Topic: [Discuss] Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1938 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 07-27-2024 07:24 AM
quote:Originally posted by Axman: Doghouse!? ...can someone please enlighten me?
Shaped like a doghouse. The "typical" doghouse is rectangular box with a gable roof. It has an opening on one end. The four thruster enclosures resemble these.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 07-27-2024 07:31 AM
Shaped like Snoopy's doghouse, OK thanks.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 07-27-2024 10:07 AM
Here is a photo of Starliner with arrows pointing to two of the doghouses:
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-03-2024 10:56 AM
I'm trying to keep up with the problems, and I think I have a handle on the known problems regarding heat increases on "doghoused" thrusters, and helium pressure anomalies.
I have to state however, that I fear there are more problems, mostly understated almost to the point of secrecy, that both NASA and Boeing do not want to highlight. I can sense a mounting feeling of nervousness regarding the undocking and return to earth manoeuvres on a scale that is becoming uncomfortable.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3750 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-03-2024 11:10 AM
Boeing and NASA have conducted extensive testing of its propulsion system in space and on the ground...
I'm not a "rocket scientist" but I can't help thinking that all that (no doubt diligently conducted) "extensive testing" should have been done, on the ground and in orbit, before a crew was launched in Starliner.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-03-2024 11:19 AM
As you know, Starliner flew two uncrewed flights before this one, and ground tests preceded and followed each one. On this crewed test flight, Starliner was subjected to additional tests, including being manually piloted, which exposed an additional issue.
Every first crewed flight of a spacecraft has revealed issues that were previously unknown. This is not unique to Starliner.
That further tests that has been done with Starliner is because NASA and Boeing can do so without increasing the risk to the vehicle or the crew. Past first flights of crewed spacecraft, with the exception of Dragon, haven't had a space station to serve as a stable platform.
quote:Originally posted by Axman: I have to state however, that I fear there are more problems...
You can set your fears aside. There are no other issues with Starliner then those already reported by NASA and Boeing.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3750 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 08-03-2024 05:03 PM
Robert, I wouldn't disagree with anything in your post, but I suspect that most crewed flights ever made have thrown up issues that were previously unknown. There just seem to be a lot more this time.
Actually, the comparison I'm thinking of wasn't a "first flight" but did involve having a space-station "safe haven." I refer to the thruster problems with the second Skylab mission. No immediate concerns as the crew were on board Skylab and had plenty of air, food and water, and a rescue flight was available if NASA had concluded that the Apollo vehicle was unsafe. In the event (and I'm going by memory here) NASA fairly quickly ruled out a generic fault affecting all four RCS thruster-quads and ruled that the Apollo vehicle was fit to make the return with only two operational quads.
Returning to the issue of Starliner, forgive me for perhaps over-simplifying, but my impression is either Boeing are making an enormous fuss about not very much; or they are justifiably making an enormous fuss about matters which genuinely concern them. As I have said before, it isn't a good look, either for Boeing or NASA.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1336 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-03-2024 05:24 PM
I wonder how much the apparent lack of specific information regarding Starliner is caused by Boeing's desire to keep proprietary information from being divulged. I am not certain where this should go, but the following is a generic question that relates to both Boeing and SpaceX.
Does either company require astronauts that fly aboard their spacecraft to sign non-disclosure agreements, so an astronaut familiar with say, SpaceX, doesn't divulge what might be called proprietary information to Boeing, and vice-versa?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-03-2024 05:42 PM
Yes, there are proprietary concerns, but that only affects what is shared with the press and public, not what is told to the astronauts or those at NASA. I am not aware of any type of non-disclosure agreement beyond the contract between NASA and Boeing, but everyone involved are professionals and this being Boeing's spacecraft, are following Boeing's lead as to what can said publicly or not. The same is true for SpaceX on Dragon flights.
quote:Originally posted by Blackarrow: ...either Boeing are making an enormous fuss about not very much; or they are justifiably making an enormous fuss about matters which genuinely concern them.
My understanding is that it is NASA that has asked for more data to be collected, whereas Boeing believes it has the flight rationale to proceed. That doesn't mean NASA is making a "fuss"; it is just that they have the ability and time to do so.
As to the number of issues, there have been only two: a helium leak, known about prior to launch and now understood; and an RCS issue, which Boeing believes it has now diagnosed but NASA desires more data to verify. Otherwise, Starliner is in full working order and has passed all of its other trials.
oly Member
Posts: 1481 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 08-04-2024 03:36 AM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: As to the number of issues, there have been only two...
I feel that Boeing and NASA have deeper concerns about the Starliner thrusters than they are publicly stating due to the testing of thrusters while docked to the ISS and the ground tests being done.
Firing the Starliner thrusters while docked to the ISS has several risks that NASA has previously mitigated by having a minimum distance from the ISS spacecraft can fire thrusters, or just not firing thrusters while docked unless it was to modify the ISS orbit. This was to prevent putting material that can cover window transparencies with debris, and avoid spacecraft maneuvers within the safe zone should a thruster misfire or stick. Plus the added structural loads to the docking system and ISS structure that Thruster loads will apply.
Boeing mentioned post-launch and during the orbital adjustments that they have seen unexpected thruster activity which may have caused an issue with thruster heating. Perhaps the tests are designed to better understand thruster performance or to measure thruster heating so that Boeing can modify software before they bring Starliner home.
If NASA desires more data to verify what Boeing states they have diagnosed and better understand, a risk assessment would have been conducted and the added risks must have been considered worth taking to gather the additional data. It seems highly undesirable to experience unexpected thruster activity during de-orbit maneuvering.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-05-2024 11:34 AM
One thing has definitely been learnt from this mission: Boeing need a better PR team.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1336 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-06-2024 05:00 PM
That may be like putting lipstick on a pig.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-06-2024 05:46 PM
Knowing several of the Boeing PR team members, I think that's being unfairly harsh. They have generally been good at replying to my inquiries in a timely fashion and with the information requested.
I think Boeing's managers have admitted to their mistake: they should have never promoted the mission as an 8-day stay at the space station when they knew it could go longer. With no set schedule, there are no false claims of the crew being stranded and maybe the focus stays on this being a test flight.
The problem now is that Boeing and NASA are reportedly in disagreement over flight rationale. It is Boeing's spacecraft, but it is NASA's crew. At some point, one of the two is going to give and that will decide how and when this mission ends.
MartinAir Member
Posts: 412 From: Registered: Oct 2020
posted 08-06-2024 05:55 PM
"8 Days or Bust"
Headshot Member
Posts: 1336 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-06-2024 11:19 PM
For a number of reasons, Robert’s posting above disturbed me.
I am glad that he feels comfortable with the answers provided by Boeing PR personnel. Being a former newspaper associate editor myself, I valued PR access, input, and responses. I never forgot, however, that they are professional friendlies, whose job it is to make their employer look good, but not necessarily to give out bad news. Also, it is a very common practice in industry and government for upper management to not keep their own PR people fully informed, especially about negative news.
In the last paragraph Robert referred to NASA and Boeing being in disagreement over flight rationale. This is the first time I have heard about this kind of issue. It certainly brought up flashbacks to NASA and Morton Thiokol some 38 years ago. I could almost hear, “My God Boeing, when do want us to land? Next April?” I hope it is not that dire, but it is cause for serious concern.
I am starting to wonder if NASA’s preoccupation with purchasing just “services” from various vendors should be re-evaluated. While it seems to have worked well for SpaceX, it has not worked well for space suit procurement, VIPER, and, unfortunately, the jury is still out about Starliner.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-07-2024 07:26 AM
According to Ars Technica "Starliner's current flight software isn't able to autonomously undock from the space station."
They also report that NASA Commercial Crew program manager Steve Stich told reporters on July 25 that "Starliner was designed as a spacecraft to have the crew in the cockpit... The crew is integral to the spacecraft."
Did he say that? And if he did then that puts an entirely different perspective on all previous claims about Starliner's so-called innovation.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 08:23 AM
Stitch said that in the context of question about removing the crew from this landing. He was saying that it remained NASA's and Boeing's intention to bring Suni and Butch home aboard Calypso.
As for the software, yes, according to reports, Boeing omitted the autonomous undocking software as it was not part of this test flight. If needed, Boeing can upload the software to re-enable that capability. More about that may be learned at today's press briefing.
quote:Originally posted by Headshot: I could almost hear, “My God Boeing, when do want us to land? Next April?” I hope it is not that dire, but it is cause for serious concern.
Except you have the scenario reversed. From Boeing's latest mission update:
We continue to support NASA's requests for additional testing, data, analysis and reviews to affirm the spacecraft's safe undocking and landing capabilities. Our confidence is based on this abundance of valuable testing from Boeing and NASA.
The testing has confirmed 27 of 28 RCS thrusters are healthy and back to full operational capability. Starliner's propulsion system also maintains redundancy and the helium levels remain stable. The data also supports root cause assessments for the helium and thruster issues and flight rationale for Starliner and its crew's return to Earth.
Something else to keep in mind: Boeing's mission operations team are NASA flight operations managers on assignment to Boeing. So when the company says that they have reached flight rationale, it is, in part, NASA engineers who have done so; it is others at NASA who are requesting more data be collected.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 11:42 AM
NASA audio stream
NASA officials discuss ongoing International Space Station operations, including the agency’s Boeing Crew Flight Test. Agency participants include:
Ken Bowersox, associate administrator, Space Operations Mission Directorate
Steve Stich, manager, Commercial Crew Program
Dana Weigel, manager, International Space Station Program
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 11:52 AM
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: Boeing omitted the autonomous undocking...
Correction: As Ken Bowersox clarified today, the Starliner has the software to undock autonomously, but it is currently configured to default to a crewed spacecraft. So the software needs to be reconfigured, not replaced, if NASA and Boeing decide to land Calypso without a crew.
That decision has not been made as of today, but it will take time for Boeing to test the new software loads in its avionics lab before uploading it to Calypso.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-07-2024 12:44 PM
(Reconfigure vs replace) So, is that the same difference as reinstallation as opposed to resetting a computer? They are both massive tasks and each comes with its own problems.
It is also a completely different reality than the boast that the spacecraft could perform entirely manually or entirely automatically depending on circumstance...
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 01:04 PM
Starliner has the capability to land without a crew, as already demonstrated on its first two flights. It doesn't lose that capability just because its software is set differently.
That would be like saying your computer does not have the capability of connecting to the internet if someone were to go in and delete your wifi password.
It is neither a re-installation or reset; rather it is a change in settings. But as a matter of course, all changes made to a spacecraft's on board software, pre- or post-launch, are first tested in an avionics lab before being uploaded to the vehicle. (This was true for the space shuttle and is true for Dragon, as well.)
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-07-2024 01:22 PM
I'm sorry to press the point but on 6th February on this thread you told me that:
quote:Originally posted by Robert Pearlman: It is the first spacecraft that can be fully flown by its on board computers, its crew or by flight controllers on the ground.
It wasn't stated that those innovations depended on resetting/reconfiguring/removing/replacing programs from the ground after extensive testing in an avionics lab!
The clear impression given was that if any problems occurred the crew could climb aboard, unplug all computers and fly home.
The reality is they can't. And not only that but this particular spacecraft cannot do it automatically either.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 01:53 PM
Again, this a test flight.
On operational flights, all three modes will be available to crew members without software changes from the ground.
quote:Originally posted by Axman: The clear impression given was that if any problems occurred the crew could climb aboard, unplug all computers and fly home.
And they can, on this flight. That is not the issue. The manual and back-up methods are enabled on this flight. It is only in the scenario that Calypso lands without its crew must Boeing change the settings aboard the spacecraft.
garymilgrom Member
Posts: 2139 From: Atlanta, GA Registered: Feb 2007
posted 08-07-2024 05:07 PM
Lots to be concerned with … or not! How do we fact check these comments? Thank you.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 05:38 PM
There is a post above with the recording of today's press telecon. You can listen for yourself as to what NASA officials said in response to the media's questions.
My comments have been based on what NASA and (at previous briefings) Boeing has said. I know other journalists have cited sources and introduced information not yet announced. Some of it has proven to be true, some of it not.
According to today's call, NASA needs to decide by mid-August if they are bringing Suni and Butch home on Calypso or not.
If Starliner is returning with its crew, NASA wants enough time for several landing opportunities (which come every four days) before Crew-9 launches on Sept. 24.
If they decide to remove Butch and Suni, they need the time for Boeing to test and send up the settings for Starliner to perform an autonomous undocking and for SpaceX to recofigure the Crew-9 spacecraft for just two crew members (as to who is still to be announced). SpaceX will also need to load the two empty seats with ballast for launch and prepare and pack the suits for Suni and Butch to wear when they come home with the two Crew-9 members in February.
MartinAir Member
Posts: 412 From: Registered: Oct 2020
posted 08-07-2024 06:37 PM
In the conference call Steve Stich mentioned that they could perform hot firing and additional tests in the uncrewed scenario, which would not be otherwise possible, if I understood that correctly.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-07-2024 07:24 PM
Here is what Stitch said in response to a question about any additional testing NASA and Boeing might do if they undock without the crew:
The one thing that we're thinking about or talking about what to do is additional hot fires once we undock. Should we hot fire all the thrusters again to understand their performance? Or there's this one thruster that has really degraded thrust on docking day — B1A3. Should we hot fire that thruster?
That's really the main thing that we've been talking about doing relative to the undocking sequence before the deorbit burn.
There doesn't seem to be any technical reason why they couldn't do these same tests with a crew aboard, but perhaps they don't want to so as to avoid putting any additional stress on the thruster system.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1336 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-08-2024 08:02 PM
This may be getting way ahead of events, but if the Starliner crew is forced to return on a SpaceX Crew Dragon, will they have to swap their Boeing spacesuits for SpaceX spacesuits just to plug into the Dragon ECS system?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-08-2024 09:03 PM
Yes, and those suits, per NASA, would fly up with the two person crew on Crew-9. SpaceX has already identified the garments that will be flown, if needed.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-09-2024 10:53 AM
quote:Originally posted by MartinAir: "8 Days or Bust"
Ha! It took me a while, but I've just got it. 😶
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-12-2024 07:52 PM
Update from Associate Administrator for Space Ops Ken Bowersox (via X):
Teams working on the return plan for Boeing's Crew Flight Test are making progress analyzing testing data as we evaluate the Starliner return options. We now are planning for decisional meetings no earlier than next week to give the time we need to make the best decision possible for the safety of our crew, which is our top priority.
The agency will host a media update on Wednesday, Aug. 14, to provide the latest status on the ongoing work. More to come on timing.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-13-2024 11:10 AM
I've just listened to last week's teleconference. Headline news is basically this: NASA has still not decided whether Starliner comes home crewed or uncrewed. Starliner needs to leave ISS before 24th September, either crewed or uncrewed.
What wasn't made plain was why the Teflon thruster problem causes any safety issue at undocking.
Surely the spacecraft has gravity stabilisation, and surely it will reenter right end up (i.e. bottom end down. Given the number of thrusters aboard (operating at 98% efficiency) there is a surplus of availability to overcome any yaw, pitch or spin problems.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-13-2024 12:41 PM
The concern is a worst case scenario. From the same teleconference:
A worst case would be some [kind of] integrated failure mechanism between the helium leaks and the RCS thrusters.
We fire one OMAC [Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control engine] in each of the four dog houses, and then the RCS jets are there to hold the orientation. We could lose a number of jets.
It's really the multiple failure case where, if you had a helium leak in a certain dog house, and that took out the OMAC in that dog house, you could end up with some cases that aren't as easily controlled, and that's really the more stressing cases that the team is worried about.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-14-2024 01:00 PM
From Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for space operations, from today's teleconference:
We don't have any major announcements today, but we did want to spend some time with you going through our process for how we make flight readiness decisions, and to give you a little bit of status information. ...
We're expecting that the data analysis will be ready for a program board middle to end of next week, and then we would be ready for a flight readiness review around the end of next week, potentially beginning of the following week.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-22-2024 03:27 PM
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and leadership will hold an internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review on Saturday, Aug. 24, for Boeing's Crew Flight Test.
After the meeting ends, NASA will host a live news conference at 1 p.m. EDT from Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Headshot Member
Posts: 1336 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 08-22-2024 06:59 PM
Are the two Starliner astronauts allowed to give their input at this meeting?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-22-2024 08:31 PM
Butch and Suni have been in regular touch with the astronaut office, letting their opinion be known, according to Chief Astronaut Joe Acaba.
I am sure we will find out if they participated in this review at the post-meeting press conference.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-24-2024 08:12 AM
NASA video
NASA hosts a live news conference from the agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston, following the internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review for Boeing's Crew Flight Test.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 53135 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 08-24-2024 12:14 PM
NASA Administrator Bill Nelson:
NASA has decided that Butch and Suni will return with Crew-9 next February, and that Starliner will return uncrewed...
The decision to keep Butch and Suni aboard the International Space Station and bring the Boeing Starliner home uncrewed is result of a commitment to safety.
quote:Originally posted by Headshot: Are the two Starliner astronauts allowed to give their input at this meeting?
From Norm Knight, director of flight operations:
They support the agency's decision fully and they're ready to continue this mission on board ISS as members of the Expedition 71 crew.
Axman Member
Posts: 586 From: Derbyshire UK Registered: Mar 2023
posted 08-24-2024 12:40 PM
This being a discussion thread on the Starliner test mission can I point out three things:
The live news update was probably delayed because Boeing declined to have a representative.
It is quite clear why Boeing wouldn't want to face questions. Their stock must be falling as we speak/type.
But six talking heads from NASA? Four of whom (at the very least) were just repeating the same spiel wasn't very helpful — it all smacks a little of propaganda.
posted 07-27-2024 07:24 AM
advertisement