4 ms·
> Because of the clock problem, Boeing engineers started searching to see if there were other flaws in the software. On the evening before landing, they found o
by hwbehrens 7y ago
> Because of the clock problem, Boeing engineers started searching to see if there were other flaws in the software. On the evening before landing, they found one.
I feel like, maybe, some baseline QA would be a good idea for a multi-million dollar rocket. If they were able to find this bug in the middle of the mission, then presumably with some more robust testing tools, it could have been caught in a relatively short time?
I wonder what the possible justification would be for skipping testing. As a cost-saving measure for getting an MVP or website change pushed out the door, I understand -- as the foundational control software for a difficult-to-replace, very costly hardware artifact, it seems like the very definition of penny-wise, pound-foolish.
- ibrault 7y agoI can't imagine that they skipped testing altogether. It seems much more likely that it was just very poor testing that managed to completely skirt the issue
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bumby 7y agoThere are plenty of QA-related requirements [1], [2]. To a certain extent, the incentives (cost, schedule) may align with contractors trying to skirt as many requirements as possible as long as NASA doesn't catch them: >Mr. Loverro acknowledged that NASA failed to identify the weaknesses in Boeing’s work. “Our NASA oversight was insufficient,” [1] https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/NASA-STD-8739-8.pdf https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/NAS... [2] https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/NASA-STD-8719-13C.pdf https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/NAS...