Boeing Starliner

With respect, @Byeman, the de-orbit tether could be deployed while 'Starliner' is still attached to ISS port.

Think 'sea anchor': Scant effect on mass of ISS, but significant for modest mass of 'Starliner' after pushed away by Canadarm...
 
BlackBat242 said:
1. NASA/Boeing spacesuits and SpaceX spacesuits are NOT compatible with the other's capsule life-support systems. They have different connection fittings, etc. They also have different shaping requiring different shaped seats.

2. SpaceX can't "just take up a couple spare suits", as all spacesuits (no matter whose) have to be modified (almost custom-built) for the person who will wear it.

3. And that would still not solve the issue that Starliner cannot undock by itself (explained by others above), but requires someone inside to operate the controls.

4. As for "just have one inside to undock it then have him exit the capsule and move over to ISS (by whatever means you can improvise" - is the Starliner capsule even designed to allow the person inside to exit when NOT docked?

5. And yes... Starliner HAS to be undocked because there are only 2 docks that American capsules (both NASA/Boeing and SpaceX) can use, and both currently have capsules docked (there is a Dragon there for emergency use as a "lifeboat/emergency return ship" in case of an emergency).
Click to expand...
I would think (then it is Boeing....) that the Starliner crews' suit measurements are recorded and suits could be built up using those measurements.
 
The explanation I have seen (in the video in post 576 of this very thread) was something along the lines that the whole "man-rated" software package for the Starliner stuck to ISS was an "upgrade" from the previous "auto-only-unmanned" version to a "man-required+somewhat-auto" version, and there IS no "full-auto+manual-capable" version written and debugged.
 
Byeman said:
that wasn’t a flaw. The LM LiOH canisters were also used in the PLSS. Compatibility with the CM would mean they would be too big for the PLSS or too small for the CM(meaning more would have to carried and the crew would have to switch them much more frequently)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the background history....
 
At the pace at which the Social Media sphere is self mutating, I doubt it will really matter. Then there is business. If they have a good product with a good price, it won´t matter much.
Look at this week on Boeing order book: 30 Billions dollars of fresh orders when every Social Media influencer on the planet has long turned purple red in vehement expletives...
(I am even myself slowly running out of jokes)
Like I have stated many years ago, the one loosing a leg here is the airline industry, collectively.
 
Last edited:
Non-social media is monitored by large companies. That said, people have short memories. And when you need new planes, and God forbid, should Boeing disappear, who are you going to buy them from? The Russians?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Given that what I'm hearing about Starliner boils down to "WTF do we keep getting helium leaks?!?" and not "The machine is absolutely not safe for crew to come home in", I'll fly starliner down if NASA wants to send my fat ass up there.
Click to expand...
It's basically the same. NASA and Boeing can't understood what exactly is wrong with Starliner; so they can't actually determine, how safe it would be to use. If they knew the exacts causes of the problem, they could evaluate risks and develope solution to keep risks withing acceptable. But they aren't sure what exactly caused leaks, and so they could not be sure that it would not cause the whole bucket to fell apart.
 
FWIW, if they do send up a couple of space-suits, they must allow for the potential wearers having stretched an inch or two during their extended mission.

The flip side of problem is those balky valves are on the portion that burns up, so sitting on-station, plotting pressure decline via leaks, testing function every week or so is the only way to get data...

Sorta like 'retro' depth-sounding using a lead-line vs modern sonar etc...
 
The main question I want to know is what behind the cause of the Helium leeks in the first place? There must be something that is causing the issue. I mean it cannot be that hard to look for it and fix it?
 
FighterJock said:
The main question I want to know is what behind the cause of the Helium leeks in the first place? There must be something that is causing the issue. I mean it cannot be that hard to look for it and fix it?
Click to expand...
That's the problem; they didn't know. It may be something small and mundane - but it also may be something big enough to blow the whole ship apart.

FighterJock said:
There must be something that is causing the issue. I mean it cannot be that hard to look for it and fix it?
Click to expand...
Sure. On the ground. In space? If they start to dismantle Starliner's hull from outside to reach helium tanks, they may be able to pinpoint the cause of the issue - and maybe even fix it - but the ship would be in no shape to do anything anymore.
 
BlackBat242 said:
1. NASA/Boeing spacesuits and SpaceX spacesuits are NOT compatible with the other's capsule life-support systems. They have different connection fittings, etc. They also have different shaping requiring different shaped seats.

2. SpaceX can't "just take up a couple spare suits", as all spacesuits (no matter whose) have to be modified (almost custom-built) for the person who will wear it.

3. And that would still not solve the issue that Starliner cannot undock by itself (explained by others above), but requires someone inside to operate the controls.

4. As for "just have one inside to undock it then have him exit the capsule and move over to ISS (by whatever means you can improvise" - is the Starliner capsule even designed to allow the person inside to exit when NOT docked?

5. And yes... Starliner HAS to be undocked because there are only 2 docks that American capsules (both NASA/Boeing and SpaceX) can use, and both currently have capsules docked (there is a Dragon there for emergency use as a "lifeboat/emergency return ship" in case of an emergency).
Click to expand...
 
Michel Van said:
Some one on Youtube proposed
SpaceX send old dragon capsule up with two TESLA bots onboard
Who are remote control and bring Starliner down

the Idea is Worth of study
Click to expand...
Hm. Tesla bots maybe no, but something as manipulator arm, capable of working the controls to at least undock the Starliner may be a viable idea. Send a manipulator with the cargo ship, install it on Starliner control panel, and let it do the "manual" undocking. Then use Canadarm to push Starliner safely away from station (so even if it blow up while attempting to ignite the engines, it would not damage the ISS)
 
Dilandu said:
Hm. Tesla bots maybe no, but something as manipulator arm, capable of working the controls to at least undock the Starliner may be a viable idea. Send a manipulator with the cargo ship, install it on Starliner control panel, and let it do the "manual" undocking. Then use Canadarm to push Starliner safely away from station (so even if it blow up while attempting to ignite the engines, it would not damage the ISS)
Click to expand...

There's no way that would be faster to design and adequately test than adjusting and testing the old unmanned software and pushing that back up to the capsule.
 
TomS said:
There's no way that would be faster to design and adequately test than adjusting and testing the old unmanned software and pushing that back up to the capsule.
Click to expand...
Design? No, I was thinking about adapting something from commercially-available robotics. Yes, it may not be perfectly suited to zero-g, but would likely do the job.

TomS said:
than adjusting and testing the old unmanned software and pushing that back up to the capsule.
Click to expand...
Assuming, of course, that HARDWARE wasn't changed by Boeing. That's what bother me. Considering that Boeing did not tell anyone about software being changed till the problem arise, they may pretty well put other changes, including hardware ones, without reporting them.
 
bob225 said:
I just feel for the crew, 8 day mission turns into 8 months.

How many sets of underwear are you taking for a 8 day mission vs 8 months!

Not going to be easy to cancel holidays, dentist trips etc from orbit!!!
Click to expand...
The Cygnus-21 cargo-ship had clothes & underwear and other stuff for the Two on board.
 
edwest4 said:
should Boeing disappear, who are you going to buy them from? The Russians?
Click to expand...
Because you do not mention Lockheed-Martin or Northrop-Grumman, I assume you refer to civilian aircraft. Again, Airbus.
edwest4 said:
Oh yes. For those outside of France I mean.
Click to expand...
You will find Airbus aircraft are in use by airlines all over the world. I am not saying it would be a good thing if Airbus would become a near monopolist. I am saying Boeing's crisis is mostly of its own making, and Airbus airliners are perfectly viable alternatives to Boeing airliners. Provided Airbus production slots in France, Germany, Spain, the USA, Canada or China are available in time.
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
Considering that Boeing did not tell anyone about software being changed till the problem arise, they may pretty well put other changes, including hardware ones, without reporting them.
Click to expand...

No doubt right now the NASA crewed space-programme management are holding very unpleasant conversations in private with the relevant Boeing Starliner management about this very issue.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps that´s the source of the problem: too much conversation...

Last but not least, this incident should raise the issue that the on-going massification of Space, even at an early age, can not be done safely sending up there only Scientists, pilots or tourist. It´s past time we have fixers, welders and other individuals with an appropriate industrial background on orbit.
Those would have certainly helped here.

Repeating myself, similarly, the first thing that should land on the Moon that time with Artemis... Is a CAT.
 
Arjen said:
Provided Airbus production slots in France, Germany, Spain, the USA, Canada or China are available in time.
Click to expand...
Which may be something of an open question,

Airbus shares drop after profits cut amid growing supply chain issues
The French manufacturer admitted that issues with the supply of engines for its new aircraft would mean it could no longer hit its targets for the year.
Noah Bovenizer June 25, 2024
Click to expand...

www.airport-technology.com

Airbus shares drop after profits cut amid growing supply chain issues

Airbus has cut its profit and delivery forecasts as it continues to struggle with supply chain issues, causing shares to drop dramatically.
www.airport-technology.com www.airport-technology.com
 
Arjen said:
Provided Airbus production slots in France, Germany, Spain, the USA, Canada or China are available in time.
Click to expand...

Airbus has a production backlog of over 8,600 aircraft, so no availability for narrow bodies for over a decade.

The industry urgently needs a third player, whether that's an expanding EMBRAER or a Chinese option.
 
Nik said:
With respect, @Byeman, the de-orbit tether could be deployed while 'Starliner' is still attached to ISS port.

Think 'sea anchor': Scant effect on mass of ISS, but significant for modest mass of 'Starliner' after pushed away by Canadarm...
Click to expand...
No, can not be pushed away from ISS with Canadarm nor could tether be deployed while attached to ISS. Some propulsion is required.
 
www.spacewar.com

NASA to make decision on Starliner astronauts by end of month

Washington DC (UPI) Aug 14, 2024 - NASA plans to make a final decision by the end of this month on how the space agency will bring two Boeing Starliner astronauts, who have been stranded on the International Space Station since June, back to Earth.
www.spacewar.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom