-
#320
by
clongton
on 23 Dec, 2019 21:08
-
(Also, a tight timetable) ... There will be a thorough review, of course, and the right people will make the decision.
The right people made the decision to launch Challenger, despite engineering objections.
A tight timetable also drove that decision.
-
#321
by
russianhalo117
on 23 Dec, 2019 21:39
-
We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
Anything less than an OFT-2 would be scandalous in my opinion. Boeing should pay for the capsule and the expedited Atlas without charging the taxpayer, too. They got almost twice the money and achieved half the result. Enough.
Preferably, Boeing would actually own up and lead this move without being forced to.
Odds of that happening are.... low. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.
The next capsule and launcher are all present at the Cape so there is nothing except paperwork and cash flow with the relevant parties preventing an OFT-2 from being flown. It would require an extra AV-N22 to be built for the last presently contracted Starliner flight which would be an added expense (if a satellite a flight is sometimes covered in the insurance claim, but may not apply for Starliner even though there is a policy in effect).
-
#322
by
AnnK
on 23 Dec, 2019 22:50
-
Yet it was a success just not a complete success.
-
#323
by
launchwatcher
on 24 Dec, 2019 00:34
-
There's a tension between getting all your test objectives coverered and making the tests highly realistic; it takes a lot longer to execute your test plan if every run has to start with "start Atlas, wait 11 hours".
Not every test, for sure, but they should have done at least one full mission duration rehearsal, no?
Of course they should have, but clearly they either didn't, or they did one where the erroneous MET initialization wasn't noticed...
-
#324
by
Lemurion
on 24 Dec, 2019 01:12
-
The schedule is too tight to fly an OFT-2. It proved itself a safe vehicle, there still is a manned test flight before it goes operational, but nothing occurred that (we know about) would have endangered the crew. They flew Apollo 8 after a nearly disastrous Apollo 6 because they were confident they identified the issues that plagued the 6 launch. (Also, a tight timetable . . .) There will be a thorough review, of course, and the right people will make the decision.
Boeing proved Starliner can launch and land safely. Boeing has yet to prove whether it can dock and undock safely; I expect it can, but at this point it hasn’t been proved.
As far as the suborbital launch approach, I have absolutely no problem with that decision especially after the OFT. This way we know it will bring the crew back down safely if something else goes wrong on launch. Positive crew safety is a good thing.
As for a second OFT, I very much doubt it will happen.
There are, however, some things I would like to see before the CFT:
1) An official statement reconciling the contract language with the decision to go to the CFT without docking first. A simple statement it’s not required isn’t enough; I am looking for an acknowledgment that it’s in the contract but they are no longer doing it and why that is the case.
2) An acknowledgement that both the parachute pin and the wrong MET issue should have been caught before the anomalies occurred and what Boeing is doing to prevent this from becoming a pattern. It shouldn’t have been possible for anyone to misread the parachute pin, and I still don’t see how they didn’t have a system in place to ensure the correct MET.
That’s two successive tests with preventable anomalies; I don’t want to see a third, especially if there are people on board.
-
#325
by
cyloncat
on 24 Dec, 2019 01:28
-
The control panels themselves are not the issue, but they do indicate substantial differences behind the panels...
Crewed Dragon is an evolution of a successful design. SpaceX has relied heavily on automation as well as rigorous testing. SpaceX is a vertically integrated company, so the interfaces between ground support, booster, and capsule are well understood. SpaceX has been quite clear that they would not expect an astronaut to deal with powered-flight problems, and their human interface design reflects that.
Starliner was the first flight of a new design, launched on a rocket provided by another company. The clock issue is an integration problem that occurred in flight. As an outside observer, I couldn't possibly say that the problem would definitely have been caught in any pre-flight testing. On the other hand, I do see potential concerns in Starliner's design, starting with the control panel being based on aircraft cockpit design. That suggests engineers who are not comfortable with some aspect of spaceflight, or with fully automated flight control. In powered flight, things happen quickly, and human reaction time to an unanticipated problem may not be fast enough.
SpaceX has flown to ISS numerous times, always with an instantaneous launch window. That suggests to me that the orbital mechanics of getting from Florida to ISS doesn't have a lot of room for error. At the point where the clock issue caused cascading engine firing problems, you have a rapidly increasing deviation from the intended flight path. I have difficulty accepting the astronauts' assertion that yeah, they could have fixed it, unless they were specifically trained for such problems, which means that timing or engine firing errors were anticipated, which means that testing and fixing should already have been done.
Someone mentioned Challenger up-thread. That's not relevant; the wrong people made a bad decision. The engineers knew the problem but failed to communicate it adequately to management on launch day.
-
#326
by
Lars-J
on 24 Dec, 2019 01:43
-
Someone mentioned Challenger up-thread. That's not relevant; the wrong people made a bad decision. The engineers knew the problem but failed to communicate it adequately to management on launch day.
That’s quite the revisionism you offer there. Or you have read all the reports but jumped to a VERY odd conclusion by dumping the fault at the feet of Thiokol engineers and whitewashing NASA management. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but NASA was not clean on Challenger... not even close.
-
#327
by
JEF_300
on 24 Dec, 2019 02:17
-
Comparing current missions and events in spaceflight to Challenger and Columbia is unhealthy generally, unfair argumentatively (because whether or not your actually making a good point by bringing up one of the disasters, there is no sensitive response), usually an emotional appeal rather than a logical one, and the comparisons are often questionable at best.
I think we should start considering it best practice to not make such comparisons.
-
#328
by
ChrisWilson68
on 24 Dec, 2019 02:33
-
Yet it was a success just not a complete success.
No. It was a failure, just not a complete failure.
-
#329
by
JEF_300
on 24 Dec, 2019 02:36
-
Yet it was a success just not a complete success.
No. It was a failure, just not a complete failure.
Sometimes I think that the worst part of a flight having a problem is that it sparks another round of this debate.
-
#330
by
ChrisWilson68
on 24 Dec, 2019 02:39
-
Comparing current missions and events in spaceflight to Challenger and Columbia is unhealthy generally, unfair argumentatively (because whether or not your actually making a good point by bringing up one of the disasters, there is no sensitive response), usually an emotional appeal rather than a logical one, and the comparisons are often questionable at best.
I think we should start considering it best practice to not make such comparisons.
People are making the comparisons because they are afraid astronauts are going to die. People honestly believe that some of the same mistakes made with Challenger and Columbia are being made again, and that astronauts may die because of it.
To me, that's not unfair or emotional, it's a rational attempt to avoid a repeat of tragic mistakes.
-
#331
by
CyndyC
on 24 Dec, 2019 03:16
-
Boeing proved Starliner can launch and land safely. Boeing has yet to prove whether it can dock and undock safely; I expect it can, but at this point it hasn’t been proved.
This was supposed to be the first use of the new NASA docking system standard that will also be used for the lunar Gateway [
Space.com]. Untested as part of that standard or exclusive to Starliner remains the thermal imaging camera Vision-based, Electro-Optical Sensor Tracking Assembly, or VESTA, which will enable autonomous docking [
SpaceflightNow].
-
#332
by
JEF_300
on 24 Dec, 2019 03:53
-
Comparing current missions and events in spaceflight to Challenger and Columbia is unhealthy generally, unfair argumentatively (because whether or not your actually making a good point by bringing up one of the disasters, there is no sensitive response), usually an emotional appeal rather than a logical one, and the comparisons are often questionable at best.
I think we should start considering it best practice to not make such comparisons.
People are making the comparisons because they are afraid astronauts are going to die. People honestly believe that some of the same mistakes made with Challenger and Columbia are being made again, and that astronauts may die because of it.
To me, that's not unfair or emotional, it's a rational attempt to avoid a repeat of tragic mistakes.
I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to question the people or even their views, just their approach.
So here the position being argued for is that there should be another OFT before the CFT. This argument is being made by comparing Boeing, Starliner, and a hypothetical CFT without an OFT-2, to NASA, the Shuttle, and Challenger.
The thing is, this hypothetical CFT is nothing like Challenger. Challenger wasn't a test flight, wasn't going to redevouz with anything, etc.
The claim seems to be that their connected because Challenger and this hypothetical CFT would both be the result of poor descisions by management.
But the bad descison that management at NASA made which resulted in Challenger was to ignore the advice of their engineers. Meanwhile, the Starliner engineers don't even have all of the data from this test flight yet, and thus have not yet made any recommendation for management to ignore.
aka, the connection doesn't exist yet, but could.
If the engineers at Boeing recommend a second OFT, and NASA and Boeing management ignore that recommendation, I will be right there with ya'll fighting against this.
As things stand now though, there isn't much logic behind this comparison. Without logic, this comparison is merely an emotional appeal.
Now a comparison with STS-1 would make a lot of sense. If you roll out the John Young quotes, we could start having a real discussion.
-
#333
by
cyloncat
on 24 Dec, 2019 12:07
-
Agree that Challenger doesn't bear any relation to Starliner, except to point out that schedule and political pressures lead to corner-cutting and bad decisions. But that's not news. And it was schedule and political pressure that drove NASA management to ignore the Thiokol engineers.
I am somewhat concerned that Starliner is at risk for the same kind of pressure. My gut feel is that it's not as mature as Dragon. Whatever testing has been done, actual flight is where you find your weaknesses and mistakes. SpaceX has been there and learned. Starliner is just now getting there.
-
#334
by
MARSATTACK
on 24 Dec, 2019 12:38
-
Whatever happened to "fly as you test, test as you fly" Not testing the final steps and docking is assuming there are no more unknown unknowns such as what occurred upon orbit insertion. A decision to not fully test is irresponsible and only driven by schedule pressure and money. You have to keep to your stated goal of crew safety first. Boeing has already demonstrated they have quality control issues with the parachute failure and that their testing did not discover the timer error. Deciding to fly crew is putting their lives at risk and that is why the Challenger comparison. It called Russian Roulette.
-
#335
by
ThomasGadd
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:31
-
A couple of things
Challenger and Columbia were operational flights this was the first orbital test flight.
NASA has changed how it handles human space flight with ASAP and such.
Many of us have whined on NSF never launch manned crews again...
I asked up thread... this ULA launch crew have Atlas V experience, is the Boeing launch crew new?
SpaceX has a lot of operational time with Dragon.
-
#336
by
envy887
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:38
-
A couple of things
Challenger and Columbia were operational flights this was the first orbital test flight.
NASA has changed how it handles human space flight with ASAP and such.
Many of us have whined on NSF never launch manned crews again...
I asked up thread... this ULA launch crew have Atlas V experience, is the Boeing launch crew new?
SpaceX has a lot of operational time with Dragon.
Boeing has been building, launching, and operating spacecraft for a very long time.
-
#337
by
Nomadd
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:43
-
A couple of things
Challenger and Columbia were operational flights this was the first orbital test flight.
NASA has changed how it handles human space flight with ASAP and such.
Many of us have whined on NSF never launch manned crews again...
I asked up thread... this ULA launch crew have Atlas V experience, is the Boeing launch crew new?
SpaceX has a lot of operational time with Dragon.
Boeing has been building, launching, and operating spacecraft for a very long time.
Airliners too.
-
#338
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:46
-
We'll see if NASA has any gonads or caves to Boeing pressure to allow this contractual requirement to be ignored.
Anything less than an OFT-2 would be scandalous in my opinion. Boeing should pay for the capsule and the expedited Atlas without charging the taxpayer, too. They got almost twice the money and achieved half the result. Enough.
Preferably, Boeing would actually own up and lead this move without being forced to.
Odds of that happening are.... low. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.
I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant or just love to be bullies and gang up with echo chamber counterparts....
All of this, all of this, has been discussed at length by official NASA AND Boeing sources. And by people I would consider in the know here. Your choice, at the end of the day, on if wish to accept it or be outraged based on what you believe is your understanding.
-
#339
by
OM72
on 24 Dec, 2019 15:49
-
(Also, a tight timetable) ... There will be a thorough review, of course, and the right people will make the decision.
The right people made the decision to launch Challenger, despite engineering objections.
A tight timetable also drove that decision.
Comparing this system, this overall crew and workforce, etc to Challenger and OFT is disgraceful. Based on your previous comments you are clearly speaking from a position of not being anywhere near an authority on Starliner.
I'm disappointed in you Chuck.