SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Independent reviewers offer 80 suggestions to make Starliner safer
Following the failed test flight of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft in December, NASA on Monday released the findings of an investigation into the root causes of the launch's failure and the culture that led to them.
Over the course of its review, an independent team identified 80 "recommendations" for NASA and Boeing to address before the Starliner spacecraft launches again. In addition to calling for better oversight and documentation, these recommendations stress the need for greater hardware and software integration testing. Notably, the review team called for an end-to-end test prior to each flight using the maximum amount of flight hardware available.
This is significant, because before the December test flight, Boeing did not run an integrated software test that encompassed the roughly 48-hour period from launch through docking to the station. Instead, Boeing broke the test into chunks. The first chunk ran from launch through the point at which Starliner separated from the second stage of the Atlas V booster.
Previously: Boeing's Failed Starliner Mission Strains 'Reliability' Pitch
Boeing Starliner Lands Safely in the Desert After Failing to Reach Correct Orbit
NASA Safety Panel Calls for Reviews after Second Starliner Software Problem
Boeing Acknowledges "Gaps" in its Starliner Software Testing
Boeing Hit With 61 Safety Fixes for Astronaut Capsule
Boeing to Launch Starliner Spacecraft for Second Go at Reaching the ISS after First Mission Failed
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Wednesday July 08 2020, @11:08AM (10 children)
Considering these MBA idiots couldn't spend the money to ensure the clocks on the rocket were all set to the same time Boeing damned well better foot the bill for a do-over. They're lucky they're getting a second chance considering they're not the only game in town anymore.
I still can't believe their procedure didn't have a step saying "ensure all clocks show the same time". That is beyond stupid.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:36PM (5 children)
You want to identify a single root cause for the systemic imperfections:
This is a system with literally billions of interactions between the components - of course there are going to be things which "could be improved," particularly from a safety perspective.
I met an engineer named Bell, no relationship to the famous helicopter company - but he did work with helicopter engineers. Their most common component safety review finding was: "the way to be sure, absolutely sure, that this thing is safe is to make it so damn heavy that it never gets off the ground."
Boeing isn't building a bridge on an unlimited budget. Competition means they don't even have an unlimited budget anymore.
Independent review is good, it's a required part of the development process in medical devices - I'm surprised it's being treated like something new or unique in manned spacecraft development. These things should be found early, and often, candidly assessed and rapidly addressed as part of the normal process. However, if you let perfection slip in as a requirement, you're guaranteed to suffer paralysis by analysis.
As for the clock thing: I just finished a multi-year multi-component system project with 8 independent clocks - I preached synchronization, PTP protocol, make it synchronous early and your life will be much easier later... the engineers all, successfully, rationalized why that level of synchronization is overkill - and we successfully launched the system in its "first stage" form without operational PTP. System meets all requirements, we're not just getting lucky - it really is good enough - efforts were focused on other problems in development and the lack of PTP isn't making first stage requirements harder to meet. Now, "second stage" requirements may turn around and bite them all in the ass, but management wanted first stage launched and in the market last month, so we have successfully met that goal and our product is now serving customers, instead of sitting in development waiting for un-necessary technical perfection.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:43PM
When I saw the story headline, my first thought was: "fill it full of lead". Good to know I'm not the only one who feels that way about today's Boeing.
Sorry to hear yet another broken-record story of MBAs and generally short-sighted managers pushing things out the door. And even deeper- why are they making decisions about what tech. is important for the first release?
I've worked in companies that literally said, and were proud to say that they would sell service contracts to fix things that should have never been shipped IMHO. Dovetails with the "repairability" heated discussion.
In a bit of a twist of fate I have some occasional work in a field that needs things done absolutely correctly or not shipped and I'm having trouble breaking old "good enough" habits...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:56PM (3 children)
Oh please! Boeing is still cutting corners to save a buck, like always. That is the singular cause for all their recent failures
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:03PM (2 children)
When you have a contract like Apollo in the late 60s, you don't cut corners to save a buck - you might be cutting corners to save time, but not because of money.
When you work for a bean-counter administration, sure, the bottom line comes first and last. Put competition on the line and serious lowest bidder threats - what do you think is going to happen?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:05PM (1 child)
what do you think is going to happen?
Insurance rates and legal fees will go up
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @08:52PM
You're thinking past next quarter - see, most of the guys near the top are just looking for one more score - get that $3M bonus and we're good, if the weather isn't bad in the company stick around and try to repeat, but with $3M in pocket - why not bail at the first sign of unpleasantness?
Insurance rates, court cases? those are problems for the next generation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @12:42PM
Boeing is used to cost-plus contracts, where success doesn't matter, and the government will continue fund your failures to fix. They probably don't even know how to operate on a fixed-price contact so I bet the bean counters simply cut "unnecessary" things like synchronized clocks.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:42PM (2 children)
Having such a procedure would require spending time (and thus money) on someone to perform this step of the procedure. Thus decreasing costs.
It is better to charge a price that reflects the expected reliability of having such a safety procedure, but yet not actually have that safety step in the checklist. Sort of like Max 737 not retraining pilots. Or making a safety system that compensates be an extra cost item.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:44PM
Ugh! -- thus decreasing profits
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:52PM
My argument regarding the 737 MAX insanity was that if the pilots knew about MCAS, they would have figured out what to do. I don't know the numbers, but there are many many documented flights where MCAS sent the trim system into chaos and someone had the wits to turn off trim motor circuit breaker. But that was dumb luck. Boeing was far far far too confident of the new tech. New tech is so totally awesome, right? It's always way better than any old tech, right? I guess the fact that MCAS was a patch that Boeing wasn't proud of having to do was a big factor in them keeping it a secret. It all rings too familiar with some of my work experiences, except for the people's lives depending on it part.
My assessment of Boeing is they have too much non-technical power at the top. They need to either: A) fire all the management and replace them with actual technical people, or B) give all technical people the power to make the decisions with final say and veto power.