Well, I asked Copilot for what it is worth...
... I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
Well, I asked Copilot for what it is worth...
Not much. Blind leading the sightless.
The question wasn't whether there is a possible mechanism for hydrazine to mix with some source of water and produce corrosive products. It was whether the rollback was to mitigate moisture infiltration.Quote from: SoftwareDude... I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
Skater and Jim both answered that question, succinctly and to the point, in the negative. Copilot was brought in in an attempt to justify the opinion that it had to be a Boeing issue, i.e., bad design which allows moisture infiltration, rather than a standard repair of a booster fault found by ULA during the countdown.
Well, I asked Copilot for what it is worth...
Not much. Blind leading the sightless.
The question wasn't whether there is a possible mechanism for hydrazine to mix with some source of water and produce corrosive products. It was whether the rollback was to mitigate moisture infiltration.Quote from: SoftwareDude... I assume the Starliner was exposed to the elements, don't know if it rained at all. Is there something Boeing must do to mitigate the moisture/valve infiltration problem?
Skater and Jim both answered that question, succinctly and to the point, in the negative. Copilot was brought in in an attempt to justify the opinion that it had to be a Boeing issue, i.e., bad design which allows moisture infiltration, rather than a standard repair of a booster fault found by ULA during the countdown.I would have expected an answer like, the fuel is not loaded long enough for moisture in the air to make a difference but you clearly don't know the answer.
There's been a number of comments in the runup to Starliner CFT about how NASA is glad to finally have the dissimilar redundancy they hoped to achieve by selecting two Commercial Crew providers. Does anyone happen to know of any up-to-date, numbers-based analysis of the expected value of that redundancy, vs. the Dragon-only status quo? That is to say - knowing what we know now about the reliability of Falcon and Dragon:
- what is the probability of an issue arising with Falcon/Dragon that leads to a situation where Starliner could get another USOS crew on orbit earlier than SpaceX could resolve said issue?
- what is the dollar value benefit of having that crew up there earlier?
- does this change if you assume you can maintain at least one USOS crewmember on orbit via Soyuz?
There's been a number of comments in the runup to Starliner CFT about how NASA is glad to finally have the dissimilar redundancy they hoped to achieve by selecting two Commercial Crew providers. Does anyone happen to know of any up-to-date, numbers-based analysis of the expected value of that redundancy, vs. the Dragon-only status quo? That is to say - knowing what we know now about the reliability of Falcon and Dragon:
- what is the probability of an issue arising with Falcon/Dragon that leads to a situation where Starliner could get another USOS crew on orbit earlier than SpaceX could resolve said issue?
I'd say we have good enough data on Falcon, but too little data on Dragon at this point, which is why dissimilar redundancy has the appeal it does, in that in a world of unknowns, you can assume that any potential future failure won't have a direct relationship to your backup system.Quote- what is the dollar value benefit of having that crew up there earlier?
Ignoring the safety aspects, for government science programs I'm not sure you can measure safety using money. Why would you?Quote- does this change if you assume you can maintain at least one USOS crewmember on orbit via Soyuz?
Here on Earth, and anywhere within our atmosphere, Russia is not a friend of the U.S.
NASA as a whole has done a good job in keeping the ISS neutral ground, but from a geopolitical standpoint no one would want to be in a position where we have to ask Vladimir Putin to come to our rescue in space.
So from that standpoint, the $4.2B for Boeing to the backup to SpaceX (or $2.7B if you want the reverse perspective) is probably a good investment by the U.S. to ensure we don't have to be reliant on Russia for access to the ISS.
... Shrug. It's all moot now
I'd say we have good enough data on Falcon, but too little data on Dragon at this point, which is why dissimilar redundancy has the appeal it does, in that in a world of unknowns, you can assume that any potential future failure won't have a direct relationship to your backup system.
Ignoring the safety aspects, for government science programs I'm not sure you can measure safety using money. Why would you?
So from that standpoint, the $4.2B for Boeing to the backup to SpaceX (or $2.7B if you want the reverse perspective) is probably a good investment by the U.S. to ensure we don't have to be reliant on Russia for access to the ISS.
To phrase the hypothetical another way, imagine Dave Calhoun came to NASA after CFT and said "we'll continue with our contractual obligations, of course, but is there any chance we could just pay you a lump sum and we can walk away?" Obviously that lump sum would need to cover 6 replacement Crew Dragon flights, but how much more on top of that would NASA require to compensate for the loss of dissimilar redundancy?
NASA should just let them walk away if this hypothetical event happens. The only cost to Boeing is the loss of payments for the remaining missions. NASA saves money by buying the cheaper Crew Dragon instead and by no longer needing NASA personnel to interact with the Starliner team. Yes, it would be emotionally satisfying to require Boeing to compensate NASA for at least some of the costs of the 7-year slip, but objectively just letting them walk away will save taxpayer money.
ROCHESTER, N.Y., May 8, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA should immediately halt the Starliner launch due to serious safety risks demonstrated by a leaking valve, according to the professional opinion of ValveTech Inc. The launch was scrubbed due to a leaking regulator valve in an oxygen tank, yet NASA is considering trying another launch soon.
"As a valued NASA partner and as valve experts, we strongly urge them not to attempt a second launch due to the risk of a disaster occurring on the launchpad," said ValveTech President Erin Faville. "According to media reports, a buzzing sound indicating the leaking valve was noticed by someone walking by the Starliner minutes before launch. This sound could indicate that the valve has passed its lifecycle."
"NASA needs to re-double safety checks and re-examine safety protocols to make sure the Starliner is safe before something catastrophic happens to the astronauts and to the people on the ground," Faville added.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but since it seems to be legit, I'm posting it:
Safety Concerns Show Urgent Need to Stop NASA Starliner Launch, Warns ValveTech (Hastings Law Client) - PR Newswire
Lead paragraphs:QuoteROCHESTER, N.Y., May 8, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA should immediately halt the Starliner launch due to serious safety risks demonstrated by a leaking valve, according to the professional opinion of ValveTech Inc. The launch was scrubbed due to a leaking regulator valve in an oxygen tank, yet NASA is considering trying another launch soon.
"As a valued NASA partner and as valve experts, we strongly urge them not to attempt a second launch due to the risk of a disaster occurring on the launchpad," said ValveTech President Erin Faville. "According to media reports, a buzzing sound indicating the leaking valve was noticed by someone walking by the Starliner minutes before launch. This sound could indicate that the valve has passed its lifecycle."
"NASA needs to re-double safety checks and re-examine safety protocols to make sure the Starliner is safe before something catastrophic happens to the astronauts and to the people on the ground," Faville added.
A friend sent me this, as we both thought the Starliner flight scrub was due to an Atlas V valve, so this allegation was surprising.
Any confirmation as to what valve was the cause of this launch "pause"? Does ValveTech have a valid point to make?
Any confirmation as to what valve was the cause of this launch "pause"? Does ValveTech have a valid point to make?
Thanks.
Not sure what to say about this one. Close to none of it is correct: Not urgent. Not leaking. Etc. Remarkable that the particular person quoted doesn't seem to know how this type of valve works...
I wonder if NASA really wants CST-100 to succeed more because it wants Boeing to remain a player in space than the stated redundancy requirement.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but since it seems to be legit, I'm posting it:
Safety Concerns Show Urgent Need to Stop NASA Starliner Launch, Warns ValveTech (Hastings Law Client) - PR Newswire
Lead paragraphs:QuoteROCHESTER, N.Y., May 8, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA should immediately halt the Starliner launch due to serious safety risks demonstrated by a leaking valve, according to the professional opinion of ValveTech Inc. The launch was scrubbed due to a leaking regulator valve in an oxygen tank, yet NASA is considering trying another launch soon.
"As a valued NASA partner and as valve experts, we strongly urge them not to attempt a second launch due to the risk of a disaster occurring on the launchpad," said ValveTech President Erin Faville. "According to media reports, a buzzing sound indicating the leaking valve was noticed by someone walking by the Starliner minutes before launch. This sound could indicate that the valve has passed its lifecycle."
"NASA needs to re-double safety checks and re-examine safety protocols to make sure the Starliner is safe before something catastrophic happens to the astronauts and to the people on the ground," Faville added.
A friend sent me this, as we both thought the Starliner flight scrub was due to an Atlas V valve, so this allegation was surprising.
Any confirmation as to what valve was the cause of this launch "pause"? Does ValveTech have a valid point to make?
I wonder if NASA really wants CST-100 to succeed more because it wants Boeing to remain a player in space than the stated redundancy requirement.
IMO both are valid reasons.
We are fortunate that NASA paid for redundancy in the CCP program, and it paid off spectacularly. Boeing lobbied hard to be the only contract awardee in 2014 because they were the front-runner. NASA awarded the second-place contract to SpaceX. SpaceX was three years late, launching Crew-1 in 2020. Boeing will be eight years late, launching Starliner-1 in 2025. in 2014, based on the space industry track record, the probability that a system would be delivered late was high, so a redundant supplier was fully justified.
That was then, but this is now. The likelihood that Crew Dragon will be grounded for long has become extremely remote, so the value of an alternate system is low.
I wonder if NASA really wants CST-100 to succeed more because it wants Boeing to remain a player in space than the stated redundancy requirement.
IMO both are valid reasons.We are fortunate that NASA paid for redundancy in the CCP program, and it paid off spectacularly. Boeing lobbied hard to be the only contract awardee in 2014 because they were the front-runner. NASA awarded the second-place contract to SpaceX. SpaceX was three years late, launching Crew-1 in 2020. Boeing will be eight years late, launching Starliner-1 in 2025. in 2014, based on the space industry track record, the probability that a system would be delivered late was high, so a redundant supplier was fully justified.
That was then, but this is now. The likelihood that Crew Dragon will be grounded for long has become extremely remote, so the value of an alternate system is low.