-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I took it to mean DM-2 would be physically ready (all SpaceX review and testing complete) and at the Cape in Feb., but as you note it could be interpreted differently. I suspect this tweet was meant to preempt more delay dirt from being thrown at SpaceX by Bridenstein to distract from Starliner not making it to ISS as planned. SpaceX is ready next month. It is NASA safety reviews which may delay launch for several additional months. NASA has been safety reviewing all DM systems leading up to the unmanned ISS test and afterwards. Their participation in investigating the abort system anomaly and it's resolution has been exhaustive. How much further safety review work by NASA is necessary at this stage of the program? Weeks surely, but 3 - 4 months?
The tweet also serves to sharpen the dichotomy between NASA's safety treatment of SpaceX and Boeing. Just when NASA is considering whether to give Boeing the pass they would like on testing Starliner docking with ISS at all, they may decide to slow walk DM-2 final safety reviews for several more months after it arrives and is ready.
Brando
Active Member
Note comments about how managers not having engineering backgrounds is suspected to be an increasing problem.
I suspect a basic problem for 737 MAX; 787; 777x and StarLiner. I think auto companies may also suffer as decisions are guided more by margins/profits vs engineering perspectives.
Starliner ISS FATAL FAIL; New Venus & Mars Missions; China Long March 5 Launch Success
Which is why no competitive BEVs can match Model S 2013.
But auto management pays themselves plenty of money. And stock buy backs vs electrification R&D and little to no training for employees. Management prefers the fire and re-hire methods vs re-education.
I suspect a basic problem for 737 MAX; 787; 777x and StarLiner. I think auto companies may also suffer as decisions are guided more by margins/profits vs engineering perspectives.
Starliner ISS FATAL FAIL; New Venus & Mars Missions; China Long March 5 Launch Success
Which is why no competitive BEVs can match Model S 2013.
But auto management pays themselves plenty of money. And stock buy backs vs electrification R&D and little to no training for employees. Management prefers the fire and re-hire methods vs re-education.
So I read the comment that the software programmer posted on their previous video. It makes a lot of sense. And that was something that was bugging me about the Boeing spacecraft. Doesn’t Boeing employ telemetry? Shouldn’t it know what the state is of on board software? And beyond that, there should be defensive programming that does a bunch of checks for every parameter it uses. The lack of such programming appears to have taken place both with the spacecraft and the 737 Max.
Bottom line, Boeing doesn’t just have a “software glitch”. The entire code base needs a review as well as basic engineering review of their systems ( like why telemetry didn’t catch this error).
Bottom line, Boeing doesn’t just have a “software glitch”. The entire code base needs a review as well as basic engineering review of their systems ( like why telemetry didn’t catch this error).
Just to pile onto my previous post, if NASA doesn’t force Boeing into a comprehensive engineering review, then they might as well admit they are in the pockets of Boeing. The warning signs are all there. NASA is walking itself into another Challenger disaster.
e-FTW
New electron smell
NASA’s status update on the Boeing flight and potential for crewed flight without another uncrewed test: Update on Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test – Administrator Jim Bridenstine
I read it, and I still cannot figure out what the plan is. Plenty confusing.
- Full investigation will take two months (once it starts)
- At the same time, NASA will spend a number of weeks deciding if they green-light a crewed flight
I read it, and I still cannot figure out what the plan is. Plenty confusing.
- Full investigation will take two months (once it starts)
- At the same time, NASA will spend a number of weeks deciding if they green-light a crewed flight
It is somewhat confusing. There will be a joint Boeing/NASA “independent” team to evaluate the mission timer anomaly.
A separate investigation by NASA will also occur. Quote:
“NASA’s approach will be to determine if NASA and Boeing received enough data to validate the system’s overall performance, including launch, on-orbit operations, guidance, navigation and control, docking/undocking to the space station, reentry and landing. Although data from the uncrewed test is important for certification, it may not be the only way that Boeing is able to demonstrate its system’s full capabilities.”
That made me laugh. The mission was supposed to achieve all those objectives. Obviously it did not achieve them all, including “docking/undocking to the space station” which seems critical. And yet Bridenstine says that the failed mission “...may not be the only way that Boeing is able to demonstrate its system’s full capabilities.”
So what is the alternative? A computer simulation? How could anything but a complete, successful, uncrewed mission including “docking/undocking to the space station” meet the terms of the contract Boeing has with NASA?
A separate investigation by NASA will also occur. Quote:
“NASA’s approach will be to determine if NASA and Boeing received enough data to validate the system’s overall performance, including launch, on-orbit operations, guidance, navigation and control, docking/undocking to the space station, reentry and landing. Although data from the uncrewed test is important for certification, it may not be the only way that Boeing is able to demonstrate its system’s full capabilities.”
That made me laugh. The mission was supposed to achieve all those objectives. Obviously it did not achieve them all, including “docking/undocking to the space station” which seems critical. And yet Bridenstine says that the failed mission “...may not be the only way that Boeing is able to demonstrate its system’s full capabilities.”
So what is the alternative? A computer simulation? How could anything but a complete, successful, uncrewed mission including “docking/undocking to the space station” meet the terms of the contract Boeing has with NASA?
Nikxice
Active Member
One can tell that Bridenstine still knows how to behave like a politician. His statement reads like a bunch of double-talk mixed with a dose of hedging.
"The team will review the primary anomalies experienced during the Dec. 2019 flight test" So Jim, does this mean that Starliner experienced multiple anolmalies?
"Once underway, the investigation is targeted to last about two months before the team delivers its final assessment.", but in the meantime "NASA is evaluating the data received during the mission to determine if another uncrewed demonstration is required. This decision is not expected for several weeks" . Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, looks as though NASA will decide on a crewed or another uncrewed flight before the independent investigation has been completed.
There are two gating items:
Issue 1: Did flight 1 provide enough data to allow for a crewed flight?
Issue 2: Will anything be found in the investigation that would require an additional uncrewed flight?
Both items need to support having a crewed mission before it will launch.
If #1 is not satisfied, there would be another uncrewed mission regardless of #2.
Issue 1: Did flight 1 provide enough data to allow for a crewed flight?
Issue 2: Will anything be found in the investigation that would require an additional uncrewed flight?
Both items need to support having a crewed mission before it will launch.
If #1 is not satisfied, there would be another uncrewed mission regardless of #2.
It can't:
The capsule does not have an attachment point for the robotic arm.
The docking adapter (NDS) on the crew capsule is incompatible with the bethering adapter.
NASA Docking System - Wikipedia
In my opinion this makes clear that Boeing has to repeat their failed mission, and make it a complete success, to meet the terms of their contract with NASA.
If Bridenstine gives Boeing a pass on their mission failure, his bias and lack of objectivity will be clear for everyone to see.
I'd say it depends if the development contract overall requires docking, or if the uncrewed mission itself specifically requires docking.
If the capsule can carry them safely back after a failed docking attempt (which it such better be able to), it might not be a hard uncrewed requirement.
Although I have not read the actual language of Boeing’s contract with NASA, my understanding is that Boeing is required to demonstrate docking/undocking (I can’t point to what I read specifically on that issue). A web search for “boeing cctcap nasa contract docking undocking requirement” does not provide me with a clear answer. I take your point that in theory if NASA is satisfied that the capsule has shown it can safely return crew after orbit is achieved then docking/undocking could conceivably not be required for an uncrewed mission. But looking at it rationally that makes no sense to me. A failed docking attempt might either damage the station or damage the capsule such that the life of the crew could be jeopardized. Wouldn’t the contract terms require a successful uncrewed docking/undocking demonstration before doing it on a crewed mission?
Not disagreeing with your view of what makes sense, but it depends on what the contractual requirements are.
Docking is risky to ISS crew, so they seal themselves off during it. As it is, the Starliner was not able to be commanded from the ISS (pretty sure I read that, but can't find link due to all the anomoly results), so having the first docking attempt crewed would be safer for the space station.
Bridenstine is a government employee. He was put in place by Trump but his agencies budget is completely controlled by Congress. Bridenstine has gone further than any previous administrator to complain about and pressure the Congressional companies into doing better. So, yes, he is still stuck in a biased position and he is probably pressured into playing Congress's game. Whether he agrees with it or not. JMHO.
Nikxice
Active Member
It's been previously noted that Boeing's Starliner assembly facility in Florida is separate from what goes on in Everett, Washington. Although, what the public only hears and sees is 'Boeing' and Bridenstine has to be sensitive to that fact when he and his NASA CCP team determine the next mission for Starliner. I'm sure recent articles like this don't make their decision any easier.
Boeing Employees Mocked F.A.A. and ‘Clowns’ Who Designed 737 Max
What's not clear is if this documented lack of oversight, deception, and leadership has become a collective part of Boeing's company culture. There may be no connection, but....
Hopefully on the contrary it should make Bridenstine's decision far easier. Starliner also needs a full engineering review. That timer mistake wasn't a minor problem. It points to overall bad engineering design.
Similar threads
