e-FTW
New electron smell
Now seems like a good time as any to post this, which I assume has been posted here before: A trip down the SpaceX memory lane - Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
e-FTW
New electron smell
(Better link for those that want to start from the very beginning of that blog, in 2005: Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets)
e-FTW
New electron smell
One quite appropriate post from that blog (last one I promise): December 2016 when SpaceX won a COTS program award.
Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets: A picture says a thousand words...
Yup, count hem: 7 seats. Still the current crew capacity. Just not on NASA flights which are limited to 4.
Some of the comments at the bottom of some posts did not age well...
Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets: A picture says a thousand words...
Yup, count hem: 7 seats. Still the current crew capacity. Just not on NASA flights which are limited to 4.
Some of the comments at the bottom of some posts did not age well...
Last edited:
Meeting on Boeing's progress coming up tomorrow:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...program-close-call-review-of-boeing-s-orbital
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...program-close-call-review-of-boeing-s-orbital
Replay of the update. Starts at about 27 minutes into the video. 80 issues.
And here's the written summary: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-boeing-complete-orbital-flight-test-reviews
No date yet for a re-run of the test mission. They found software errors, testing errors, RF engineering errors, process errors, etc. The connectivity issues seems to have been related to both bad RF hardware design as well as bad antenna selection algorithms. Most of the recommendations dealt with process issues, which to me means problems when one subcontractor hands off code/hardware/subsystems to another contractor. That kind of problem occurs much less frequently in SpaceX since they have far fewer subcontractors (and those they do have, the interfaces are comparatively simple and well understood).
No date yet for a re-run of the test mission. They found software errors, testing errors, RF engineering errors, process errors, etc. The connectivity issues seems to have been related to both bad RF hardware design as well as bad antenna selection algorithms. Most of the recommendations dealt with process issues, which to me means problems when one subcontractor hands off code/hardware/subsystems to another contractor. That kind of problem occurs much less frequently in SpaceX since they have far fewer subcontractors (and those they do have, the interfaces are comparatively simple and well understood).
e-FTW
New electron smell
Eric's report: Independent reviewers offer 80 suggestions to make Starliner safer
Am coming up with boat anchor analogies for Boeing right now on this program.
Am coming up with boat anchor analogies for Boeing right now on this program.
The big "bazinga" was when they were asked if NASA scrutinized SpaceX more than they checked on Boeing and the answer was a, not surprising, YES.
oh wow. Just to clarify, the question was about the time period before the mishap, right? So, this was a specific review of the Boeing incident. Did anyone ask if Boeing is going to get a full organizational review like SpaceX got?
Nikxice
Active Member
Not sure if you're referring to the simultaneous SpaceX/Boeing "cultural assessment study" that began after the Joe Rogan podcast in November 2018. Without much notice it was completed in October 2019. As the joint review with NASA wrapped up Bridenstine was quoted in an article published by CNBC.
“It’s really for SpaceX, I mean, it is a safety review for them. If they want to make it public, I think that they should do that,” Bridenstine added.
He emphasized that he doesn’t think “there’s much a story there” in the results of the safety reviews.
“Quite frankly, I think both companies are operating really responsibly, and making sure that their cultures are safe,” Bridenstine said. “And so, as we get close to launching astronauts on rockets again, it’s not just NASA that needs to be safe, it’s our commercial partners that need to be safe.”
His first statement was revealing. What I heard is, "We checked out SpaceX thoroughly, but Boeing.....maybe not as much." For their part SpaceX undoubtedly dug in while participating in the review. Boeing might not have taken it as seriously.
Last edited:
I was referring to that, but I was pretty sure only SpaceX got the proctology exam, not Boeing.
Here we go. Apparently NASA tried to do the same level of review to both companies but Boeing balked. Nice going Boeing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tech...eview-nasa-while-spacex-got-full-examination/
e-FTW
New electron smell
I was kind of thinking that back then, they wanted to see if SpaceX was living up to the standard set by Boeing. Turns out that might have been a low bar that SpaceX cleared easily.
This not that long ago, but it was also before the huge shift in mindsets created by crew arrival at the ISS on Flacon-Dragon. SpaceX took the bar, and raised it where it should be, hitting Boeing on the chin on the way up...
This not that long ago, but it was also before the huge shift in mindsets created by crew arrival at the ISS on Flacon-Dragon. SpaceX took the bar, and raised it where it should be, hitting Boeing on the chin on the way up...
Mickeyflea
Member
After the 737 MAX disasters you would have thought that NASA would have insisted
e-FTW
New electron smell
This explain it with more better words: The engineering culture clash that defines America’s newest spacecraft
From the article:
“Software people are kind of strange, over in the corner, and kind of viewed as a service,” Leuders said. “But as we know nowadays, your system is very integrated. Your software capability really drives the capability of the overall system.”
Dude, if software isn’t a first class citizen in your design, good luck! For cost, flexibility, and capability reasons, the most complex part of almost any system these days is the software.
Also from that same article, waterfall versus iterative design. Has Waterfall ever worked? The problem is that it is almost impossible to come up with accurate requirements, let alone design, before you start a project. You don’t know what you don’t know until you start building, at which point you realize the holes in your requirements and you change your design.
People soft denigrate iterative design by saying it’s the way that Silicon Valley throws together software. But, wait a minute, Silicon Valley’s iterative techniques are responsible for the top five companies in the S&P 500. It’s a technique that works. Meanwhile waterfall is probably responsible for more IT disasters than I can comfortably count.
People soft denigrate iterative design by saying it’s the way that Silicon Valley throws together software. But, wait a minute, Silicon Valley’s iterative techniques are responsible for the top five companies in the S&P 500. It’s a technique that works. Meanwhile waterfall is probably responsible for more IT disasters than I can comfortably count.
Well this is huge:
NASA is showing an impressive ability to support reuse..
NASA is showing an impressive ability to support reuse..
e-FTW
New electron smell
Sure is!Well this is huge:
NASA is showing an impressive ability to support reuse..
The contrast in this piece is massive. First part: Boeing reviews are ongoing. Second part: aggressive push to re-use SpaceX boosters and Dragons on crewed flights.
NASA safety panel has lingering doubts about Boeing Starliner quality control - SpaceNews — SpaceNews
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Well this is huge:
NASA is showing an impressive ability to support reuse..
Uhm... wow!?!
That's fantastic news. Reuse on human flight- awesome. Maybe NASA is getting into the idea of flight proven hardware too!
Similar threads
