Boeing and NASA are moving forward with a June 1 launch attempt of the first crewed Starliner mission despite a "stable" leak in its propulsion system.
Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.
In SRB O-rings, fire gets OUT of where you want the fire to stay. In this situation the worst case scenario is that the helium would not be available to push fuel out of the fuel storage tank to the place where fire is suppose to occur. So again, in worst case, it won’t be a giant fireball, but no thrust of the spacecraft in space when you want it. You’d like get lots of notice if this is going to be a problem in the future and be able to take different actions.
That said, none of this kind of problem should occur so far into development and after 2 previous flights.
Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.
I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened
My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.
And if the shuttle tiles situation tells us anything, they don’t take everything with them up into space, to do on-site emergency repairs.
Even if they brought extra helium with them, if the leak is widened (launch vibrations, etc.) to a point where the helium escapes too quickly now, before the whole reentry sequence completes, then they’re stuck.
Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.
I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened
No argument from me there. Starliner has been a mess managerial.
Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.
Halfway across the desert.
My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.
If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there’s any risk of lack of helium, they won’t fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe. My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.
My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.
I guess I’m used to the old NASA, where they would never ‘play the Vegas odds’, risk the astronauts under any condition, besides the normal risks of just launching in a rocket in the first place.
Interesting to see how having a private business corporation involved would change that mindset.
If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there’s any risk of lack of helium, they won’t fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe.
Imagine the PR nightmare for Boeing if they have to send a competitors spacecraft up to return the astronauts they launched? I’d almost wish for this to happen just for the embarrassment it would cause Boeing.
I don’t know for sure, but I’d be shocked if they ran the fuel system lines into the pressure vessel. I can see no benefit to doing so, and only extra work and risk, so my assumption is the leak just leaks into space.
My guess would be internal to the engine/compartment somewhere, with limited or no access to the broken part, or else they would have repaired it instead of just monitoring it.
Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.
In SRB O-rings, fire gets OUT of where you want the fire to stay. In this situation the worst case scenario is that the helium would not be available to push fuel out of the fuel storage tank to the place where fire is suppose to occur. So again, in worst case, it won’t be a giant fireball, but no thrust of the spacecraft in space when you want it. You’d like get lots of notice if this is going to be a problem in the future and be able to take different actions.
That said, none of this kind of problem should occur so far into development and after 2 previous flights.
I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened
My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.
And if the shuttle tiles situation tells us anything, they don’t take everything with them up into space, to do on-site emergency repairs.
Even if they brought extra helium with them, if the leak is widened (launch vibrations, etc.) to a point where the helium escapes too quickly now, before the whole reentry sequence completes, then they’re stuck.
Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
No argument from me there. Starliner has been a mess managerial.
Halfway across the desert.
If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there’s any risk of lack of helium, they won’t fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe. My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.
I guess I’m used to the old NASA, where they would never ‘play the Vegas odds’, risk the astronauts under any condition, besides the normal risks of just launching in a rocket in the first place.
Interesting to see how having a private business corporation involved would change that mindset.
I do hope you’re right, for the crews sake.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Imagine the PR nightmare for Boeing if they have to send a competitors spacecraft up to return the astronauts they launched? I’d almost wish for this to happen just for the embarrassment it would cause Boeing.
Is it an external leak? Or an internal one?
IE is it leaking into the fuel vessel and pressurizing it unintentionally? Or just leaking to external “void” space?
I don’t know for sure, but I’d be shocked if they ran the fuel system lines into the pressure vessel. I can see no benefit to doing so, and only extra work and risk, so my assumption is the leak just leaks into space.
My guess would be internal to the engine/compartment somewhere, with limited or no access to the broken part, or else they would have repaired it instead of just monitoring it.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
Both once the hatch door falls off mid-flight.