https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/10/nasa-boeing-progress-on-testing-starliner-with-crew-at-space-station/
NASA, Boeing Progress on Testing Starliner with Crew at Space Station
...
Teams currently are assessing what impacts, if any, five small leaks in the service module helium manifolds would have on the remainder of the mission.
...
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?
For those keeping track of test flight glitches, add one malfunctioning RCS oxidizer isolation valve in the service module:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/10/nasa-boeing-progress-on-testing-starliner-with-crew-at-space-station/
NASA, Boeing Progress on Testing Starliner with Crew at Space Station
...
Engineers also are evaluating an RCS oxidizer isolation valve in the service module that is not properly closed. Ground teams performed a successful propulsion system valve checkout on Sunday. All other oxidizer and fuel valves within the service module were cycled normally. The suspect oxidizer isolation valve was not cycled in the recent checkout. It will remain commanded closed for the remainder of the mission while ground teams continue to evaluate its data signatures. The crew module propulsion valves, which are part of an independent system that steers the capsule in the last phase of flight before landing, also were successfully cycled, and all those valves are performing as designed.
...
The valve cycling was presumably what Targeteer caught here. (Good job!)
During on going comm checks, Houston stated that all the thruster valves were cycled and checked out. Sunny and Butch are now on a privatized CFT departure conference on SG-4.
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.
Updated notice from the USCG District 17 weekly Local Notice to Mariners that came out today.
Unlike the District 11 notice from yesterday, which had the capsule landing on June 18 with a backup of June 19, this District 17 notice erroneously has the capsule landing still on June 14, even though it correctly eliminated the SM reentry opportunities on June 14 and June 15, leaving just June 18 and June 19.
ALASKA – NORTH PACIFIC
***UPDATED*** The Boeing CST-100 CFT Spacecraft Mission is scheduled to land at the White Sands Space Harbor or the White Sands Missile Range at 1339 UTC on June 14th, 2024. The reentry into the atmosphere will create debris that may present a hazard to vessels in the Pacific Ocean in the following areas during the time windows indicated.
First Service Module Reentry Opportunity:
Hazardous Operation: 181123-181224 UTC which is 0323-0424 Alaska Time on June 18th, 2024
Geographic Region: Southeastern Pacific & South Pacific
Hazard Area Bounds: POINT 1: 21°16’N, 122°22’W
POINT 2: 18°25’N, 118°33’W
POINT 3: 05°04’S, 136°09’W
POINT 4: 02°22’S, 139°54’W
Second Service Module Reentry Opportunity:
Hazardous Operation: 191911-192012Z UTC which is 1111-1212 Alaska Time on June 19th, 2024
Geographic Region: North Eastern Pacific and North Pacific
Hazard Area Bounds: POINT 1: 49°12’N, 132°49’W
POINT 2: 47°00’N, 134°15’W
POINT 3: 50°41’N, 170°48’W
POINT 4: 52°03’N, 170°59’W
POINT 5: 53°10’N, 166°40’W
Mariners are requested to remail clear of the hazard areas during these reentry windows. Direct questions/concerns to Matt Dulski at 281-483-9112 or by email to [email protected] or Ashley Tarpley at (346) 578-2369 or by email to [email protected].
Did we know there were five? ...
Not sure about the 5th, but the fact that there were at least 4 different valves leaking suggests a QA problem ...
This issue is about seals, not valves.
The fourth & (presumably) fifth leaks were detected after He manifold isolation valves were closed and pressure drops were detected in the isolated manifold sections.
(There is a separate issue with a malfunctioning RCS oxidizer isolation valve, but there's been no concern expressed so far over any He valves.)
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.
And it is worth remembering NASA said as part of the rationale to fly with the leaking value that fact it was a single leaking valve on the ground was an indication it was likely a manufacturing glitch and a one-off, not a systemic issue.
[EDIT] @kdhilliard suggests these might be separate issues, which is a fair point.
...
And it is worth remembering NASA said as part of the rationale to fly with the leaking value that fact it was a single leaking valve on the ground was an indication it was likely a manufacturing glitch and a one-off, not a systemic issue.
[EDIT] @kdhilliard suggests these might be separate issues, which is a fair point.
No, not a separate issue, just a mistakenly described one here.
The rationale you are describing concerned a leaking manifold seal -- one of several such seals (28?) -- which, as you say, they decided pre-launch was most likely one-off (defective seal, FOD, improper installation) and not a systemic issue.
During the post-launch presser, they changed their tune a bit, saying they will have to determine if it was a batch of faulty seals, faulty seal installation procedures, or an engineering problem in the manifold design, and that they were in the process of disassembling the thruster doghouses in the next service module to look for clues.
The RCS oxidizer isolation valve which failed to properly close is a new issue which was discovered on orbit.
...
And it is worth remembering NASA said as part of the rationale to fly with the leaking value that fact it was a single leaking valve on the ground was an indication it was likely a manufacturing glitch and a one-off, not a systemic issue.
[EDIT] @kdhilliard suggests these might be separate issues, which is a fair point.
No, not a separate issue, just a mistakenly described one here.
The rationale you are describing concerned a leaking manifold seal -- one of several such seals (28?) -- which, as you say, they decided pre-launch was most likely one-off (defective seal, FOD, improper installation) and not a systemic issue.
During the post-launch presser, they changed their tune a bit, saying they will have to determine if it was a batch of faulty seals, faulty seal installation procedures, or an engineering problem in the manifold design, and that they were in the process of disassembling the thruster doghouses in the next service module to look for clues.
The RCS oxidizer isolation valve which failed to properly close is a new issue which was discovered on orbit.
Is the new valve problem not like the valve problems found before OFT-2?
Does the Dragon not use helium pressurant, or do they use helium but have no significant problems with valves and seals unlike Boeing?
Does the Dragon not use helium pressurant, or do they use helium but have no significant problems with valves and seals unlike Boeing?
Helium leaks haven't been a significant problem for SpaceX as far as I can tell but helium-related systems have caused several incidents for SpaceX, including:
Dragon 2 explosion during testingAmos 6CRS-7
...
The RCS oxidizer isolation valve which failed to properly close is a new issue which was discovered on orbit.
Is the new valve problem not like the valve problems found before OFT-2?
Interesting.
The August 2021 OFT-2 delay was due to 13 of 24 service module oxidizer (NTO) valves which failed to open on command due to corrosion. I'm not aware of Boeing having had made any changes to those valves themselves (yet), but instead they added weather seals and and a gaseous nitrogen purge system to keep them dry, and all those valves worked well on the pad both for the actual OFT-2 flight and for the CFT launch.
And yes, it is one of those valves which failed to close properly once Starliner docket to Station.
But all we know about the subject is what NASA wrote on Monday:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/10/nasa-boeing-progress-on-testing-starliner-with-crew-at-space-station/
NASA, Boeing Progress on Testing Starliner with Crew at Space Station
...
Engineers also are evaluating an RCS oxidizer isolation valve in the service module that is not properly closed. Ground teams performed a successful propulsion system valve checkout on Sunday. All other oxidizer and fuel valves within the service module were cycled normally. The suspect oxidizer isolation valve was not cycled in the recent checkout. It will remain commanded closed for the remainder of the mission while ground teams continue to evaluate its data signatures. The crew module propulsion valves, which are part of an independent system that steers the capsule in the last phase of flight before landing, also were successfully cycled, and all those valves are performing as designed.
...
Suggesting any further correlation would be guessing on our part.
But thanks for mentioning it as I'd not made the connection.
Dragon had problems during CRS2 in 2013.
The big difference is SpaceX had years and a new generation to work out the bugs before they put people on it.
Reference https://spacenews.com/dragon-experiences-anomaly-after-reaching-orbit/
Yes, that was my point earlier on another thread: Sierra Space is probably better off running cargo. Boeing tried to make the quantum leap.
Does the Dragon not use helium pressurant, or do they use helium but have no significant problems with valves and seals unlike Boeing?
Helium leaks haven't been a significant problem for SpaceX as far as I can tell but helium-related systems have caused several incidents for SpaceX, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon_2#Explosion_during_testing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS-6_(satellite), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7.
They arent technically a problem for starliner either. They have enough helium for like 150 hours of operations
Down to 70 hours now, they only need ~7 hours to deorbit, so are still ok
I thought it was that boeing had 70 hours of operations planned, and 150 hours of helium, so they had plenty of margin. However if they skipped all the stuff in space they planned after undocking, they could return in 7 hours
https://blogs.nasa.gov/boeing-crew-flight-test/2024/06/14/nasa-boeing-target-june-22-for-flight-crew-test-return/“We are continuing to understand the capabilities of Starliner to prepare for the long-term goal of having it perform a six-month docked mission at the space station,” said Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “The crew will perform additional hatch operations to better understand its handling, repeat some ‘safe haven’ testing and assess piloting using the forward window.”
“We have an incredible opportunity to spend more time at station and perform more tests which provides invaluable data unique to our position,” said Mark Nappi, vice president and program manager, Commercial Crew Program, Boeing. “As the integrated NASA and Boeing teams have said each step of the way, we have plenty of margin and time on station to maximize the opportunity for all partners to learn – including our crew.”
Do these sound like things that would cause a departure delay of 4 days?
Is there a possibility that there is deeper concern causing the delay but they don't want to say anything yet so saying some easy things to say like some additional hatch operations and repeat safe haven testing or is that a crazy conspiracy theory?