-
#840
by
litton4
on 05 Jun, 2023 11:32
-
Fire hazard from tape on Starliner wiring harnesses? The layman is surprised. 
Cable harnesses are everywhere where people are transported.
The loads are maybe less than on Starliner, but cars, buses, trains, planes, etc. are used for a very long time and often.
Boeing builds passenger planes that fly for decades and make many takeoffs and landings. Each time with maybe 500 humans on board.
Yes. The potential has been officially identified and verified. Starliner has had to stand down again because of it, for an unknown length of time to fix, but likely not short term. Powered rocket flight is nowhere near as smooth a ride as cars, buses, trains, planes, etc. There is a lot of severe shake, rattle and rolling and vibrations going on. If wiring harnesses are going thru a hole in the structure they can be damaged by the edges of the hole, potentially fraying the insulation and causing an electrical short. Electrical shorts cause fires. A shorted circuit is what caused the fire on Apollo 1, burning up the capsule and killing the 3 astronauts aboard.
Not just Apollo.
After the problems with STS-93 (Chandra) launch, NASA inspected all the wiring in the Shuttle fleet and found a number of wiring problems that could have caused short circuits.
-
#841
by
Vettedrmr
on 05 Jun, 2023 12:56
-
Part of management is obviously getting the right engineers in place. But part of being an engineer, which seems to be sorely lacking, is standing up to management. The 747 would never had been built if Sutter hadn't risked his job half a dozen times by refusing to go along with bad management decisions.
I had to make only one of those decisions, late in my career, that ended up in pulling the flight certification of a software package, grounding the affected aircraft (only 1, but when you only have one, it's a big deal). Truly terrifying, because you're putting the word of your program's management to the test. Fortunately they heard the evidence and made the hard choice.
May you always be ready to make that call, and may you never have to make it.
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#842
by
mandrewa
on 05 Jun, 2023 13:38
-
If Boeing wants out NASA should demand that Boeing repay enough money so that NASA can afford to buy another commercial crew provider without any additional taxpayer expenditures. This wouldn't fully make NASA whole since it would delay the backup that NASA contracted for but it seems like a reasonable compromise. Actually it may be better for NASA to allow Boeing to contract with Sierra Space and/or Blue Origin to take over their obligations under the contract, which if legal could be a lot faster than NASA starting a new competition to replace Boeing. Either way would probably cost Boeing more than fulfilling the contract would so I'd expect Boeing will eventually fulfill its current contract.
NASA has no specific need for a backup to Crew Dragon except to support ISS. ISS will be decommissioned in about seven years. An alternative to Starliner (probably) cannot become operational in less than 4 years. Starliner won't become operational until August 2024 at the earliest and it now may be delayed even further, I don't see why we need to spend money on a backup that will only cover a very narrow gap.
ISS was run using Soyuz exclusively from 2011 until 2020, i.e., longer than the worst-case remaining life of ISS. The probability that Crew Dragon will be grounded for very long is now quite low and is decreasing.
If non-ISS customers for Starliner or a Starliner alternative want to pay, then by all means let them do so. Not NASA.
If anything were to go wrong with a Crew Dragon mission that included the loss of the crew, it might be a long time before the next mission was approved.
There's a part of our society that acts like there are no risks or there should be no risks. And there's another part, that would love to shut down manned space exploration. I could go into some hypotheses as to what as motivating these people, but of course that's politics, and we probably want to stay away from that.
We have become so used to SpaceX doing things so perfectly. But the odds are that there will be a problem at some point.
I'm very uncomfortable with not having a backup to the Crew Dragon. I think it's worth spending some money to lower that risk.
-
#843
by
LastWyzard
on 05 Jun, 2023 14:34
-
Or maybe the problem is Boeing's finance-centered executives failed to attract the best employees, and it's really hard to convert mediocre employees into great employees.
[/quote]
I agree with this although I would replace "mediocre" with "average" or "non-superstar". After decades being in management, I've discovered that there are three levels of employee. Superstar, Average and Under-perform. As stated in the quote above it is nearly impossible to convert "Average" to "Superstar". In fact, it is nearly impossible to move anyone to another level, either up or down. Superstars will always be Superstars no matter how you treat them. If you mistreat them (long hours, low salary), they might leave, but they will never drop down to "Average". Average employees are valuable if placed in the correct spot. Treat them right but don't expect them to be Superstars. Under-perform might move to Average if their job is threatened but will quickly fall back when you're not looking. I suspect that Boeing has not attracted (or retained) enough Superstars.
-
#844
by
DanClemmensen
on 05 Jun, 2023 14:41
-
I'm very uncomfortable with not having a backup to the Crew Dragon. I think it's worth spending some money to lower that risk.
NASA has a backup. It's called Soyuz. NASA will not have another backup (Starliner) until August 2024 at the earliest. We will not have any other backup for at least 4 years, unless we use a Chinese backup. NASA has no defined need for another Crewed LEO spacecraft after ISS is decommissioned in 2030. You are advocating for spending a lot of taxpayer money to provide a backup for the period 2025-2023 for a low-probability event. I'd rather spend the money on something more worthwhile, like an SLS/Orion replacement.
If someone other than NASA needs a backup to Crew Dragon, then that someone is free to pay for it. I'm willing to wait for crewed Starship.
This is all very off-topic for Starliner except to raise the argument that Starliner has very little value to NASA today.
-
#845
by
JEF_300
on 05 Jun, 2023 17:04
-
NASA has a backup. It's called Soyuz.
As I type this, there are US military personnel who are actively providing intelligence to the Ukrainian military, who then uses that intelligence to kill Russian soldiers. That is publicly available information. The United States is not at war with Russia, that is true. But in some ways we are riding the line closer than any nation in history ever has.
Can we please stop pretending Soyuz is still a realistic backup?
-
#846
by
JAFO
on 05 Jun, 2023 17:13
-
Part of management is obviously getting the right engineers in place. But part of being an engineer, which seems to be sorely lacking, is standing up to management. The 747 would never had been built if Sutter hadn't risked his job half a dozen times by refusing to go along with bad management decisions.
Your post sent a chill down my spine, because it parallels the statement Jerry Mason made to Robert Lund the night before Challenger was launched and lost. ("take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat"). At my company we are sometimes subtly pressured to take aircraft with systems that are legally (Minimum Equipment List, or MEL'd) inop, but when you step back and look at it from an "We're having a Bad Night over the North Atlantic, and I'm a lousy swimmer." point of view, it's a NoGo situation.
https://clearthinking.co/the-teleconference-before-the-challenger-disaster-how-the-thinking-shifted-part-two/
-
#847
by
Jim
on 05 Jun, 2023 18:24
-
NASA people work with Boeing, plus NASA says they have additional people from the ASAP working with Boeing. People cost money.
They get paid regardless. it isn't additive
-
#848
by
abaddon
on 05 Jun, 2023 20:04
-
We have become so used to SpaceX doing things so perfectly. But the odds are that there will be a problem at some point.
I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that if SpaceX has some sort of problem that causes an extended shutdown that Boeing will actually be prepared to step in and serve as the backup before SpaceX could return to flight on its own.
I know there's a lot of focus on getting Starliner to the point where it can fly its first operational mission, with good reason. But what are the odds that once it gets there it won't have any issues requiring a standdown at some point?
-
#849
by
abaddon
on 05 Jun, 2023 20:08
-
Can we please stop pretending Soyuz is still a realistic backup?
No, since it is not pretending, it's reality. NASA and Russia are currently looking to extend the astronaut swap program for another four seats/flights. The current reality now, regardless of the Ukraine situation, is that the countries continue to cooperate when it comes to the ISS.
If things get hotter to the point where Soyuz isn't a backup, the ISS itself is in trouble regardless of whether Dragon is flying or not.
-
#850
by
TrevorMonty
on 05 Jun, 2023 20:23
-
Can we please stop pretending Soyuz is still a realistic backup?
No, since it is not pretending, it's reality. NASA and Russia are currently looking to extend the astronaut swap program for another four seats/flights. The current reality now, regardless of the Ukraine situation, is that the countries continue to cooperate when it comes to the ISS.
If things get hotter to the point where Soyuz isn't a backup, the ISS itself is in trouble regardless of whether Dragon is flying or not.
Russia and USA aren't at war. Cold war maybe.
-
#851
by
whitelancer64
on 05 Jun, 2023 21:01
-
As far as I can tell, the "potential fire hazard" with the tape is that the acrylic adhesive layer can fray when it rubs against a hard surface, exposing the wire inside to whatever the adhesive layer was rubbing against. If that "something" is a grounded, conductive substance, then the wiring could be shorted at that point.
The adhesive layer is only present under the glass fibre to hold the protective glass fibre in place. For the adhesive to be have been mechanically disrupted, it would mean that the glass fibre wrap has already been disrupted and exposed the insulator, and in such an event the particular adhesive used is the least of your concern.
Why wasn't pickup years ago?.
As I understand the situation, it was. The adhesive on P-213 tape is acrylic based, and is known to be flammable.
It's also an aerospace industry standard to use this tape to wrap wires. The flammability of the adhesive isn't a problem unless the wires within are frayed / damaged - which is what the tape is there to prevent. My understanding is that only a few areas with high power wires are actually a concern.
-
#852
by
JEF_300
on 05 Jun, 2023 21:54
-
Can we please stop pretending Soyuz is still a realistic backup?
No, since it is not pretending, it's reality. NASA and Russia are currently looking to extend the astronaut swap program for another four seats/flights. The current reality now, regardless of the Ukraine situation, is that the countries continue to cooperate when it comes to the ISS.
If things get hotter to the point where Soyuz isn't a backup, the ISS itself is in trouble regardless of whether Dragon is flying or not.
Backups are for the bad days, and we are currently living in days that are as good as could be hoped for, given the circumstances. If Dragon were to be grounded for some reason, I see no reason to expect the Russians to be as accommodating as they were during the Shuttle gap.
Let me put this another way; Let's say you were a manager in charge of procurement at your company, and you bought most of a specific part from a US supplier, but you also bought some of it from a Russian one, partially to maintain redundancy. After the war started, you would start looking for a replacement to that Russian supplier, wouldn't you? It's not a matter of your faith in the Russian provider or anything. It's just the sensible thing to do.
I'm not saying that the Russians wouldn't fly US astronauts to the station if Dragon were grounded tomorrow. I am saying that there is enough uncertainty that it is not reasonable to bet a multi-billion dollar program on that assumption. At least, not when there is an alternative provider that will be ready within a year.
-
#853
by
joek
on 05 Jun, 2023 22:33
-
...
I'm not saying that the Russians wouldn't fly US astronauts to the station if Dragon were grounded tomorrow. I am saying that there is enough uncertainty that it is not reasonable to bet a multi-billion dollar program on that assumption. At least, not when there is an alternative provider that will be ready within a year.
Not sure what you are saying. The multi-billion dollar program is ISS or CCP/Starliner? If the former, might agree as there is more in play for Russia than simply ISS crew transport $. If the latter, don't see why they would care? Is that your point--that CCP/Starliner could go down the toilet and it would not matter? Clarification appreciated.
-
#854
by
spacenut
on 06 Jun, 2023 00:14
-
How long would it take Dreamchaser to be resurected and completed?
-
#855
by
deltaV
on 06 Jun, 2023 00:52
-
How long would it take Dreamchaser to be resurected and completed?
This is the wrong thread for that question. And maybe the wrong thread for the wider discussion of ISS crew options.
-
#856
by
JEF_300
on 06 Jun, 2023 03:06
-
...
I'm not saying that the Russians wouldn't fly US astronauts to the station if Dragon were grounded tomorrow. I am saying that there is enough uncertainty that it is not reasonable to bet a multi-billion dollar program on that assumption. At least, not when there is an alternative provider that will be ready within a year.
Not sure what you are saying. The multi-billion dollar program is ISS or CCP/Starliner? If the former, might agree as there is more in play for Russia than simply ISS crew transport $. If the latter, don't see why they would care? Is that your point--that CCP/Starliner could go down the toilet and it would not matter? Clarification appreciated.
The multi-billion dollar program is ISS. My point is that Soyuz should not be consider so reliable a backup that Starliner has no additional value as a backup.
-
#857
by
Vettedrmr
on 06 Jun, 2023 09:38
-
Here's my take on all this Starliner-related but not Starliner stuff:
1. As of right now, there is a backup to Dragon, it's Soyuz. We don't want to depend on that, so Dragon and Starliner being operational gives us that.
2. Right now, Starliner is still the front runner compared to Dreamchaser. Dreamchaser needs to start delivering *cargo* to the ISS before anyone starts thinking about a crew-rated version.
3. While ISS only has about 5-7 years of life left, the plan/hope is for smaller, less expensive stations to be built, which will need transportation to/from Earth. What will that transportation be?
-
#858
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 06 Jun, 2023 11:01
-
Any more discussion of crew backup vehicles can go to an appropriate (non-Starliner specific) thread, such as:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.0Let’s keep this thread on Starliner please.
I think we’re looking at months of delay to CFT. The parachute issue I guess can get resolved this year but I fear the tape issue could push it to next. Depends on how much tape needs to be ‘fixed’ (over wrapped, replaced …) and how (in)accessible those areas are. I could imagine a lot of work disassembling parts of Starliner to access the problematic areas.
-
#859
by
edzieba
on 06 Jun, 2023 11:03
-
Soyuz is currently only a 'backup' in terms of the seat-sharing agreement. That keeps a minimum single-US-astronaut presence on the ISS, but one of the major benefits of Commercial Crew was allowing more astronauts on the ISS, above those needed just to keep the lights on, allowing for a dramatically increased science output. Flying any more than that agreed single-seat-per-Soyuz means convincing Russia to either give up seats of their own astronauts (unlikely politically), or flying additional Soyuz missions (logistically unlikely).
