Boeing's 'Starliner' Also Experienced an Issue on Its Return to Earth (orlandosentinel.com) 42
Friday the Orlando Sentinel covered NASA's 2024 mission-safety report from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (formed in 1968). The report "commended the agency's handling of last year's beleaguered Boeing's Starliner mission [prioritizing astronaut safety], but revealed yet another issue found during the flight and questioned the agency's needs for the spacecraft in the future..."
[The report] stated that it was unclear how a decision was made to waive a failure tolerance requirement on some of the thrusters without flight or qualification data to justify the decision. "These examples illustrate the panel's concern that, absent role clarity, risk management choices could unintentionally devolve to contractors, whose interests may not fully align with NASA's," the report warned...
It also revealed that in addition to the thruster and leak issues on the propulsion module driving the decision to fly home without astronauts, Starliner had a new issue as it made its way back to Earth. "Overall, Starliner performed well across all major systems in the undock, deorbit, and landing sequences; however, an additional mono propellant thruster failure was discovered in the crew module — distinct from the failures in the service module experienced during orbit," the report stated. "Had the crew been aboard, this would have significantly increased the risk during reentry, confirming the wisdom of the decision."
As far as Starliner's path to certification, the ASAP report said it would continue to monitor several unresolved issues with thrusters and seek information on how NASA and Boeing plan to get the spacecraft certified. "While the thruster issues have received considerable attention, the panel has previously noted other Starliner issues that require resolution prior to certification," it stated. That includes a battery redesign and work to strengthen the landing airbag apparatus. "Beyond these technical matters, schedule and budget pose substantial challenges to Starliner certification," the report added...
"Until the Starliner certification plan is well understood, it remains unclear as to whether a second provider will be available prior to the end of the ISS's operational life [in 2030]," the report stated.
The report "also suggested that NASA immediately adapt next-generation extravehicular mobility units, or EVUs," reports ExecutiveGov, "as current space suits astronauts use for operations outside the ISS are now beyond their design life."
It also revealed that in addition to the thruster and leak issues on the propulsion module driving the decision to fly home without astronauts, Starliner had a new issue as it made its way back to Earth. "Overall, Starliner performed well across all major systems in the undock, deorbit, and landing sequences; however, an additional mono propellant thruster failure was discovered in the crew module — distinct from the failures in the service module experienced during orbit," the report stated. "Had the crew been aboard, this would have significantly increased the risk during reentry, confirming the wisdom of the decision."
As far as Starliner's path to certification, the ASAP report said it would continue to monitor several unresolved issues with thrusters and seek information on how NASA and Boeing plan to get the spacecraft certified. "While the thruster issues have received considerable attention, the panel has previously noted other Starliner issues that require resolution prior to certification," it stated. That includes a battery redesign and work to strengthen the landing airbag apparatus. "Beyond these technical matters, schedule and budget pose substantial challenges to Starliner certification," the report added...
"Until the Starliner certification plan is well understood, it remains unclear as to whether a second provider will be available prior to the end of the ISS's operational life [in 2030]," the report stated.
The report "also suggested that NASA immediately adapt next-generation extravehicular mobility units, or EVUs," reports ExecutiveGov, "as current space suits astronauts use for operations outside the ISS are now beyond their design life."
At this point... (Score:5, Funny)
Open the blast doors! (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Boeing Starliner [....] being a Boeing product, failed to hit itself after two mag dumps.
It's Star LINER,
not Star Wars.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Boeing Starliner [....] being a Boeing product, failed to hit itself after two mag dumps.
It's Star LINER,
not Star Wars.
Perhaps they should rename it the Boeing Storm Trooper. It seems to hit its targets at a similar frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should rename it the Boeing Storm Trooper. It seems to hit its targets at a similar frequency.
Hmm. More like the Cylons in 1970s Battlestar Galactica?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, it's still only about 0.1% of their total cost reduction target, so sooner or later they're going to have to look at things like medicare, social services/pensions, and defence/homeland security, but setting precedents on things few people are going to oppose would be a useful starting point. "First they came...", and all that.
Re:At this point... (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for Boeing, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't all fucked up.
Re:At this point... (Score:5, Funny)
The fixes should be self-evident. We need to cut the military budget by 80%, except the National Guard. The only defense we need are lots of nuclear ICBMs in constant readiness, as well as space-based nukes.
Tell me you are abusing ketamine without telling me you are abusing ketamine.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what Russia wants. This is fifth generation warfare, right on Slashdot. Dangerous right ring populism serving hostile foreign interests.
I've not heard "the right" wanting to make drastic cuts to the military. That has historically been a very far left talking point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is one of the few areas where I think DOGE's sweeping, no thoughts to the possible consequences, approach to budget reduction would be well placed.
Thinking is not involved in any decision to let Boeing fail. But nor is permitting the board to remain in control of it. If Boeing has to fail, then The People should become the owners until such a time as a responsible owner or owners can be found or made. Do we want the government in the business of choosing winners? No. We do not. But they essentially forced Boeing to merge with McDonnell-Douglas to prevent it from failing, and now look at where we are.
Ideally they would split Boeing back into two compan
Re: (Score:3)
They've already made it to 1.8% of their total cost reduction target...and they have 510 days to go. (That's $36 billion already)
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of the few areas where I think DOGE's sweeping, no thoughts to the possible consequences, approach to budget reduction would be well placed.
I'm quite sure that that kind of thinking is never "well-placed."
Musk's "fail fast and break things" approach is not suited to government processes that affect the lives of 335 million US people, and many others in the world beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure cancelling NASA funding for everything, including Starliner and Dragon, and then declaring NASA no longer exists would be helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite sure Elon's DOGE people have made sure that SpaceX contracts are *not* considered government waste.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more surprised that Congress hasn't figured out that they should try to use
Re: (Score:2)
Only $17 million of the Inflation Reduction Act went to Tesla. https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com] That's peanuts. Musk and Tesla can walk away from that money without even noticing it.
By contrast, SpaceX has been awarded $4.4 billion on Federal contracts since 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/US/help... [go.com].
Give up $17 million to look good reducing government "waste," keep $4.4 billion for SpaceX...seems like a win for Musk to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're comparing, yes, you're right. But were all the NASA contracts for necessary or important missions? That question is in the eye of the beholder, to an extent, and people might disagree about which contracts are important or not important. If you're in the business of cutting government costs, and billions of that money goes to a company you own, you might be tempted to just green-light all of the contracts going to your own company. That's what it means to have a conflict of interests.
Re:Pig no fly == No more pork (Score:4, Insightful)
What alternative would you suggest to SpaceX at this juncture? Asking for a friend.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing that SpaceX shouldn't receive the contracts, just pointing out the inherent conflict of interest in Musk attempting to control government spending, a significant chunk of which goes to his own companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is already THE wealthiest person on the planet by a very wide margin. Do you honestly think this is a play to pad his pockets?
Best,
Re:Pig no fly == No more pork (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, absolutely. You don't get to be the richest man in the world, without a deep-seated drive to get *more*.
People who aren't wealth often tend to think of wealth as a thing that is just "there" or "not there." What they don't see, is that wealth isn't a state, it's a process. You get wealthy by making a constant stream of decisions and actions that lead to wealth. Stopping that process, leads to losing that wealth. This is why the overwhelming majority of lottery winners, are poor again within months. They keep making the same bad decisions that made them poor in the first place.
So no, Musk hasn't stopped trying to be even wealthier.
Re: (Score:3)
Lisa: Dad, I think he's an ivory dealer! His boots are ivory, his hat is ivory, and I'm pretty sure that check is ivory.
Homer: Lisa, a guy who's got lots of ivory is less likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by "wealth."
Billionaires aren't like Scrooge McDuck swimming in their money. Some of them, like Warren Buffett whose assets are mostly shares in companies he doesn't control, maybe could if they really wanted to, but Elon Musk definitely can't. His assets are all tied up in ownership of Tesla and SpaceX. So if SpaceX needs money from him he has to give up part of either Tesla or SpaceX to provide it.
Also, you don't get rich by spending your own money. As the saying goes, nobody hates t
Re: (Score:1)
No DOGE needed. SpaceX launches cargo into space at an 80% discount versus the competition, what's more, SpaceX, unlike ULA and Boeing, always insists on fixed priced contracts. Their competition uses "cost plus" contracts, which allow them to pile on extra costs after the contract is signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you're just comparing one contractor to another. But is every one of those contracts important enough to exist at all? Maybe, maybe not. But if you are in the business of reducing government spending, a natural things to look for, is to eliminate some less important missions. If billions of the money from those less important missions is going to a company you own, you're probably just going to green-light all of them. That's what you call a conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:1)
So now you suddenly agree SpaceX costs 80% less, and swerve to red herrings, eh? Comparing one contract to another is the point! As is eliminating wasteful contracts! If you think the new government is going to avoid doing either, rather than follow through on campaign promises, then feel free to vote them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing one contract to another is the point!
No, it's not. Reducing government waste is (presumably) the point of DOGE. One tool to accomplish reducing waste, is comparing contract costs between vendors, to be sure. But it's not the only tool. But an unnecessary contract is 100% waste, not just 80%.
So Musk has two conflicts of interest:
1. He may steer *more* contracts to his own company, taking them away from other companies, in the name of cost reductions.
2. He may choose not to eliminate contracts that could be eliminated, if they target his own com
Cancel it and cancel SLS/Artemis (Score:5, Insightful)
Put the money into real science missions
Re: (Score:1)
"Don't Feed The Musks"
Replace Starliner with Dream Chaser already (Score:5, Informative)
NASA needs to kill Starliner, recoup some of the money, and give it to Sierra Nevada so they can get Dream Chaser certified and then human rated.
In addition to them just being more competent than Boeing, having a ride to the ISS that can land on a runway and more rapidly unload experiments would be a good complement to Crew Dragon.
obviosity (Score:4)
It was completely obvious at the time that NASA was stupidly letting Boeing fly a manned mission after a significant failure in a certification mission. And, duh, it turned out that there were failures on the manned mission. I would not be surprised if that decision was fueled internally by hatred of Musk and therefore Space-X, it being unthinkable that Musk would end up ruling the roost. Fortunately, Bezos has now given them an out, where they have a fig leaf to avoid saying they are handing Musk the keys to the empire when they cancel Starliner.
Space isn't easy VS early to fly human-qualified (Score:2)
Irregular (Score:2)
Why did they put out the story about a perfect reentry and splashdown?
Why did they allow SL to launch with unfinished landing code and allow it to be patched in on-orbit?
Are these the same $9/hr programmers who were on the 737MAX code?
Somebody is covering something up that we don't know about yet.
Embarrassing (Score:3)