-
#340
by
ThomasGadd
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:53
-
A couple of things
Challenger and Columbia were operational flights this was the first orbital test flight.
NASA has changed how it handles human space flight with ASAP and such.
Many of us have whined on NSF never launch manned crews again...
I asked up thread... this ULA launch crew have Atlas V experience, is the Boeing launch crew new?
SpaceX has a lot of operational time with Dragon.
Boeing has been building, launching, and operating spacecraft for a very long time.
Yes of course but my point is it's been 10 years since the shuttle flew.
I suspect some Boeing managers have shuttle experience but 10 years is a long time.
-
#341
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:55
-
Whatever happened to "fly as you test, test as you fly" Not testing the final steps and docking is assuming there are no more unknown unknowns such as what occurred upon orbit insertion. A decision to not fully test is irresponsible and only driven by schedule pressure and money. You have to keep to your stated goal of crew safety first. Boeing has already demonstrated they have quality control issues with the parachute failure and that their testing did not discover the timer error. Deciding to fly crew is putting their lives at risk and that is why the Challenger comparison. It called Russian Roulette.
For like the umpteenth time, the system has been tested. Thoroughly and multiple times. Using flight software and flight avionics of both Starliner and ISS.
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
-
#342
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:57
-
A couple of things
Challenger and Columbia were operational flights this was the first orbital test flight.
NASA has changed how it handles human space flight with ASAP and such.
Many of us have whined on NSF never launch manned crews again...
I asked up thread... this ULA launch crew have Atlas V experience, is the Boeing launch crew new?
SpaceX has a lot of operational time with Dragon.
Boeing has been building, launching, and operating spacecraft for a very long time.
Yes of course but my point is it's been 10 years since the shuttle flew.
I suspect some Boeing managers have shuttle experience but 10 years is a long time.
I think the answer to your question is obvious. Of course there are some folks that are new. There are others that are not. Organizations have change-over during the course of time. This hardly something unique.
-
#343
by
gongora
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:58
-
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
I thought Boeing and SpaceX were using different hardware implementations of the same standard?
-
#344
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 16:00
-
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
I thought Boeing and SpaceX were using different hardware implementations of the same standard?
It's the same system at the root. Otherwise it could not be a common interface.
-
#345
by
TrevorMonty
on 24 Dec, 2019 16:16
-
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
I thought Boeing and SpaceX were using different hardware implementations of the same standard?
It's the same system at the root. Otherwise it could not be a common interface.
Can Dragon and Starliner dock with each other?
-
#346
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 16:23
-
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
I thought Boeing and SpaceX were using different hardware implementations of the same standard?
It's the same system at the root. Otherwise it could not be a common interface.
Can Dragon and Starliner dock with each other?
In theory. It depends ultimately the dash number configurations being flown. There is one dash number that cannot mate to its identical config. There is another that cannot act in passive mode.
-
#347
by
MARSATTACK
on 24 Dec, 2019 16:32
-
Think quality control. The docking system was tested etc. and it worked perfectly for Space X but Space X did not build Boeings hardware and it is Boeing that lacks quality control. Yes, the docking system was extended and retracted and the thrusters worked fine but until you actually dock and undock using the latches etc. (that were not tested) you can't be sure that Boeing will not come up short.
-
#348
by
marsbase
on 24 Dec, 2019 17:03
-
To answer another random statement upthread, this is not an unproven NDS. It was exercised on orbit by Starliner and this is the same docking system (hence the word common that is sometimes used) SpaceX uses with Dragon.
I thought Boeing and SpaceX were using different hardware implementations of the same standard?
It's the same system at the root. Otherwise it could not be a common interface.
It's physically a common interface on the ISS end. Not necessarily on the Dragon/Starliner end.
-
#349
by
clongton
on 24 Dec, 2019 19:05
-
(Also, a tight timetable) ... There will be a thorough review, of course, and the right people will make the decision.
The right people made the decision to launch Challenger, despite engineering objections.
A tight timetable also drove that decision.
Comparing this system, this overall crew and workforce, etc to Challenger and OFT is disgraceful. Based on your previous comments you are clearly speaking from a position of not being anywhere near an authority on Starliner.
I'm disappointed in you Chuck.
My comment was geared to the role that schedule pressure has and continues to play in management decisions to execute on a given target goal. The Challenger disaster was driven almost exclusively by managers allowing schedule pressure to override common sense objections. My point was that NASA is under heavy pressure to get Commercial Crew operational as early in 2020 as possible and I was expressing the hope that top level decisions at NASA would not cave to this kind of pressure. Having been a mid level manager in a multi billion dollar effort, I know personally how intense this schedule pressure can be. When I hear someone say flippantly that the right people will make the decision it makes my skin crawl because I have actually seen men die because the "right people" made the decision.
I stand by my statement unashamedly.
-
#350
by
xyv
on 24 Dec, 2019 23:32
-
Yet it was a success just not a complete success.
No. It was a failure, just not a complete failure.
I wish I could find a classic quote about an SDI anti missile test in the late 90's. I had the press release hung on my door when I worked at Boeing (nee Rockwell, nee North American). I think it was THAAD but in any case the release stated something to the effect of "...the test achieved 25 of 27 objectives. The last two objectives had to do with hitting the target".
-
#351
by
CyndyC
on 25 Dec, 2019 02:16
-
Would this be an ok spot to move on to a less depressing comparison? Wasn't it the Soyuz MS human spaceflight series that was the first to use auto-docking, and didn't the first flight go up crewed? Was that the same MS flight that ended up having to be docked manually? I know there are people here who would know the answers a lot faster than it would take me to look them up.
-
#352
by
savantu
on 25 Dec, 2019 11:28
-
Boeing proved Starliner can launch and land safely.
I disagree about the launch part. I see launch as getting to orbit without external intervention. Starliner failed at that. Its launch can be considered a success only if you understand by launch just getting off the pad, but that's Atlas's role.
...
2) An acknowledgement that both the parachute pin and the wrong MET issue should have been caught before the anomalies occurred and what Boeing is doing to prevent this from becoming a pattern. It shouldn’t have been possible for anyone to misread the parachute pin, and I still don’t see how they didn’t have a system in place to ensure the correct MET.
..
Boeing cut a lot of corners because it was seen as a more trustworthy supplier ( simulation-rich approach ). Working also in safety, but different domain ( automotive ) I can only say you'd think twice about getting behind the wheel if you'd knew how the parts of the safety system are produced by the top, trustworthy suppliers just to meet budget and timeline targets.
-
#353
by
RyanC
on 25 Dec, 2019 12:45
-
Anything less than an OFT-2 would be scandalous in my opinion. Boeing should pay for the capsule and the expedited Atlas without charging the taxpayer, too. They got almost twice the money and achieved half the result. Enough.
They also got like $248M extra at one point. That should be enough to pay for a reflight to prove autonomous docking per the contract.
-
#354
by
Comga
on 25 Dec, 2019 13:07
-
Again
The most important goal of launching is to get to orbit.
DUH!
The most important goal is to not endanger your crew.
Boeing decided that not stranding the crew in orbit was more important to them than reaching orbit. We can sit here back seat engineering all we want, but let's not act like the decision they made was totally nonsensical.
Bull
Astronauts are safe on the ground.
The first goal is getting to orbit in a safe manner.
They could always use the Vostock or Saturn V solution: a low orbit stable for hours but not days.
Your worry-bead problem involves having zero operational thrusters. Ballistic reentry is ALSO risky for crew. Going into the South Indian Ocean is risky.
Pulling a time with 11 hours of error and acting on it without checking is nonsensical. They would have done better with an 18th century pocket chronometer. (2 minutes of variability in the rocket trajectory would equate to 8 degrees around the orbit. That’s an order of magnitude LESS attitude error than what we saw.)
Saying two glaring errors on two missions in a month is NOT a pattern is nonsensical.
Yelling “Bullseye!” for hitting the desert (with twice the landing offset of the first Dragon) is harmless nonsense.
Having the Administrator brush off the cascading errors before investigating is dangerous nonsense.
-
#355
by
LouScheffer
on 25 Dec, 2019 14:27
-
Working also in safety, but different domain ( automotive ) I can only say you'd think twice about getting behind the wheel if you'd knew how the parts of the safety system are produced by the top, trustworthy suppliers just to meet budget and timeline targets.
I had the same reaction after visiting the folks who make pacemakers (this was years ago, maybe they are better now, but I doubt it). I imagined them using the best state of the art tools, like formal verification, automatic propagation of margins, etc., but instead they had the most old-school, we've always done it that way, design process imaginable. They were being pushed kicking and screaming into the market for pacemakers that could be adjusted from outside the chest by wireless methods. I'd hate to trust my life on the correctness of whatever they came up with, but from a sample of a few, all the vendors were like that, so there is little choice in the matter.
-
#356
by
JEF_300
on 25 Dec, 2019 16:06
-
Someone up thread pointed out that Atlas start-up is about 11 hours before launch, and I recall hearing that Starliner sets it's MET based on data from the Atlas. I'd appreciate it if someone could verify both of these facts for me.
If they are both true however, it suggests that the error was simply retrieving the wrong data (time) from Atlas. I don't know how Starliner/Atlas coding works, but I assume the fix would in fact be a simple change in code. Perhaps as simple as changing one variable.
-
#357
by
abaddon
on 25 Dec, 2019 16:11
-
Someone up thread pointed out that Atlas start-up is about 11 hours before launch, and I recall hearing that Starliner sets it's MET based on data from the Atlas. I'd appreciate it if someone could verify both of these facts for me.
If they are both true however, it suggests that the error was simply retrieving the wrong data from Atlas. I don't know how Starliner/Atlas coding works, but I assume the fix would in fact be a simple change in code. Perhaps as simple as changing one variable.
Those facts are correct that I know of, and I don't think anyone disagrees with the assessment that the fix for the MET issue is very likely to be a simple one. The concern is regarding the series of actions taken by the guidance software subsequent to the failure.
Anyone who has written software long enough (on my 25th year myself, yegods) knows how likely it is to fix a bug and then find a different vector to the same issue, or similar issues expressed differently. The guidance software seems rather fragile in how it handled the error condition, which is not what you want in an autonomous system trusted with human lives...
I hope and expect there will be a thorough review to all systems that might be affected similarly before a re flight (which, regardless of what anyone here thinks, will be crewed).
-
#358
by
Lars-J
on 25 Dec, 2019 16:14
-
Someone up thread pointed out that Atlas start-up is about 11 hours before launch, and I recall hearing that Starliner sets it's MET based on data from the Atlas. I'd appreciate it if someone could verify both of these facts for me.
If they are both true however, it suggests that the error was simply retrieving the wrong data (time) from Atlas. I don't know how Starliner/Atlas coding works, but I assume the fix would in fact be a simple change in code. Perhaps as simple as changing one variable.
Yes, that they “pulled the wrong variable” has been pretty much verified. That is likely an easy fix. But the fact that something so basic as this was not caught during testing is what worries people. What else did they miss?
My worst fears about Boeing/Starliner software development is that they have “bought their own PR” to a degree that they believe the quality of their software is so great it simply does not need to be tested as thoroughly as it clearly needs to be.
-
#359
by
Lemurion
on 25 Dec, 2019 20:55
-
Yeah, I don’t see grabbing the wrong time as being a particularly hard fix.
My concerns are first with the QA policies that let things through they shouldn’t and the way Boeing and NASA are so quick to announce mission success despite obvious anomalies.