4 ms·
NASA may be taking a different approach, but in civilian aerospace it is prohibited to have code that doesn't run or doesn't trace to a system requirement. I as
by inamberclad 2y ago
NASA may be taking a different approach, but in civilian aerospace it is prohibited to have code that doesn't run or doesn't trace to a system requirement. I assume that was their rationale for removing it.
- vel0city 2y agoThis same base capsule design is also supposed to operate autonomously. It previously attempted an autonomous docking. The code was written, it was approved for flight previously. It is not like "autonomous docking" was never a part of the specification for this model of craft; it just wasn't the expected process for this particular mission. Boeing just didn't bother to make it so the mission could potentially be changed in-flight, they just decided they'll load a software profile on the ground and that missions will just never change.
- inamberclad 2y agoNo, it's really stricter than that in my experience. You verify your software against the requirements. There shall be no deactivated code, even code which as previously flown before is not safe. See the first Ariane 5 launch for a reference. I assume that is why they removed it. Of course, this isn't to say that Boeing doesn't have much more serious problems going on, they clearly do.