
Boeing Starliner updates: Spacecraft flies into wrong orbit, jeopardizing test - mzs
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/20/boeings-starliner-flies-into-wrong-orbit-jeopardizing-trip-to-the-international-space-station.html
======
jacquesm
That is a very expensive mistake, but it could have been a lot worse, at least
they made it to orbit. The orbit reached is a stable one and if it were a
crewed mission at least at this point in time the crew would be fine. If they
can't reach the ISS (which is what it looks like right now) they'll have to
deorbit a bit sooner, there is a lot of money riding on them making it down in
one piece, if they fail at that then you may want to trade in some (more) of
your Boeing stock.

It's been a very tough year for Boeing, and SpaceX makes it all seem so easy
that you tend to forget this stuff is very hard and that success is not at all
guaranteed.

~~~
ceejayoz
> SpaceX makes it all seem so easy

To be fair, their version of this capsule blew up rather dramatically.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg)

 _After_ that exact capsule had visited the ISS, incidentally, which must've
caused a little butt-clenching at NASA.

~~~
css
> 176x144@10fps MMS quality video of the SpaceX Crew Dragon anomaly

Is this a covertly taken video? Why so low quality?

~~~
ceejayoz
Yes, it was a leak, from a NASA employee/contractor.

[https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-
memo...](https://www.space.com/spacex-crew-dragon-explosion-nasa-memo.html)

------
themgt
Boeing's explanation is that the flight automation software runs on some sort
of "timer" and the timing apparently wasn't configured correctly, so Starliner
thought it was at a different part of the mission and did the wrong burns.

Astonishing to me they make it sound like it runs like an independent
stopwatch and not kept in sync with the actual IRL mission parameters in a
more direct/continuous way. They're talking about the automation handover
between the launch vehicle to the spacecraft, and on Starliner "clearly the
time got messed up" ... "the spacecraft was not on the timer we expected it to
be on"

~~~
spectramax
This is a very disappointing approach I see on HN. Armchair analysis based on
sparse information in the article assuming all kinds of things about the
avionics, space hardware and rocket physics, condemning an entire team of
software engineers that are working on this issue.

Think about this - if you're one of those software engineers and you read some
random person on forums criticizing your work without context or thorough
understanding, how would you feel?

I love HN for insight and intellectual debate, this kind of analysis does not
add any insight - it is flat out dismissing and condescending.

Edit: Also, this behavior against Boeing is unwarranted because it has bias of
737 MAX issues. Completely different team, completely different problem.

~~~
paulmd
Yes. For the most part, software engineering is "easy". Find and apply
appropriate data structure and algorithm, done. Managing a large legacy
codebase and dealing with the soft factors is the hardest part of the job.

This leads to a phenomenon where software engineers tend to come up with "one
weird trick to solve the space shuttle, NASA hates him". And it's always
specifically software engineers.

Generally, most people are just as competent at their job as you are at yours.
If the obvious solution is not being used, there is usually a very good reason
why. A lot of fields have problems that are hard for reasons of physics or
other things that are not trivially gone around, and the solution is not one
software engineer swooping in with a great idea that totally revolutionizes
avionics.

(sometimes of course it is social factors, same as software engineering. The
best way is too expensive, or management is making bad decisions, etc)

~~~
bumby
The jump to simple solutions in hindsight bothers me. Especially with software
in complex safety-critical systems it's often incredibly hard to capture all
the permutations that can lead to a failure mode.

I wouldn't doubt most programmers could do an failure mode effects analysis on
the software and figure out they need to mitigate an event where the timer
fails to sync. But how many would also capture how to mitigate that sync
failure at the precise time the system lost satellite comm? Probably a heck of
a lot less.

Now multiply that by the total number of software failure modes (including
those latent ones we just get lucky with) and see how many get captured.
There's a reason why software in these types of systems is incredibly hard to
test.

------
exrook
More information from Jim Bridenstine's (NASA Administrator) twitter[1]:

Update: #Starliner had a Mission Elapsed Time (MET) anomaly causing the
spacecraft to believe that it was in an orbital insertion burn, when it was
not. More information at 9am ET:

Because #Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the
burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more
fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control. This precluded
@Space_Station rendezvous.

We are getting good burns and are elevating the orbit of the spacecraft.

There will be a press conference on NASA TV[0] at 9:30am ET (29 minutes from
now)

Also some speculation from Scott Manley[2][3] that the spacecraft may have
fired it's engines 90 degrees from prograde during orbital insertion, based on
mission control displays seen during the launch livestream

[0] [https://www.nasa.gov/live/](https://www.nasa.gov/live/) [1]
[https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/120802259102746215...](https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208022591027462151)
[2] [https://twitter.com/DJSnM](https://twitter.com/DJSnM) [3]
[https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120](https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120)

~~~
bad_alloc
Am I understanding this correctly?: A timer error caused the vehicle to use
too much fuel? No error from the ULA rocket?

~~~
sq_
According to space Twitter, yes, that is correct. Atlas and Centaur both
performed nominally.

Edit: looks like Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) has confirmed that Atlas and Centaur
performed well [0]

[0]
[https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136](https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1208035453850587136)

~~~
Symmetry
ULA remains expensive, slow moving, but very reliable. It seems like they have
a healthier engineering culture than Boeing.

~~~
phonon
ULA is a JV between Lockheed and Boeing though?

~~~
fgonzag
Maybe they have have actual Lockeed Engineers managing the JV, instead of
Boeing's Financeers.

------
airstrike
As a friend put it, I guess Boeing proves that whole saying “Shoot for the
moon, even if you miss you’ll land among the stars” is actually just LEO.

------
hurricanetc
Keep in mind Boeing was awarded $1.7 billion more than SpaceX.

~~~
neaanopri
To be fair, Boeing is developing a new capsule, while SpaceX is making Dragon
2, drawing on the legacy of Dragon 1, which they were awarded at least $1B
for.

This sort of issue would have shown up on the first Dragon 1 flight if SpaceX
had it.

~~~
hurricanetc
The total amounts awarded to each company still differ by nearly $2 billion. I
cannot imagine how much more Boeing would cost if they weren’t forced to
compete with SpaceX.

I wonder how much further along SpaceX might be if they were able to ripoff
NASA and the federal government the same way Boeing is able to.

------
gpm
There have been two public full scale tests of this spacecraft. A pad abort
test (launch the abort system from the ground to make sure it can escape a
launch vehicle failure) and this.

In the pad abort test a parachute failed, this wouldn't have been a deadly
failure since the remaining parachutes are sufficient, but it is pretty damn
concerning.

Now this test suffered a major failure too.

This does not bode well for the reliability of this vehicle.

~~~
mzs
This wouldn't have been deadly either, the craft would now land instead of
reaching ISS.

~~~
jacquesm
They claim they could have made the ISS, but I find that hard to believe.

~~~
mannykannot
The specific claim seems to be that if the capsule were manned, the crew could
have intervened, when the problem was first detected, to correct the error.
With no crew aboard, ground control was unable to make the correction because,
at precisely that time, the vehicle was in a dead zone between communications
satellites.

It is not entirely clear to me whether this would have been the chosen course
of action had it been manned, or whether it is merely being presented in
support of the statement that it would not have created a dangerous situation.

~~~
jacquesm
Interesting, that wasn't clear to me before. Thank you.

------
LatteLazy
Between this and the 737 Max fiasco(s), I'm surprised the stock price is so
healthy...

~~~
ceejayoz
Boeing might as well be the textbook definition of "too big to fail". It'll
never go bankrupt - the US government wouldn't permit that to happen.

~~~
joering2
What? What do you base that on? Banks may be too big to fail because single
bank can affect millions of lives, I doubt you can say the same about one of
few plane competitors. Otherwise we could apply your logic to every fortune
500 corp.

~~~
ceejayoz
Boeing makes and maintains the Pentagon's ICBMs, tankers, fighters, bombers,
satellites, launch vehicles, etc. It's one of the country's most critical
national security assets.

It also singlehandedly makes up about a half a percent of GDP.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-
us...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/21/boeings-737-max-could-hit-us-gdp-if-
production-is-halted-jp-morgan.html)

------
bilekas
> Mr Bridenstine suggested that had astronauts been aboard they could have
> been able to correct the fault and successfully get the craft to the space
> station.

Its really unfortunate to hear this news as its not easy to gt these things
off the ground. (pun very much intended) Hopefully it doesn't take too long
for another attempt if any.

~~~
jacquesm
That is somewhat hard to believe. Boeing/NASA have everything to gain by
showing that they really had that capability and if they don't then I'm going
to assume that they can't.

------
gt565k
More options are better than just NASA. SpaceX, Boeing, Blue Origin maybe in
the future.

It'll be good for space travel and the space economy.

~~~
_verandaguy
NASA isn't in the same category as the other companies you mentioned. It's a
government (and, to an extent, regulatory) space agency which contracts those
other companies to build its projects.

~~~
kome
I feel like this idea of creating a private market for space exploration is a
huge waste of public money. NASA worked better when produced everything in-
house.

I am not American, so: not my money, not my country. I have no say in it...
But I wonder if I am the only one to think like that.

~~~
willglynn
> NASA worked better when produced everything in-house.

NASA doesn't run a rocket factory. It used to be that NASA specified and
ordered hardware from contractors then integrated and operated it in house.
The space shuttle orbiter was built by Rockwell (now ~Boeing), the external
tank by Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), the SRBs by Morton Thiokol (now
ATK).

Commercial cargo and commercial crew change this model to NASA specifying and
ordering missions or mission capabilities. This affords the vendor more
autonomy in how they choose to solve problems, and NASA's still in the loop to
sign off on their solutions. In principle, this approach contains cost
overruns, since NASA pays only for the deliverable. What it doesn't contain
are schedule overruns…

~~~
bryananderson
Even the integration and operation were contracted out. Shuttle operation was
done by United Space Alliance (Boeing/Lockheed joint venture).

------
astannard
If ever a company was in need of some good PR this would be it. Maybe they can
still pull this one off?

~~~
jacquesm
That very much depends on how much fuel remains.

~~~
ceejayoz
They've announced it won't be going to the ISS. Not enough fuel; mission
failure.

~~~
jacquesm
So, let's see how they bring it down. That will be one way to save some face
here.

~~~
ceejayoz
Yeah. It'd be a really bad time for them to misplace a parachute pin again.

[https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-
abor...](https://spacenews.com/missing-pin-blamed-for-boeing-pad-abort-
parachute-anomaly/)

------
soapboxrocket
So this gives me an idea: Orbital repair and tow company. Anyone wanna join my
new company Triple Orbit?

~~~
kilroy123
Not sure if you're joking but this is the exact startup I'm going to create.

~~~
soapboxrocket
It was half in jest. I worked on a cubesat in college, with the long term goal
of the project to build networks of service satellites (imaging, repair,
repositions, refuel...).

I'd love to chat about the idea in more depth with you, it's defiantly
plausible and with the increased rate of launch it could be a great business.

------
ryanmercer
Oof, Boeing can't catch a break.

Still, even if it borked this is still a fairly monumental step in the
development. Getting stuff into space isn't all that easy and there's a lot
that can go wrong even if you successfully launch something, I'm sure they'll
gather a ton of actionable data and fix it in the next attempt.

~~~
Pfhreak
Boeing can't catch a break... I'm not so sure luck had much to do with this.

------
ape4
I guess "Rosie" the dummy is a reference to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter)

~~~
52-6F-62
Off topic, but some of those photographs are _stunning_

~~~
CamelCaseName
Wow, they really are.

I think they are colorized. Here one comparison of the original [0] (taken in
the 30s/40s!) in comparison to the image on Wikipedia [1]

[0]
[http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/](http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/fsac.1a34931/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter#/media/File:ConsolidatedWomenWorkers.jpg)

~~~
jacobush
Nope. It's why people still to this day can't let go of Kodachrome.

~~~
abruzzi
The first thing I thought when I saw those photos was — large format
Kodachrome. Those clearly have the color pallet of Kodachrome and many of
those old WWII era propaganda color photos were shot on 4x5.

------
Aaron_Putnam
Interesting it doesn't mention the test dummy was modeled after Rosie the
Riveter, and they are all feminist power for the flight, going so far as to
pose for this photo:

[https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?r...](https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1207977494277738496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1207977494277738496&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wusa9.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fnation-
world%2Fboeing-to-test-launch-astronaut-capsule-friday-
morning%2F507-662727e0-a622-41ec-a08c-0c47042e0947)

------
sorenn111
Engine stall on a Boeing product because of an incorrect sensor reading? Where
have I heard that before...

~~~
jsight
This line would be funnier if you dropped the word engine. I am not aware of
another Boeing product where an incorrect sensor caused an "engine" stall.

~~~
Shikadi
Actually asking, what are you trying to say? I'm interpreting this as
airplanes don't have engines, but a jet turbine is still an engine, so you
must mean something else?

~~~
brianshaler
I think it's a nitpick that an aerodynamic stall (plane not going forward fast
enough for wings to generate lift) should not be conflated with an engine
stall (engine ceases to burn/spin/propel)

~~~
Tuxer
If we're in nitpick land, it truly is important (especially in that 737 case)
to remember that stalls on wings has nothing to do with speed, and everything
to do with angle of attack (the angle between the wing and the apparent wind).

Now, to be fair, going faster DOES create apparent wind coming from the front,
so it decreases your angle of attack, but that's it.

(the sensor that failed on the 737s was the angle of attack indicator, trying
to estimate if the wing was going to stall).

------
jtdev
Would be interesting to see a comparison of project management approaches at
SpaceX vs. Boeing. I suspect that Boeing has far more antiquated, politically
motivated cruft scattered throughout.

~~~
aglavine
From what I've read it is analog to Waterfall (Boeing) vs. Agile (SpaceX)

~~~
Agathos
So the same except everyone at SpaceX has an extra meeting in the morning?

~~~
wonderwonder
In fairness, the SpaceX people likely also get the pleasure of getting to work
a few extra hours each day in order to ensure they complete their sprint. So
that's nice...

~~~
eitland
It also seems they get the pleasure of shipping working products on schedule -
something many software engineers can only dream about :-)

~~~
rbanffy
For some values of "on schedule".

------
moron4hire
Any space mission that doesn't end in "boom" is a success.

~~~
ReptileMan
There is an old pilots' joke that any landing after which you can walk is
good, if the aircraft can be used again it is excellent...

~~~
Robotbeat
And they're planning on reusing the capsule after it lands in White Sands
according to the press conference.

------
thrower123
The hits keep coming. Did they outsource their navigation code on this project
to the lowest bidder too?

