{"id":12664,"date":"2020-02-07T19:20:43","date_gmt":"2020-02-07T11:20:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/nasa-boeing-managers-admit-problems-with-starliner-software-verification\/"},"modified":"2020-02-07T19:20:43","modified_gmt":"2020-02-07T11:20:43","slug":"nasa-boeing-managers-admit-problems-with-starliner-software-verification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/nasa-boeing-managers-admit-problems-with-starliner-software-verification\/","title":{"rendered":"NASA, Boeing managers admit problems with Starliner software verification"},"content":{"rendered":"

EDITOR\u2019S NOTE: <\/strong>Updated at 6 p.m. EDT (2300 GMT) after NASA and Boeing media teleconference.<\/p>\n

STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS & USED WITH PERMISSION<\/p>\n

\"\"
Artist\u2019s concept of the Starliner service module (top) separating from the Starliner crew module before re-entry. Credit: Boeing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Two software errors detected after launch of a Boeing Starliner crew ship during an unpiloted test flight last December, one of which prevented a planned docking with the International Space Station, could have led to catastrophic failures had they not been caught and corrected in time, NASA said Friday.<\/p>\n

An independent review board \u201cfound the two critical software defects were not detected ahead of flight despite multiple safeguards,\u201d according to an agency statement. \u201cGround intervention prevented loss of vehicle in both cases.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a teleconference with reporters, Douglas Loverro, director of spaceflight operations at NASA Headquarters, said the issues uncovered by the investigators go beyond the specifics of the software errors and an unexpected communications glitch that initially prevented flight controllers from commanding the spacecraft.<\/p>\n

\u201cToo put it bluntly, the issue that we\u2019re dealing with is that we have numerous process escapes in the software design, development and test cycle for Starliner,\u201d he said. The errors themselves \u201care likely only symptoms, they are not the real problem. The real problem is that we had numerous process escapes\u201d that allowed the errors to slip through.<\/p>\n

The Starliner software is made up of a million lines of code and \u201cas we go forward, that is what we\u2019re going to be concentrating on, how do we assure ourselves that all of the software that we\u2019ve delivered, not just the two routines that were affected by these issues, are fixed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOur NASA oversight was insufficient,\u201d Loverro concluded. \u201cThat\u2019s obvious, and we we recognize that. And I think that\u2019s good learning for us. The independent review team didn\u2019t just have recommendations for Boeing, it\u2019s got recommendations for us as well, and we\u2019re going to take all those to heart.\u201d<\/p>\n

Neither Loverro, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine nor Boeing Starliner project manager John Mulholland would speculate on whether a second unpiloted test flight might be ordered or even whether a Starliner, piloted or unpiloted, would fly this year. No such decisions will be made until after the safety review concludes at the end of the month.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe will not speculate right now on a specific launch date,\u201d Mulholland said. \u201cWhat we have to do is fully understand the scope of the corrective actions, implement that into a work plan. Once we get that scope defined \u2026 we\u2019ll be able to evaluate a specific launch target.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Boeing CST-100 Starliner was launched from Cape Canaveral atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 rocket on Dec. 20. The goal of the flight was to put the commercial crew ship through its paces, from launch through rendezvous and docking with the space station to re-entry and splashdown, to clear the capsule for a piloted test flight.<\/p>\n

The Atlas 5 put the Starliner onto a sub-orbital trajectory as planned. After release from the rocket\u2019s Centaur second stage, the spacecraft was expected to fire its own thrusters to put the craft into a safe orbit. But the critical orbit insertion rocket firing never happened, and the Starliner continued along a trajectory that, without quick corrective action, would have resulted in a catastrophic unplanned re-entry.<\/p>\n

After struggling with communications glitches, engineers finally managed to regain control and put the spacecraft in a safe orbit. But by then, too much propellant had been wasted to press ahead with a planned rendezvous with the International Space Station. Instead, flight controllers focused on carrying out as many other tests as possible before bringing the ship down for landing in New Mexico two days later.<\/p>\n

The Starliner\u2019s failure to execute the orbit insertion burn was blamed on software that incorrectly set the spacecraft\u2019s internal clocks based on data retrieved from the Atlas 5\u2019s flight control system. The Starliner code should have retrieved the time during the terminal countdown, after the Atlas 5\u2019s clocks were precisely set for launch.<\/p>\n

Instead, the Starliner computer retrieved the time used during an earlier countdown sequence and as a result, its timer was 11 hours off from the actual time. That, in turn, threw off the timing of downstream post-launch events like the orbit insertion burn.<\/p>\n

With that problem finally corrected, engineers began reviewing other critical software sequences as a precaution and discovered yet another problem. Software used to control thruster firings needed to safely jettison the Starliner\u2019s service module just before re-entry was mis-configured, set for the wrong phase of flight.<\/p>\n

Had the problem not been found and corrected, the cylindrical service module\u2019s thrusters could have fired in the wrong sequence, driving it back into the crew module and possibly triggering a tumble or even damaging the ship\u2019s protective heat shield.<\/p>\n

While a detailed analysis was not carried out at the time, \u201cnothing good can come from those two spacecraft bumping back into one another,\u201d said Jim Chilton, a senior vice president for Boeing Space and Launch.<\/p>\n

The timing problem was widely known during the Starliner test flight, but the service module issue was not revealed in any detail until a meeting of the NASA Aerospace Safety and Advisory Panel Thursday, setting off widespread social media calls for more information and \u201ctransparency\u201d from NASA\u2019s Commercial Crew Program.<\/p>\n

NASA responded with the on-line statement and media teleconference Friday.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is very unusual for NASA to do a press conference about what the investigation results are as the investigation is underway,\u201d Bridenstine said. \u201cBut in the interest of transparency and, you know, some of the things that I saw online yesterday, I wanted to make sure that everybody knew kind of where we were in the investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Engineers are still investigating what caused the communications glitches that initially prevented flight controllers from quickly correcting the timing issue. As it turns out, Mulholland said high background radio noise, possibly from cell phone towers, may have played a role.<\/p>\n

In any case, \u201csoftware defects, particularly in complex spacecraft code, are not unexpected,\u201d NASA said in its statement. \u201cHowever, there were numerous instances where the Boeing software quality processes either should have or could have uncovered the defects.<\/p>\n

\u201cDue to these breakdowns found in design, code and test of the software, they will require systemic corrective actions. The team has already identified a robust set of 11 top-priority corrective actions. More will be identified after the team completes its additional work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Said Mulholland: \u201cNobody is more disappointed in the issues that we uncovered \u2026 than the Starliner team. But to a person, they\u2019re committed to resolving these issues in partnership with NASA and the IRT and safely returning to flight.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since the space shuttle\u2019s retirement in 2011, NASA has been forced to buy seats aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft to ferry U.S. and partner astronauts to and from the International Space Station.<\/p>\n

To end sole reliance on Russia for transportation to and from the space station, NASA announced in 2014 that Boeing and SpaceX would share $6.8 billion to develop independent space taxis, the first new U.S. crewed spacecraft since the 1970s.<\/p>\n

Under a $2.6 billion contract, SpaceX is building a crewed version of its Dragon cargo ship that will ride into orbit atop the company\u2019s Falcon 9 rocket. Boeing\u2019s Starliner is being developed under a $4.2 billion contract.<\/p>\n

SpaceX carried out a successful unpiloted flight to the space station in March 2019, but suffered a major setback the following April when that same Crew Dragon capsule was destroyed during a ground test. The California rocket builder has recovered from that incident and carried out a successful in-flight abort test in January.<\/p>\n

It is widely expected that SpaceX will be ready to launch a Crew Dragon carrying two NASA astronauts \u2014 Douglas Hurley and Robert Behnken \u2014 sometime this spring.<\/p>\n

Boeing\u2019s unpiloted test flight in December was only partially successful because of the two software errors and the communications glitch. It\u2019s not yet known whether NASA will order a second unpiloted test flight or whether Boeing will be cleared to press ahead for a piloted mission after corrective actions are implemented.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s still too early for us to definitively share the root causes and full set of corrective actions needed for the Starliner system,\u201d NASA said. \u201cWe do expect to have those results at the end of February, as was our initial plan.<\/p>\n

\u201cMost critically, we want to assure that these necessary steps are completely understood prior to determining the plan for future flights. Separate from the anomaly investigation, NASA also is still reviewing the data collected during the flight test to help determine that future plan. NASA expects a decision on this review to be complete in the next several weeks.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EDITOR\u2019S NOTE: Updated at 6 p.m. EDT (2300 GMT) after NASA and Boeing media teleconference. STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS & USED WITH PERMISSION Artist\u2019s concept of the Starliner service module (top) separating from the Starliner crew module before re-entry. Credit: Boeing Two software errors detected after launch of a Boeing Starliner crew ship during an unpiloted test […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[670,524,291,1565,1305,2267,717,190],"class_list":["post-12664","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-boeing","tag-commercial-crew","tag-commercial-space","tag-cst-100","tag-cst-100-crew-flight-test","tag-cst-100-orbital-flight-test","tag-international-space-station","tag-nasa"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12664"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12664\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}