Boeing won't fix leaky Starliner before flying first crew to ISS - The vessel, under development since 2010, has been plagued by technical problems and has yet to fulfill its purpose of ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station, allowing Boeing's rival SpaceX to zoom ahead with its Crew Dragon capsule.

1.png
Starliner was supposed to fly astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the ISS on May 6, but the mission was scrubbed hours before lift-off after a faulty valve was discovered on the United Launch Alliance rocket carrying it.

Boeing is set to launch its first crewed space mission in June without fixing a small helium gas leak on its troubled Starliner spaceship, officials said Friday.

The vessel, under development since 2010, has been plagued by technical problems and has yet to fulfill its purpose of ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station, allowing Boeing's rival SpaceX to zoom ahead with its Crew Dragon capsule.

Starliner was supposed to finally fly astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the orbital outpost on May 6, but the mission was scrubbed hours before lift-off after a faulty valve was discovered on the United Launch Alliance rocket carrying it.

Since then, additional issues came to light, including a helium leak in the spacecraft's service module, which houses the propulsion system.

But while the rocket valve has been replaced, Boeing and NASA have made the decision to fly to the ISS without replacing a shirt button-sized seal on a leaking joint, officials told reporters.

"We can handle this particular leak if that leak rate were to grow even up to 100 times," said Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. Moreover, it impacts just one of a set of 28 thrusters used to control the spaceship's attitude, he added.

tor the leak during the hours before launch, scheduled for June 1 at 12:25 pm (1625 GMT) from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.

Asked why Boeing wouldn't just replace the seal, Mark Nappi, the company's vice president for the commercial crew program, said the process would be "quite involved" and require taking apart Starliner at its factory.

Stich added that it wasn't unheard of to fly with leaks—space shuttles encountered similar problems at times, "and we've had a couple of cases with Dragon where we've had a few small leaks as well," he added.

The much-delayed mission comes at a challenging time for Boeing, as a safety crisis engulfs the century-old aerospace titan's commercial aviation arm.

NASA is banking on Starliner's success in order to achieve its goal of certifying a second commercial vehicle to carry crews to the ISS, which it has sought since the last space shuttle flew in 2011.

A successful mission would help dispel the bitter taste left by numerous setbacks in the Starliner program.

In 2019, during a first uncrewed test flight, a software defect meant the capsule failed to rendezvous with the ISS. A second software bug could have caused a catastrophic collision between its modules, but was caught and fixed just in time.

Then in 2021, with the rocket on the launchpad for a new flight, blocked valves forced another postponement.

The vessel finally reached the ISS in May 2022 in a non-crewed launch. But other problems including weak parachutes and flammable tape in the cabin that needed to be removed caused further delays to the crewed test.

Article Link

Archive
 
That's what it seems. Look i know a thing or two about machines, shocking. This sounds minor. It shouldn't be there, but in terms of what COULD be leaking, such as the oxygen, which is highly combustible... it's probably fine. They have 28 of these thrusters. One is leaking. If it fails they are fine. It has low to no risk of exploding because its helium. Tearing apart the craft might cause more problems, because you will be ripping apart welds and all sorts of shit that isn't supposed to come apart, depending how deep the leak is. It might just be wiser to leave it.

Politically on the other hand this is absolutely unacceptable. This is absolutely terrible for Boeing.
Everyone has helium leaking issues with new spacecraft, including the shuttle, spacex, and SLS.

There is just a media hyperfocus on Boeing right now that is amplifying any issue (for instance airbus is having massive issues with some of their planes but not a peep from the media).
 
Everyone has helium leaking issues with new spacecraft, including the shuttle, spacex, and SLS.

There is just a media hyperfocus on Boeing right now that is amplifying any issue (for instance airbus is having massive issues with some of their planes but not a peep from the media).
That's exactly what's happening. They're reporting on incidents now that result in no deaths on boeing planes. It's called money making.
 
If it is fine to fly like this maybe we should ask the board of directors at Boeing to take the first flight.
 
iirc the heat tiles were one of the really big "secret sauce" parts of the shuttles, like, that Russian knock-off had to replace the entire fucking underside each re-entry but ours were more, "check for cracks, we're good to go"
Buran was objectively better than the Shuttle in every way. Unfortunately it was made in the Soviet Union during the 1980s lmao
 
"it was better in every way except real ways"
sasuga, communism
No, it was better in every way including real ways. It could even land itself which is how it got back on the ground. (flew exactly one time)

EDIT:
I should add that it had three major advantages from the start that made it a better design than the STS:
1. They (the USSR) had been kicking around the idea since 1954 with the Burya program and knew what they were doing, but they really didn't have the material science back then to make a true orbital vehicle that was light enough to get the job done. Most of their thinking before and during the early years of Buran was "heat is bad, but we have a lot of metal alloys that are heavy but handle heat well" and the original payload doors for Buran were actually all titanium before they went to composites. They also overbuilt Buran and they didn't have the absolutely fucking insane design requirements that scattered the manufacturing process across every time zone that the STS suffered from. Most of Buran's systems were retard simple and within the capabilities of the USSR's decaying aerospace industry.
2. We started the STS first and they responded, which meant that they could poach a lot of design ideas based on what they knew from their own research and what we were intending to do with the STS. This had a funny side effect that their own wind tunnel testing turned up a design that was uhhh very identical in shape and the designers kind of sat around trying to figure out how not to do that so they didn't get in trouble because lol communism
3. The Buran was actually not its own spacecraft. Unlike the STS there was not this dumbass giant orange tank in the middle to fuel three huge engines that were useless in orbit. So as a result of being purely a payload for the Energia rocket Buran was six tons lighter. I am personally going to call the payload the same, even though Buran's is more on paper, because of the difference in rounding off figures between US imperial and metric.

Frankly speaking if commercial spaceflight existed in the 1990s for some reason I think we would have seen Ted Turner or some other rich autist buy Buran for pennies on the dollar. Unfortunately the collapse of the USSR and the shitty start the Russian Federation had meant that the one orbiter sat in a Kazakh hangar until it collapsed in 2002. It's kind of pointless now because Elon and (to a lesser extent) Bezos are going ahead with reusable giant rockets, but I really like space planes and Buran's story makes me sad.
 
Última edición:
I could've swore everything whether heat shields and tiles were ablative by default due to the temperatures during reentry.
Not necessarily. It wouldn't be beyond Uncle Sam to whip up ceramics that give precisely zero fucks about reentry. Would cost both of your arms and legs but for something like the Space Shuttle it would be done just as much for the prestige of clowning on the Russians and their relatively poor grasp of the material sciences as it would cost-effectiveness compared to a complete replacement.
No, it was better in every way including real ways. It could even land itself which is how it got back on the ground. (flew exactly one time)
And yet the Polyus payload failed completely, and probably for the best considering what it was. SDI was just a meme, and we all know how the USA would have reacted to the USSR having a single working space laser: throw up dozens of more technologically advanced lasers.
 
That was an issue separate from Energia itself and had nothing to do with Buran, but yeah, it's good that it did fail. One area the STS did shine in was using FORTRAN instead of some boutique autism shit.
Yeah, I'm well aware it was entirely separate, but one thing working great and the other completely failing is a good way to describe the USSR's history of technological progress.
 
Yeah, I'm well aware it was entirely separate, but one thing working great and the other completely failing is a good way to describe the USSR's history of technological progress.
Yeah but it didn't fail. The mission failed, but the rocket worked as designed and did what it was told to do which includes the wrong number of seconds in a staging command. I'm not sure that's specific to the USSR but that sort of thing seemed to happen a lot over there.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo