-
#880
by
mlindner
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:09
-
Mulholland: All the software will be verified to check whether the requirements are being met. About a million lines of code.
A million lines is not that huge considering the project size. Your video player has about a million lines of code. The Linux bare kernel has 27.8 million lines of code, including nothing else in the OS.
Maybe that's why it failed - they didn't put in enough error checking.
You can't draw that kind of conclusion from lines of code.
-
#881
by
kevinof
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:13
-
it was tongue in cheek and not really a serious comment. 1M lines is not that big, assuming its a correct number. If it is only 1M then why they hell didn't they find these problems over the last 4 years?
- Poor team and systems?
- Rushed code (not enough $$ put in to fund it early on)?
- ?
Mulholland: All the software will be verified to check whether the requirements are being met. About a million lines of code.
A million lines is not that huge considering the project size. Your video player has about a million lines of code. The Linux bare kernel has 27.8 million lines of code, including nothing else in the OS.
Maybe that's why it failed - they didn't put in enough error checking.
You can't draw that kind of conclusion from lines of code.
-
#882
by
cebri
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:14
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
-
#883
by
Comga
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:16
-
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1225887037317881861
Boeing adds: Starliner has approximately 1 million lines of code. We exercised ~66% of the scripts correctly during the mission but we're going to go back and re-verify.
Is there a standard differentiation between "lines of code" and "scripts"?
If Starliner "operated ~66% of the scripts correctly" then it operated about a third of them
incorrectly!
How is a third of their "scripts" being operated incorrectly not a
horrible thing?
Is it OK if 90% of their scripts are operated correctly?
I doubt it.
Edit: Or as pointed out below, Starliner didn’t run that third of the scripts.
-
#884
by
JonathanD
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:17
-
Is there a standard differentiation between "lines of code" and "scripts"?
If Starliner "operated ~66% of the scripts correctly" then it operated about a third of them incorrectly!
How is a third of their "scripts" being operated incorrectly not a horrible thing?
Is it OK if 90% of their scripts are operated correctly?
I doubt it.
I don't think that meant 1/3rd of them operated incorrectly, it's more likely that they didn't have a chance or situation to run all of them because of the nature of that particular flight.
-
#885
by
ShaunML09
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:19
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
That was worst answer I've heard so far - that's a complete non answer, bordering on insulting.
-
#886
by
ChrisWilson68
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:19
-
Is there a standard differentiation between "lines of code" and "scripts"?
If Starliner "operated ~66% of the scripts correctly" then it operated about a third of them incorrectly!
How is a third of their "scripts" being operated incorrectly not a horrible thing?
Is it OK if 90% of their scripts are operated correctly?
I doubt it.
I don't think that meant 1/3rd of them operated incorrectly, it's more likely that they didn't have a chance or situation to run all of them because of the nature of that particular flight.
Yeah, and also in some cases the same bug might have made multiple of the scripts run incorrectly.
-
#887
by
abaddon
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:19
-
Is there a standard differentiation between "lines of code" and "scripts"?
If Starliner "operated ~66% of the scripts correctly" then it operated about a third of them incorrectly!
How is a third of their "scripts" being operated incorrectly not a horrible thing?
Is it OK if 90% of their scripts are operated correctly?
I doubt it.
Scripts are presumably higher-level exercises of sequences of functions e.g. a script that would point Starliner from heading A to heading B by executing a series of thruster firings. (I made that up).
They're just saying that the OFT exercised 66% of their scripts and 33% weren't exercised, possibly due to abbreviated mission duration or because they're contingency based (wouldn't execute on a nominal mission).
-
#888
by
Comga
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:22
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
From where did you get this quote?
I don't see it in the press release, and haven't found it in the tweets I have read.
Reference please?
-
#889
by
dccraven
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:23
-
I heard this same statement during the teleconference and had the same reaction!
-
#890
by
mlindner
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:23
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
From where did you get this quote?
I don't see it in the press release, and haven't found it in the tweets I have read.
Reference please?
It's in the on-going audio press conference right now.
-
#891
by
abaddon
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:24
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
From where did you get this quote?
I don't see it in the press release, and haven't found it in the tweets I have read.
Reference please?
It's a quote from the audio stream (
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive), maybe slightly paraphrased, but the gist is they felt they didn't need to report it (at the time) since they fixed the issue before it could manifest as an anomaly.
-
#892
by
cebri
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:26
-
Wow. "We didn't disclose the second issue before because we didn't have an anomaly, it didn't happen".
From where did you get this quote?
I don't see it in the press release, and haven't found it in the tweets I have read.
Reference please?
Was made by Douglas Loverro. Maybe is not 100% accurate, but it's basically what he said.
edit: btw Twitter seems to be having some issues. My timeline is not updating. Loren Grush made the question so she should have it on her timeline.
-
#893
by
Comga
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:27
-
Is there a standard differentiation between "lines of code" and "scripts"?
If Starliner "operated ~66% of the scripts correctly" then it operated about a third of them incorrectly!
How is a third of their "scripts" being operated incorrectly not a horrible thing?
Is it OK if 90% of their scripts are operated correctly?
I doubt it.
Scripts are presumably higher-level exercises of sequences of functions e.g. a script that would point Starliner from heading A to heading B by executing a series of thruster firings. (I made that up).
They're just saying that the OFT exercised 66% of their scripts and 33% weren't exercised, possibly due to abbreviated mission duration or because they're contingency based (wouldn't execute on a nominal mission).
Perhaps "The 66% of the scripts that were executed were done so correctly but 3% failed" is a longer and more detailed statement than he wanted to make.
-
#894
by
abaddon
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:27
-
That analogy of 'checking the spare tire for inflation' before deciding whether an OFT2 would be required was one of the worst analogies I've heard in quite some time. I give him props for trying but...
-
#895
by
freddo411
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:28
-
That analogy of 'checking the spare tire for inflation' before deciding whether an OFT2 would be required was one of the worst analogies I've heard in quite some time. I give him props for trying but...
It's not a wrong analogy, but it's not a reason not to refly.
It's a bad look to try to setup justification for no-reflight.
-
#896
by
ShaunML09
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:31
-
Doug's position that another OFT may not be needed because we don't fly to test these types of issues, and that they should be found during testing is insanely scary given that the issues demonstrated during the OFT were not detected during testing and could have resulted in a loss to the vehicle.
-
#897
by
mlindner
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:33
-
Does NASA publish transcripts of audio press conferences like these?
-
#898
by
woods170
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:34
-
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1225884595775778817
John (Boeing): Starliner should only have pulled the mission time in terminal county (T-4mins through T0). It pulled the time, because of the software code error, before it should have... 11hrs early. @NASA @BoeingSpace #Starliner #OFT
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1225884657226592256
Mulholland: timer issue. We pull MET from launch vehicle only during terminal count. If pull before that it's not mapped to right launch time. Req was to have both conditions met, but software missed that second req -- to pull after terminal count.
This is a barndoor-sized red flag.
Properly set-up integrated testing with the launcher in a simulated countdown should have revealed this issue. The fact that it didn't is very telling about the testing regime deployed for Starliner.
Given the nature of the second major software issue it clearly points to a systemic issue.
Good to hear that NASA is now looking into how Boeing does its software development and verification process.
-
#899
by
clongton
on 07 Feb, 2020 20:35
-
After listening to the presser and Q&A I am more convinced than ever that an OFT-2 is absolutely necessary.
Jim saying that he instructed everyone to be as transparent as possible when several of the answers were obviously a non-transparent dodging of the question does not fill me with confidence. If William Boeing were not already in his grave the shame of this poorly hidden corporate inadequacy would likely prove fatal to him.
