• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    From the article …

    Stich explained that the plan is to monitor the leak in the lead-up to launch and, after reaching the International Space Station, reassess the leak rate.

    I got major ‘O-ring’ vibes after reading that.

    I can’t believe they’re going to fly with that leak.

    Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      7 months ago

      Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.

      In SRB O-rings, fire gets OUT of where you want the fire to stay. In this situation the worst case scenario is that the helium would not be available to push fuel out of the fuel storage tank to the place where fire is suppose to occur. So again, in worst case, it won’t be a giant fireball, but no thrust of the spacecraft in space when you want it. You’d like get lots of notice if this is going to be a problem in the future and be able to take different actions.

      That said, none of this kind of problem should occur so far into development and after 2 previous flights.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.

        I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened

        My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.

        And if the shuttle tiles situation tells us anything, they don’t take everything with them up into space, to do on-site emergency repairs.

        Even if they brought extra helium with them, if the leak is widened (launch vibrations, etc.) to a point where the helium escapes too quickly now, before the whole reentry sequence completes, then they’re stuck.

        Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.

        Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          7 months ago

          I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened

          No argument from me there. Starliner has been a mess managerial.

          Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.

          Halfway across the desert.

          My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.

          If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there’s any risk of lack of helium, they won’t fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe. My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.

            I guess I’m used to the old NASA, where they would never ‘play the Vegas odds’, risk the astronauts under any condition, besides the normal risks of just launching in a rocket in the first place.

            Interesting to see how having a private business corporation involved would change that mindset.

            I do hope you’re right, for the crews sake.

            Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

          • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there’s any risk of lack of helium, they won’t fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe.

            Imagine the PR nightmare for Boeing if they have to send a competitors spacecraft up to return the astronauts they launched? I’d almost wish for this to happen just for the embarrassment it would cause Boeing.

      • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Is it an external leak? Or an internal one?

        IE is it leaking into the fuel vessel and pressurizing it unintentionally? Or just leaking to external “void” space?

    • Kokesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Imagine being chosen not for Dragon, but for this… I would be shitting myself now.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        One of the Astronauts chosen for Starliner already retired years ago because the Starliner development took so long, so its down to a crew of two.

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      They calculated that the thrusters would still work normally with up to 4 leaks of that size, or one leak up to 100x that size. And the affected thrusters are the backup for the backup for what they’re actually using to maneuver.

  • 667@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Remember when we allowed the Columbia to reenter despite concerns of heat shield damage?

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      There really wasn’t another option for Columbia. It was die in space or die trying to land.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        What about the two alternatives that were forwarded after the accident, either a rescue mission or in-orbit repairs?

        Sure, both were far from a guaranteed success. Far from. Still better than nothing. As in: They were another option than just letting it explode.

        • Spedwell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I thought both of these were actually impossible for Columbia. IIRC the rescue mission was impossible because there were no available vehicles, and the EVA equipment onboard would let them inspect the tiles but they couldn’t actually fix them.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Atlantis was already scheduled to fly not too long after, and the CAIB discussed that there was a possibility of moving the launch up as Columbia could have stayed an extraordinary long time in orbit due to their specific mission loadout.

            Repairs with harvested tiles were also discussed but yeah , chance of success rated as low. Still, better than deorbiting with nothing done.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Didn’t have the equipment for either.

          We don’t have a rescue ship just sitting around. It’d take months to get one ready.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    “We know we can manage this [leak], so this is really not a safety of flight issue,” Nappi added.

    Oh, oh Boeing.

    • Jrockwar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Assuming for a minute that this is 100% true, for conversation’s sake.

      Does that matter? We have here a company with a reputation that is massively hurt by issues in their aircraft and inability to keep a decent quality control, and they think the best way forward is to announce the whole world they’re flying a space mission with a leaky spacecraft? Are they actively trying to tank their reputation even further?

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think Airbus is too busy swimming in money.

      I heard from my neighbors - who work there - that the biggest struggle internally now is to keep their quality standards up despite everyone and their mother ordering dozens of planes as they’re cancelling as many Boeing orders as they can. So it takes constant and organized pushbacks against management to not commit the same normalization of deviance that is bringing Boeing down. You’d think it’d be easy! Because that’s exacty why their main competitor is flailing. Nope, management wants their bonuses. 😑

      At least from what they can tell me, it’s actually working though and upper management had to shut it and accept the current speed of work and enjoy the decades of backlog and paid-already contracts instead. Only 4 yachts per person or something…

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Even if it doesn’t go that way, it’s just sloppy and shows an element of disregard.

      No wonder less people are interested in becoming astronauts. This “it’s broken and we’re not going to bother fixing it” is just creeping in too much.