-
#1200
by
soltasto
on 24 Feb, 2020 18:48
-
Nit picking here. It bothers me that everyone is smiles in front of AstroVan II even though the arrow at their feet says the AstroVan II is pointed in the wrong direction.
Trying to remember from the shuttle days, but that seems the usual way astronauts are loaded up on the astrovan. That's probably so that they get photographed and be seen by the public when they are getting on it.
Edit, I remembered correctly:
-
#1201
by
Jorge
on 25 Feb, 2020 01:04
-
Nit picking here. It bothers me that everyone is smiles in front of AstroVan II even though the arrow at their feet says the AstroVan II is pointed in the wrong direction.
Trying to remember from the shuttle days, but that seems the usual way astronauts are loaded up on the astrovan. That's probably so that they get photographed and be seen by the public when they are getting on it.
Edit, I remembered correctly:
Think it was that way for Apollo as well. The driveway between the two wings of the O&C building is two-way, so technically the Astrovan has been picking up crews on the "wrong side of the street." It doesn't matter because the whole driveway is blocked off during a crew walkout.
-
#1202
by
edzieba
on 25 Feb, 2020 15:53
-
The "player piano" comparison is completely unwarranted. There are all sorts of ways for software to be stuck in a loop, or stuck in an undefined state, without following any sort of pre-set sequence. Having a state entered via a trigger watching Timer A and exited by a trigger watching Timer B, and having Timer A several hours ahead of or behind Timer B, is one trivial example of how the software can get 'stuck' without stepping through a rigid sequencer.
-
#1203
by
Jkew
on 25 Feb, 2020 18:55
-
We have exhausted reasonable speculation on the software design for now and we are in our own infinite loop.
We need either a command from the control center or additional input to proceed productively in this thread.
-
#1204
by
Vettedrmr
on 26 Feb, 2020 17:24
-
Man, this is just egg on NASA'S face. How in the world did they sign off from a Flight Readiness Review (or whatever it's called for a launch) when apparently ZERO system integration testing was done with the rocket hardware? Yeah, Boeing should have done it, but how in the world did NASA sign off on it?
This is gonna be a long, tough, slog to get through. But a necessary one.
-
#1205
by
kevinof
on 26 Feb, 2020 17:31
-
-
#1206
by
ShaunML09
on 26 Feb, 2020 17:34
-
The report appears as though it will be a long and overdue reckoning for Boeing space projects and NASA’s loose and careless oversight of Boeing.
I desperately hope the report is taken with the seriousness that is necessary given the Starliner and SLS projects, and the amount of time and money that has been invested in them by the American taxpayer.
-
#1207
by
ThePonjaX
on 26 Feb, 2020 17:50
-
Blocked in Europe. What are the details?
Boeing didn’t perform full end-to-end test of its astronaut capsule before troubled mission, ‘surprising’ NASA safety panel
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/os-bz-boeing-safety-commercial-crew-20200226-bgvthodnjzgmlc36hsxcaopahu-story.html
An user on reddit did a lot better job and I can do:
https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/f9x9uk/boeing_did_not_perform_a_full_endtoend_integrated/Summary:
weeks after the flight questions about the company’s testing procedures prior to the mission have started to emerge
Boeing and NASA officials are expected to release the results within the next week
The panel learned in early February that Boeing did not perform a full end-to-end integrated test of Starliner in a Systems Integration Lab with ULA’s Atlas V rocket
That test typically shows how all software systems would respond with each other through every maneuver
It could potentially have caught the issue Boeing experienced during the mission
“That was somewhat surprising to us on the panel. There were certainly gaps in the test protocol.”
Boeing said it followed all of the testing procedures NASA required of it prior to the Starliner test flight. The agency gave Boeing the green light to proceed after a flight readiness review prior to the mission (NOT a great look for NASA)
still unclear whether the company will have to repeat its uncrewed test
NASA is now conducting a more thorough workplace safety culture study with Boeing following the recent Starliner challenges
-
#1208
by
ThePonjaX
on 26 Feb, 2020 17:54
-
As developer/DBA I can't believe this:
"The panel learned in early February that Boeing did not perform a full end-to-end integrated test of Starliner in a Systems Integration Lab with ULA’s Atlas V rocket."
This is critical for every single project which goes to production in a integrated environment I can't find the words to describe how important is this on a rocket and capsule with software managing the hardware. Astonishing.
-
#1209
by
Wargrim
on 26 Feb, 2020 18:39
-
We did not have a parachute failure because the parachute pin was never plugged in.
We did not have a second on orbit software anomaly because we caught and fixed it before it happened.
We did not fail the end-to-end integrated test of Starliner with Atlas 5 because we never had one.
We never hid problems from NASA because they were not asking.
(REMOVED PROFANITY. DO NOT SWEAR HERE - Andy, mod).
-
#1210
by
Lemurion
on 26 Feb, 2020 18:46
-
Every time we get more news it’s some other basic thing that was somehow missed. At this point I’m leaning toward a complete program review with Boeing having to defend every test they passed as well as those that had issues.
I have precisely zero confidence in Boeing’s test processes because we’re getting more and more evidence that they don’t actually have a process.
-
#1211
by
Eric Hedman
on 26 Feb, 2020 18:54
-
This is how a corporate reputation built over a century gets trashed rather quickly. This is just amazing.
-
#1212
by
ulm_atms
on 26 Feb, 2020 18:56
-
I have nothing of merit that hasn't already been said but with the news today I am compelled to state my feelings on the matter.
-
#1213
by
ZachF
on 26 Feb, 2020 18:57
-
This has just jumped into the "absurd" category. How do you justify skipping an integration test!?!!?! This is manufacturing 101 for making anything with more than one part!!
At this point Boeing really deserves to be banned from government space contracts for their behavior again for while until they get their act together. They are "too big to fail" though, so we'll see...
-
#1214
by
Captain Crutch
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:03
-
I really don't see how at this point anyone at NASA could justify allowing for Boeing to go ahead and proceed with the crew mission. This is supposed to be a relatively finalized vehicle and it has failed in many aspects. This is clearly not isolated failures, but rather a system-wide lack of care. Boeing should have to prove they can meet all objectives before crew flies on the vehicle, and they can only prove that by re-flying the OFT mission under serious scrutiny the entire way, with a very watchful NASA eye. We are now at failure number 4 on this iteration of the vehicle and it seems like Boeing doesn't care and that is unacceptable.
-
#1215
by
gaballard
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:03
-
From that article...
“Software is a challenging (and potentially expensive) thing to test in a realistic environment," Nield said. “...You would think you would always want to test the software with the computer connected to all the real hardware, but the problem is, if it is designed to control the system during launch, or in space, you won’t really be testing the real situation if the hardware is just sitting on the ground.”
"This test won't simulate the real thing 100% in every way, so we didn't do the test at all."
JFC. At this rate Russia will have flown its new crew capsule before Boeing does.
-
#1216
by
ZachF
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:08
-
This is how a corporate reputation built over a century gets trashed rather quickly. This is just amazing.
Would normally click "like"... but there is nothing I like about Boeing seemingly hellbent on committing corporate suicide in the name of cost cutting.
-
#1217
by
abaddon
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:22
-
I really don't see how at this point anyone at NASA could justify allowing for Boeing to go ahead and proceed with the crew mission. This is supposed to be a relatively finalized vehicle and it has failed in many aspects. This is clearly not isolated failures, but rather a system-wide lack of care. Boeing should have to prove they can meet all objectives before crew flies on the vehicle, and they can only prove that by re-flying the OFT mission under serious scrutiny the entire way, with a very watchful NASA eye. We are now at failure number 4 on this iteration of the vehicle and it seems like Boeing doesn't care and that is unacceptable.
I have no inside information, but I expect we will see NASA will require some things from Boeing, but those things won't include a reflight of OFT. Just my opinion.
We'll see.
-
#1218
by
Tulse
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:26
-
I expect we will see NASA will require some things from Boeing, but those things won't include a reflight of OFT.
I find that almost unimaginable. I would think it would be a PR nightmare for NASA.
-
#1219
by
abaddon
on 26 Feb, 2020 19:28
-
I expect we will see NASA will require some things from Boeing, but those things won't include a reflight of OFT.
I find that almost unimaginable. I would think it would be a PR nightmare for NASA.
It does feel like that, but we've seen a lot of tone-deaf commentary from NASA and Boeing throughout this investigation that makes me wonder how heavily that will be weighed by NASA. And $410 million is a lot of money.
