-
#1420
by
cplchanb
on 13 Jun, 2024 14:10
-
Did we know there were five?
Prior to Monday's NASA blog post, I thought we only knew of four -- one detected after the May 7 scrub, two more detected on the way to ISS, and one more detected post-docking after the He manifold isolation valves were closed.
We haven't been given any details on the fifth, have we?
Not sure about the 5th, but the fact that there were at least 4 different valves leaking suggests a QA problem with the valve manufacturer, the spacecraft assembly process at Boeing or both.
1 valve leaking is probably an outlier.
2 valves leaking suggests there might be a problem.
4 valves leaking? This is a real problem.
one has to wonder if the QA culture that was bred at the 737 max/787 production lines have drifted to their aerospace division.... very very bad look on Boeing regardless on if its their fault or the suppliers'....
-
#1421
by
deadman1204
on 13 Jun, 2024 16:00
-
Did we know there were five?
Prior to Monday's NASA blog post, I thought we only knew of four -- one detected after the May 7 scrub, two more detected on the way to ISS, and one more detected post-docking after the He manifold isolation valves were closed.
We haven't been given any details on the fifth, have we?
Not sure about the 5th, but the fact that there were at least 4 different valves leaking suggests a QA problem with the valve manufacturer, the spacecraft assembly process at Boeing or both.
1 valve leaking is probably an outlier.
2 valves leaking suggests there might be a problem.
4 valves leaking? This is a real problem.
one has to wonder if the QA culture that was bred at the 737 max/787 production lines have drifted to their aerospace division.... very very bad look on Boeing regardless on if its their fault or the suppliers'....
Culture is set from the top. The same execs run the entire company
-
#1422
by
SoftwareDude
on 13 Jun, 2024 21:51
-
Nobody on the mission thread answered my question about the new stuck oxidizer isolation valve. Is this the same problem as the valves found stuck that aborted OFT-2 on the first try? Or is this a different set of valves?
-
#1423
by
Vettedrmr
on 13 Jun, 2024 22:11
-
Nobody on the mission thread answered my question about the new stuck oxidizer isolation valve. Is this the same problem as the valves found stuck that aborted OFT-2 on the first try? Or is this a different set of valves?
All the prop and oxidizer is located in the SM, which is jettisoned. If you're asking if it's the valves that were in the same location on both SMs, I don't think that info has been released.
-
#1424
by
SoftwareDude
on 13 Jun, 2024 22:29
-
Nobody on the mission thread answered my question about the new stuck oxidizer isolation valve. Is this the same problem as the valves found stuck that aborted OFT-2 on the first try? Or is this a different set of valves?
All the prop and oxidizer is located in the SM, which is jettisoned. If you're asking if it's the valves that were in the same location on both SMs, I don't think that info has been released.
kdhilliard chimed on the mission thread just as I posted this and gave what I thought was a good answer.
-
#1425
by
DanClemmensen
on 13 Jun, 2024 22:34
-
So far, we have three separate anomaly types in CFT:
Five Helium leaks
Five thruster anomalies
One valve problem.
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations? Starliner enthusiasts probably think these are all trivial. Starliner naysayers probably think they are show-stoppers. What will NASA think?
-
#1426
by
yg1968
on 13 Jun, 2024 23:15
-
So far, we have three separate anomaly types in CFT:
Five Helium leaks
Five thruster anomalies
One valve problem.
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations? Starliner enthusiasts probably think these are all trivial. Starliner naysayers probably think they are show-stoppers. What will NASA think?
It will likely take more time for the next Starliner mission but that is that all that you should expect.
-
#1427
by
zubenelgenubi
on 13 Jun, 2024 23:19
-
Moderator:
Starship discussion metastasizes into yet another forum thread, along with discussion of other launch vehicles, with no mention of Starliner, the topic of this discussion thread.
Also, I found FUD posts clogging the discussion arteries.
Tumor excised and arteries cleared. 👩⚕️
Please do better.
-
#1428
by
Vettedrmr
on 14 Jun, 2024 00:30
-
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations?
Informed? Maybe on L2. IMHO, NASA will require a resolution and implementation of fixes before they certify Starliner for 6 months on-station at the ISS. How long will be determined by the complexity of the fixes.
I do think Starliner will miss her first operational date, but hopefully none after that.
-
#1429
by
ulm_atms
on 14 Jun, 2024 00:35
-
So question?
Was there any mention of He leaks on OFT-2's SM? I don't remember any but I could have missed something...there is no way to keep track of all this!
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
-
#1430
by
Vettedrmr
on 14 Jun, 2024 00:42
-
So question?
Was there any mention of He leaks on OFT-2's SM? I don't remember any but I could have missed something...there is no way to keep track of all this!
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Google didn't turn anything up.
-
#1431
by
catdlr
on 14 Jun, 2024 01:08
-
So question?
Was there any mention of He leaks on OFT-2's SM? I don't remember any but I could have missed something...there is no way to keep track of all this!
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Google didn't turn anything up.
Neither did my AI.
-
#1432
by
Thorny
on 14 Jun, 2024 01:24
-
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Could it have to do with the spacecraft sitting around for an extra year, when it was a few weeks from flight a year ago?
-
#1433
by
SoftwareDude
on 14 Jun, 2024 02:56
-
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Could it have to do with the spacecraft sitting around for an extra year, when it was a few weeks from flight a year ago?
Or fueled up and sitting exposed to the elements on top of a rocket that failed to take off twice.
-
#1434
by
clongton
on 14 Jun, 2024 11:49
-
So far, we have three separate anomaly types in CFT:
Five Helium leaks
Five thruster anomalies
One valve problem.
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations? Starliner enthusiasts probably think these are all trivial. Starliner naysayers probably think they are show-stoppers. What will NASA think?
Not sure what NASA will do but IMO the situation is neither at this point. It is definitely not trivial but neither does it rise to the level of a show-stopper. It certainly IS a problem, but one that can be adjudicated by proper QA and inspection at both the valve or seal source, Boeing Receiving dept and on the assembly floor. I don't think it is so much a valve/seal problem as it is lax Quality Assurance certification.
I will also say this - based on my experience with proper QA and inspection over the years before I retired. If the customer (Boeing in this case) is lax in their QA certification in their Receiving and QA departments, the valve or seal supplier will become lax in their own QA certification and inspection prior to shipping - every time. I've seen it over and over again. This situation lands squarely and solidly at the feet of Boeing upper management that has switched the corporate culture from excellence to profit orientation.
-
#1435
by
DanClemmensen
on 14 Jun, 2024 12:13
-
So far, we have three separate anomaly types in CFT:
Five Helium leaks
Five thruster anomalies
One valve problem.
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations? Starliner enthusiasts probably think these are all trivial. Starliner naysayers probably think they are show-stoppers. What will NASA think?
Not sure what NASA will do but IMO the situation is neither at this point. It is definitely not trivial but neither does it rise to the level of a show-stopper. It certainly IS a problem, but one that can be adjudicated by proper QA at both the valve or seal source, Boeing Receiving dept and on the assembly floor. I don't think it is so much a valve/seal problem as it is lax Quality Assurance certification.
I will also say this - based on my experience with proper QA over the years before I retired. If the customer (Boeing in this case) is lax in their QA certification in their Receiving and QA departments, the valve or seal supplier will become lax in their own QA certification prior to shipping - every time. I've seen it over and over again. This situation lands squarely and solidly at the feet of Boeing upper management that has switched the corporate culture from excellence to profit orientation.
I was hoping for some insight into NASA process, of which I know nothing. If FAA were the reviewing authority (they are not) then each of these three anomaly types would formally be a "mishap" (an anomaly potentially affecting the safety of the crew), and Boeing would investigate each and would propose mitigations for each. FAA would likely require another test flight prior to certification, I think. Someone mentioned NASA's ASAP. Does ASAP have a formal process with published criteria equivalent to the FAA definition of a "mishap"?
It's quite possible that Boeing's formal analyses will conclude that the affected system (helium, RCS, valves) is so massively redundant that additional mitigation is not needed, or that some simple mitigations suffice and do not need an additional CFT.
-
#1436
by
yg1968
on 14 Jun, 2024 16:35
-
So far, we have three separate anomaly types in CFT:
Five Helium leaks
Five thruster anomalies
One valve problem.
Do we have any informed guesses as to how NASA will evaluate these anomalies as part of certifying Starliner for normal CCP operations? Starliner enthusiasts probably think these are all trivial. Starliner naysayers probably think they are show-stoppers. What will NASA think?
Not sure what NASA will do but IMO the situation is neither at this point. It is definitely not trivial but neither does it rise to the level of a show-stopper. It certainly IS a problem, but one that can be adjudicated by proper QA at both the valve or seal source, Boeing Receiving dept and on the assembly floor. I don't think it is so much a valve/seal problem as it is lax Quality Assurance certification.
I will also say this - based on my experience with proper QA over the years before I retired. If the customer (Boeing in this case) is lax in their QA certification in their Receiving and QA departments, the valve or seal supplier will become lax in their own QA certification prior to shipping - every time. I've seen it over and over again. This situation lands squarely and solidly at the feet of Boeing upper management that has switched the corporate culture from excellence to profit orientation.
I was hoping for some insight into NASA process, of which I know nothing. If FAA were the reviewing authority (they are not) then each of these three anomaly types would formally be a "mishap" (an anomaly potentially affecting the safety of the crew), and Boeing would investigate each and would propose mitigations for each. FAA would likely require another test flight prior to certification, I think. Someone mentioned NASA's ASAP. Does ASAP have a formal process with published criteria equivalent to the FAA definition of a "mishap"?
It's quite possible that Boeing's formal analyses will conclude that the affected system (helium, RCS, valves) is so massively redundant that additional mitigation is not needed, or that some simple mitigations suffice and do not need an additional CFT.
My understanding is that the FAA looks at the safety of the public in general but not the safety of the astronauts per see. I believe that is why Blue's parchute failure on New Shepard isn't being looked at by the FAA.
-
#1437
by
kdhilliard
on 14 Jun, 2024 19:12
-
The following seems crazy to me
https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/will-the-boeing-starliner-abort-the#wuy8rc7bnl
Will the Boeing Starliner that launched on June 5 encounter major, mission-changing problems? Currently at 68% has recently hit 84%
I am thinking it should be under 10%.
...
Note the very generous terms on which that market resolves to YES:
This market will resolve to YES if the capsule returns to Earth earlier or later than scheduled for any reason other than weather or ISS logistics, if the astronauts return to Earth by some other method, or if one of the astronauts is injured or killed by the Starliner. Otherwise, it will resolve to NO.
And with today's announcement of the return being delayed to NET 22 June, it has resolved YES.
(It is also true that a lot of the participants are predicting much worse than simple delays.)
-
#1438
by
FinalFrontier
on 19 Jun, 2024 09:20
-
Discussion/update thread posts seemed to indicate the first operational mission for starliner may not be until next year.
It's early yet, but there are some burning questions I have, maybe others have as well:
1. What is causing these valves to stick and not seat? Is this more of the corrosion seen previously or is the manufacturer having QA/defect issues? Are most of these valves in the SM and thus can't be examined post flight or are some of them in the CM?
2. Will NASA have to consider flying a second CFT due to these issues or is it just going to be post flight improvement and testing?
3. How many delays to 'operational flight 1' are worth tolerating at this point? Is nasa going to consider reducing the number of starliner flights or will they simply not order more over the current number? Also what is the current number of planned flights I don't actually know where that stands right now?
Imho the idea of ending up with or downselecting to just one crew provider is no more appetizing today than it was at the outset of CRS. Just because the competition so far has a decent record does not mean it will stay that way. Also having a sole provider tends to result in cost growth since that sole contractor can eventually and invariably charge whatever they want.
But with all of that said it's really not great to see this many issues this late in the game for this vehicle. It was intended to be a simple and reliable crew transport capsule to and from ISS based on heritage tech, very simple nothing more nothing less. Instead we are approaching 2025 and the vehicle hasn't flown operational missions yet and is still having issues and only just now flying it's first crew. Imho it's still worth continuing for now, given all the time effort and money spent, but maybe not for very long. ISS is approaching the end of its life as a government operated platform after all.
-
#1439
by
Vettedrmr
on 19 Jun, 2024 13:01
-
At this point, all I want is for Butch and Suni to get back safely. Personally, I'm expecting quite a bit of time to work through CFT-1's issues, because I'm sure there are more than has been released, just because they're minutiae. Important minutiae, but just not something that needs to be discussed with the public because it requires so much context to understand.
