Starliner faced “catastrophic” failure before software bug found

Post by deevolution » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 4:24 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #18

smoyer wrote: post #7

So we know there were catastrophic bugs in the 737 Max, they've found additional bugs that haven't been catastrophic yet and now we hear that the Starliner also has software bugs. I'm going to order a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" for Boeing ... they need to get way back to the basics. (Where's Margaret Hamilton when you need here?

> I'm going to order a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" for Boeing too late. Boeing is already deep in Agile, a methodology which promises that a child can be delivered by the way of 9 incremental monthly deliveries. https://www.infosysconsultinginsights.com/2019/06/12/the-ris... "Boeing was an early Agile adopter in 2008 surpassing its rival, Airbus, in 2012 by deploying a newly renovated 737 Max 8 faster to market.…

Post by V_Terranova_Jr » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #15

classicsnoot wrote: post #12

On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over langu…

> I think NASA has become a political creature NASA has always been a political creature, but its mission has changed over the years. Its original mission was to beat the USSR into space. Its new mission is to funnel money to key congressional districts. But it has always been political. Science was always a facade. Source: I worked for NASA for 15 years (1988-2000, 2001-2004).

Post by remarkEon » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:24 AM UTC

m4rtink wrote: post #10

moftz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on if the crew would have been able to control those thrusters themselves. Obviously you want the entire system to be autonomous enough that no crew interaction is required but things do happen and the crew needs to be able to act and fix the problem if capsule can't do it nor the ground. When the Starliner started a burn at the wrong time, a crew would have been able to stop it and prevent the loss of fue…

The "crew would fix it" argument is a very very bad one. Many spacecraft maneuvers need to be very precise in both pointing and direction. Something computers are very good at, humans less so. Also, the crew would first have to know something wrong is going on either based on activity happening that was not planned previously or unexpected data on flight instruments. But guess what is driving those instruments in a m…

Post by jve » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 7:14 AM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #36

ceejayoz wrote: post #2

> According to the source, Boeing patched a software code error just two hours before the vehicle reentered Earth's atmosphere. Had the error not been caught, the source said, proper thrusters would not open during the reentry process, and the vehicle would have been lost. Uh, that's extremely concerning for a CREWED capsule.

Makes me wonder why put all this effort to make space-travel safe for crews. Why not focus on remotely controlled or AI autonomous vehicles instead?

Post by rflrob » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 7:38 AM UTC

geerlingguy wrote: post #26

mzs wrote: post #8

"Given the potential for systemic issues at Boeing, I would also note that NASA has decided to proceed with an organizational safety assessment with Boeing as they previously conducted with SpaceX"

Ah so just the fact that Boeing has been around for half a century doesn't absolve them from being subject to safety reviews? Nice to see some sense.