NASA is about to make its most important safety decision in nearly a generation

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/nasa-is-about-to-make-its-most-important-safety-decision-in-nearly-a-generation/

by rntn • 2 years ago

46 64 2 years ago

russfink• 2 years ago

Can someone spell out the consequences of a failed thruster? Eg miss the reentry cone and skip off the atmosphere into space?

lupusreal5• 2 years ago

Or come in too steep and burn up. Or miss the target drop zone and possibly come down in the wilderness or ocean (it's meant to land on flat and level land.)

khuey• 2 years ago

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that they don't really understand how it's failed at this point so it could be anything from "no thrust" to "explodes and sends debris into the ISS".

bell-cot4• 2 years ago

That's one possibility.

Unfortunately, failure modes are not limited to "the thruster(s) shut down before the desired burn was completed".

Worse case looks kinda like this, but in space: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-explosion-destroyed-crew...

pavel_lishin• 2 years ago

miss the reentry cone and skip off the atmosphere into space?

My layman understanding is that this was never an option even for the Apollo trips from the moon - the problem was that a wrong re-entry angle wouldn't slow the capsule down enough to bring it down to the surface, and it would have to orbit several more times before finally slowing down enough to return.

This was a problem for two reasons: (1) the landing site would be unpredictable, and it wouldn't really do to land on the Kremlin, or in the middle of the Sahara, or in the middle of the Pacific. (2) The capsules didn't have enough supplies to keep the astronauts alive for too long, and too many orbits would mean that they'd be dead on arrival.

kfarr• 2 years ago

Incorrect angle also leads to higher temperatures that may exceed design capabilities during re-entry

deeth_starr_v• 2 years ago

In Carrying the Fire, in pre Apollo days when they did manual burns for re-entry, this was described as a big worry (burn sending you off into space). But maybe that was mitigated

JumpCrisscross2• 2 years ago

Can someone spell out the consequences of a failed thruster? Eg miss the reentry cone and skip off the atmosphere into space?

With no thrusters Starliner can’t orient itself during reëntry, which almost guarantees burning up. I’m not sure what the minimum number of thrusters Starliner needs to safely deörbit.

carabiner• 2 years ago

deörbit

Do you have this set as autocorrect or do you type the ö each time?

sandworm101• 2 years ago

There are several issues. One is that the craft doesn't properly separate from the station. If it backs away from the station, then dies, it will risk colliding with the ISS after an orbit. (Lower perigee but same apogee = collision potential.) The craft needs to back away from the station sufficiently to reenter or at least conduct a second maneuver to ensure its apogee is lower than the ISS's orbit.

bell-cot4• 2 years ago

If NASA decided that Butch & Suni would be flying SpaceX on their return trip, that would probably allow more aggressive testing of the Starliner's thruster systems after it departs the ISS.

In theory, the ISS crew could do a spacewalk or two before departure, to get a closer look at the problematic hardware. In practice - no time to plan nor train for that, improvised-at-best tools, and all the myriad ways that a flaky NTO/hydrazine fuel system could suddenly go very wrong - I'd be really surprised if they attempted anything.

lupusreal5• 2 years ago

This should be an easy choice for NASA. The whole point of having different vehicles available is to make this kind of choice easy. With Dragon available, there should be no pressure to use Starliner. That this is apparently controversial shows that NASA has lost the plot.

bell-cot4• 2 years ago

Yes. But it's quite possible that NASA's deciders made the real "Sorry, Boeing!" decision a while back - and are letting things seem to drag out for the sake of appearances. (No "uninformed/rushed/secret decision", nor "anti-Boeing bias", nor whatever.)

romwell• 2 years ago

Given all that we know, that system shouldn't have flown to the ISS.

Sincerely hoping NASA plays it safe this time.

A tragedy would have far-reaching consequences for both NASA and the US, well beyond the horrifying loss of life.

doctorpangloss2• 2 years ago

...maintain a clearer future for Boeing's Starliner program, which NASA would like to become operational for regular crew rotation flights to the station.

Why do people in the government bend over so deeply backwards for this shitty company?

MBCook5• 2 years ago

With Soyuz out of the picture, if Boeing can’t get it together aren’t they basically 100% dependent on SpaceX?

And the head of SpaceX is, shall we say, not giving off strong vibes of calm consistency right now.

Single sourcing is never great. The article even mentions the problem of when the astronauts got stuck in space on ISS for a very long time after Columbia.

While Boeing is strategically important, some of this may simply be there are no other good options out there right now for a second source.

We don’t want to depend on China. We’re not on good terms with Russia. Is there anything else available?

pbae• 2 years ago

What's the worst-case scenario they're trying to avoid from being 100% dependent on SpaceX? Perhaps it's something like the present scenario. If the vaccine is as bad as the disease, then skip the vaccine and just chance it.

misja111• 2 years ago

The European Space Agency has a space program as well: it has the Ariane rocket. I don't think it's capable to bring astronauts to the ISS but maybe it would be worth starting to cooperate to enable this in the future.

pyinstallwoes3• 2 years ago

And the head of SpaceX is, shall we say, not giving off strong vibes of calm consistency right now.

What is your logic?

facorreia• 2 years ago

I believe that this page answers your question: https://www.boeing.com/defense#products

akira25012• 2 years ago

NASA's charter and total function is to promote the commercialization of space.

influx• 2 years ago

I wonder at what point the astronauts can veto NASA on this. In airplanes, the pilot in command has the last word about whether to take an aircraft into the air.

akira25012• 2 years ago

They're up there. NASA isn't. Technically, they can veto them at any point.

MBCook5• 2 years ago

Didn’t that happen with Skylab?

marklar423• 2 years ago

It appears to me there's probably a "best of both worlds" compromise:

1. Send the astronauts home on Dragon

2. Certify Starliner for human flight if it can make it home safely (uncrewed)

If the capsule can make it down, it doesn't matter if there were people in it or not, right?

shantara4• 2 years ago

They cannot do it at the moment, as Boeing has removed the software support for flying Starliner uncrewed from this specific craft, even though it has already completed a mission without humans onboard already. And we’ve only learned about it after Starliner was stuck docked to ISS

CoastalCoder2• 2 years ago

Is there a mechanism for updating the Starliner software while it's docked at the ISS?

blankx32• 2 years ago

NASA already clarified this is not correct, only software parameters need to be modified not the software

Aperocky• 2 years ago

The point of certification isn't and shouldn't be "happened to be successful once"

96592• 2 years ago

The SpaceX vehicle may look like the safest choice. But is it? A handful of manned flights does not prove that a vehicle is 'safe'. Likewise, some anomalies in 1 flight do not prove 'unsafe'.

Perhaps the knowledge of Starliner issues makes it more accurate to assess the risk.

Either vehicle could lose the crew on the return. "Astronauting" is a risky business.

I do not envy anyone on the decision chain.

pie420• 2 years ago

This is ridiculous boeing apologism. the starliner craft is broken, and only semi-operable on it's maiden voyage. the spacex craft has flown succesfully multiple times without any incident, and they have data from multiple trips which was used to analyze and improve the flight. boeing does not have that.

There is a very clear safer option, and to pretend there isn't is enlightened centrism.

Jtsummers• 2 years ago

One vehicle has demonstrated it can return crew safely, the other has never done that and has exhibited problems on what should have been a demonstration flight (small issues, perhaps, but nothing as critical or questionable as they've found).

96592• 2 years ago

space shuttle looked safe for the first 24 launches. not shilling for Boeing. just pointing out that space is dangerous. and a couple of successes does not make the risk go away.

AnimalMuppet2• 2 years ago

Some anomalies in the first half of the first flight - some of which are directly relevant to its ability to successfully conduct the second half of the first flight.

No, that doesn't prove 'unsafe'. It gives reason to seriously question it, though.

riffic2• 2 years ago

why take the risk.

farceSpherule• 2 years ago

F*ck NASA and their "Starliner."

Soyuz is the most reliable and most successful vehicle at this point.

NASA simply does not want to use it because they will lose face.

MBCook5• 2 years ago

You think they should use the launch vehicle of the country in a war where we’re literally arming the other side?

They would 100% use Soyuz if Russia hadn’t changed the relationship by starting a war to take over a sovereign country.

lupusreal5• 2 years ago

You're very confused, I wonder where you're getting your "facts" from. NASA hasn't stopped flying American astronauts on Soyuz. The most recent Soyuz launched March of this year with Tracy Caldwell Dyson, an American astronaut, on board. It comes back in September, with her. Another is scheduled to launch in September, with Americans in the primary and backup crews.

ngneer• 2 years ago

In God we trust. All others must bring data.

goodSteveramos• 2 years ago

For context on cost, SpaceX only charged NASA $3.1 billion for developing the Dragon 2 manned capsule. Boeing charged NASA $6.7 billion for Starliner and has spend at least 1.6 billion more than that so far.

bell-cot4• 2 years ago

Closely related story -

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/with-starliner-stuck-i...

- by a journalist who seems very well connected with NASA folks. And who seems to be dropping a fair number of "they're fly home on SpaceX" hints.

NASA is about to make its most important safety decision in nearly a generation

Related Stories