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
Related Stories
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.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The Boeing Starliner, one of two new spacecraft to take astronauts from US soil to the International Space Station (ISS), has returned to Earth safely after its somewhat shaky first Orbital Flight Test. The capsule blasted off atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket without any drama, but soon after a timing glitch prevented the spacecraft from reaching its planned orbit, denying a rendezvous with the ISS. On Sunday, Starliner returned to Earth, deploying parachutes and airbags to land safely in New Mexico.
"You look at the landing, it was an absolute bulls-eye," said Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator, in a press conference Sunday. The capsule landed in the desert just before 5 a.m. PT, its trio of parachutes carrying it safely to the earth. It was the first time a capsule was safely brought back to US soil in history.
However, while the landing was on target, Starliner's journey in space was a different story.
Also at: Starliner makes a safe landing—now NASA faces some big decisions
Previously: Starliner Fails to Make Journey to ISS
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 acknowledges "gaps" in its Starliner software testing:
On Friday, during a detailed, 75-minute briefing with reporters, a key Boeing spaceflight official sought to be as clear as possible about the company's troubles with its Starliner spacecraft.
After an uncrewed test flight in December of the spacecraft, Boeing "learned some hard lessons," said John Mulholland, a vice president who manages the company's commercial crew program. The December mission landed safely but suffered two serious software problems. Now, Mulholland said, Boeing will work hard to rebuild trust between the company and the vehicle's customer, NASA. During the last decade, NASA has paid Boeing a total of $4.8 billion to develop a safe capsule to fly US astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
At the outset of the briefing, Mulholland sought to provide information about the vehicle's performance, including its life support systems, heat shield, guidance, and navigation. He noted that there were relatively few issues discovered. However, when he invited questions from reporters, the focus quickly turned to software. In particular, Mulholland was asked several times how the company made decisions on procedures for testing flight software before the mission—which led to the two mistakes.
He struggled to answer those questions, but the Boeing VP said the reason was not financial. "It was definitely not a matter of cost," Mulholland said. "Cost has never been in any way a key factor in how we need to test and verify our systems."
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
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.
(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.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:23PM (1 child)
They should learn from this guy [lucaiaconistewart.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:54PM
Ohmygosh that's truly amazing. That guy should be a neurosurgeon. Or something. I'm stunned- thanks for that link.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:41PM (3 children)
"Every mission is a learning experience," said NASA's chief of human spaceflight, Kathy Lueders, during the news conference.
Dudet,
This was not unanticipated like an Apollo 11 1201 message.
The mission was the first time the s/w ever ran the nominal sequence.
The experienced space company ignored their experience.
They didn't setup a sim where the s/w thought it was running the actual mission.
More like a re-learning experience.
How and why did this happen?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:47PM (1 child)
MBAs.
Wall Street is #1 priority.
McDonnell Douglass acquired Boeing using Boeing's money.
Boeing is no longer about engineering but about Wall Street.
Did this answer your question? [x] Yes [_] No
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:36PM
The architect of that deal is the real genius. All this rocket science stuff is inconsequential in comparison.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:59PM
Old worker == bad, must be eliminated. Young worker == good! Hire them, new ideas, new innovation. Toss in some outsourcing just for fun.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @01:50PM (6 children)
My suggestion for making the Boeing Starliner safer: keep it on the ground permanently.
Ditto for SLS.
Ditto for 737 Max.
Put a fence around it with a plaque for tourists making it a monument to government waste, management incompetence, and executive / wall street greed.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:04PM (2 children)
Have the CEO/VPs of Boeing fly as test pilots.
You can then guarantee "safety" will suddenly become #1.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:47PM
Excellent idea.
In the alternative, culling the herd.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday July 08 2020, @05:40PM
A friend of mine was a helicopter in Vietnam. He told me a story once of how the repair crews tended to be draftees who would rather be drunk, stoned, or both, than do a good maintenance of the helos.
He would pick a member of the repair/maintenance unit and take them for a shake down flight, putting his bird through every possible maneuver and flight mode he might possibly use during a actual mission.
His Heilo never failed in the field. Though I suspect he did have to deal with the occasional post flight cleaning of the passenger seat.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:40PM (2 children)
Unfortunately for rocket scientists, systems engineers, quality wonks, and the rest of the people that actually make things happen: when projects get Boeing scale large, they become political - and "political science" becomes a significant factor in their success or failure.
Boeing seems to have had some failures of leadership lately, that is definitely room for improvement. Most of their crew actually know their jobs quite well - they just need better leadership, which is hard to do in a climate driven by Wall Street investors and beltway lobbyists and bureaucrats.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:26PM (1 child)
I didn't criticize the smart people who do their jobs well. I did criticize the the leadership, and climate driven by Wall Street.
I did not think to include beltway lobbyists and bureaucrats as you helpfully point out.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:30PM
Sadly, leadership matters - I think we're getting a pretty clear demonstration of that right now.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:06PM (5 children)
You only need one suggestion: Listen to your aerospace engineers, not your bean counting MBAs.
But Boeing won't do that, because Boeing exists to make money - not advance human spaceflight. The two should be the same, but they're not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @03:43PM (4 children)
The MBA is a great theory - I'd only trust an MBA to make actual decisions after about 10 years of field experience in varied disciplines, learning that stuff in a classroom is like taking an arctic survival course in Miami.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:27PM
What you're really suggesting is an MBA who doesn't act like an MBA.
This makes them unqualified to last very long as an MBA. Because they won't make MBA decisions the way MBAs do.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @04:31PM (2 children)
"we have read your comment and will be installing industrial sized refridgeration in miami to make our courses even more relevant."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:33PM (1 child)
May you and your sled team disappear down a 500' crevasse.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2020, @06:52PM
In Miami? 490 feet of it will be full of water.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2020, @05:45AM
You mean Richard Feynman [wikipedia.org]?