Boeing's Calamity Capsule might take to space once again ... in the first half of 2022
- Reference: 1633957271
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/10/11/starliner_valve_delay/
- Source link:
The stacked Atlas V was hurriedly rolled back from the launch pad in August after valves associated with manoeuvring [2]failed a pre-flight check . Engineers had a go at fixing the issue on site, but eventually decided the problem required a [3]trip back to the factory rather than a short, sharp tap with a hammer.
With the second anniversary coming up for Starliner's first – and only – trip to space (one that was supposed to be an uncrewed test flight to the International Space Station but instead was [4]terminated early due to a variety of cockups), NASA last week [5]yanked two of its astronauts, Nicole Mann and Josh Cassada, from missions aboard the Calamity Capsule in favour of SpaceX's Crew Dragon.
[6]Nothing says 'We believe in you' like NASA switching two 'nauts off Boeing's Starliner onto SpaceX's Crew Dragon
[7]Starliner takes off ... back to the factory and not space
[8]Engineers work to open Boeing Starliner's valves as schedule pressures mount
[9]Boeing and Rocket Lab hope for the best as both return to launchpad following failures
Boeing reckons it has got to the bottom of the valve issue and cited "oxidizer and moisture interactions" as a probable cause, having ruled out problems with avionics, wiring, and software. Extra testing and validation are still required to confirm the suspicion.
The options for Boeing include refurbishing the current service module or grabbing another already in production. The choice is dependant on the remediation needed.
[10]
Still, it sounds as though the team will have plenty of time on their hands. The problem, combined with traffic at the ISS and turnaround times for ULA's rockets, meant a 2021 launch looked highly unlikely.
[11]
The next Atlas V mission will be this week's launch of NASA's Lucy probe to the Jupiter trojan asteroids, while the ISS is expecting multiple visiting vehicles, not least the next SpaceX Crew Dragon mission, in the coming weeks. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2021/10/08/nasa-boeing-update-starliner-orbital-flight-test-2-status/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/10/cst_100_starliner_valves/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/13/boeing_starliner_delay/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2019/12/23/cst_100_lands/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/07/nasa_commercial_crew_changes/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/07/nasa_commercial_crew_changes/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/13/boeing_starliner_delay/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/10/cst_100_starliner_valves/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/28/boeing_rocket_lab/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YWRfv0NT2dV6@-t4Qh2GWAAAAIw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YWRfv0NT2dV6@-t4Qh2GWAAAAIw&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"oxidizer and moisture interactions"…
…in a rocket to be launched from Florida? How could the engineers possibly have seen that coming?
On the other hand, while I don't know specifically where Boeing produces the Starliner, of course much of their production is in the Seattle area, which wouldn't give them much more excuse for not grokking humidity (pun intended).
Re: "oxidizer and moisture interactions"…
How could the engineers possibly have seen that coming?
The same way engineers failed to see that cold weather might affect the flexibility of seals, or that a single angle-of-attack sensor might not be a good idea, or that building a pesticide plant in a major city might suffer a gas leak, or that turning off all the interlocks on a nuclear reactor might not have the desired effect, or, or, or...
Sadly, the only way to learn is when things break - sometimes with painfully unpleasant consequences. Particularly when it's always been OK in the past.
Re: "oxidizer and moisture interactions"…
" The same way engineers failed to see that cold weather might affect the flexibility of seals "
On Challenger, the design engineers almost certainly did understand this problem. The original design would have prevented blow through, but they were forced to redesign the booster segment joints so the metal billets the segments were made from could be smaller in diameter. That led to the need for the seals to deform more under pressure, making the gas tightness more sensitive to changes in flexibility and actually exposing the seals to combustion products. The launch site engineers raised the issue as well (providing evidence from previous near miss launches), but were overruled by management, who were more concerned about maintaining the launch schedule as that could influence funding appropriations.
The boosters were designed segmented for largely political reasons anyway - to allow them to be transported long distance from a manufacturer in a remote state. So failures of management and politics, not engineering, were the root causes of the accident.
Re: "oxidizer and moisture interactions"…
I am sure the engineers did see this coming as it is an old problem in rocket science. I am certain they created a long list of handling procedures to ensure that the valves are thoroughly dried before installation do not come into contact with moisture afterwards. There is also a pre-launch check to ensure those procedures were effective.
Somewhere there is a hole in the procedures big enough to let moisture in. I hope they find it and fix it because it would be nice if the not SpaceX option was not Роскосмос.
I'm looking at Boeing like Palm Inc. and thinking "but... you guys had the lead-- and you let some upstart walk up to you in the skuleyard and steal your lunch money?!?"
Looking how far and how fast SpaceX has come and actually developed reusable rockets, NASA needs to tell Boeing to either earn their money, cut their funding or dump them altogether.
Commercial crew is not an old space cost plus contract. If Boeing don't deliver a working capsule they don't get paid.
Commercial Crew had some R&D funding but from now on Boeing have to earn their money making deliveries.
On the other hand NASA is required by law to fund activity (not progress) on SLS unless congress says otherwise. Judging by what happened last time if the public notices what is going on congress will change the name. I propose the new name should be [1]Constellation .
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
Boeing!
They're not going...
Talk about a company that has lost its way...
Lucy is actually using the Starliner Atlas V
An RD-180 engine on the original booster failed hydraulics checks, and they swapped out the engine and it still fails, so they pulled the dual-engine Centaur and SRBs off the Starliner booster (and changed some avionics) and stacked Lucy on that.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/10/07/asteroid-probe-mounted-on-atlas-booster-originally-assigned-to-astronaut-flight/
‘Oxidizer and moisture’ eh?
That sounds like something got rusty.
It also sounds as though senior managers don’t realize that they’re launching from Florida. Perhaps Boeing senior managers should be made to visit the Cape. And, perhaps, be fed to the local ‘gators, assuming that Boeing management won’t poison the poor things.
Certainly the first crewed test flights should have only senior Boeing managers aboard…
Re: ‘Oxidizer and moisture’ eh?
You'd think they'd want bragging rights like Branson & Bezos.
Pro Tip - -> WD40
Probable?
So they don't actually know then.
"oxidizer and moisture interactions", "Extra testing and validation are still required"...
So, nothing new since the day the launch was scrubbed then?