It isn't NASA's role to verify, line-by-line, the software in these vehicles. They are not NASA vehicles.
Not to be overlooked, as several posters are doing, is the legally binding contractual requirement for Boeing: "The Contractor’s flight test program shall include an uncrewed orbital flight test to the ISS," the document states. And this test should include, "Automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS, assuming ISS approval." Boeing signed this contract, as did SpaceX, who was required to fulfill this specific requirement with their spacecraft. For Boeing to be allowed to simply ignore this binding requirement would be, well, not helpful. Whether they like it or not, Boeing is required by the language of the contract they signed to demonstrate, with an uncrewed spacecraft, automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS. Expect Boeing to fight hard to be let out of this requirement, even though SpaceX was required to fulfill it. If the terms of the contract are to be fulfilled, OFT-1 must be reflown and the first crewed flight of Starliner must now be the 3rd flight of that spacecraft. We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
Bidders will have to propose at least one crewed flight to the international space station under CCtCap in order to be eligible for follow-on task orders.
“We’re saying at least one to the [international space station] … in order to get certified,” McAlister said. “I anticipate all the partners will propose additional test flights.”
Not to be overlooked, as several posters are doing, is the legally binding contractual requirement for Boeing: "The Contractor’s flight test program shall include an uncrewed orbital flight test to the ISS," the document states. And this test should include, "Automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS, assuming ISS approval." Boeing signed this contract, as did SpaceX, who was required to fulfill this specific requirement with their spacecraft. For Boeing to be allowed to simply ignore this binding requirement would be, well, not helpful. Whether they like it or not, Boeing is required by the language of the contract they signed to demonstrate, with an uncrewed spacecraft, automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS. Expect Boeing to fight hard to be let out of this requirement, even though SpaceX was required to fulfill it. If the terms of the contract are to be fulfilled, OFT-1 must be reflown and the first crewed flight of Starliner must now be the 3rd flight of that spacecraft. We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
NASA did not require an uncrewed test flight under CCtCap. Boeing and SpaceX both proposed one but it was not actually required by NASA.
I'm wondering if a decent methodology would be to develop a simulation of each hardware component right along with the software designed to control it. So you'd be unit testing and integrating your sim in parallel with unit testing and integrating the actual iron.
The buzzword du jour for what you are referencing is "digital twin." However, the emulators that I've dealt with don't allow mocks of direct address reading, only bus and protocol mocks.
Not to be overlooked, as several posters are doing, is the legally binding contractual requirement for Boeing: "The Contractor’s flight test program shall include an uncrewed orbital flight test to the ISS," the document states. And this test should include, "Automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS, assuming ISS approval." Boeing signed this contract, as did SpaceX, who was required to fulfill this specific requirement with their spacecraft. For Boeing to be allowed to simply ignore this binding requirement would be, well, not helpful. Whether they like it or not, Boeing is required by the language of the contract they signed to demonstrate, with an uncrewed spacecraft, automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS. Expect Boeing to fight hard to be let out of this requirement, even though SpaceX was required to fulfill it. If the terms of the contract are to be fulfilled, OFT-1 must be reflown and the first crewed flight of Starliner must now be the 3rd flight of that spacecraft. We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
NASA did not require an uncrewed test flight under CCtCap. Boeing and SpaceX both proposed one but it was not actually required by NASA.
It was proposed and accepted by NASA as part of the contract with the contract stating that they shall perform that mission as part of their milestones and it lays out specific objectives required to complete that milestone. It doesn't matter if they weren't required to be offered, its what they offered and became binding in the contract. That's the contract. If they want to change it now they both have to agree to the changes and modify the contract. Of course if they decide to change it, they'll likely have to provide justification for it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the IG ends up looking at this so everyone's ducks have to be lined up.
We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
At first I was alarmed that NASA would consider this flight to be good enough to proceed with crewed flight without docking. But then I looked at it from the safety viewpoint and realized that if the rendezvous and docking failed with crew aboard, they would have to return to earth, but no danger of loss of life, just a mission failure.
Not to be overlooked, as several posters are doing, is the legally binding contractual requirement for Boeing: "The Contractor’s flight test program shall include an uncrewed orbital flight test to the ISS," the document states. And this test should include, "Automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS, assuming ISS approval." Boeing signed this contract, as did SpaceX, who was required to fulfill this specific requirement with their spacecraft. For Boeing to be allowed to simply ignore this binding requirement would be, well, not helpful. Whether they like it or not, Boeing is required by the language of the contract they signed to demonstrate, with an uncrewed spacecraft, automated rendezvous and proximity operations, and docking with the ISS. Expect Boeing to fight hard to be let out of this requirement, even though SpaceX was required to fulfill it. If the terms of the contract are to be fulfilled, OFT-1 must be reflown and the first crewed flight of Starliner must now be the 3rd flight of that spacecraft. We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
NASA did not require an uncrewed test flight under CCtCap. Boeing and SpaceX both proposed one but it was not actually required by NASA.
It was proposed and accepted by NASA as part of the contract with the contract stating that they shall perform that mission as part of their milestones and it lays out specific objectives required to complete that milestone. It doesn't matter if they weren't required to be offered, its what they offered and became binding in the contract. That's the contract. If they want to change it now they both have to agree to the changes and modify the contract. Of course if they decide to change it, they'll likely have to provide justification for it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the IG ends up looking at this so everyone's ducks have to be lined up.
That doesn't make it a requirement. NASA could decide to pay Boeing less because they did not meet all of the contractual obligations. But it's still not a requirement for certification. Only a crewed test was required for certification.
There is another (crewed) test flight where can they show that they can dock. Besides, contracts can be modified if both parties agree.
[It was proposed and accepted by NASA as part of the contract with the contract stating that they shall perform that mission as part of their milestones and it lays out specific objectives required to complete that milestone. It doesn't matter if they weren't required to be offered, its what they offered and became binding in the contract. That's the contract. If they want to change it now they both have to agree to the changes and modify the contract. Of course if they decide to change it, they'll likely have to provide justification for it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the IG ends up looking at this so everyone's ducks have to be lined up.
That doesn't make it a requirement. NASA could decide to pay Boeing less because they did not meet all of the contractual obligations. But it's still not a requirement for certification. Only a crewed test was required for certification.
There is another (crewed) test flight where can they show that they can dock. Besides, contracts can be modified if both parties agree.
Yes, we know that there is a crewed test flight where they can show that they can dock. The problem is that if something goes very wrong it could kill the crew. Which is why both Boeing and SpaceX had plans to do uncrewed flights to the ISS.
And yes, we know that contracts can be modified if both parties agree. The issue is what NASA should agree to.
That doesn't make it a requirement.
There is another (crewed) test flight where can they show that they can dock. Besides, contracts can be modified if both parties agree.
Yes, we know that there is a crewed test flight where they can show that they can dock. The problem is that if something goes very wrong it could kill the crew. Which is why both Boeing and SpaceX had plans to do uncrewed flights to the ISS.
And yes, we know that contracts can be modified if both parties agree. The issue is what NASA should agree to.
There is another (crewed) test flight where can they show that they can dock. Besides, contracts can be modified if both parties agree.
That doesn't make it a requirement.
Yes it does, precisely because it IS the contract language that Boeing, NASA and SpaceX all signed. It is what all 3 parties legally obligated themselves to do. It is a legal contract. One does not get to ignore parts of a contract just because it may prove inconvenient or costly.
There is another (crewed) test flight where can they show that they can dock. Besides, contracts can be modified if both parties agree.
THREE parties, not "both". SpaceX is a legal signatory on this contract. It will take all 3 parties agreement to change it. If SpaceX does not agree then the ONLY way for Boeing to satisfy the contract is to fly another UNCREWED mission to demonstrate the autonomous rendezvous and docking. If Boeing and NASA come to a separate agreement that allows Boeing to skip its legal obligation after SpaceX has already complied, there will be hell to pay in the courts.
While this methodology is somewhat antiquated by todays standards, it results in plenty safe software. I can't imagine how the MET error could have gotten past a simple test even with a simulated rocket that just replays a launch recording. All I can come up with is that they tried to emulate the rocket somehow which lead to them testing against their own, wrong, preconception about how the signaling should function.