Boeing Starliner
Joined: Feb 2015
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 359
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
I believe I would think twice before an atmospheric plummet aboard Starliner.
- Ed
After weeks of troubleshooting and recent tests meant to replicate the issues plaguing Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, NASA and Boeing officials still aren’t ready to name a return date for the two astronauts piloting the vehicle on its inaugural crewed test flight.
But engineers do finally have some possible answers about what ultimately caused some of the Starliner’s problems during the first leg of its trip, which included helium leaks and thrusters that abruptly quit working en route to the International Space Station.
The revelations come after Boeing and NASA spent the past couple of weeks working to understand the problem on the ground and prompted plans for some additional testing this weekend, which should serve as “icing on the cake” for understanding the issues, said Mark Nappi, Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program manager.
At a site in New Mexico, engineers fired test engines more than 1,000 times, replicating how the thrusters on the space-bound Starliner would have ignited. They then fired the thruster to try out several ways the engines might fire on the way home from space, according to Boeing.
The goal of this testing was to gain a better understanding of why the spacecraft’s thrusters unexpectedly shut down, and what — if any — dangers are associated with turning those thrusters back on.
Officials said they were able to recreate how the thrusters in space deteriorated during flight with the ground tests. And the testing may have helped give engineers a better understanding of the issue’s “root cause”: Heat building up inside the thrusters may be causing Teflon seals to bulge, restricting the flow of propellant.
That testing has “given us additional confidence to undock in return,” Nappi said.
Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft that launched NASA’s Crew Flight Test astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station is pictured docked to the Harmony module’s forward port. - NASAThe findings also prompted Boeing and NASA to abandon plans to allow the astronauts to manually fly the Starliner spacecraft on the way home, as they did briefly during the trip to the ISS. “Some of the manual maneuvering put some extra stress on the thrusters,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial crew program manager.
Still, officials did not definitively say Thursday that the Starliner spacecraft that carried veteran NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the space station would be the same vehicle that brought the astronauts back home.
“There is a lot of good reasons to complete this mission and bring Butch and Suni home on Starliner,” Stich said after noting that NASA does have contingency options if Starliner is not approved to bring the astronauts home.
“We need to get through the process,” he added. “We have another critical Starliner mission management team to review all the thruster data that we just talked about.”
“Of course, I’m very confident we have a good vehicle to bring the crew back with,” Nappi said.
Williams and Wilmore arrived at the International Space Station on June 6 for what was expected to be a roughly week-long mission. As of Thursday, the astronauts have been in space for about 50 days. NASA has previously indicated that the Starliner can stay in space for a maximum of 90 days.
That testing will include firing 27 of the Starliner’s thrusters while the vehicle remains docked with the ISS.
Analysis of components on the ground — specifically, a version of the Starliner’s service module that’s been sitting in White Sands, New Mexico for three years — showed that the helium leaks may be a result of seals that have become degraded because of exposure to propellant vapor, according to Nappi.
“The natural fix to that is to just change that seal out to a material that’s not so susceptible” to being worn down by exposure to the propellant, Nappi said, referring to possible changes Boeing can make for future Starliner missions.
Still ahead, however, is work to determine whether the leaks on board the Starliner that’s already in space have grown worse as the vehicle has remained docked at the ISS. Because the service module — the portion of the spacecraft plagued by the helium leaks — on the ground was exposed to propellant for so long, Nappi said it could offer a worst case understanding of how badly the seals can be degraded.
The ongoing effort to understand the helium leak issue is among the chief reasons why NASA and Boeing still aren’t able to set a return date for Williams and Wilmore — or give a definitive answer on whether the Starliner is ready to fly them home.
“The key attributes of the flight rationale really are that we understand the helium leaks — we understand the stability of the leaks and how we can manage those, should they get bigger,” Stich said, referring to the possibility that helium leaks affecting the Starliner service module may worsen.
NASA and Boeing plan to carry out a review to plan for Starliner’s undocking, which “could be as early as late next week,” according to Stich.
From CNN
- Ed
After weeks of troubleshooting and recent tests meant to replicate the issues plaguing Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, NASA and Boeing officials still aren’t ready to name a return date for the two astronauts piloting the vehicle on its inaugural crewed test flight.
But engineers do finally have some possible answers about what ultimately caused some of the Starliner’s problems during the first leg of its trip, which included helium leaks and thrusters that abruptly quit working en route to the International Space Station.
The revelations come after Boeing and NASA spent the past couple of weeks working to understand the problem on the ground and prompted plans for some additional testing this weekend, which should serve as “icing on the cake” for understanding the issues, said Mark Nappi, Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program manager.
At a site in New Mexico, engineers fired test engines more than 1,000 times, replicating how the thrusters on the space-bound Starliner would have ignited. They then fired the thruster to try out several ways the engines might fire on the way home from space, according to Boeing.
The goal of this testing was to gain a better understanding of why the spacecraft’s thrusters unexpectedly shut down, and what — if any — dangers are associated with turning those thrusters back on.
Officials said they were able to recreate how the thrusters in space deteriorated during flight with the ground tests. And the testing may have helped give engineers a better understanding of the issue’s “root cause”: Heat building up inside the thrusters may be causing Teflon seals to bulge, restricting the flow of propellant.
That testing has “given us additional confidence to undock in return,” Nappi said.
Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft that launched NASA’s Crew Flight Test astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station is pictured docked to the Harmony module’s forward port. - NASAThe findings also prompted Boeing and NASA to abandon plans to allow the astronauts to manually fly the Starliner spacecraft on the way home, as they did briefly during the trip to the ISS. “Some of the manual maneuvering put some extra stress on the thrusters,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial crew program manager.Still, officials did not definitively say Thursday that the Starliner spacecraft that carried veteran NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the space station would be the same vehicle that brought the astronauts back home.
“There is a lot of good reasons to complete this mission and bring Butch and Suni home on Starliner,” Stich said after noting that NASA does have contingency options if Starliner is not approved to bring the astronauts home.
“We need to get through the process,” he added. “We have another critical Starliner mission management team to review all the thruster data that we just talked about.”
“Of course, I’m very confident we have a good vehicle to bring the crew back with,” Nappi said.
Williams and Wilmore arrived at the International Space Station on June 6 for what was expected to be a roughly week-long mission. As of Thursday, the astronauts have been in space for about 50 days. NASA has previously indicated that the Starliner can stay in space for a maximum of 90 days.
Additional Starliner testing
Separately, engineers may have made headway understanding helium leaks that hampered the first leg of Starliner’s journey. But Boeing and NASA will take a close look at that issue again during additional testing of the vehicle in space that will continue this weekend, Stich said.That testing will include firing 27 of the Starliner’s thrusters while the vehicle remains docked with the ISS.
Analysis of components on the ground — specifically, a version of the Starliner’s service module that’s been sitting in White Sands, New Mexico for three years — showed that the helium leaks may be a result of seals that have become degraded because of exposure to propellant vapor, according to Nappi.
“The natural fix to that is to just change that seal out to a material that’s not so susceptible” to being worn down by exposure to the propellant, Nappi said, referring to possible changes Boeing can make for future Starliner missions.
Still ahead, however, is work to determine whether the leaks on board the Starliner that’s already in space have grown worse as the vehicle has remained docked at the ISS. Because the service module — the portion of the spacecraft plagued by the helium leaks — on the ground was exposed to propellant for so long, Nappi said it could offer a worst case understanding of how badly the seals can be degraded.
The ongoing effort to understand the helium leak issue is among the chief reasons why NASA and Boeing still aren’t able to set a return date for Williams and Wilmore — or give a definitive answer on whether the Starliner is ready to fly them home.
“The key attributes of the flight rationale really are that we understand the helium leaks — we understand the stability of the leaks and how we can manage those, should they get bigger,” Stich said, referring to the possibility that helium leaks affecting the Starliner service module may worsen.
NASA and Boeing plan to carry out a review to plan for Starliner’s undocking, which “could be as early as late next week,” according to Stich.
From CNN
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Likes: 34
From: Texas
My interpretation of the articles posted by ORAC and cavuman1 is Boeing/NASA finally have an idea of what's going on with the thrusters and helium leaks, but (reading between the lines) don't know if the issues experienced on the way up will cause problems on the way down.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
My interpretation of the articles posted by ORAC and cavuman1 is Boeing/NASA finally have an idea of what's going on with the thrusters and helium leaks, but (reading between the lines) don't know if the issues experienced on the way up will cause problems on the way down.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
It must be the case that I've watched too many James Bond movies, or maybe I watched an okay quantity and batch but recall too creatively.
Perhaps there is a purpose to the two astronauts staying on ISS which is not being shared with the public.
There has evidently been some anticipatory stockpiling of consummables; no press reports of which I'm aware have noted concern over this factor in crew rotation scheduling and planning.
Perhaps there is a purpose to the two astronauts staying on ISS which is not being shared with the public.
There has evidently been some anticipatory stockpiling of consummables; no press reports of which I'm aware have noted concern over this factor in crew rotation scheduling and planning.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 4th August 2024 at 20:53.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 1,070
From: Australia
Killing the Starliner crew is an extinction event for the Boeing space program. The crew dying means Boeing Fu*ked up and with all the other issues at Boeing I would be shocked if they take the risk. I think you will see the crew come home on the competition and the Starliner go back un-manned.
This won’t be the end of Boeing in space, they will just crank up the lobbyists and buy some more Congressmen and Senators with strategic campaign contributions.
This won’t be the end of Boeing in space, they will just crank up the lobbyists and buy some more Congressmen and Senators with strategic campaign contributions.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/0...rliner-issues/
NASA likely to significantly delay the launch of Crew 9 due to Starliner issues
NASA is planning to significantly delay the launch of the Crew 9 mission to the International Space Station due to ongoing concerns about the Starliner spacecraft currently attached to the station.
While the space agency has not said anything publicly, sources say NASA should announce the decision this week. Officials are contemplating moving the Crew-9 mission from its current date of August 18 to September 24, a significant slip.
Nominally, this Crew Dragon mission will carry NASA astronauts Zena Cardman, spacecraft commander; Nick Hague, pilot; and Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; as well as Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov, for a six-month journey to the space station. However, NASA has been considering alternatives to the crew lineup—possibly launching with two astronauts instead of four—due to ongoing discussions about the viability of Starliner to safely return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to Earth.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home.
During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
At issue is the performance of the small reaction control system thrusters in proximity to the space station. If the right combination of them fail before Starliner has moved sufficiently far from the station, Starliner could become uncontrollable and collide with the space station. The thrusters are also needed later in the flight back to Earth to set up the critical de-orbit burn and entry in Earth's atmosphere.
Software struggles
NASA has quietly been studying the possibility of crew returning in a Dragon for more than a month. As NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause of the thruster failure, the possibility of Wilmore and Williams returning on a Dragon spacecraft has increased in the last 10 days. NASA has consistently said that ‘crew safety’ will be its No. 1 priority in deciding how to proceed.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth.
Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
NASA likely to significantly delay the launch of Crew 9 due to Starliner issues
NASA is planning to significantly delay the launch of the Crew 9 mission to the International Space Station due to ongoing concerns about the Starliner spacecraft currently attached to the station.
While the space agency has not said anything publicly, sources say NASA should announce the decision this week. Officials are contemplating moving the Crew-9 mission from its current date of August 18 to September 24, a significant slip.
Nominally, this Crew Dragon mission will carry NASA astronauts Zena Cardman, spacecraft commander; Nick Hague, pilot; and Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; as well as Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov, for a six-month journey to the space station. However, NASA has been considering alternatives to the crew lineup—possibly launching with two astronauts instead of four—due to ongoing discussions about the viability of Starliner to safely return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to Earth.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home.
During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
At issue is the performance of the small reaction control system thrusters in proximity to the space station. If the right combination of them fail before Starliner has moved sufficiently far from the station, Starliner could become uncontrollable and collide with the space station. The thrusters are also needed later in the flight back to Earth to set up the critical de-orbit burn and entry in Earth's atmosphere.
Software struggles
NASA has quietly been studying the possibility of crew returning in a Dragon for more than a month. As NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause of the thruster failure, the possibility of Wilmore and Williams returning on a Dragon spacecraft has increased in the last 10 days. NASA has consistently said that ‘crew safety’ will be its No. 1 priority in deciding how to proceed.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth.
Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,208
Likes: 351
From: London UK
Has there not always been a Russian Soyuz craft docked at the ISS, periodically rotated, which can be used at any time to do an emergency evacuation if need be, as well as regular Russian crew changes ? It has capacity for the full complement of ISS personnel at any one time.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 34
From: London,England
There are always enough seats on a Soyuz or a Space X Dragon for the current compliment but no spares. If NASA decide to the bring the Starliner crew home on a Dragon capsule the next crew (which is launching shortly) will be reduced to 2 from 4 to free up spare seats.
Consumables isn't an issue, there is always enough to account for at least one, perhaps two, failed re-supply missions.
Consumables isn't an issue, there is always enough to account for at least one, perhaps two, failed re-supply missions.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 240
Likes: 35
From: Cambridge UK
NASA likely to significantly delay the launch of Crew 9 due to Starliner issues
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/0...rliner-issues/
The primary reason for the delay is rather surprising.
.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
The primary reason for the delay is rather surprising.
.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
Last edited by Peter H; 6th August 2024 at 18:50.
Pegase Driver
Joined: May 1997
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 4,454
Likes: 1,168
From: Europe
Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks.
Joined: Oct 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,704
Likes: 1,085
From: USA
I suspect there isn't a version of software available that is known to be compatible with autonomous operation and the current hardware so they need to run all the performance test cases.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
I know that you know, that we know, that they know we know…..NASA will announce this afternoon that Crew-9 is slipping to no earlier than September 24.
"No decisions" have been yet made on when or how of Starliner's return.
Administrator Bill Nelson tells me he will have the final say on how Butch and Suni come home.
"No decisions" have been yet made on when or how of Starliner's return.
Administrator Bill Nelson tells me he will have the final say on how Butch and Suni come home.
Joined: May 2024
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 379
Likes: 36
From: Kaupuala
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 953
From: Aus
Avweb
It's looking more likely that test pilots Sunni Williams and Butch Wilmore won't be going Boeing for their trip back to earth from the International Space Station. Instead, there are reports now leaking out of NASA that a SpaceX Dragon capsule will do a quick turnaround launch from Cape Canaveral to pick them up and take them home. Before that can happen, the problem-plagued Starliner crew capsule that took them to the ISS will be sent back empty to make room for the Dragon to dock. Several space publications are reporting anonymous sources as saying there's at least an even chance the Starliner will be considered too risky for an occupied reentry.The decision will likely be announced soon because there's a long-scheduled Dragon flight scheduled to bring four long-term tenants to the ISS on Aug. 18. The sources are now saying that flight, dubbed Crew Nine, will be pushed to Sept. 24 and two pilots will take their capsule to the ISS for the sole purpose of picking up Williams and Wilmore, who NASA continues to insist are not "stranded" on the station. The Crew Nine mission is supposed to take three NASA astronauts and one Russian to the ISS for a six-month rotation. The Starliner has major issues with its maneuvering thrusters and has sprung at least five helium leaks.
Joined: Jan 2008
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 1,070
From: Australia
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/0...rliner-issues/
The primary reason for the delay is rather surprising.
.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
The primary reason for the delay is rather surprising.
.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
But if the autonomous bit of the software has been removed, how do they get it to undock from the Space Station without an astronaut on board (the Starliner)?
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 153
Likes: 57
From: Switzerland
Very strange, You normally can update a software program remotely no? I know a spacecraft is a bit more complex than an iPhone, but even if there are , as suggested , physical buttons to press , the spacecraft is accessible so it should be a relatively simple operation . There must be more to the story.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Final segment of article by Eric Berger:
For this reason, if NASA decides to return Starliner autonomously, it must be certain the undocking software update will work.
As NASA is working to balance all of these risks—the risk to crew on board Starliner, the risk of an uncrewed departure to the ISS, the risk to astronauts on board the space station, and more—Boeing has been lobbying to bring Starliner home with crew. Although NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause for the failure of the thrusters, Boeing has been urging NASA to accept "flight rationale" as a substitute. That is, Boeing believes it has provided enough data to NASA to be confident the thrusters will not fail in a catastrophic manner.
This campaign spilled out into the public on Friday evening when Boeing put out a news release [link omitted] trumpeting all of the testing it has done since the launch of the Crew Flight Test.
"Boeing remains confident in the Starliner spacecraft and its ability to return safely with crew," the company stated. "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." [end of article segment]
I'll take a step back, for perspective.
In the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo era, in other words during the "Space Race", the imperative for success was upon NASA on behalf of the country, in the competition begat by the Cold War, and as part of the Cold War, between United States and the U.S.S.R. The competition, really a contestation, involved all the elements of national power - to borrow a phrase from the recently-released Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy. This is a significant premise for further points, because the success or failure of any given mission, of each phase of the national effort to send a person (formerly, a "man"), to the Moon and bring the person home safely, was a matter of political accountability within the overall system of government, within the entirety of American society. (Phrasing changes with apologies to JFK's speechwriters for his addresses at Rice University and to Congress which declared the goals of lunar landing and return.)
What accountability has been established for SpaceX, and Elon Musk individually, which would, if it exists, equate to the systemic accountability which existed in the lunar program era? This is not, repeat not, a negative criticism or critique of SpaceX or Musk . . . . so far. That is, so far the company has produced major engineering and programmatic success, perhaps even astounding success. For another time (maybe), what accountability on a par with the kind of national-representational accountability assigned to NASA during the lunar program, has been established for SpaceX with respect to several R&D and operational program elements? For the HLS which is supposed to descend and ascend to/from the lunar surface, matching or exceeding the old, ungainly, but remarkable Lunar Module (LM, or to certain cognescenti, the LEM)? The orbiting fuel depot? And I'm not reaching into my bag of Wishing for Controversy by noting any as-yet unsettled issues with Starlink and Astronomy interference, or orbital debris, or (especially controversy-provoking) how the political consensus in the United States, or Western Alliance countries, or anywhere, resolves contemporary intelligentsia fascination with "settler colonialism" on one hand, and Musk wanting to "colonize" another planet.
So back to Boeing. Ironic, isn't it, that where it once was a major space program contractor - it was part of the Saturn V team iirc - it now stands somewhat apart from NASA? That it appears to be saying to NASA, "trust me, the check is in the mail" whereas in the lunar program era, it bought into, it copped to, the national-representation obligations which had been conferred upon NASA?
The French are correct, the more things change the more they stay the same, but sometimes it takes quite a long process to perceive the changes being made in the first place. Or to understand them. Not to cross threads too much, but maybe experience at Rockwell will help the new CEO get this apparent debacle either clarified as to what really is going on, or straightened out otherwise. In the meantime, DON'T open the pod bay doors HAL.
Port concerns
The International Space Station has two docking ports for crew vehicles, and these must accommodate both Crew Dragon and Starliner. At present, one of these ports is occupied by the Crew-8 spacecraft, which is due to return to Earth fairly soon. The other port is occupied by Starliner. One source at Johnson Space Center said the concern is that NASA cannot afford to "brick" one of its two crew docking ports.For this reason, if NASA decides to return Starliner autonomously, it must be certain the undocking software update will work.
As NASA is working to balance all of these risks—the risk to crew on board Starliner, the risk of an uncrewed departure to the ISS, the risk to astronauts on board the space station, and more—Boeing has been lobbying to bring Starliner home with crew. Although NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause for the failure of the thrusters, Boeing has been urging NASA to accept "flight rationale" as a substitute. That is, Boeing believes it has provided enough data to NASA to be confident the thrusters will not fail in a catastrophic manner.
This campaign spilled out into the public on Friday evening when Boeing put out a news release [link omitted] trumpeting all of the testing it has done since the launch of the Crew Flight Test.
"Boeing remains confident in the Starliner spacecraft and its ability to return safely with crew," the company stated. "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." [end of article segment]
I'll take a step back, for perspective.
In the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo era, in other words during the "Space Race", the imperative for success was upon NASA on behalf of the country, in the competition begat by the Cold War, and as part of the Cold War, between United States and the U.S.S.R. The competition, really a contestation, involved all the elements of national power - to borrow a phrase from the recently-released Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy. This is a significant premise for further points, because the success or failure of any given mission, of each phase of the national effort to send a person (formerly, a "man"), to the Moon and bring the person home safely, was a matter of political accountability within the overall system of government, within the entirety of American society. (Phrasing changes with apologies to JFK's speechwriters for his addresses at Rice University and to Congress which declared the goals of lunar landing and return.)
What accountability has been established for SpaceX, and Elon Musk individually, which would, if it exists, equate to the systemic accountability which existed in the lunar program era? This is not, repeat not, a negative criticism or critique of SpaceX or Musk . . . . so far. That is, so far the company has produced major engineering and programmatic success, perhaps even astounding success. For another time (maybe), what accountability on a par with the kind of national-representational accountability assigned to NASA during the lunar program, has been established for SpaceX with respect to several R&D and operational program elements? For the HLS which is supposed to descend and ascend to/from the lunar surface, matching or exceeding the old, ungainly, but remarkable Lunar Module (LM, or to certain cognescenti, the LEM)? The orbiting fuel depot? And I'm not reaching into my bag of Wishing for Controversy by noting any as-yet unsettled issues with Starlink and Astronomy interference, or orbital debris, or (especially controversy-provoking) how the political consensus in the United States, or Western Alliance countries, or anywhere, resolves contemporary intelligentsia fascination with "settler colonialism" on one hand, and Musk wanting to "colonize" another planet.
So back to Boeing. Ironic, isn't it, that where it once was a major space program contractor - it was part of the Saturn V team iirc - it now stands somewhat apart from NASA? That it appears to be saying to NASA, "trust me, the check is in the mail" whereas in the lunar program era, it bought into, it copped to, the national-representation obligations which had been conferred upon NASA?
The French are correct, the more things change the more they stay the same, but sometimes it takes quite a long process to perceive the changes being made in the first place. Or to understand them. Not to cross threads too much, but maybe experience at Rockwell will help the new CEO get this apparent debacle either clarified as to what really is going on, or straightened out otherwise. In the meantime, DON'T open the pod bay doors HAL.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 7th August 2024 at 17:23.
Joined: Oct 2004
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 454
Likes: 134
From: Norfolk, UK
Really can't see them riding that thing home under a post-challenger NASA. Boeing's rep at the minute isn't going to help that decision process either.
You don't delay a scheduled crew rotation without a very, very good reason....
You don't delay a scheduled crew rotation without a very, very good reason....
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/0...rliner-return/
NASA official acknowledges internal “disagreement” on safety of Starliner return
During a news conference on Wednesday, NASA officials for the first time publicly discussed divisions within the agency about whether the Starliner spacecraft is really reliable enough to return two veteran astronauts—Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams—back to Earth from the International Space Station.
The space agency also confirmed key elements exclusively reported by Ars over the last week, chiefly that NASA has quietly been working for weeks with SpaceX on a potential rescue mission for Wilmore and Williams, that the Crew-9 mission launch has been delayed to September 24 to account for this possibility, and that Starliner is unable to undock autonomously with the current software configuration on the vehicle.
The chief of space human spaceflight operations for NASA, former astronaut Ken Bowersox, said no final decisions have been made on how Wilmore and Williams return to Earth. He said there were reasonable disagreements among engineers at NASA, which is the customer for the spaceflight, and Boeing, which developed and operates Starliner, about the viability of the 28 reaction control system thrusters that are used for delicate maneuvering and pointing of the vehicle.
"I think it's been very healthy," Bowersox said of these internal discussions during a call with reporters on Wednesday. "I have to admit that sometimes when we get disagreement, it's not fun. It can be painful having those discussions, but it's what makes us a good organization."
NASA has been studying various contingencies, but officials appear to have settled on two different options for bringing the two astronauts back to Earth. They could still fly back on Starliner if NASA engineers become more comfortable with the uncertainty about the thruster performance, and if so, they would do so during the second half of this month or the first part of September.
Alternatively, NASA could launch the Crew-9 mission with a complement of two rather than four astronauts, and Wilmore and Williams would join that "increment" on the space station and fly back to Earth in February 2025.
Asked if he thought one of the two scenarios was more likely than the other, Bowersox said he could not say. However, a final decision will be made fairly soon. Bowersox said NASA needs to choose the astronauts' return path by mid-August.
Thruster issues
NASA's concern about Starliner's thrusters boils down to the failure of five of them during the vehicle's ascent to the space station. Starliner's flight computer shut off five thrusters, provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne, in flight. Four of the five thrusters were recovered after overheating.
Since then Boeing and NASA have conducted ground- and space-based tests of the small thrusters to try to replicate the failure and better understand, fundamentally, what is occurring. By getting to the root cause, the engineers will feel confident in their ability to address the problem for Starliner's flight back to Earth.
In ground tests, the engineers were able to demonstrate similar failures. Subsequent inspections showed bulging in a Teflon seal in an oxidizer valve known as a "poppet," which could restrict the flow of nitrogen tetroxide propellant. The thrusters consume the nitrogen tetroxide and mix it with hydrazine fuel for combustion. Despite the tests, however, engineers still don't understand precisely why the bulging is occurring and whether it will manifest on Starliner's flight back to Earth.
"People really want to understand the physics of what's going on relative to the physics of the Teflon, what's causing it to heat up and what's causing it to contract," said Steve Stich, who manages the Commercial Crew program for NASA. "That's really what the team is off trying to understand. I think the NASA community in general would like to understand a little bit more of the root cause."
Boeing engineers are advocating for flying Starliner as is, that enough is known about the problem that failures will not occur during the vehicle's return to Earth. However, during meetings of key engineers at NASA known as the "Program Control Board" this week, there was no agreement that this so-called flight rationale was enough to fly crew on the vehicle.
"We heard from a lot of folks that had concerns," Bowersox said. "We heard enough voices that the decision was not clear at the Program Control Board."
Given that NASA will soon decide whether to fly crew on Starliner, the Boeing team has about a week to convince the NASA team of Starliner's safety before a potential switch to Crew Dragon.
Autonomous undock software
Stich also explained why it would take a few weeks to reconfigure the software package on board Starliner to allow for a safe undocking of the spacecraft without crew. This is one reason the Crew-9 mission launch was pushed from August 18 to late September.
Although the capability to undock without a crew exists within the flight software on Starliner, it is currently configured for crew operations. That is, during the process of undocking and moving away from the space station, the flight software takes certain actions, and the crew takes certain actions. This configuration change toward integrated operations between software and crew was made after the previous autonomous flight of Starliner in 2022 that flew to the space station and back.
"Essentially, what we're asking the team is to go back two years in time and resurrect the software parameters that are required to give automatic responses to breakouts near the ISS should we have problem in close to ISS, which the software now allows them to do manually," Stich said. "The team is always updating these mission data loads as different things change."
No work has been done on the autonomous software package since the flight in 2022. Ars reported it would take about four weeks to complete testing of this configuration change, and Stich confirmed this.
"Before we go execute that, it's just smart and responsible to take the software and mission data loads in this configuration, go into the integrated test facility where all the flight software resides, and go run it through some test cases just to make sure we haven't missed anything," Stich said. "That's really what would take the time if we were to pivot to an uncrewed undock."
NASA official acknowledges internal “disagreement” on safety of Starliner return
During a news conference on Wednesday, NASA officials for the first time publicly discussed divisions within the agency about whether the Starliner spacecraft is really reliable enough to return two veteran astronauts—Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams—back to Earth from the International Space Station.
The space agency also confirmed key elements exclusively reported by Ars over the last week, chiefly that NASA has quietly been working for weeks with SpaceX on a potential rescue mission for Wilmore and Williams, that the Crew-9 mission launch has been delayed to September 24 to account for this possibility, and that Starliner is unable to undock autonomously with the current software configuration on the vehicle.
The chief of space human spaceflight operations for NASA, former astronaut Ken Bowersox, said no final decisions have been made on how Wilmore and Williams return to Earth. He said there were reasonable disagreements among engineers at NASA, which is the customer for the spaceflight, and Boeing, which developed and operates Starliner, about the viability of the 28 reaction control system thrusters that are used for delicate maneuvering and pointing of the vehicle.
"I think it's been very healthy," Bowersox said of these internal discussions during a call with reporters on Wednesday. "I have to admit that sometimes when we get disagreement, it's not fun. It can be painful having those discussions, but it's what makes us a good organization."
NASA has been studying various contingencies, but officials appear to have settled on two different options for bringing the two astronauts back to Earth. They could still fly back on Starliner if NASA engineers become more comfortable with the uncertainty about the thruster performance, and if so, they would do so during the second half of this month or the first part of September.
Alternatively, NASA could launch the Crew-9 mission with a complement of two rather than four astronauts, and Wilmore and Williams would join that "increment" on the space station and fly back to Earth in February 2025.
Asked if he thought one of the two scenarios was more likely than the other, Bowersox said he could not say. However, a final decision will be made fairly soon. Bowersox said NASA needs to choose the astronauts' return path by mid-August.
Thruster issues
NASA's concern about Starliner's thrusters boils down to the failure of five of them during the vehicle's ascent to the space station. Starliner's flight computer shut off five thrusters, provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne, in flight. Four of the five thrusters were recovered after overheating.
Since then Boeing and NASA have conducted ground- and space-based tests of the small thrusters to try to replicate the failure and better understand, fundamentally, what is occurring. By getting to the root cause, the engineers will feel confident in their ability to address the problem for Starliner's flight back to Earth.
In ground tests, the engineers were able to demonstrate similar failures. Subsequent inspections showed bulging in a Teflon seal in an oxidizer valve known as a "poppet," which could restrict the flow of nitrogen tetroxide propellant. The thrusters consume the nitrogen tetroxide and mix it with hydrazine fuel for combustion. Despite the tests, however, engineers still don't understand precisely why the bulging is occurring and whether it will manifest on Starliner's flight back to Earth.
"People really want to understand the physics of what's going on relative to the physics of the Teflon, what's causing it to heat up and what's causing it to contract," said Steve Stich, who manages the Commercial Crew program for NASA. "That's really what the team is off trying to understand. I think the NASA community in general would like to understand a little bit more of the root cause."
Boeing engineers are advocating for flying Starliner as is, that enough is known about the problem that failures will not occur during the vehicle's return to Earth. However, during meetings of key engineers at NASA known as the "Program Control Board" this week, there was no agreement that this so-called flight rationale was enough to fly crew on the vehicle.
"We heard from a lot of folks that had concerns," Bowersox said. "We heard enough voices that the decision was not clear at the Program Control Board."
Given that NASA will soon decide whether to fly crew on Starliner, the Boeing team has about a week to convince the NASA team of Starliner's safety before a potential switch to Crew Dragon.
Autonomous undock software
Stich also explained why it would take a few weeks to reconfigure the software package on board Starliner to allow for a safe undocking of the spacecraft without crew. This is one reason the Crew-9 mission launch was pushed from August 18 to late September.
Although the capability to undock without a crew exists within the flight software on Starliner, it is currently configured for crew operations. That is, during the process of undocking and moving away from the space station, the flight software takes certain actions, and the crew takes certain actions. This configuration change toward integrated operations between software and crew was made after the previous autonomous flight of Starliner in 2022 that flew to the space station and back.
"Essentially, what we're asking the team is to go back two years in time and resurrect the software parameters that are required to give automatic responses to breakouts near the ISS should we have problem in close to ISS, which the software now allows them to do manually," Stich said. "The team is always updating these mission data loads as different things change."
No work has been done on the autonomous software package since the flight in 2022. Ars reported it would take about four weeks to complete testing of this configuration change, and Stich confirmed this.
"Before we go execute that, it's just smart and responsible to take the software and mission data loads in this configuration, go into the integrated test facility where all the flight software resides, and go run it through some test cases just to make sure we haven't missed anything," Stich said. "That's really what would take the time if we were to pivot to an uncrewed undock."