-
#780
by
Star One
on 29 May, 2023 18:10
-
I know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
That doesn’t answer the question of the disagreements mentioned between the Air Force and Boeing in the GAO report.
"The Air Force and Boeing also disagree over how close the T-7′s flight control software is to being finished, GAO said."
"...the Air Force’s own software experts said five or six more revisions to the software will be needed to fix problems with the trainer’s flight control"
"Each iteration could take six more months, Air Force experts told GAO, which could delay the completion of the software by more than two years "
-
#781
by
joek
on 29 May, 2023 18:40
-
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
Think discussion of the veracity of GAO's reports probably belongs in the
Space Policy section. Having been on both sides (long ago), don't think we can dismiss those concerns so cavalierly. Of concern is lack of management's response in this latest report. (Another topic irrelevant to CST-100; if you want to pursue, please take it elsewhere.)
In any case, what does this have to do with CST-100 beyond the typical GAO-whatever-whoever b*tching? If you want to pursue, plenty of other DoD or NASA programs to choose from and other threads better suited to that discussion.
-
#782
by
Star One
on 30 May, 2023 06:19
-
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
Think discussion of the veracity of GAO's reports probably belongs in the Space Policy section. Having been on both sides (long ago), don't think we can dismiss those concerns so cavalierly. Of concern is lack of management's response in this latest report. (Another topic irrelevant to CST-100; if you want to pursue, please take it elsewhere.)
In any case, what does this have to do with CST-100 beyond the typical GAO-whatever-whoever b*tching? If you want to pursue, plenty of other DoD or NASA programs to choose from and other threads better suited to that discussion.
Because both projects are run out of the same part of Boeing and may point to general issues.
-
#783
by
Jim
on 30 May, 2023 18:59
-
Because both projects are run out of the same part of Boeing and may point to general issues.
no, they are not
-
#784
by
Star One
on 31 May, 2023 14:11
-
Because both projects are run out of the same part of Boeing and may point to general issues.
no, they are not
The Starliner and T-7 fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.
-
#785
by
Jim
on 31 May, 2023 14:31
-
Because both projects are run out of the same part of Boeing and may point to general issues.
no, they are not
The Starliner and T-7 fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.
meaningless. They don't do software at that level
CST-100 developed by former Rockwell and MD space groups in SoCal along with KSC
T-7 is former McDonnell in St Louis.
-
#786
by
SoftwareDude
on 31 May, 2023 18:12
-
There has to be turnover in the Starliner program simply because it's been going on for such a long time and a rough road. Turnover in a software staff is mostly a bad thing. It takes a while for someone to come up to speed and be productive. High turnover can cause thrashing in a software group. I don't know if this is happening, but I have to think it is probably a factor. The other thing to remember is, when it comes to software, 20% of the engineers do 80% of the work. That 20% is very important to the success of the Starliner program. If even one of those key people leaves the program, everyone in the Starliner program will feel it. Hopefully, the Starliner program has good management, but reviews of Boeing by its employees site the poor quality of managers as the main drawback for working at Boeing.
-
#787
by
Vettedrmr
on 31 May, 2023 22:22
-
The Starliner and T-7 fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.
That's just the business unit; the common management between the different divisions at that level has zero technical knowledge, and pitifully little program contract knowledge. If they're smart they minimize the mouth movement; if they're stupid they drop into the category of "DO IT FOR LESS" and "PULL YOUR SCHEDULE TO THE LEFT".
-
#788
by
mn
on 31 May, 2023 22:36
-
The Starliner and T-7 fall under the purview of Boeing defense and space or BDS. So at least at a high-level, they are managed by at least the same team of corporate decision makers.
That's just the business unit; the common management between the different divisions at that level has zero technical knowledge, and pitifully little program contract knowledge. If they're smart they minimize the mouth movement; if they're stupid they drop into the category of "DO IT FOR LESS" and "PULL YOUR SCHEDULE TO THE LEFT".
Just asking hypothetically, supposed the said management that has zero technical knowledge and little program contract knowledge is not smart enough to get out of the way. Asking for a friend
(Yeah I know that never happens in real life, so just asking hypothetically).
-
#789
by
Vettedrmr
on 31 May, 2023 23:15
-
Honestly, I never experienced that train-wreck. I went through 2 mergers (and 4 consolidations, although those don't really apply here), and in both of those the top management did a pretty good job of breaking up the old divisions/business sectors and combining them in a way that worked. At least, for the divisions I was employed by (I tell people I worked for 6 different companies and never changed desks).
But, being in the industry, we certainly heard a lot about other mergers that were train wrecks. And, in all honesty, the Boeing/MD merger hasn't gone that well.
Now, how that's truly affected Starliner, I know zero about, but I still hope they get things worked out. The engineers and lower level management teams work as hard as any others.
-
#790
by
Lars-J
on 02 Jun, 2023 05:59
-
But, being in the industry, we certainly heard a lot about other mergers that were train wrecks. And, in all honesty, the Boeing/MD merger hasn't gone that well.
Now, how that's truly affected Starliner, I know zero about, but I still hope they get things worked out. The engineers and lower level management teams work as hard as any others.
It has been 27 years (!!) now since the merge, surely we can stop blaming McDonnell Douglas for whatever issues Boeing currently has?
The rot at Boeing started before that.
I know this was not your intent, but I see this being thrown around at a root cause for far too many issues.
-
#791
by
hoku
on 02 Jun, 2023 07:49
-
-
#792
by
Star One
on 02 Jun, 2023 08:27
-
From Eric Berger’s article on this latest delay.
The issues seem rather serious to have been discovered weeks before Starliner was due to launch on an Atlas V rocket. The first involves "soft links" in the lines that run from Starliner to its parachutes. Boeing discovered that these were not as strong as previously believed.
During a normal flight, these substandard links would not be an issue. But Starliner's parachute system is designed to land a crew safely in case one of the three parachutes fails. However, due to the lower failure load limit with these soft links, if one parachute fails, it's possible the lines between the spacecraft and its remaining two parachutes would snap due to the extra strain.
The second issue involves P-213 glass cloth tape that is wrapped around wiring harnesses throughout the vehicle. These cables run everywhere, and Nappi said there are hundreds of feet of these wiring harnesses. The tape is intended to protect the wiring from nicks. However, during recent tests, it was discovered that under certain circumstances possible in flight, this tape is flammable.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/boeing-stands-down-from-starliner-launch-to-address-recently-found-problems/amp/
-
#793
by
Vettedrmr
on 02 Jun, 2023 11:08
-
It has been 27 years (!!) now since the merge, surely we can stop blaming McDonnell Douglas for whatever issues Boeing currently has? The rot at Boeing started before that.
I know this was not your intent, but I see this being thrown around at a root cause for far too many issues.
I'll say this: my personal experience (as well as Lockheed, at the time) working on the F-22 program (back in the early 90s) was pretty frustrating with Boeing. We were working on safety-critical systems with them (both hardware and software), and the amount of rework we had to do (or force them to re-do) was a lot more than expected. We finally got their development culture cleaned up, but it was almost at the end of the development phase.
As far as "blaming" the MD merger, IMO it *does* still apply if the problems that arose from the merger are still around. Honestly, I can't say if the are/are not, but
at the time it caused a lot of problems.
-
#794
by
Jim
on 02 Jun, 2023 12:24
-
It has been 27 years (!!) now since the merge, surely we can stop blaming McDonnell Douglas for whatever issues Boeing currently has? The rot at Boeing started before that.
I know this was not your intent, but I see this being thrown around at a root cause for far too many issues.
I'll say this: my personal experience (as well as Lockheed, at the time) working on the F-22 program (back in the early 90s) was pretty frustrating with Boeing. We were working on safety-critical systems with them (both hardware and software), and the amount of rework we had to do (or force them to re-do) was a lot more than expected. We finally got their development culture cleaned up, but it was almost at the end of the development phase.
As far as "blaming" the MD merger, IMO it *does* still apply if the problems that arose from the merger are still around. Honestly, I can't say if the are/are not, but at the time it caused a lot of problems.
F-22 was heritage Boeing and not MD
-
#795
by
Vettedrmr
on 02 Jun, 2023 12:30
-
That was my point.
-
#796
by
Vahe231991
on 02 Jun, 2023 18:59
-
There has to be turnover in the Starliner program simply because it's been going on for such a long time and a rough road. Turnover in a software staff is mostly a bad thing. It takes a while for someone to come up to speed and be productive. High turnover can cause thrashing in a software group. I don't know if this is happening, but I have to think it is probably a factor. The other thing to remember is, when it comes to software, 20% of the engineers do 80% of the work. That 20% is very important to the success of the Starliner program. If even one of those key people leaves the program, everyone in the Starliner program will feel it. Hopefully, the Starliner program has good management, but reviews of Boeing by its employees site the poor quality of managers as the main drawback for working at Boeing.
If this mismanagement continues to fester, Boeing might have a long-shot proposal to emend the operational Starliner contract to reduce the number of operational crewed Starliner flights to either three or four flights.
-
#797
by
Jim
on 02 Jun, 2023 19:00
-
There has to be turnover in the Starliner program simply because it's been going on for such a long time and a rough road. Turnover in a software staff is mostly a bad thing. It takes a while for someone to come up to speed and be productive. High turnover can cause thrashing in a software group. I don't know if this is happening, but I have to think it is probably a factor. The other thing to remember is, when it comes to software, 20% of the engineers do 80% of the work. That 20% is very important to the success of the Starliner program. If even one of those key people leaves the program, everyone in the Starliner program will feel it. Hopefully, the Starliner program has good management, but reviews of Boeing by its employees site the poor quality of managers as the main drawback for working at Boeing.
If this mismanagement continues to fester, Boeing might have a long-shot proposal to emend the operational Starliner contract to reduce the number of operational crewed Starliner flights to either three or four flights.
No, they don’t.
-
#798
by
whitelancer64
on 02 Jun, 2023 20:32
-
Another question: it seems that Nitto's P-213LW acrylic glass cloth tape is commonly used in aerospace applications. Why is its use in Starliner an issue? Would replacing it by P-212, which uses a silicone instead of an acrylic adhesive, solve the issue?
P-213 LW: https://www.nitto.com/eu/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant022/
P-212 WHT: https://www.nitto.com/eu/en/products/e_parts/heat_resistant020/
Replacing the tape around "hundreds of feet of (...) wiring harnesses" sounds like a very labor intensive (12+ months?) job.
There are only a few high-power areas where the flammability of the adhesive may be an issue. It doesn't all have to be replaced.
-
#799
by
whitelancer64
on 02 Jun, 2023 20:48
-
SpaceX has had its own share of issues, but yes. Things like this further reinforce the utility of dissimilar redundancy.
I expect there are many companies that could supply additional redundancy if paid billions of dollars by NASA and also not fly anyone. I’m not sure this is an actual benefit at this point.
I'll remind everyone that if the commercial crew award had been sole-source, it would have gone to Boeing. The ISS would have a crew of 6 and we'd still be flying on Soyuz.
Paying a few billion extra dollars to another company ensured we aren't in that position.
(Yeah I know that never happens in real life, so just asking hypothetically).