Boeing Software Problems Continue
So I didn't mishear. NASA ASAP member Paul Hill, after explaining the wake-up call of Boeing software glitches: "There are still no integrated avionics and software test capability for ESD [Exploration Systems Development] missions, including for the upcoming Artemis 1, 2 and 3." https://t.co/1T4T2ZmkRh
— Dave Mosher (@DaveMosher) October 2, 2020
– Boeing Really Needs To Get Their Software Fixed, earlier post
– ASAP: Boeing Starliner Software Issue Potentially “Catastrophic”, earlier post
– Boeing Dropped The Ball Again – And NASA Let Them, earlier post
– SLS Upper Stage Changes While Software Problems Linger , earlier post
– SLS Software Problems Continue at MSFC, earlier post
– This Is How NASA Covers Up SLS Software Safety Issues (Update), earlier post
– MSFC To Safety Contractor: Just Ignore Those SLS Software Issues, earlier post
– SLS Flight Software Safety Issues Continue at MSFC, earlier post
– SLS Flight Software Safety Issues at MSFC (Update), earlier post
– Previous SLS postings
It wouldn’t surprise me if Artemis 1 does a Proton, screwing itself into the continental shelf.
That wouldn’t bother Shelby one bit. He doesn’t care that it works, just that NASA spends beaucoup bucks in Alabama.
Truer words were never written.
Cheers
Neil
Do you wonder if sometimes people like Shelby are almost happy to see a launch failure – that means that someone has to buy another copy?
It wouldn’t surprise me if Artemis never flies.
Cheers
Neil
Right. Isn’t NASA having to teach Boeing how to do that, and isn’t the reason Boeing had to be taught how to do that was because NASA usually does it?
What am I missing?
That the entire concept of SLS is a bipartisan Charlie Foxtrot created by the US Senate to keep Shuttle contractors on the govt. teat?
What Shuttle contractors? We all got laid off after Shuttle. Who are these contractors you speak of?
N-G bought Orbital-ATK and is making the SLS solid boosters, AIUI the SLS main tanks are based on Shuttle’s tank, leftover RS-25’s will power the first few missions then a new non-reusable RS-25 will take over, etc. But of course it cost $billions to “adapt” them.
Meanwhile,
Starship SN8 is undergoing pressurization tests in a run-up to a flight to 50,000 feet to test the Skydiver landing system, SN’s 9-12 are being built, the first Super Heavy booster’s being built, and an orbital launch table is under construction.
Starship may well beat SLS to orbit, and beyond.
Key word is contractors. Contractors and workers is not the same thing.
NASA teach Boeing ? Isn’t that like the blind leading the blind? (No offense to anyone who is sight impaired)
The sooner we start blowing them up, the better. Might as well get some nice fireworks for our aerospace welfare and political bribe dollars.
That is how SpaceX is moving forward. SN8 is on the test stand ready for it’s turn at bat. SN9 is in the warmup circle (hanger) getting ready to go next while SN10 and SN11 are in the dugout (being assembled) getting ready for their turn at bat.
Elon Musk figures somewhere in the mid-teens he will get one into orbit but he didn’t say when he would get one back from orbit in one piece. One thing for sure, by the time Starship is operational SpaceX will have a good data base on what works and what doesn’t.
I’ll bet SpaceX has testing procedures for their software.
Yes, but the SpaceX QA guys probably don’t have to explain to their line managers how each individual test increases quarterly profits every single time they are done.
Which is one of the lessons legacy space needs to learn from SpaceX. Designing rockets (immature technology) is not the same as designing refrigerators (mature technology) and you need management procedures that reflect that difference.
Really that is just basic management that corporations run by the finance department forget. The more innovative you want to be the more failures you will have along the way because that is simply part of the learning process needed to push a technology forward.
In the Starliner OFT aftermath NASA said they wished Boeing’s tests were like SpaceX’s, a full h/w breadboard to test the s/w on.
Lovely. I’d personally expect the software to be tested on the actual flight hardware, or at least a flight-like engineering model. Not a breadboard.
From someone working on the SLS software. He posted in the NSF forum that they were using software emulators in place of actual hardware. Never mind a breadboard.
Perhaps my use of “breadboard” wasn’t the best. SpaceX is using flight hardware, just not necessarily in the F9 etc.airframe.
One advantage of blowing up hardware is more data acquisition systems have to be used. This gives more experience in designing, installing, calibrating, etc. hardware. So when the actual human rated flying systems are flown, that team will have lots of hands-on experience.
Apparently the NASA safety panel has concerns about Starliner.
https://spacepolicyonline.c…
What do we expect for umpteen $billion dollars?
At what point does learning from mistakes start? Wasn’t there recently a flight test that failed because of a software issue, a flight test that was another embarrassing moment for an aerospace company already suffering a surplus of embarrassing moments?
At the first mistake if you if you are wise and smart enough.
Software development is run by NASA MSFC Gov folks and staffed by Boeing. The same people who worked Ares I are working SLS flight software development. Development is political. It will fail. When engineering takes back seat to politics your done. NASAs days of building launch vehicles are over. The experience and success is now with the commercial world. Shelby is bring so much work to Huntsville he may give up on SLS and let it die after the election. If the green run goes badly (i.e. BOOM), the program effectively end that day. Many other and cheaper ways to get the NASA/ESA Orion to orbit.
You could retitle that to “Boeing problems continue”.
Boeing has become a sad, sad company. Once great, they now can’t even take hundreds of $millions and make a space capsule work properly. They can’t add new engines to an old airliner without having faulty software that turns them into lawn darts. They can’t seem to get their QC together on 767 tankers, or 787s.
Well, maybe if they didn’t lay off all the Shuttle flight software folks after the end of the program…..