-
#1000
by
Svetoslav
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:31
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
Can someone enlighten me what's the meaning?
-
#1001
by
HVM
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:34
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
Can someone enlighten me what's the meaning?
urban dictionary helps when regular one lacks.
Small portion of poo 100
-
#1002
by
Svetoslav
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:37
-
Oh my... I regret asking this question...
Now I will really listen to the whole podcast to see if Reisman really said that...
-
#1003
by
Athelstane
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:39
-
Oh my... I regret asking this question...
Now I will really listen to the whole podcast to see if Reisman really said that...
It's way too long for me to listen to the whole thing, so if someone can post a time stamp where Reisman says it, I would love to hear it.
-
#1004
by
Athelstane
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:44
-
One word - Politics.
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
So I suspect that Nasa will delay BOTH Startliner and Spacex while they go through a complete review of both. That way they claim they are even handed, appease their masters and have both available at the same time.
Why delay SpaceX if their recent tests were successful (DM-1 and IFA)? I’m not counting the first static fire that failed. SpaceX didn’t have any inflight problems FAIK.
There's certainly been a pro-Boeing bias in certain quarters at NASA.
But every decision has its costs. The problem now is that Boeing is looking at a much longer time frame to reach a CT date, and NASA is rapidly running out of crew time on ISS. At some point, ISS needs make it hard to delay a Dragon flight (that is ready to go) any longer.
All indicators point to a DM-2 flight in 2Q of this year. They really need to it fly then, if they can.
-
#1005
by
lonestriker
on 08 Feb, 2020 17:55
-
Like many here on this forum, I work in software development. A few observations about what we've heard and learned so far:
I don't know what the quality of the software engineers are at Boeing as I have not dealt with traditional aerospace companies before, but I have worked in/with government agencies. The the average developer in government agencies are generally not anywhere near the top of the crop; they do as they are told and do not generally offer innovative approaches to problem solving. There are usually a smaller group of talented developers who usually do the majority of the actual work, but they are the exception and not the rule. I expect Boeing fits the government model where a small group are actually doing the majority of the work.
I've found that the top talent in software engineering come from three places:
* Silicon Valley companies like Google (most of the top engineers I've worked with over the years eventually end up switching to Google or form their own companies.)
* Wall Street companies in select groups, as there are also a lot of government-level coders in the old entrenched departments. Wall Street can basically pay for the best talent.
* Open Source software developers for the top projects.
If I were in the trenches developing software at Boeing, I would very likely see the holes in their software development life-cycle (SDLC), but could I actually do anything about it if I were in their shoes? I'm sure there are plenty of good engineers who likely are aware of the short-comings inside of Boeing. The issue is whether or not they are empowered to do anything about it. Elon has stated previously that any employee can stop a launch if they bring up critical issues. I really doubt the average Boeing software developer has any such power.
Morale has to be absolutely miserable inside Boeing with the CST-100 issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the top talent heads for the exits as fast as possible and you're left with the lower tier, lesser experienced and new hires to deal with this mess. I don't wish that on any developer as it sounds very much like a death march.
-
#1006
by
AJW
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:13
-
I worked for a company that was acquired by Microsoft to help them develop a new product. About 18 months in, the Microsoft test managers would arrive at meetings with documents showing a 90% test success rate. One of our testers pulled me aside and showing me the results from a group of the acquired testers that showed only about a 50% success rate. The Microsoft testing was focused primarily on individual components and failed to adequately cover integration and system testing showing how those components interacted together and overall behavior. Needless to say, the Microsoft testing managers weren't too happy when confronted with this information that they had buried.
Quality Assurance succeeds when it is recognized by top management as a critical part of development and it is run as a strong and independent team. There should also be a significant amount of integration and system testing that that would be common between spacecraft even by different manufacturers. Because of this, I am surprised that NASA hasn't moved this type of testing either internally, by NASA, or through an independent company focused solely on this task. With the number of spacecraft now flying or in development, having a single test bed design that can simulate a range of sensor inputs and verify correct behavior should be more effective than each team building their own. In addition, an independent test team is less easily bullied by corporate management or impacted by 'Go Fever' since they will have their own reputation to protect.
This rhyming Russian proverb got it right. Доверя́й, но проверя́й. Trust, but verify.
-
#1007
by
ugordan
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:18
-
Oh my... I regret asking this question...
Now I will really listen to the whole podcast to see if Reisman really said that...
It's way too long for me to listen to the whole thing, so if someone can post a time stamp where Reisman says it, I would love to hear it.
1:28:30
A total non-event if you ask me.
-
#1008
by
woods170
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:28
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
So I suspect that Nasa will delay BOTH Startliner and Spacex while they go through a complete review of both. That way they claim they are even handed, appease their masters and have both available at the same time.
Spot on. NASA increasing oversight due to Boeing screwing up is going to have repercussions for SpaceX as well.
-
#1009
by
woods170
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:34
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
If you think that was unprofessional than you really don't want to know Boeing's nickname for Crew Dragon.
-
#1010
by
oiorionsbelt
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:50
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
If you think that was unprofessional than you really don't want to know Boeing's nickname for Crew Dragon.
Oh what a tease.
-
#1011
by
Comga
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:52
-
Oh my... I regret asking this question...
Now I will really listen to the whole podcast to see if Reisman really said that...
It's way too long for me to listen to the whole thing, so if someone can post a time stamp where Reisman says it, I would love to hear it.
1:28:30
A total non-event if you ask me.
Agreed
Reiseman says: "Starliner. It used to be called the CST-100"
Then in sotto voce he adds "We used to call it the POS-100, because, you know, we were competing."
Then back in full voice "But it's a good ride, a good vehicle."
A little rivalry. A chide, but basic respect. A non-event.
Perhaps excessively charitable, given the OFT.
But I DO want to know the Boeing nickname for Dragon woods170!
-
#1012
by
scdavis
on 08 Feb, 2020 18:59
-
Your points are well taken, however, while automated testing definitely requires an investment of time and effort, its value is enormous.
A couple of the benefits:
* Discovers regression bugs
* Exposes errors earlier
* Teaches the programmers a lot about the system and the software
* Exposes not only bugs, but also performance errors, configurations difficulties, and potentially strange edge cases
* Engages programmers and PMs into the process of OPERATING the system, giving them a real stake in quality
Another embedded software engineer / project lead here... totally agree with freddo411. Automated test at the lowest unit level is a must. Higher level simulation tests of integrated components are a must. Automated tests on real integrated hardware systems are a must. These should run on each commit in a continuous integration system. Bake quality in.
But then test runs on real systems must also be run in real conditions. Then full up tests on final full system are a must. Each level of testing catches different kinds of coding errors, integration mistakes, defects in requirements, etc.
Quality has to be baked in from the start. You cannot test and add it later in big systems. Also you have to test rigorously the final system and cannot rely just on the earlier low level testing.
High quality complex software/hardware systems require more engineering sophistication in *how* to test than most people imagine. I put my best people on it and pay them accordingly. Anything else will not result in mission critical quality.
-
#1013
by
scdavis
on 08 Feb, 2020 19:21
-
A really important concept in software quality is that one can infer the presence of additional defects based on measured defects.
Given the immense testing presumably already done before the launch, and the discovery of three critical flaws in the latest test, one can easily infer the likely presence of additional critical flaws which have not yet been discovered.
One can use math but the simple concept is that finding additional defects provides an estimate of the effectiveness of previous testing. Finding 3 at this point means there is high likelihood of additional undiscovered defects.
Here’s a short
article with the basic idea.
-
#1014
by
Svetoslav
on 08 Feb, 2020 19:34
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
So I suspect that Nasa will delay BOTH Startliner and Spacex while they go through a complete review of both. That way they claim they are even handed, appease their masters and have both available at the same time.
Spot on. NASA increasing oversight due to Boeing screwing up is going to have repercussions for SpaceX as well.
Then I dearly hope that certain leaders who are responsible of making decisions have some decent knowledge about foreign politics and how much the lack of US crewed spacecraft hurts the image of the USA.
You can't really imagine how strong the propaganda is in certain European countries, especially those on the East. There are quite a lot of people who know nothing about spaceflight in general, yet constantly claim that the US space program is absolutely dependent on Russia, citing american rockets with Russian-made engines and that Soyuz is the only way to transport astronauts on the ISS. The fact that Crew Dragon has completed all required test flights is largely unnoticed, but all failures of Boeing are part of the overblown rhetoric about how NASA can't send people to space at all.
I can't wait for Crew Dragon crewed demo flight to be over, so these myths finally dissipate.
-
#1015
by
BogoMIPS
on 08 Feb, 2020 20:35
-
I don’t suppose anyone over at SNC has knocked on Bridenstine’s door yet and asked “how dissimilar would you like your redundancy, sir? Ours comes with stubby wings...”
While only one party seems to exhibit the behavior at this time, I could imagine both Boeing and SpaceX becoming complacent without a third party nipping at their heels.
Dream Chaser would have a ton of time/work to get back in the crew game, but it could be a reasonable question at this stage.
-
#1016
by
JAFO
on 08 Feb, 2020 20:43
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
It’s the nature of competition to mock the other party and bust their balls. Hell, even good friends bust mine at a place I volunteer at, and if they ever stopped trash talking me I’d wonder what was wrong.
If you think calling the CST-100 the POS-100 is bad, you don’t want to know what pilots call each others airlines!
-
#1017
by
haywoodfloyd
on 08 Feb, 2020 21:00
-
Could someone enlighten me as to the difference between the level of software oversight during the Shuttle days and now involving the various contractors (Boeing/SpaceX/IBM).
Is NASA more or less involved in verifying/overseeing the testing methodologies/outcomes than in those days?
-
#1018
by
freddo411
on 08 Feb, 2020 21:46
-
I don’t suppose anyone over at SNC has knocked on Bridenstine’s door yet and asked “how dissimilar would you like your redundancy, sir? Ours comes with stubby wings...”
While only one party seems to exhibit the behavior at this time, I could imagine both Boeing and SpaceX becoming complacent without a third party nipping at their heels.
Dream Chaser would have a ton of time/work to get back in the crew game, but it could be a reasonable question at this stage.
It would make a whole lot of sense if any crewed vehicle was required to fly as a cargo vehicle for 4/6/8/10 trips before it graduated to human rated.
-
#1019
by
Rocket Science
on 08 Feb, 2020 22:24
-
According to Garrett Reisman, the SpaceX nickname for the CST-100 is the "POS 100"? He was on the Joe Rogan channel doing an interview.
That's disappointing if true, that's unprofessional (and not very creative).
Well Gus Grissom wanted to hang a lemon on the Apollo spacecraft...
"On January 22, 1967, Grissom made a brief stop at home before returning to the Cape. A citrus tree grew in their backyard with lemons on it as big as grapefruits. Gus yanked the largest lemon he could find off of the tree. Betty had no idea what he was up to and asked what he planned to do with the lemon. " 'I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft,' Gus said grimly and kissed her goodbye." (54) Betty knew that Gus would be unable to return home before the crew conducted the plugs out test on January 27, 1967. What she did not know was that January 22 would be "the last time he was here at the house".
https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/zorn/grissom.htm