Boeing's failed Starliner mission strains 'reliability' pitch:
Boeing Co’s (BA.N) stunted Friday debut of its astronaut capsule threatens to dent the U.S. aerospace incumbent’s self-declared competitive advantage of mission reliability against the price and innovation strengths of “new space” players like Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, has anchored its attempt to repel space visionaries like Musk and Amazon.com (AMZN.O) founder Jeff Bezos partly on its mission safety record built up over decades of space travel.
While SpaceX and Bezos’ Blue Origin are racing to send their own crewed missions to space for the first time, Boeing or Boeing heritage companies have built every American spacecraft that has transported astronauts into space. And the single-use rockets it builds in partnership with Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) have a virtually unblemished record of mission success.
“We are starting from a position of mission reliability and safety,” Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg told Reuters earlier this year when asked about SpaceX and other insurgents aiming to disrupt Boeing on everything from astronaut capsules to rockets to satellites.
“There is a difference between putting cargo in space and putting humans in space, and that’s a big step. Our very deliberate, safety-based approach for things like CST-100, that will be a differentiator in the long run,” Muilenburg said.
The actual technical glitch that stunted Friday’s CST-100 Starliner mission to the International Space Station was a timer error though Boeing said it was too early to determine the exact cause of the fault.
Boeing was already working to surmount other technical and safety-related challenges on the multibillion-dollar NASA human spaceflight program. A government watchdog report in November found Boeing demanded “unnecessary” new contract funds from NASA.
Friday’s glitch adds to a year of intense scrutiny over how Boeing developed its money-spinning 737 MAX jetliner following twin crashes that killed 346 people in five months.
While there is no link between the 737 MAX crashes and the Starliner setback, one rocket industry executive told Reuters that in both cases problems arose as Boeing was racing to catch up with fast-moving rivals.
Related Stories
NASA safety panel calls for reviews after second Starliner software problem
A NASA safety panel is recommending a review of Boeing's software verification processes after revealing there was a second software problem during a CST-100 Starliner test flight that could have led to a "catastrophic" failure.
That new software problem, not previously discussed by NASA or Boeing, was discussed during a Feb. 6 meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel that examined the December uncrewed test flight of Starliner that was cut short by a timer error.
That anomaly was discovered during ground testing while the spacecraft was in orbit, panel member Paul Hill said. "While this anomaly was corrected in flight, if it had gone uncorrected, it would have led to erroneous thruster firings and uncontrolled motion during [service module] separation for deorbit, with the potential for a catastrophic spacecraft failure," he said.
The exact cause of the failure remains under investigation by Boeing and NASA, who are also still examining the timer failure previously reported. Those problems, Hill said, suggested broader issues with how Boeing develops and tests the software used by the spacecraft.
"The panel has a larger concern with the rigor of Boeing's verification processes," he said. The panel called for reviews of Boeing's flight software integration and testing processes. "Further, with confidence at risk for a spacecraft that is intended to carry humans in space, the panel recommends an even broader Boeing assessment of, and corrective actions in, Boeing's [systems engineering and integration] processes and verification testing."
Previously:
Boeing Provides Damage Control After Inspector General's Report on Commercial Crew Program
Starliner Fails to Make Journey to ISS
Boeing's Failed Starliner Mission Strains 'Reliability' Pitch
Boeing to Launch Starliner Spacecraft for Second go at Reaching the ISS After First Mission Failed:
On Monday, Boeing announced it will take a second shot at sending an uncrewed Starliner to the station as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The program aims to launch astronauts from US soil for the first time since the end of the space shuttle era in 2011.
[...] "We have chosen to refly our Orbital Flight Test to demonstrate the quality of the Starliner system," Boeing in a brief statement. "Flying another uncrewed flight will allow us to complete all flight test objectives and evaluate the performance of the second Starliner vehicle at no cost to the taxpayer."
Boeing and NASA have not yet revealed a date for the launch. Starliner must pass its uncrewed flight tests before NASA uses it to send astronauts to the ISS.
Do not cry too much for Boeing as they are the prime contractor for the SLS (Space launch System) which is currently funded to the tune of over $1 billion per year.
Previously:
(2020-03-07) Boeing Hit With 61 Safety Fixes for Astronaut Capsule
(2020-03-01) Boeing Acknowledges "Gaps" in its Starliner Software Testing
(2020-02-07) NASA Safety Panel Calls for Reviews after Second Starliner Software Problem
(2019-12-24) Boeing Starliner Lands Safely in the Desert After Failing to Reach Correct Orbit
(2019-12-23) Boeing's Failed Starliner Mission Strains 'Reliability' Pitch
(2019-12-20) Starliner Fails to Make Journey to ISS
(2019-11-19) Boeing Provides Damage Control After Inspector General's Report on Commercial Crew Program
(2019-11-06) Boeing Performs Starliner Pad Abort Test. Declares Success Though 1 of 3 Parachutes Fails to Deploy.
(2019-09-03) Boeing Readies "Astronaut" for Likely October Test Launch
(2018-04-07) Boeing Crewed Test Flight to the ISS May be Upgraded to a Full Mission
Click to search SoylentNews for more Starliner stories.
Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule:
In releasing the outcome of a joint investigation, NASA said it still has not decided whether to require Boeing to launch the Starliner again without a crew, or go straight to putting astronauts on board.
Douglas Loverro, NASA's human exploration and operation chief, told reporters that Boeing must first present a plan and schedule for the 61 corrective actions. Boeing expects to have a plan in NASA's hands by the end of this month.
Loverro said the space agency wants to verify, among other things, that Boeing has retested all the necessary software for Starliner.
"At the end of the day, what we have got to decide is ... do we have enough confidence to say we are ready to fly with a crew or do we believe that we need another uncrewed testing," Loverro said.
Boeing's Jim Chilton, a senior vice president, said his company is ready to repeat a test flight without a crew, if NASA decides on one.
"'All of us want crew safety No. 1," Chilton said. "Whatever testing we've got to do to make that happen, we embrace it."
Loverro said he felt compelled to designate the test flight as a "high-visibility close call." He said that involves more scrutiny of Boeing and NASA to make sure mistakes like this don't happen again.
Software errors not only left the Starliner in the wrong orbit following liftoff and precluded a visit to the International Space Station but they could have caused a collision between the capsule and its separated service module toward the end of the two-day flight. That error was caught and corrected by ground controllers just hours before touchdown.
Citation: Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule (2020, March 6) retrieved 6 March 2020 from https://phys.org/news/2020-03-boeing-safety-astronaut-capsule.html
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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 23 2019, @02:48PM (12 children)
Perfection is nice, but at least the 500 million other things that could have gone wrong on the mission didn't, and the failure mode observed was relatively survivable if it were a manned mission.
If you want to "prove" the thing is safe, you're going to need a lot more than 1 test launch.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @03:29PM (11 children)
But you only need one failure to show that it's unsafe.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday December 23 2019, @04:41PM
> But you only need one failure to show that it's unsafe.
and a failure in X system is indicative of other lurking evil in Y and Z systems that was not exposed *this time*. Maybe next time it is a timer failure in the life support system...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 23 2019, @05:28PM (7 children)
Not really true - you only need to buy one lottery ticket to win, but the odds of losing are safer than any mode of transportation ever devised.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @06:02PM (5 children)
The title says "for an N of 1". One failure in a small number of trials is bad from a safety perspective.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 23 2019, @08:16PM (4 children)
The problem with an N of 1 is that it doesn't really show much of anything, safe or unsafe.
Is it as comforting as a "flawless" performance? That depends on your definition of flawless.
Is Boeing doing great lately, overall? Absolutely not. Does this one launch mean the program is a failure and should be abandoned? Only to political opponents.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @09:01PM (3 children)
With one trial and one failure you can actually put a decent limit on the reliability using Bayes' rule and Jeffreys' prior. If I've done the math right, the chance that the reliability is better than 90 % is only about 1.4 % (assuming a Bernoulli process).
Of course they will improve the reliability.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 23 2019, @09:37PM (2 children)
Just a few of the problems with reliability statistics are: incorrect assumptions are made, the people doing the calculations don't usually provide enough documentation to check or reproduce their work, the people who order the statistics to be calculated have an agenda, the people who report the statistics have an agenda, the people who repeat the reported statistics have no idea what they actually mean but only repeat them when they back up their agenda.
In this case, the process that developed and tested that rocket is not static, which I assume is not factored into your Bernoulli process? To correctly model a dynamic process would require a tremendous amount of data, or assumptions, usually both, and the extrapolations would still be fraught with very wide uncertainty windows.
All in all, would I rather fly on this rocket which has an N of 1 demonstration of no life threatening failures, or another rocket with 0 test flights? I'd go with this one every time - particularly with the post-failure lessons learned training which should illuminate what went wrong and improve training in the areas that had the problem.
At what point do you abandon the program in favor of a competing program that is farther from flight readiness? That's all about where the pork flows and what else is on the docket this session.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @10:48PM (1 child)
I wrote already that reliability would improve and I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
The calculation is more out of idle curiosity, because I've always been interested in what can be deduced in a rigorous way from very little data. If you're interested, here is a PDF [google.com] of the rather short Mathematica calculation notebook (since you mentioned documentation).
I'm not sure I would make that choice. It was a bad error that throws their whole process into question. I guess it depends on who built the other rocket. But Muilenberg's statement that Boeing was "starting from a position of mission reliability and safety" is turned on its head now.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 23 2019, @11:18PM
For a couple of years my job was to shoot down proposals that tried to justify "process improvements" with insufficient data to back up the safety of the changes. The typical proposal that came to my desk was an N of 5 or 10 with binary pass-fail results, to which I would typically reply "you took the same company stats class that I did, you know we need 95-5 and you propose this?" to which the typical answer was "62 samples is impractically expensive" to which I would reply "can't you at least put a micrometer on it or something to get some continuous data where you might obtain 95-5 with 10 or 15 samples?" to which they would reply "I don't have time for that, this has to be done within 5 days or I lose my quarterly bonus" to which I would have to reply "sorry, out of my jurisdiction..." Once, I actually went to bat for the guy to keep his bonus because he spun a sufficiently compelling sob story, but usually they're just trying that as an emotional appeal to let the rules slide - and it was in my job description (and theirs) to not let the rules slide.
Absolutely, and they deserve a timeout in the penalty box to reflect on the error of their ways - ways of their errors, etc. If the other rocket were built by a roughly equivalent capability company with a roughly equivalent safety record and recent performance history... it's still a tough call, assuming that the N of 0 test rockets before manned launch is such because they were rushed into launching... Apollo I is what you get for rushing.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 24 2019, @01:39AM
It seems I win ($2) every other time I play the lottery, which isn't very often. People who choose to transport themselves from an airplane at altitude to the ground without a parachute seldom survive.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday December 23 2019, @07:46PM (1 child)
You don't know the history of manned spaceflight very well, do you?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @08:19PM
The history of manned spaceflight is that of a fresh love that has turned into a pointless marriage.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hartree on Monday December 23 2019, @02:51PM (9 children)
"Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg"
Not anymore. He just stepped down as CEO.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Monday December 23 2019, @02:55PM (2 children)
He didn't need to step on his ear. Boeing could have found someone lower level to be the sacrificial lamb. Such as one of the veterinarians who wrote the software for the 737 MAX.
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 23 2019, @03:16PM (1 child)
Was it a veterinarian, or a vegetarian?
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 23 2019, @03:51PM
I'm sure they are equally qualified in the field of avionics software.
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Monday December 23 2019, @03:22PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @04:08PM (1 child)
People as I and (possibly) you get fired, i.e. going home with a box containing a family photo, people like Mr. Muilenburg get $x bln departure bonus and buy a new yacht.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @04:43PM
Muilenburg was a farm boy who went to school at the highly prestigious Iowa State University when he graduated in aerospace engineering. He worked his way up over 35 years at the company, starting out as an intern. He started out like everybody else, if not worse off. Had high hopes for him after he succeeded James McNerney who's the type you're talking about - came from a fancy high school, BA in Yale, MBA at Harvard. Hired as chairman, president, and CEO of Boeing when he was 56 years old with 0 experience or knowledge of aerospace - Guy responsible for the 737 MAX.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @03:30PM (1 child)
Such a twisted state of business in the US. The reason he was fired was because of the consequences of putting short-term profit ahead of everything. Yet if he hadn't put short-term profit ahead of everything he'd also have been fired for failing to produce revenue growth in a "sufficiently" timely fashion. Good riddance and all that, but right now seems like the best time and the worst time to be a US business executive. You get completely absurd rewards but only for engaging in what will ultimately be your own downfall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @06:10PM
"You get completely absurd rewards but only for engaging in what will ultimately be your own downfall."
It's SO unfair. Boo hoo.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday December 23 2019, @07:50PM
He was big in diversity space https://www.boeing.com/features/2019/05/diversityinc-top-50-05-19.page [boeing.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Monday December 23 2019, @03:35PM (7 children)
Sounds like Boeing's entire software departments needs a complete revamp. The MCAS failure was bad enough, but the fact that 2 clocks on the same rocket can differ by 11 hours, and nobody caught it in testing, is damning. That's not a minor thing, that's A Big Deal (tm).
As I read in another thread it's damning that when SpaceX has a problem they shut up, then a few weeks or months later tell the world what happened. Boeing, on the other hand, releases a flurry of press releases immediately touting all the things that went right.
What really seals the deal is that the plane and rocket divisions are completely separate. That tells me the problem starts at the top, firing the CEO is a good first start.
Every time a Christian defends Trump an angel loses it's lunch.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 23 2019, @03:55PM (2 children)
Even before Muilenberg, the previous CEO McNerny was responsible for the 787, which was also a management disaster. It seems like the company has been set on a bad course by its board of directors.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday December 23 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
The key word seems to be "managers" instead of "engineers".
Was Boeing at one time about engineering?
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Monday December 23 2019, @09:48PM
Was Boeing at one time about engineering?
Yes, before merging with McDonnell Douglas. That is the direct cause of this disaster.
Please note that McDonnell Douglas was able to kill 346 [wikipedia.org] people with only one airplane, much more efficient.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 23 2019, @03:56PM
There was some booster rocket, test fired in a horizontal position, some months back, and it suffered an explosion in the test. But the explosion was minor. The company higher up, as I recall, was tripping over himself to describe the test as a "success". Yet how the problem was minor, and could be fixed, but that nothing actually went wrong, as long as you sleezele word it just right.
Q. How much did Santa's sled cost?
A. Nothing. It was on the house.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @04:30PM (1 child)
I think there's a far more insidious problem. Imagine you and I were engaged in a business transaction. I wanted you to make something for me. And I had practically unlimited money, in fact it wasn't even my money I was spending. And personally I didn't really care all that much about when you got the product done as long as you ensured me you were working on it. In fact some of my 'kin' (who influence me) had an active interest in you delaying the project since you were actively contracting work out to them. Your profit optimization there does not involve completing a product, let alone at anything like a viable cost. It involves milking me for all I'm worth, which is a huge amount of other people's money. And that's the exact relationship between Boeing and the government. We went from no space tech in late 1962 when JFK gave his 'We choose to go to the moon speech.' 7 years later we landed a man on the moon. Boeing started being contracted for the SLS in 2010. Today, going on 10 years later? They can't even get to the ISS while competitors such as SpaceX have been doing it, at a fraction of the cost, for years.
This is why, for instance, I think public pharmaceutical research (as a solution to the current hoard of problems with pharmaceuticals) would also fail. Exact same problem. Instead of making the name of the game to manipulate the market, you make the name of the game to manipulate the government - to hit all the minimum checkboxes to maximize funding while minimizing work. A bit of lobbying and carefully targeted "donations" and government will also be down with it. Only solution is to get an Elon Musk of drugs - somebody driven not by profit maximization, but an ideological interest.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 23 2019, @07:02PM
Is that where you get high and start trolling people on Twitter?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @05:58PM
Somewhere it isn't India.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @04:37PM (1 child)
They still have to do an un-crewed test flight that actually docks, right?
Or do they, being Boeing, get a pass on that?
We've only got one space station, I think this may have been a blessing in disguise!
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday December 23 2019, @04:47PM
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/12/oft-starliner-landing-white-sands/ [nasaspaceflight.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Monday December 23 2019, @05:45PM
Keep in mind that Boeing outsourced their software development. These failures can all be placed at the feet of a greedy and incompetent leadership that probably doesn't have a single engineering bone to share between them. Or if they did, it should be taken away.
They are no longer an engineering company. They are a "value-added reseller" of goods manufactured by the lowest bidder but pad the bill so their executives can buy those extra yachts they need to impress their other rich friends.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 23 2019, @09:59PM
I wonder how BA and X each test their flight s/w before launch.
Does all of the flight s/w think it is in a real vehicle doing a real flight?
It would be interesting if the safe, old school company does lower fidelity testing than the new upstart.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday December 24 2019, @04:54PM
How much fun would it be if when you got to go to space to take selfies there was a huge crowd of people rooting for you to die?
That is how I feel about every dollar rich people spend on space-tourism while there are still homeless people.
Every billionaire that bursts into flames and dies in a horrible catastrophe, I will be there applauding the brilliant poetic justice of their demise.
So long as there are still homeless people.
thesesystemsarefailing.net