NASA pushes decision on bringing crew back in Starliner to the end of August

NASA has continued to twist itself into a pretzel over whether Boeing's CST-100 Starliner – now two months past its original return date – can be used to bring back its crew to Earth and whether a failure to do so would be classed as a mishap. The briefing, which did not feature any Boeing personnel, hinted at the turmoil …

[John Sager]

It's a political decision, not tech/safety

If they go the Dragon route then that effectively kills Starliner. NASA will be uncomfortable with that because they then only have one route to ISS (forget the Russians at this point) and Boeing are already desperately saying Starliner is safe. However I don't see how Starliner can come back from this anyway. It will need considerable re-work before they try again and by that time the ISS is headed for the Pacific Scrapyard.

[mostly average]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

A rapid unscheduled disassembly would also kill starliner, plus two astronauts. Hopefully the decision can be made untainted by politics. The priority must be avoiding the rapid disassembly of astronauts. Icon because Boeing QA.

[Gene Cash]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Well, it probably wouldn't be a RUD, it would be more of a "we can't point the thing for retrofire and we don't have enough thruster control to re-dock" which would leave the astronauts in a horrifying slow death.

[mostly average]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

They do have the Canada arm to move an immobile capsule. But the key word being immobile, not tumbling or drifting. As a worst case, they can probably survive long enough to climb to a hatch in their pressurized flight suits, assuming the capsule is moving/tumbling slow enough for them to aim and push off and grab hold of the station. Of course, all that would probably be moot if the thing really screwed up and collided with the station. That capsule inspires such happy thoughts!

[Richard 12]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Canadarm can't reach very far or move very fast.

If they lost too many thrusters during depart then they'd be long out of reach before they even realised, let alone tried to grab.

If they lost the wrong thrusters that could even endanger the station in a later orbit.

It needs to make two significant burns roughly half an orbit apart to ensure a safe departure. A single short burn would put it back at the docking port after one to a few orbits later, having passed through the station on the way...

Orbital mechanics aren't intuitive.

[imanidiot]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

There is no grapple fixture on starliner, so with nothing to grab onto they don't have Canadarm.

[The man with a spanner]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

You wouldn't want a RUDE awakaning for Boing's shareholders.

* Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly Event

[mostly average]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Time for a short position? (This is a joke, not investment advice, or a solicitation thereof.)

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

That's obvious. But what if Starliner performs as expected with no crew on board. Do they need to fly another CFT? That's the question.

Boeing will be pushing hard for not having to fly another CFT, even threatening to pull out if they must.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

John Sager,

If they kill astronauts, then Starliner might well be dead. Because the public perception will be that Boeing knew and said launch anyway. Whereas it's probably safe to return - given that they managed to dock and they can test their thrusters while docked, but with much reduced safety margins. And the big risk is them failing during undocking or the de-orbit burn - and maybe this time not being able to restart them.

On the other hand, teething troubles with new spacecraft are normal. They're mostly forgotten once the thing is fixed. If it's fixed. If Boeing and NASA want to keep using it, they can use two of their six contracted ISS supply missions as another unmanned, then manned tests, and then get 4 of their contracted launches. Or they can do a deal where Boeing get the money for 4 ISS flights and the last two are cancelled from this contract and added to the next. Given Boeing currently only have 6 boosters to use. Or NASA can choose to make Boeing perform the full contract or forfeit the money - but that's where political pressure can easily be used to protect Boeing.

There's been too many discussions on this for it to be safe to try and ignore safety concerns - someone will talk. And the risk is too obvious.

This could be much more a question of risk assessment. But with unknown risks.

Undocking is something the Starliner is going to have to do anyway. Manned or unmanned. They need the docking port back. Plus you don't really want to leave a fuelled spacecraft attached to your manned station as it goes past its use-by date. It might start to leak (more than just helium), in dangerous ways. So there are large risks to undocking, which become less if you've got an astronaut on board who can take manual control.

However that increases the risk to said astronaut. So they may actually be debating the risk to the ISS of undocking vs the risk to the astronauts of being on it when it then tries to do its de-orbit burn. I'm not sure we've got anything with the airlocks to allow rescue from Staliner if it's unable to de-orbit or get back to the ISS.

I did see one comment that said NASA thought some of the fuel valves had partially melted. But I don't believe that, as otherwise there'd be no decision to make. The spacecraft at that point is a bomb, and they'd have to sacrifice the docking port to eject it from the ISS in some way - because there's no way they'd dare to start the engines. They've also publicly suggested tess burns while attached to the ISS.

[Binraider]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

I disagree. Starliner has been a bag of spanners from the get-go. I am somewhat surprised the astronauts agreed to fly on her. Boeing's QC issues are well documented, as were the extensive failures of the unmanned tests.

Failures on unmanned tests to flush out bugs is fine (SpaceX has had PLENTY!), but by the point you actually launch a crew... One should not be writing software patches after a mission starts. For what should be an otherwise extremely well defined problem.

Musk is a mouthy git on the wrong side of politics, but his engineering forays are generally well thought out.

A lack of suits for Dragon could be mostly rectified by sending a couple up on a cargo resupply. 9th Nov. I think, the next launch. I'm sure they have the astronauts dimensions on file sufficiently to make some up.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Binraider,

I'd agree that the whole Starliner contract has been a clusterfuck. From Beoing getting paid twice as much as SpaceX to do exactly the same job, down to the various failed tests. But it's pretty clear that as well as Congress wanting to give money to Boeing, NASA also want a second supplier. And Boeing have done most of the work to get there. Hopefully with Boeing under new management and NASA having the contractual whip-hand - they should be able to get the capsule sorted out. Most of the bugs seem to have been the propulsion system, thrusters and valves, and the software.

This looks like something that's possibly fixable.

[Alan Brown]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

McBoing's _single_ largest problem is quality control - both at design and build stages

Design decisions include things like overly flammable cable insulation wrap (I mean seriously? Apollo 1 was 60 years ago!), the poor build quality (including testing of components) speaks for itself

It's hardly surprising that they're doing this on government contracts. The USAF 767 tanker conversions were a saga in themselves and most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the incredibly union-hostile management of the last 30 years

Happy workers go above and beyond. Unhappy workers do the absolute minimum to be paid

[SundogUK]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

"...incredibly union-hostile management"

Compared to SpaceX who are incredibly union friendly. Oh, wait...

[Crypto Monad]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Most of the bugs seem to have been the propulsion system, thrusters and valves, and the software.

But apart from the propulsion system, thrusters, values, and the software, what has Boeing ever done for us?

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

The only way Boeing could be kept on board would be for NASA to finance another CFT, whole or partially. But that would be unfair towards SpaceX and could even lead to Boeing profiting from its incompetence.

I do believe there's gross incompetence on Boeing's part. The spacecraft barely works and it seems they barely tested it even though they received almost twice the amount SpaceX got. NASA should investigate how much profit taking Boeing did on building Starliner. I believe they cut corners to make the profit they desired and didn't really care about the end result.

[steviebuk]

Re: It's a political decision, not tech/safety

Lets hope its not political as isn't that what caused the Challenger disaster. Watched that as a kid. Then years later the documentaries about it and the suggestions the high ups knew about the issues but needed the launch so pushed it through.

[Headley_Grange]

I assume the suits aren't suitable because of the lack of a recognized sizing standard. L, XL and XXL shirts and jackets can fit me depending on various factors including decade of manufacture, country of manufacture and just how hip the manufacturer thinks they are; if they are very hip they'll have their own sizing system and, usually, not make anything bigger than a 40" chest. I've recently seen trousers in S,M, L, XL, ffs. Even when there is a size in inches in some cases it means "to fit a 44" chest" and in others it means "the jacket measures 44" chest". It's a real mess and maybe now, having put lives at risk, the manufacturers will get together and subscribe to an international sizing standard.

[Dave 126]

No, fit is not the issue - should the two astronauts come back to Earth on a Dragon capsule, suits made by SpaceX that Butch and Suni will be sent up first. SpaceX has already identified suits that will fit them.

The issue was that suits made to be worn inside Starliner don't work in Crew Dragon, and vice versa. Apparently the connections for air and comms are different.

The mess you describe of clothing sizes is common in civilian clothing, but Suni and Butch will have been measured before their flight.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/yes-nasa-really-could-bring-starliners-astronauts-back-on-crew-dragon/

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

They will be a different size now from what they were when they launched.

[SundogUK]

Not by enough that it couldn't be factored in. Peoples bones don't lengthen or shrink etc.

[Oneman2Many]

Its the connection to the capsule that is the issue. Not only power, comms but also cooling. When there was an issue with Soyuz couple of years ago and the thought was to bring the American that had travelled on Soyuz back on Crew Dragon (NASA did later clarify they meant the American and the Soviet cosmonauts) in an emergency then they would have suit less.

Anyway, if the choice is to use Crew Dragon then they will send up Crew Dragon 9 with only two astronauts and suits for Butch and Suni. The no-suit option is for emergencies only.

[TJ1]

Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Regarding suits: It is likely as simple as the life support and communications connections to join suits to capsules are specific to the (different manufacturer's) capsules and likely also the suit is tailored to the seat and harness points (I seem to recall each suit is specific to the wearer, too - not one size fits all). It isn't like there is (yet) a need for an RFC, ISO, or BS standard for life-support couplings... or is there?

[Julian Poyntz]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Need to move to something like isofix

All child car seats / buggies / push chairs can be whatever they like, and look however they like, but isofix is a must and ensures they fit into a car and safely.

Surely a mic / oxygen feed / any other connection would use something standard

[Dave 126]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Apparently it's not just the connectors that aren't compatible, but the suits with the seats. The suit and the seat are designed as a system to protect the astronaut.

However, an astronaut would likely survive reentry without a suit, the suits are a redundancy should the capsule lose pressure, as tragically happended on Soyuz 11 during re-entry, killing the three unsuited cosmonauts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Previous posts mention that the connectors for life support and communications may be different / incompatible. I wonder what the incompatibilities may be. Are they physically different shapes, or are there also things like current / voltage incompatibilities too, and as for life support does this include 0₂ pressure?

I reckon that NASA really should get together and insist on some form of standardisation for connectors and suits, after all there are lots of compute networking standards, but pretty much everyone used to use TCP/IP, because it worked, and if they really are going back to the Moon, then with multiple providers, a multitude of connectors and suits will be a nightmare.

[Ken G]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

This is the kind of basic standard that should have been enforced from the beginning.

It doesn't matter which design is technically "better", just pick one. As with docking adaptors.

[Bubba Von Braun]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Or a simple interface adapter. SpaceX to Boeing shouldnt need too much to make it work Just like the common docking adapter there is a solid argument for commonality on spacesuit connections. But now its in the realm of private enterprise you can see lip-service paid to that one.

[I am David Jones]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

They just need to get XKCD to design universal connectors

[nichomach]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

As in:

"We have two competing connector standards"

"Let us design a new universal connector standard to solve the problem!"

.

.

.

.

.

"We have three competing connector standards..."

[Ken G]

Re: Suit SL != Capsule Dragon

Which is absolutely fine so long as NASA say which of those standards are allowed into space at any one time.

[Arthur the cat]

Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

Back when Apollo 13 hit a little difficulty, one problem was that the LEM and command module air filters had different fittings (round vs square). That was 54 years ago. Seems like NASA still hasn't noticed interoperability is A Good Thing. Maybe IETF ought to have a word.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

Yes and no, for true redundancy you want independent design. Its not just the connector, the whole suit design is different. Crew Dragon is virtually EVA rated, Starliner ones don't even have a helmet, they have a hoodie type system.

There was talk about making an adaptor, they even have a 3D printer on ISS they could use. But I guess to difficult, too expensive or just such a low probability of needing it that it didn't happen.

[ITMA]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

There is a difference between independent designs to minimise the risk of space suits (or other "item") from different contractors having the same design flaws - and designing ones which are totally incompatible.

It smacks of not just the Apollo 13 CO2 scrubbers - square peg/round hole - but also the early days of railways with too many tragedies caused by "Not invented here, we are not using that" mentality.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

The connector issue was covered on the flame trench this week at around 1:35:00 ish mark and it explains why a common connector isn't the best idea as it stops multi-use of the suits and innovation. For example SpaceX have added cameras and EVA to their suit for Polaris Dawn, but would have been difficult or impossible if they weren't allowed to change the connector.

https://www.youtube.com/live/HElVGfoXCt8?si=QS09MBV7ioJ2Iv1s&t=5728

[ITMA]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

I've listened to that and I didn't hear any great explanation or arugment for what you postulate - i.e. that using a common connector stops multi-use of suits and innovation.

In fact a little later they argue a compelling case for standardisation, or at least a degree of suit core compatibility, between Orion and Artemis suits in case something unforseen means you have to use one vehicle's suits in the other vehicle.

If I recall, the last person who publiclity threw standards out the window because they "stifled innovation", things didn't work out too well for when his tubular carbon fibre sub imploded.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

Should also mention where exactly would they be plugging their suits in ? Due to the NASA seat tilt requirement for take off that was decided after first flight test (though not for landing), Crew Dragon has space for 4 seats and thus 4 connection points. The whole issue of suits aren't compatible is due to emergency 6 seat situation so there won't be anywhere to plug suits in anyway. If they use Crew 9 then it will fly with 2 crew and send up 2 spare suits.

[Anonymous Cowpilot]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

The suits aren't just clothing, they have all sorts of sensors that measure astronaut vital signs and feed them to the ship for communication back to earth, as well as local processors that use the vital signs data to adjust environmental parameters (and request appropriate coolant etc from the ship). The suits have a lot of networking and processing going on. It's more like trying to connect a tesla to a BMW diagnostic station than swapping between jumpsuits with different logos.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

Open Systems FTW

[ITMA]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

And there are a whole bunch of standards for On Board vechicle Diagnostics:

OBD-II, SAE J1979-2, ISO 15031, ISO 15765-4:2011

I'm afraid your BMW/Tesla "diagnostic station" analogy doesn't quite stand up.

[Alf Garnett]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

I agree. BMW makes cars. Tesla makes battery operated toys.

[The man with a spanner]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

At a base level you need core functionality to be interoperable. Say, basic coms, oxegen, posibly heating/cooling, fits in the seat.....anything else?

Anything else is a nice to have, but the core is a MUST.

[ITMA]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

"Say, basic coms, oxegen, posibly heating/cooling, fits in the seat.....anything else?"

Dare I say it - waste... Just in case you are stuck in them for longer than may be "comfortable". On the grounds either all suits have it, or none.

[emmdehhah]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

Careful there: Redundancy by different space suit designs means that

- either each one astro-cosmo-naut would wear at least two (2) spacesuits at the same time (which with only 3 spatial dimensions implies making a hole in the outer suit to connect the inner suit, so it's BS)

- or that _people_ are the redundant^W expendable assets.

I 4 1 would not like to be treated as such.

Don't those astro-cosmo-nauts have a professional cooperative or trade union?

Oh wait, up until now it's mostly military personel...

Plus how the hell would a compatibility standard for a basic life support connector interfere with

the designing of a space suit + seat system?

*Hypothetical engineer designing space systems*: "Oh noes it's not square but round, I can't even A=πr² instead of A=a² ... that's it: I QUIT!"

, or what's the rub with basic interoperability standards?

c.f. ...even at open circuit SCUBA diving we (annoyingly) got two different standards, but we only need two really simple and small adaptors and all is fine.

[Spazturtle]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

There was interoperability in Apollo, the issue was that the CM needed flat filters to fit against the walls and the moon suits needed long tube shaped ones to fit in the backpack.

The decision was made that the LEM should use the same filters as the suits so that if there was an issue on the moon they would have spares.

Using the LEM as a lifeboat was always the backup plan for if there was an issue with the air supply on the CM and the astronauts where trained on it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Boeing suits can't be used in a SpaceX vehicle and vice-versa.

The lesson of Apollo 13 was not that the scrubbers should have been the same, it was "Never leave home without duct tape"

[williamyf]

muttiny onboard

I hope, for their sakes, that any astronaut scheduled to board the starliner tells nasa, in no uncvertain terms, but very diplomatically, they are NOT entering the capsule, and deal with it.

is not like there is a police force or security guards onboard the station. Also, these peole are very capable, and can find jobs elsewhere literaly anywhere in the world.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: muttiny onboard

Not only can they find a job anywhere in the world, they are ideally placed to commute there...

If only some genius had thought to look at existing space suit connectors, and make something compatible. I wonder if the next flight will have some sort of adaptor kit?

[elDog]

Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

Apple or USB, sir? Would you like a slurpee with that?

[spold]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

A bit of velcro and some duct tape should work as an Apollo-like fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

Leave sex out of this.

[Ken G]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

At least NASA isn't subject to the undemocratic rulings of the EUSSR enforcing interoperability on freedom loving corporations.

[Spanners]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

"Freedom loving corporations"

That must be the most counter intuitive oxymoron I have seen this year!

The USA has got to where it is today in spite of corporations and corporate lawyers and the insane idea of IP which is the most likely reason for this incompatibility,

[Ken G]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

The USA has got to where it is today in spite of any understanding of irony too.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

You need to take into account Poe's law,

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

"I didn't get where I am today by having any understanding of irony."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

"Freedom loving corporations"

That must be the most counter intuitive oxymoron I have seen this year!

AKA an quasi-oxymoronic oxymoron !!!

P.S. Try to remember to breath, occasionally, when trying to work out what that means !!!

P.P.S If you can hear a loud continuous tone ... you forgot ^^^^^

:)

[G40]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

Apologies, but is this satire?

[Spanners]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

If you were from the USA. you'd never know as they seem to have an alternative meaning to that too,

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up a shitty adapter at the local convenience store

Ken's 2nd post suggests it was.

[imanidiot]

Re: muttiny onboard

Suit compatibility goes FAR beyond plugging a hose into a different hole. Space suits are very integrated into the life support system of the capsule and contain lots of sensors and control loops. Everything from the amount of coolant flow to the shape of the seat will be different between different suit designs and it's highly likely that the Starliner suits wouldn't even fit in the Dragon seats (Dragon has far more svelte helmet design for instance, whereas Starliner uses the classic "upturned fishbowl" design.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: muttiny onboard

NASA has already been in contact with the astronauts and they've given their opinion on the matter. I'm pretty sure this will weigh quite heavily with NASA since the last thing they'd want is two astronauts who flatly refuse to board a spacecraft when they've been ordered to do so.

[Alan Mackenzie]

Why the delay?

The thrusters on the Starliner capsule don't work reliably. Given that they've already spent two months trying to fix them, it's clear they're not going to be getting fixed. In effect, they don't work at all.

So, assuming the astronauts aren't expendable, there's no question of trying to bring them back to Earth in that capsule. They'll have to wait until a Dragon X has been fitted out to take them.

As for Boeing, it seems their space division has had it. As the late great Richard Feynmann put it, nature can't be fooled.

[mostly average]

Re: Why the delay?

Nature can't be fooled, but bureaucracy is far from natural. NASA and Boeing are both desperate to save face, plus NASA is hopelessly blinded by sunk cost.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Why the delay?

The problem is nailing down "don't work reliably" as they "mostly work", they worked well enough for the original docking.

The question is will they work well enough to undock & retrofire? How do we know?

The other question is political, as we know the results of "SpaceX rescuing Boeing" as Musk will put it.

Nobody at NASA wants to listen to him after that happens. "Sure Starship is late, but remember we rescued Boeing, who else is going to do it?"

[Oneman2Many]

Re: Why the delay?

This is not correct, they have replicated the issue and it only happens under very specific circumstances which they could design a flight profile to avoid. But its a unknown risk whereas returning on Crew-9 is a known risk. I think they need a more than 1 in 260 probability as the lower limit of a risk and Starliner is currently in the hundreds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why the delay?

Just wait for the Starliner MAX with bigger thruster, better autopilot and cheaper hatches.!

[42656e4d203239]

Re: Why the delay?

>>Just wait for the Starliner MAX with bigger thruster, better autopilot and cheaper hatches.!

and the undocumented (unless you pay for it) flight control software which can override standard operating procedure becasue there is an A in the day... or perhaps it doesn't check all navicomps but guesses that one will do... and that one is obviously the one sulking because the others cheat at solitaire or whatever.

Seriously - its a bit of a poser all around - and extraction from this particular mire is non-trivial.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Why the delay?

"extraction from this particular mire is non-trivial"

1. Boeing prepare, at their own cost, a second capsule to standards in which two senior Boeing bigwigs, say chairman & head of space division are prepared to travel.

2. Second capsule is sent up crewed by the bigwigs "as a safety demonstration".

3. On arrival bigwigs are told it's the original crew members who get to go back on the second capsule. They can either go in the original or have Boeing prepare and launch a third at their own cost to get them back. Or just hang on for a free trip to the South Pacific.

4. Boeing treat it as a learning opportunity about the true savings of cutting corners versus getting it right first time.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Why the delay?

Which they'll test out on astronauts from the developing world. So much cheaper to kill.

[Justthefacts]

Re: Why the delay?

It’s well-known that the Space Shuttle design targeted in 100,000 risk. By the time the first one launched, they estimated 1 in 280. Actual outcomes were: lost 2 in 135. Re-analysis *after the fact* by NASA was *1 in 9* for the first 9 flights, and 1 in 90 longer term. Risk estimates are always delusional. Decades of experience shows that the only way to do this safely, is to fly a lot, very frequently and cheaply, and fix the failures as they occur. Anyone who tells you different is on cost-plus contract.

By the way, I see nothing wrong in 10% risk for first 10 flights; 1% first 100 flights, 0.1% first 1000 etc. There are tens of thousands of intelligent, motivated, successful adults who are willing to take such risks, to meet their personal goals. Those people are perfectly capable of both understanding their risk, and deciding rationally on their own goals. Many people do free solo climbing for example. *Pretty much everybody* who free solos routinely, eventually dies doing it. The very best may survive 20 years; the second tier may only last 2-5 years. But almost nobody makes it out alive.

[O'Reg Inalsin]

Re: Why the delay?

The humans are there mostly for show though.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Why the delay?

By the way, I see nothing wrong in 10% risk for first 10 flights

As in "A 65% chance that one of them goes kaboom"? Not that I imagine they'd have gone ahead with n+1 if n had done the fireball thing.

[cosymart]

Get Suited

One would assume that a NASA space suit is a NASA space suit and therefore would be a mandatory requirement to be able to be used in all forms of NASA transportation. FFS this stuff is as basic as using metric or imperial measurements... Ah NASA has form here I remember :-(

[Gene Cash]

Re: Get Suited

No, these are **NOT** NASA space suits.

They are SpaceX space suits and Boeing space suits, and there was NO MONEY for a common program to develop a standard.

Note that there was a space suit program for SLS/Artemis, but the contractor actually quit. So we're going to the Moon but we have no space suits now or in the near future.

https://spacenews.com/collins-aerospace-pulls-back-from-nasa-spacesuit-contract/

Edit: Sorry, that's for ISS. Axiom Space is developing suits for Artemis for Lunar exploration. I have not seen ANY evidence that is actually happening.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Get Suited

And that really is the problem here.

Space is yet another government function that should NEVER have been outsourced. NASA now gets to choose between a for-profit corporation that's a known screwup and a for-profit corporation that's run by a known racist asshole.

Remember the space shuttle going boom? That's because instead of NASA building solid rocket boosters they outsourced it to a for-profit corporation.

Capitalism ruins everything.

NASA should bring all of it in house. Rocket design, building, quality control, launching, all of it should be done by actual government employees, not for-profit contractors. At this point, NASA should eminent domain SpaceX and Boeing for national security.

[John Sager]

Re: Get Suited

Capitalism ruins everything

Well, without it we would still be living in the agrarian paradise of the 17th century. Capitalism has its faults but it has given us the modern world. I prefer it here rather than being a peasant ploughing behind oxen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Get Suited

Uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism spoils everything.

It gives you railroad barons, monopolies and crash and burn economies.

Government has a role, to protect citizens and national interests.

No-one is going to suggest the private sector run national defence, education or healthcare, why suggest they run a space programme?

[Dave 126]

Re: Get Suited

> No-one is going to suggest the private sector run national defence, education or healthcare, why suggest they run a space programme?

Nobody in this thread was suggesting that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Get Suited

>> No-one is going to suggest the private sector run national defence, education or healthcare, why suggest they run a space programme?

> Nobody in this thread was suggesting that.

Because it's already happened ?

[John Sager]

Re: Get Suited

I'm equivocal about the defence thing, but why not for the other two? Private healthcare is a problem in the US but it works well in many other countries. State education in the UK has been subject to the whims of various faddish academics over the decades and has suffered greatly for it. Remember ITA in the 60s?

[JoeCool]

Re: Get Suited

Private Healthcare is a problem *everywhere*, because you can't pay people to care - that's government's role.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Get Suited

"without it we would still be living in the agrarian paradise of the 17th century"

Make that the 14th.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Get Suited

In the last 30 years Capitalism has pulled around 4-5 billion people out of poverty

The problem isn't capitalism as such, but that a fair and level playing field is an unnatural state of affairs requiring constant shepherding or else Capitalism degenerates to the saturnian monsters of Mercantilism, Monopolism or Corporatism and starts eating its own children

ie: What the USA calls "Capitalism" quite simply, ISN'T

[Dave 126]

Re: Get Suited

> Remember the space shuttle going boom? That's because instead of NASA building solid rocket boosters they outsourced it to a for-profit corporation.

You're being a bit simplistic here. Even Karl Marx wrote that his ideas were only possible because of the surplus production that had been enabled by the tools that capitalists had created.

The ill communication between public officials and private sector managers (of companies who were not operating in a free competitive market) was to blame for the incorrect decision to launch the Space Shuttle when the weather was colder than the O-rings had been specified for. The decision to launch should have been made by engineers.

SpaceX, by the standards of their industry, have an unprecedented track record of reliability. Ignoring for a moment that they are private, we should note that their products are largely created in-house which can only aid in trouble shooting.

JPL is public and does great work, but their internal work order system creates perverse incentives. Woe betide an engineer who solves a problem in a week when the work order was for three months. The reasons for this stem from efforts to account for their spending to the public.

Coca Cola distribute cans with ring-pulls that are incredibly reliable, neither bursting open in transit or being frustrating to open by the consumer.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Get Suited

"Coca Cola distribute cans with ring-pulls that are incredibly reliable, neither bursting open in transit or being frustrating to open by the consumer."

It's the contents that are the problem.

[Dave 126]

Re: Get Suited

Thank you Dr Syntax, that should go without saying.

[imanidiot]

Re: Get Suited

Oh EFF off! The only difference between now and the days of Apollo is that NASA is no longer the final systems integrated. The only bit they've actually outsourced is basically the "lead contractor" work. Everything else has always been outsourced to other companies (The LEM was designed by Grumman, the Apollo CSM by North American Aviation, the STS Orbiter vehicles (Space shuttles) were built by North American Aviation (by then part of Rockwell)). None of this is new or different from "the old days".

Except the known racist assholes company has shown all the "old space" companies have become incompetent and slow to develop. And arguably much of the problems with SLS stem from the fact that NASA itself has become slow and incompetent at it's final systems integration and final contractor roles.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Get Suited

Another big difference between Apollo and now is NASA's funding on Apollo was, by any calculation, virtually bottomless. They were going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and bring him back safely at any cost for political and idealogical reasons and neither the government nor NASA were going to let costs get in the way of that.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Get Suited

NASA is (and always has been) beholden to politicians

There are any number of documented instances of NASA contracts being given to companies in various political districts to satisfy Senators whilst competent competition was discarded.

The game for decades has always been about political patronage, not competency. Without a clear goal in place, NASA and politicians invariably flail around - the latter lining their own pockets and manipulating the largest voting share

[spuck]

Re: Get Suited

NASA should bring all of it in house

Hate to break it to you, but NASA doesn't build anything. Your suggestion is like saying the White House should open a paper mill in the basement to avoid having to choose to purchase notepads from Staples or Office Depot.

[iron]

Re: Get Suited

If this were NASA transportation, sure. But it isn't.

Starliner is owned and operated by Boeing, Dragon is owned and operated by SpaceX. Even the launch pads are leased by their respective companies from NASA or Space Force, depending on the pad.

NASA merely provide the human cargo.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Get Suited

If the astronauts had been Boeing employees this would've been sorted out long ago (they would've been ordered to return aboard Starliner).

But since the astronauts are NASA employees the agency has a say in this. In fact, they have the last word on whether Butch and Sunni will be returning on Starliner.

[spold]

Not sure but...

...was that a GoFundMe (GoLandMe?) the crew published to buy a couple of SpaceX tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

no flippers

they aint walking on the moon...Just send up some underwater scuba equipment. without the flippers.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: no flippers

.. and make sure it's the underwater type of Scuba gear, not the other kind.

[Boris the Cockroach]

Only

sensible option now is to launch dragon 9 with 2 crew and the extra gear for the starliner crew, undock dragon 8 and dock dragon 9 where 8 was.

Then set starliner for an automatic landing, if it makes it down ok, all well and good, but if the thrusters fail, you wont have the sight of the 2 crew slowly dying in orbit as their air runs out.

Its not an embarassment for NASA as such but a big kick to boing to get their act sorted out, and to put actual engineers in charge of running their space business because as someone has already pointed out "The laws of nature cannot be fooled"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Only

They don't want to "undock dragon 8 and dock dragon 9 where 8 was" because that would leave the crews buggered if there was a mishap while docking.

I think they will need to remove starliner with the canadarm and have it float away gently before the dragon approaches, but I think someone said it doesn't have a suitable grappling point for that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Only

The problem with letting it float away gently is that it would be in a different but intersecting orbit. So, one orbit later it'll gently drift back and hit the ISS. Some reliable thrusters are absolutely vital to make sure that doesn't happen. Even just a small thrust half an orbit after separation could make sure there's no collision, but they don't have 100% reliable thrusters. The also really want Starliner out of that orbit completely. Either boosted up to a graveyard orbit, or returned to earth, anywhere except in the ISS orbit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Only

I believe there's a problem with the Starliner software stopping it from doing an unmanned return trip. I've heard people say it'll take a month to patch it. I'm not sure how that affects the parking arrangements at the ISS, but it can't help.

[Richard 12]

Re: Only

From what I gather, it's not a problem as such, just that they uninstalled that part of the software as it was "not needed" so will need to reinstall it.

I expect NASA have a USB stick somewhere on the station that Boeing can borrow for a while.

Though it didn't work all that well during the demo mission...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Only

That should work unless NASA only have USB A and Starliner is all USB C.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Only

You can easily make a USB C fit into a USB A. All you need is one cardboard flightplan cover, one sock, some plastic bags and a roll of gaffer tape.

[Floof]

Re: Only

NASA is USB A, but Boeing is RS232 with a 1970s proprietary connector. It's SpaceX that's USB C.

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Only

I hope someone's got one of those crossover adapters that flips the RS232 RX/TX. You can guarantee that no matter what lead you've got, the bit you plug it in to will be the other way round.

[ITMA]

Re: Only

What? No IEEE-488?

How about 20mA loop?

[Headley_Grange]

Re: Only

I've just upgraded from a 2015 Macbook to a new one, so I've got lots of USB a to USB C adapters if they want to borrow one. Hang on there must be one around somewhere. I mean, I bought loads. Where have they all gone. FFS!! [stomps off].

[imanidiot]

Re: Only

It's not so much even that they uninstalled the software, everything is there. But there's a very extensive configuration system/file that tells the computer what to do when and what routines to run when something occurs. For the automated flights those would have all sorts of calls to subroutines to execute for each of those cases. For the manned flights the vast majority of events are set basically to "show a message and alert the crew so they can take action". No more automation.

Resetting that to the unmanned flight state, with all the other software changes they've made, means a lot of testing to make sure that exactly the right subroutines get called at the right time and never any of the wrong ones. Because having the crew take action is no longer an option then.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Only

...and this is Boeing...

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Only

Resetting that to the unmanned flight state, with all the other software changes they've made, means a lot of testing

imanidiot,

Excuse me? Did you just suggest that Boeing were going to do a lot of testing? Ah well, there's a first time for everything I suppose...

Starliner's new updated software should be ready, and more-or-less tested by say October. October 2026.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: Only

Its parameter changes that needs to be applied and it can't be done remotely so will need to done manually by the crew. Something that has never been done and apparently very different to check its worked until the undock.

[andrewj]

"However, NASA is still weighing up whether it would be riskier to use it for a nominal return or simply wait for the next Crew Dragon."

What is there to weigh up? It's a decision between an established vehicle with some proven track record vs. the calamity capsule. Safety-wise, this is surely a no-brainer. Starliner can return automated (which it would even with astronauts onboard) and if it works, great. If it burns up, at least there are not two dead people.

[Richard 12]

The decision has clearly already been made, probably a month ago.

What's happening now is damage control, the various managers and Boeing are desperately trying to come up with a way to save face. Several careers are certainly on the line, and probably some entire divisions at Boeing.

- Hence the "it's not a mishap" phrasing, which is clearly false as the capsule has already suffered a mishap during the docking.

[Paul Hovnanian]

"Several careers are certainly on the line"

We used to have a saying during my time at the Lazy B: Heads roll uphill.

[Doctor Syntax]

"Starliner can return automated"

But can it? That's one of the problems. The other is the threat is presents if it's undocked and they can't get rid of it. I suppose there's a third - if it doesn't have enough thruster capacity to follow the correct unmanned return, where is it going to hit?

[Alan Brown]

"But can it?"

Decades of experience has shown that putting humans in charge of orbital stuff doesn't work out well

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer your question !!!

"When is a mishap not really a mishap?"

When it is a total *Balls up* by Boeing !!!

[At least, it does not involve increasing Boeings running 'Dead Body count' ... which is a good thing !!!]

:)

[seven of five]

Re: To answer your question !!!

> [At least, it does not involve increasing Boeings running 'Dead Body count' ... which is a good thing !!!]

yet.

[tip pc]

Circumstances have already dictated the decision

Given the thrusters issues on docking, helium leaks & time spent docked over and above expected time there will be lifetime limits on other components like seals, batteries etc.

effectively it is not safe to do a manned landing of starliner hence why its still docked so the crew must be returned via another mechanism.

Sending crew back on starliner is a wholly unnecessary endeavour given the risks and availability of alternatives.

Delaying an official decision till the last moment is unnecessary and shows there are motivations behind the scenes to use the clearly faulty starliner at the cost of putting the crew at risk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Circumstances have already dictated the decision

With it attached, they can perform tests to work out the root of the problem - not so much to rescue this mission, but to avoid recurrence next time.

There's no need to remove it yet - an empty docking port is of no benefit to the station, so might as well give them as much time as they want until there's another craft wanting to use that port.

But I agree that the capsule must now be beyond it's useful life and unviable, they're just not stating that because it would be embarrassing.

[Paul Hovnanian]

Re: Circumstances have already dictated the decision

"Given the thrusters issues on docking, helium leaks & time spent docked over and above expected time there will be lifetime limits on other components like seals, batteries etc."

Thrusters and helium leaks aside, I'd be surprised if the specification for the Starliner doesn't anticipate its use as an emergency escape capsule. Docked for weeks or even months, much like Soyuz capsules are.

[tip pc]

Starliner remote undock & rentry

There has been discussion that Starliner lacks the software to undock & perform reentry unmanned.

Is the real decision issue here that Boeing need people to onboard Starliner to undock it and move it away from the ISS, with the further danger here that if starliner fails it can possibly endanger the lives of all on ISS and not just the Starliner crew?

At this point there can be no reason for NASA to want to use Starliner for manned flight unless they absolutely need to. The only reason i can think of is that Starliner thruster failure on undocking can lead to ISS collision danger and danger to the rest of the ISS crew.

Otherwise just junk Starliner and do the safest thing possible.

[blackcat]

Re: Starliner remote undock & rentry

Scott Manley did a vid on this a week or so ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbDApzT1iw

It does seem to be a case of the starliner needing a meat-based pilot to press a button.

Admitting defeat on starliner is going to leave a lot of egg on a lot of faces!

[StrangerHereMyself]

Whatever the risk

I believe NASA management wants the crew to return aboard Starliner but faces opposition from engineers who aren't satisfied that the risk is manageable or even quantifiable. So they're massaging the dissenters with more tests and try to talk them into accepting that the risk is acceptable.

NASA management knows that if the crew doesn't return on Starliner Boeing will most likely walk and they'll be left with one crew launch provider. That and the enormous political pressure from Boeing financed Congressmen is behind the fact that a decision still hasn't been taken, even though more tests will not meaningfully influence the understanding of the risks.

It will be a hard call to make for Nelson. I believe the dissenters will not alleviate and insist on the crew returning aboard Dragon. Overruling their dissent would be extremely risky. If the crew dies Nelson will immediately step down and replaced by the vice-administrator.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Whatever the risk

"they'll be left with one crew launch provider."

In reality, isn't this the case anyway?

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Whatever the risk

Boeing could still ferry crews up to the ISS before it's retired, so that's a negative.

[Alan Mackenzie]

The Russians ....

... on the ISS must be thoroughly bemused. They must be thinking "how difficult can it be to get a space ferry system which works, something we've had for ~70 years, now?".

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: The Russians ....

That's literally the case for the Russians. The Boeing team had to learn anew how to design and build a manned capsule spacecraft. The people that designed and built the Apollo capsule have long since retired or passed away. The only thing the Boeing team had was some blueprints, books and possibly someone around who had some inside knowledge on how they built Apollo / Gemini etc.

That plus the fact that technology and manufacturing techniques have changed markedly over the last 50 years made it challenging for them to build another spacecraft.

[Overflowing Stack]

Suits you sir

Why don't they just order some more suits from Aliexpress?

It's amazing how quickly stuff comes

[PeterM42]

If it's Boeing.....

....I'm not going

[Sherrie Ludwig]

I keep hearing music..

the theme song to the US sitcom Gilligan's Island. Look it up if you like, but be warned that the theme song is a serious ear worm.

[nijam]

> ... Calamity Capsule

The clue 's in the name. I expect you already noticed...

[Doctor Syntax]

I fear that somewhere in Boeing's thinking is "It's only 2. Nothing as bad as the 737s."

[Justthefacts]

If this were a reusable vehicle……

Then you would just fly it unmanned down to Earth, check the thrusters, replace them if necessary, turn it round in about three weeks, fly it back up.

In fact, you’d have done that over two months ago, as soon as you knew there was a problem. For the price of the petrol, when lives are at risk, of course you’d do that. Falcon9 turns around in about two weeks nowadays. But Starliner is sold as “reusable” with a turnaround time of…..six months. I beg your pardon, WTAF? Plus a “service module” which isn’t reusable and contains the thrusters and power, ie all the stuff that makes it a spacecraft, and not just a tin can with seats.None of this should have ever been approved, for exactly the reasons we are seeing today. This just isn’t the way to do engineering.

[Excused Boots]

Re: If this were a reusable vehicle……

"For the price of the petrol, when lives are at risk, of course you’d do that. Falcon9 turns around in about two weeks nowadays. But Starliner is sold as “reusable” with a turnaround time of…..six months.”

Yes the Falcon 9 first stage might be able to be turned around and ready to be used again in two weeks - but what about the Dragon capsule itself? I suspect a bit longer to 'human-rate’ it fit to be ready. OK maybe not six months, but still!

[Reginald O.]

What do the Astronauts have to say about this?

I am not technically able enough to decide what is the best course, whatsoever.

However, what I see lacking in this discussion is what the poor bastards stuck in that tin can think should be done. I am guessing they want to come home the fastest way possible, with the least risk.

Boeing's or NASA reputation should be the least concern.

[Sandstone]

Re: What do the Astronauts have to say about this?

The astronauts consider themselves as "test pilots" and therefore expendable. At least they did until now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again a place for Open Standards?

I'd say that one absolute learning point must be that the suit connectors must be standardised. Being able to use a suit only in one setup and not the other harms the most important issue up there: redundancy.

To be honest, I found that shocking and actually a bit disappointing.

In any case, I wish them a safe return, regardless of vehicle brand. This stands above politics IMHO.

[Oneman2Many]

How quickly people forget that just a few weeks ago Falcon 9 was grounded ? Also remembe how many issues Crew dragon had, again only a few missions ago they had unexpected wear on heat shield.

NASA needs independent solutions and at the moment Starliner is still the best 2nd option.

[Excused Boots]

"How quickly people forget that just a few weeks ago Falcon 9 was grounded ? Also remembe how many issues Crew dragon had, again only a few missions ago they had unexpected wear on heat shield.

NASA needs independent solutions and at the moment Starliner is still the best 2nd option."

Absolutely true - nothing is perfect, mistakes/issues can and do happen! Except; well, Starliner, just how far behind schedule is it now? What has Boeing been doing for all these years that it still, apparently, isn’t 'fit for duty’. Issues with parachute attachments, issues with the wiring... it goes on and on - how can something be that far behind schedule and still it isn’t working properly?

Yes Space-X have had their share of issues, the first Starship launch was a clusterfuck of biblical proportions, for various reasons - but they did, it seems, learnt what they had done wrong, rectified them and got further. Not perfect; there were a new set of issues for the second launch, which again they appear to have learnt from and third time was fairly successful - partial melting of the fins notwithstanding, but still - it worked. The recent Starlink launch was a failure yes, but it seems that might be more of a manufacturing defect rather than a systemic issue with the vehicle itself.

Something has gone catastrophically wrong with Boeing and the SL project - either they were lazy, (ah we’re Boeing, we’ll get support and funding whatever) and didn’t bother putting the actual work in, or they simply ‘bit off more than they can chew’ and don’t actually have the in-house skills to do this properly! Or, more probably, incompetent senior management, overriding engineers’ advice and doing things ’their way’!

Yes they are the best 2nd option - but really that’s because they are the only 2nd option.

This whole thing is a complete mess now. What’s the worse case scenario? They reprogram SL to make an unmanned departure, and the thrusters fail (again) at a critical moment. The capsule hits the ISS (fair enough the closing speed is likely to be quite low - but do you want any sort of collision in orbit - momentum is a bitch), or it properly separates but fails the re-entry burn leaving it in an intersecting orbit and in 90 minutes (or so) time it’ll come round again, and if it misses, repeat every 90 minutes - until it doesn’t miss!

Or leave it docked, it’s probably fairly harmless, presumably it’s possible to test fire the thrusters to exhaust all the fuel and reduce the risk of a incident - but then you have blocked up one of the docking ports. Could a future missing include an attachment with could be fitted via an EVA to provide a hard port which, maybe the CanadaArm could get hold of and push SL away? But I suspect the delta-v won’t be much and maybe not enough to clear the ISS’s orbit should the thrusters then fail. And that, of course assumes that SL is docked at a port that the Arm can reach - I have to admit, I don’t know that - I’m sure others will comment.

[Oneman2Many]

They can't leave it docked long term. Right now the situation is Crew-8 will have to undock before Crew-9 arrives which leaves no lifeboat for Butch and Suni unless they return on Crew-8 though NASA has said they will use SL in an emergency. Also means there will be no handover which NASA prefer there is.

[Ken Moorhouse]

The suits are not interchangeable

Don't give Microsoft ideas...

[Bbuckley]

Standards are NASA responsibility

Frankly, suit design is not the issue. Suit connectors to life support systems are. A fair metaphor - Boeing uses "USB" and SpaceX uses "Firewire". This is completely 100% valid and acceptable as they are competitors. If NASA wants standard spacesuit connectivity it is *NASA's* job to specify that, not the contractor!

[TeeCee]

When is a mishap not really a mishap?

When it becomes obvious to anyone watching that it's actually a monumental cockup.

[thexfile]

This is a Corporate failure and NASA got suckered by it.

[martinusher]

Large Can, Long Road

In this case, somewhat literally.