Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4

[Steven Pietrobon]

[devil's advocate here] So if you have a very expensive test that everyone always passes, shouldn't you be spending your time and schedule on something else instead?

The escape system failed in Little Joe 5, so your assumption is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Joe_5

The correct approach is always: Test what you fly. Fly what you test. Skimping tests to save money or time is just one way for your astronauts to buy the farm.

[Rondaz]

We’re rolling into #IAC2019 in the brand new #Starliner Astrovan made by @Airstream_Inc. This Crew Transport Vehicle will take Commercial Crew astronauts to the launch pad in 2020. See it at the show this week!

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1185933823541948416

[ncb1397]

If I'm reading the schedule correctly, this week's launch of Soyuz MS-15 has some interesting implications for Starliner. Soyuz MS-16 (launching in spring 2020) isn't expected to carry any American crewmembers, and MS-17 isn't launching until fall 2020. The longest Soyuz mission (TMA-9, in 2006) lasted 215 days, so that would mean MS-15 needs to return with Meir and Morgan no later than late April. So in order to maintain a NASA crew presence on the station, Boe-CFT needs to launch no later than mid-April of next year.

Meir or Morgan might get an extension like Christina Koch. ...

This is not possible, Soyuz MS16 has 3 seats, offer only for 3 a rescue option.

...Or we pull a favor with JAXA and swap out Akihiko Hoshide on MS-16.

What difference does that make?

Some difference as that seems to be happening. Akihiko Hoshide's seat will be taken up by an american instead.

[GWR64]

If I'm reading the schedule correctly, this week's launch of Soyuz MS-15 has some interesting implications for Starliner. Soyuz MS-16 (launching in spring 2020) isn't expected to carry any American crewmembers, and MS-17 isn't launching until fall 2020. The longest Soyuz mission (TMA-9, in 2006) lasted 215 days, so that would mean MS-15 needs to return with Meir and Morgan no later than late April. So in order to maintain a NASA crew presence on the station, Boe-CFT needs to launch no later than mid-April of next year.

Meir or Morgan might get an extension like Christina Koch. ...

This is not possible, Soyuz MS16 has 3 seats, offer only for 3 a rescue option.

...Or we pull a favor with JAXA and swap out Akihiko Hoshide on MS-16.

What difference does that make?

Some difference as that seems to be happening. Akihiko Hoshide's seat will be taken up by an american instead.

Yes, politically that makes a big difference to NASA. I understand that. (in my country almost nobody cares  )
But the problem remains on the ISS. I can not imagine that, for example, the HTV-9 starts when there is only one astronaut in the USOS.

Akihiko Hoshide was planned as ISS commander. 

[Olaf]

Akihiko Hoshide was planned as ISS commander. 

Probably he will get a seat in a USCV and then he can become ISS commander.

[Rondaz]

We customize every seat on #Starliner to accommodate 95% of the world’s height variation. Watch us scan @NASA_Astronauts to make their Crew Flight Test seats ahead of launch.

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187428742794219520

[JEF_300]

We customize every seat on #Starliner to accommodate 95% of the world’s height variation. Watch us scan @NASA_Astronauts to make their Crew Flight Test seats ahead of launch.

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187428742794219520

'We customize every seat to fit a wide-range of people' - Boeing

I'm not the only one, right? That doesn't make much sense unless they're buying seats off the shelf.

Are they buying seat off the shelf?.

[cppetrie]

We customize every seat on #Starliner to accommodate 95% of the world’s height variation. Watch us scan @NASA_Astronauts to make their Crew Flight Test seats ahead of launch.

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1187428742794219520

'We customize every seat to fit a wide-range of people' - Boeing

I'm not the only one, right? That doesn't make much sense unless they're buying seats off the shelf.

Are they buying seat off the shelf?.

Is this even necessary? What actual functional benefit comes from customizing the seat? Just seems like a way to turn something inexpensive and functional into something functional and very expensive. Does this require a seat change out in the event there is a late crew swap?

[whitelancer64]

I think it's poorly written. The seats can accommodate 95% of height variation, they also have a custom-fitted liner for each astronaut.

A bespoke fit means you get rattled around less during launch.

Yes, you'd need to swap out the seat liner if there's a crew change.

Soyuz does exactly the same thing.

[gemmy0I]

Yes, you'd need to swap out the seat liner if there's a crew change.

Soyuz does exactly the same thing.

I've been wondering how that would work in the event of a hurried evacuation.

If the crew ended up in the "wrong" Soyuzes (or Starliners, etc.) in an evacuation - say, due to a depressurization in the middle of the station that forced them to head to the nearest escape pod rather than the one they're assigned - how would that work? Would they have to remove the mismatched liner and ride down in the unlined seat? I can't imagine a 6", 200-lb man fitting into a seat liner for a 5", 110-lb woman (for instance). (Or are the custom liners not so restrictive as to prevent an "oversized" person from fitting?)

I'm sure they have procedures in place for exactly this scenario (they have procedures for just about everything...) but I've never heard what they might be.

Do we know if Crew Dragon uses custom seat liners as well, or does it go with adjustable/"one size fits all" seats? In the pictures I've seen (e.g this one), Dragon's seats looked pretty uniform. (But maybe that's because they were either ground training simulators, or the DM-1 capsule that was never going to take people to space.)

[Nomadd]

 "Watch us scan @NASA_Astronauts to make their Crew Flight Test seats ahead of launch."
 
 I'm picturing another company suspending people with wire in a sitting position and having six guys with cans of spray foam making a custom mold.

[woods170]

"Watch us scan @NASA_Astronauts to make their Crew Flight Test seats ahead of launch."
 
 I'm picturing another company suspending people with wire in a sitting position and having six guys with cans of spray foam making a custom mold.

That's crazy even by (former)Soviet standards.

Way easier to just put the cosmonaut in a bath-tub and poor in the plaster:
https://twitter.com/AstroSamantha/status/524165208768393216

[Hog]

I'd think that landing would be more of a concern than nominal launch forces.  Being on orbit for durations approaching one year becoming more commonplace, for western astronauts, landing forces on a weakened musculoskeletal system could easily cause injury.  For the Soviet cosmonauts, very long durations missions have been more commonplace, hence the Soyuz 100% custom couch liners AND the retrorockets that reduce the G hit during a nominal landing.

Now figure in an non-nominal launch (like the Soyuz abort last year-which appeared quite violent) or a non-nominal landing, where the capsule is dragged or possibly lands on the side of a mountain with a crew that's been on orbit for a year or maybe more.  The more surface area between the human body and the seat will reduce  any localized "pressure points".  The human body isnt optimized for sitting or laying down, as we take steps the human heel bone (calcaneus) experiences body weight x 7.  I weight 230 pounds on Earth, so with every step I take, during heel strike my heel "sees" shock forces of around 1600 pounds.
And while placing 'nauts on their backs does reduce the possibility of a spinal compression injury seen during helicopter crashes and aircraft ejections, having a "liner" that doesnt fit you body can lead to a greater propensity for injury than does a fitted one.
Automobile seatbelts are narrower than racecar restraints. The wider the seatbelt/restaint, the lower the point force that is applied to the skin.  Think of a fitted liner as a wide racecar restraint belt, that instead of covering your pelvis/shoulders/chest/groin from the front, covers the entire rear aspect of your body.  The areas of high pressure points on the body are demonstrated by patients who cannot move their bodies. If not moved/rolled skin breakdown occurs on the heels, buttocks, tailbone area(particularily troublesome-I've treated many wounds in this area where the underlying bone is visible/exposed), shoulder blades, scalp.  This is one of the reasons why we have maximum "On back time" for Shuttle and other crews.  Extended time on your back WITH gravity pulling down reduces circulation, combine that with sweat/urine collecting in a MAG(maximum absorbency garment) and deep tissue injuries can occur with just bodyweight.  While deep tissue injuries from partial skin breakdown is different than cracking a few ribs during a hard landing after a long duration ISS mission, some of the same systems and causes are at work, both of which are aided by a nice fitting seat that reduces pressure points of the skin and underlying bony structure.

While nominal launches are a concern, my guess is that landings and off nominal landing by humans in a highly weakened state are MORE of a concern when it comes to Soyuz type "fitted liners". The forces can be huge, applying them to the human body through the greatest surface area possible helps to mitigate the damage they can do.

[russianhalo117]

Yes, you'd need to swap out the seat liner if there's a crew change.

Soyuz does exactly the same thing.

I've been wondering how that would work in the event of a hurried evacuation.

If the crew ended up in the "wrong" Soyuzes (or Starliners, etc.) in an evacuation - say, due to a depressurization in the middle of the station that forced them to head to the nearest escape pod rather than the one they're assigned - how would that work? Would they have to remove the mismatched liner and ride down in the unlined seat? I can't imagine a 6", 200-lb man fitting into a seat liner for a 5", 110-lb woman (for instance). (Or are the custom liners not so restrictive as to prevent an "oversized" person from fitting?)

I'm sure they have procedures in place for exactly this scenario (they have procedures for just about everything...) but I've never heard what they might be.

Do we know if Crew Dragon uses custom seat liners as well, or does it go with adjustable/"one size fits all" seats? In the pictures I've seen (e.g this one), Dragon's seats looked pretty uniform. (But maybe that's because they were either ground training simulators, or the DM-1 capsule that was never going to take people to space.)

All crew are assigned a primary return vehicle and seat number. That is there only option.

[gemmy0I]

All crew are assigned a primary return vehicle and seat number. That is there only option.

Wow. I'm surprised they don't have a contingency plan for situations where that might not be feasible. I mean, heck, they had a contingency plan for bringing a crew member back in the payload bay of the Shuttle in an EVA suit...

In fairness, a situation necessitating returning crew in the "wrong" Soyuz would be so extreme and unforeseen that it would surely involve a lot of "planning on the fly", Apollo-13-style. At that point a lot of tradeoffs are on the table - the priority is getting the crew down to Earth alive, and some (hopefully minor) injuries due to a misfitting seat liner can be tolerated. Similar to how Elon Musk said that someone could technically stow away in a Dragon 1 in a pinch and would probably do fine.

I guess in such a situation, the mismatched crew wouldn't even have a correctly fitting Sokol pressure suit available, since those are presumably stored in the respective Soyuzes (I imagine they wouldn't be spending time donning them during an emergency evacuation, but would leave that for the free flight phase before reentry). If one of the suits that happened to be on board was a close enough fit for a mismatched crew member, it would presumably allow him to fit into the seat liner OK, since the seat's designed to fit the Sokol, not the un-suited crew member. If none of the suits on board were a close enough fit then that'd be a bigger problem, although again, better than the alternative in an emergency situation. (In a nominal re-entry, the pressure suits are superfluous, since they exist mainly to protect against capsule depressurization as happened in Soyuz 11; that's never happened since, so most likely they'd be OK. IIRC on one of the Apollo flights the astronauts re-entered with their helmets off because they had caught a cold during the flight (one of them had brought it on board) and were more afraid of sneezing into their helmets than a depressurization. )

[wjbarnett]

So imagine you're an engineering manager at Airborne: you have 3 customers that are all in need of staff time and corporate resources to research, resolve and test different Crit-1 items you're supplying to them. All have huge political and monetary power and urgency.  How do you prioritize?

[HeartofGold2030]

So imagine you're an engineering manager at Airborne: you have 3 customers that are all in need of staff time and corporate resources to research, resolve and test different Crit-1 items you're supplying to them. All have huge political and monetary power and urgency.  How do you prioritize?

I’m assuming NASA/Orion is the highest priority customer, because of them being the US government and all that. 

[OM72]

In hindsight SpaceX shot itself in the foot, financially speaking. It volunteered to do an extra abort flight test above what Boeing was doing. And it did so for less money. Yet that additional abort flight test is now costing SpaceX a crapload of additional money due to the DM-1 static fire anomaly.
On the plus side is that a major design issue was uncovered before any humans were flown on Crew Dragon. Overall the reliability and safety of Crew Dragon will be much increased.

The Dragon in-flight abort test is paid by NASA. And the static fire explosion just proves that additional testing was exactly the right thing to do. SpaceX could not have decided better about Dragon testing.

That's not how this works....

[PM3]

NASA pays 30 million US$ for each successful pad abort or in-flight abort test. Due to the high cost of an Atlas V launch, of course it was financially unattractive to do a Starliner in-flight abort. For SpaceX on the other hand, with a three-times-flown booster, a dummy 2nd stage and reusing the Dragon for later cargo flights, this test is free.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-spacex-delay-dragon-in-flight-abort-test/

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-achieves-pad-abort-milestone-approval

[snotis]

NASA pays 30 million US$ for each successful pad abort or in-flight abort test. Due to the high cost of an Atlas V launch, of course it was financially unattractive to do a Starliner in-flight abort. For SpaceX on the other hand, with a three-times-flown booster, a dummy 2nd stage and reusing the Dragon for later cargo flights, this test is free.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-and-spacex-delay-dragon-in-flight-abort-test/

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commercial-crew-partner-spacex-achieves-pad-abort-milestone-approval

They will NOT be re-using crew dragons for cargo flights - this was confirmed curing the CRS-18 Pre-launch press conference - see here:

...As soon as we build the weldment there are slight differences ... while a lot of the sub-systems are the same... they will be different vehicles.  We won't interchange between cargo and crew vehicles.