Boeing Starliner OFT-2

GW Johnson · 2024-09-06 16:01:57

It finally showed up in a news story what the real hang-up was making a decision. The Boeing suits are so incompatible with Dragon that the two Starliner crew would have to ride back in shirtsleeves, exposing them to the capsule depressurization possibility that killed a Russian crew. That would be using Crew 8 Dragon as an emergency evacuation vehicle, with the Starliner crew riding in shirtsleeves on the cargo pallet installed below the 4 seats in that Dragon.

There is an ISS suit that fits Sunni Williams, but not one that fits Butch Wilmore. The Crew 9 Dragon only has 4 seats, but will bring a suit that fits Wilmore. That way, Wilmore and Williams could ride in pressure suits back aboard Crew 9 in February.

NONE of these stories addressed why Williams could not ride a Crew-8 emergency descent in that ISS suit, which would leave only Butch riding exposed in his shirtsleeves. That is part of why I know these news stories are still very flawed. It is hard to say how much of that flawed-ness is ignorant reporters, and how much is deliberate deception or evasiveness on the part of NASA and/or its contractors.

But there it is: did that lemon of a Starliner, or the risk of a shirtsleeve emergency descent on Crew-8, pose more risk to the Starliner crew? THAT is what they must have been debating all this time. And I notice NOBODY is talking about that! Apparently, the Starliner was considered more risky that a descent without a p-suit.

My advice to NASA on seats in Dragon still stands (and I know that some NASA folks see these forums): put all 7 seats back into Dragon! You don't have to fill them all, but if you should need them, then you have them. And you can always strap pressurized cargo into the empty seats. Just bag it up and tie it in with the seat belt! Whoever ruled otherwise (to the 4-sseat configuration) "for safety's sake" (worrying about speed of egress for the bottom 3 seats) was just dead wrong! 2020 hindsight clearly says so!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-09-06 16:07:07)

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-06 19:58:23

The Starliner has safely exited the vicinity of the ISS, and it is positioned to execute a de-orbit burn at about 11 PM EST this evening.

It should be back on the ground around midnight EST.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-09-07 07:10:19

the Boeing Starliner touched down safely ...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/07/science/ … lcl-digvid

(th)

SpaceNut · 2024-09-07 07:53:55

oeing Starliner spacecraft returns uncrewed to Earth as stranded NASA astronauts turn their hands to new tasks on the ISS AA1qaaoY.img?w=768&h=427&m=6

SpaceNut · 2024-09-11 19:39:17

It appears that more thrusters did not function and that the ship had some communication issues but landed on target despite these issues.

SpaceNut · 2024-09-13 16:52:20

Boeing Starliner astronaut: ‘We found some things that we just could not get comfortable with’

GW Johnson · 2024-10-25 13:05:54

I saw in the news that the Boeing-built satellite Intelsat 33e blew up on orbit, generating space debris of significant concern. This is a "bus" that Boeing has been building and launching since the 1990's. It exists in multiple forms, depending upon how it is rigged with equipment installations.

Intelsat 33e was the latest form of this basic satellite "bus". It is the high-power form, referring to on-board electric generation equipment, and to radio frequency transmission power. This form is recent, and involves much larger solar panels, and the unique installation of bipropellant attitude thrusters, which earlier forms did not have.

Boeing bought the bipropellant thrusters from Moog Isp, but I rather doubt they bought the propellant tanks, plumbing, and control valves from Moog. These would be pretty much the same NTO-MMH hypergolic pressure-fed thrusters as were such a problem on Starliner. Not the thrusters themselves, the propellant supply and plumbing!

Does anybody else see a possible connection here?

This bipropellant pressure-fed thruster technology is well over 6 decades old. It has been quite reliable for about 5 of those 6 decades, once the material selection and equipment design requirements were established long ago. But if you go with cheaper substandard stuff, you have the very same problems experienced long ago when this stuff first came out.

My point: you either do it "right" and succeed, or you do it cheap, and fail. Starliner and Intelsat 33e both post-date the current Boeing corporate regime. The one that ditched quality (and complying with the FAR's) in favor of maximal shareholder value.

Anybody else see a correlation here?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-25 13:08:15)

GW Johnson · 2024-10-28 08:20:58

From AIAA’s “Daily Launch” for Monday 28 October 2024:

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Boeing Explores Sale of Space Business

Boeing helped put the first men on the moon. Now it wants to get out of the space race. The beleaguered company is exploring a sale of its storied NASA business, including the troubled Starliner space vehicle and operations that support the International Space Station, according to people familiar with the matter.

My take on it:

Here officially starts the beginning of the end for Starliner. NASA needs to switch its attention and help get Dreamchaser flying.

If Boeing leaves the space business entirely, one has to wonder about ULA, which is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. ULA supposedly is independent of either company, but one has to wonder.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-10-28 08:21:42)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2024-09-06 16:01:57

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#127 2024-09-06 19:58:23

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#128 2024-09-07 07:10:19

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#129 2024-09-07 07:53:55

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#130 2024-09-11 19:39:17

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#131 2024-09-13 16:52:20

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#132 2024-10-25 13:05:54

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

#133 2024-10-28 08:20:58

Re: Boeing Starliner OFT-2

Board footer