Starliner's Space Station Flight Was 'Wilder' Than We Thought (arstechnica.com) 97
The Starliner spacecraft lost four thrusters while approaching the International Space Station last summer. NASA astronaut, Butch Wilmore took manual control, remembers Ars Technica, "But as Starliner's thrusters failed, Wilmore lost the ability to move the spacecraft in the direction he wanted to go..."
Starliner had flown to within a stone's throw of the space station, a safe harbor, if only they could reach it. But already, the failure of so many thrusters violated the mission's flight rules. In such an instance, they were supposed to turn around and come back to Earth. Approaching the station was deemed too risky for Wilmore and Williams, aboard Starliner, as well as for the astronauts on the $100 billion space station.
But what if it was not safe to come home, either?
"I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point," Wilmore said in an interview. "I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't."
After a half-hour exclusive interview, Ars Technica's senior space editor Eric Berger says he'd heard "a hell of a story." After Starliner lost four of its 28 reaction control system thrusters, Van Cise and this team in Houston decided the best chance for success was resetting the failed thrusters. This is, effectively, a fancy way of turning off your computer and rebooting it to try to fix the problem. But it meant Wilmore had to go hands-off from Starliner's controls. Imagine that. You're drifting away from the space station, trying to maintain your position. The station is your only real lifeline because if you lose the ability to dock, the chance of coming back in one piece is quite low. And now you're being told to take your hands off the controls...
Two of the four thrusters came back online.
Wilmore: "...But then we lose a fifth jet. What if we'd have lost that fifth jet while those other four were still down? I have no idea what would've happened. I attribute to the providence of the Lord getting those two jets back before that fifth one failed...
Berger: Mission Control decided that it wanted to try to recover the failed thrusters again. After Wilmore took his hands off the controls, this process recovered all but one of them. At that point, the vehicle could be flown autonomously, as it was intended to be.
"Wilmore added that he felt pretty confident, in the aftermath of docking to the space station, that Starliner probably would not be their ride home," according to the article. And Williams says it was the right decision. Publicly, NASA and Boeing expressed confidence in Starliner's safe return with crew. But Williams and Wilmore, who had just made that harrowing ride, felt differently.
But what if it was not safe to come home, either?
"I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point," Wilmore said in an interview. "I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't."
After a half-hour exclusive interview, Ars Technica's senior space editor Eric Berger says he'd heard "a hell of a story." After Starliner lost four of its 28 reaction control system thrusters, Van Cise and this team in Houston decided the best chance for success was resetting the failed thrusters. This is, effectively, a fancy way of turning off your computer and rebooting it to try to fix the problem. But it meant Wilmore had to go hands-off from Starliner's controls. Imagine that. You're drifting away from the space station, trying to maintain your position. The station is your only real lifeline because if you lose the ability to dock, the chance of coming back in one piece is quite low. And now you're being told to take your hands off the controls...
Two of the four thrusters came back online.
Wilmore: "...But then we lose a fifth jet. What if we'd have lost that fifth jet while those other four were still down? I have no idea what would've happened. I attribute to the providence of the Lord getting those two jets back before that fifth one failed...
Berger: Mission Control decided that it wanted to try to recover the failed thrusters again. After Wilmore took his hands off the controls, this process recovered all but one of them. At that point, the vehicle could be flown autonomously, as it was intended to be.
"Wilmore added that he felt pretty confident, in the aftermath of docking to the space station, that Starliner probably would not be their ride home," according to the article. And Williams says it was the right decision. Publicly, NASA and Boeing expressed confidence in Starliner's safe return with crew. But Williams and Wilmore, who had just made that harrowing ride, felt differently.
Thrusters failed on trip down as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading that the capsule suffered more thruster failures on the unmanned trip home, even though it was able to successfully re-enter atmosphere and land.
I'd equate it to a 747 losing an engine and rudder control, managing to land and disembark passengers, then after "repairs" done by a small field tech with very limited tools, heads back without the passengers, but suffers another engine failure on the way back.
If I was one of those passengers, I'd be 100% with not being on that flight back, even if it made it back "safely".
Especially if I'm getting to spend another week in some tropical paradise* on the airline's dime waiting for another plane.
As a note, the dragon capsules have a history now of working without serious failures.
*They're astronauts, being in space is what they want.
Re: (Score:1)
Crew Dragon has a great operational record, but is not entirely without anomalies in testing.
Vale Crew Dragon C204. [youtube.com]
Re:Thrusters failed on trip down as well (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue that that doesn't count, because it was clearly a test, and they fixed that problem.
I said that they have a history of working. Explosions during testing don't count. Though obviously I want multiple successful tests before going operational.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that that doesn't count, because it was clearly a test,
Then Boeing is in the clear :-) Barry and Sunita were on the Boeing Crew Flight Test (Boe-CFT) .
Re: (Score:2)
People being on it kind of still ups the stakes though. And Boeing really didn't have any fully successful tests before this. They managed to argue 'good enough, we'll fix that next time' for them.
Re: (Score:3)
"repairs" done by a small field tech
Don't be a hater. It's not the field tech's fault that they're short. That's just genetics.
Re: (Score:2)
"small field" IE "small airport", IE somebody not used to working on 747s.
Re: (Score:2)
I am at a loss on whether you didn't get the joke or I'm not getting yours :D.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's so much worse than that!. The plane was so damaged that the only airport nearby wants to turn you away because they're afraid you're going to lose control, crash in to the terminal, and kill everyone at the airport if you try to land there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called engineering. It doesn't happen by accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair analogy. Just substitute the rusk of causing, probably, fatal harm to the airport. The entire airport, on the attempted landing.
And never had actually landed that 747 more than 3 times. All without passengers.
Boeing flew this with a history of problems with the thrusters, apparently both the RCS and OMAC thrusters. 28 RCS thrusters. That seems complex.
Boeing has a lot of work to do to make this system safe. Their record is not good. NASA should not accept anything but excellence. And yes, Boeing can tr
Re: (Score:2)
I'd equate it to a 747 losing an engine and rudder control, managing to land and disembark passengers,
Not quite that bad. It's as if a 747 had 28 rudders, and four failed, when it needed five to keep control.
Also point a 747 will fall out of the sky with loss of control, unlike spacecraft, which are in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The thrusters on Starliner are not interchangeable. Right there in the summary, the pilot said that with 5 of them out, they would not be able to complete a docking maneuver with the station. So more like 28 control surfaces, but all of the ones offering yaw control went out.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:2)
Talk about a Major Tom moment! Wonder when Starliner will actually be safe for human travel...
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite potentially "never", in the sense that NASA or Trump might "allow" them to exit their contract, cancelling further development of the system.
Actually had a bit of an argument on that with somebody online not long ago, they were convinced that Musk would cancel the contract to save the fed money. They just couldn't seem to understand that Boeing has already been paid everything they're going to be paid for it, and are now burning through their own money to fulfill the contract at a major loss.
As such, holding their feet to the fire to fulfill the contract actually "helps" Musk and SpaceX more, by making them bleed even more money. So I judged it unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of information.... (Score:5, Informative)
You should have lost that argument.
It's a firm fixed price contract, with payments made at specific milestones. The actual contract, and the actual milestones, is not public information so there's always going to be some speculation involved in how much money is left on the contract that Boeing could get paid.
But, speculating here, getting Starliner certified to carry NASA crew to the ISS is something that stands out as perhaps the most obvious milestone possible. If there's a milestone payment associated with that (likely, IMHO), they'll get that if they ever get certified. They'll also get paid for each NASA mission that goes to the ISS. So, IMHO, you're likely wrong with "Boeing has been paid everything they're going to get paid for". They're not getting any more money until they meet the next milestone, whatever that is.
Re: Lack of information.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The actual contract, and the actual milestones, is not public information
The actual contract is here [nasa.gov], AFAICT, and it does list the specific milestones in considerable detail (see Appendix A) though the payment amounts and some of the acceptance criteria are redacted. There are quite a few milestones, and Boeing has at this point completed all but the last two milestones (Operational Readiness Review Interim Milestone, which includes the crewed flight test, and Certification Review Delivery Milestone).
So... it appears to me that letting them out of the contract would save the
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Starliner's history of failure, 'm honestly in disbelief NASA even ALLOWED Starliner to launch with humans on board without requiring that it successfully make MULTIPLE successful unmanned supply runs to the ISS first.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I could SWEAR I remember SpaceX launching several Dragon capsules for unmanned ISS supply runs before its first manned launch.
Regardless, that should be NASA's firm requirement for Starliner NOW... no humans until it successfully completes at least 2 or 3 unmanned supply runs to the ISS without serious incidents (with NASA paying Boeing the going rate for an ISS supply mission, regardless of how much more it actually costs Boeing to do it with a Starliner capsule.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for Boeing, they should have to complete the contract or never receive another contr
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX did have the crew dragon before they designed, built and flew the quite different Crew vessel. But the experience in building the cargo craft really helped them.
Crew dragon flew one automatic flight with no crew, then one flight with two crew members, before beginning normal operations. These flights were not completely problem-free, but they still went remarkably smoothly.
Re: (Score:3)
"the experience in building the cargo craft really helped them."
It certainly did, but it's not like Boeing lacked experience. In fact, early on there was a serious push for sole-sourcing the crew contract to Boeing based on their history with the Shuttle, that SpaceX was too inexperienced and couldn't be trusted to get the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who designed the shuttle at boeing has long since retired.
Re: Ouch (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They made bad desicsions on this level before. Remember Endevaour and Challenger?
Re: (Score:3)
Challenger and Columbia. One of those was caused by not observing the specs provided from a manufacturer, and the other one was caused by not iterating on a known problem (foam falling off in chunks) and there just not being any alternative to attempting reentry as they hadn't had planned rescue missions previously. I think those were arguably both even worse decisions than this (if you have enough spacecraft to have rescue missions, you should definitely plan them, even if we pretend they were sure that th
Re: (Score:2)
Right, sorry. But all this shows is that broken decision making is everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going with "On the 4th of Neveruary" as their prime competitor is in charge of slashing all his competition's contracts in his supplemental employment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were going to space, it would have to be in a SpaceX vehicle, or id say no way Jose. But you do you.
Re: (Score:1)
That was before he fried his brain on whatever he's using now.
Elon Derangement Syndrome: The Post (Score:1)
I'd be willing to bet a nickel that prior to Musk buying twatter, and prior to being involved with Trump, that you were in queue to be his personal banner carrier. You probably bought a Tesla or seriously considered it (supposing it was in your budget), and you probably also geeked out at everything SpaceX did. You also likely praised him for letting Ukraine use his starlink network. All because that's what the MSM told you to think.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL.
You lost betting on trump.
You lost betting against me.
Maybe you're just a born loser, eh?
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some day you'll learn the value of splitting your rants into readable chunks.
Maybe then someone will read more than the first three words.
But I doubt it.
Re: (Score:1)
People like Trump because he's implementing policy that they want implementing.
People want to pick fights with Canada?
People want to pick fights with NATO allies?
People want us to be threatening military invasion of Mexico and Panama?
People want suppression of free speech and coercion of law firms?
People want the government to disappear people off the streets with no due process (or competence) and throw them into a hole in El Salvador, while making propaganda videos about it that are eerily familiar to imagery of World War II era concentration camps?
People want double-digit inflation
Re: (Score:2)
It has often been noted that a significant difference with the left is a willingness to update opinions based on new data and changing situations.
Re: Elon Derangement Syndrome: The Post (Score:1)
Indeed. I'm quite familiar with the OTA updating features of NPCs--in fact, it is something which I alluded to in my prior post.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not want to be dependent on a blood-pissing junkie with a Hitler complex and illusions of grandeur for a core part of my activities either.
Indeed. But that just means all that "private spaceflight" thing is not nearly as good as it was advertized as and things would need to move slower and more expensively. "Cheaper than possible" engineering is never a good idea. But the business-morons runnign things these days are incompetent and do not understand that.
They almost gave Boeing the only contract. (Score:4, Interesting)
They were really close to going with only one vendor, and that vendor being Boeing. Boeing worked out what NASA's budget was likely to be, and they put in a bid for almost all of it, to try to force NASA to go with them alone. Thankfully, SpaceX put up a fairly low bid, and NASA was able to negotiate for more money, so SpaceX got the chance.
If Boeing had been the sole source, they probably would have got there by now, but only after soaking Congress and NASA for more money - and in the meantime, RosCosmos would have also been putting the squeeze on NASA.
WHO THREW THAT (Score:1)
To the Moon! *thwap* OWW
I hate to say it, but SpaceX rocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Since we're speaking in generalizations, I'll take a shot: Republicans tend to say things like "the guy's got issues but he gets things done," and Democrats tend to say things like the GGP post, "I have faith in SpaceX. They have a CEO [sic], a woman, who is decent"
When you're investing millions in a multi-billion dollar company, or looking for a political leader for the world's largest economy, there are pros and cons to both these ways of thinking, to say the least.
Off topic, but if Republicans believe in Religion (Score:2)
Off topic, but if Republicans believe in Religion, and in family values,
Some Republicans believe in religion and in family values. Others have other issues.
why support Musk? Musk has 15 children and 3+ wives? Republicans are against drugs
Republicans are against illegal drugs. Musk's drug of choice seems to be ketamine. Now, ketamine has some bad effects, like dissociation and hallucinations, but it's not illegal.
however Musk is a drug user. To be consistent... Republicans should be for drug use.
Libertarians should be for drug use. Libertarians have, for years, aligned with the Republican party, which parrots their rhetoric, but it's been a devil's bargain, because the Republicans don't actually want the libertarian's values, they just use
Re: (Score:2)
Now, ketamine has some bad effects, like dissociation and hallucinations, but it's not illegal.
It is legal the same way methamphetamine is legal. Under strict controls and only when it is absolutely medically necessary.
In other words, NOT the way that Musk is using it.
Note that the fentanyl that Trump is stomping around about and threatening our best allies and trade partners over is also legal in that sense.
Then there's marijuana (which Musk has smoked openly). Legal in some states but not at all legal federally, nor for federal employees. Following the usual guidelines, Musk should be fired immedia
Re: (Score:2)
Now, ketamine has some bad effects, like dissociation and hallucinations, but it's not illegal.
It is legal the same way methamphetamine is legal. Under strict controls and only when it is absolutely medically necessary.
It's prescription, if that's what you mean. But it's legal for doctors to prescribe it for uses other than the FDA approved usage, for example, for treating depression. Which is what Musk (claims to) use it for."
tl;dr summary: it's legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Republicans are hypocrites. Such as their "pro-life" stance which is really "pro-birth" because after you've taken your first breath, you're on your own, baby. Also: capital punishment.
Or, they're the "party of Law and Order" who is routinely breaking the law. And all those guys in Congress that are supposed to be upholding laws through government oversight? Can't be bothered now that Hunter Biden can't be harassed by them any more.
Or "the party of fiscal responsibility" who is negotiating with
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Elon is the principle engineer at SpaceX and much of the direction comes from him.
There is more evidence that Elon is a clown who is deliberately kept away from decision-making than there is that he is making any decisions himself.
He is demonstrably wiser than you.
You are demonstrably ignorant about how business works.
Re:I hate to say it, but SpaceX rocks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Elon is the principle engineer at SpaceX
Musk is not an engineer. Any title of principal engineer is honorary, not actual engineering work.
But, with that said, Musk is absolutely the chief visionary of SpaceX. He absolutely comes up with the direction of what he wants to see done, and then gives it to his engineers to turn it into steel. And it's been working.
...
He also leads that organization to excellence. It isn't like Boeing just didnt have the resources or money to hire people. They just didn't lead their engineers well. Musk did. Much as you might hate him. He is demonstrably wiser than you.
Musk is phenomenally good at what he does well, awful at others. "Wiser" is a value judgement. At the moment, I'd say he is not acting very wisely, because he has surrounded himself with yes-men who don't dare to every disagree with him on anything, because he fires anybody who disagrees on the spot. That does not seem wise to me.
Maybe reconsider your own world view?
Maybe reconsider the world view that every person is either wonderful and perfect in everything, or evil and awful in everything, with no possibility of people with both strengths and faults.
Re:I hate to say it, but SpaceX rocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk is not an engineer. Any title of principal engineer is honorary, not actual engineering work.
Musk claims to be doing the work of an engineer. If he lies about that, what else does he lie about?
But, with that said, Musk is absolutely the chief visionary of SpaceX.
<meme type=goose>What else does he lie about, motherfucker?</meme>
Maybe reconsider the world view that every person is either wonderful and perfect in everything, or evil and awful in everything, with no possibility of people with both strengths and faults.
Maybe consider the fact that someone who has no compunctions about lying to you about one thing has no compunctions about lying to you about other things, as they have already proven themselves to believe that lying to you is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's been working.
It workED through Crew Dragon. The jury is still out on Starship, but it's not looking good. Of course, Musk seems to be degenerating fast, so it is entirely believable that his good days are behind him.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is phenomenally good at what he does well
Or at least he used to be. I think something broke him. I think that something was Twitter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon is the principle engineer at SpaceX and much of the direction comes from him. He is also the CEO. Gwynn Shotwell is the President. It was Elon who came up with the MechaZilla tower to catch booster and starship, for example. He also leads that organization to excellence. It isn't like Boeing just didnt have the resources or money to hire people. They just didn't lead their engineers well. Musk did. Much as you might hate him. He is demonstrably wiser than you. Maybe reconsider your own world view?
Musk came up with MechaZilla the same way he became one of the greatest Diablo players in the world. He decided this is the direction to go, then paid other people to do the actual work of making it happen.
Re:I hate to say it, but SpaceX rocks. (Score:4, Informative)
Good to know the CEO is a woman. Now my faith is greatly increased.
Gwynne Shotwell has been doing an amazingly good job running SpaceX.
Elon Musk is the public face of SpaceX, but Shotwell runs the company on a day to day basis, and does it extremely well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she is why starship keeps exploding. If Musk was running the show this wouldn't be happening cause he would be culling the engineering team(s) responsible for the explosion
Or maybe fully-reusable orbital rocketry is something that has never before been done and is really hard.
Re: (Score:2)
If Musk was running the show this wouldn't be happening cause he would be culling the engineering team(s) responsible for the explosion
Musk's first three tries at launching a rocket into orbit blew up, and that was VASTLY simpler than Starship, with 1/20th as many engines and no attempt to land or re-use the stages. So, not only "would" it happen, it did happen when Musk was running the show.
When your engineering approach is "try something, see if it works, if it doesn't fix that and try again," failures are a part of the development process.
Re: (Score:1)
I am no so aure about that. Recently SpacweX has done worse. And all it takes for Elonia to take a hand to bring it all crashing down. That person is _incompetent_.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: "the providence of the Lord" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is actual evidence that if you "pray" vehemently enough in that manner, it does help with pain tolerance.
But it works just as well with other "forbidden" words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was quite annoyed to be manning the information desk last time there was a significant EQ in the North Sea (a 5.3, IIRC). But nobody noticed it, despite sitting on top-heavy 150m tall steel towers full of flammable fluids under pressure. Not even an excursion in pipeline pressures. Damn engineering - foiled again!
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Funny and remove censor mod capabilities from trolls' sock puppets.
Re: (Score:2)
On Earth or in space? (Score:3)
Starliner had flown to within a stone's throw of the space station
Using a stone's throw as a measure of distance depends on where you're doing it. On Earth that can be dozens of yards. In space it's essentially forever unless the stone runs into something.
Re: (Score:2)
In orbit, a strict interpretation is that a human arm is able to apply enough delta-v to a stone to reach the station.
Re: Starliner in fact returned to Earth safely (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing like having your own ass on the line to straighten out priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is not a "fact". That is speculation. What happened months later is not a predictor for what would have happened back then. Stop lying.
Boeing... (Score:2)
I don't know ... (Score:2)
After Starliner lost four of its 28 reaction control system thrusters, Van Cise and this team in Houston decided the best chance for success was resetting the failed thrusters. This is, effectively, a fancy way of turning off your computer and rebooting it to try to fix the problem.
... what Butch was worried about. He had tech support right there with him.
Crappy, unreliable systems are not "wild"... (Score:3)
Why is this story trying to misdirect away from the abysmal failure of Boeing to deliver a reliable system? I mean, this level of performance sounds as crappy as something made by Microsoft...
Which MS OS controls the thrusters? (Score:1)