approximately 25 feet", to quote your own sources. That's a 2.5 storey building.

The 747's wingspan, depending on aircraft configuration, ranges from 195 to 224 feet, which is approximately 19 - 22 storeys (assuming 10' per storey).

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#145

Post by wamatt » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:35 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #68

While I can't dispute anything that is being said I think it is unfortunate that this is playing out the way it is. I can't dispute it because there's virtually no reliable publicly-available information on the design of this battery pack. I think it is unbecoming of an engineer or scientist, particularly of prominence, to voice such opinions without access to design data from the source. Before I could even begin to…

The point you make about design of the 787 is fitting. Many of us can appreciate its awe inspiring technological splendor. However, one does have to wonder if it's possible, that this feeling could be overly motivating your defense of Boeing, and criticism of Mr Musk?

We can probably agree that no one (Musk included), is without reproach. However historically we see a person willing to go all in, literally putting all his liquidity toward his new ventures. It does seem somewhat implausible he simply keeps striking it lucky.

I haven't the foggiest clue if he's right or not, but it does appear he's taken a calculated risk. Accordingly, he will be punished or rewarded as the story unfolds.

His approach seems somewhat harsh/brazen, but is that what really matters here?

When your're the unlucky patient strapped to the operating table, in need of critical surgery (assuming only two doctors were available), would want the specialist with the highest level of competency, or the one with the nicest bedside manner?

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#146

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:40 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #116

rpm4321 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm saying this because he is a businessman, not an engineer." Musk is the Chief Designer at Space-X, Product Architect at Tesla Motors, and a member of the Stanford University Engineering Advisory Board. He has previously served as a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. - Wikipedia.

Elon Musk is not an engineer. He does not have an engineering degree and does not hold an engineering license. I'm a huge fan of the guy, but he is not an engineer.

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#147

Post by benkay » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:43 AM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #116

rpm4321 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm saying this because he is a businessman, not an engineer." Musk is the Chief Designer at Space-X, Product Architect at Tesla Motors, and a member of the Stanford University Engineering Advisory Board. He has previously served as a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. - Wikipedia.

Elon Musk is not an engineer. He does not have an engineering degree and does not hold an engineering license. I'm a huge fan of the guy, but he is not an engineer.

> musk not an engineer

> ford not an engineer

> brunel not an engineer

ladieslaughing.jpg

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#148

Post by gnaffle » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:48 AM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #115

msandford wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the engineers at Boing are REALLY good (and that's not guaranteed by any means) then you've still go the subcontractor problem to deal with. Boeing didn't design, engineer, fabricate, test and qualify these batteries in-house. Saying that they have advanced degrees from prestigious institutions makes it less likely that they have made mistakes is a non-starter. There ARE PROBLEMS with the batteries FULL STOP.…

> There ARE PROBLEMS with the batteries FULL STOP Because Elon Musk says so? Do you base your trust in him on his degrees?

No, the FAA says so, leading to a grounding of all the planes.

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#149

Post by NickNameNick » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:53 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #143

jessaustin wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the battery seems to be very important when you're somewhere with no ground generator. Like in the sky? After your engines have stopped for some reason? That could be exciting!

That's what I was wondering, but does this happen? And if the other engines can start it as Joezydeco suggests, does not having them matter? Surely the number or airports without decent facilities to help start them must be small?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

Its not without precedent...

Re: Elon Musk: Boeing 787 battery fundamentally unsafe

#150

Post by jim-greer » Wed, Jan 30, 2013, 7:59 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #93

commandar wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>unless there was something so obviously wrong with the design that a conclusion was inescapable Isn't that exactly what both Musk and Professor Sadoway are suggesting in the linked article?

I'd be very interested in what they are saying if --and only if-- they had access to Boeing and FAA design and test data. You have to remember that the FAA had to approve these subsystems as well. I don't have any first-hand experience on just how detailed (or not) this certification process might be. Once again, how could anyone say anything at all without looking at data. To make a really dumb analogy, it's like cl…

You seem to think that the burden of proof is on the critics. When an airplane has multiple failures, I'd say the burden of proof is on Boeing. Especially when the critics know a lot about the technology in question.