
Boeing’s Starliner problems may be worse than we thought
Boeing’s Starliner problems may be worse than we thought
"Nothing good can come from those two spacecraft bumping into one another."
Boeing's Starliner will remain docked at the International Space Station (ISS) for a while longer as engineers analyze data from the vehicle's propulsion system. After repeated delays, the spacecraft was set to leave the outpost on June 25 and land at White Sands, New Mexico. However, at the end of last week, mission managers …
Boeing’s Starliner problems may be worse than we thought
"Nothing good can come from those two spacecraft bumping into one another."
I read somewhere that the docked weight meant it was slowly moving the ISS orbit lower and it had to be cut free before 45 days were up so the ISS could still get back to where it should be.
Might be complete bollocks and I'm not a rocket scientist -- though Boeing might easily believe I am.
They did the engineering analysis and that analysis says it can stay docked for 45 days without a problem. That doesn't mean "it breaks after 45 days". It just means "we're not certain it's OK after 45 days" - either there's something they're worried about, or they just haven't done the longer-than-45-days analysis.
NASA would have told Boeing how long they expected the mission to last. It was never supposed to be docked anywhere near 45 days. So they included plenty of contingency to get that 45 days number, and now they're going to start using some of that contingency.
Like all spacecraft, it has consumables on board (propellant, batteries, pyrotechnics, and even space-facing surfaces) that have a limited life time. It would be bad engineering to design it to stay docked for 10 years if it's only going to be docked for a few days - that would require extra stores that increases the weight and cost and launch cost, and extra testing that increases the development cost, for no benefit. All engineering is trade-offs. So it was designed to be able to stay docked for at least 45 days, and they've done the analysis to say it'll be fine if it stays docked for 45 days.
Other spacecraft may be designed for a shorter or longer duration - I think Soyuz has a limit of 6 or 12 months docked? But either this capsule, or the capsule as configured/prepared/loaded for this mission, has a 45 day limit.
If it needs to stay longer than 45 days, they'll do another analysis to see if it can survive longer. They will have extra data specific to this mission, such as how many stores have actually been used, how the batteries are performing, etc. Their original analysis should have used very conservative values there, so having actual data may give a longer duration.
This part is all completely normal.
(I mean, the leaky propulsion isn't normal. And launching with leaky propulsion isn't normal. But a limit, like the 45 days limit, is normal).
"However, at the end of last week, mission managers opted to postpone the undocking once again without specifying a new date"
And none of them could make this call either:
A) while it was still on the ground and could be fixed
B) fly it it unscrewed as it was clearly not done with testing yet.
Now it is in space, with almost zero repair options beyond hand tools and people 9n the line both on the way there and now to get them back.
Next time tell the "brains" in the office chairs to suit up and get comfy in the capsule, they might reconsider when its their lives and families and money on the line. Absolutely disgusting behaviour.
They don't have spare boosters. They booked enough Atlas V boosters for the planned launches from ULA and ULA can't build more as the first stage uses rocket engines from Russia. And you can't exactly go to a nearby store to pick up a space russian rocket or two. Especially with Ukraine war and other issues.....
So once the currently available boosters run out, thats it.
In theory starliner can launch from Falcon9 as well I think (may need some modifications), but that will probably mean another demo or 2 on falcon 9s to certify that combination before it's man rated.
And since this is a fixed price contract, whatever extra flights are needed, Boeing is going to eat the cost. Last I heard starliner program is already about a billion in the red and Boeing is probably hoping to get the rest of the launches contracted for to go without issues so that they don't end up going another billion or two in the red.
They can always give up and not get the next milestone payments and finish off with just a billion in the red and probably alot of egg on their face. Not a good look if you want to get into the next government contract.
Or they can soldier on, do everything they have to do, no matter the cost, to make sure they manage to complete the contract, and hope they get another cost plus contract in the future so that they can drag that out to make back whatever they lost on starliner. This assumes that all the astronauts on this and future starliner flights are safe and nobody dies.
Boeing has said they will not bid for any more fixed price contracts, especially if they building something new / modifying something to a new requirement.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/boeing-says-it-cant-make-money-with-fixed-price-contracts/
I understand they have lost a bunch in at least 3 fixed price contracts with the government so far.
Starliner which we are discussing now.
KC 46 air force tankers.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2024/01/09/cautionary-tale-how-boeing-won-a-us-air-force-program-and-lost-7b/
And the new air force one.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/25/business/air-force-one-boeing-loss/index.html
I imagine they going to have a tough time asking for a cost plus contract when someone else is willing to do a fixed price contract for the same item in the future. Thats probably where the millions they spend in lobbying will help.........
I work in aerospace. Boeing is running the old injector razor scheme.
The injector razor was a supposed improvement over the the double edge safety razor. The manufacturer reportedly sold the handles at a loss then charged more for the razor blades. Computer printers run a similar scheme. Printer manufacturers typically make very little profit on the printer but the printer locks user into buying the manufacturer's printer cartridges at exorbitant prices.
Boeing may lose money on the development of the Starliner but once it has been accepted, the profits from service and support would be enormous. Well, they would be except now Boeing has a competitor who can deliver the same services for less.
> The crew is not pressed for time to leave the station since there are plenty of supplies in orbit
I guess we've all had friends who came for a weekend and stayed for a month.
However the ISS doesn't have the option of moving and "forgetting" to give Boing it's new address.
We can only hope that when the film of this event is made it will be more Bill and Ted than Apollo 13.
a custom soviet seat liner might be a better prospect than a Boeing body bag.
I vaguely recall a US astronaut involved in the 1975 Apollo-Soyez rendezvous commenting that soviet engineering was solid but not subtle. Some shuttle passengers might have preferred "solid."