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
 
This is the sort of shit that we call "Tempting Fate", what the fuck man. The fact that "One of the engines has a surprise hole in it" doesn't lead to the entire capsule being pulled and torn down to see "How" and "Will it happen to the others" is a damning thing, and really shows how thick the kiddie gloves have been with Boeing on this whole project. Its good to have an Alternative from SpaceX and the Russians, but an unreliable deathtrap is not the alternative you want. You don't take these kinds of risks with a manned mission.
Wasn't the 1986 (challenger?) explosion officially cause by a leaking O-ring seal?
 
I never understood why it was stood down without a replacement in the works. Hell, just dust off the blueprints, the original worked fine, didn't need any bells and whistles
the orbiter was a dog, it was exspensive and IMO required soo much maintence it wasnt reusable.

alot of the contracts for it were about moving money to certain states etc.
 
Wasn't the 1986 (challenger?) explosion officially cause by a leaking O-ring seal?
I believe so. I also remember hearing that they miss calculated the odds of an O-ring failure.

They thought it was like a 1 in 10,000 chance of failure. But it was like 1 in 100. Someone didn't move the decimal point.
 
Not really. Two of them flat out blew the fuck up.
Yeah, and one of those was because NASA refused to call off Christa McAuliffe's historic trip into space over a few niggling temperature and ice issues. The engineers at Morton Thiokol, the guys who provided the O rings, wanted to wait until the weather was better to avoid any issues, but pressure from the Feds towards management resulted in them being overridden. On the orbiter as a whole, Rockwell didn't want to give the go order because of the ice on it, but again, NASA overrode them.
 
So, any update on how the mission is going? LOL

Short version:
Boeing removed the autonomous undocking feature from the Starliner.
They now want to push a software update to the craft.
NASA is afraid that if the update bricks the Starliner, it will be stuck in one of the only two ISS ports available.
This means an astronaut must be in the Starliner in order to undock.
But if the software update bricks the Starliner while it's undocked, the unlucky astronaut may not be able to get back into the ISS.
Now NASA is giving a date of 2025 and the next Dragon is delayed because the Starliner is using up the ISS port.
 
I believe so. I also remember hearing that they miss calculated the odds of an O-ring failure.

They thought it was like a 1 in 10,000 chance of failure. But it was like 1 in 100. Someone didn't move the decimal point.
It wasn't a miscalculation of odds, it was NASA ignoring protocol. The o-rings were qualified for use above 53 degrees Farenheit. They had been launching in lower and lower temps and they started to notice burn through damage on the o-rings . For the Challenger mission, when the Morton Thiokol (the company that designed the boosters with the o-rings) found out that it was due to be launched at the coldest temps yet (around 20 degrees) they were apoplectic. They recommended not launching, but the Thiokol and NASA suits overrode them.

The Challenger nearly didn't make it off the launch pad. The pad video shows a dark smoke puffing out at one of the joints before it got off the ground, but the gases coming in contact with the very cold metals formed a ceramic seal which prevented a disaster on the pad. Then as the Challenger was in the air, it got hammered by strong wind shear, which knocked the seal loose, the hot flames burnt through one of the struts holding the booster in place which caused the booster to collapse onto the big orange fuel tank, and that's all she wrote.

There are a few good documentaries on you tube about it.
 
To be fair, Columbia sustained damage that made it fail on reentry, it didn't just randomly blow up from a defect like Challenger. Shit broke off the fuel tank and knocked out a bunch of its heat tiles.
That shit coming off the fuel tank was "environmentally friendly" foam which NASA had use to replace the previous nonenvironmentally friendly foam. Massive difference between the two foams was the previous foam was relatively harmless when it comes off the fuel tanks and comes into contact with the shuttle's heat tiles. The new foam however was the complete opposite as it had history of damaging the tiles on the shuttles. The Columbia got hit by a particularly large chunk of the foam which severely damaged a number of tiles.
 
Wasn't the 1986 (challenger?) explosion officially cause by a leaking O-ring seal?
It was yes. Richard Feynman’s report on it is short, concise and well worth a read. He talks about the culture at nasa.
He finishes with the line ‘for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, because nature cannot be fooled.’
Here’s the report. Only twelve pages.
 
That shit coming off the fuel tank was "environmentally friendly" foam which NASA had use to replace the previous nonenvironmentally friendly foam. Massive difference between the two foams was the previous foam was relatively harmless when it comes off the fuel tanks and comes into contact with the shuttle's heat tiles. The new foam however was the complete opposite as it had history of damaging the tiles on the shuttles. The Columbia got hit by a particularly large chunk of the foam which severely damaged a number of tiles.
How much environmentally foam ranks against several tons exploding in the atmosphere? Is it even something we bring back to the earth or it remains in space?
 
Atrás
Top Abajo