Comments by "ke6gwf - Ben Blackburn" (@ke6gwf) on "Why Starliner mission mishap could be a big loss for Boeing" video.

This was a demonstration mission to show that they were ready to fly astronauts to the ISS. It showed that they are not correct in their assumptions, and have serious testing and quality control issues, because it obviously wasn't ready to fly.
1
Nope, I remember it well, and I also remember how Boeing bragged about how they had more experience doing this than SpaceX, and I also remember how SpaceX spent months working closely with NASA to find and solve the problem with Crew Dragon, and now after it had a picture perfect demonstration mission to the ISS, they are getting ready to do the in flight abort test, and are now ahead of Boeing's schedule. And now Boeing will have to spend months going over this failure with NASA to find the problems and solve them, and then recertify it to NASAs satisfaction.
1
@Jimmy_Jones yup, they just got 10 successful tests in a row with the new design chutes, which are probably the most advanced chutes ever made, and built by the top company.
1
@chrisjct the goal was a couple of weeks at the ISS, to demonstrate the capabilities of the capsule, and deliver the cargo it was hauling to the ISS. A couple of days in a different orbit is a failure for the mission goals. Also, just like with MCAS, the issue isn't a simple problem with a line of code, it's a deep problem of a software system that has no error checking or fault tolerance, combined with a lack of testing and verification to find these obvious and glaring issues before launch. And while you may say that that's why they test, this wasn't supposed to be a test flight, this was supposed to be a demonstration mission. SpaceX is the one who does test flights and iteration, and all up qualification tests. Boeing qualifies each part and system separately, so that when the finished product is complete, it is ready to fly with no more testing. And in previous cases such as Apollo or the Shuttle, your first flight had to be manned, so you needed this kind of system qualification. But they said that everything was qualified and ready for flight, but they were wrong, and that calls their ability to design and test everything into question, so it's far more than just a line of code to be adjusted.
1
So you spend a few hundred million dollars on a mission to the ISS, but actually getting TO the ISS isn't important? Do you understand the whole point of this capsule, and the capabilities they were trying to show off?
1