User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/5/2024 11:29:18 PM EST
[#1]
Page 23!!!
Elon will bring those poor lost Boeing souls home... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 1:13:45 AM EST
[#2]
 Boeing's Starliner *CANNOT* return home without crew Talking head rehashing the Ars Technica post: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-significantly-delay-the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 1:22:34 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What they could do, is send Starliner back down sans astronauts and if its successful, just send it back up to get the astronauts. Undocking it at all runs a currently unknown but greater than zero risk of losing control of the ship in close proximity to the station. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 1:31:53 AM EST
[#4]
Boeing will sell StarLiner on OfferUp. Customer must pick up. No shipping or delivery. As is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 1:32:28 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Undocking it at all runs a currently unknown but greater than zero risk of losing control of the ship in close proximity to the station. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What they could do, is send Starliner back down sans astronauts and if its successful, just send it back up to get the astronauts. Undocking it at all runs a currently unknown but greater than zero risk of losing control of the ship in close proximity to the station. SpaceX adds a couple of "Boeing" seats in the Dragon's bathroom. Adds extra fuel in the service module. Takes next crew up. Stayliner is manually undocked from the ISS from the inside of ISS, Dragon very slowly tiptoes away w/ the station. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:06:15 AM EST
[#6]
Starliner service module is the problem and the only good way to do testing is to do that in orbit. The service module can't deorbit, so testing has to be done in orbit.
Boeing makes a plan on earth, tests it on earth, then uplinks the plan to Starliner on the ISS. The planned test is done in orbit and the data is down linked to earth. This data is examined for several days. Then a new plan is formulated and the loop starts again. All this takes time, Starliner needs to be in orbit while this planning and testing is done. So, there it is, still attached to the ISS. Still attached for a good and logical reason. Eventually the batteries will get low on energy and Starliner will need to return. Eventually, hopefully after the problems are sorted out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:02:26 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starliner service module is the problem and the only good way to do testing is to do that in orbit. The service module can't deorbit, so testing has to be done in orbit. Boeing makes a plan on earth, tests it on earth, then uplinks the plan to Starliner on the ISS. The planned test is done in orbit and the data is down linked to earth. This data is examined for several days. Then a new plan is formulated and the loop starts again. All this takes time, Starliner needs to be in orbit while this planning and testing is done. So, there it is, still attached to the ISS. Still attached for a good and logical reason. Eventually the batteries will get low on energy and Starliner will need to return. Eventually, hopefully after the problems are sorted out. Spend your Boeing money wisely. That shit is hard broke, Code 3 and can't safely undock from the ISS because the systems require a crew on board. Boeing screwed the crew and the entire ISS mission by launching a known bad/broken spacecraft that now can even get dumped. The hate for this thing is mostly because WE the taxpayers knew they launched it with leaks and issues because of hubris. I absolutely despise a company or government that does this sort of thing. The comparison to Apollo 1 and the STS failures are justified. 8 years ago everyone expected SpaceX to be this sort of company, not Boeing. Old space is a failure of epic proportions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:37:28 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is my guess as to how this will play out. 1) Crew-9 will fly with the planned four people...even if 4-6 weeks late. They serve a shortened or normal six month rotation. 2) SpaceX sends up another Crew Dragon before or after the Crew-9 launch with Isaacman and Musk on board to ferry Wilmore and Williams back to Earth. That is done at a huge price reduction to the NASA preferred "special club" using the two former NASA astronauts now working at Axiom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:40:47 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dragon will bring them home, but Musk ain't going to be on that ride. Fact, he is not physically fit enough to make the ride and it would make zero sense for him to risk EVERYTHING he has worked for. He will remain the boss and smoke weed with Joe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 8:36:17 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SpaceX adds a couple of "Boeing" seats in the Dragon's bathroom. Adds extra fuel in the service module. Takes next crew up. Stayliner is manually undocked from the ISS from the inside of ISS, Dragon very slowly tiptoes away w/ the station. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:08:55 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryThree 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. For whatever it's worth, this situation is common in the aerospace industry. All flight-safety software has to be approved by whatever your airworthiness process is. On this mission the starliner was manned, so the unmanned capability was not needed. Software is constantly updated, and rather than expend the time/labor/money to re-approved the autonomous software (that wasn't needed) it was simply removed or disabled. Updating the software with a procedure that has never been tested is fraught with risk. You can brick even the most state of the art black boxes - if something like that happens it would be logistically catastrophic. Remember the f22 being unable to communicate via link-16 because it had it's own commo link and the link-16 capability wasn't yet approved for flight? So the f22 wasn't able to be used in nato missions during the arab spring. Remember the f35 being unable to shoot it's gun due to software that was not included in an airworthy release of the software? Remember that US apaches can no longer fire stinger missiles because the software was removed from recent versions? But foreign apache buyers still get stinger capability because they use an older software version. Ironically, after columbia NASA added the capability for shuttles to autonomously return from orbit and made it a requirement for all shuttle flights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:12:41 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starliner service module is the problem and the only good way to do testing is to do that in orbit. The service module can't deorbit, so testing has to be done in orbit. Boeing makes a plan on earth, tests it on earth, then uplinks the plan to Starliner on the ISS. The planned test is done in orbit and the data is down linked to earth. This data is examined for several days. Then a new plan is formulated and the loop starts again. All this takes time, Starliner needs to be in orbit while this planning and testing is done. So, there it is, still attached to the ISS. Still attached for a good and logical reason. Eventually the batteries will get low on energy and Starliner will need to return. Eventually, hopefully after the problems are sorted out. Except that what they need to test cannot be tested while docked to the iss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:30:44 AM EST
[#13]
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-likely-to-significantly-delay-the-launch-of-crew-9-due-to-starliner-issues/?comments=1&comments-page=1
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. What a cluster fuck.  Now you's can't leave |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:43:45 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that what they need to test cannot be tested while docked to the iss. Can you explain what test you are talking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:55:54 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you explain what test you are talking about? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except that what they need to test cannot be tested while docked to the iss. Can you explain what test you are talking about? My guess would be that if they are testing thruster firing than anything attached to the station is going to exert forces that will need to be directly compensated for. If something shitty happens then that puts it into a dangerous predicament. Remember when soyuz lost its mind and began firing its motors and putting the station into a spin? Nobody wants that. https://www.space.com/russian-soyuz-thrusters-tilt-space-station-again |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 10:07:51 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you explain what test you are talking about? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except that what they need to test cannot be tested while docked to the iss. Can you explain what test you are talking about? Besides the known helium leaks in the Service Module they launched with anyway, the problematic thrusters are in the Service Module. To test them, they need to fire them. If the Service Module is attached to the Command Module, and the Command Module is attached to the ISS, firing the thrusters moves the ISS. Not by much, but once it starts moving, it keeps moving in that direction b/c there is no air to slow it down. Unintended motion of the ISS is undesirable. To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. After telling us for weeks that all spacecraft visiting the ISS have autonomous docking and return capability, which Boeing demonstrated on the last Stayliner flight, now Boeing admits they left that code off this Stayliner - so it can't undock without a crew at this time - so it can't go test its thrusters without a crew. Given the entire reason Boeing needs to test the thrusters is to make sure Stayliner can return the crew safely to Earth without being stuck in orbit so long they run out of oxygen first, it would have been really helpful if Boeing had included the autonomous code on this flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 10:18:10 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My guess would be that if they are testing thruster firing than anything attached to the station is going to exert forces that will need to be directly compensated for. They've already tested all the thrusters on the starliner while it is docked. They're short tests, apparently 1 second or less of firing. These attitude control thrusters are very small and low thrust and they oppose each other. ie. if they fire the right yaw thrusters they also fire the left yaw thrusters. So the net impact on ISS attitude is likely immeasurable. The biggest issue I see is that, if reporting discussed in here is accurate, their options appear to be: - send them back in starliner as-is. It better work because failure would be unprecedented both for Boeing, NASA, and political implications in election season where everything is polarized. The fallout would dwarf that of challenger and columbia combined. - attempt to update starliner software for unmanned return. This is tacit admission that they don't trust starliner to be safe due to the thruster issue(bad for Boeing). If the update doesn't go as planned starliner could be bricked and block 1 of 2 docking ports indefinitely, this is a crtical safety concern also(imagine the other available US docking port develops some sort of problem and now NASA is 100% reliant on Russian ships to get to/from ISS). - Kick the can down the road like they are currently doing - talk about feelings and such without doing anything. "indecisiveness is the key to flexibility" is a real thing when dealing with the .gov. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 10:22:23 AM EST
[#18]
 Attached FileThis is the "dog house" and I believe it to be the STBD side. The 2 little thrusters at the bottom are the aft firing RCS thrusters. My understanding is they are a pulse firing thruster. Unless someone can show me different it is just a pop of thrust. The 3 large thrusters at the bottom are the OMAC thrusters used for de-orbit burn. Eta The Port "doghouse" is an opposite mirror of the STBD, the top and bottom "doghouse" don't have the "roll" firing OMAC thrusters that the Port and STBD does. OMACs are used for orbital maneuvering, de-orbit burn and LAS attitude controls. The RCS is used for minor maneuvering and attitude orientation corrections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 10:32:48 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "indecisiveness is the key to flexibility" is a real thing when dealing with the .gov. PFFT. the Government is excellent at decisiveness and efficiency. Trust in all things the government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 10:40:25 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Besides the known helium leaks in the Service Module they launched with anyway, the problematic thrusters are in the Service Module. To test them, they need to fire them. If the Service Module is attached to the Command Module, and the Command Module is attached to the ISS, firing the thrusters moves the ISS. Not by much, but once it starts moving, it keeps moving in that direction b/c there is no air to slow it down. Unintended motion of the ISS is undesirable. To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. After telling us for weeks that all spacecraft visiting the ISS have autonomous docking and return capability, which Boeing demonstrated on the last Stayliner flight, now Boeing admits they left that code off this Stayliner - so it can't undock without a crew at this time - so it can't go test its thrusters without a crew. Given the entire reason Boeing needs to test the thrusters is to make sure Stayliner can return the crew safely to Earth without being stuck in orbit so long they run out of oxygen first, it would have been really helpful if Boeing had included the autonomous code on this flight. What has told you this? I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. This is just something I haven't seen as fact. I don't work for boeing or NASA. I've only seen Starliner on stack from a few miles away. The above picture was pulled from an internet search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 11:11:43 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What has told you this? I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. This is just something I haven't seen as fact. I don't work for boeing or NASA. I've only seen Starliner on stack from a few miles away. The above picture was pulled from an internet search. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Besides the known helium leaks in the Service Module they launched with anyway, the problematic thrusters are in the Service Module. To test them, they need to fire them. If the Service Module is attached to the Command Module, and the Command Module is attached to the ISS, firing the thrusters moves the ISS. Not by much, but once it starts moving, it keeps moving in that direction b/c there is no air to slow it down. Unintended motion of the ISS is undesirable. To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. After telling us for weeks that all spacecraft visiting the ISS have autonomous docking and return capability, which Boeing demonstrated on the last Stayliner flight, now Boeing admits they left that code off this Stayliner - so it can't undock without a crew at this time - so it can't go test its thrusters without a crew. Given the entire reason Boeing needs to test the thrusters is to make sure Stayliner can return the crew safely to Earth without being stuck in orbit so long they run out of oxygen first, it would have been really helpful if Boeing had included the autonomous code on this flight. What has told you this? I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. This is just something I haven't seen as fact. I don't work for boeing or NASA. I've only seen Starliner on stack from a few miles away. The above picture was pulled from an internet search. Would you test the batteries on your Tesla for fires while it was plugged into your house - or would you unplug it, pull it out into the driveway and test? Further, as backbencher noted testing thrusters causes propulsion. Engaging thrusters while the Starliner was attached to the space station feels like a great way to push the ISS somewhere it doesn't want to go in the event a thruster failed. Everything he's saying makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 11:29:28 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What has told you this? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. What has told you this? Yes, who has told you this? The answer is nobody because you are wrong. THE STARLINER HAS TEST FIRED ALL BUT ONE THRUSTER ALREADY WHILE ATTACHED TO ISS. Every soyuz test fires thrusters prior to undocking from ISS. People can't even be bothered to read 3 posts above. I shouldn't be surprised in GD but it's annoying. We need a "screened-GD" forum where idiots are culled from being able to post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 12:19:56 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, who has told you this? The answer is nobody because you are wrong. THE STARLINER HAS TEST FIRED ALL BUT ONE THRUSTER ALREADY WHILE ATTACHED TO ISS. Every soyuz test fires thrusters prior to undocking from ISS. People can't even be bothered to read 3 posts above. I shouldn't be surprised in GD but it's annoying. We need a "screened-GD" forum where idiots are culled from being able to post. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. What has told you this? Yes, who has told you this? The answer is nobody because you are wrong. THE STARLINER HAS TEST FIRED ALL BUT ONE THRUSTER ALREADY WHILE ATTACHED TO ISS. Every soyuz test fires thrusters prior to undocking from ISS. People can't even be bothered to read 3 posts above. I shouldn't be surprised in GD but it's annoying. We need a "screened-GD" forum where idiots are culled from being able to post. Fully tested the thrusters for full attitude control? No. Short bursts firing opposite each other to no effect? Yes, that has been tested. And yet, for some reason, NASA doesn't trust the thing to be able to get into the correct orientation for the retro burn. So either they've not been fully tested, or they failed the limited testing they've been subjected to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 12:28:26 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, who has told you this? The answer is nobody because you are wrong. THE STARLINER HAS TEST FIRED ALL BUT ONE THRUSTER ALREADY WHILE ATTACHED TO ISS. Every soyuz test fires thrusters prior to undocking from ISS. People can't even be bothered to read 3 posts above. I shouldn't be surprised in GD but it's annoying. We need a "screened-GD" forum where idiots are culled from being able to post. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. What has told you this? Yes, who has told you this? The answer is nobody because you are wrong. THE STARLINER HAS TEST FIRED ALL BUT ONE THRUSTER ALREADY WHILE ATTACHED TO ISS. Every soyuz test fires thrusters prior to undocking from ISS. People can't even be bothered to read 3 posts above. I shouldn't be surprised in GD but it's annoying. We need a "screened-GD" forum where idiots are culled from being able to post. But they do the small pops to verify that they will create thrust. The problem with the starliner thrusters is that they are in insulated doghouses. So when you do a lot of firing with those thrusters you heat them up and then the hypergolic fuel doesn't react correctly when mixed. So yes, they have tested the thrusters while docked. They cannot heat the thrusters up while docked because that will push the ISS off course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 12:33:42 PM EST
[#25]
Is Boeing outsourcing aerospace engineering to India?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 12:37:36 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is Boeing outsourcing aerospace engineering to India? https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Boeing-bets-on-engineers-from-India/5-2740048/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 1:56:24 PM EST
[#27]
Can't they just point the end of the ISS that Starliner is docked to down slightly towards Earth, then just release the docking clamps while pressurized and poof that crappy ship off towards Earth like a champagne cork? Then send Dragon up to fetch a couple of astronauts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 2:02:34 PM EST
[#28]
It's so unsafe that they're afraid to undock it from the ISS. The biggest Musk fanboy could not have imagined this humiliation for Boeing months ago.
All we need now are those $9/hour contracted Indian engineers to make another appearance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 2:28:44 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fully tested the thrusters for full attitude control? No. Short bursts firing opposite each other to no effect? Yes, that has been tested. And yet, for some reason, NASA doesn't trust the thing to be able to get into the correct orientation for the retro burn. So either they've not been fully tested, or they failed the limited testing they've been subjected to. Or they do not know when another failure will occur. Did they predict the helium issues prior to flight? No or they ignored it. Did they predict the thruster failures prior to flight? No or they ignored it. My opinion is that Starliner is not reliable. NASA needs to just admit it (accept it) and arrange a SpaceX flight to get them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 2:57:09 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here is my guess as to how this will play out. 1) Crew-9 will fly with the planned four people...even if 4-6 weeks late. They serve a shortened or normal six month rotation. 2) SpaceX sends up another Crew Dragon before or after the Crew-9 launch with Isaacman and Musk on board to ferry Wilmore and Williams back to Earth. That is done at a huge price reduction to the NASA preferred "special club" using the two former NASA astronauts now working at Axiom. Isaacman, sure. But I don't see Musk going to space anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 2:59:07 PM EST
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:02:16 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see Starship being man-rated. You are probably correct about more Crew Dragons. With Starliner almost surely out of the running to do operational missions, SpaceX should know if they need more Crew Dragons based upon expected flights plus a pad and flight limits per capsule. Starship will be man rated, it's the lunar and martian landing platform for crewed missions |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:07:31 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Starship will be man rated, it's the lunar and martian landing platform for crewed missions Yep, also the way it's set up it will probably be able to fly with such regularity that it will be man rated relatively quickly. The G forces from flopping around from horizontal to vertical might be a tad dramatic. But we probably won't be flying cancer patients in these things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:34:05 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't they just point the end of the ISS that Starliner is docked to down slightly towards Earth, then just release the docking clamps while pressurized and poof that crappy ship off towards Earth like a champagne cork? Then send Dragon up to fetch a couple of astronauts. Nope. Not how orbital mechanics work. You adjust your elevation by either speeding up or slowing down. Just pointing at the earth and mashing the gas, you will run out of fuel before you de-orbit.  The Only Video Needed to Understand Orbital Mechanics |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:35:33 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what penalties are attached to that decision. It's obviously going to cost space x money so is that built into the contract and if so, who's paying? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:38:23 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder what penalties are attached to that decision. It's obviously going to cost space x money so is that built into the contract and if so, who's paying? Boeing is paying. This is their screwup so they are the ones paying for it. The bill for using that dock on the station is around $125 million so far on top of a bit over a billion dollars in other Starliner cost overruns. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:44:31 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't they just point the end of the ISS that Starliner is docked to down slightly towards Earth, then just release the docking clamps while pressurized and poof that crappy ship off towards Earth like a champagne cork? Then send Dragon up to fetch a couple of astronauts. Orbit doesnt work like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 3:44:57 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, also the way it's set up it will probably be able to fly with such regularity that it will be man rated relatively quickly. The G forces from flopping around from horizontal to vertical might be a tad dramatic. But we probably won't be flying cancer patients in these things. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Starship will be man rated, it's the lunar and martian landing platform for crewed missions Yep, also the way it's set up it will probably be able to fly with such regularity that it will be man rated relatively quickly. The G forces from flopping around from horizontal to vertical might be a tad dramatic. But we probably won't be flying cancer patients in these things. Future cancer patients, as long as they don't return to Earth on a Boeing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 4:08:31 PM EST
[#39]
"We may get more clarity on Wednesday (Aug. 7): NASA will hold a press conference at 12:30 p.m. EDT (1630 GMT) "with agency leadership to discuss ongoing operations, including NASA's Crew-9, Crew-8, and Crew Flight Test missions.""
Source  International Space Station Operations Update Media Teleconference |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:04:39 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You'd think that after Apollo 13 certain things like life support would be standardized. I know why the command module and lem had different CO2 cartridges, the vehicles were different contractors, but since then that kind of stuff, including space/pressure suits should have been standardized. Whose life support design should be universally used: Boeing or Space X. Guess what the loser is going to say about it. Space X will say no, because they know their suit system, despite those ugly black boots, is better Boeing will say no because they are Boeing. Jay |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:22:36 PM EST
[#41]
NASA chief will make the final decision on how Starliner crew flies home
This is another Eric Berger article. It appears that he has multiple reliable sources in the industry. "Ars had the opportunity to speak with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson on Tuesday afternoon as the space agency put out its news release. Asked if he had confidence in the decision-making process at NASA surrounding whether to return Wilmore and Williams on Starliner, Nelson replied, "Yes, I do. I especially have confidence since I have the final decision." NASA's update slipped in one other notable piece of news. The Crew-9 mission is now expected to launch from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. This will be the first crewed launch from this complex, which SpaceX has built up in addition to its crew tower at Launch Complex 39A at nearby Kennedy Space Center. This will deconflict with 39A pad preparations for NASA’s Europa Clipper mission, which may launch in October from there on a Falcon Heavy rocket." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 5:55:03 PM EST
[#42]
Bill Nelson is and has always been a fucking moron.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 7:04:00 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bill Nelson is and has always been a fucking moron. Until today there was another person mentioned as making the decision. Nelson must want the limelight....although it really should be made at his level. Of course Wilmore could have said a month ago that he did not consider Starliner reliable..and send a Crew Dragon to pick us up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 7:14:20 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bill Nelson is and has always been a fucking moron. Every single interview I've seen with the man, he gives the impression of someone who has been smacked in the head with a waffle iron... 40 or 50 times. I suppose he knows how to play the bureaucracy game and ultimately that's what really matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2024 9:40:35 PM EST
[#45]
 NASA has been hiding a shocking secret about Starliner! How did this happen?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 7:45:59 AM EST
[#46]
The NASA press conference update is in a few hours. Maybe they will have made a decision to use Crew Dragon to bring them home.
I have not read of any official options to send up a different Crew Dragon other than the one for Crew-9. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 11:20:25 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you test the batteries on your Tesla for fires while it was plugged into your house - or would you unplug it, pull it out into the driveway and test? Further, as backbencher noted testing thrusters causes propulsion. Engaging thrusters while the Starliner was attached to the space station feels like a great way to push the ISS somewhere it doesn't want to go in the event a thruster failed. Everything he's saying makes sense to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Besides the known helium leaks in the Service Module they launched with anyway, the problematic thrusters are in the Service Module. To test them, they need to fire them. If the Service Module is attached to the Command Module, and the Command Module is attached to the ISS, firing the thrusters moves the ISS. Not by much, but once it starts moving, it keeps moving in that direction b/c there is no air to slow it down. Unintended motion of the ISS is undesirable. To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. After telling us for weeks that all spacecraft visiting the ISS have autonomous docking and return capability, which Boeing demonstrated on the last Stayliner flight, now Boeing admits they left that code off this Stayliner - so it can't undock without a crew at this time - so it can't go test its thrusters without a crew. Given the entire reason Boeing needs to test the thrusters is to make sure Stayliner can return the crew safely to Earth without being stuck in orbit so long they run out of oxygen first, it would have been really helpful if Boeing had included the autonomous code on this flight. What has told you this? I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. This is just something I haven't seen as fact. I don't work for boeing or NASA. I've only seen Starliner on stack from a few miles away. The above picture was pulled from an internet search. Would you test the batteries on your Tesla for fires while it was plugged into your house - or would you unplug it, pull it out into the driveway and test? Further, as backbencher noted testing thrusters causes propulsion. Engaging thrusters while the Starliner was attached to the space station feels like a great way to push the ISS somewhere it doesn't want to go in the event a thruster failed. Everything he's saying makes sense to me. Shuttle was dragging ISS around since the first pieces it took up there till it's last trip. ISS has different NAV modes to allow for this and the orbiter had different modes with specific thruster settings to do this. Butch was in Starliner during these tests and he's got experience with being on both ends of the stick, so to say, he's was in the seat on the orbiter during station boosting and he was ISS flt engineer on another trip. What if scenarios can exist with anything performing these tasks but if I was to guess these will fail to off. He is used to open the valves in the thruster head, this we know, it is my guess that are spring driven closed. Starliner is supposed to be capable of ISS boosting (as to how much trust they'll have after this tomfoolery who knows) since they own shuttle engineering it may be similar. To say they need to... begs the question of what is the requirement that isn't met? Is it to pacify the masses for public perception? Is there a lined out requirement to be met? The thrusters are instrumented to read the chamber pressure and have tested, indicating 97-102% (whatever the exact # was) power. I've read in many aircraft manuals a ground performance run before the first flight of the day is what’s required. That means it's good for the whole day. SpaceX does a however many second hot fire with their booster days before launch and that means it's good for it's entire flight. Who are we to say anything different. That is why I asked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 11:36:43 AM EST
[#48]
The NASA teleconference has started and at this point no decision has been made on the return capsule. Ken Bowersox (former astronaut) uses the future tense when discussing that decision.
An animation of the teflon seal swelling should be available soon. One option is two of the original Crew-9 people go up and Butch and Sunni stay with them and return around February 2025. Stich mentioned something about maybe adding one or more people to the Crew-8 Capsule but I did not understand the details. That was around 12:44 PM EDT. Stich reiterated that no return capsule decision has been made. When asked about the decision date, mid-August was mentioned. As to the water intrusion into the Crew-9 booster, that was discussed starting about 135 PM EDT. I missed something but some valve(?) may have malfunctioned allowing water into the LOX tank. That tank was dried and some parts replaced. That booster will be flown on a Starlink prior to being used for Crew-9. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 11:55:41 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shuttle was dragging ISS around since the first pieces it took up there till it's last trip. ISS has different NAV modes to allow for this and the orbiter had different modes with specific thruster settings to do this. Butch was in Starliner during these tests and he's got experience with being on both ends of the stick, so to say, he's was in the seat on the orbiter during station boosting and he was ISS flt engineer on another trip. What if scenarios can exist with anything performing these tasks but if I was to guess these will fail to off. He is used to open the valves in the thruster head, this we know, it is my guess that are spring driven closed. Starliner is supposed to be capable of ISS boosting (as to how much trust they'll have after this tomfoolery who knows) since they own shuttle engineering it may be similar. To say they need to... begs the question of what is the requirement that isn't met? Is it to pacify the masses for public perception? Is there a lined out requirement to be met? The thrusters are instrumented to read the chamber pressure and have tested, indicating 97-102% (whatever the exact # was) power. I've read in many aircraft manuals a ground performance run before the first flight of the day is what’s required. That means it's good for the whole day. SpaceX does a however many second hot fire with their booster days before launch and that means it's good for it's entire flight. Who are we to say anything different. That is why I asked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Besides the known helium leaks in the Service Module they launched with anyway, the problematic thrusters are in the Service Module. To test them, they need to fire them. If the Service Module is attached to the Command Module, and the Command Module is attached to the ISS, firing the thrusters moves the ISS. Not by much, but once it starts moving, it keeps moving in that direction b/c there is no air to slow it down. Unintended motion of the ISS is undesirable. To fully test the thrusters, Boeing needs to undock Stayliner, back away from the station, and do its thruster testing. After telling us for weeks that all spacecraft visiting the ISS have autonomous docking and return capability, which Boeing demonstrated on the last Stayliner flight, now Boeing admits they left that code off this Stayliner - so it can't undock without a crew at this time - so it can't go test its thrusters without a crew. Given the entire reason Boeing needs to test the thrusters is to make sure Stayliner can return the crew safely to Earth without being stuck in orbit so long they run out of oxygen first, it would have been really helpful if Boeing had included the autonomous code on this flight. What has told you this? I'm not trying to be disrespectful at all. This is just something I haven't seen as fact. I don't work for boeing or NASA. I've only seen Starliner on stack from a few miles away. The above picture was pulled from an internet search. Would you test the batteries on your Tesla for fires while it was plugged into your house - or would you unplug it, pull it out into the driveway and test? Further, as backbencher noted testing thrusters causes propulsion. Engaging thrusters while the Starliner was attached to the space station feels like a great way to push the ISS somewhere it doesn't want to go in the event a thruster failed. Everything he's saying makes sense to me. Shuttle was dragging ISS around since the first pieces it took up there till it's last trip. ISS has different NAV modes to allow for this and the orbiter had different modes with specific thruster settings to do this. Butch was in Starliner during these tests and he's got experience with being on both ends of the stick, so to say, he's was in the seat on the orbiter during station boosting and he was ISS flt engineer on another trip. What if scenarios can exist with anything performing these tasks but if I was to guess these will fail to off. He is used to open the valves in the thruster head, this we know, it is my guess that are spring driven closed. Starliner is supposed to be capable of ISS boosting (as to how much trust they'll have after this tomfoolery who knows) since they own shuttle engineering it may be similar. To say they need to... begs the question of what is the requirement that isn't met? Is it to pacify the masses for public perception? Is there a lined out requirement to be met? The thrusters are instrumented to read the chamber pressure and have tested, indicating 97-102% (whatever the exact # was) power. I've read in many aircraft manuals a ground performance run before the first flight of the day is what’s required. That means it's good for the whole day. SpaceX does a however many second hot fire with their booster days before launch and that means it's good for it's entire flight. Who are we to say anything different. That is why I asked. Limited ground or docked testing, particularly w/o actual movement of the craft is not a substitute for actual performance. Stayliner's thrusters worked fine in testing on the ground - and on previous flights. They began having issues on orbit on this trip. Is it a heat issue? An orientation issue? A movement issue? We don't know, and we won't know until Stayliner is actually undocked. Let's say, for argument's sake, that I buy a fancy new yacht that does away with the rudder and conventional propellers, and only uses directional thrusters for movement - fore and aft, starboard & port, and rotation. It's also fully automated and can steer itself into port and dock automagically. I pick up this yacht, program in the coordinates of my berth, and off we go. It performs marvelously until we start getting into the anchorage, and one of the thrusters shuts down. I have to take manual control to steer it through the maze of docks and finally nudge into our slip. The yacht's technicians show up and find nothing wrong. They run tests on the thrusters on the new yachts in their yard, they run tests on mine, we fire thrusters in opposite pairs at the dock so the boat doesn't move - everything works fine. Given I almost caused several million dollars worth of damage to multiple other yachts in the anchorage and the dock coming into harbor, am I going to trust the word of these techs and this company and put out to sea? Or am I gonna get towed through the harbor by tugboats and then put those thrusters through their paces where a failure isn't going to put me into someone else's multi million dollar yacht? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 11:59:02 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One option is two of the original Crew-9 people go up and Butch and Sunni stay with them and return around February 2025. Gives new meaning to the term "2 weeks". |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
