If it doesn't know where or when it is, there is little guarantee that it would be able to establish communications, as we see that they in fact had difficulty establishing communications initially, and perhaps only got lucky that they were able to establish communications in time to save part of the mission.This "didn't know where it was" seems COMPLETELY implausible. That's the ENTIRE POINT of an inertial navigation system. It knew where it was on the pad, and it could correctly detect the Earth rotation, or it would fail pre-launch tests. Even if it gets no updates whatsoever, it knows its location within a few km and its orientation within a few degrees. That's plenty good enough for aiming antennas. And even if has some idea of where is should be based on time from launch, this likely can't include orientation, plus it should wildly disagree with the INS. And assuming it has multiple INS systems, they should agree with each other and not the time based estimate.
Overall, I cannot see how it can possible not know its approximate location and orientation. Otherwise, spacecraft, crewed and un-crewed, have been incorporating useless INS systems for decades....
Boeing specifically said in the press conference that Starliner's "eyes were not open at that time" - which is why its TDRS antennas were not aimed in the correct location, causing a loss of communication with the vehicle for 8 minutes while it overtaxed its thrusters. Once they regained communication, they reset the MET and took control of the vehicle.
Boeing appears to have over-complicated the Starliner due the need for orbital insertion by Starliner (versus second stage) - just looking at the thruster comparison for the exact same mission objective, its crazy how complicated the Starliner is compared to Crew Dragon. Elon's "no part is the best part" theory appeared to have played out here.
Also, their software design is still objectively bad given the MET timer issue setting off a cascade of failures including failed orbit insertion burn, overuse of thrusters, and TDRS communications.
I'm also baffled by the fact that for Starliner to connect to the TDRS satellites it had to be where it was supposed to be, and when it wasn't where it was supposed to be, it couldn't connect to TDRS to fix its critical failure (MET Timer). And the only way at that point in the mission to connect to TDRS was to know where it located, which it couldn't because it couldn't connect to TDRS due its critical failure (MET timer). Talk about a circular logic of failure.
That is not how it works - it didn't have to be where it was planned to be - it can find TDRS but there are other issues (still being analyzed).
Boeing is a publicly-traded company responsible to its shareholders. As long as the customer agrees with no IFA demo, spending extra money on an unrequested exercise is financially irresponsible, as well as a waste of time.
Boeing appears to have over-complicated the Starliner due the need for orbital insertion by Starliner (versus second stage) - just looking at the thruster comparison for the exact same mission objective, its crazy how complicated the Starliner is compared to Crew Dragon. Elon's "no part is the best part" theory appeared to have played out here.
Also, their software design is still objectively bad given the MET timer issue setting off a cascade of failures including failed orbit insertion burn, overuse of thrusters, and TDRS communications.
I'm also baffled by the fact that for Starliner to connect to the TDRS satellites it had to be where it was supposed to be, and when it wasn't where it was supposed to be, it couldn't connect to TDRS to fix its critical failure (MET Timer). And the only way at that point in the mission to connect to TDRS was to know where it located, which it couldn't because it couldn't connect to TDRS due its critical failure (MET timer). Talk about a circular logic of failure.
That is not how it works - it didn't have to be where it was planned to be - it can find TDRS but there are other issues (still being analyzed).
I fully admit to not being an expert but as you saw clearly from the post above where I directly quote and cite Boeing’s 2pm press conference with audio, Chilton spent 2 minutes explaining in detail what happened to TDRS (at that time) so if you have additional information, I would encourage you to provide rather than hand waving with no explanation as to why we should not take Boeing’s explanation at face value
I would add this was a clarification to their earlier info at the initial press conference where they claimed the TDRS issue was due to lack of coverage.
Boeing appears to have over-complicated the Starliner due the need for orbital insertion by Starliner (versus second stage) - just looking at the thruster comparison for the exact same mission objective, its crazy how complicated the Starliner is compared to Crew Dragon. Elon's "no part is the best part" theory appeared to have played out here.
Also, their software design is still objectively bad given the MET timer issue setting off a cascade of failures including failed orbit insertion burn, overuse of thrusters, and TDRS communications.
I'm also baffled by the fact that for Starliner to connect to the TDRS satellites it had to be where it was supposed to be, and when it wasn't where it was supposed to be, it couldn't connect to TDRS to fix its critical failure (MET Timer). And the only way at that point in the mission to connect to TDRS was to know where it located, which it couldn't because it couldn't connect to TDRS due its critical failure (MET timer). Talk about a circular logic of failure.
That is not how it works - it didn't have to be where it was planned to be - it can find TDRS but there are other issues (still being analyzed).
I fully admit to not being an expert but as you saw clearly from the post above where I directly quote and cite Boeing’s 2pm press conference with audio, Chilton spent 2 minutes explaining in detail what happened to TDRS (at that time) so if you have additional information, I would encourage you to provide rather than hand waving with no explanation as to why we should not take Boeing’s explanation at face value
I would add this was a clarification to their earlier info at the initial press conference where they claimed the TDRS issue was due to lack of coverage.
Understand you are quoting from them - I am just trying to explain that the investigation is still on going and much has been learned. Chilton was giving the best information he had at that time. It is looking like it is more complicated than initially thought.
You can add complexity sure by checking a million things and then cross checking another million things...but something as simple as:
"Time From Atlas" = 11Hr
"Time From Break Wire" = 0hr
if ((TFA - TFBW) > 15min ) {
SUB ("NOT POSSIBLE, SOMETHING WRONG, DON'T GO CRAZY, ASK FOR HELP")}
else {
SUB ("CONTINUE MISSION")}
And apparently, the wrong time kills the mission, makes other systems go crazy, and damages hardware. So how is that not a single point of failure? Apparently, MET is the "jesus nut" for Starliner.
Boeing is a publicly-traded company responsible to its shareholders. As long as the customer agrees with no IFA demo, spending extra money on an unrequested exercise is financially irresponsible, as well as a waste of time.
Boeing is also responsible for the lives it is carrying in its spacecraft. When profit to the shareholders over rides all else, people die. There's a well known example of this attitude happening right now in another division of Boeing. It happened to Ford in the 1970s with the Pinto.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/
I am disappointed that both Boeing and NASA took the position that an in-flight-abort test was "optional". I am certainly glad that SpaceX did not take that view.
Boeing is a publicly-traded company responsible to its shareholders. As long as the customer agrees with no IFA demo, spending extra money on an unrequested exercise is financially irresponsible, as well as a waste of time.
Boeing is also responsible for the lives it is carrying in its spacecraft. When profit to the shareholders over rides all else, people die. There's a well known example of this attitude happening right now in another division of Boeing. It happened to Ford in the 1970s with the Pinto.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/
I am disappointed that both Boeing and NASA took the position that an in-flight-abort test was "optional". I am certainly glad that SpaceX did not take that view.There has been somewhat of a culture clash going on with Boeing ever since it absorbed McDonnell-Douglas. Boeing was regarded world wide as an cutting edge engineering firm with excellent "product-value" drivers and had acquired NA/Rockwell space systems. MD was a small-lean corporation by comparison that was led by it's bean counters and when these two different cultures came under one roof it was the MD "profit-driven" business model that won out over the engineering faction. So the Boeing engineering excellence first was being driven by the MD acquisition which the shareholders who's philosophy it preferred. They need to reconcile the two...
There has been somewhat of a culture clash going on with Boeing ever since it absorbed McDonnell-Douglas. Boeing was regarded world wide as an cutting edge engineering firm with excellent "product-value" drivers and had acquired NA/Rockwell space systems. MD was a small-lean corporation by comparison that was led by it's bean counters and when these two different cultures came under one roof it was the MD "profit-driven" business model that won out over the engineering faction. So the Boeing engineering excellence first was being driven by the MD acquisition which the shareholders who's philosophy it preferred. They need to reconcile the two...
The merger happened 23 years ago. At some point this excuse is getting old and no longer valid, and I suggest that this point is now well passed. "Evil McD ruined the good Boeing" (paraphrased) can only take you so far.
Boeing is a publicly-traded company responsible to its shareholders. As long as the customer agrees with no IFA demo, spending extra money on an unrequested exercise is financially irresponsible, as well as a waste of time.
Boeing is also responsible for the lives it is carrying in its spacecraft. When profit to the shareholders over rides all else, people die. There's a well known example of this attitude happening right now in another division of Boeing. It happened to Ford in the 1970s with the Pinto.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/
I am disappointed that both Boeing and NASA took the position that an in-flight-abort test was "optional". I am certainly glad that SpaceX did not take that view.There has been somewhat of a culture clash going on with Boeing ever since it absorbed McDonnell-Douglas. Boeing was regarded world wide as an cutting edge engineering firm with excellent "product-value" drivers and had acquired NA/Rockwell space systems. MD was a small-lean corporation by comparison that was led by it's bean counters and when these two different cultures came under one roof it was the MD "profit-driven" business model that won out over the engineering faction. So the Boeing engineering excellence first was being driven by the MD acquisition which the shareholders who's philosophy it preferred. They need to reconcile the two...
The merger happened 23 years ago. At some point this excuse is getting old and no longer valid, and I suggest that this point is now well passed. "Evil McD ruined the good Boeing" (paraphrased) can only take you so far.
On the contrary, safe mode, had it been implemented, would have saved this mission entirely (IMO, of course). What were the two main problems? Excessive fuel use, and difficulty communicating to fix the problem. Safe mode solves both these issues - it goes for a stable attitude, minimizing fuel consumption, and establishes communication. The the ground would have had a half hour, or more, so send commands. Once they did that, there would have been the normal amount of fuel, and the mission could have continued to docking.
Again, I doubt this. ISS missions have instantaneous (i.e. very brief) launch windows. Even if the Starliner tanks had been full after recovery to orbit it would have been a LOM as the vehicle would have been in the wrong orbit to go to ISS.
In addition to refurbishing a flown spacecraft for the first time, Boeing continues to address technical risks identified by program officials. This includes a risk that the initiators that trigger separation events, such as the separation of the crew and service module prior to reentry, may generate debris and damage the spacecraft. In June 2019, we found that Boeing had identified a solution to contain the debris that was sufficient for its test flights. Since our last report, program officials said that a number of problems were found in recent testing and that the independent engineering technical authority noted that the current initiator containment design is not acceptable for the crewed flight test. Program officials told us that they accepted this risk for the uncrewed flight test, but that additional testing will need to occur before the crewed flight test.
From the new GAO report: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/704121.pdf:QuoteIn addition to refurbishing a flown spacecraft for the first time, Boeing continues to address technical risks identified by program officials. This includes a risk that the initiators that trigger separation events, such as the separation of the crew and service module prior to reentry, may generate debris and damage the spacecraft. In June 2019, we found that Boeing had identified a solution to contain the debris that was sufficient for its test flights. Since our last report, program officials said that a number of problems were found in recent testing and that the independent engineering technical authority noted that the current initiator containment design is not acceptable for the crewed flight test. Program officials told us that they accepted this risk for the uncrewed flight test, but that additional testing will need to occur before the crewed flight test.Much of the information in the report is out of date; was this previously known? If so, is this work ongoing or has it been completed? I don't recall seeing this but it's quite possible I missed it, apologies in advance if this is stale information.
Boeing seems to think a repeat unmanned test flight is a real possibility, or simply scraping around for plausible accounting writeoffs?
https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/boeing-reports-a-410m-charge-in-case-nasa-decides-starliner-needs-another-uncrewed-launch/
Boeing is a publicly-traded company responsible to its shareholders. As long as the customer agrees with no IFA demo, spending extra money on an unrequested exercise is financially irresponsible, as well as a waste of time.
Boeing is also responsible for the lives it is carrying in its spacecraft. When profit to the shareholders over rides all else, people die. There's a well known example of this attitude happening right now in another division of Boeing. It happened to Ford in the 1970s with the Pinto.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a6700/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks/
I am disappointed that both Boeing and NASA took the position that an in-flight-abort test was "optional". I am certainly glad that SpaceX did not take that view.There has been somewhat of a culture clash going on with Boeing ever since it absorbed McDonnell-Douglas. Boeing was regarded world wide as an cutting edge engineering firm with excellent "product-value" drivers and had acquired NA/Rockwell space systems. MD was a small-lean corporation by comparison that was led by it's bean counters and when these two different cultures came under one roof it was the MD "profit-driven" business model that won out over the engineering faction. So the Boeing engineering excellence first was being driven by the MD acquisition which the shareholders who's philosophy it preferred. They need to reconcile the two...
A lot of talk about something called a "Boeing". There isn't just one Boeing. McDonnell Douglas Delta ended up with United Launch Alliance, where the old Thor-based Delta did just fine until retirement. Boeing shut down McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft over time, but still runs the military side. Hughes Aircraft satellite business became part of Boeing Satellite. The old North American part of Rockwell was downsized and the Rocketdyne part sold off, etc. Today's Boeing entities of primary interest to this forum are working on Starliner and Space Launch System. I'm not sure that either of these can be cleanly traced back to anything that existed in 1997.
- Ed Kyle
A lot of talk about something called a "Boeing". There isn't just one Boeing. McDonnell Douglas Delta ended up with United Launch Alliance, where the old Thor-based Delta did just fine until retirement. Boeing shut down McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft over time, but still runs the military side. Hughes Aircraft satellite business became part of Boeing Satellite. The old North American part of Rockwell was downsized and the Rocketdyne part sold off, etc. Today's Boeing entities of primary interest to this forum are working on Starliner and Space Launch System. I'm not sure that either of these can be cleanly traced back to anything that existed in 1997.
- Ed Kyle
So if Boeing is no longer the company it used to be back in the 90s and earlier, where all it's spacecraft experience was, where is all the "experience" today that Boeing is said to have in designing spacecraft over the years? What happened to the divisions that did that? What division today is building Starliner and has THIS division ever built a crew-capable spacecraft before?
Many, many years ago I worked for a company called Ohmweave. Their product used to be electrical resistance fabrics. Over time they acquired other companies, one of which was a steel fabrication business. That's the division I worked in. We designed, built and erected steel buildings and bridges. Eventually the the company sold off the resistance fabric division, and over the years the rest of the previous acquisitions, and became just a steel company that kept the original name "Ohmweave", but NOBODY that worked there after that had a clue how to design and make electrical resistance fabrics.
So Ohmweave today has no experience in its original product, but is still called Ohmweave.
Are you saying that the Boeing of today may be in a similar condition wrt crew-capable spacecraft?