Boeing's Starliner finds yet another way to not reach space
- Reference: 1717417750
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/06/03/boeing_starliner_launch_scrubbed/
- Source link:
Unreliable power supplies are the bane of many an administrator, and it appears that the space program is [1]not immune to their vagaries.
The launch, from Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, was scheduled for 12:25 EDT on June 1. It made it past the T-4 minute mark before controllers called a scrub and returned the crew access arm to the capsule to extract the pair of astronauts on board.
[2]
At the time, the issue was [3]attributed to "the computer ground launch sequencer not loading into the correct operational configuration after proceeding into terminal count," and managers optimistically looked to the backup date of June 2.
[4]
[5]
However, it soon became apparent that more time was needed to deal with whatever had gone wrong this time round. NASA, Boeing, and ULA (United Launch Alliance) opted to forgo the June 2 opportunity in favor of June 5. There is one final opportunity, on June 6, after which batteries onboard the Atlas will require replacing.
The trouble was caused by a single ground power supply within one of three redundant chassis. This supply provides power to computer cards that control various system functions, "including the card responsible for the stable replenishment topping valves for the Centaur upper stage."
[6]
Boeing said: "All three of these chassis are required to enter the terminal phase of the launch countdown to ensure crew safety."
There had been issues with the topping valves on the ground side during the count, [7]according to ULA boss Tory Bruno, although those [8]appear to have been resolved .
[9]NASA, Boeing opt to fly leaky thruster as-is for first crewed Starliner CST-100 mission
[10]Boeing's Calamity Capsule launch date slides into the future
[11]Another week, another leak for Boeing's Starliner crew capsule
[12]Valve vexation: Boeing's Starliner grounded again
Bruno later [13]confirmed that the chassis had been replaced over the weekend, and the team was ready to try again on Wednesday.
It's starting to get a little tight for launching the Starliner, which has remained resolutely stuck on the Earth despite engineers' best efforts. Failure to launch by the backup date of June 6 will result in a delay of at least ten days to replace expiring batteries.
This would take the schedule very close to a planned US Space Force launch, which also requires the SLC-41 launch site.
[14]
"There's lots of pressure to just go," Bruno [15]acknowledged , adding: "That's not what we are here for."
Ensuring the Starliner's crew has a safe trip to the International Space Station is of paramount importance. Bruno lamented that the power supply had sailed through testing and that this was the first power supply failure the team had experienced. The redundant power supply [16]did not activate .
In words that will feel all too familiar to anyone charged with keeping a rack of servers running, he [17]said : "Unfortunately a power supply generally does not fail... until it does." ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://starlinerupdates.com/nasa-mission-partners-target-june-5-crew-flight-test-launch/
[2] 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=2Zl3oqsm1Pxh4-YSwxomoAAAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2024/06/01/nasa-boeing-crew-flight-test-launch-scrubs-saturday/
[4] 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=44Zl3oqsm1Pxh4-YSwxomoAAAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zl3oqsm1Pxh4-YSwxomoAAAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] 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=44Zl3oqsm1Pxh4-YSwxomoAAAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1796913932205993988
[8] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1796921077458751490
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/28/boeing_padstayer_to_become_padleaver/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/22/boeings_calamity_capsule_launch_date/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/starliner_launch_delayed_again/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/07/boeing_starliner_delay/
[13] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1797322732360663540
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zl3oqsm1Pxh4-YSwxomoAAAAAEk&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1797559620132610365
[16] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1797331024529043914
[17] https://x.com/torybruno/status/1797344215145308575
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
"Starliner's crew has a safe trip to the International Space Station"
With Boeing's recent track record I wouldn't want to be one of the crew... not without highly absorbent underwear, a fireproof suit, an ejector seat, a good life insurance policy for my family and ... oh forget it, find someone else.
Re: "Starliner's crew has a safe trip to the International Space Station"
Tend to agree, although on a point of order I think they wear a nappy at launch (or diaper in left-pondian-speak). Shitting myself would be the least of my concerns though in comparison to your other excellent points
What was the fault?
Was the actual problem that a single psu failed or that the "redundant system did not activate"? IMO, on a safety critical system, potentially duplicated across multiple supplies, a non-activation failure of a redundant failover system is far more of an issue than the primary failure.
"Captain! You are sitting on a thousand tons of propellant but the engine won't start!"
"It's ok Ground Control, I'm with the AA"
Re: What was the fault?
Or they go:
This is ground equipment - we will not launch with any failures known, it's just not worth having a second failure at a critical moment.
This is another delay that isn't an issue with the starliner itself, it's not great, but as far as I can read it's a ULA system which failed.
Re: What was the fault?
"All three of these chassis are required to enter the terminal phase of the launch countdown to ensure crew safety."
Carelessness, impatience and an eye solely to the bottom line have no place in manned spaceflight, and to my surprise it seems as if Boeing, NASA and ULA have made the right choice for once.
As my mum used to say "It's better to be five minutes late for an appointment than five minute early for heaven."
Another delay.
They did the right thing.
Re: What was the fault?
For some values of "right thing". A better thing would be to start asking why they got to this situation before going any further. The best thing would have been to have not got into this situation at all. There's a huge gulf between right thing and best thing.
Re: What was the fault?
Always heard it as "Better to be five minutes late in this world than fifty years early to the next"
Re: What was the fault?
Ground equipment at SLC-41 is a mixture of ULA and Space Force.
Re: What was the fault?
> "Captain! You are sitting on a thousand tons of propellant but the engine won't start!"
"Oh, good, can I go home and change careers now?!"
Corporate bollocks-speak
"All three of these chassis are required to enter the terminal phase of the launch"
It's probably a bad idea to talk about anything in aerospace having a terminal phase. More so when Boeing is involved.
Starliner?
More like bin liner.
The new Spruce Goose?
Can't help but wonder if the inaugural manned flight of Starliner will also be its last. With SpaceX and now Blue Origin showing that reusability is the way of the future, Starliner's 1960's man-in-a-can design doesn't appear to have much life to it.
"The redundant power supply did not activate"
So what is this ? Sloppy engineering, bad procurement or just bad luck ?
I can understand that a power supply fails, but if the power supply fails and the redundant power supply does not activate, it seems to be that there is a whiff of bad engineering floating about.
Pressure to launch
Nope. Don't even go there.
We had a minor problem with a Space Shuttle a few years back. I hope lessons were learned.
Boeing 'It's not going' Capsule continues to be 'Redundant' .... as designed.
Still on track, as previously stated:
" ... One of NASA's goals with the Commercial Crew Program was to create redundancy ..."
This has been achieved 100%, the Boeing 'It's not going' capsule is totally redundant !!!
I am sure quite a few astronauts are hoping that it stays 100% redundant .... for their sake !!!
:)
Babies and bathwater
I hope that the NASA contracting/procurement officer at least spent some thoughts on the severability and claw-back clauses of the contract. At what point do you pull the plug and declare this a 'non-delivery'? When do you ask the question "this baby is not worth the bathwater we use"?
If they don't have such a non-delivery clause in this contract then a) that's a huge oversight, and b) hopefully this get held up in the future as "here's a bad contract if you want to see one, don't write them like this".
IIRC this is a "Cost-Plus" contract, which means that the contractor has zero incentive to keep costs down, to delivery quickly, or do anything else that is for the benefit of the entity awarding the contract. The longer they can stretch this gravy train, the more money they make. In fact, the more money they spend, the most money they make (the "plus" part of a "Cost-Plus" means "plus X percent of the cost guaranteed profit, with the government/NASA paying all costs")
I am somewhat aghast at the blatant disregard for quality of work by (US) government contractors these days, spanning broader than just Boeing. They no longer even pretend to deliver quality work, just stuff that barely, barely crosses the mark of "do the bare minimum so that we can't get sued, everything else eats into our profits so F 'em". For all the lip and teeth that Uncle Sam shows around the world, it would behoove it to show some teeth in the GovCon sector at home as well...
Part of the issue with SLC-41 is that cadence is very low so you have equipment sitting around for long periods not doing much.
Now if they had a higher launch cadence then then equipment get used and tested more frequently.
But you don't need to be launching to send techs round to inspection the stuff works.
And if its a case that the systems can't be tested without a rocket on it, then there is further WTF levels of oversight and planning.
Can someone please take this POS out back
And do the decent thing and put it out of its misery.
Re: Can someone please take this POS out back
Maybe they are just waiting for July, I hear the Americans are fond of blowing up rockets around then, maybe this will be the BIG ONE to really oooohhhh and aaaaawwww at.
Battery Replacement
Did they fall off the back of a Dreamliner?
Boeing Scrubliner
It's been done to death already but once again: "If it's Boeing, it ain't going". It's incredible just how much of a shit show Starliner is turning out to be.