Should the Pentagon invest in small satellite constellations for the United States to remain a military superpower? The Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a Washington think tank, believes it should. In a recent report, the think tank warns that the spread of advanced technologies has allowed state competitors to challenge U.S. military advantages in naval and air warfare, particularly in long-range targeting and missile defense. In a conflict against a peer competitor (e.g., Russia, China), the study said, the U.S. military will be at a disadvantage without a “resilient intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance [ISR] architecture.”

One problem is that current space and airborne sensors do not provide sufficient around-the-clock coverage, CNAS analysts argued. Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites can spend a few hours over a target area. Drones can spend several days above a target. Satellites in geosynchronous orbit (GEO) can provide continuous coverage of designated target areas. But there are not enough GEO satellites to fully offset LEO satellites and airborne ISR limitations.

Small Satellite Constellations

The answer is to develop lower-cost constellations. “Small satellites should make up the core of the future LEO ISR satellite network,” CNAS suggested. “These satellites range in size from .25 to 400 pounds and cost as little as $150,000.” Large military satellites by comparison cost hundreds of millions of dollars per unit.

Small satellites can be produced and launched in larger numbers. While big-ticket military satellites are far more capable, cheaper alternatives would make it possible to produce ISR constellations made up of thousands of small satellites, said the report. “Within each constellation, sets of small satellites would be assigned to perform each of the tasks previously done by single, expensive satellites. The sheer number of satellites would also allow each constellation to observe a far larger target set than previously feasible.”

The redundancy built into these constellations would complicate adversary attempts to take them down. “The number of satellites adversaries would be forced to engage to cripple U.S. ISR would be orders of magnitude greater than it is today,” according to the study.

This is not the first time the small satellite topic has come up. In earlier discussions at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, military experts and space industry representatives suggested the U.S. invest in the technology to launch swarms of small satellites into orbit as an insurance policy for larger military satellites in the event of a conflict in space. The current network of large U.S. military and intelligence satellites provides an advantage over other countries, but “was really built in an uncontested environment,” Steve Nixon, vice president for strategic development for the satellite firm Stratolaunch, told SpaceNews. “It’s no longer resilient to threats and probably cannot operate through a contested military environment.”

The CNAS report suggested some caution, because the Pentagon will need to carefully estimate the cost of future constellations of small satellites. While the per-unit price of small satellites is considerably lower, there are additional expenses to be considered such as new terrestrial communications stations and intra-constellation data-sharing systems. “That said, the operational benefits afforded by a shift toward more resilient small-satellite constellations may make even a modest increase in the cost of the U.S. military space architecture worth the added expense.”

Decide for yourself. For more information, check out:

Building the Future Force: Guaranteeing American Leadership in a Contested Environment

———–

Ryan Lahti is the managing principal of OrgLeader and author of The Finesse Factor: How to Build Exceptional Leaders in STEM Organizations being published in early 2019. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: Black Marble – City Lights, Flickr)

How well does IoT fit in the aerospace industry? IoT is a natural fit according to Intelligent Aerospace. The aerospace industry depends on the use of sensors and handheld devices as well as connected electronics systems focused on network-centric data capture, communication and storage. These are prime enablers for IoT. In fact, aerospace organizations who were early IoT adopters are already reaping the benefits. They are developing new revenue streams, modernizing manufacturing and integrating global engineering workflows .

When these aerospace organizations combine Big Data with IoT, they can use data, software algorithms and electronics hardware to predict the likelihood of future outcomes based on historical data. For example, companies are exploiting patterns in data to identify risks and opportunities, enhance decision making, increase efficiency and save resources such as time and money. Aerospace engineers and executives see great promise in predictive analytics to transform operations and business models.

IoT Benefits Civil Aviation

In civil aviation, IoT is driving the use of the Aircraft Health Monitoring System (AHMS). AHMS brings vast improvements in the utilization and analysis of Big Data to enhance the availability, reliability and safety of aircraft. This in turn spurs the need to streamline aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) concerns. What is the impact? An Oliver Wyman MRO survey reported that 63 percent of respondents from leading airlines said AHMS increased reliability, with 35 percent also saying that it helped reduce maintenance costs.

IoT-enabled sensors measuring aircraft health and performance provide data related to speed, torque, vibrations and pressure that can pinpoint faults before they become a major problem. With this actionable information, more focused maintenance decisions can be made. This produces fewer cancellations, better operational and flight safety, less fuel consumption and enhanced passenger and crew experience.

To better appreciate the benefits of IoT, do a comparison of past and present. In the 1980s, the number of detectable faults on a Boeing 767 was 9,000. Now, intelligent sensors on a Boeing 787 can detect 45,000 faults. Furthermore, AHMS data from one aircraft where a fault was detected can be used to analyze an entire fleet.

The return on investment from AHMS in civil aviation is plain to see. The streamlining of maintenance operations and the faster reactions to faults could drastically reduce aircraft downtime for airlines that can cost up to $150,000 for just a couple hours. This is a major benefit as most airlines need every bit of revenue from each flight to stay out of the red.

Global MRO spend is anticipated to increase 46 percent by 2026 due to growing passenger numbers and aircraft fleets. Because of this, airlines are looking at the next step in asset management powered by IoT—predictive maintenance. With this, airlines can detect early signs of potential failure and rectify matters before it impacts service delivery.

IoT and predictive maintenance allow for better sharing of operational and maintenance experiences between airlines, aircraft operators and third-party MROs. This enables further cost reductions. By feeding collected data into an MRO solution, parts can be sourced and work schedules of engineers can be optimized thereby drastically reducing downtime.

Moving from Predicting to Prescribing

Predictive maintenance is an advantage, but it is not the end game. Prescriptive maintenance is the next step beyond predicting the status of an asset. Predictive analytics answer “what will happen, when and why?” questions. Prescriptive maintenance takes it further by allowing operators to predict what will happen and offer “what if” scenarios to show the impact of each possible event on operations.

IoT data is used to prescribe maintenance activities that will provide the best outcome (in terms of reliability and asset uptime). Allowing airlines to know what they could do better in the future is the main benefit. If they know an asset may fail, they want to know the most efficient way to reduce the failure rate while also rectifying problems in the most effective manner. Prescriptive maintenance can guide engineers with sequences of tasks to execute that isolate issues and help them determine the right time to do repairs with the appropriate tools. Ultimately, this reduces aircraft downtime.

Prescriptive maintenance is expected to revolutionize MRO. IDC predicts that 50 percent of all business analytics software will incorporate prescriptive capabilities by 2020. In the future, it won’t be engineers telling you how and when to repair an asset, because the asset itself will tell you what it needs. Although the technology is still in the early stages of adoption in civil aviation, keep an eye on it as it matures in 2017.

The aerospace industry provides a fertile environment for IoT. By embracing IoT, the industry can increase efficiency and performance. AHMS, MRO and prescriptive maintenance are prime examples.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: Aircraft Engine, Pixabay)

Two NASA astronauts just completed a six-hour spacewalk outside the International Space Station (ISS) to install a parking spot for upcoming commercial space taxis, which will end U.S. reliance on Russia for rides to the orbiting outpost, according to Reuters. Since grounding the shuttle fleet in 2011, the United States has been dependent on Russia to ferry astronauts to and from the space station, at a cost of more than $70 million per person.

During the spacewalk, the astronauts attached an adapter onto the shuttle’s docking port that will allow commercial space taxis under development by Boeing and SpaceX to park at the station, a $100 billion research laboratory that flies about 250 miles (400 km) above Earth. California-based SpaceX plans to begin test flights of its new passenger Dragon capsule to the station in 2017. Boeing’s debut flight of its CST-100 Starliner capsule is expected in 2018.

NASA had hoped to have the first of two new docking ports installed last year, but the equipment was destroyed during a SpaceX cargo ship launch accident in June 2015. A replacement docking port is under construction and expected to be delivered to the station in early 2018.

SpaceX Status

Space.com reports NASA has ordered a second crewed mission to the ISS from SpaceX, which will provide the orbital service using its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule. The order is the fourth and last guaranteed one that NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts the agency signed with SpaceX and Boeing. However, NASA has said it envisions using one or both of these companies’ private space taxis for years to come. Each company’s current deal allows for a potential maximum of six crewed flights.

The uncrewed version of Dragon already flies to the ISS, under a separate cargo contract that SpaceX holds with NASA. SpaceX met the criteria for the second CCtCap flight after meeting developmental milestones and completing design reviews for Crew Dragon, the Falcon 9 and associated ground systems, NASA officials said.

“We appreciate the trust NASA has placed in SpaceX with the order of another crew mission and look forward to flying astronauts from American soil next year,” said SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell. Back in January 2015, Shotwell said that the company will fly more than 50 Falcon 9 missions, including a demo mission without a crew and an in-flight ejection test, prior to putting a crew on the vehicle.

More than a year later SpaceX still has some ways to go to meet those numbers, but the company is persistent, writing, “In 2017, Crew Dragon, the crew-carrying version of the upgraded Dragon 2 spacecraft, will restore the United States’ capability to fly humans to orbit.”

Boeing Status

According to Phys.org, the next generation of America’s human spaceships is rapidly taking shape at the Kennedy Space Center as Boeing and NASA recently showcased the start of assembly of the first flightworthy version of the Starliner crew taxi to the media. Starliner will ferry NASA astronauts to and from the ISS by early 2018.

“We are making fantastic progress across the board,” explained John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Boeing Commercial Programs, at the July 26 media event in Boeing’s new Starliner factory. “It so nice to move from design to firm configuration, which was an incredibly important milestone, to now moving into the integrated qual phase of the campaign.”

“We are on track to support launch by the end of 2017 [of the uncrewed orbital test flight],” stated Mulholland. Starliner is being manufactured in what is officially known as Boeing’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida under contract with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). Altogether Boeing is fabricating three Starliner flight spacecraft. Spacecraft 1 is underway. The building of Spacecraft 2 will begin in the Fall and Spacecraft 3 will start early in 2017.

NASA hasn’t yet announced which company will fly crews to the station first. Whether it is Boeing or SpaceX, providing the U.S. with the capability to transport its own crews to the station again will be a momentous milestone since it will restore American autonomy for space orbit.

Related posts:

Boeing and SpaceX Propel NASA Commercial Crew Program

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: Dragon V2 by NASA/Dmitri Gerondidakis [Public domain])

The aerospace industry continues to look for ways to use more 3D printing technology in its manufacturing process. This technology, also known as additive manufacturing, involves building physical objects one layer at a time, using digital models and special material deposition devices. Today’s 3D printing machines have come a long way in a short time and are capable of fabricating complex components out of a variety of materials including steel, aluminum, titanium, and plastics. The technology results in lighter parts, with shorter lead times, fewer materials used during production and a significant reduction in the manufacturing process’ environmental footprint. Spares can also be produced on demand, substantially reducing the amount of inventory throughout the entire supply chain.

3D printing technology is evolving quickly, with major backing from industry players. For example, Airbus is making significant investments in additive manufacturing technologies. The company has a new additive manufacturing initiative – which creates a grouping of experts and competencies from the company’s engineering, manufacturing engineering and procurement departments. With this knowledge base, Airbus is well-positioned to define a vision, strategy and roadmap for applying 3D printing technologies.

“I can see Airbus manufacturing a ‘bionic’ aircraft based on 3D printing in the future. So, we’re taking a pragmatic, step-by-step approach,” explained Jerome Rascol, who heads this additive manufacturing initiative. 3D-printed parts already are applied in Airbus’ commercial jetliner product line – from the widebody A350 XWB to its single-aisle A320neo and the cornerstone A300/A310 Family. Approximately,  2,700 plastic parts have been produced by additive manufacturing for the A350 XWB program.

Lockheed Martin already uses over one hundred 3D printers for the creation of prototypes, tooling, and flight-ready parts. There are several reasons why Lockheed Martin prefers 3D printing over traditional manufacturing methods:

• Greatly reduced part production times (as much as 80 percent)
• The reduction of part weights through smart geometric designs (as much as 40 percent)
• Proven reliability in demanding conditions

In addition to these reasons, 3D printing has the potential to make Lockheed Martin’s manufacturing even more efficient. For example, a spacecraft fuel tank made out of titanium — which is one of the hardest metals available — took Lockheed Martin 18 to 20 months to manufacture in the past. Using a huge Sciaky 3D printer with EBAM (electron beam additive manufacturing) technology, the tank can be produced in just two weeks using titanium powder inside a vacuum-atmosphere printing chamber.

According to Business Insider, GE Aviation invested $70 million in an Auburn, Alabama factory to make 3D-printed fuel nozzles for its LEAP jet engine. What used to require welding together 20 parts now requires printing just one.

“We get five times the durability. We have a lighter-weight fuel nozzle. And we frankly have a fuel nozzle that operates in an environment more effectively and more efficiently than previous fuel nozzles,” explained Greg Morris, who leads the additive manufacturing team for GE Aviation in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Additive manufacturing may represent a fraction of the overall manufacturing output in the aerospace industry at the present time. Nonetheless, aerospace industry giants are on the way to making it a substantial production element in their supply chains.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: Airbus A350 XWB, Flickr)

Like any innovative company, SpaceX continues to try to look for ways to make the “difficult” a reality. The ability to reuse a rocket has been talked about for decades, but no space organization has attempted to make it happen. After 13 years of working on the issue, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk believes it is a possibility in the not too distant future.

The Motley Fool shared Musk’s comments from a recent interview in which he explained, “It just happens that earth’s gravity is quite strong, and it’s just barely possible to get a reasonable payload to orbit with an expendable rocket, so then if you add reusability, then that tends to give it negative payload to orbit.” Musk acknowledges they have not achieved it yet, because what they have done to date is evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary. Nonetheless, he believes his company is continuing to advance rocket technology to the point where it will be possible to land rockets for reuse. He clarified, “I think we’re within, sort of, shooting distance of this. I think within the next year, we’ll be able to land the rocket intact.”

Critics of reusability argue that the key issue to consider is the condition of a rocket after it is launched. They feel that the stress from a trip to space would render the rocket subpar for future missions even it is possible to land it.

Despite the critics, reusability represents a very enticing opportunity for SpaceX. Reusability would be revolutionary to the economics of space launch services. As Musk explained during the interview, the cost of its rockets are approximately $60 million, but the cost of the propellant is only about $250,000 to $300,000 — “about as expensive as fueling up a 747.” 

If SpaceX can solve the reusability problem, this would give SpaceX a substantial leg up on its competitors in the use of rockets whether they carry a commercial payload or military payload. According to Bloomberg, SpaceX is close to winning its first U.S. military satellite launch. The market for the launch of such satellites is estimated to be worth about $70 billion through 2030 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. SpaceX plans to charge less than $100 million for military missions compared to $160 million of the current sole supplier United Launch Alliance. Reusable rockets would make this type of opportunity even more lucrative for SpaceX.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: SpaceX, Flickr)

In a June article from CBS News, you might get the impression that the F-35 fighter jet program is “clearly on track.” Capable of supersonic speeds and boasting radar-busting stealth design and unprecedented computer technology, the F-35 is the most advanced and most expensive plane ever built for the U.S. military. With more than 8.5 million lines of software code, the F-35 has been called a flying computer that is designed for both air-to-ground attack and air-to-air combat.

The F-35 program (aka the Joint Strike Fighter program) formally began in January 1994 with the goal of producing a lightweight, low-cost fighter for the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. The Navy’s version is expected to land on and take off from aircraft carriers while the Marine’s version is designed to land vertically.

This month, National Review provided perspectives from a defense executive as well as U.S. government organizations. Former U.K. defense chief Nick Harvey stated in a May interview, “You could argue it [the F-35] was already one of the biggest white elephants in history a long time ago.” While it is noteworthy that a person of Harvey’s stature would share such harsh criticism, his statement merely reflects the conclusions of reports by the U.S. Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and various independent air-power analysts—the F-35 program is not in good shape.

More specifically, these reports indicate the F-35 is unaffordable and will not be able to fulfill its mission. With this in mind, it could be argued that the biggest threat the U.S. military faces over the next few decades is not the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, or the proliferation of quiet diesel-electric attack subs, or even Chinese and Russian anti-satellite programs. The biggest threat is likely to be from the F-35. It is a plane that is being projected to require 1.5 trillion defense dollars. For this trillion-dollar-plus investment, the end result is a plane far slower than a 1970s F-14 Tomcat, a plane with less than half the range of a 40-year-old A-6 Intruder, a plane whose sustained-turn performance is that of a 1960s F-4 Phantom, and a plane that was outperformed by an F-16 during a recent dogfight competition. The problem is not just hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on the F-35. It is also about not having that money to spend on programs that could offer a bigger bang for the buck.

These reports point out that the F-35’s technology at the right price might have changed the game 15 years ago. With decades of advance notice, U.S. peer and near-peer competitors are already fielding planes and systems that would negate many of the F-35’s expected advantages. Incidentally, these advantages are not yet complete and have never been tested in combat against a peer competitor.

The National Review explains after hundreds of billions of dollars and more than 20 years, the U.S. has yet to field one combat-capable plane in the F-35 program. Even when it is ready, it will not be able to maintain U.S air-power dominance. In contrast, the F-16 program, from the time of its inception to initial operating capability, took just five years. For $400 billion — the current estimated acquisition for cost for 2,457 F-35s — a powerful mix of some 5,000 air-superiority and close-air-support fighters sporting world-class weapons systems could be obtained.

Although all of this feedback raises ongoing questions about the F-35 program, the U.S. Congress continues to fund it. This can partially be explained by the fact that the program provides tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. At this point, it is worth considering whether continuing the F-35 program in its current form makes sense given the information to date indicates the program is not very likely to meet its objectives which will impact not only U.S. jobs but also U.S. security.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Flickr)

If you are talking about satellites, the names Boeing and SpaceX probably do not raise an eyebrow, but OneWeb may prompt some questions. If you are talking about the Internet, the name OneWeb may sound like a potential match, but where do Boeing and SpaceX fit? As it turns out, all three of these companies are vying to provide Internet access around the globe via satellites.

According to Reuters, Boeing is close to reaching a deal to build a high-throughput communications satellite for technology pillars such as Amazon, Google, Apple or Facebook. These technology companies want to capitalize on the opportunity to provide Internet access to the estimated 70 percent of the globe that still lacks it.

Jim Simpson, vice president of business development and chief strategist for Boeing Network and Space Systems, explained that the challenge is to reduce the cost of satellite communications to be closer to that of terrestrial costs. This would enable the technology companies to justify the cost of developing a larger communications satellite. If there is not sufficient demand, Simpson said the technology companies would then have to pay for a “really high performance satellite.”

SpaceNews.com reported that SpaceX plans to open a Seattle-based headquarters for an Internet satellite project that will establish a system of 4,000 satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO). These LEO satellites will offer Internet connectivity around the globe. SpaceX received noteworthy backing when Google and Fidelity Investments provided a $1 billion investment in January. Simpson pointed out that the investment was an equity stake in the company and not in the satellite project. While this is true, the investment is important, because SpaceX clarified that the funds “will be used to support continued innovation in the areas of space transport, reusability and satellite manufacturing.”

Both SpaceX and Boeing may have to share the Internet satellite market with OneWeb, a new startup lead by Greg Wyler which aims to send 2,500 LEO satellites into orbit by 2018 to provide Internet access equal to fiber optics quality around the world. Bloomberg Business indicated Wyler has put $6 million of his own money into the company to date and has some substantial resources behind him. Virgin Group and Qualcomm are investing “tens of millions” according to Virgin founder Richard Branson who sits on OneWeb’s board. In reference to OneWeb, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said, “we want a satellite that is an order of magnitude more sophisticated than what Greg wants.” In response to Musk, Branson shared that Wyler is the only person to have thought through all of the technical details and acquired the international wireless spectrum rights to provide Internet service from space.

Boeing, SpaceX and OneWeb appear to have potential starting points which sound good. Nonetheless, we will have to wait and see which company can execute well enough to win this new space race.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: Satellite Sees a Hyperactive Tropical Atlantic, Flickr)

As of this week, NASA announced it will partner with two American companies to provide transportation for American astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). According to Reuters, the U.S. space agency awarded a $4.2 billion contract to Boeing whose headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois and a $2.6 billion contract to SpaceX that is based in Hawthorne, California.

This move ends U.S. dependence on Russia for astronaut transportation to the ISS. Since the U.S. space shuttle program was shut down in 2011, the only way for American astronauts to get to the space station has been on Russian Soyuz capsules. This cost NASA $70 million per person. Although China is the other remaining country capable of human spaceflights, it is not a member of the 15-nation space station partnership.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) was established to foster the development of American commercial crew space transportation. The program’s ultimate objective is to achieve safe, reliable and cost-effective passage to and from the ISS and low-Earth orbit. NASA’s prior approach for crew transportation systems involved:

• NASA engineers and specialists overseeing every aspect of the spacecraft, support systems and operations plans
• An aerospace contractor building the crew transportation system according to NASA standards and design criteria
• NASA personnel processing, testing, launching and operating the transportation system
• NASA owning the operating infrastructure and every spacecraft built for humans from Mercury to the American section of the ISS

In contrast to the old approach, NASA’s CCP entails:

• NASA engineers and specialists collaborating with companies to develop transportation systems that carry humans to low-Earth orbit and back
• Companies having the freedom to design the system they believe provides the best solution for NASA
• The companies owning and operating their own spacecraft and infrastructure

NASA has spent approximately $1.5 billion since 2010 investing in partner companies under the CCP. SpaceX and Boeing have won the majority of NASA’s development funds.

With the CCP, private companies are able to sell human space transportation to other customers besides NASA which reduces the costs for all customers. By allowing these companies to manage voyages to low-Earth orbit, NASA can center its attention on obtaining the most research and experience out of U.S. investment in the ISS. Furthermore, the space agency can spend more time building spacecraft and rockets for deep space exploration. Commercial flight services based on the Boeing and SpaceX contracts are expected to begin in 2017.

For more information, see Boeing and SpaceX and NASA Commercial Crew Program.

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

(Photo: CST-100 Mock-Up by NASA/Robert Markowitz [Public domain])

The ICAO recently established new guidelines for underwater locator beacons which will go into effect in 2018. Its Flight Recorder Panel is continuing to review new ways of expediting the location of accident sites including deployable flight recorders and triggered transmission of flight data. Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the ICAO’s president, indicated that the meeting will try to capitalize on the current momentum and focus on specific aircraft and satellite-based capabilities needed to allow global implementation of worldwide flight tracking. He said that the ICAO will continue to provide technical assistance to Malaysia as it investigates the missing plane, and he appreciated how the international community has been cooperating and contributing resources to this cause.

For the source article, click here: ICAO Special Meeting

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti

Both Boeing and Mitsubishi are optimistic. Mitsubishi believes that it will cause some delays but not significantly affect overall delivery goals. Boeing added that it might affect 40 planes that are still being produced, but it feels confident that the crack does not exist in any of the Dreamliners already in the air. Boeing further added that the areas on the affected planes are small in size, and it should only take one or two weeks per plane to fix them.

To see the source article, click here: The Wall Street Journal

———–

Ryan Lahti is the founder and managing principal of OrgLeader, LLC. Stay up to date on Ryan’s STEM-based organization tweets here: @ryanlahti