41–50 of 104 posts
How could they possibly screw up so badly that a SW update would brick the thing? Did they forget the logic to just reboot to last good/factory FW in case of failure? This feels like the story they're telling isn't the real story because that's just basic, basic shit that gets beaten on all the time during development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
every previous thread this has come up, essentially.
They have to blame Boeing so no one can blame NASA and by association the National Space Council (whose Chairperson is now running for President).
Meanwhile, boeing is a publicly traded company with what amounts to a monopoly on many, many, many contracts. What was the point of defeating communism if we just give handouts to non-competitive and highly unproductive organizations who can't even hold themselves accountable? And the people who come out of the woodwork to defend them are even more confusing. Don't you want to avoid burning tax money and calling it progress? If they wanted to be seen as a public good they would have voluntarily given up on profits decades ago instead of trying to come off as parasites.
How could they possibly screw up so badly that a SW update would brick the thing? Did they forget the logic to just reboot to last good/factory FW in case of failure? This feels like the story they're telling isn't the real story because that's just basic, basic shit that gets beaten on all the time during development.
I think we're witnessing the enshittification of space.
How could they possibly screw up so badly that a SW update would brick the thing? Did they forget the logic to just reboot to last good/factory FW in case of failure? This feels like the story they're telling isn't the real story because that's just basic, basic shit that gets beaten on all the time during development.
My theory, given that this claim makes no sense and the article doesn't cite any sources that say anything like this, that this is just bog standard G/O Media blogspam, with bit of misinformation to increase views.
> Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
The reasons why the current software can't perform this operation when it could during ground testing are supposition though, and it seems Jolopnik ran with that a little bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they just need to flip it twice like inserting USB devices.
nope.. its symmetrical about a bunch of axes. at most they'd need a 60 degree rotation, not 180 like USB-A. So this standard is precisely 3x better than USB-A
I get that there is probably a desire to solely blame Boeing for this - but this seems like as much of a Project Management and integration failure on the NASA side, as it does Boeing putting defective hardware/software into orbit. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen, period. I get that what I said will not be popular, but this has been the consensus of every previous thread on this topic that I've seen - NASA i…
That used to be the case. For example with the Space Shuttles that is how it went.
With the Commercial Crew Program the idea is that they find commercial providers who take their astronauts where the astronauts has to be when the astronauts has to be there.
One is like building an experimental aircraft from a set of parts. Where they definietly are the system integration. The other is more like paying for airplane tickets.
To quote from the wikipedia page of the program: "The spacecraft are owned and operated by the vendor, and crew transportation is provided to NASA as a commercial service."
> as the ultimate supervision authority to decide if something can or cannot fly.
No. They have the authority to decide if their crew is safe to fly on it or not. But Boeing doesn't need NASA's permission if they just want to fly the Starliner on their own. (As long as they don't fly it with NASA personal, or close to NASA property.)
It is as if you bought a return ticket to fly to some destination and while en-route onwards you heard a death rattle from the engine. Then you have to decide if you trust the company flying you for the return trip, or you find some other way.
It amuses me that of course there's a standard for docking interoperability defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Docking_System_S... And adapters: > The International Docking Adapter (IDA) converts older Russian APAS-95 docking systems to the International Docking System Standard Imagine flying all the way and then realizing you forgot your adapter...
Boeing need to stop being given contracts, from the Starliner issues on top of the various scandals with the quality control of their planes, it's clear to see they have no value in human life.
Boeing execs should be held criminally accountable for their leadership that has resulted in this mess. People should be in prison.
I get that there is probably a desire to solely blame Boeing for this - but this seems like as much of a Project Management and integration failure on the NASA side, as it does Boeing putting defective hardware/software into orbit. It shouldn't have been allowed to happen, period. I get that what I said will not be popular, but this has been the consensus of every previous thread on this topic that I've seen - NASA i…
I agree it shouldn't have happened. > Boeing removed the Starliner’s autonomous undocking feature from its software. The aerospace manufacturer wants to push a software update to the spacecraft in orbit, but NASA fears it could do more damage. I'm very far away from NASA internals, but as I've seen them in the "older" days was that just a _finished_ product went into space and they would not allow to go into space wi…