To crew, or not to crew – that is the question facing Boeing's stricken Starliner A big weekend lies ahead for Boeing's CST-100 Starliner as NASA prepares to make a call on whether the crew will be returning in the spacecraft, as originally planned, or as part of the Crew-9 mission in 2025. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and the agency's leadership will hold an internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review …
The thing that most surprises me about this whole mess is why NASA would ever consider that having a different design of docking adapter and space suit for each type of American vehicle that is to dock with the ISS was a good idea..
That the Soviet G2S vehicles would use different docking adapters and space suit connectors is expected: the two parts of the original ISS design were always intended to use differing docking ports and space suit connectors from the get-go.
However, it beggars belief that NASA would not have specfied a common set of docking adapters for all American spacecraft as well as common space suit interface(s), if only to save costs and re-implementation effort by basing these interfaces on than the well-tested Shuttle docking and space suit connectors. AFAIK those never caused problems throughout their useful life.
No, giving money to SpaceX was seen as a good way of wasting money and time.
REMEMBER: when this all started, Boeing was the shoo-in, and that goofy SpaceX startup was the complete waste of time and money.
Nobody expected SpaceX to actually ever reach Station.
It never entered anyone's mind that SpaceX would eventually have to rescue a Boeing crew.
The American docking adapters ARE standard.
https://www.internationaldockingstandard.com/
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/meet-the-international-docking-adapter/
American spacecraft, INCLUDING Shuttle, either dock to this, or are berthed by the robot arm to a standard pressure door, which allows larger cargo.
Suits weren't NASA's choice or requirement.
With Commercial Crew, NASA bought American rides to ISS.
These rides had to pass safety, and had to be able to dock/berth to ISS. Other than that, it was free rein. If SpaceX used Flubber or a magic carpet instead of rockets, NASA DGAF as long as it didn't endanger station or crew.
Neither Boeing nor SpaceX are required to use spacesuits, except as it solves the "don't endanger crew" requirement, and they were free to design whatever they needed.
...On the other hand, would adaptors for the suits work? Where do they plug in? Just how much "plumbing" is involved? Air, cooling, data, audio comms all go through the connector? Or is it something more simple? After all, don't they generally fly with visors open anyway, only closing them in case of emergency[*]?
* I wonder what constitutes an emergency severe enough to require sealing the visors that's not likely to be fatal?
To ensure SLS block 1 would launch by 2016 congress decided to use an upper stage (Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage) based on Centaur which has been flying since the 60s. The wimpy ICPS massively restricts SLS capabilities so a new Exploration Upper Stage was ordered for SLS block 1B. SLS is assembled on a mobile launch platform in the vertical assembly building and the rocket and platform are carried out together to the launch site by the crawler/transporter. The MLP includes a tower to fill the core stage and upper stage with propellants. The solid rocket boosters have grown an extra segment each since the space shuttle so the combined mass of SLS and MLP are now sufficient damage the crawler transporter's tracks and they path the travel to the launch site. EUS is longer than ICPS so the propellant connections are at a different height. A whole new MLP is required otherwise SLS block 1B would be delayed because modifications to MLP1 would not be able to start until after Artemis III.
Clearly this situation is untenable. What if MLP2 was completed before EUS? Boeing would look bad for delaying Artemis IV. The solution was simple: do not decide what height the propellant connections will be at until the last possible minute. Bechtel cannot start design of MLP2 without that. Moving the connections also moves the fans that blow hydrogen leaks away before the concentration gets big enough for an explosion. Designing the MLP for a choice of connection heights is also tricky. The platform must be optimized for mass so it does not go much further over the limits of the crawler transporter.
If Boeing and SpaceX had to agree on a flight suit connector US astronauts would now have a choice of rides to the ISS: Soyuz or Shenzou.
Believe it or not there is a worse solution. NASA could decide the shape of the flight suit connectors. Congress would then have an opportunity to help like they did with SLS. Giving Boeing and SpaceX the freedom to work independently of congress (and each other) saves a huge amount of time and money. It also means a flight suit design issue does not ground both crew transport systems at the same time.
If you haven’t seen it, can I highly recommend Adam Savages YouTube channel “Adam Savage’s Tested”
https://youtu.be/MxyqMw-IDq8
He’s an extraordinary Maker, more so than you get to see on Mythbusters. He also talks about the practicalities of how running such a making business actually works, which inevitably touches on a philosophy of life, in a “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” sort of way.
Worth noting that "NASA has approved the Starliner for a crew return as a contingency" can be translated to "in the event of gravity film like scenario (where the ISS must be abandoned), it can be used as a life-raft - better than certain death".
What nobody is mentioning is that the propellant leak on the way up might have continued adding to the risk - at some point a Boeing manager would have highlighted the growing risk to expedite a decision.
It's entirely possible that SpaceX has vetoed sending a empty suite since it might not fit, and insist they return on a Soyuz spacecraft instead.
Other technical questions include the software patch and reboot to allow unmanned disconnect.
Either way, Boeing is going to have issue a bond for uninsured liability: The Astronauts will not have signed a waiver for a SpaceX ride
"It's entirely possible that SpaceX has vetoed sending a empty suite since it might not fit, and insist they return on a Soyuz spacecraft instead."
Possible? Yes. Likely? No, I don't think so. The PR capital alone would be invaluable for SpaceX, even if you ignore Musks ego :-)
The crew are professionals, certainly not idiots and will be fully aware of the risks and probabilities. I very, very much doubt that they will obey any order along the lines of ‘just get in, we know best, don’t worry your pretty little heads about it’!
Technically there is no ‘need’ for them to wear pressures suits for re-entry and landing, the Dragon capsule is fully pressurised. It’s a ‘well just in case’ scenario - see Soyuz 11.
It comes down to a risk analysis of the options available, return in Starliner, return in a Crew Dragon (sans suits) - I believe Soyuz return is out of the question because of the seat design, and also it can only hold thee people.
If Starliner returns empty and shows that the crew could have got back that way someone (probably NASA administrator and former senator for Boeing Bill Nelson) will have to explain why Starliner gets cancelled. I understand Bill's choice to wait until the last possible moment hoping for a scrap of evidence that makes the decision for him.
Depends on who you have to explain decisions to. Boeing's mouth piece expressed confidence in Starliner and that it should return with crew. NASA took him off the press briefings. I would like a second safe option for crew transport and I am happy for NASA to look for ways to find one that do not involve risking lives.
“I would like a second safe option for crew transport”.
Hard disagree. Duplicating capability is reactionary, and a waste of human intelligence, skill and labour.. A safe effective solution exists for Crew Transport: Dragon. If somebody else wants to spend their own R&D making a competitor project, and thinks they can do it commercially at even lower price/higher capability than SpaceX, then absolutely they should go and do it, but without subsidy. NASA should be spending the budget saved on developing some new, different capability that is needed, but that we don’t have.
An obvious alternative project: most astronauts spend their time when they’re up there, either fixing things, or “doing experiments”. Things that could in principle be done by remote robot *from ground* with sensitive accurate manipulation. The distance is irrelevant: 460km round-trip light flight time is 3 milliseconds latency. I’m well aware that remotely operating is easier said than done. It’s not just about the manipulator, but how a human operator can get the correct “feel”. Great. It’s a hard problem, and a useful one to solve. A great use of $3bn of development money then. I’m not tied to this idea, I’m sure that there are half a dozen other genuine new frontiers to be tackled, for that money. Pick your own goal and solve it. My point is, duplication is lazy and pointless.
For example, Galileo. Galileo is a simple copy of GPS constellation. Do you really imagine that the universe has decreed as a fundamental law of physics that the *only* way to navigate, is to transmit a spread spectrum signal from satellites? Take a step back, how unlikely is that? Do you really think that a century from now, that is how we are going to be doing it? No? Then why not spend the *$10billion* that Galileo cost, and will continue costing every year, on developing the new nav technology whatever it is. $10billion is a lot of money, it buys a lot of science and engineering. Building cargo cult is such a waste. Do I know what the next Gen nav will look like….not exactly. But here’s one possibility: improved quantum-based accelerometers and gyros; chip-scale atomic clocks. Does it work yet, no, but eventually something like it will.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/245114/quantum-sensor-future-navigation-system-tested/
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/sponsored/quantum-sensing-new-approach-maintaining-pnt-gps-denied
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/VCAT-NIST-CSADemo.pdf
I'm pretty sure Boeing's management doesn't care about their safety (although the company will publicly deny that). They know that if Starliner returns without a crew the program is dead. There's simply not enough time to patch up the Starliner's thrusters and fly another CFT before the ISS is retired.
NASA says that they're "100%" certain that Starliner will fly again with crew. I'm convinced they didn't consult with Boeing on that statement.
Surely I can't be the only person wondering just how much of the movie If You Were the Last is going on here?
Not the way it works, and also there is no need for a ‘rescue mission’ nobody is in immediate danger.
And it seems that NASA has decided that the Starliner is ‘not fit for purpose’ and won’t be using it to return the two crew members back.
And, I think, that’s it; the Starliner programme is dead, absolutely dead. Boeing will need to simply write off the losses, wonder if this is enough to completely kill the company? Probably not!
Anyhow, the issue now is to undock the capsule (unmanned( from the ISS and get rid of it - that in itself may be slightly problematic.
"And, I think, that’s it; the Starliner programme is dead, absolutely dead. Boeing will need to simply write off the losses, wonder if this is enough to completely kill the company? Probably not!"
Not quite, unless Boeing default on the contract. They are contracted for a certain number of "rides" to the ISS. Even if it makes them go even further into the red than they already are on this contract.
"Anyhow, the issue now is to undock the capsule (unmanned( from the ISS and get rid of it - that in itself may be slightly problematic."
It's capable of operating unmanned as per the last mission. It's just that they took out that code from the computer systems. Part of this long delay has been building options, which included remotely uploading, installing and testing the software to revert the capsule to unmanned operation.
But yeah, the whole thing has been shit show from start to finish. Boeing got paid a lot more than SpaceX to develop this capability because NASA thought they were the best bet. SpaceX were the outsiders who may or may not succeed, eventually, but NASA had to select a "competitor". And look where the "underdog" SpaceX is now. SO far ahead of Boeing it not funny any more.
Starliner is coming back uncrewed.
And the 2 crew from starliner are up there for the next 6 months before coming home in a dragon.
Must be a bit of a problem though... "Bye honey, I'll be back in 10 days"..........
7 months later
"Hi honey I'm home"
"where the &%^$ were you? you missed labour day, thanksgiving AND xmas"
"Sorry.. my ride home broke down"
NASA and Boeing are claiming that Starliner will fly again with crew. Is anyone buying that? Not me.
The article claims that Boeing has lost money on Starliner but I'm convinced that this is not the case. Boeing doesn't give anyone insight into its cost structure and profit taking on Starliner. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the engineers got less than half of the $4.3 billion to build and test the spacecraft. With all the writedowns Boeing is still in the black.
Boeing haven’t been paid yet. They get interim payments, as contract milestones are achieved. The last flight was an extra, so done entirely at their expense. Since this flight has been a failure, NASA can make them re-do it for free as well. They get more money, after they succeed at that.
If they pull out, they may have to pay back what they’ve already had. Depends on contract terms, so I don’t know.
But the only way to get the bulk of the cash, is to perform 6 crew flights. Something they’ll struggle with, as they only have 6 rockets left, and this test to re-run.
Here it is: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/starliner-return-too-risky-for-stuck-astronauts/.
Giving Musk more to crow over is a small price to pay for getting these people home.
Most likely scenario now is: Starliner returns intact, Boeing crows "there, we told you it was safe all along" (whilst privately heaving a huge sigh of relief in the boardroom) and asks for the next few billion dollars.
Next most likely scenario is: Boeing performs an *intentional* timed self-destruct of Starliner on the way down, ostensibility for "safety reasons" - but in reality so they don't have to see if it will do an RUD on its own - and then asks for the next few billion dollars to continue working.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
