BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2020, 14:43

Sometimes when a manufacturer has a problem aircraft they reintroduce it with a new name, but I doubt the Starliner will become the Starliner Max.

The current Starliner is the CST-100, but since it isn't safe enough yet to carry people, maybe it should be designated the CST 100-F (freighter.)

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2020, 10:51

With thruster problems, they would be nuts to let it anywhere near the space station.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2020, 10:49

Username Protected wrote:

With thruster problems, they would be nuts to let it anywhere near the space station.

Reading the Ars Technica piece it sounds like the root of the problem is the bad line of code that set the thrusters off incorrectly. The thrusters then burned longer than intended and that cascaded into other problems which they resolved by shutting many of them down and then gradually bringing them back on line (maybe after a cool-down?)

What I'm getting from this is that the thrusters were overloaded by the off-nominal event but would have functioned fine otherwise, so it sounds to me like it's a software issue rather than mechanical.

Oh, and that word, "nominal". It's interesting, in every dictionary but one that I checked it doesn't mean anything close to what the space industry uses it to mean (the historic meaning being something along the lines of "in name only", or perhaps closer to this usage: "Approximate"). The only exception was Dictionary.com who has an entry for "Aerospace" with the definition there being "performing or achieved within expected, acceptable limits", which is both vague and has nothing whatsoever to do with the original meaning of the word. Go figure.

I'm thinking that it's fancy-speak for "approximate", meaning in fact "It's about where it should be". When viewed in that context it takes on a charm of its own.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Feb 2020, 11:00

Username Protected wrote:

With thruster problems, they would be nuts to let it anywhere near the space station.

Reading the Ars Technica piece it sounds like the root of the problem is the bad line of code that set the thrusters off incorrectly. The thrusters then burned longer than intended and that cascaded into other problems which they resolved by shutting many of them down and then gradually bringing them back on line (maybe after a cool-down?)

What I'm getting from this is that the thrusters were overloaded by the off-nominal event but would have functioned fine otherwise, so it sounds to me like it's a software issue rather than mechanical.

Oh, and that word, "nominal". It's interesting, in every dictionary but one that I checked it doesn't mean anything close to what the space industry uses it to mean (the historic meaning being something along the lines of "in name only", or perhaps closer to this usage: "Approximate"). The only exception was Dictionary.com who has an entry for "Aerospace" with the definition there being "performing or achieved within expected, acceptable limits", which is both vague and has nothing whatsoever to do with the original meaning of the word. Go figure.

I'm thinking that it's fancy-speak for "approximate", meaning in fact "It's about where it should be". When viewed in that context it takes on a charm of its own.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Feb 2020, 00:35

... AND another thruster problem that might have led to the loss of the Starliner. While diagnosing the first thruster problem, engineers discovered another bigger problem that required an in-orbit software update:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02 ... bug-found/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 07 Feb 2020, 08:47

Maybe they need a software update: the Module to Correct the Anomalies on Starliners. Oh. Wait...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2020, 15:29

Username Protected wrote:

Aside from not making the desired orbit and rendezvous, it seems that there are multiple problems with the thrusters:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01 ... rformance/

Sort of shocked the stock hasn’t tanked.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2020, 15:38

Here's a NY Times story with more information about the software issues and the Boeing-Nasa relationship.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Feb 2020, 18:52

Username Protected wrote:

Aside from not making the desired orbit and rendezvous, it seems that there are multiple problems with the thrusters:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01 ... rformance/

Sort of shocked the stock hasn’t tanked.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Feb 2020, 10:57

Username Protected wrote:

the review had already found multiple failures in Boeing’s processes that should have caught the mistakes on the ground.

“It told us that we have a more fundamental problem,” he said, not just the flaws that were identified this week.

Huh.

Who would have thought that the spacecraft development side of the business might have the same cultural problem as the aircraft design side.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Feb 2020, 11:11

Username Protected wrote:

Huh.
Who would have thought that the spacecraft development side of the business might have the same cultural problem as the aircraft design side.

when viewed from a detached place like Chicago it must have appeared that things were going fine

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Feb 2020, 11:24

Username Protected wrote:

Huh.
Who would have thought that the spacecraft development side of the business might have the same cultural problem as the aircraft design side.

when viewed from a detached place like Chicago it must have appeared that things were going fine

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 Feb 2020, 12:50

From Detroit, I can smell the corporate rot that infects at Boeing.

More info regarding testing short-cuts:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/space/o ... story.html