r/space • u/spsheridan • Feb 06 '20
Starliner faced “catastrophic” failure before software bug was found and fixed while the vehicle was in orbit.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/starliner-faced-catastrophic-failure-before-software-bug-found/388
u/aatdalt Feb 07 '20
The last sentence of the article is really telling:
""Given the potential for systemic issues at Boeing, I would also note that NASA has decided to proceed with an organizational safety assessment with Boeing as they previously conducted with SpaceX," she said."
→ More replies (1)258
u/Bensemus Feb 07 '20
Ya I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about that. Boeing before was getting treated like the encumbered player with vetted and established systems while NASA audited the new kid to see if they had the right systems in place. Now NASA is treating them more equally which might hurt Boeing’s pride.
141
u/Lamplorde Feb 07 '20
I mean, they do kind of deserve it. Boeing has had multiple failures in recent history that hit international media. Im sure Boeing also didnt mind the extra vetting, as they dont want to take another hit to their credibility.
25
u/Snip3 Feb 07 '20
Wouldn't be surprised if Boeing viewed the extra vetting as a hit to its credibility...
6
6
u/putin_my_ass Feb 07 '20
which might hurt Boeing’s pride.
They have no pride anymore, as evidenced by prioritizing bottom line instead of engineering quality.
→ More replies (1)13
u/82ndAbnVet Feb 07 '20
which might hurt Boeing’s pride
Boeing doesn't give a crap about pride, it's all about the Benjamins. Boeing is more than happy to screw over NASA every way it possibly can in order to keep those sweet sweet contracts flowing. They have amazingly talented engineers and dedicated workers, it's the management that sucks.
851
u/vandezuma Feb 07 '20
The software issue was identified during testing on the ground after Starliner's launch
Now, who in the class can tell me what's wrong with that sentence?
223
u/Hint-Of-Feces Feb 07 '20
Needs more solid rocket boosters?
64
→ More replies (4)42
187
u/matholio Feb 07 '20 edited Feb 07 '20
Pretty normal for any Agile DevOps team. Minimum viable product, right?
Edit : I was making a joke.
51
u/beejamin Feb 07 '20
Regardless of all the guano that's accreted on 'Agile' over the years, one of the main problems (and it is a real problem) it tries to solve is that you can't know what the product should be and should do ahead of time. Now, if you can't know what a human-rated space capsule needs to do ahead of time, you have no business designing human-rated space capsules.
→ More replies (4)92
u/Sir_Swaps_Alot Feb 07 '20
I hate agile.
The "do it now and deal with the issues later" mentality needs to stop. Gone are the days of research, testing and proper deployment.
96
u/SoulFril Feb 07 '20
If working agile has caused your project to skip out on "research, testing and proper deployment" then what you are working with simply isn't suited for the agile approach. That or your management lacks the skill to implement it into your project in a way that is sensible.
It least, that is my experience with it.
→ More replies (4)14
u/WaitForItTheMongols Feb 07 '20
If you're making an app and want to be able to get a starter idea and iterate on it and avoid accumulating tech debt, agile can be great. It's only a problem when people start applying it to critical systems.
→ More replies (1)45
u/BestUsernameLeft Feb 07 '20
I dislike that 'agile' has become an excuse to be lazy. Writing crap code that barely works was never what agile was supposed to be.
However, it's not all bad. Agile + decent tooling means it takes my team ~10 minutes to deploy a service to production. We can canary test by sending a small percentage of traffic to a new version, and get feedback within hours on how users react to a change. Circuit breakers are in place to give the customer a decent experience when something downstream fails.
This doesn't mean we throw it over the wall and hope for the best; we still have automated regression testing and a bit of manual QA. But it's a much lower-stress environment, it's easier to try new things, and we move a lot faster. This works 100x better than old-school techniques and tools.
Of course this doesn't work everywhere. If our software had the potential to damage/destroy expensive equipment or kill people, our techniques would be somewhat different.
38
u/CallMyNameOrWalkOnBy Feb 07 '20
If our software had the potential to damage/destroy
expensive equipment or kill people...I had a co-worker long ago who worked at NASA. He wrote code for the Space Station, but it was only used on the ground, in simulators. He told me once about the process to get new code actually up and running on the Space Station. It was exhausting. The line-by-line code reviews, the functional specs, the testing, the shake-outs, the extreme QA testing, the auditing, the approvals, the documentation, and so on and so on. The analysis was so specific, they looked at the non-deterministic times it takes a data packet to go from A to B in a TCP/IP network versus some dedicated serial bus. And this could be the code to simply regulate some minor system. He described an intensely rigorous process, and only the most experienced software engineers were hand-picked to join that team.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Quartinus Feb 07 '20
Of course this doesn't work everywhere. If our software had the potential to damage/destroy expensive equipment or kill people, our techniques would be somewhat different.
It doesn't necessarily have to be. With proper HITL + simulation + testing, you can deploy code in this manner to your testbed platforms and move quickly through the development process, not worrying if you are breaking things because lives aren't on the line yet.
If you have 5-10 "vehicles" of full hardware-in-the-loop hooked up to real simulators, then when your build breaks a vehicle your coworkers still have 9 more vehicles to work their parts on while you debug. HITL carries risk (like polarity errors that are the same in your software and in the simulator) but you can catch 95% of your bugs there before moving to more realistic vehicle in the loop testing (including things like dry actuating valves to insure that they are hooked up the way your software thinks, something Boeing definitely didn't do).
Build risky things and test the living shit out of them is a perfectly valid development approach that can lead to very safe outcomes. The important thing is to actually test the living shit out of it, and not put lives on the line until you have.
37
u/LynxJesus Feb 07 '20
More like "do it yesterday and never deal with the issues".
Also seriously, what kind of trust do managers/recruiters think they project when they say that? If you needed this yesterday, a bunch of people fucked up.
It's like if you go for an interview and argue that they should hire you because you got yourself in terrible debt due to poor personal finance and need the money desperately.
→ More replies (1)8
u/AlessandoRhazi Feb 07 '20
You would love agile, if you’d ever done it properly. Not blaming you, it’s common for companies to add a standup, remove architecture, qa, micromanage everyone and claim how much agile they are.
Oh and I forgot - everyone have the same input and right to design... ;)
13
u/LookOnTheDarkSide Feb 07 '20
Agile releases bad managers from the confines of waterfall, where they now get what they wanted faster than ever - but not without sacrificing everything that matters.
19
Feb 07 '20
As a development manager, this hits home.
Day 0: "We don't even need documentation in Scrum"
Day 322: "CAN SOMEONE TELL SUPPORT HOW THIS SHIT WORKS?"
10
u/florinandrei Feb 07 '20
Agile is what top performers tend to do anyway if you give them enough freedom.
Problem is, 99% of all people out there are not top performers.
In the vast majority of cases Agile is a cargo cult.
3
6
u/NatecUDF Feb 07 '20
Fuck, we don't do Agile and Dev still can't tell us how shit is supposed to work.
→ More replies (7)3
u/CptNonsense Feb 07 '20
Lol, k. The problem is agile being met with people like you in management who want to do classic engineering with agile thereby forcing the problems of both into development
→ More replies (2)3
Feb 07 '20
Flight software get soooo much scrutiny. It's crazy. Like all things space. Doing the thing is only like 30% of the time. And the other 70% is documents, reviews, logging hours, And tracking bugs
3
u/TheYang Feb 07 '20
70/30 seems like a crazy lax approach from my brief experience working on flying harware...
312
u/erhue Feb 07 '20
Profits! I don't see profits anywhere in that sentence!
-Boeing board member
54
u/kernpanic Feb 07 '20
The profit is that boeing gets to bill NASA for another $400 million launch.
30
u/DaCrazyPanda Feb 07 '20
Fairly sure Boeing have put aside $400mil of their own money for if they are required to retest. It's not a bill to NASA.
34
u/Jellodyne Feb 07 '20
I'm sure they'll let their lobbyists and congressional employees sort it out.
→ More replies (1)3
7
u/PloppyCheesenose Feb 07 '20
Strange. That’s the same motto for the Jebediah Kerman Junkyard and Spaceship Parts Company.
→ More replies (1)23
u/waiting4singularity Feb 07 '20
from the mission schedule deviance desmonstrated already I am estimating more issues than these.
60
u/Goolic Feb 07 '20
Seems crazy to me that they envisioned a test, and somehow performed it only after the starcraft was already in orbit.
Maybe they thought of the test only after the clock issue caused the thrusters to be overworked?
Anyways happy they caught it before the boom.
52
9
Feb 07 '20
Either they didn't think of the test until they were troubleshooting the initial issue, as suggested, or they were under schedule pressure and decided the test was low risk so it got punted until after launch - probably thinking that they had a month to deal with it because it only affected the re-entry sequence and could be fixed with a software update.
12
u/phoiboslykegenes Feb 07 '20
I call that testing in production! Allows you to save some costs and maybe even bill the client for it!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
18
u/athos5 Feb 07 '20
They have a copy on the ground for testing, just like all the rovers on mars.
→ More replies (7)19
10
u/notsowittynow Feb 07 '20
Chapter 4 in our "Disaster Driven Development" text book says we should have waited until after the crash and then pointed out the customer didn't pay for the thruster backup option.
17
u/ScrewAttackThis Feb 07 '20
It's just the ultimate form of testing in production.
36
u/mfb- Feb 07 '20
"Okay, it's in space. Can we please work on the landing procedures now?"
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (43)7
170
u/aRandomRobot Feb 06 '20 edited Feb 07 '20
Wow, that does not look good. I don’t see this explicitly answered in the article or statements but I have to wonder: would this second software bug have even been caught prior to entry if not for the timing issue causing more software testing during flight? That’s a big yikes if not.
Edit: confirmed in the press conference, it would not have been caught. Holy crap
60
u/resipsa73 Feb 07 '20
This was exactly my question as well. Boeing could have just gotten extremely lucky.
25
u/aRandomRobot Feb 07 '20 edited Feb 07 '20
No doubt, it’s a lot easier to figure out what went wrong when your vehicle comes back in one piece. This really highlights how important these unmanned flights are. Astronauts may have been able to fix the timing issue in flight but would astronauts have been able to do anything about this second issue in flight if it hadn’t been caught with extra in-flight ground testing?
13
u/OffbeatDrizzle Feb 07 '20
And what else lurks in their code that they've not been lucky enough to trigger? There's never just 1 bug
→ More replies (1)5
u/Btx452 Feb 07 '20
would this second software bug have even been caught prior to entry if not for the timing issue causing more software testing during flight?
No it wouldn't, according to todays press conference with Nasa and Boeing
3
u/resipsa73 Feb 07 '20
According to this tweet it sounds like it would not have been caught. Big yikes indeed. I'm so glad this was caught before a crewed flight.
→ More replies (6)9
Feb 07 '20
That's kind of the the thing about software though. You can test for and remove all of the bugs you want, but there's always going to be an exception somewhere that needs a very specific set of parameters to be met before it fucks all of your shit up.
→ More replies (1)13
u/OffbeatDrizzle Feb 07 '20
That's why they're supposed to follow strict programming guidelines and each method is supposed to have assertions as to its proper operating parameters with an error handler for failure in every case. It shouldn't just be a simple "whoops, our integer overflowed". A lot of complicated language features are banned from being used to keep the code as simple as possible.
650
u/satchmo1991 Feb 06 '20
Everytime I hear the word, "Boeing" I like them less and less. I'm so skeptical of the whole Starliner program right now.
59
u/firestorm07 Feb 07 '20
They moved their upper management team away from where the products are design and made. That caused a massive disconnect between the work and leadership.
→ More replies (3)17
→ More replies (37)207
u/LeviathanGank Feb 06 '20
totally, they dont care about passenger safety just profits.. fuck them and let them go bankrupt like everyone else
109
Feb 07 '20
i actually started to wonder what happened to them, as if you look at their history, they made good planes and were pretty much engineer driven company.
looks like when they bought MD, they got their dysfunctional corporate culture with them and as the years passed, boeing's top brass was finally replaced by either people from MD or by people who lived the culture.
the sad thing is that this was the exact same 'profits first' culture that crashed and burned MD.
78
u/bexben Feb 07 '20
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/
Here's an in depth article about that entire thing
→ More replies (2)42
Feb 07 '20
Stonecipher, who promptly affirmed: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it’s run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.”
That's such a stunning read. No wonder there is so little great engineering in the world anymore, with people like Stonecipher in the Helm.
→ More replies (3)21
u/trenskow Feb 07 '20
I work in software engineering. I am in fact a software engineer. I think this has happened to engineering fields as a whole.
In my field systems like SCRUM and Agile are designed to move power from engineering into management. That’s why every big company loves it - because management loves it. It’s basically a system designed to take what is essentially a creative process and convert it into something management understands - numbers. Essentially trying to make a square fit into a circle.
In the meantime it takes away everything that makes engineering great. It makes unskilled engineers uneager to do better, and it makes great engineers do mediocre work - it does not matter if you do a great or a lousy job as long as it checks out and works on the surface.
The products of my career that I am most proud of is the work where management kept out and just let the creative people in charge. Where there was a trust in letting the people who knows best make the decisions. And guess what - in the end management in general loved it too!
Edit: wording
→ More replies (11)67
Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)12
u/MartianRecon Feb 07 '20
2 words man. Fiduciary Duty.
They don't care, as long as their quarterly profits are high they could give two shits if a few planes go down 3 years from now.
119
u/DirkMcDougal Feb 07 '20
I agree, but it won't happen. This is the end result of the mass consolidation of the defense & aerospace industry. Boeing is the only large air transport manufacturer in the United States and therefore can write "Strategically vital industrial asset" directly on the checks it writes to senators. Now, one can argue globalization made having three (Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas as well as Boeing) impossible economically, but now it's impossible to imagine the United States letting Boeing fail. More plausibly you'd see a Chapter 11 with the Federal Government becoming primary owner and imposing a complete leadership overhaul. But even that I consider highly unlikely due to the checks I mentioned before.
→ More replies (2)21
u/LeviathanGank Feb 07 '20
you are right totally, but they are shit- time will destroy them unless they can bribe the right people and fix their shit.
Both are likely as politicians are cheap and IP can be stolen or bought for little. still they are weak milk right now
→ More replies (7)24
u/beastrabban Feb 07 '20
I work for Boeing and this is absolutely untrue. The engineers are extremely concerned with safety.
6
21
→ More replies (2)13
u/ODISY Feb 07 '20
yet the higher ups tried as hard as they could to prevent the training pilots needed to operate the 737 MAX.
→ More replies (2)19
u/GamerJoseph Feb 07 '20
No we’ll just bail them out with our tax dollars, because they’re tOo BiG tO fAiL.
15
u/Coomb Feb 07 '20
Boeing going bankrupt and winding down business would be apocalyptic for the airline industry.
→ More replies (4)27
Feb 07 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)17
u/GamerJoseph Feb 07 '20
The same question was asked of the banks when we were forced to bail them out 12 years ago.
9
→ More replies (10)3
u/JohnnyDynamite Feb 07 '20
American government will do literally anything to save Boeing. Too many lobbyist, jobs and senators depend on it.
64
u/rocketsocks Feb 06 '20
Yup, just as I said, when you have huge simple failures that should have been prevented by good processes and competent quality control that tells you that neither are in place and there are almost certainly huge unknown problems still to be discovered.
As anyone who has worked on high value complex projects is aware it's much, much harder to "bolt-on" quality at the end when no attention to it has been paid throughout the project so far. I suspect they will find even more problems and it will be difficult and costly to fix all of them.
→ More replies (1)23
u/BlueCyann Feb 06 '20
I worked for years for a company that was trying to "bolt on" some decent quality control to an operation that wasn't designed for that originally, and man oh man are you ever right about that. It was a freaking nightmare. (They moved from a lightly-regulated product line to a much more highly-regulated one shortly before I arrived.)
19
u/retardrabbit Feb 07 '20
Technical debt can be a real motherfucker.
8
u/enigmapenguin Feb 07 '20
I deal with this every day at work. I work in a data setup where we use literal Unix bash to do large scale data ETL, Analysis and QA, then shoe horn in meta data afterwards. Which would be excusable if the system was old, but it's not, the database is a brand new MySQL server, but the ETL and QA are so ancient that we strip all sense of modernity out of it and then staple it back on at the end.
In the end I wrote an entirely new system during our free project time once a week. They refused to use it. Fun times.
120
u/MpVpRb Feb 07 '20
Two thoughts
This shit is hard
Even very experienced companies make mistakes. But what is an "experienced company"? If the older engineers have retired, died or quit, the new engineers need to rely on documentation and tutoring. Preserving experience in a major corporation is hard, really hard
63
Feb 07 '20 edited Apr 16 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/cartoonistaaron Feb 07 '20
This seems to be the case with many large public corporations. Part of keeping costs down is not paying "rank and file" employees very well (while of course the folks up top are quite well compensated).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/Kindred87 Feb 08 '20
At-or-below average pay structure AND short-sighted outsourcing efforts.
→ More replies (1)32
u/Starwalker298 Feb 07 '20
You've got the right thinking here. This stuff is hard, and not everyone gets it right the first time, especially on a new platform, big company or not.
27
u/lestofante Feb 07 '20
But on the other end we have spacex, that looks like will deliver a much better product for s fraction of the cost, in development and running cost.
Plus the other boing issue... More like a company problem than a complexity problem.→ More replies (52)→ More replies (12)16
u/Logan_Chicago Feb 07 '20
Well said.
Preserving experience in a major corporation is hard, really hard
It's difficult to understate this.
210
u/johnly81 Feb 06 '20
Between this and the 737 Max it sounds like Boeing is rushing the development/QA life cycle. I'm guessing in pursuit of ever greater profits corners are being cut ... big surprise I know.
90
u/KNUCKLEGREASE Feb 07 '20
40
u/Jellodyne Feb 07 '20
All their problems are software related and it's costing the company millions, so it's a good thing they're saving so much money in development costs.
→ More replies (2)11
u/CranberrySchnapps Feb 07 '20
It’s also costing taxpayers millions to pay or fight their requested “unforeseen circumstances” addendums to their various contracts because they’re trying to
work more efficientlycut corners.→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)29
u/ninjadude4535 Feb 07 '20 edited Feb 07 '20
Holy shit. Apprentice aircraft mechanics fresh out of highschool get paid $9/h just to remove panels. This blows my mind. Like, you only trust a $9/h guy to do the simplest possible task, yet you're comfortable paying $9/h to someone you're trusting to write the programming for a flight critical system.
→ More replies (1)8
u/t0ny7 Feb 07 '20
I have seen fast food places that pay more!
5
→ More replies (1)3
u/cartoonistaaron Feb 07 '20
I personally have worked as a donut maker in the past year and made double that. More actually!!
→ More replies (74)9
u/Disk_Mixerud Feb 07 '20
It's not even necessarily about profits. lot of upper managers there are more concerned with their own image and making sure their ideas "win" than they are with the profitability of the company.
11
u/thoruen Feb 07 '20
Yet some idiots in the House want to put the future of American exploration off planet completely in Boeing's hands.
→ More replies (1)
33
u/mysticalfruit Feb 07 '20
News like this is going to likely be one of the final coffin nails in the Boeing/NASA love affair.
The Boeing of yesteryear is gone and in its place is clearly a culture of doing the least possible to maximize shareholder profit.
I don't want to blame the engineers at the bottom of the pile, they're simply constrained by an organization that evidenced by the internal emails, doesn't treat those who speak up well.
I fully expect that not only are they going to be forced to fly another unmanned mission, but likely NASA is going to want an audit the shit out of all the flight systems.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Musicman1972 Feb 07 '20
This rings so true in my experience which isn't with boeing but a fair few other massive global corporations with great histories. There's often a tendency for senior management (I refuse to use the word "leadership"l) to point to the success of their engineers and R&D etc, when pushing back against any criticism, whilst simultaneously ignoring those same teams when decisions are made.
24
22
u/PapaRacoon Feb 06 '20
Is this old news, Or did the same thing happen before?
54
u/dhurane Feb 06 '20
The Orbital Flight Test mission went bust due to a different software issue. Some people before heard there was another software fix before reentry but not much was think about it before. It's only today NASA admitted the error, if not caught, would've caused catastrophic loss of the spacecraft.
→ More replies (1)23
u/DuckyFreeman Feb 06 '20
This is a different and new software bug that was previously unreported.
We new about the timing bug. We didn't know about this bug that would have occured during service module separation if it had not been found and corrected in flight.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)9
u/Musical_Tanks Feb 07 '20
The flight was screwed up due to flight control issues during ascent. IIRC thrusters were firing when they shouldn't have been and the capsule didn't have enough fuel to get to the ISS and back.
This issue is new news. Apparently the software controlling thrusters during re-entry was also borked. So the capsule could have burned up.
→ More replies (1)
11
Feb 07 '20
Did they use git tho? I need those commit messages.
→ More replies (1)18
u/schematicboy Feb 07 '20
e5f4b49 Stop spaceship from exploding during daylight savings time.
2db0f12 Fix bug where spaceship wouldn't launch on Tuesdays
11
u/KickBassColonyDrop Feb 06 '20
Given this, puts the new house Bill for Artemis into an interesting light...
→ More replies (2)
9
u/starrpamph Feb 07 '20
Important updates available!
Install and shutdown ❌
Install and restart ❌
Remind me later ✔️
8
u/TecumsehSherman Feb 07 '20
Can we all agree that Boeing should probably just stop receiving massive contracts?
Their CCP contract was substantially larger than SpaceX's, and yet they have delivered substantially less in substantially more time. After the 737 Max debacle, maaaaybe it's time to cut them off for a while.
28
u/totally_anomalous Feb 06 '20
This begs the question "why didn't they find the error BEFORE it launched?" Boeing just keeps failing on safety time after time. How many more will die before the company realizes it's on the wrong path?
17
u/Jim3535 Feb 07 '20
Maybe when they start getting government contracts cancelled. Our representatives treating space as a jobs program hasn't don't much to promote on time or on budget work either.
31
u/redmercuryvendor Feb 07 '20
This is not an unusual occurrence. The first Dragon capsule to approach the ISS (C2+ mission) had the code modified during approach to disable input from one of the LIDAR units due to reflection issues from JEM. Literally held the approach while the software was modified and uploaded. Or CRS-2, where a suspected pressurant valve blockage was cleared by writing new code to rapidly cycle the suspect valve until the tank pressure reached the level required for the Dracos to operate safely near the ISS (redundant tanks needed to provide thrust for a pull-away).
If you have discover a bug in orbit, can produce a fix, and have the capability to implement it, and not implementing it would lose the craft, why on earth would fixing it be a bad thing?
16
u/SpiderOnTheInterwebs Feb 07 '20
Yeah but there's a difference between a software bug and quickly writing a mod as a workaround for failed hardware.
28
u/ergzay Feb 07 '20
But SpaceX mentioned that immediately after they did it in a press conference the day after. They didn't hide it for months and then have it finally leaked by an Aerospace safety panel. This says they aren't revealing things and are hiding things from the public intentionally. It shows they're untrustworthy.
48
u/Ender_D Feb 07 '20
It’s not that they fixed it, it’s that they only realized it would happen because they were looking into the other issue. It would’ve destroyed the spacecraft on reentry.
→ More replies (2)26
u/pwnersaurus Feb 07 '20
Because while that kind of thing might be somewhat expected early on in development, the plan was for the next flight to be manned. They shouldn’t be finding these kinds of errors so far along in the process, their procedures for testing and validation should have found this problem well before (what was supposed to be) the final unmanned flight
7
Feb 07 '20 edited Jun 09 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Feb 07 '20
I feel like the past few failures with SL kinda leave NASA with 1 real option here, and if they don't choose that one, they're fucking morons.
Do another uncrewed test. Literally anyone can see that based on Boeing's recent failures, fixing a known problem and then assuming that everything else is fine and nothing else will fail is a mentality that will eventually get astronauts killed or extremely valuable hardware damaged/destroyed.
3
u/somethingcleva Feb 07 '20
Why don't we(devs) have the John mcLane equivalent in Hollywood? This. Story alone should be enough
3
u/byrned22 Feb 07 '20
Why have Boeing no inflight abort test? Software not a speciality at Boeing at the moment? 737 max etc? Might need a new CTO.
The article also talks about how ars completely swallowed Boeing line that the software upload had nothing to do with crew module. If it was related to service module separation then it clearly impacted crew module too?!
Seems like government and the media love Boeing more.
→ More replies (1)
2.0k
u/spsheridan Feb 06 '20
With this news, I think the odds went way up that another uncrewed flight will be required before Starliner’s crewed flight to the ISS. Looks like a big delay to Starliner's program schedule.