-
#1420
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Mar, 2020 17:31
-
The precedent that NASA may use is that memory says that the first two test flights of the Cargo program were combined to try to move the schedule to the right as much as possible.
Sorry, that’s not a good precedent for the Starliner situation. NASA allowed SpaceX to combine their 2nd and 3rd test flights because the 1st flight was successful and because the combined flight still did most of the 2nd flight test objectives (on orbit manoeuvring etc) before getting to the 3rd flight elements (berthing to ISS).
In Starliner’s case, not having a 2nd OFT would mean doing some tests with crew on-board that originally were going to be uncrewed. Maybe NASA can make the case for that, but in my view not by using ISS cargo missions as a precedent.
-
#1421
by
Kansan52
on 13 Mar, 2020 20:43
-
I agree. But maybe they will use that excuse anyway as a form of cover.
-
#1422
by
leovinus
on 13 Mar, 2020 23:47
-
While we have a lot of other stuff on our minds, I would appreciate it that when someone files a FOIA for the list please leave a note here to avoid filing it twice. Thanks!
-
#1423
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 14 Mar, 2020 02:15
-
While we have a lot of other stuff on our minds, I would appreciate it that when someone files a FOIA for the list please leave a note here to avoid filing it twice. Thanks!
I saw a couple of space journalists tweet last week that they were filing FOIAs to get full list of recommendations.
-
#1424
by
gaballard
on 18 Mar, 2020 16:53
-
We're learning a lot from #Starliner’s first trip to space and we're on a mission to make future flights even better. Recently, @NASA_Astronauts and @Astro_Ferg used sun lamps to prove light shining through windows on orbit won’t keep them from seeing displays and controls.
So...
(a) They've got the astronauts themselves doing testing. Way to save on labor costs!
(b) Why did they wait until now to do such a simple test?
(c) What would they do if the test failed, and the sun lamps kept them from seeing displays and controls?
-
#1425
by
lonestriker
on 18 Mar, 2020 23:38
-
We're learning a lot from #Starliner’s first trip to space and we're on a mission to make future flights even better. Recently, @NASA_Astronauts and @Astro_Ferg used sun lamps to prove light shining through windows on orbit won’t keep them from seeing displays and controls.
So...
(a) They've got the astronauts themselves doing testing. Way to save on labor costs!
(b) Why did they wait until now to do such a simple test?
(c) What would they do if the test failed, and the sun lamps kept them from seeing displays and controls?
(c) Tape the windows over? I don't think they're mission-critical, though it wouldn't be a good look for Boeing. Would probably only take a month or two of analysis, testing and paperwork to apply the aerospace-grade duct tape.
-
#1426
by
Nomadd
on 19 Mar, 2020 02:25
-
We're learning a lot from #Starliner’s first trip to space and we're on a mission to make future flights even better. Recently, @NASA_Astronauts and @Astro_Ferg used sun lamps to prove light shining through windows on orbit won’t keep them from seeing displays and controls.
So...
(a) They've got the astronauts themselves doing testing. Way to save on labor costs!
(b) Why did they wait until now to do such a simple test?
(c) What would they do if the test failed, and the sun lamps kept them from seeing displays and controls?
(c) Tape the windows over? I don't think they're mission-critical, though it wouldn't be a good look for Boeing. Would probably only take a month or two of analysis, testing and paperwork to apply the aerospace-grade duct tape.
Why do you think the windows are there?
-
#1427
by
lonestriker
on 19 Mar, 2020 05:26
-
We're learning a lot from #Starliner’s first trip to space and we're on a mission to make future flights even better. Recently, @NASA_Astronauts and @Astro_Ferg used sun lamps to prove light shining through windows on orbit won’t keep them from seeing displays and controls.
So...
(a) They've got the astronauts themselves doing testing. Way to save on labor costs!
(b) Why did they wait until now to do such a simple test?
(c) What would they do if the test failed, and the sun lamps kept them from seeing displays and controls?
(c) Tape the windows over? I don't think they're mission-critical, though it wouldn't be a good look for Boeing. Would probably only take a month or two of analysis, testing and paperwork to apply the aerospace-grade duct tape.
Why do you think the windows are there?
I didn't think I needed to add a <sarcastic> tag
In the grand scheme of things, sunlight making the controls harder to see can be dealt with with very low tech fixes it's not really worth evening mentioning that test being done, nor complaining about why they're doing such a test so late in the process. But Boeing is probably short on good news to share, so we get SLS-type press releases for every bolt being installed.
As for the windows, if they ever have to go to VFR flight rules in a spacecraft, it may be better to pull the big abort handle and go home instead (as long as the auto-abort doesn't cause the spacecraft to demolish the ISS on its way down.)
-
#1428
by
JEF_300
on 19 Mar, 2020 09:01
-
As for the windows, if they ever have to go to VFR flight rules in a spacecraft, it may be better to pull the big abort handle and go home instead (as long as the auto-abort doesn't cause the spacecraft to demolish the ISS on its way down.)
I remember when I first found out that having a window was a NASA requirement for commercial crew. My first thought was something along the lines of, "You'd think NASA would know how to write design constraints by now."
Listen, I'm not saying that the windows on Dragon and Starliner are useless and serve no technical/in-flight purpose... no wait, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I mean, they're not exactly Gemini windows, are they? If what you want is to look away from the station while docking, then yes, they're very well positioned.
It would probably irk me less if their primary role was, well, just about anything but transport to a space station. On a Lunar return capsule, sure, put the window wherever you want. But the reason Dragon and Starliner exist is to dock to the ISS, and neither of the companies (nor apparently NASA) thought the windows should be positioned such that the crews could actually see what they were doing if they had to dock manually. It drives me mad.
I'm sorry, but I've wanted to go on this rant for more than a little while now, and I'm sure they are more of you out there who feel the same way.
-
#1429
by
kevinof
on 19 Mar, 2020 09:09
-
Don't they have cameras on the docking side for use for the crew during a manual dock? Why would they ever need to use a window anyway?
As for the windows, if they ever have to go to VFR flight rules in a spacecraft, it may be better to pull the big abort handle and go home instead (as long as the auto-abort doesn't cause the spacecraft to demolish the ISS on its way down.)
I remember when I first found out that having a window was a NASA requirement for commercial crew. My first thought was something along the lines of, "You'd think NASA would know how to write design constraints by now."
Listen, I'm not saying that the windows on Dragon and Starliner are useless and serve no technical/in-flight purpose... no wait, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I mean, they're not exactly Gemini windows, are they? If what you want is to look away from the station while docking, then yes, they're very well positioned.
It would probably irk me less if their primary role was, well, just about anything but transport to a space station. On a Lunar return capsule, sure, put the window wherever you want. But the reason Dragon and Starliner exist is to dock to the ISS, and neither of the companies (nor apparently NASA) thought the windows should be positioned such that the crews could actually see what they were doing if they had to dock manually. It drives me mad.
I'm sorry, but I've wanted to go on this rant for more than a little while now, and I'm sure they are more of you out there who feel the same way.
-
#1430
by
JEF_300
on 19 Mar, 2020 10:25
-
Don't they have cameras on the docking side for use for the crew during a manual dock? Why would they ever need to use a window anyway?
I think they do have cameras for that, and I'm not one of those people who are especially worried about cameras failing or something; I don't think that forward-facing windows are a necessity. It's just something that irks me. Aside from the fact that it would make the craft easier to fly, it seems like something that should also be engineering best-practice.
Obviously, the spacecraft were going to have windows. People don't want to ride a flame 400 km into the sky and then not see what it looks like outside. So the question before the designers was not, "Should there be windows?", but, "Where should the windows go?"
The SpaceX team basically took the Soviet approach; they threw a few portholes on the side, basically getting the windows out of their way, and making them as small and light as possible. Still irks me, but fair play.
The Starliner designers put a single massive window right next to the Commander's seat (or rather, put the Commander's seat right next to their gigantic window), as if it would be useful during flight. The reality is that there's no way they would see anything useful out of it while actually flying the craft.
Meanwhile, both companies could've used the window as an opportunity to add some redundancy and additional functionality to their craft, for very little additional risk, and they just chose not to.
-
#1431
by
edzieba
on 19 Mar, 2020 12:23
-
The windows are there purely for psychological reasons, same reason why underground-only trains have windowed carriages. Humans get uncomfortable if they do not have the ability to see outside, even if there is nothing at all to see outside and they have zero influence on what is going on.
That is their functional purpose, it's just not a function directly resulting from flight operations. Adding constraints that the windows must face forwards or otherwise observe docking operations would inflate costs with no capability gain: with the amount of automation both capsules rely on, a failure of all docking RADAR/LIDAR/camera equipment means an aborted dock and a return to Earth, not an eyeballs-only stick jockeying dock.
Or to put it another way: unless NASA have mandated an on-board sextant, windows in any orientation serve no operational purposes.
-
#1432
by
Welsh Dragon
on 19 Mar, 2020 13:37
-
Humans get uncomfortable if they do not have the ability to see outside, even if there is nothing at all to see outside and
Tell that to submariners. Not saying there's no psychological benefit of windows, but it's clearly possible to go without for months at a time, compared the couple of days in a Starliner.
-
#1433
by
TrevorMonty
on 19 Mar, 2020 16:14
-
Possible glare from windows interferring with displays isn't issue, just fit a blind like they do in aircraft.
While windows may not be essential for NASA crew missions they are for tourist flights. I wouldn't spend $40M to fly around earth in tin can with no windows.
-
#1434
by
erioladastra
on 19 Mar, 2020 23:48
-
Don't they have cameras on the docking side for use for the crew during a manual dock? Why would they ever need to use a window anyway?
I think they do have cameras for that, and I'm not one of those people who are especially worried about cameras failing or something; I don't think that forward-facing windows are a necessity. It's just something that irks me. Aside from the fact that it would make the craft easier to fly, it seems like something that should also be engineering best-practice.
Obviously, the spacecraft were going to have windows. People don't want to ride a flame 400 km into the sky and then not see what it looks like outside. So the question before the designers was not, "Should there be windows?", but, "Where should the windows go?"
The SpaceX team basically took the Soviet approach; they threw a few portholes on the side, basically getting the windows out of their way, and making them as small and light as possible. Still irks me, but fair play.
The Starliner designers put a single massive window right next to the Commander's seat (or rather, put the Commander's seat right next to their gigantic window), as if it would be useful during flight. The reality is that there's no way they would see anything useful out of it while actually flying the craft.
Meanwhile, both companies could've used the window as an opportunity to add some redundancy and additional functionality to their craft, for very little additional risk, and they just chose not to.
Actually the forward docking hatch has a window and a camera positioned in the center to give the crew a direct line of sight. The pilot window is actually useful for docking to the ISS and in other phases you can use it to see the horizon and do other manual piloting ops.
-
#1435
by
erioladastra
on 19 Mar, 2020 23:51
-
We're learning a lot from #Starliner’s first trip to space and we're on a mission to make future flights even better. Recently, @NASA_Astronauts and @Astro_Ferg used sun lamps to prove light shining through windows on orbit won’t keep them from seeing displays and controls.
So...
(a) They've got the astronauts themselves doing testing. Way to save on labor costs!
(b) Why did they wait until now to do such a simple test?
(c) What would they do if the test failed, and the sun lamps kept them from seeing displays and controls?
a) while that does help the main reason is that you have the user do the test so he/she can say "yeah, I can fly with that" vice some engineer who things their 1-g opinion matters.
b) All tests take time and have schedule impacts (e.g., other things can't go on inside the spacecraft during a test like this) and some test are just not that critical.
c) Probably tell the crew to install the sun shade they have if they can't see well enough.
-
#1436
by
Vettedrmr
on 21 Mar, 2020 10:39
-
That would be a great schedule date. That's roughly 3 months after DM-2's anticipated flight in late May, so that seems reasonable from an ISS POV.
BUT. I just don't see how Boeing can complete a peer review of 1M lines of source code in that amount of time. Now, if the 1M number that Boeing keeps putting out is compiled code, then they've only got around (WAG here) 200K SLOCs to review, and that might be about right. But that assumes everything goes perfect, and Boeing needs to build confidence in both their product and themselves that the next flight goes off without a hitch.
On a related subject, when is the next ASAP meeting?
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#1437
by
wolfpack
on 21 Mar, 2020 14:11
-
I'd say everything is up in the air (no pun intended) at this point. Boeing is likely to be nationalized or merged in the coming weeks. Either way I see Starliner dropping in priority by not just a little.
-
#1438
by
RonM
on 21 Mar, 2020 15:08
-
I'd say everything is up in the air (no pun intended) at this point. Boeing is likely to be nationalized or merged in the coming weeks. Either way I see Starliner dropping in priority by not just a little.
Key defense contractors are used to big ups and downs in business. If Boeing is in financial trouble the federal government will issue a low or no interest loan. Boeing will continue work on Starliner. This isn't some small DARPA demonstrator project.
-
#1439
by
freddo411
on 21 Mar, 2020 16:45
-
I'd say everything is up in the air (no pun intended) at this point. Boeing is likely to be nationalized or merged in the coming weeks. Either way I see Starliner dropping in priority by not just a little.
It's a 4+ billion dollar contract, and it has a great deal of public relations attached to it. It's a messed up program, but it would not take too much to right the ship.
The airplane side doesn't have any easy wins in front of it. Who cares if the 737 max is fixed; airlines are mothballing existing planes. No one will be buying planes for years.
Boeing has time to focus on it's gov't contracts
In the grand scheme of things, sunlight making the controls harder to see can be dealt with with very low tech fixes it's not really worth evening mentioning that test being done, nor complaining about why they're doing such a test so late in the process. But Boeing is probably short on good news to share, so we get SLS-type press releases for every bolt being installed.