Thoughts on flight rationale from Wayne Hale.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, now I see why Wayne wrote that:
As NASA is working to balance all of these risks—the risk to crew on board Starliner, the risk of an uncrewed departure to the ISS, the risk to astronauts on board the space station, and more — Boeing has been lobbying to bring Starliner home with crew. Although NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause for the failure of the thrusters, Boeing has been urging NASA to accept “flight rationale” as a substitute. That is, Boeing believes it has provided enough data to NASA to be confident the thrusters will not fail in a catastrophic manner.
Boeing seems willing to risk the lives of the astronauts to save the vehicle. I don’t personally think it’s worth saving. I wonder what Boeing’s new CEO thinks?
Supposedly, the decision as to how to proceed anent Starliner is due to be made later this week. But that decision was also expected to be made last week, and conspicuously was not. So I’m not holding my breath.
At the presser yesterday, Steve Stich finally clarified: A decision has to be made by “mid-August” for purposes of planning by NASA, SpaceX, and Boeing. So,Boeing has one more week to try to make its case.
According to the Babylon Bee, regardless of the decision of when/how Butch and Sunni are to return, Boeing has decided to provide them with a special benefit upon their return to compensate for their extended stay at the ISS. Assuming they both like seafood and extended ground travel.
On the NASA teleconference today, sounds like the decision will be deferred by two more weeks. So we’re looking at an August 28th time-frame, with Crew 9 Dragon being the fall-back even though that hasn’t been discussed in the affirmative (so far).
What’s is interesting (to me) is that NASA put out the possibility that this experimental flight may NOT be considered a mission failure should crew not return on Starliner. Which implies? What? The next Starliner flight might be considered a non-test flight? Interesting…
Crew 8 return rejected. EVA to examine the Starliner service module also ruled out. Emphasis is on capsule thrusters.
Contingency should evac emergency after uncrewed Starliner departure but prior to Crew 9 flight, Butch and Sunni return unsuited on Crew 8.
“Boeing seems willing to risk the lives of the astronauts to save the vehicle. I don’t personally think it’s worth saving. I wonder what Boeing’s new CEO thinks?”
Well, you don’t think SLS is worth saving, once we have a gas station in orbit, I probably would agree.
But does NASA think it’s worth spending more money to get to crew back, is another question. And if so, what do the crew, want? {it’s their life}.
I have no problem with NASA spending money to get the crew back (they’ll have to pay SpaceX for it), but I wouldn’t spend money or risk crew to get that Starliner back.
By now you’ve heard the news it can’t undock with a crew aboard.
Without. Needs different software. Memory storage issues?
They do have the software programs for uncrewed undocking and EDL. What they don’t have on board are the new mission parameters. So those have to be generated, uploaded, and tested.
SpaceX would never have had this issue. Software is in their wheelhouse, and Dragon is designed from the ground up for highly automated operation.
I bring up storage issues simply because I’m wondering why not have both available?
It appears to be the case of either/or.
It was described as a major swap out.
Doable but not desirable… It will take time to complete and test. Hence the Crew-9 delay.
What I mean by “gas station in orbit” is any party can buy LOX in orbit. So not just SpaceX or Blue Origin can can use the rocket fuel {for their lunar contracts}.
And it seems to me, SLS becomes a far more valuable rocket, if it can use a gas station. Or it might not need NASA funding, assuming they manage to be somewhat competent.
Normalizing deviance again?
I remember when plethora of data was used to obfuscate o-ring erosion too…
If only that was the only issue Feynman found…
Now that there are options other than burning up the crew, I don’t believe NASA nor any of it’s contractors need the army of science fiction writers they have employed to convince us of their competence.
The one horrible factor not considered: The Crew Dragon fails on re-entry and Starliner returns just fine. The thing that gives a Wayne Hale nightmares.
Safe is not an option…
I worked a lot of mission issues when we had a back up shuttle orbiter ready. I was skeptical of this because odds of success went up if we could determine that it was needed before ISS docking on Flight Day 3. This forced making early decisions with bad data, the good data being the photos downloaded during ISS docking. But that extra day could start the process of prolonging expendables for a longer stay, which would be much more difficult for the shuttle than the newer capsules designed for a longer stay.
For that reason, I wasn’t thinking rescue mission via Dragon for much of this situation. Once I learned the next Dragon was only weeks away, I can’t imagine NASA S&MA going for crew return on Starliner.
I suspect Starliner can’t return without a crew. That’s not because of some notion that only the crew can pull the chutes or lower the landing gear (to claim they were needed over a monkey as often rumored). I don’t think the docking hatch can be secured externally. Why would it have an external locking device? They enter and exit via a side hatch on the ground. If the docking hatch can’t be secured, the entire would quickly freeze while trying to maneuver, and then hot gas could enter on entry. Those things could foul a safe return of the capsule without a crew. Boeing will want to certify the heatshield.
Tough cookies. Get the crew home safely.
Starliner OFT-2 could be accessed from ISS without a crew aboard (obviously) and there are videos on YouTube showing it happening, including the ISS crew having some trouble securing the hatch before it could leave. This stuff is common knowledge. As to whether Boeing changed the hatch to make it impossible on CFT, I can’t say, other than to note it would be no stupider that the other things they’ve done.
If they go down one docking port what’s left usable?
Nevermind RTFA…
Minor re-write of the CC-Dev contract from crew vehicle to new station module. Boeing to NASA: please pay up…
The article makes it sound as if the issue is flight software nothing else…
I’ve seen such things done (Orion Pad Abort 1 comes to mind), but I’ll accept that maybe they didn’t change the hatch design between missions. I really didn’t follow the previous missions of Starliner.
Latest news is they might have changed the software, so even if the hatch is well secured, the vehicle computers can’t undock without a crew. I never thought that would be the case based on previous missions.
“Will they ever return? No! They’ll never return,
“And their fate will be unlearned
“They will ever orbit the Sol System
“They’re the crew that never returned.
Something just don’t add up. NASA scheduled Crew 9, then delayed it because of the apparent great difficulty in getting an uncrewed Starliner away from the station (and thus, there are currently no available docking ports).
If that’s all true, then, why did NASA schedule Crew 9 in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is NASA was unaware that Starliner no longer has autonomous undock/reentry capabilities (unlike its first two missions) and Boeing only told NASA after the ticking clock of Crew 9 forced their hand.
If so, my bet is that NASA is decidedly displeased.
And, what if they do decide to try patching the software and bring Starliner back unmanned to White Sands, like the first two flights? Seems to me that patching the software like that, plus the balky thrusters and other issues, increase the risk to people living under the entry corridors (a break up during reentry would scatter a lot of high velocity debris well short of White Sands). And, on the first flight of starliner, one of the two approach paths (and thus, debris potential) went right over northern Arizona, including right over my house. My guess is that the two approach corridors are pretty much locked in because of ISS orbital inclination.
Wouldn’t it make far more sense to try landing the thing at a site where the debris footprint isn’t over inhabited areas?
Don’t you want a souvenir?
Well, I guess I’m picky. A small fragment, great. But, the heat shield hitting my house at hypersonic velocities… I can’t quite put my finger on the reason why, but it’s just not as appealing, for some odd reason. 🙂
Our federal government could help you build a new house!
Erk… I’m sure the Feds would build me a new house with all the competency of the Secret Service, plus all the friendliness of the IRS.
I can see it now… they’d neglect small details, like putting in bathrooms, or a roof. (the Secret Service in particular can’t abide by roofs with any slope…)
Whatever the Feds built for you can’t be much worse than some of the shoddy and nightmarish construction I’ve seen in news stories lately from supposed “home builders” in Arizona and other high-growth areas.
As a bonus, in each replacement house the Feds build, they install a speaker that plays “you didn’t build that!” any time you press the doorbell button…
@ Johnny B
Indeed, there are some quite shoddy things built here. However, it’s mainly by developers, and far from all of them. Still, I was at a party in a million+ new house last week (very expensive for my region) and wow, the lack of construction quality was astounding. Shoddy plastering and masonry work, a doorbell chime that must have cost the builder all of $3, and leaks from the roof and windows. I wouldn’t hire that crew to build a garden shed, let alone a house.
But, I have every confidence that the feds could do vastly worse. 🙂
Well aerodynamics will prevent it being hypersonic upon impact, nonetheless:
Put up a sign and sell tickets!
This crater, formerly a residence, was formed as the result of the Starliner capsule under uncontrolled decent impacting with a force of over 26,000 lbs at over 200 miles per hour.
Several nearby homes were damaged due to crater ejecta.
There were some injuries to people in the neighborhood but all minor fortunately.
Please watch your step as you descend down the stairs to the crater floor.
Fortunately no one was home at the time of impact as they were all (ironically) at the local Sonic Burger getting dinner.
ROFL!
Hrmmm… impact velocity depends on density/surface area. If I recall correctly, Columbia’s three main engines are thought to have been high supersonic when they hit a lake, and buried themselves so deep in the silt they’ve never been found.
The potential debris footprint for dangerous debris would be pretty narrow, so heading for literally any town in the area would put me out of it. I may very well go shopping, and grab a burger. 🙂
It would make for a great story and that is priceless.
Well, true, but for some odd reason I’d prefer to be alive to tell it. 🙂
Oh, you don’t have to worry about that. By the time any large chunks of the spacecraft reach the ground, they’ll be going subsonic. The question is the mass of the chunks.
Don’t worry, it will slow to some terminal velocity of a couple hundred miles an hour before it hits your house. The only debris that might be a problem is the engines, being dense.
As far as NASA being informed of the software change, it would probably covered on page 802 in the End User Agreement the astronauts had to acknowledge when they booted the mission computer before liftoff.
Notice how nobody is suggesting Russia send up a rescue Soyuz, even though they’ve already demonstrated they can do it? Of course, some people here insist the Russian manned space program ended several years ago and what would have to come up is a Potemkin Soyuz.
With or without pre-drilled holes?
Our relations with Russia are rather frosty ATM, so hitching a ride on a Soyuz is less desirable than getting them home in a Crew Dragon (if only slightly).
Don’t tell me, you’re the new foreign policy expert for the incoming Harris-Walz administration?
I take your point.
There are a few things though that prohibit Soyuz. First, the seats are custom fitted to the crew member. This has been a problem in the past, because crew manifest would change on orbit and they would have to move around the seats. Also, Russia doesn’t want Americans “flying” the Soyuz, so they would need to launch with one Cosmonaut, which I’m sure Russia would love for us to pay. Soyuz only holds three people. Lastly is the sanctions likely prohibit the purchase.
I suspect you know this, but for others that don’t.
ISS is excluded from the sanctions.
As it happens, Butch and Suni have already flown aboard Soyuz, so fitted seats and Sokol flight suits already exist. Soyuz MS-24 could just come up (with said seats and suits) and get them, while the next Russian crew swap would be aboard an accelerated MS-25 (or vice versa).
So nothing but politics prohibits Soyuz.
Well, I mixed up my MS numbers.MS-25 is up there now. I did notice Anna Kikina is listed for MS-29.
Seriously, you geniuses, the Russians will take any ISS money we throw at them. Right now, there’s an offer on the table to install a IDSS on the Prichal Aft port, at a monthly rent of $100mln, which, as it happens, would replace the money they lost from the launch embargo.
Please forgive any bad typing you see. I’ve temporarily (I hope!) lost the use of my dominant hand.
I hope your hand gets better soon.
As for the Russian option for a new docking port… the way NASA forgets to specify things like a common umbilical plug for pressure suits, I wonder if NASA would catch it if the Russians were specifying that, in return for the money, NASA could have its choice of docking ports on the PIRS module? (The one they deorbited a while back).
I wonder exactly what condition Pirs was in before it was towed away. There’s a pristine Russian docking port on the ball above Rassvet where it could have been stashed, for use as a storage closet (sort of lik BEAM). I’m guessing the problem may have been wet fuel transfer lines.
I had been wondering if that would be an option. A search of Wikipedia suggested it would be, but wasn’t clear. When you say “IDSS” that would have to be in the form of an International Docking Adapter, wouldn’t it? Do any spares happen to exist? Wikipedia only mentions the one that was lost with CRS-7 and the two that are already up there on PMA-2 and -3.
I don’t think there are any spare IDAs, though there may be parts laying around (other than the parts paying around Davy Jones Locker [IDA-1]). On the other hand, Boeing was the IDA prime contractor. The primary structure was made by RSC Energia.
I’m trying to find out if it’s true that NASA’s ISS rules require all vehicles that dock at ISS be capable of autonomous undocking in case of emergency. I’ve heard this is a rule, but haven’t found any actual cites yet.
It’d make sense; in case of an emergency at ISS (such as a debris strike) requiring instant evacuation, it’s very plausible that you might end up with Dragon crew on Starliner and visa versa. If they’re untrained on that vehicle, or injured, you’d want the vehicles to be capable of bringing them home.
If that rule is real, then it raises an interesting conundrum. Either NASA waived the rule for this mission, which begs the question of why. Or, NASA was unaware that Starliner did not meet a mission requirement, meaning Boeing didn’t tell them. (That’s my current hunch, because NASA originally scheduled Crew 9 for a date that was impossible to meet if Starliner couldn’t undock).
I don’t think it was ever a “rule.” Soyuz was always capable. The Shuttle, not so much. I think ATV was capable. Cygnus and HTV require crew aboard ISS for unberthing. Now Dragon is capable.
The question I ask is, why can’t Starliner be flown from the ground?
There looks to be three choices:
– send Sunni and Butch back down on Starliner.
– send them back with Crew 8 on Dragon
– send only two astronauts on Crew 9, and let Sunni and Butch perform the duties of the missing two crew, returning next year.
With every passing day that first option becomes less likely. But a spacecraft must be detached from the station for the other two options, as all the docking ports are full.
The software issue is an unforced error. Boeing clearly has a major quality control problem across the whole company.
And at this point it is clear NASA would have been better off picking Sierra over Boeing. Anyone know the status of Dreamchaser?
The software issue is an unforced error.
Kind of the way I see it too, unless there was a computer hardware constraint, like lack of memory capacity. Even so, the question is how much did NASA know about it and when?