The same verb the media applies to airline travel, or lack thereof, applies to this situation.
Yes, they are stranded.
No, Boeing Starliner's NASA astronauts are not stranded in space. Here's why.
Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Yes, they are stranded.
More news in this ArsTechnica article: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/...the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
NASA has quietly been studying the possibility of crew returning in a Dragon for more than a month. As NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause of the thruster failure, the possibility of Wilmore and Williams returning on a Dragon spacecraft has increased in the last 10 days. NASA has consistently said that ‘crew safety’ will be its No. 1 priority in deciding how to proceed.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
As of late last week, NASA still had not decided whether the Starliner vehicle, which is built and operated by Boeing, should be used to fly its two crew members home. During its launch and ascent to the space station two months ago, five small thrusters on the Starliner spacecraft failed. After extensive ground testing of the thrusters, as well as some brief in-space firings, NASA had planned to make a decision last week on whether to return Starliner with crew. However, a Flight Readiness Review planned for last Thursday was delayed after internal disagreements at NASA about the safety of Starliner.
NASA has quietly been studying the possibility of crew returning in a Dragon for more than a month. As NASA and Boeing engineers have yet to identify a root cause of the thruster failure, the possibility of Wilmore and Williams returning on a Dragon spacecraft has increased in the last 10 days. NASA has consistently said that ‘crew safety’ will be its No. 1 priority in deciding how to proceed.
The Crew 9 delay is relevant to the Starliner dilemma for a couple of reasons. One, it gives NASA more time to determine the flight-worthiness of Starliner. However, there is also another surprising reason for the delay—the need to update Starliner’s flight software. Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
At first blush, this seems absurd. After all, Boeing’s Orbital Flight Test 2 mission in May 2022 was a fully automated test of the Starliner vehicle. During this mission, the spacecraft flew up to the space station without crew on board and then returned to Earth six days later. Although the 2022 flight test was completed by a different Starliner vehicle, it clearly demonstrated the ability of the program's flight software to autonomously dock and return to Earth. Boeing did not respond to a media query about why this capability was removed for the crew flight test.
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
A similar article appeared in CNBC. See https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/nasa-may-return-starliner-astronauts-on-boeing-or-spacex.html .
That one had a bit different discussion about the decision process.
And this part struck me:
"If NASA backs Boeing and returns Wilmore and Williams on Starliner, the agency is accepting a currently unquantifiable amount of risk. A major failure during the return, with the astronauts’ lives at stake, would put NASA leadership under pressure to end Boeing’s contract and involvement in the program.
"If NASA decides to send Starliner back empty, it’s a vote of no confidence in Boeing that may lead the company to cut its losses and withdraw from the program.
"Additionally, if NASA takes the SpaceX alternative and Starliner returns home without incident, the agency faces blowback from being seen as overreacting to a situation that it publicly declared for weeks was not a significant risk."
I would think that a "major failure" of the capsule in a crewed return would do a lot more than this article considers. I would expect those who advocated sending the capsule down with crew would be out of their jobs, and probably not employable elsewhere, perhaps even if the result was not even fatal. And, after the fatalities with the shuttle that were blamed on bad NASA decisions, this even could be the "third strike" for all of NASA, if Congress gets into the act with astronaut fatalities in the public discussion.
At this point, "Boeing cutting its loses and withdrawing from the program" doesn't even seem like a bad outcome, compared to Boeing staying in the program and still not succeeding, but wasting time that could be used productively by another company with a better safety/quality culture.
It strikes me as ironic that the SpaceX attitude that they can get the job done ends up making profits, while the Boeing attitude that it needs to make profits does not get the job done and ends up with loses.
MBAs just don't seem to understand how technological developments happen.
That one had a bit different discussion about the decision process.
And this part struck me:
"If NASA backs Boeing and returns Wilmore and Williams on Starliner, the agency is accepting a currently unquantifiable amount of risk. A major failure during the return, with the astronauts’ lives at stake, would put NASA leadership under pressure to end Boeing’s contract and involvement in the program.
"If NASA decides to send Starliner back empty, it’s a vote of no confidence in Boeing that may lead the company to cut its losses and withdraw from the program.
"Additionally, if NASA takes the SpaceX alternative and Starliner returns home without incident, the agency faces blowback from being seen as overreacting to a situation that it publicly declared for weeks was not a significant risk."
I would think that a "major failure" of the capsule in a crewed return would do a lot more than this article considers. I would expect those who advocated sending the capsule down with crew would be out of their jobs, and probably not employable elsewhere, perhaps even if the result was not even fatal. And, after the fatalities with the shuttle that were blamed on bad NASA decisions, this even could be the "third strike" for all of NASA, if Congress gets into the act with astronaut fatalities in the public discussion.
At this point, "Boeing cutting its loses and withdrawing from the program" doesn't even seem like a bad outcome, compared to Boeing staying in the program and still not succeeding, but wasting time that could be used productively by another company with a better safety/quality culture.
It strikes me as ironic that the SpaceX attitude that they can get the job done ends up making profits, while the Boeing attitude that it needs to make profits does not get the job done and ends up with loses.
MBAs just don't seem to understand how technological developments happen.
ZZTOP
BANNED
There is now a return date which is Feb 2025 on a Spacex craft. Perhaps they may attempt to have the starliner reenter unmanned but it will not have astronauts on it. I am however not sure if it can be undocked and resealed without a human locking the door so to speak
NASA is going to have to do something with Starliner, because it is currently taking up one of only 2 docking spaces available.
The capsule used in Flight Test 2 was uncrewed and was capable of being opened and resealed without crew inside. But, it was also capable of robotically detaching from the ISS, deorbiting, and landing softly on the ground. Now that we know that some of that robotic capability was deleted from the capsule computer for this crewed flight test, and must be rewritten and then programmed into the capsule while it is still at the ISS, it seems that no assumptions about what this capsule can do should go unchecked.
Apparently, Boeing is arguing strongly that the astronauts should come down in their capsule. I don't know whether they are really that confident, and have good reasons, or if they just figure that this situation is already so bad that their contract is going to be cancelled unless they get the astronauts to come down in Starliner, so they are willing to risk everything (crew and reputation) for their last chance to "succeed".
A while ago, a friend was telling me that now was the time to invest in Boeing because the stock price was down on the previous bad new, but Boeing has 40% of the commercial airplane manufacturing capability and "the world can't do without it". I am hoping that Boeing personnel realize how far from reality that is. Airbus already has 60% of the market, and China would love to take over the "third world" market from Boeing and Airbus as Airbus throws everything it has into meeting the demand for new aircraft in Europe and North America after a Boeing' company demise.
I think Boeing's performance is hurting the whole U.S., not just its own reputation. There is already going to be some Federal "supervision" of Boeing's commercial aircraft manufacturing processes as a result of Boeing's guilty plea and conviction for the 737Max crashes. I think NASA needs to do something similar with Boeing's space related programs if it intends to continue contracting with the company. It needs NASA employees on the factory floors and in all of the meetings where problems are discussed and decisions are made during the development and testing phases of any project where Boeing is involved.
The capsule used in Flight Test 2 was uncrewed and was capable of being opened and resealed without crew inside. But, it was also capable of robotically detaching from the ISS, deorbiting, and landing softly on the ground. Now that we know that some of that robotic capability was deleted from the capsule computer for this crewed flight test, and must be rewritten and then programmed into the capsule while it is still at the ISS, it seems that no assumptions about what this capsule can do should go unchecked.
Apparently, Boeing is arguing strongly that the astronauts should come down in their capsule. I don't know whether they are really that confident, and have good reasons, or if they just figure that this situation is already so bad that their contract is going to be cancelled unless they get the astronauts to come down in Starliner, so they are willing to risk everything (crew and reputation) for their last chance to "succeed".
A while ago, a friend was telling me that now was the time to invest in Boeing because the stock price was down on the previous bad new, but Boeing has 40% of the commercial airplane manufacturing capability and "the world can't do without it". I am hoping that Boeing personnel realize how far from reality that is. Airbus already has 60% of the market, and China would love to take over the "third world" market from Boeing and Airbus as Airbus throws everything it has into meeting the demand for new aircraft in Europe and North America after a Boeing' company demise.
I think Boeing's performance is hurting the whole U.S., not just its own reputation. There is already going to be some Federal "supervision" of Boeing's commercial aircraft manufacturing processes as a result of Boeing's guilty plea and conviction for the 737Max crashes. I think NASA needs to do something similar with Boeing's space related programs if it intends to continue contracting with the company. It needs NASA employees on the factory floors and in all of the meetings where problems are discussed and decisions are made during the development and testing phases of any project where Boeing is involved.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram