| Recurring |
unknown |
The provided article does not mention any software failure incident happening again at the same organization (a) or at multiple organizations (b). Therefore, the information related to these options is 'unknown'. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase: The incident involving the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion was not directly attributed to a software failure in the design phase. The failure was explained as a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that led to a chemical reaction destroying the spacecraft [86995].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase: The incident involving the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion was not directly attributed to a software failure in the operation phase. The failure was explained as a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that led to a chemical reaction destroying the spacecraft [86995]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident involving the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion was attributed to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, leading to an unexpected explosive reaction [86995]. This issue was identified as a problem entirely within the pressurization system and not tied to any flaws in the Crew Dragon's engines. SpaceX planned to address this by replacing the valves with burst disks to mitigate the risk [86995].
(b) outside_system: There is no specific mention in the articles about contributing factors originating from outside the system leading to the software failure incident. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the SpaceX Crew Dragon explosion was not directly attributed to non-human actions but rather to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, leading to an unexpected explosive reaction [86995].
(b) The failure in the SpaceX Crew Dragon explosion was due to contributing factors introduced by human actions, specifically the design and implementation of the pressurization system that allowed the leak to occur, resulting in the destructive chemical reaction [86995]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident in the SpaceX Crew Dragon explosion was not directly related to software issues but rather to a hardware failure. The incident was attributed to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, leading to an unexpected explosive reaction [86995]. The problem was within the hardware system, specifically the pressurization system, and not tied to any flaws in the Crew Dragon's engines.
(b) There is no information in the provided article indicating that the software failure incident was due to contributing factors originating in software. The focus of the incident was on a hardware-related issue involving a leak in the pressurization system leading to the explosion of the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule during a ground test [86995]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion was non-malicious. The incident was attributed to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, leading to an unexpected explosive reaction [86995]. The company stated that the reaction between titanium and the oxidizer at high pressure was not expected, indicating that the failure was not due to malicious intent but rather a technical flaw in the system. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
[86995] The software failure incident involving the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion was not directly related to software issues but rather to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that led to a surprising chemical reaction. This incident can be categorized more as an accidental_decisions failure, as it was caused by a leak allowing a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, resulting in an unexpected explosive reaction. The incident was not due to poor decisions but rather an unintended consequence of the pressurization system design. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the SpaceX Crew Dragon explosion was not directly related to development incompetence. The incident was attributed to a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, leading to an unexpected explosive reaction [86995].
(b) The software failure incident in the SpaceX Crew Dragon explosion was accidental. It was caused by a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that allowed a liquid oxidizer to make contact with a titanium valve, resulting in an unexpected explosive reaction between the two substances [86995]. |
| Duration |
unknown |
The software failure incident described in the article is not related to a permanent or temporary software failure. Instead, it is related to a physical failure involving a leak in the spacecraft's pressurization system that led to a surprising chemical reaction, ultimately resulting in the explosion of the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule during a ground test at Cape Canaveral [86995]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion can be categorized as a crash. The incident led to the destruction of the spacecraft during a ground test at Cape Canaveral in Florida, where the system lost its state and failed to perform its intended functions, resulting in the unexpected explosion [Article 86995].
(b) omission: There is no specific mention of the software failure incident being related to omission in the articles.
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions but too late or too early.
(d) value: The software failure incident is not related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident is not related to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a crash due to the unexpected explosion during the ground test, leading to the destruction of the spacecraft [Article 86995]. |