Boeing didn’t perform full end-to-end test of its astronaut capsule before troubled mission, ‘surpri

[Elderberry]

 Orlando Sentinel By Chabeli Carrazana Feb 26, 2020

Boeing didn’t perform full end-to-end test of its astronaut capsule before troubled mission, ‘surprising’ NASA safety panel

In the weeks since Boeing flew its astronaut capsule on an ill-fated demo flight, questions about the company’s testing procedures prior to the mission have started to emerge — putting safety at the center of a debate on the future of human spaceflight.

NASA is on the verge of sending astronauts back to space from U.S. soil for the first time in almost a decade, but it’s doing it with commercial companies who are taking the lead on key decisions when it comes to flying with a crew. Now it seems some of those decisions are raising flags among safety experts.

Boeing and NASA officials are expected to release the results of an independent investigation into the set of issues that occurred during Boeing’s late December test of Starliner, its astronaut crew capsule, within the next week. But speaking to the Orlando Sentinel, members of NASA’s safety advisory panel expanded on some of the testing decisions Boeing made that drew questions about whether Starliner was ready to fly.

More: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/os-bz-boeing-safety-commercial-crew-20200226-bgvthodnjzgmlc36hsxcaopahu-story.html

[Elderberry]

Boeing still reviewing Starliner software after failed rendezvous with Space Station

Houston Chronicle by  Andrea Leinfelder Feb. 28, 2020

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/article/Boeing-s-first-look-at-Starliner-software-finds-15092525.php

Boeing has done a first look through its 1 million lines of code and hasn't identified any other major software issues apart from the two previously reported following the company's December test when its CST-100 Starliner spacecraft failed to rendezvous with the International Space Station.

The company will continue going through its code, making refinements and addressing gaps in how it tests software, before another test launch occurs, John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for the Boeing Commercial Crew Program, told media on Friday.

At HoustonChronicle.com: Report finds greater scrutiny needed for Boeing spacecraft

“The timeframe between now and the next flight is really going to be determined by us working our way methodically through that audit process,” Mulholland said.
NASA will ultimately decide if Boeing must redo its test without people onboard or if it can move forward with a crewed test.

More at link.

[Fishrrman]

Bad code on the 737 Max.
Bad code on the Starliner.

Would you wanna be flyin' with this company right now...?

[Joe Wooten]

Bad code on the 737 Max.
Bad code on the Starliner.

Would you wanna be flyin' with this company right now...?

All due to the McDonnell-Douglas money boys who run Boeing now and have for over 20 years. To them, proper engineering is an overhead expense to be cut ruthlessly where they can get away with it. That attitude is now biting them in the ass.

[sneakypete]

All due to the McDonnell-Douglas money boys who run Boeing now and have for over 20 years. To them, proper engineering is an overhead expense to be cut ruthlessly where they can get away with it. That attitude is now biting them in the ass.

@Joe Wooten

You honestly don't think they care,do you? They are hired to MANAGE MONEY AND MAXIMIZE PROFITS,nothing more,nothing less. They know and care nothing for engineering unless it affects the budget because that affects their end-of-year salary bonuses.

If you can manage to get enough stock holders to vote to fire them,they have clauses in their contracts that provides them with "Golden Parachutes" and letters of recommendations.

They need professional engineers on boards like that,and they need to have equal standing with anyone else on the board. Since the US Government/taxpayers are their primary source for money,the US government could DEMAND engineers have board seats and votes,but for some reason they won't do this.

Gee,I wonder what that reason could be?

[Cyber Liberty]

All due to the McDonnell-Douglas money boys who run Boeing now and have for over 20 years. To them, proper engineering is an overhead expense to be cut ruthlessly where they can get away with it. That attitude is now biting them in the ass.

The downfall of many a large company. 

Motorola started its decline when they went from a CEO who was a trained Engineer (Bob Galvin) to a CEO who was a trained Business Administration "professional" (Chris Galvin).  The company was a very small shadow of its former self inside of two years, with the most profitable sectors either spun off or sold.  Last I heard the remnants of the company are owned by Google, who bought them for their patents. 

Business Administration is all about maximizing the short-term cash flow, with no vision about what comes after.  I call them, "green eye-shade guys."  A company is guaranteed to fail when the accountants are put in charge.

[Joe Wooten]

The downfall of many a large company. 

Motorola started its decline when they went from a CEO who was a trained Engineer (Bob Galvin) to a CEO who was a trained Business Administration "professional" (Chris Galvin).  The company was a very small shadow of its former self inside of two years, with the most profitable sectors either spun off or sold.  Last I heard the remnants of the company are owned by Google, who bought them for their patents. 

Business Administration is all about maximizing the short-term cash flow, with no vision about what comes after.  I call them, "green eye-shade guys."  A company is guaranteed to fail when the accountants are put in charge.

I've seen it with many companies. GE, Boeing, Westinghouse (old pre 1990 Circlebarw), McDonnell-Douglas, Motorola, Texas Utilities (now Luminant), and Houston Light and Power. Boeing before the Clinton administration's forced merger with McD was an engineer run company with a rich history of excellent aircraft. The green-eyeshade boys from McD took over after the merger and now have completed their ruin of a good company.