Boeing Starliner

@Byeman : the only relevant point I see above is with the connection. I edited to add that it was a non-rigid link but apparently failed saving the update.

The translating airlock is no different from your crew access vehicle, except that it does not leave the station or attempt a re-entry. I fail to understand you here.

Frangible is there to not transmit excess load. Nobody is proposing to have part of the pressurized hull made that way, obviously. The frangible point is b/w the beam and the ISS, at the attaching point.

I think you should devoid more time before replying with negative comments that would appear to be irrelevant also to yourself after a rigorous crosscheck. It´s not like there is much to process in that schematic.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
1. the only relevant point I see above is with the connection. I edited to add that it was a non-rigid link but apparently failed saving the update.

2. The translating airlock is no different from your crew access vehicle, except that it does not leave the station or attempt a re-entry. I fail to understand you here.

3. Frangible is there to not transmit excess load. Nobody is proposing to have part of the pressurized hull made that way, obviously. The frangible point is b/w the beam and the ISS, at the attaching point.
Click to expand...

1. it has to be rigid or it will flop around and affect the station attitude control dynamics.

2. No, big differences.
a. The crew vehicle supports the crew independently.
b. the airlock would have to be built like another spacecraft and have power, cooling, O2, humidity removal etc (and all these systems have to be mobile with the airlock)
c. You are introducing more hatches, mating devices, seals, drive mechanisms etc. All increases complexity and risks.
d. You are adding another "undocking" and "docking" with the movement of the airlock from crew vehicle to ISS (more risk).

3. Frangible is fragile, easy to break, etc.

Money limited the number of docking ports to the ISS. They could have just added another PMA to Node 2 or added another node that had 5 PMAs
 

Attachments

  • IDA_planned_locations_on_ISS.png
    IDA_planned_locations_on_ISS.png
    391.6 KB · Views: 29
Arjen said:
Once you''ve reached a certain paygrade, the only way to fall is up.
Click to expand...
According to legend, Cleopatra showed Caesar the pyramid of Cheops and then said sadly: We are no longer able to do it.
 

Attachments

  • Que-pasara-con-las-primeras-huellas-humanas-en-la-Luna.jpg
    Que-pasara-con-las-primeras-huellas-humanas-en-la-Luna.jpg
    186.2 KB · Views: 14
1. Non rigid doesn´t mean elasto-plastic or plastic. It means that there is as many degree of freedom needed b/w the two that the relative movement of one doesn´t affect the other.
2b: Of course. I didn´t expect them to transfer in apnea! ;)
2c Yes that is true.
2d That's the balance I suggest for safe and redundant docking.
3. Frangible is not like cracking a toothpick. It can be any gate stress value you wish. The goal is that any stress from a docking incident is not transmitted to the station. And in reciprocity, any incident on the station is not aggravated by the movement of the docking pad (the link break its rigid liaison).
4. A docking pad will not increase the cost of the station for added reliability since the translating airlock is in effect as many docking port you wish, less the launch weight and volume constraint.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
1. Non rigid doesn´t mean elasto-plastic or plastic. It means that there is as many degree of freedom needed b/w the two that the relative movement of one doesn´t affect the other.
2b: Of course. I didn´t expect them to transfer in apnea! ;)
2c Yes that is true.
2d That's the balance I suggest for safe and redundant docking.
3. Frangible is not like cracking a toothpick. It can be any gate stress value you wish. The goal is that any stress from a docking incident is not transmitted to the station. And in reciprocity, any incident on the station is not aggravated by the movement of the docking pad (the link break its rigid liaison).
4. A docking pad will not increase the cost of the station for added reliability since the translating airlock is in effect as many docking port you wish, less the launch weight and volume constraint.
Click to expand...
1. can't be, it has to be rigid.
2b. that makes for a very complex and expensive system that doesn't reduce risks and even increases them
2d. Solving a non existent problem by introducing more problems
4. It does increase the costs tremendously and it reduces reliability with the added system and operations. You are adding more and not reducing anything.
 
That makes for a very complex and expensive system that doesn't reduce risks and even increases them
Solving a non existent problem by introducing more problems
It does increase the costs tremendously and it reduces reliability with the added system and operations. You are adding more and not reducing anything.
 

Attachments

  • images.jpg
    images.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 10
Byeman said:
4. It does increase the costs tremendously and it reduces reliability with the added system and operations. You are adding more and not reducing anything.
Click to expand...
Really? What is the event discussed here on which is based this discussion?
 
I believe NASA will be making a decision on Saturday as to whether to use Starliner or not.

Edited to add the below.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826710404698874092
View: https://twitter.com/commercial_crew/status/1826710404698874092


NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and leadership will hold an internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review on Saturday, Aug. 24, for @NASA’s @BoeingSpace Crew Flight Test.

About an hour after its conclusion, NASA will host a live news conference at 1pm ET from @NASA_Johnson.

Media can RSVP:
Click to expand...

www.nasa.gov

Leadership to Discuss NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test - NASA

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and leadership will hold an internal Agency Test Flight Readiness Review on Saturday, Aug. 24, for NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight
www.nasa.gov www.nasa.gov
 
Last edited:
My gut feeling is Starliner comes back early September with the crew returning on Dragon early next year minus their flight suits that are not compatible with Dragon.
 
I hope that NASA would more simply ask Butch and Sunita opinions. Both are former Naval aviators, that would probably see a successful empty Dreamliner return as a personal failure.
 
Yeah, and Apollo 11 would have been horribly different with on-screen stuck astronauts gasping for oxygen on the lunar surface with an overturned LEM in the background...
 
TomcatViP said:
I hope that NASA would more simply ask Butch and Sunita opinions. Both are former Naval aviators, that would probably see a successful empty Dreamliner return as a personal failure.
Click to expand...

So? Yes, they should have input, but I submit that the astronauts are not actually the people best equipped to do the full risk assessment.
 
If it can deorbit automatically with an hastily patched software, it can do that best in all certainties with an experienced human crew as a backup.
 
Last edited:
My God, It´s full of ba***!

iu
 
Reality is that if it doesn't come back safely, there's a very good chance the program dies in Congress. But the priority is -- and should be-- that we don't lose two astronauts.
If Boeing can bring it back safely autonomously, it will be something of a feather in their cap (ironically, all things considered). They can say, "See we told you it was minor". NASA can always deflect criticism by saying they erred on the side of caution, and lie and pump Boeing's tires a bit about their problem-solving ability. If it burns up, I can't see the political or popular support to keep the program alive. It's make or break for the program, and they know it.
NASA wants the extra vehicle in their quiver, but the risk is too great, imo. Unexpected problems with the leak(s?) and the overheating, and they can't replicate it on the ground. Too many unknowns. You can't put two souls on board with that many question marks, imo, even if they are eager to do it.
 
You can, actually, there's just not any urgency or pressure to allow it since there's already an american crewed spacecraft.
Boeing's fatal mistake was not being first, NASA would have been more lenient toward their development and operational woes had they been the ones to give America the only alternative to Soyuz for 4 years.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
If it can deorbit automatically with an hastily patched software, it can do that best in all certainties with an experienced human crew as a backup.
Click to expand...
Why risk the lives of two excellent astronauts on something that doesn't work well?... is that no one remembers what happened to the oxygen tank No. 2 of the Odyssey?
 
TomcatViP said:
My God, It´s full of ba***!

iu
Click to expand...
In my opinion the best thing they can do with that thing is not to move it too much, it would not be a good idea for it to fall into an enemy country of the USA that copied the technology... Their missiles could also malfunction.
 

Attachments

  • Corea-del-Norte-lanza-supuestos-misiles-de-crucero-antes-de-las-elecciones-en-el-Sur.jpg
    Corea-del-Norte-lanza-supuestos-misiles-de-crucero-antes-de-las-elecciones-en-el-Sur.jpg
    153.6 KB · Views: 15
TheKutKu said:
You can, actually, ...
Click to expand...

Only if there weren't another better, safer option for return. If that was the only way down (no Dragon-Soyuz programs, or an emergency evacuation of the station, etc), then sure, they'd roll the dice.
There's no reason to roll the dice when there are alternatives that don't have issues. If a Dragon capsule was having similar issues, there'd be no question about sending them back in a different Crew Dragon or Soyuz. Safety first.
NASA is just giving Boeing every opportunity to save itself so they can't be blamed for damaging the program. And they themselves want Starliner to live on as an option. It's on Boeing now to recover it safely, presumably unmanned.
 
_Del_ said:
Only if there weren't another better, safer option for return. If that was the only way down (no Dragon-Soyuz programs, or an emergency evacuation of the station, etc), then sure, they'd roll the dice.
There's no reason to roll the dice when there are alternatives that don't have issues. If a Dragon capsule was having similar issues, there'd be no question about sending them back in a different Crew Dragon or Soyuz. Safety first.
NASA is just giving Boeing every opportunity to save itself so they can't be blamed for damaging the program. And they themselves want Starliner to live on as an option. It's on Boeing now to recover it safely, presumably unmanned.
Click to expand...
During Crew 4 the serious risk of the packing disk that was left in the parachute was discovered early on, it was mitigated, but never entirely solved, in the end it didn't cause any problem but during the entire flight there never was any discussion of bringing the crew home in Soyuz to mitigate the risks, why? First because it would have been a logistical nightmare due to the lower capability of Soyuz and would have seriously hindered ISS expeditions for a good year, Second because it would have been political nightmare to depend on Russia for what could appear as a "rescue" after the start of the war.

Remember that among the first statements of NASA after the failed OFT-1 mission of December 2019 was to say that Boeing may proceed to the crew demonstration despite the failure, Bridenstine even said that "Although docking was planned, it may not have to be accomplished prior to the crew demonstration", they only started to walk back on that as they discovered more anomalies in the investigation, and even then it was Boeing who took the decision to fly OFT-2, not NASA.

Such a complete failure of in-space maneuvering and docking would be unaceptable and would immediately require another test today, it could never be thought as satisfactory for a crewed mission, but it was back then, because they couldn't afford not to, not while they were dependent on Soyuz.

I'm not criticizing it, it's perfectly normal to have variable safety standards in Space exploration, otherwise nothing would ever be achieved, a Lunar mission is naturally higher risk than a mission for a new LEO capability is naturally higher risk than a routine or redundant LEO mission.
 
Last edited:
I suspect even if Starliner can return them safely it will not be used due to the huge amount of bad publicity it has accrued in recent times.

It is perceived by the public as being unsafe, and therefore NASA management won’t take the ‘political’ risk of using it even if it is actually technically safe to use.
 
Byeman said:
Blowing up was never the issue.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, since NASA and Boeing still aren't sure what exactly went wrong. On-planet tests and models did not correspond with data from orbit. And considering the number of problems ALREADY observed, it's not impossible that there might be other, more serious problems that just weren't found yet.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom