The context of that is based on previous remarks; I was referring to NASA's lack of oversight. They figured the Starliner's hardware was under control, so we're good. Wrong!
Wrong. This is a commercial program, there is no oversight, just insight. But either way, NASA would still not have been able to find the problems.
Wrong. As indicated by Kathy Lueders, and others, herself back in 2021.
That's an indication for the state of software engineering management more than anything else.
Somehow they're always gating, and it's not because writing software is harder than developing hardware.
Oh, m'Lord, this rabbit hole has turned into almost a party thread! Having spent 30+ years in aerospace software development and formal testing, meekGee has summed it up nicely.
My personal opinion is that the problem with software "gating" is more a problem of requirement creep, and software management not using that amazing single word sentence: "No". Program management inherently knows that hardware (literally everything BUT software) has to be defined early on so it can get in the cycle to be built.
OTOH, software is, by its very nature, adaptable, flexible, and cheap (from a mass production POV). "How much more would it cost to have the software do X?" Then add in software workarounds for hardware limitations, etc., and software management has a hard place to say "No, we can't do that." Instead, they get a bit more money and schedule (usually never enough because it's always assumed that the change is straight-forward and has no secondary effects), then overruns because of the secondary effects, ad naseum.
Mods, if you want to split this off or delete it completely, I won't mind.
Y'all have a good one,
Mike
...
We need to have at least one real backup for the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon to support ISS and future commercial LEO space stations. Orion is not a solution to that problem.
So we, or everyone that cares about space, will all lose out if Starliner fails.
...
I feel like dragging this thread back in this direction. IMHO, CLD (CDISS/CDFF) is built upon a house of cards. Dragon 2, CST-100, and Dreamchaser are cards, and NASA funding is a card. You take away enough cards, and CLD falls apart. Remember, CLD providers are responsible for end-to-end services, including crew transportation, which means any of the three must either use Dragon 2, CST-100 (when certified), or certify a new crew transportation system. That's a lot of agreement to be had between companies. I see commercial investment as one of the first cards to fall (in that there isn't enough to sustain CLD). I don't think it would take many more cards to fall and CLD falls apart. The implication here that there is no space station (Other than gateway?) post ISS. I think that is a very real possibility at the moment.
Heck, maybe CLD needs to wait for ISS to de-orbit so that there are funds for it?
My opinion.
WIthout the software, its like saying they are building a car and have the tires figured out; all that is left is the car.
I know software is very important, but it seems like you might be elevating it a little bit too much 
.
Not really. Software isn't sexy so people don't think about it, but its a HUGE component of engineering. Rockets are a pile of metal without their software.
So what? The same is true of the tanks, the avionics, the structure, the actuators, the comms, and the GSE (and everything else). It's a system that doesn't work without all the components. Equating the software with everything in a car except the tires is crazy. Software is one of many components that have to work. I'd equate the software in a rocket with the software in a car.
There is no attempt to say the engineering is not important. Its just as important. Code can't fly a rocket if there is no rocket.
Software is a VITAL part of rockets (and most machines). Every sensor has multiple levels of code involved.
The point is, its not like fuel where you just add it in the end. As beoing's record shows, anyone who ignores software fails
CLD? CDISS? CDFF?
Commercial LEO Destinations is the program that encompasses both Commercial Destinations ISS (CDISS) which is Axiom and Commercial Destinations Free-Flyer (CDFF), which is Nanoracks, Orbital Reef, Northrup Grumman
NASA keeps saying that having two vendors is important, and I've heard that here. What are the criteria for Starliner and Dragon backing each other up? Is there some requirement like "has to be able to fly extra missions within six months or a year?" Can both Boeing and SpaceX do that?
parachute system certification pushes date to NET july 21st. Already another mission on the range schedule.
Dang, I can't believe they are this late getting the parachute certification done, especially after the embarrassment of the p0ad abort test (yes, I know it wasn't related to chute performance, but you have to expect that eyes are going to shift that direction).
NASA keeps saying that having two vendors is important, and I've heard that here. What are the criteria for Starliner and Dragon backing each other up? Is there some requirement like "has to be able to fly extra missions within six months or a year?" Can both Boeing and SpaceX do that?
Yes, both do need to have the capability to do a <6 month turnaround.
The value of dissimilar redundancy has been amply proven to NASA both in the Commercial Cargo (with Progress, Cygnus, and Dragon having failures causing loss of cargo, but having multiple providers meant the ISS was never in critical danger of running out of supplies) and Crew programs (SpaceX being able to take crew to the ISS while Boeing sorts out problems from the first test flights).
parachute system certification pushes date to NET july 21st. Already another mission on the range schedule.
Dang, I can't believe they are this late getting the parachute certification done, especially after the embarrassment of the p0ad abort test (yes, I know it wasn't related to chute performance, but you have to expect that eyes are going to shift that direction).
Data from the parachutes' performance during the test flights are taken into account for the final certification of the parachute systems. They did the same for SpaceX's parachute certification.
parachute system certification pushes date to NET july 21st. Already another mission on the range schedule.
Dang, I can't believe they are this late getting the parachute certification done, especially after the embarrassment of the p0ad abort test (yes, I know it wasn't related to chute performance, but you have to expect that eyes are going to shift that direction).
Data from the parachutes' performance during the test flights are taken into account for the final certification of the parachute systems. They did the same for SpaceX's parachute certification.
No, I understand that SpaceX had to do a lot for Crew Dragon's parachute system, but to also read (farther down in the update thread) that there's still another test to run, I mean, what are they (Boeing) waiting for?
NASA keeps saying that having two vendors is important, and I've heard that here. What are the criteria for Starliner and Dragon backing each other up? Is there some requirement like "has to be able to fly extra missions within six months or a year?" Can both Boeing and SpaceX do that?
Yes, both do need to have the capability to do a <6 month turnaround.
The value of dissimilar redundancy has been amply proven to NASA both in the Commercial Cargo (with Progress, Cygnus, and Dragon having failures causing loss of cargo, but having multiple providers meant the ISS was never in critical danger of running out of supplies) and Crew programs (SpaceX being able to take crew to the ISS while Boeing sorts out problems from the first test flights).
We know that SpaceX can do operations at this cadence, since they have been doing it since November 2020. But SpaceX has four Crew Dragons and is said to be building a fifth. Boeing has only two Starliners. To maintain a six-month cadence, they would need to turn each capsule around in about 5 months, and this is probably very aggressive, with no margin for contingencies.
parachute system certification pushes date to NET july 21st. Already another mission on the range schedule.
Dang, I can't believe they are this late getting the parachute certification done, especially after the embarrassment of the p0ad abort test (yes, I know it wasn't related to chute performance, but you have to expect that eyes are going to shift that direction).
Data from the parachutes' performance during the test flights are taken into account for the final certification of the parachute systems. They did the same for SpaceX's parachute certification.
No, I understand that SpaceX had to do a lot for Crew Dragon's parachute system, but to also read (farther down in the update thread) that there's still another test to run, I mean, what are they (Boeing) waiting for?
The final test flight. The parachutes are not certified until after the CFT.
The final test flight. The parachutes are not certified until after the CFT.
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I've also heard that there are problems with getting the batteries certified, but I haven't been able to find anything more on that. Do you have any info on that?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
NASA keeps saying that having two vendors is important, and I've heard that here. What are the criteria for Starliner and Dragon backing each other up? Is there some requirement like "has to be able to fly extra missions within six months or a year?" Can both Boeing and SpaceX do that?
Yes, both do need to have the capability to do a <6 month turnaround.
The value of dissimilar redundancy has been amply proven to NASA both in the Commercial Cargo (with Progress, Cygnus, and Dragon having failures causing loss of cargo, but having multiple providers meant the ISS was never in critical danger of running out of supplies) and Crew programs (SpaceX being able to take crew to the ISS while Boeing sorts out problems from the first test flights).
We know that SpaceX can do operations at this cadence, since they have been doing it since November 2020. But SpaceX has four Crew Dragons and is said to be building a fifth. Boeing has only two Starliners. To maintain a six-month cadence, they would need to turn each capsule around in about 5 months, and this is probably very aggressive, with no margin for contingencies.
The way it would work is that Dragon and CST-100 will alternate missions. So if there is a problem with Dragon the CST-100 would be ready about 3 months later. The cadence would slow down but it would be possible to get to the ISS with crew. Hopefully by then Space X has sorted it problem and the Dragon would be back on line.
NASA keeps saying that having two vendors is important, and I've heard that here. What are the criteria for Starliner and Dragon backing each other up? Is there some requirement like "has to be able to fly extra missions within six months or a year?" Can both Boeing and SpaceX do that?
Yes, both do need to have the capability to do a <6 month turnaround.
The value of dissimilar redundancy has been amply proven to NASA both in the Commercial Cargo (with Progress, Cygnus, and Dragon having failures causing loss of cargo, but having multiple providers meant the ISS was never in critical danger of running out of supplies) and Crew programs (SpaceX being able to take crew to the ISS while Boeing sorts out problems from the first test flights).
We know that SpaceX can do operations at this cadence, since they have been doing it since November 2020. But SpaceX has four Crew Dragons and is said to be building a fifth. Boeing has only two Starliners. To maintain a six-month cadence, they would need to turn each capsule around in about 5 months, and this is probably very aggressive, with no margin for contingencies.
The way it would work is that Dragon and CST-100 will alternate missions. So if there is a problem with Dragon the CST-100 would be ready about 3 months later. The cadence would slow down but it would be possible to get to the ISS with crew. Hopefully by then Space X has sorted it problem and the Dragon would be back on line.
I don't think the two Starliners can support three consecutive missions, so if Crew Dragon is grounded for more than one mission in a row, there will be a problem. Starliner might not support two consecutive missions. It would depend on exactly when in the schedule the decision was made. With no Crew Dragons at all, I think the Starliner missions would need to be pushed to nearly their 200-day max, but this leaves no margin.
The final test flight. The parachutes are not certified until after the CFT.
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I've also heard that there are problems with getting the batteries certified, but I haven't been able to find anything more on that. Do you have any info on that?
Thanks, and have a good one,
Mike
At the press conference (at 49m), Stitch said that the board was OK with the batteries for CFT after additional work was done. PCM-1 should have certain potential mitigations for the batteries.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47917.msg2470580#msg2470580
The final test flight. The parachutes are not certified until after the CFT.
That is not what was said. The remaining test is of the drogue 'chute/fwd heatshield event.
The final test flight. The parachutes are not certified until after the CFT.
That is not what was said. The remaining test is of the drogue 'chute/fwd heatshield event.
I later saw on Twitter that they are doing another ground test, yes. This is correct.