Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? Pt 2

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? Pt 2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 37 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30808
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2018714 - Posted: 13 Nov 2019, 0:20:03 UTC - in response to Message 2018697.  

Rob, suggest you reread. You missed the timeline. SW hired paperwork contractors who said OKAY, paperwork in order, fly the planes. Later FAA looked over at least one set of paperwork and found a problem. SW immediately hired other paperwork contractors to inspect the work of the first ones and found a bunch of stuff. Now SW A&P's are going over the issues the second set of paperwork contractors found.
ID: 2018714 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22324
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2018770 - Posted: 13 Nov 2019, 8:42:42 UTC

Sorry Gary - one to you.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2018770 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24891
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2018817 - Posted: 13 Nov 2019, 17:07:32 UTC

A more holistic approach?
“We are not delegating anything in this process,” said Dickson. A former Delta Air Lines executive and captain, Dickson reiterated that he would fly the revamped 737 Max himself before certifying it.
Got to give the man credit.
ID: 2018817 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019134 - Posted: 15 Nov 2019, 16:43:18 UTC

Further questions and questionableness for the Boeing aircraft design and production:


New questions raised on safety of both Boeing 737 Max and 787 Dreamliner

Lawmakers are pursuing new safety issues with two Boeing jets -- the 737 Max and the 787 Dreamliner -- and questioning how in each case managers at the Federal Aviation Administration backed Boeing’s contention that there was no cause for concern despite objections from the safety agency’s own technical experts...

... The letter sent Thursday cites "serious, potentially catastrophic safety concerns raised by FAA technical specialists that FAA management ultimately overruled after Boeing objected."...

... The requirement was introduced when such a blowout caused the deadly 1989 crash of a United Airlines DC-10 in Sioux City, Iowa. The 737 has never been brought into line with the requirement, and when Boeing updated to the 737 Max it argued once again that design "changes would be impractical" and expressed concern about the potential impact on "resources and program schedules," according to documents submitted to the FAA.

At least six FAA specialists refused to concur with an agency paper that allowed Boeing to claim compliance "without implementing a design change," and an FAA review panel in January 2017 rejected Boeing's position that design changes were impractical. Nevertheless, the FAA certified the Max for passenger service in March that year...

... The second concern they cite is a design change to the 787 Dreamliner that removed from the leading edge of the jet's wings a layer of copper foil designed to protect against a lightning strike...

... In February this year, the FAA office that oversees and certifies Boeing's designs rejected the removal of the foil from the wing edge. Boeing appealed...

...

The shortcoming in the rudder cable design was cited in a Seattle Times story in May among a list of Max design elements that don't meet the latest FAA requirements.

The story listed a series of legacy design details that have been repeatedly grandfathered into the latest model each time Boeing has updated the 737, which was originally certified more than 50 years ago. All the issues in the list were flagged by FAA safety engineers as requiring fixes before the Max could be certified. But each was waved through after managers on the Boeing side of certification insisted that these were non-issues...

...

DeFazio adds that "my staff has been told that it was virtually unprecedented for six or more FAA specialists to jointly non-concur on a single issue, highlighting the gravity of their concerns regarding the rudder cable issue."

... Lightning strikes on aircraft are routine. In certain parts of the world, such as Florida and Japan, they are common...




The continued story and 'revelations' about the Boeing aircraft and management, to my personal humble uninformed opinion, really do suggest this to be the case:

How Deregulation Kills People

Boeing’s 737 Max Debacle Shows Why Government, Not Private Business, Should Take Responsibility for Protecting the Public



All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019134 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24891
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2019138 - Posted: 15 Nov 2019, 16:58:54 UTC - in response to Message 2019134.  

... The letter sent Thursday cites "serious, potentially catastrophic safety concerns raised by FAA technical specialists that FAA management ultimately overruled after Boeing objected."...
Biggest elephant in the room.
ID: 2019138 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22324
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2019161 - Posted: 15 Nov 2019, 19:47:48 UTC

Something to mull over.
There are several "types" of certification, indeed many types. But in simple terms there are three - first-party, second-party and third-party.
First-party is where someone certifies their own product as "complying with applicable regulations.
Second-party is where you employ someone else to do the job for you, and they are responsible to you.
Third-party is where someone else does the certification on behalf of the certifying body and they are answerable to the certification body.
The first two are fairly easy to understand, but the last one can lead to some confusion as there are two models, one where the "inspecting" body is part of the certifying body, and the other is where it is a separate organisation.
In each case there are fees due, these are frequently met by the designing & constructing body, but in rare cases they come from the certification authority (who gets its money either from the "central authority - government) or from a precept charged to all manufacturers of that type of product.

Now it would appear to me that the FAA was initially conceived as a "proper" third-party certification body and agency, but has transmuted over the years into a sort of weird hybrid of part second-party and part third-party with a bit of first-party in there for good measure. a second-had dog's dinner of a setup if ever I saw one.
This has nothing to do with "deregulation" as one can have a heavily monitored first-party system that works well, and one can equally have a very poorly monitored third-party system that works badly. And, to an outsider, it would appear that the FAA has fallen into the "poorly monitored" camp, and may even be heading towards "not fit for purpose" - we had this years ago, in the UK rail industry, when it was very heavily, poorly monitored, and this led to a series of major accidents. There was far too much "Joe did it so it must be right", too many bits of paper flying around that "Joe did it", when actually Joe was sound asleep in bed on the other side of the world when he was meant to have done it, but since it was Joe's job to do it everyone assumed Joe did it., and nobody checked to see where Joe was really.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2019161 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019597 - Posted: 19 Nov 2019, 0:42:07 UTC
Last modified: 19 Nov 2019, 0:44:42 UTC

Boeing 737 Max continued...


Boeing Directors Sued Over Missed Warning Signs on 737 Max 8

Boeing Co. directors were careless in their oversight of the flawed 737 Max 8 airliner and failed to react promptly after two crashes killed more than 300 people, according to a shareholder lawsuit seeking to hold company board members accountable.

The directors missed repeated red flags during development of the 737 Max’s automated flight-control systems and then waited months to investigate the role of design flaws in a fatal Lion Air crash late last year in Indonesia...

... In its rush to get the 737 Max to market, Boeing didn’t property test the new system or adequately train pilots, the lawsuit alleges. Along with the subsequent grounding of all 737 Max aircraft, the board’s actions hurt the company “through loss of credibility in the marketplace, a damaged reputation and billions in potential business costs and liability,”...



Ethiopian Airlines undecided whether to take more Boeing 737 MAX jets

Ethiopian Airlines has not decided yet whether to take more deliveries of the 737 MAX, the jet grounded worldwide in the wake of crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia, the airline's CEO said on Sunday, as Boeing completes revisions to the aircraft's design.

Asked at the Dubai Airshow whether he supported changes to software and training being finalised by Boeing, Tewolde Gebremariam said, "It is still work in progress... We will have to see it completed and the result of the further tests that are still to come."...



New face of Boeing jets tries to win back 737 Max buyers

... Trying to make amends isn’t just good customer relations for [Stanley] Deal, a genial aerospace engineer who worked his way up the ranks at Boeing and the rival it acquired in 1997, McDonnell Douglas Corp. His outreach will play a key role in shaping how Boeing emerges from a long nightmare that has shaken confidence in its most important product and disrupted operations for dozens of airlines.

“Customer skills are going to be critical as Boeing works with the airlines to bring the aircraft back into service,” said aerospace consultant Kevin Michaels. Deal is the rare senior aerospace leader with “emotional intelligence,” he added...



Airbus Scores Order Win in Dubai While Boeing Feels Max Sting

Airbus SE secured deals valued at $30 billion from two Middle Eastern carriers on the second day of the Dubai Air Show, pulling ahead of Boeing Co., whose grounded 737 Max has stymied the U.S. company’s sales campaigns at the biennial event...

... "Boeing gets 10 additional orders for 737 MAX 8 planes valued at $1.2 billion from SunExpress"...



The FAA wants to completely change how it certifies planes after it vouched for the Boeing 737 Max before it crashed

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) could completely overhaul its plane-certification process after disastrous crashes of Boeing's 737 Max... It follows criticism of the FAA, which outsourced many of its regulatory functions to manufacturers like Boeing, inviting accusations that it was insufficiently rigorous in its scrutiny.

Stephen Dickson told the Journal on Sunday he wants to increase the FAA's involvement in the development of new aircraft by having the agency and manufacturers communicate more often during the design process...

... The FAA also wants to prioritize "human factors," in its certification process, The Journal cited Dickson as saying. This might include things like the speed at which pilots can realistically react in various emergencies.

"That probably needed to happen some time ago," Dickson said...




And I'm still incredulous that all this came to pass with TWO catastrophes with 346 people killed.

Will Muilenburg voluntarily repay his $Millions in penance?

All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019597 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24891
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2019765 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 18:43:49 UTC

On this, even though a Boeing aircraft, it is down to shoddy maintenance by Southwest Airlines.
NTSB calls for engine cover redesign
The NTSB said the pair had used unusual settings for the plane's flaps because they feared losing control if they flew too slowly.
Mr Sumwalt said of Ms Shults: "Basically, she used airmanship, she used judgement, because she felt that was the safest thing to do." He said this proved the value of well-trained and experienced pilots.
ID: 2019765 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019774 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 19:20:12 UTC - in response to Message 2019765.  
Last modified: 20 Nov 2019, 19:24:35 UTC

On this, even though a Boeing aircraft, it is down to shoddy maintenance by Southwest Airlines.
NTSB calls for engine cover redesign
The NTSB said the pair had used unusual settings for the plane's flaps because they feared losing control if they flew too slowly.
Mr Sumwalt said of Ms Shults: "Basically, she used airmanship, she used judgement, because she felt that was the safest thing to do." He said this proved the value of well-trained and experienced pilots.


Note from that news article:

Boeing should redesign engine covers on all its 737NG aircraft following an accident that killed a mother-of-two, investigators have said.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) looked at the April 2018 incident, which saw an engine fan blade break and its debris pierce the engine cover before hitting the fuselage near a window...




Will that be followed up and how soon? Or will Boeing squirm along hoping that noone will notice that no money is spent for any fixes? Another Boeing 'bean-counter' game of "cheaper to kill a few people than to fix the design and manufacturing"?

Blade breaks can always be expected regardless of maintenance. The trick is to reduce the number of breaks to some low insignificance. However, a blade break at some time is still to be fully expected.

Indeed, why has the engine cowling not already been redesigned/fixed by Boeing in the first place?...

One of the primary design requirements is that ANY (ALL) engine failures are contained within the engine cowlings... For very obvious safety reasons...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019774 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24891
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2019777 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 19:24:08 UTC - in response to Message 2019774.  

Maybe so Martin, but even if Boeing did so, one cannot hold them responsible for shoddy maintenance.
ID: 2019777 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019780 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 19:29:46 UTC - in response to Message 2019777.  
Last modified: 20 Nov 2019, 19:30:44 UTC

Maybe so Martin, but even if Boeing did so, one cannot hold them responsible for shoddy maintenance.

Shoddy maintenance is one thing...

However, a blade break should not be a catastrophic killer... Aircraft are designed to safely survive such an expected failure.

To my (as always) humble uneducated personal opinion: Boeing have gone cheap and somehow hoped they wouldn't get caught out by such an incident.


For an automobile example, it's just like not bothering with a seat belt to save a few cents for when your braking fails...

Aircraft engine cowlings are designed to keep all engine failures contained. Only Boeing appear to not bother with the expense or thoroughness of such design.


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019780 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30808
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2019793 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 20:23:00 UTC - in response to Message 2019780.  

Aircraft engine cowlings are designed to keep all engine failures contained. Only Boeing appear to not bother with the expense or thoroughness of such design.

All buildings are designed not to fail in an earthquake. Each earthquake teaches new ways buildings fail.
ID: 2019793 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22324
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2019800 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 20:29:25 UTC

Apparently this was not as simple as a single blade break, which is designed to be contained by the engine (not the shroud), but a multi-blade break, which is "almost uncontainable". There may well be some issues with the design of the shroud, which really shouldn't have flown apart in the manner it did. It will be interesting to see how Boeing react, because at a bout the same time Airbus suffered a very similar failure on one of their designs which uses the same engine type.

I've just been hearing about a very recent indecent involving "runaway trim" on an ERJ175 aircraft, where the crew were able to isolate one "side" of the aircraft and so bring the plane back to the ground with no casualties. The initial reports on this one are suggesting a combination of maintenance and crew reaction issues. One thing that is clear is that while there are only two AoA sensors on the ERJ175 (not the same type as used on the B737MAX) there is some cross-checking and "sanity checking" in place making it is possible (automagically?) to isolate the "crazy" sensor system, and so be able to retain power trimming suing manual controls (unlike the B737MAX where you turn the whole power trim system off and have to use the manual trim wheels).
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2019800 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019802 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 20:30:46 UTC - in response to Message 2019793.  

Aircraft engine cowlings are designed to keep all engine failures contained. Only Boeing appear to not bother with the expense or thoroughness of such design.

All buildings are designed not to fail in an earthquake. Each earthquake teaches new ways buildings fail.

Fan blades and engine cowlings are very well understood. The expected failure modes are (supposedly) thoroughly tested. A fan blade break is expected and is tested for. There is no excuse for a containment failure.


In contrast, buildings are in a different world of uncertified shoddiness...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019802 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 35533
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2019804 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 20:47:41 UTC

The expected failure modes are (supposedly) thoroughly tested. A fan blade break is expected and is tested for. There is no excuse for a containment failure.
Heard of "Metal Fatigue" Martin? It can not be escaped and must be regularly inspected for which is part of the maintenance program, which obviously Southwest Airlines didn't follow. Also Boeing don't make the engines (neither do Airbus), they buy them as completely assembled packages (why not attack the actual engine manufacturers in this case?). ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 2019804 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2019809 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:06:33 UTC - in response to Message 2019804.  

The expected failure modes are (supposedly) thoroughly tested. A fan blade break is expected and is tested for. There is no excuse for a containment failure.
Heard of "Metal Fatigue" Martin? It can not be escaped and must be regularly inspected for which is part of the maintenance program, which obviously Southwest Airlines didn't follow. Also Boeing don't make the engines (neither do Airbus), they buy them as completely assembled packages (why not attack the actual engine manufacturers in this case?). ;-)

Cheers.

My understanding is that Boeing design and fit the engine cowling. Blade breaks are very well known, expected, and protected against. One line of protection is to fit a Kevlar band around the circumference surrounding the blades...

So is this another example of going cheap and rushed and rubber-stamping the tests and certification?

Boeing are completely responsible for the engines they use not killing people...


All in our only one world,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2019809 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22324
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2019813 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:22:58 UTC

There are two layers of protection in place to retain blade failures.
The first is the engine, and the requirement for those is, as far as I know, to retain a single blade failure within the engine casing, and to direct a multiple blade failure to wards the exhaust as far as practicable.
The second layer is for the engine covers to contain parts of the engine in a manner that directs them away from the wing, again as "far as practical".
As far as I'm aware this is not the first time one of these engines has burst and spread shrapnel in the direction of the fuselage, indeed the Airbus incident I referred to earlier to did result in damage to the fuselage, but missed the windows. Now obviously if there are fastening issues with the cowl there are two sides to the story, one is the design of the locks and fastenings, and the other is the actions of both the maintenance and flight crews in their pre-flight checks - security of "fixtures and fixings" is a key part of every pre-flight check-walk by a member of the flight crew, and doing up the fastenings is a pre-requisit of that final check.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2019813 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 35533
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2019817 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:48:05 UTC

And there was QF32. ;-)

Cheers.
ID: 2019817 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22324
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 2019820 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 21:56:09 UTC

First thing - I was looking at another report earlier today where a compressor failed, and assumed that this was the same issue (the other report had the airline details redacted - most annoying). The other report was to do with a compressor fan failure where multiple compressor blades came out of the side and tailpipe....

Having now scanned through the NTSB summary report (https://go.usa.gov/xp9kv) there is a lot more to this story than first the rather hysterical headlines in the news article.

The inspection of the engine at its last overhaul was done in accordance with the manufacturer's then contemporary requirements. Subsequently these have been found lacking, and both the governing rules and the instructions have been substantially revised. The NSTB places a major action on the European Aviation Safety Agency (the body responsible for certifying the engine) to sort out their rules in light of this (and at least one other) incident to make sure that engine designers consider "all points of the compass" when designing the containment of the big fan at the front of the engine, rather than just one point as was the case when the CFM56-7B was designed.

It is interesting to note that Boeing have done some work (post this incident) to establish where the cowl needs to be reinforced, and (presumably) to come up with a solution - and the NSTB have mandated this to be a retrospective solution, not just on new aircraft.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 2019820 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30808
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 2019830 - Posted: 20 Nov 2019, 22:58:40 UTC - in response to Message 2019802.  

In contrast, buildings are in a different world of uncertified shoddiness...
Certainly considering Grenfell, but that is an issue with the government oversight or complete lack thereof. This is not the case in every country, and definitely not in general on the Pacific Ring of Fire.

As to the engine as others have pointed out, it was not the normal single blade failure. As others have pointed out Southwest did the required maintenance as per the then existing standards. As others have pointed out the engine was to have contained a single blade failure such that nothing would leave the engine to even strike the cowling. [you do understand the cowling is not part of the engine, it is there primary for drag reduction and to direct air stream, and keep the engine clean and dry.]

As pointed out one of the walk around checks is to be sure the latches are locked on the cowling. Several times a year that gets missed and parts of the cowling fly off.

As to those other recent incidents, I'll add another may years earlier with a center mounted engine where the disk that holds all the blades fractured and it took out the hydraulic system. Such a failure was not considered possible at the time. The experience of the pilots kept the aircraft in barely controllable flight until it entered ground effect.

As to being able to contain all possible failures, the weight of the armor could make it impossible to get off the ground. Some risk must be accepted.
ID: 2019830 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 37 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Profits 1st, Safety 2nd? Pt 2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.