Boeing's Starliner

[darthgently]

5 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Yes, but it is important.

It is hard to update the certified software of a aerospace vehicle. There is a whole set of steps involving "red label" and "black label" software. (Red label can be flight tested, but is not frozen. Black label software is "frozen" and can't be updated without re-starting the whole certification process. Or something like that.)

I was writing about Sierra's Dreamchaser.  Has it even been certified yet?  This is wandering quite far.  If NASA wants Earth orbit crew and cargo redundancy I merely wish Dreamchaser were in the mix and posit that it can't be horribly far from doing the cert gauntlet.  Apologies if my poor communication skills or word choices didn't make this clear previously. 

 

[Nuke]

i like the 'all the things!' approach. all rockets flying. cutting one to put the funds in the other just doubles its cost of the other. and no competition so they use the same hardware for years and we get stuck in a leo rut.

[mikegarrison]

57 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I was writing about Sierra's Dreamchaser.  Has it even been certified yet?

The software being certified is different from the vehicle as a whole being certified. You can certify the software for a vehicle that is not yet certified, and you can certify new software for one that is already certified.

[monophonic]

4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

The software being certified is different from the vehicle as a whole being certified. You can certify the software for a vehicle that is not yet certified, and you can certify new software for one that is already certified.

But most importantly you can not certify a vehicle that has uncertified software. I bet a lot of components in DreamChaser already have their certifications, and any changes requiring re-certifying would be expensive...

5 hours ago, darthgently said:

  Hide contents

Bonus Whinging:

Don't get me started on the bloat in software development.  It is one reason I got out of it professionally.  It started out where devs had 90+% control over the function of their code with the other 10% being hardware changes triggering a recompile now and then.  Then 3rd party libraries came in with their double edge, the bad edge being becoming tied to that API, which may not stay the same, and having to help the 3rd party debug their code, if there is even an avenue to do so,  so it can be reliable for your code.  And then you get caught up in N-way standoffs where library one requires wedge library A version 1 but library two requires wedge library A version 2.  And neither version is stable.  And they all have memory leaks.  Now it is as if most code has become infected with a digital analog to government and corporate bureaucracy.  Sadfunny.

Spoiler

Did you work in the C era? I would guess so by the fact you mention memory leaks. I have witnessed the exact same thing happen in Java ecosystem, and right now happening in Node. (JavaScript/TypeScript/WhateverScript, never seen an entire programming language fracture into so many competing variants before!) The world keeps turning but we seem to return to the same place after every round...

 

[Terwin]

19 hours ago, darthgently said:

Now it is as if most code has become infected with a digital analog to government and corporate bureaucracy.

Sorry, but I was just struck by how this phrase consisting of a single letter and a pair of words that are antonyms when used as adjectives not only makes logical sense when one is used as a noun instead, but is even used this way with significant frequency.

 

Perhaps I need more sleep.

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Sorry, but I was just struck by how this phrase consisting of a single letter and a pair of words that are antonyms when used as adjectives not only makes logical sense when one is used as a noun instead, but is even used this way with significant frequency.

 

Perhaps I need more sleep.

I hesitated after typing it as it is a semantic rat's nest of possible meanings, lol.  But was lazy and decided I'd trust ppl to work it out.  Thank you for your persistence

[mikegarrison]

15 hours ago, monophonic said:

I bet a lot of components in DreamChaser already have their certifications, and any changes requiring re-certifying would be expensive...

Yes, people don't understand how hard and expensive it is to "open" a certification in order to change it. It is not done lightly.

[kerbiloid]

Based on the cost values, the gravity well of bureaucracy takes by orders of magnitude more delta-V than the puny gravity.

This inspires. This means that actually the gravity has been defeated by humanity, and they need just more paper to fly to the stars.

[Nuke]

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

I hesitated after typing it as it is a semantic rat's nest of possible meanings, lol.  But was lazy and decided I'd trust ppl to work it out.  Thank you for your persistence

i usually spell it analogue in this context. i know that analogue is used in place of analog in other countries, but i feel it a stylistic alternative that better differentiates the terms.

[tater]

I knew exactly what was meant from context.  <shrug>

[darthgently]

If what doesn't kill one makes one stronger, then Boeing could come out of this stronger?  Mining for the silver lining here ...

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/boeing-warns-of-more-financial-losses-on-starliner-commercial-crew-program/

 

[darthgently]

Thruster test results 

 

[tater]

13 hours ago, darthgently said:

Thruster test results 

Maybe this means they come home in a couple weeks.

[tater]

 

[AckSed]

Ooooh. That's gotta smart.

[tater]

41 minutes ago, AckSed said:

Ooooh. That's gotta smart.

We still have no idea what's gonna happen, but my own take is that the PR around this mission was so totally bungled that the NASA people in charge of the mission (NOT invoved with PR) are backed into a corner. They can think it's A-OK to go, but god forbid if anything bad happens, they will be second guessed into some new career.

[Jacke]

8 hours ago, tater said:

 

The Tweet and Ars Technica article are both from Eric Berger, widely known as hating everything but SpaceX.  I considering anything from him to be at best misinformation and at worse disinformation.  I'd suggest going to direct quotes from NASA.

Edited August 2 by Jacke

[tater]

6 hours ago, Jacke said:

The Tweet and Ars Technica article are both from Eric Berger, widely known as hating everything but SpaceX.  I considering anything from him to be at best misinformation and at worse disinformation.  I'd suggest going to direct quotes from NASA.

LOL. Nothing you just said ^^^ is true at all.

The coin flip nature of what might happen entirely conforms to what I am hearing personally. I think the assumption is that Starliner can return just fine, but the (PR) situation has been so bungled that there are now pressures to be extra safe for crew.

Edited August 2 by tater

[darthgently]

6 hours ago, Jacke said:

The Tweet and Ars Technica article are both from Eric Berger, widely known as hating everything but SpaceX.  I considering anything from him to be at best misinformation and at worse disinformation.  I'd suggest going to direct quotes from NASA.

He ends up making so many very accurate predictions based on very well placed sources over and over again.  He must be really bad at misinforming

[tater]

 

[Codraroll]

Let's just hope the lack of consensus is due to group A saying "We are as certain as we can be that everything is fine, save for the inherent background risk of space travel" and group B saying "Just to be sure, we should send it down empty", instead of group A saying "we shouldn't do this" and group B saying the 2020's equivalent of "The O-rings have disintegrated before without issue ..."

Either way, though, Boeing doesn't come out of this looking good. This was supposed to be the certification flight. The quick shakedown cruise to show that the capsule is working as intended and ready to use. Instead, it has become a test flight, running close to two months overdue. I wonder whether that certification is attainable now or that another flight would be required. Which would be a bit of a bummer, since the spacecraft is only contracted for a handful of flights *ever*, so a delay now would cut a substantial chunk out of its operative service life. If it really needs to be reworked and go through more certification flights before operability is declared, it might not be worth to continue funding it at all.

Edited August 2 by Codraroll
2000th post, woo!

[tater]

 

37 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Let's just hope the lack of consensus is due to group A saying "We are as certain as we can be that everything is fine, save for the inherent background risk of space travel" and group B saying "Just to be sure, we should send it down empty", instead of group A saying "we shouldn't do this" and group B saying the 2020's equivalent of "The O-rings have disintegrated before without issue ..."

Sorta the first.

Group A "We think that everything will be fine, it's probably slightly less certain than what we currently know about Dragon."

Group B "We agree, but if anything goes wrong we—us in this room—will be savaged for making the wrong decision when the signs were there to the public, and we ignored a simple contingency plan.

 

I don't think it's the second scenario at all—I talk (usually txt, lol) to someone somewhat involved literally daily (ok, it's like 75% meme exchange ). I think the PAO (and Boeing) have botched this from the start. Minus the unforced PR errors (public now thinking something is terribly wrong), I think they come home on Starliner for sure. Should they pull the trigger on a SpaceX contingency, they would be smart to underline that they think Starliner is fine to return, but one of the points of two providers was to have just this sort of contingency option. Nominal ISS work will seamlessly continue, they will come home in 6 months on Dragon, and Starliner will return by itself for analysis. I would hope that they have actually characterized the problems so that they can simultaneously tell everyone that the added time at ISS allowed them to determine exactly what needs to be fixed on future flights, and they have already begun testing the fixes.

If they have to refly the cert mission, they'd have to talk to Amazon about buying one of their Atlas Vs (they're already gonna lose money on this contract, might as well at least succeed).

Edited August 2 by tater

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, tater said:

but one of the points of two providers was to have just this sort of contingency option.

^^^This.  If they don't play it safe and bring them home on Dragon they will make a joke out the  entire dual provider plan in the public's eyes, because it is precisely for situations like this that the dual provider strategy was adopted. 

Add into that the fact it is a crew, not cargo, safety  issue and they should think long and hard about casting shade on crew safety while making a joke of the dual provider plan at the same time.  That would be very hard to smooth over.  And if the two do come back on Starliner, and there are any close shaves caused by design issues it will be a bad day for all involved in that decision. 

I don't think they should crew Starliner on return purely for safety reasons at this point given we have a proven backup as per the dual provider plan.   Those concerned about Starliner possibly getting cancelled should it return empty should also deeply consider what could happen to NASA if two astronauts end up needlessly harmed or lost given a Dragon is parked right there.  Needless to say Starliner would absolutely be cancelled in that case, not maybe

Edited August 3 by darthgently

[mikegarrison]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

^^^This.  If they don't play it safe and bring them home on Dragon they will make a joke out the  entire dual provider plan in the public's eyes, because it is precisely for situations like this that the dual provider strategy was adopted.

Not really.

1) This is a test flight. With Boeing astronauts, not NASA astronauts.

2) If they don't fly back on the Starliner, that makes it really hard to justify sending NASA astronauts up on it next, which was the whole point of the dual-provider thing.

I'm not hoping for them to make the decision either way, though I think it would obviously be better for Boeing and NASA if the two fly back on Starliner safely, and it would obviously be bad for everyone (but especially the astronauts) if they don't have a safe return flight.

With absolutely no insider knowledge at all, I do wonder, however, if we are seeing a bit of a game of "chicken". NASA might prefer Boeing to make the call not to return the astronauts on Starliner, and Boeing would probably prefer to have NASA make that call. If it comes down to contractual penalties, it might be very important if Boeing was able to ague that they had approved the flight, and it was a NASA decision not to do it.

I assume the astronauts themselves are also involved, as they obviously have the most riding on whatever happens.

[tater]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

I don't think they should crew Starliner on return purely for safety reasons at this point given we have a proven backup as per the dual provider plan.   Those concerned about Starliner possibly getting cancelled should it return empty should also deeply consider what could happen to NASA if two astronauts end up needlessly harmed or lost given a Dragon is parked right there.  Needless to say Starliner would absolutely be cancelled in that case, not maybe

The economics of Starliner going forward are not great at this point. They've been paid I think the bulk of the contract, so it's 6 operation flights for a final payment of something like $1.4B (1.6?). If their cost is above that ~$233M/flight, doing the operational missions would be at a loss.

7 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

If it comes down to contractual penalties, it might be very important if Boeing was able to ague that they had approved the flight, and it was a NASA decision not to do it.

Excellent point. FWIW, the testing seemed to go well, & many at MCC seem to think it's good to go (I am told). Minus the botched press there would be no "Astronauts stranded" nonsense and they might feel like they are not under a microscope (which I can only assume will make everyone more cautious than they otherwise might have been—and they're already cautious by default).

Edited August 3 by tater