-
#1360 by SoftwareDude on 06 Mar, 2020 23:43
-
Many times I've been pretty sure I knew what would happen and learned the hard way that "pretty sure" is not good enough. Even for a stupid website that is selling stuff, pretty sure can lose a million dollars in an hour.
No one knows what could have happened and when. We only know that the first thing that was supposed to happen after separation didn't.<...> who knows when we would have found out about all the rest of this stuff.
Moments after the service module separated from the capsule, presumably
I think they're pretty sure what could have happened had they not resolved the jet mapping issue. -
#1361 by dglow on 07 Mar, 2020 00:43
-
Many times I've been pretty sure I knew what would happen and learned the hard way that "pretty sure" is not good enough. Even for a stupid website that is selling stuff, pretty sure can lose a million dollars in an hour.
No one knows what could have happened and when. We only know that the first thing that was supposed to happen after separation didn't.<...> who knows when we would have found out about all the rest of this stuff.
Moments after the service module separated from the capsule, presumably
I think they're pretty sure what could have happened had they not resolved the jet mapping issue.
Alright, but we aren't talking about a website, and I don't follow you.
Read up on the jet mapping error. It created a possibility that existed at a very specific point in flight, thus my response to JonathanD. The fact that this error was not caught and could have resulted in LOV/LOC is deeply concerning to NASA and Boeing. -
#1362 by cppetrie on 07 Mar, 2020 00:59
-
I think he’s agreeing with you that it is concerning. He’s saying that pretty sure isn’t even good enough for a website let alone a HSF vehicle.
Many times I've been pretty sure I knew what would happen and learned the hard way that "pretty sure" is not good enough. Even for a stupid website that is selling stuff, pretty sure can lose a million dollars in an hour.
No one knows what could have happened and when. We only know that the first thing that was supposed to happen after separation didn't.<...> who knows when we would have found out about all the rest of this stuff.
Moments after the service module separated from the capsule, presumably
I think they're pretty sure what could have happened had they not resolved the jet mapping issue.
Alright, but we aren't talking about a website, and I don't follow you.
Read up on the jet mapping error. It created a possibility that existed at a very specific point in flight, thus my response to JonathanD. The fact that is this error was not caught and could have resulted in LOV/LOC is deeply concerning to NASA and Boeing. -
#1363 by dglow on 07 Mar, 2020 01:16
-
I think he’s agreeing with you that it is concerning. He’s saying that pretty sure isn’t even good enough for a website let alone a HSF vehicle.
Many times I've been pretty sure I knew what would happen and learned the hard way that "pretty sure" is not good enough. Even for a stupid website that is selling stuff, pretty sure can lose a million dollars in an hour.
Alright, but we aren't talking about a website, and I don't follow you.
Read up on the jet mapping error. It created a possibility that existed at a very specific point in flight, thus my response to JonathanD. The fact that is this error was not caught and could have resulted in LOV/LOC is deeply concerning to NASA and Boeing.
Okay, but this:QuoteNo one knows what could have happened and when.
NASA and Boeing know exactly what could have happened and when, and are very worried about it. -
#1364 by SoftwareDude on 07 Mar, 2020 01:41
-
I think we all know that the emulators not working excuse is an indication they are not being open about the problems. Evidently the programmers must have used the emulators as their spec, otherwise, the emulator would have broken their software and they would have gone back to the spec and seen that the emulator wasn't right. So you are right it is bad.
I think he’s agreeing with you that it is concerning. He’s saying that pretty sure isn’t even good enough for a website let alone a HSF vehicle.
Many times I've been pretty sure I knew what would happen and learned the hard way that "pretty sure" is not good enough. Even for a stupid website that is selling stuff, pretty sure can lose a million dollars in an hour.
Alright, but we aren't talking about a website, and I don't follow you.
Read up on the jet mapping error. It created a possibility that existed at a very specific point in flight, thus my response to JonathanD. The fact that is this error was not caught and could have resulted in LOV/LOC is deeply concerning to NASA and Boeing.
Okay, but this:QuoteNo one knows what could have happened and when.
NASA and Boeing know exactly what could have happened and when, and are very worried about it. -
#1365 by freddo411 on 07 Mar, 2020 01:59
-
I'm not seeing that. I think the issues are more complicated.
Obviously, you don't want to just say "go refly" before you've taken a close look at everything. Keep in mind they are also experiencing some schedule pressure to stop depending on Soyuz for crew transport, and they have to make sure they can maintain crewed status, while also protecting for the possibility that something goes wrong with one of the other crewed vehicles. Simply saying "it's obvious they're going to pay" is massively oversimplifying, if not wrong altogether.
My bold.
This is an absolutely, 100%, prohibited attitude. It's NOT ok to let scheduling issues drive technical and/or safety and/or QA processes.
It's a very, very, very bright line. Do not go there.
Also, why would we even think this way? We've got Dragon2, we've got soyuz. It's been good enough for 10 years (and yes, I've not been enitrely happy with soyuz) so it's tenable until Starliner get's built PROPERLY.
It makes absolutely zero sense to rush Starliner. Write a check to the Russians if needed, we've done a whole lot of that over the last 10 years without much fuss.
Agree. And yet... (see, e.g., Moon 2024, but that's not on topic here). Schedule pressure will always exist.
Saying we've got Dragon and Soyuz is fine until you look at that period of time when we had three cargo vehicles fail in the span of eight months: Orb-3 failed on October 28, 2014, 59P failed on April 28, 2015, and SpX-7 failed on June 28, 2015 (aside: what in the world is up with the 28th of the month??).
Don't for one moment think that can't happen again. We were fine for the loss of cargo vehicles, because of the stockpile of supplies on ISS. Not so with crew.
Yes, that is true. I don't mean to imply that Dragon2 and Soyuz are sufficient for all time, I'm saying that Starliner should feel at least some less pressure because we do have other vehicles. The situation will be better when we have two domestic vehicles, but it's not "pants on fire" right now. -
#1366 by Ike17055 on 07 Mar, 2020 04:58
-
1. Crew Dragon has literally nothing to do with the bad comparison to Starship you made in this quote tree. (See the post above yours here for something that addresses the Crew Dragon argument, posting this statement right after a post clearly stating the difference between these 2 makes it seem like you aren't actually reading the thread)Agreed. If Boeing is "on the verge" for this, then surely Starship is "on the verge" after blowing up two prototypes within weeks. Neither is anywhere near permanent failure.
There's lots of silliness in this thread, but comparing a supposedly ready to fly vehicle with a development test article built for testing takes the cake. (ok not 100%, there are lots of posts that would compete for the prize).
uh, read the earlier post: SPaceX crew dragon "ready to fly" then:kaboom
2. Besides the pointed out fact that a Starship's and Starliners current phase of development are not even slightly comparable, "blowing up two prototypes within weeks" is something that hasn't happened on the Starship program unless you are distorting things by counting test-to-destruction articles. (It might happen in the future because of the style of development being employed, but since that is not comparable to Starliner's development strategy, that is irrelevant.)
way to over-compartmentalize. this is why I said read the earlier post AS WELL. Yes, the Starliner and the Starship are in different phases of development, and should as vehicles, be judged differently--HOWEVER, that is not what is relevant here: what was being said was that Starliner "not ready to fly" but that Dragon was since it made its test flight objectives -- the point is that Dragon's "successful" mission did not "PROVE" that it is ready to fly at all -- only that the flight undertaken never encountered the real problem until the followup ground test.
Does this indicate a llkewise lackluster approach to testing by SPaceX? Possibly. ANd yes,, starliner SHOULD HAVE NEVER FLOWN -- BUT APPARENtlY DRAGON WAS NOT "READY" EITHER, despite its ability to make it back from its FLIGHT TEST without realizing its potential failure. Instead of spewing instant snark, perhaps you should connect the dots between the (contradictory) statements being made by the SpaceX enthusiasts who are about "half" right in that what they state is technically true -- just not really true enough in the bigger picture.Selective truths.
Edit zubenelgenubi: SpaceX "cultists" edited out. -
#1367 by Ike17055 on 07 Mar, 2020 05:04
-
Hold on.
The whole point of Commercial Crew is redundant and reliable crew transport to the ISS.
Absolutely correct. A real shame that Boeing is so far away from the "reliable" part of crew transport. SpaceX hasn't demonstrated that either, but there are no known roadblocks to achieving that.
I really hope that Boeing gets their act together. If they don't, they're getting close to a precipice that may be extraordinarily painful as a corporation to recover from.
Have a good one,
Mike
If SpaceX can recover from two F9 failures, Boeing can recover from this. I agree Boeing has work to do, but they are not on the verge.
Agreed. If Boeing is "on the verge" for this, then surely Starship is "on the verge" after blowing up two prototypes within weeks. Neither is anywhere near permanent failure.
There's lots of silliness in this thread, but comparing a supposedly ready to fly vehicle with a development test article built for testing takes the cake. (ok not 100%, there are lots of posts that would compete for the prize).
uh, read the earlier post: SPaceX crew dragon "ready to fly" then:kaboom
thank you for that supremely nuanced take
<searches for thumbs-down emoji>
Can we agree Crew Dragon is likely off-topic?
Amazing how "dragon is off topic" but the SpaceX people find their way over here to extol Starship...and denigrate Boeing, and advocate for a sole sourcing of SpaceX... but suddenly if someone points out a failing by SpaceX, they get all pissy and claim we shouldn't be addressing SpaceX failings in a Boeing thread... -
#1368 by Ike17055 on 07 Mar, 2020 05:08
-
On the basis of this test so is CST-100.Note that for Commercial Cargo NASA have ended the contract for a supplier that failed to achieve its milestones.
Failure to achieve milestone --> No money paid for that milestone.
BTW Boeing required 63% more payment than SX to deliver so far substantially less.
SNC's Dream Chaser is still an option.
Of course it would be a massive blow to Boeing's corporate image, but isn't that Boeing's problem?
Dream Chaser is only "an option" over the very long term (so in other words, NOT an option). The manned version is very far behind any standard of useability.
I wonder if Boeing are still eager for a down select to a single supplier?
that is just bunk. Boeing will be ready to fly within a year, maybe much sooner...maybe. DreamChaser is years and years away from crew capability. If redundancy is important --and NASA says it is -- then Boeing is the only realisitic option. -
#1369 by john smith 19 on 07 Mar, 2020 09:50
-
It was not a mistake.Lovarro: Two specific things: one thing in IRT we had a routine where there might have been four logical conditions, four ways the software could have run. Didn't check all four conditions, was a designer/tester choice. Not unusual you don't test all logical condition, do need to recognize we do need to test all logical conditions now. Process side, delegated too much authority to software board to approve changes and actions as it applies to software, software/hardware integration change should have been brought up all the way to engineering review board.
Wow. These are not subtle mistakes/omissions, but really basic ones.
It was a choice.
CCC is a fixed price contract. Boeing gets no more money if they exceed their (internal) budget for that testing.
So they didn't. -
#1370 by john smith 19 on 07 Mar, 2020 10:07
-
No it's not.What is going on with this call?
It's obvious that NASA is on the hook to pay for a large part if not all of an OFT refly.
Doug and Kathy from NASA spend multiple minutes describing why a decision on an OFT re-fly cannot be made yet, and will not be made without a thorough review of Boeing's forthcoming proposal. They fall over themselves explaining to the press why a decision is not yet warranted.
Following this, Jim Chilton of Boeing jumps in with a curt, "We're ready to re-fly, just need a decision from NASA."
Something about this contrast didn't feel right. Like Boeing either isn't playing ball, or is trying to pass the buck.
This is a firm, fixed price contract. IOW If it's not in the contract there is a choice.
Negotiate a price with NASA IOW NASA pays for Boeing's mistakes
Boeing funds the test IOW Boeing pays for Boeings mistakes
Boeing pull out of the CC contract, like they did the XS-1 contract.
Boeing should consider their reputation. They asked for 63% more than SX. Did they do a 63% better job?
When you pitch to a customer along the lines of "We're the safe pair of hands, those guys are just upstart amateurs" or "this is in our DNA. We know exactly what we're doing" and they you proceed to demonstrate that you do not know (or it seems care that you do not know) what you are doing you should expect questions.
I'll note the comparison with the Dragon explosion.
Starliner. 1st time in space. Multiple failures during the mission with LoV likely.
Dragon. Capsule explosion after mission landed and capsule emptied.
I know which I'd rather have to deal with. -
#1371 by john smith 19 on 07 Mar, 2020 10:17
-
Amazing how "dragon is off topic" but the SpaceX people find their way over here to extol Starship...and denigrate Boeing, and advocate for a sole sourcing of SpaceX... but suddenly if someone points out a failing by SpaceX, they get all pissy and claim we shouldn't be addressing SpaceX failings in a Boeing thread...
It might have something to do with the fact that SS/SH is not funded by US taxpayers.
But Starliner is entirely funded by US taxpayers through the USG and NASA.
I do recall that Boeing have called (on at least one occasion) for NASA to down select to 1 commercial crew supplier, with the expectation that they would win (despite having built no human spaceflight vehicle since NAA built Shuttle in the late 70's) and I speculated would Boeing try that again given this situation?
Personally I think that only competition between two suppliers has kept both programmes moving forward at anything like the budget Congress allowed (which has always been significantly under what NASA have requested, in contrast to SLS, which seems to have always been over appropriated relative to what NASA has requested) and has still not flow a single mission of any kind. -
#1372 by mlindner on 07 Mar, 2020 10:51
-
https://twitter.com/boeingspace/status/1233516495528955904
QuoteOur #Starliner Program Manager John Mullholand hosted a media conference today about the Orbital Flight Test data review and program progress.
Hear the whole media conference here:
The whole repeated mention of "logic strings" soon after the 52:00 timestamp shows Mulholland has no clue what he's talking about. You can't simply examine code staring at it and be sure you've tested every branch. That's not a process a human can complete unless many years are spent and you can't do it without human error either. If he's actually describing "automated unit testing with code coverage and branch coverage measurement", that's one thing, but he's using the weirdest possible terminology to describe it. This gives me low confidence that management actually understands what their software even does. That whole briefing was full of lots of words but all the words said very little. Extremely frustrating. It was the words of a politician, not an engineer. -
#1373 by mlindner on 07 Mar, 2020 12:10
-
(Bolding mine)
And, sorry, but I almost laughed when you said Starliner "is close to working like it should." Other than the latent fault that would have likely lost the vehicle (and crew if they were on board) if the original fault hadn't occurred. Other than the main chute that wasn't connected on the pad abort test article. How about not testing easily testable things? How expensive would it have been if Starliner had been lost? Look at the impact to SpaceX when DM-1 exploded, and that WAS a test.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Nothing has indicated any failure of the design. In fact, in many ways the design (e.g., the prop system that was heavily over used) did quite well. What you are pointing out are PROCESS problems. Not testing the software. Not double checking the parachutes properly. Launch, navigation, maneuvering, on board systems, reentry, landing bags...all worked extremely well. Boeing will have to address those process issues - but that can all be done on the ground and will have an incredible amount of oversight now. And that is why I strongly suspect the next mission will be crewed. Remember, OFT was a test, soup to nuts. Boeing decided how much risk they were willing to take.
That did make me laugh out loud.
The software was absolute crap. Couldn’t figure out where it was because of one clock issue. Proceeded to almost destroy the RCS system until ground control intervened.
Then, to put icing on the cake, they were going to pull data from the wrong lookup table, a mistake that could have resulted in LOV. This last one is the most grievous to me. With a modicum of documentation (like a descriptive name for the table) this issue should have been found long before the the software ever left the lab.
(Edit - spelling]
OK - thought about this over night - and NO - I don't want to change it!
(Edit to fix - LOV not LOM - LOM had already happened - Thanks - kdhilliard )
Again you are still conflating process with design. If the software had actually matched the design then things would have worked much better. Errors in the process of developing the software and errors in the process of testing said software are different.
Software testing and software developing are fundamentally linked and cannot be separated without consequences. Tests define the functionality of the software. If it hasn't been tested it's equivalent or worse than having never been written. Software testing is usually (if done correctly) is software itself. -
#1374 by mlindner on 07 Mar, 2020 12:22
-
I find it amazing people are ready to write Boeing off. Yes there was a failure, but the capsule wasn't lost and completed over 80% of its objectives.
If this was SpaceX the opinions on here would be quite different.
I'm not writing Boeing off because of the failures of what occurred. I'm writing Boeing off purely because of their development process that caused the few failures. This is just the tip of the iceberg that will be found during the review process that we'll simply never hear about. I just hope they don't lose some astronauts before NASA discovers the extent Boeing's incompetence.
I'd be saying the exact same things about SpaceX despite being a SpaceX amazing people if this was found to be SpaceX's actual process. -
#1375 by woods170 on 07 Mar, 2020 12:56
-
What is going on with this call?
Doug and Kathy from NASA spend multiple minutes describing why a decision on an OFT re-fly cannot be made yet, and will not be made without a thorough review of Boeing's forthcoming proposal. They fall over themselves explaining to the press why a decision is not yet warranted.
Following this, Jim Chilton of Boeing jumps in with a curt, "We're ready to re-fly, just need a decision from NASA."
Something about this contrast didn't feel right. Like Boeing either isn't playing ball, or is trying to pass the buck.
Probably a disagreement over who pays.
Bingo! -
#1376 by HeartofGold2030 on 07 Mar, 2020 15:33
-
What is going on with this call?
Doug and Kathy from NASA spend multiple minutes describing why a decision on an OFT re-fly cannot be made yet, and will not be made without a thorough review of Boeing's forthcoming proposal. They fall over themselves explaining to the press why a decision is not yet warranted.
Following this, Jim Chilton of Boeing jumps in with a curt, "We're ready to re-fly, just need a decision from NASA."
Something about this contrast didn't feel right. Like Boeing either isn't playing ball, or is trying to pass the buck.
Probably a disagreement over who pays.
Bingo!
Boeing have already shelled up $410 million to potentially re-do OFT, so that’s obviously not the case. They will be paying for it. -
#1377 by dglow on 07 Mar, 2020 15:35
-
What is going on with this call?
Doug and Kathy from NASA spend multiple minutes describing why a decision on an OFT re-fly cannot be made yet, and will not be made without a thorough review of Boeing's forthcoming proposal. They fall over themselves explaining to the press why a decision is not yet warranted.
Following this, Jim Chilton of Boeing jumps in with a curt, "We're ready to re-fly, just need a decision from NASA."
Something about this contrast didn't feel right. Like Boeing either isn't playing ball, or is trying to pass the buck.
Probably a disagreement over who pays.
Bingo!
Boeing have already shelled up $410 million to potentially re-do OFT, so that’s obviously not the case. They will be paying for it.
Just bookkeeping. Boeing budgeted for the $410M, but they haven't paid it. -
#1378 by abaddon on 07 Mar, 2020 16:12
-
An OFT re-flight has, as was just stated yesterday, not been decided yet (although it does seem a likely outcome at this point).
One question I haven't seen asked, if there is a re-flight, how long that will push out the first operational flight. I can't recall how many capsules Boeing is producing. They are currently refurbishing the OFT capsule and presumably that could be used for OFT re-flight based on current timelines (refurb time won't be a constraint). They have the other capsule they were building for the CFT before the OFT mishaps, so that should also be available. But another OFT followed by the CFT would use both of those capsules and then there would be the refurb time from likely which ever capsule came first. Does Boeing have another capsule being built? Just wondering if we need to pencil in refurb time before the first non-demo crewed flight.
Not sure it matters much, since the CFT is going to be a long duration mission, so there should be time to refurb the other capsule I suppose, but I was just curious about any insight into the capsule pipeline on the Boeing side. -
#1379 by dglow on 07 Mar, 2020 16:36
-
An OFT re-flight has, as was just stated yesterday, not been decided yet (although it does seem a likely outcome at this point).
One question I haven't seen asked, if there is a re-flight, how long that will push out the first operational flight. I can't recall how many capsules Boeing is producing. They are currently refurbishing the OFT capsule and presumably that could be used for OFT re-flight based on current timelines (refurb time won't be a constraint). They have the other capsule they were building for the CFT before the OFT mishaps, so that should also be available. But another OFT followed by the CFT would use both of those capsules and then there would be the refurb time from likely which ever capsule came first. Does Boeing have another capsule being built? Just wondering if we need to pencil in refurb time before the first non-demo crewed flight.
Not sure it matters much, since the CFT is going to be a long duration mission, so there should be time to refurb the other capsule I suppose, but I was just curious about any insight into the capsule pipeline on the Boeing side.
Good question.
IIRC it was reported that the capsule originally intended for OFT had been swapped out for the CFT-intended capsule last year. The current CFT-designated capsule was originally intended for the post-CFT flight.
I hear the viability of refurbing the OFT capsule for a notional OFT-2 is also in question.
