Poll

Will the CFT Starliner land safely?

Yes, Butch & Suni could have ridden it down with no problems
42 (68.9%)
Yes, but occupants would have been uncomfortable
3 (4.9%)
Yes, but occupants would have landed off-target
3 (4.9%)
No, occupants would have been seriously injured
0 (0%)
Some combination of 2, 3 & 4
10 (16.4%)
No, capsule will be lost at some point in the return
3 (4.9%)

Total Members Voted: 61

Voting closed: 09/07/2024 11:32 am


Author Topic: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6  (Read 630543 times)

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1900 on: 09/10/2024 08:27 pm »
Starliner did not return with the software configuration, including low-level code, required to return astronauts to Earth. That part remains untested. Instead, a special return configuration, including a previous version of the software from OFT-2, was used.

You are so far wrong on this it isn't funny. 1 MDL file was changed, and it wasn't even necessary to do so. It was only changed for optimizing the return and not enabling an uncrewed one. NO PRIOR OFT-2 SOFTWARE WAS USED. Period. The exact same FSW was used regardless of which return was performed.
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1647
  • Likes Given: 4426
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1901 on: 09/10/2024 09:10 pm »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1902 on: 09/10/2024 09:19 pm »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.
I don’t remember the exact words except y “ Boeing has a lengthy software install process that takes four weeks.”  Does not sound like a MDL change.

Offline dondar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1903 on: 09/10/2024 09:50 pm »

NASA didn't believed in SpaceX and bothered with "their" company only. That's all.


That would be wrong
wrong what? One company gets 4 years of "free" parking in NASA's Langley Research Center (using NASA "internal" contracts money and in the process even building special test rig). Another company has to pay for paper records of old tests. "Equal" conditions you say?
NASA paid for everything Starliner related. And they participated actively in most stages of it's development, in the landing phase development very very personally.
If you  said that SpaceX design was too risky for NASA as it was proposed (see heatshield holes for legs, Hydrazine on the landing zone etc.), it is one story. Most of us even if not agreeing would understand such opinion. (I do agree that it would be quite unnecessarily complex practically unessential gimmick of otherwise very slim design)

Saying that "SpaceX" didn't want to pay "themselves" for anything is quite another story. It is a lie.
The claim that it was "free" choice of SpaceX not to develop propulsive landing is facetious. Boeing didn't pay for developing Starliner. NASA did. Neither of companies had free choice really. They were offering design features (I claim that many Boeing design features originate in NASA actually, the pedigree is unmistakable), and NASA was approving them (or not).
 NASA was paying for the development of Dragon 2 using milestones principle, i.e. SpaceX had to perform on every step in order to move on the design tree.
More of it SpaceX was constrained in resources of all types (money included) to develop NASA procured system. They didn't had nor money neither engineers to do anything else for very very long time. And when they had they preferred to do something immediately useful (like FH or block 5). Heck they even didn't had regulatory cover to do anything special of "let hydrazine everything" type. The explosion of the Dragon 2 capsule exemplified what would await SpaceX   nicely.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Liked: 1432
  • Likes Given: 640
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1904 on: 09/10/2024 11:12 pm »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.
I don’t remember the exact words except y “ Boeing has a lengthy software install process that takes four weeks.”  Does not sound like a MDL change.
As discussed in one of these threads (the one where the peanut gallery got hung up on upload speeds as if that was somehow causing the 4-week duration) , it was development and verification of the new MDL and training controllers for the associated new procedures. The latter was responsible for the bulk of the time. This was beaten to death  and explained at the time, as well as being criticized for not having been part of the default load and procedures even though it was originally a manned mission. So there's no need to start that discussion all over again. let's move along, please.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37989
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1905 on: 09/11/2024 12:40 am »

Saying that "SpaceX" didn't want to pay "themselves" for anything is quite another story. It is a lie.l

The lie is in that statement.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37989
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1906 on: 09/11/2024 12:41 am »
They were offering design features (I claim that many Boeing design features originate in NASA actually, the pedigree is unmistakable),

That would be wrong too. I know this from personal experience. Starliner is just Boeing's OSP entry, just updated. It was competing against Lockheed's entry.  NASA was not involved in their design trades..
« Last Edit: 09/11/2024 12:46 am by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37989
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1907 on: 09/11/2024 12:44 am »

More of it SpaceX was constrained in resources of all types (money included) t

Wrong, Nothing was preventing SpaceX from using its own money. 


 to develop NASA procured system.

you do not know what you talking about.  This is not a NASA procured system.  NASA is buying services.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37989
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22330
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1908 on: 09/11/2024 12:50 am »

If you  said that SpaceX design was too risky for NASA as it was proposed (see heatshield holes for legs, Hydrazine on the landing zone etc.),

NASA had no problem with either of those.   See Space Shuttle (landing gear doors or hydrazine*)

* APUs were still operating after wheels stop and thrusters fired as late as two minutes before landing.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2024 12:52 am by Jim »

Offline jusvans

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1909 on: 09/11/2024 05:02 am »
Starliner did not return with the software configuration, including low-level code, required to return astronauts to Earth. That part remains untested. Instead, a special return configuration, including a previous version of the software from OFT-2, was used.

You are so far wrong on this it isn't funny. 1 MDL file was changed, and it wasn't even necessary to do so. It was only changed for optimizing the return and not enabling an uncrewed one. NO PRIOR OFT-2 SOFTWARE WAS USED. Period. The exact same FSW was used regardless of which return was performed.
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

Myself. I work the program. The breakout on CFT departure was performed using the same fault response logic as if it were crewed. Either the ground or crew can command predetermined fault responses based on mission region. Eric Berger ran with the story that it was a 4 week "install" based on misinterpretation by his source who doesn't deal with that part of the vehicle about what "install" means. Rather, it is NASA who is responsible for MDL verification and running every possible branching logic path to make sure the software stayed inside the analyzed design space. The MDL definitely didn't have to be updated, but since both NASA and Boeing decided it would give a more optimal return, I forget if for comms or whatever reason, the MDL had to be reanalyzed which takes a lot of time even though it's fairly automated.

Edit: I should add that the "4 weeks" comment was at an early presser shortly after or at the same time it was announced. I swear I did hear someone at NASA walk that back a week or two later but I don't have time to go back and retranscribe the videos to find the time stamp.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2024 05:11 am by jusvans »

Offline jusvans

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1910 on: 09/11/2024 05:09 am »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.

I think the rationale at the time was it wouldn't fly uncrewed so a specific version wasn't developed. I remember hearing at a presser that it didn't necessarily need to be updated either, but it was a nice to have. Plus, if you did make 2 "optimized" versions, that would double the verification work for essentially the same file.

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1911 on: 09/11/2024 05:38 am »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.

I think the rationale at the time was it wouldn't fly uncrewed so a specific version wasn't developed. I remember hearing at a presser that it didn't necessarily need to be updated either, but it was a nice to have. Plus, if you did make 2 "optimized" versions, that would double the verification work for essentially the same file.
Thanks for answering. It clears up a lot about what is going on. I think Berger was quoting Stich.

Offline jusvans

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1912 on: 09/12/2024 05:48 am »
...
What I said was based on what was said in the teleconference, “4 week install” “software does not support automated return” and discussions here.  Where does your information come from?

The specifics of the modified Mission Data Load weren't detailed during the teleconferences, but my takeaway was that the change enabled autonomous handling of  contingency event vs handing control to the pilots and asking for help.  I'd liken it to an aircraft which is capable both of being crewed and of flying autonomously.  When crewed, certain contingency events cause the autopilot to disengage (standard practice on airliners), but that's not an option when flying autonomously, so it then needs to automatically deal with the contingencies.

A good question that I've not heard asked is why both capabilities weren't predeveloped and preloaded?
I understand that with the capsule being the lifeboat for its crew, there was little expectation that it would ever fly uncrewed again, but there must be plans in place for events such as the capsule being damaged by MMOD and needing to autonomously depart the docking port to make way for a rescue capsule, so you'd think the software for that would already be in place.  But in truth, we don't know if that capability is retained by Dragon capsules or if an updated MDL would be required if such a circumstance arose.

I think the rationale at the time was it wouldn't fly uncrewed so a specific version wasn't developed. I remember hearing at a presser that it didn't necessarily need to be updated either, but it was a nice to have. Plus, if you did make 2 "optimized" versions, that would double the verification work for essentially the same file.
Thanks for answering. It clears up a lot about what is going on. I think Berger was quoting Stich.

Sure.

In hindsight, sorry if my response may have come off brash. There's corners of the internet the last 3 months that I've had to write off because of commentator opinions that are deliberately misleading and I carried some of that knee-jerk response over here.

Offline duh

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1913 on: 09/15/2024 04:25 pm »
Stumbled into this picture on video, enlarged video to full screen, did a print screen, converted png to jpg, and attached to this mess, er, message. The link to the video is https://x.com/i/status/1834688533430518100 and was found on twitter @sherifftv and dated Sep 13 Ellie in Space and at 9:42 +|- of an 11+ minute video a falling object is seen in the middle of video portion of the image. Sorry I am not up to speed enough to crop out the upper part of the image or to circle the falling object of interest in the video. Hopefully the still picture that is attached (first time trying to attach an image) is usable and/or there is enough info to find the video and skip to the appropriate place on the video. In this day and age, start with the question if this is real and proceed
from there. Hopefully the attributions are sufficient for anyone trying to track down this video.

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1914 on: 09/15/2024 04:49 pm »
Looked a little like a hatch cover that popped off.
Someone familiar with the vehicle can probably tell.

Online launchwatcher

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 797
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1092
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1915 on: 09/15/2024 05:26 pm »
Stumbled into this picture on video, enlarged video to full screen, did a print screen, converted png to jpg, and attached to this mess, er, message. The link to the video is https://x.com/i/status/1834688533430518100 and was found on twitter @sherifftv and dated Sep 13 Ellie in Space and at 9:42 +|- of an 11+ minute video a falling object is seen in the middle of video portion of the image. Sorry I am not up to speed enough to crop out the upper part of the image or to circle the falling object of interest in the video. Hopefully the still picture that is attached (first time trying to attach an image) is usable and/or there is enough info to find the video and skip to the appropriate place on the video. In this day and age, start with the question if this is real and proceed
from there. Hopefully the attributions are sufficient for anyone trying to track down this video.
Based on the diagram at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpeg21x7n7qo

and the photo in this news story:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-starliner-launch-today-international-space-station-rcna29597

it would appear that the thing that popped off covered the window, not the hatch.   Some sort of a remove-before-flight protective cover to keep the window clean.

The video shows the service module attached to the capsule so it must have been pre-launch.   Not a great look but likely of no consequence to the mission.

« Last Edit: 09/15/2024 05:29 pm by launchwatcher »

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8574
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1916 on: 09/15/2024 06:05 pm »
Stumbled into this picture on video, enlarged video to full screen, did a print screen, converted png to jpg, and attached to this mess, er, message. The link to the video is https://x.com/i/status/1834688533430518100 and was found on twitter @sherifftv and dated Sep 13 Ellie in Space and at 9:42 +|- of an 11+ minute video a falling object is seen in the middle of video portion of the image. Sorry I am not up to speed enough to crop out the upper part of the image or to circle the falling object of interest in the video. Hopefully the still picture that is attached (first time trying to attach an image) is usable and/or there is enough info to find the video and skip to the appropriate place on the video. In this day and age, start with the question if this is real and proceed
from there. Hopefully the attributions are sufficient for anyone trying to track down this video.
Based on the diagram at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpeg21x7n7qo

and the photo in this news story:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-starliner-launch-today-international-space-station-rcna29597

it would appear that the thing that popped off covered the window, not the hatch.   Some sort of a remove-before-flight protective cover to keep the window clean.

The video shows the service module attached to the capsule so it must have been pre-launch.   Not a great look but likely of no consequence to the mission.


Happened on STS-114 as well, on the evening prior to July 13 2005 launch attempt, when the left overhead window soft cover somehow popped off, fell the 60 ft down and impacted the left OMS pod carrier panel, damaging a couple of tiles in the process. The carrier panel was swapped out for a spare and no impact other than delaying the RSS Rotation for launch for a couple of hours. The damage and window cover was found during the standard pre-RSS Rotation walkdown inspections and window cover removals. Nobody was near the area in question, so why it came off on its own and when was never determined.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline DanJB

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • England
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1917 on: 09/15/2024 06:19 pm »
This was a protective cover over the window, which popped off while rolling to the pad for OFT2:

http:// https://x.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1521887273406640138
« Last Edit: 09/26/2024 08:35 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6874
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 4310
  • Likes Given: 1416
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1918 on: 09/20/2024 08:03 pm »
Cross post from the Exp 71 thread.

During a crew call down to note/recognize the departure of Flight Director Ed Seitz to the gateway program, Butch made a cryptic reference to Ed's leadership leading to the successful Starliner approach and stated that a very not so successful outcome was possible, if not likely.  Butch also hinted that details might eventually become public.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2024 09:27 pm by Targeteer »
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7546
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2348
  • Likes Given: 2175
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1919 on: 09/20/2024 09:27 pm »
My crystal ball shows Boeing making a statement about the Starliner program no earlier than ... Friday the 13th.

I was totally wrong, and am nonetheless boldly estimating this is now NET Friday, October 4. Steve Parker, who effective immediately is temporarily leading Boeing Defense and Space, may need some time.

From another thread:

Reuters reports that Ted Colbert, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space and Security, will be leaving the company effective immediately.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-defense-head-ted-colbert-leave-2024-09-20/
.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2024 10:07 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0