-
#1280 by Nomadd on 11 May, 2024 16:52
-
This have I have trouble with.
There have been 23 (and a half; one is still ongoing) orbtial Dragon 2 flights (including test & cargo flights). For point of reference, Challeneger would've been the 25th orbital Shuttle flight. I think the system is still plenty new enough to still have some trouble pop up.
Challenger was a launcher problem. The Dragon launcher has gone over 300 flights without a major issue. -
#1281 by fthomassy on 11 May, 2024 17:26
-
And setting immaturity aside, Soyuz had an abort back in 2018. It didn't end up grounding the vehicle (somehow), but it's a good reminder that dangerous problems are not purely the domain of immature systems.
Not grounded? It did not fly again until the problem was identified and corrected. How else do you define grounding? -
#1282 by JEF_300 on 11 May, 2024 17:44
-
That's not the point. What I'm doing here isn't engineering, its risk assessment. The statistics don't care where a problem cropped up, they care that a problem cropped up.This have I have trouble with.
There have been 23 (and a half; one is still ongoing) orbtial Dragon 2 flights (including test & cargo flights). For point of reference, Challeneger would've been the 25th orbital Shuttle flight. I think the system is still plenty new enough to still have some trouble pop up.
Challenger was a launcher problem. The Dragon launcher has gone over 300 flights without a major issue.
And it wasn't exactly meant to be a super accurate comparison anyway. It's just there to give some perspective.
I guess that's definitionally true? But it didn't look anything like a grounding in the US does or would. I cannot imagine a circumstance where NASA or the FAA would let any US spacecraft fly with crew again less than 2 months after an abort.And setting immaturity aside, Soyuz had an abort back in 2018. It didn't end up grounding the vehicle (somehow), but it's a good reminder that dangerous problems are not purely the domain of immature systems.
Not grounded? It did not fly again until the problem was identified and corrected. How else do you define grounding?
This is all probably off topic regardless. -
#1283 by SoftwareDude on 11 May, 2024 17:51
-
Commercial Crew dissimilar redundancy has not just pros, but also cons, primary of which is the lack of IVA suit cross-compatibility. With the current Dragon-only rotation, should a new ISS crewmember fall ill during handover (whether with appendicitis or a 100 Garn case of unresolving space adaptation syndrome) they could swap seats with a returning crewmember who gets bumped into a long-duration mission.
I've wondered about this. If they are backing each other up, why didn't NASA create a suit specification for IVA suit compatibility? Has anyone used queuing theory to figure out how many spacecraft each supplier requires to always have one ready to go?
Additionally, NASA could plan an intentional long-duration mission without needing to procure and pack extra suits.
Do we know if NASA has considered an adapter to give at least minimal IVA suit cross-compatibility, or if that is even possible?
Has the question ever been asked in a presser? -
#1284 by SoftwareDude on 11 May, 2024 20:15
-
I watch what they do more than I listen to what they say. Based on that approach, here is my analysis.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.
What is NASA doing?
1. NASA is focused on getting CFT done, so much so that the independent safety board felt they needed to warn NASA not to rush Boeing's CFT.
2. NASA does not have a requirement that Boeing and SpaceX each have a backup capsule and rocket ready when the other is flying, especially true for Boeing.
3. NASA does not have a specification for IVA space suit compatibility between capsules.
4. NASA does not require cross-training astronauts on return in the capsules.
Therefore, Since the safety of redundancy is questionable, NASA does not need CST-100, yet they persist in doing everything they can to make CFT-100 fly.
Boeing is a very important supplier to NASA and space exploration in general. Boeing is very good at selling to Congress and getting things financed. Yes, SpaceX has some lobbyists now, but no one, except Lockheed Martin, is the influence powerhouse that Boeing is.
If the CFT-100 program collapses, it will be much harder to award future contracts to Boeing with a commensurate loss of influence in Congress.
Of course, NASA can't say any of that out loud, so they say, "We need redundancy." -
#1285 by Jim on 11 May, 2024 20:17
-
Therefore, Since the safety of redundancy is questionable, NASA does not need CST-100, yet they persist in doing everything they can to make CFT-100 fly.
nope, wrong conclusion. -
#1286 by SoftwareDude on 11 May, 2024 20:45
-
What do you see NASA doing to make redundancy effective?
Therefore, Since the safety of redundancy is questionable, NASA does not need CST-100, yet they persist in doing everything they can to make CFT-100 fly.
nope, wrong conclusion. -
#1287 by John Santos on 11 May, 2024 22:15
-
I watch what they do more than I listen to what they say. Based on that approach, here is my analysis.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.
What is NASA doing?
1. NASA is focused on getting CFT done, so much so that the independent safety board felt they needed to warn NASA not to rush Boeing's CFT.
2. NASA does not have a requirement that Boeing and SpaceX each have a backup capsule and rocket ready when the other is flying, especially true for Boeing.
3. NASA does not have a specification for IVA space suit compatibility between capsules.
4. NASA does not require cross-training astronauts on return in the capsules.
Therefore, Since the safety of redundancy is questionable, NASA does not need CST-100, yet they persist in doing everything they can to make CFT-100 fly.
Boeing is a very important supplier to NASA and space exploration in general. Boeing is very good at selling to Congress and getting things financed. Yes, SpaceX has some lobbyists now, but no one, except Lockheed Martin, is the influence powerhouse that Boeing is.
If the CFT-100 program collapses, it will be much harder to award future contracts to Boeing with a commensurate loss of influence in Congress.
Of course, NASA can't say any of that out loud, so they say, "We need redundancy."
As Jim tersely points out, the conclusion that redundancy is of questionable safety does not follow from your list of assertions. The only point that is vaguely relevant is the 1st one, but the ASAP *always* makes this point; it's like a parent always telling a child to look both ways before crossing the street. There is no evidence that NASA is rushing CFT, and the fact that they decided to replace the valve at the cost of at least 11 days in the schedule is evidence of that.
The other three points are merely items that suggest ways that redundancy could be more effective, not that it is inherently unsafe.
For example, item 3, launch/entry suit incompatibility. Neither the Boeing nor SpaceX suit is compatible with the Russian Sokol suit. Certainly, it would be "safer" if all three could be used in any spacecraft, but on the other hand, if they were the same, what would that do to "dissimilar redundancy"? If there is no rush to return (as someone speculated in a use case), then a suit of any type fitted to the astronaut who needed it could be sent up on a cargo flight. Or, how did they handle this during the Shuttle/Soyuz crew exchanges? I know they sent up Soyuz seat-liners for crew launched on shuttle who returned on Soyuz. Did they also send up Sokol suits for them? What happened to the Sokol suits belonging to people who launched on Soyuz and returned on a shuttle? Are they stashed in a closet somewhere onboard, or did they send them down or trash them after they weren't needed? How important is a fitted suit anyway? The Sokol suits are tailored for each cosmonaut. Are the Boeing and SpaceX suits also customized? It maybe less comfortable but is it actually dangerous for someone to return in the wrong suit in an emergency?
How much specialized training is required to be passenger/bag of meat in a returning capsule? Just strap your self in and don't touch anything, especially the Big Red Button! -
#1288 by DanClemmensen on 11 May, 2024 22:32
-
These points are mostly about a rescue mission, but I think redundancy is mostly about having an alternative if Crew Dragon is grounded and not about rescuing a crew. The unpleasant reality is that a capsule's crew mostly depends on its capsule. If a Crew Dragon crew is stranded, it would most likely be because of a single-instance problem like what happened to Soyuz MS-22, not a fleet-wide design problem. If so, another Crew Dragon can be used for rescue.
I watch what they do more than I listen to what they say. Based on that approach, here is my analysis.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.
What is NASA doing?
1. NASA is focused on getting CFT done, so much so that the independent safety board felt they needed to warn NASA not to rush Boeing's CFT.
2. NASA does not have a requirement that Boeing and SpaceX each have a backup capsule and rocket ready when the other is flying, especially true for Boeing.
3. NASA does not have a specification for IVA space suit compatibility between capsules.
4. NASA does not require cross-training astronauts on return in the capsules.
Therefore, Since the safety of redundancy is questionable, NASA does not need CST-100, yet they persist in doing everything they can to make CFT-100 fly.
Boeing is a very important supplier to NASA and space exploration in general. Boeing is very good at selling to Congress and getting things financed. Yes, SpaceX has some lobbyists now, but no one, except Lockheed Martin, is the influence powerhouse that Boeing is.
If the CFT-100 program collapses, it will be much harder to award future contracts to Boeing with a commensurate loss of influence in Congress.
Of course, NASA can't say any of that out loud, so they say, "We need redundancy." -
#1289 by laszlo on 11 May, 2024 23:20
-
Maybe we should get a mod to rename this to "Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Concern Trolling Thread"
-
#1290 by Mr. Scott on 12 May, 2024 01:11
-
Is there a Boeing Starliner CST-100 Party Thread? (I’m too lazy to even look)
It isn’t that commercial spaceflight seems to be getting more and more boring. I think it has actually arrived at the most boring thing imaginable. They say in space, no one can hear you yawn -
#1291 by Mr. Scott on 12 May, 2024 07:13
-
Is it me, or is the fact that CST-100 didn’t launch with crew onboard during a Kp9 geomagnetic storm a good thing!?
Holy freaking cow, it’s like the Sun is about to blow.
-
#1292 by russianhalo117 on 13 May, 2024 00:16
-
Maybe we should get a mod to rename this to "Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Concern Trolling Thread"
Enough beating Valvetech's potentially dead horse while they are kicking and screaming through their PR department like a toddler in a temper tantrum as if demanding to be gagged by the judge of the court. As a mod we won't be doing that. Rather people need to move on to a different more higher quality discussion topic because if you all derail it then we might lock this thread and Chris would start a new thread with a warning to stay on topic and only post high quality discussions on here. -
#1293 by DigitalMan on 13 May, 2024 03:47
-
Is it me, or is the fact that CST-100 didn’t launch with crew onboard during a Kp9 geomagnetic storm a good thing!?
Holy freaking cow, it’s like the Sun is about to blow.
Yea, that would have been an unwanted risk for sure -
#1294 by John_Marshall on 14 May, 2024 01:37
-
Yea, that would have been an unwanted risk for sure
Sorry if this is a dumb question (I'm a humanities and language guy
), but why would that be any worse than having people on ISS then?
-
#1295 by punder on 14 May, 2024 02:25
-
The ISS has some more dense, protective structures than capsules do. https://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-instructor-explains-how-iss-astronauts-prepare-solar-storms-2892095Yea, that would have been an unwanted risk for sure
Sorry if this is a dumb question (I'm a humanities and language guy ), but why would that be any worse than having people on ISS then? -
#1296 by John_Marshall on 14 May, 2024 03:08
-
The ISS has some more dense, protective structures than capsules do. https://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-instructor-explains-how-iss-astronauts-prepare-solar-storms-2892095
Duh. That makes sense. Thanks! -
#1297 by SoftwareDude on 14 May, 2024 03:14
-
It's an interesting question, though, about what kind of extra hardening of electronics on capsules is required. I would be interested in hearing about that. Also, do higher orbits require a different level of hardening the LEO?The ISS has some more dense, protective structures than capsules do. https://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-instructor-explains-how-iss-astronauts-prepare-solar-storms-2892095
Duh. That makes sense. Thanks! -
#1298 by Vettedrmr on 14 May, 2024 10:57
-
It's an interesting question, though, about what kind of extra hardening of electronics on capsules is required. I would be interested in hearing about that. Also, do higher orbits require a different level of hardening the LEO?
Outside the Van Allen belts I'd expect so. Within them, definitely so. -
#1299 by DanClemmensen on 19 May, 2024 15:01
-
Today is the second anniversary of the launch of the successful Orbital Flight Test of Starliner, Boe OFT 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Orbital_Flight_Test_2
), but why would that be any worse than having people on ISS then?