Safety Panel Says NASA Should Have Taken Starliner Incident More Seriously (arstechnica.com) 37
joshuark shares a report from Ars Technica: For the better part of two months last year, most of us had no idea how serious the problems were with Boeing's Starliner spacecraft docked at the International Space Station. A safety advisory panel found this uncertainty also filtered through NASA's workforce. [...] The Starliner capsule was beset by problems with its maneuvering thrusters and pernicious helium leaks on its 27-hour trip from the launch pad to the ISS. For a short time, Starliner commander Wilmore lost his ability to control the movements of his spacecraft as it moved in for docking at the station in June 2024. Engineers determined that some of the thrusters were overheating and eventually recovered most of their function, allowing Starliner to dock with the ISS. [...]
Throughout that summer, managers from NASA and Boeing repeatedly stated that the spacecraft was safe to bring Wilmore and Williams home if the station needed to be evacuated in an emergency. But officials on the ground ordered extensive testing to understand the root of the problems. Buried behind the headlines, there was a real chance NASA managers would decide -- as they ultimately did -- not to put astronauts on Boeing's crew capsule when it was time to depart the ISS. [...] It would have been better, [Charlie Precourt, a former space shuttle commander and now a member of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP)] and other panel members said Friday, if NASA made a formal declaration of an in-flight "mishap" or "high visibility close call" soon after the Starliner spacecraft's troubled rendezvous with the ISS. Such a declaration would have elevated responsibility for the investigation to NASA's safety office. [...]
After months of testing and analysis, NASA officials were unsure if the thruster problems would recur on Starliner's flight home. They decided in August 2024 to return the spacecraft to the ground without the astronauts, and the capsule safely landed in New Mexico the following month. The next Starliner flight will carry only cargo to the ISS. The safety panel recommended that NASA review its criteria and processes to ensure the language is "unambiguous" in requiring the agency to declare an in-flight mishap or a high-visibility close call for any event involving NASA personnel "that leads to an impact on crew or spacecraft safety."
Throughout that summer, managers from NASA and Boeing repeatedly stated that the spacecraft was safe to bring Wilmore and Williams home if the station needed to be evacuated in an emergency. But officials on the ground ordered extensive testing to understand the root of the problems. Buried behind the headlines, there was a real chance NASA managers would decide -- as they ultimately did -- not to put astronauts on Boeing's crew capsule when it was time to depart the ISS. [...] It would have been better, [Charlie Precourt, a former space shuttle commander and now a member of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP)] and other panel members said Friday, if NASA made a formal declaration of an in-flight "mishap" or "high visibility close call" soon after the Starliner spacecraft's troubled rendezvous with the ISS. Such a declaration would have elevated responsibility for the investigation to NASA's safety office. [...]
After months of testing and analysis, NASA officials were unsure if the thruster problems would recur on Starliner's flight home. They decided in August 2024 to return the spacecraft to the ground without the astronauts, and the capsule safely landed in New Mexico the following month. The next Starliner flight will carry only cargo to the ISS. The safety panel recommended that NASA review its criteria and processes to ensure the language is "unambiguous" in requiring the agency to declare an in-flight mishap or a high-visibility close call for any event involving NASA personnel "that leads to an impact on crew or spacecraft safety."
It is Boeing. What do you expect? (Score:1)
The only thing keeping Boeing alive is politics needing them.
Re: (Score:1)
Saying Boeing only exists because of politics is like saying hospitals only exist because of ambulances. Government contracts matter, but if Boeing disappeared tomorrow, airlines implode, supply chains break, and Airbus physically cannot scale fast enough to replace them. That's not politics. That’s industrial reality.
--
Service announcement: AC postings are necessary to protect the innocent from dismissive know-it-alls.
Re: (Score:2)
So, your assessment is that the only thing keeping Boeing alive is market inertia...
Not much of an endorsement, if you were thinking Boeing needs to be sustained.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Boeing is a major US military contractor. Even if they deliver crap all too often, the US has no real alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, that market also.
They've absorbed some other military contractors, IIRC. Not that it matters, almost all military systems are single-source I think, they are unique...
And from what I know, their military work is still good enough. Now to get our military right-to-repair...
Re: (Score:2)
There would be a chaos yes, but airlines would not implode, they would just try to manage in any way they can. Most obvious way to manage the chaos is to raise the ticket price and make less flights, possibly fire some staff.
Re: (Score:1)
Most airlines have fleets that are as uniform as they can get. If you're an airline that has all Boeing airplanes and Boeing shut down then you're done.
Re: (Score:1)
Most? An AI can make up better bullshit than you:
Top airlines don't have uniform fleets:
https://www.qatarairways.com/e... [qatarairways.com]
https://www.singaporeair.com/e... [singaporeair.com]
https://www.cathaypacific.com/... [cathaypacific.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The largest don't either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is tougher for two reasons.
There is SpaceX, who holds a monopoly without Boeing, as Roscosmos blew up its launch pad facility. You can pick between satan and a devil, SpaceX and Boeing. Pick one. Blue Origin and others try to reach the skies, and simply aren't there. Meanwhile, the ISS goes around the earth, needing service SOMEHOW.
NASA really wants an alternative; they may or not have let Boeing slide in desperation. A single vendor space flight program is in no one's interest.
Whether you agree or dis
Re: (Score:2)
First, Boeing is in this conversation because it is NASA's prime contractor for the CCP and such. So, really, we could write 'Boeing' or 'NASA'. Either way, same program. Same issue.
Second, you may not think much of Elon Musk, but consider that Boeing's corporate choices, just related to the 737 MAX line, and you see a disturbing pattern of questionable safety and engineering decisions. SpaceX has a somewhat (?) better record.
NASA does need second sourcing for manned spaceflight. Boeing has some work to do.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll grant you a race to the bottom, with tax dollar financing. SpaceX has a better success rate, and also with the incumbent dangers of sole-source cartage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of these companies using subsidy funding (directly or indirectly) for stock buy-back. But how does that "plunder" your 401k? I think you misunderstand how that works.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Nothing else works, with countless historic and present examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking the A-holes at NASA are not interested in money.
But in promotions. Of course that translates into higher salaries, but that is not really the point.
The point is those guys, like the Boing guys, lick literally each others a-holes to get up the shitting ladder.
And the actual job - running a space agency - is not even secondary yo them. Those guys would not care more or less if they ran an antarctica research station or an oil platform or would command some serious military hardware.
Did take it seriously (Score:2)
How much more seriously could they have been?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, there were questions about Starliner reliability prior to launch, but Boeing assured everyone that they didn't need to test all that so much again, it was fine.
Safety. For manned flight, this has not been NASA's JOB ONE for a while, and we have evidence of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole issue appears to be that they did not formally announce that it was a problem. This seems more like an internal NASA political issue, than a real one.
Well, yes, and no. Not declaring it a formal safety issue also meant that the full force of the NASA resources across all divisions were not brought to bear at the time, and that would also mean that next steps would need to be formally coordinated with high levels of consensus as to those next steps. NASA, like many such large organizations, has a lot of groups that are the best of the best of the best in their field, but might not realize that other alternatives and approaches might be more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
In hindsight, NASA was in a no-win situation. Permitting Starliner to dock risked an accident. But to return it to Earth? Less dangerous?
Re:Did take it seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably shouldn't have allowed astronauts to launch in the first place and forced Boeing to have a clean demo flight.
Not flying back was the right call, but letting them fly in the first place is questionable.
Bureaucracy (Score:2)
Bureaucracy wants another layer of bureaucracy involved.
This is s significant contributor to why NASA and Boeing/Starliner are so behind in their projects, as compared to SpaceX.
Leaving those astronauts on the ISS for 9 months longer than their planned 10 day trip was a shameful failure and a national disgrace.
Should've taken the whistleblowers seriously too (Score:2)
Somebody at Boeing is ordering hits on courageous engineers. Maybe it's time to find out why.
Who remembers? (Score:2)
... 1986 when the pols insisted on complicating an already very hard problem by building a "reusable" spacecraft with boosters from jurisdiction for votes while launching in another...then both cutting safety factors AND ignoring warnings from the actual engineers. I was a child and watched 7 people die on live TV.
The people who actually build rockets are AMAZING. When pols get in the way it gets expensive and dangerous. This is why SpaceX - literally - revolutionized space launch and everyone is despera