Boeing Capsule Goes Off Course, Won't Dock at Space Station (apnews.com) 158
pgmrdlm shares a report: Boeing's new Starliner capsule went off course after launch Friday and won't dock with the International Space Station during its first test flight. It was supposed to be a crucial dress rehearsal for next year's inaugural launch with astronauts. The blastoff from Cape Canaveral, Florida, went flawlessly as the Atlas V rocket lifted off with the Starliner capsule. But a half-hour into the flight, Boeing reported that the capsule didn't get into the right orbit to reach the space station. The capsule is still in space and will be brought back to Earth, landing in New Mexico as early as Sunday. Boeing is one of two companies hired by NASA to launch astronauts from the U.S. The space agency has been relying on Russian rockets to travel to the space station since the retirement of the space shuttle almost nine years ago. [...] This was Boeing's chance to catch up with SpaceX, NASA's other commercial crew provider that successfully completed a similar demonstration last March. SpaceX has one last hurdle -- a launch abort test -- before carrying two NASA astronauts in its Dragon capsule, possibly by spring.
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Guess they used the same 737 max code.
Re:Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
That's how you design software, you don't just reinvent the wheel, you share between projects! ;)
It's a good thing the government pays them much more than SpaceX, they can afford to hire good engineers and fix things
we only need 1 sensor and $250K CEO bonus (Score:5, Funny)
we only need 1 sensor and $250K CEO bonus
Re:we only need 1 sensor and $250K CEO bonus (Score:5, Informative)
Only $250K for the CEO bonus?!? Wow, that's cheap! Boeing's CEO bonus in 2018 was $13M. [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the $250K for sensor 2 was added to CEO as cost cutting bonus.
Re: (Score:2)
The really interesting part, that bonus was paid for by the extra profits, generated by those insane short cuts, MORE MONEY NOW, thinking ie, fuck the corporations future I want a bigger bonus now, total disregard for the future. That fucker should be behind bars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Closer to MCAS than you think. They're saying they determined that a timer was used to know where in the mission they were instead of using a real sensor to know if the engine had fired. Which is the same "no redundant sensor" problem MCAS had.
Too many years of getting away with late and over budget, even on this "fixed price" contract (until renegotiated)...and fat MIC subsidies will apparently ruin even a good company. Must be nice to be too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I blows my mind how brittle these systems are. As an engineer I'd never do anything like that even for basic industrial stuff, let alone something this expensive going in to space.
Not sure I'd want to ride on something like this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure who downmodded me or why- it was sarcastic humor, supposed to be funny. I thought everyone understood the stupidity of the 737 MAX.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my comment was supposed to be funny. I thought by now everyone got it (the 737MAX problems).
I guess I have to explain my jokes so I don't get downmodded.
Re: (Score:2)
#StarlinerMAX ;)
Swing and a miss... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you use a checklist.
Re:Swing and a miss... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you use realtime telemetry to choose when to initiate the burn, not a timer? I mean even a GPS nav in a car doesn't tell you to "Proceed along 4th avenue for 36 seconds and then turn right..." it constantly checks the real position of the car and gives instructions accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you use realtime telemetry to choose when to initiate the burn, not a timer? I mean even a GPS nav in a car doesn't tell you to "Proceed along 4th avenue for 36 seconds and then turn right..." it constantly checks the real position of the car and gives instructions accordingly.
Rerouting...Rerouting...Rerouting...
Re: (Score:2)
Respectfully, I disagree. An ascent profile is extremely predictable and your spacecraft can't pause to pick up a different GPS signal or wait for the transition to another ground station. The burns need to happen on a fixed schedule as long as the attitude and health sensors are nominal. If they aren't nominal then you enter the abort schedule.
Space is hard enough that the KISS principle is very important, and a timer is pretty simple.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant the nav system built into cars, which do rely on the GPS sats for positional information. I live in Canada, land of the $10/GB data plan so most people here don't use their phones for navigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is also why you test, because you by definition don't know your unknown unknowns.
Re:Swing and a miss... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you let that happen?
Self-certification.
They're old folks... (Score:2)
And are used to the clock flashing 12:00 repeatedly.
(probably no one here ever had a vcr, lol)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least the got it launched. It looks like the clock was set wrong? How do you let that happen?
Incompetence. No other explanation. When _everything_ depends on that clock, you make sure it is set right. Unless you have lost the ability to do solid engineering and sound risk management and, it seems, Boeing cannot do either anymore.
Re:Swing and a miss... (Score:4, Informative)
When _everything_ depends on that clock, you make sure it is set right.
Not in 2019, you don't. You don't waste mental energy on how to stop the clock from flashing 12:00. In 2019, you install a GPS receiver and pull the time out of that signal. I have a $400 aftermarket radio in my car. It has a GPS receiver for nothing more than setting the clock. That is how cheap and light GPS is in 2019. When everything depends on the time, you don't depend on a watchmaker to move the hands on the clock.
Re: (Score:2)
> In 2019, you install a GPS receiver and pull the time out of that signal.
Not on a space ship that's above the GPS satellites. You'd be better off with a Timex watch.
It's not like the time changes with altitude... (Score:2)
Once it's set, it should be good.
If you have to reset the clock every few seconds, then...
OK, I guess this IS Boeing we're talking about.
Nevermind!
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, this particular test didn't go anywhere near "above the GPS satellites", then....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How do you let that happen?
Metric time.
rofl. (Score:2)
They missed the conversion, as they were programming in english time, and the universe uses metric.
Good catch! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least the got it launched. It looks like the clock was set wrong? How do you let that happen?
It was a relativistic problem: the spaceship accelerated so fast that it altered the space-time continuum just enough and MCAS overcompensated.
So..... (Score:3)
MCAS?
Re: So..... (Score:4, Funny)
MCAS=Minor Clock Adjustment System. Good plan. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
good news and bad (Score:2, Informative)
And they'll be able to do their entry and landing test.
So, mostly, as a test flight this is successful. No docking with space station, but as a test flight, I'd call that a secondary objective-- the main objective would be to make sure that the vehicle works.
Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
You work for Boeing, and it was your job to set the clock? :)
Re:good news and bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The good news is that the launch went successfully, and the capsule seems to be operating well in orbit-- if this had been a flight with a crew, the crew would be in no danger.
And they'll be able to do their entry and landing test.
So, mostly, as a test flight this is successful. No docking with space station, but as a test flight, I'd call that a secondary objective-- the main objective would be to make sure that the vehicle works.
Yes, that radical new Atlas engine really worked.
After only 50 years and over 600 Atlas launches.
Of course the failure was in the payload, which was the entire point of the launch.
Re: (Score:2)
> In TFA Bridenstine says if it were crewed it might have docked anyway. My interpretation is that something went wrong during orbital maneuvering that isn't catastrophic, but was of enough concern to preclude docking.
The issue is that there was the timer problem that was exacerbated by a communications problem and they couldn't tell the capsule to stop wasting fuel before it burned off too much due to said communications problem. Now there's not enough fuel to rendezvous with the ISS and dock.
If there
Re: (Score:3)
Well it hasn't landed yet. so 'safe' is good relative to 'being in a burning ball of flame' but not so safe as 'on the ground in one piece'.
They did say the abort test was fine. (Score:2)
Even though they lost a parachute, and blew nitrogen tetroxide everywhere.
They said it was OK, because "The Crew probably would have survived". :)
If this comes in as a flaming ball of fire, they'll still say it was within mission parameters, because it hit the ground.
Re:good news and bad (Score:5, Insightful)
A very Boeing attitude ;) Just like during the pad abort test (let's forget that they're outright skipping an in-flight abort test), where one of the three parachutes failed, and the craft landed next to a billowing cloud of nitrogen tetroxide, and Boeing marked it as a success because the crew should have survived.
I'm sure NASA's safety engineers have a different viewpoint about that.
Re:good news and bad (Score:5, Funny)
Boeing's new motto: Failure IS an option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A very Boeing attitude ;) Just like during the pad abort test (let's forget that they're outright skipping an in-flight abort test), where one of the three parachutes failed, and the craft landed next to a billowing cloud of nitrogen tetroxide, and Boeing marked it as a success because the crew should have survived.
This is why you do tests.
Re: (Score:2)
And all the while, sending out AstroTurf whining about how SpaceX got some subsidies early on...which on examination, amounted to FAR LESS than Boeing has gotten - and Boeing's gotten various subsidies and government backing (think EXIM bank and trade regs) that are larger and for longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Safer [Re:good news and bad] (Score:2)
All in all, I'd feel safer orbiting in a Tesla Roadster than in a Boeing Starliner.
Well, maybe. The Atlas-V has a launch record of 81 launches, with no failures to make orbit. Falcon-9 has been almost as good, with two missions out of 80 blowing up (one on the pad and one in flight).
So, depends on how you feel about "almost".
Re: (Score:2)
> if this had been a flight with a crew, the crew would be in no danger.
Ironically if this had been a flight with a crew they wouldn't have this problem as the crew could have responded to the anomaly and sorted things out before too much fuel was wasted.
MCAS (Score:2)
Boeing got paid even more money than SpaceX. (Score:2)
And muffed it.
At least, if Astronauts had been on board, they would have been able to land. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Those Russian engines aren't cheap.
There's something disquieting about that. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Atlas Missile was our first ICBM; now we buy engines from the target.
What a world.
Re:Boeing got paid even more money than SpaceX. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boeing got paid even more money than SpaceX. (Score:4)
Yeah, and the audio mysteriously went dead on the NASA/Boeing stream when that "anomaly" - otherwise known as "complete uncorrectable failure" occurred.
SpaceX has spoiled by showing how to do it right, and even promoted some of their RUD failures. Shows old-skool spin and dishonesty for what it is.
Simple solution (Score:2)
No telemetry either
They should have installed Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple: more socialism for Boeing. Grab those taxpayer dollars and shove more gobs of it in Boeing's direction.
Re:Boeing got paid even more money than SpaceX. (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. Socialism. Or possibly fascism. Using taxpayer money to prop up a private company. The government needs to make sure Boeing survives all its failures. If not, thousands of people will lose their jobs. Have to keep them working off the taxpayer dime.
Re: (Score:2)
The capitalists owning government is a natural result of capitalism.
Absent markets, governments make bad decisions due to a lack of price data. You should go read up on the Soviet price-setting agency, and how it used foreign market data to set its prices because they couldn't figure it out (cf. "The Socialist Calculation Problem" by von Mises).
Absent government, capitalism goes away and free-markets are all that's left. You'll see this at your local farmers' market. In free markets, companies don't get
System engineeering and QA fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:System engineeering and QA fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
Brought to you by the same quality engineering that created the MCAS....
Seriously though, this is exactly the same "software is perfect" and "no need for contingencies or flexibility" mind-set that had Boeing recently kill 350 people. There have been a lot of space missions where things went wrong, but manual overrides later were able to fix things, just because that was included in the design as a possibility. Boeing seems to collectively suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect now. I mean, the _knew_ the MCAS was very likely going to kill planes (that simulator test that went through the press) yet they still did not really grasp what that meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me that Boeing are NOT working on self-driving road vehicles...
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me that Boeing are NOT working on self-driving road vehicles...
Don't worry. Boeing only makes things that (supposedly) fly. Some of them are armed and some of these have at least some self-flying capacity and probably some software that controls the weapons, but everything is fine!
Re: (Score:3)
Look up Apollo 1 and how many design deficiencies were in the first capsule expected to be launched. Only reason it didn't kill astronauts in flight was that it killed them on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
But look at all the money they saved!! Stockholders are cheering! Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Brought to you by the same quality engineering that created the MCAS.
It's almost like firing all of your American engineers and hiring people with unverifiable degrees from third world countries to take their place might have consequences.
Indeed. Would be funny if it was not tragic.
Re: (Score:2)
What to Kalman filters have to do with sequence timers? Nothing, and this is a spew of jargon.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better question: (Score:2)
Why was the clock not synced to GPS?
The GPS system has the most advanced, up to date clocks available, even better than NIST.
I built a reliable, accurate clock last year after getting pissed off at there not being any decent alarm clocks these days, and after much searching, found a GPS chip that is accurate to microseconds, and will run off a battery for a week.
Seems to me Boeing could easily do the same; I'd assume they have better engineers than me.
Re:System engineeering and QA fail? (Score:5, Interesting)
You make a state decision that critical in one subsystem based on a clock window instead of using actual vehicle state data???
One of SpaceX's "secret ingredients" is that it has sensors on everything. There's hardly a piece of their space hardware that doesn't "need" more sensors. Data helps you fix problems faster.
The thing that concerns me is that NASA is making SpaceX do several iterations of vehicle testing with real-world flights for human rating, while some of the ULA vendors have "such a bullet-proof process" that they're able to certify on paper and then build and fly the article off the assembly line, with actual astronauts on board.
I wrote, back when the Crew Dragon had a RUD during a test firing, that I would be concerned about being a human aboard anything that hadn't gone through the rigorous certification process that NASA is making SpaceX do. It only seems unfair if you can somehow accept that Boeing doesn't get these things wrong on paper ("because statistics"). Rather than being unfair to SpaceX, Boeing was allowed to set itself up for failure. I know it's not the same team as 737-MAX, but who is going to trust Boeing software at this point? Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy that if a problem happens with SpaceX hardware that the US won't have a ferry to use - the Russian contracts are not likely to be renewed (not that Soyuz is error-free).
I don't know about you but ... (Score:3)
If I was an astronaut, I wouldn't board a Boeing rocket nowadays.
They can still send *an* astronaut (Score:3)
They can still send someone into space the way it is ... It's just that his name has to be Tom.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I to assume he should be an O-4, then? Presumably preparing for his LTC boards?
Does this thing have a MCAS? (Score:2)
Probably decided to steer somewhere else on its own and did not allow overrides (or at least none the operators could find in time).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So they screwed up the primary system and the redundant remote channel. No surprise, when things go this wrong, it is usually multiple mistakes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They shouldn't have diverted the flight to go over Ukraine looking for dirt on Joe Biden...
Bridenstine (Score:5, Insightful)
And this attitude is why you shouldn't have your job.
Re: (Score:2)
And this attitude is why you shouldn't have your job.
Riding a controlled explosion into the vacuum of space... I think he's got a point.
Re:Bridenstine (Score:5, Interesting)
And this attitude is why you shouldn't have your job.
Actually, he's one of the best administrators since the 70's. He's an actual space nerd who became a politician and then wound up back at NASA. He's quite good at inspiring the program to move ahead at a faster clip than it would have otherwise, and isn't afraid to give Musk a good razzing when he needs it.
What he understands, as a person who is skilled at interacting with humans, is that only autists would extrapolate his "never" to actually mean never. The context is the NASA program, which should eventually become unnecessary.
And yes, the safety paralysis after Challenger and Columbia are a real problem for progress. Back in the 60's when a few astronauts didn't survive, the population understood "spaceflight is dangerous business". They need to be reminded of this, so they don't freak the hell out when a few explorers don't make it. The USG literally has the President on standby for every human launch so he can give a speech about thoughts-and-prayers if something goes wrong. That's not a sane approach, and that level of fear is paralyzing. Humans wouldn't even have flight, much less spaceflight, if that standard was applied [only] a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for those remarks. I agree. When Bridenstine was brought in, it seemed to me that there was suspicion that he was just a shill for a new off-kilter presidential administration that risked harming NASA further. Instead, he seems to have motivated things, moved it into a higher gear, is an unbridled enthusiast for space affairs, and also a good communicator and public front person for the agency. That is just my own personal opinion, but this does seem like the first time since before Challenger
Grll Power (Score:4, Informative)
At least it didn't blow up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a crucial dress rehearsal (Score:2)
Indeed. Not the one Boeing was expecting, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the results of this test... (Score:2)
...British Airways just placed an order for 100 Starliners.
Did they fix the clock? (Score:2)
" landing in New Mexico as early as Sunday."
Or some other place at some other time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
MCAS again? (Score:2)
We need to know.
Time for a corporate rebranding (Score:2)
Boeing needs to rebrand as Boing
They should use... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more like "Failure is our Job!"
https://bgr.com/2019/11/05/sta... [bgr.com]
"Acceptable" is not a ringing endorsement for a test; that's like a D- is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I saw it (Score:2)
I meant more, was the path different enough that it allowed me to actually see the launch trail? Since as I've said I've never seen a launch trail before and I dont like on your typical launch path from Cape Canaveral, from what I understand
Re: (Score:2)
You say 6:30am. Was the launch between you and the not quite up to the horizon rising sun?
Re: (Score:2)
You say 6:30am. Was the launch between you and the not quite up to the horizon rising sun?
It was actually. Before I knew it was the rocket launch I first thought it was an aircraft contrail that had already dissipated somewhat but was high enough to catch the light from the sun before it broke the horizon. Like I said, the sight of the trail bright white against the dark sky was pretty awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying they stopped to ask for directions?