Boeing will try to fly its troubled Starliner capsule back to Earth next week

The two astronauts who launched on Starliner will stay behind on the International Space Station.

See full article...

 

[cwolf]

So after reading the article about the lifeboat plans I have a question.

It's clear that the plan is that if station is in danger or failing all six astronauts jump in the Dragon lifeboat and return to Earth.

But, what happens if an astronaut has a medical emergency? Does NASA return just the astronaut with the medical emergency (leaving the station without a lifeboat) or do all six come home leaving the station unoccupied?

 

[DCStone]

Designed for doesn’t mean included in production. Gemini was designed to return under a hang glider.

That was something new to me - thanks! Apparently, it's in the Smithsonian. (Article)

 

[miker289]

I doubt the material costs were, ah, material. Testing OTOH - which is quite expensive - is likely the root of this particular evil. Boeing has long been really keen on simulation rather than actually cutting material and building and breaking something. The idea is that you can design something so nearly perfect that it will work the first time you power it on.

SpaceX doesn't appear to have that conceit. Certainly they simulate, but then they test it. SpaceX has made dozens of Dragons (cargo and manned). They've seen what works and doesn't work. Boeing has made, what, three or four. None of which have really worked all that well.

Had Boeing committed to flying unmanned test flights until they got it right, we very likely would not be in this situation. But they didn't because they were smarter than all that and it would save them lots of money.

Re your comment about Boeing doing simulations vs SpaceX doing testing - here's an example: SpaceX actually performed an in-flight abort test of Dragon's abort system by launching on a Falcon 9 then intentionally triggering abort at max Q. Boeing just did analyses. I guess Boeing didn't want to pay for another Atlas V launch.

 

[Steve austin]

It did not have the capability as launched. Something needed to be modified before it could auto undock. Therefore that capability was removed.
It doesn’t matter how. It could be a configuration file. It could be big red switch wired to “MANUAL”. Could be a complete rewrite of the OS. It doesn't matter. The result was the same - the removal of the ability to auto undock until something was modified.

I haven’t been able to understand why the capability was blocked (by whatever means). It seems like a useful ability, for emergencies if nothing else. Obviously Starliner had it, all the various cargo vehicles have it, and I’d assume Crew Dragon retains it. So why wouldn’t NASA require it, and why would Boeing have removed it?

 

[NetMage]

But, what happens if an astronaut has a medical emergency? Does NASA return just the astronaut with the medical emergency (leaving the station without a lifeboat) or do all six come home leaving the station unoccupied?

That is one of the reasons for the crew swap. One crew would return on their lifeboat with the ill person, and the other crew with the ride swap person would be able to keep the station going.

There are normally seven crew on board ISS, four US (one rode on Soyuz) and three Russian (one rode on Drahon). Currently there are two extra that rode on Starliner. In the event of a medical emergency, only one of the Soyuz or Dragon needs to return with its crew. (A change in crew swap could also be possible, perhaps.)

 

[miker289]

Good thinking, but retro-fitting such a mechanism isn't trivial. Gotta re-engineer the structure attachment, then incorporate a mechanism for managing the detachment. At this point, if I were chief engineer I'd be prioritizing the trade space for things that don't modify hardware. Not dismiss them, just consider them lower in the menu of solutions.

there aren't a lot of software solutions to heat, besides maybe increasing coolant flow to the affected regions, possibly prechilling but that may be a hardware change as well, depending on the plumbing limitations

Agree this would be a tough nut to crack without a hardware change. What I've seen in the past with component issues like these is either the prime (Boeing) didn't specify the correct environment when they spec'd out the thrusters to Aerojet (Aerojet: Hey! You didn't tell me you were going to use it like that!), or they did specify the correct environment but the thermal cycling / life cycling part of qual testing was too unconservative and didn't simulate the environment correctly so adequate margin was not demonstrated.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I haven’t been able to understand why the capability was blocked (by whatever means). It seems like a useful ability, for emergencies if nothing else. Obviously Starliner had it, all the various cargo vehicles have it, and I’d assume Crew Dragon retains it. So why wouldn’t NASA require it, and why would Boeing have removed it?

Because it isn't listed in the contractual requirements. Boeing doesn't do 'extras' unless they can charge for them.

 

[andrewb610]

hmm.
I was under the impression that the GS scale is labelled in hourly/annual for job comparisons, but individual positions (when you get to the upper range, like GS10 - astronauts being in the GS12 and up category) was more salary contracts rather than hourly contracts.

Will have to do some research on that.

EDIT:
Apparently, if you're on the FWS contract, then you're hourly and must submit time cards just like any non-exempt civilian position.

If your GS contract, you're salaried (wage based hourly but automatically computed as 8hr day/40 hr week), but unlike civilian exempt employees they get overtime (where civilian has the option for time off v. overtime).

Having only worked military and no federal jobs, I knew about the GS guys but never talked details.

I can’t refute any technicalities and I think you got the gist right.

I’m exempt but can get overtime (at less than time and a half but still more hours for more money).

 

[andrewb610]

Re your comment about Boeing doing simulations vs SpaceX doing testing - here's an example: SpaceX actually performed an in-flight abort test of Dragon's abort system by launching on a Falcon 9 then intentionally triggering abort at max Q. Boeing just did analyses. I guess Boeing didn't want to pay for another Atlas V launch.

Simulations should always enhance T&E, never fully replace it. T&E should be used to VV&A your models used in simulation.

 

[mhalpern]

So after reading the article about the lifeboat plans I have a question.

It's clear that the plan is that if station is in danger or failing all six astronauts jump in the Dragon lifeboat and return to Earth.

But, what happens if an astronaut has a medical emergency? Does NASA return just the astronaut with the medical emergency (leaving the station without a lifeboat) or do all six come home leaving the station unoccupied?

the 4 (if it's dragon) all go. usually crew of 7 (4 on dragon/ commercial crew, 3 on soyuz)

 

[ldsgma]

I wonder if they will wait until the investigation on the booster incident this week concludes before undocking starliner. I have to imagine they’d want to minimize the time between starliner’s departure and the crew 9 arrival to the extent possible to minimize the time in the 6 on Crew 8 contingency. If there is any question is to whether crew 9 will be able to go off on time it may be best to delay until there is clarity on that.

 

[Rob1n]

the 4 (if it's dragon) all go. usually crew of 7 (4 on dragon/ commercial crew, 3 on soyuz)

And one of those on Dragon is a Russian, and one on Soyuz is an American - that means if there is an emergency requiring one of the craft (and crew) to leave, that doesn't leave one half of the station entirely uncrewed.

 

[Steve austin]

Because it isn't listed in the contractual requirements. Boeing doesn't do 'extras' unless they can charge for them.

It seems like taking it out is an “extra”. It was already in place and tested (well, it worked in use - hard to say anything about Boeing’s testing). A change to the flight software load - whether an actual change to the code, a build change (“makefile parameter“ or whatever), or a static load parameter that couldn’t be changed during the mission execution - should trigger the need for a full set of tests (and that should have certainly been a contractual requirement), while a dynamic setting (”we’re in manual mode or automatic mode“ - whether based on a physical switch or a soft switch) doesn’t, assuming both paths had already been tested, which they certainly should have been. I’m not sure how Boeing could have implemented it such that making the alternative static in flight would have saved them anything. (Nor do I understand why NASA wouldn’t specifically want that capability.)

 

[Steve austin]

I wonder if they will wait until the investigation on the booster incident this week concludes before undocking starliner. I have to imagine they’d want to minimize the time between starliner’s departure and the crew 9 arrival to the extent possible to minimize the time in the 6 on Crew 8 contingency. If there is any question is to whether crew 9 will be able to go off on time it may be best to delay until there is clarity on that.

If you’re referring to the landing failure, that doesn’t affect launch, and in any case SpaceX has already returned to flight (2 Starlink launches last night, both with successful landings). I don’t know if the FAA investigation is complete, but they apparently decided launches could resume regardless.

 

[norton_I]

Having 6 folks on the aged ISS for an extended period of time with a escape craft only originally designed to return 4 seems risky. Comparing that risk to the undiagnosed issue on the Starliner, must have been an interesting process.

It was originally designed for 6, although all 6 were supposed to be in space suits. Also, it's not that hard to weigh: possibility of failure with something that is known to be broken and has no track record of working correctly vs a situation that would require two failures in systems that have a long track record of functioning.

 

[flightwriter]

With all of Boeing's issues lately, the upcoming 777x series does give one pause.

Especially as that program, too, is currently grounded.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trav...oeing-777x-test-flight-grounding/74887075007/
Far less expensive and impactful for Boeing to kill Starliner than cancel its flagship widebody airliner.

 

[norton_I]

Honestly? I bet it lands just fine. This is just a hunch, of course. The first test flight had big problems, but the second uncrewed test flight went off without a major hitch. In both cases the spacecraft landed safely.

That's not to say it's worth the risk of bringing the astronauts home in it when an alternative is available.

Given how long NASA and Boeing spent a analyzing it, it better be overwhelmingly likely to land safely. There is a specification for the maximum acceptable risk for ISS missions and it's something like 1 in 250. Presumably NASA was deciding if it's slightly above or below that, or even deciding the risk was within the acceptable range but that the dragon was still safer yet.

 

[mhalpern]

It was originally designed for 6, although all 6 were supposed to be in space suits. Also, it's not that hard to weigh: possibility of failure with something that is known to be broken and has no track record of working correctly vs a situation that would require two failures in systems that have a long track record of functioning.

originally designed for 7,

 

[siliconaddict]

The thrusters and valves that failed are going to burn during reentry because they are in the service module.

Its a pity the ISS doesn't have a "garage" to work in. Or a shuttle. Granted looking at the diameter of the service module and what the cargo bay doors could accommodate at the time, I don't think that would be a viable option either. And the ability to capture it after leaving the ISS.....there is just no good options for something that is needed to be disposed of before reentry and needed to leave the ISS.
Such an important loss of data in that module makes me sad. I have to imagine engineers at Boeing would give up a limb or 3 to get it back.

 

[ldsgma]

If you’re referring to the landing failure, that doesn’t affect launch, and in any case SpaceX has already returned to flight (2 Starlink launches last night, both with successful landings). I don’t know if the FAA investigation is complete, but they apparently decided launches could resume regardless.

Correct. Most of the media reporting was indicating they were entirely grounded and it could have impacts on crew 9. But apparently they cleared it yesterday - didn’t catch the article. Still though - not really sure how anything about what I said warrants a downvote. I don’t think there was anything particular controversial there - though I suppose it’s on me for missing that they are clear to fly again.

 

[klarg]

There is probably a small army of lawyers at both Boeing and Aerojet looking at their contracts and communications to see who has to pay to solve the problem with the thrusters and valves.

Which is part of the problem - perhaps both companies should try having small armies of engineers and technicians.

 

[Myself]

Its a pity the ISS doesn't have a "garage" to work in. Or a shuttle. Granted looking at the diameter of the service module and what the cargo bay doors could accommodate at the time, I don't think that would be a viable option either. And the ability to capture it after leaving the ISS.....there is just no good options for something that is needed to be disposed of before reentry and needed to leave the ISS.
Such an important loss of data in that module makes me sad. I have to imagine engineers at Boeing would give up a limb or 3 to get it back.

I keep mulling over that. Like, do a spacewalk and harvest a thruster assembly for later analysis. But no, it needs those to separate after undocking. And it's not practical for a zillion other reasons, I'm sure.

It'd be neat if they could go take one apart and inspect the seals, then put it back together and send it on its way. I feel like that's what Bruce Willis would do, but he's not on this flight.

 

[butcherg]

It smells to me, as professional software developer, of trying to avoid a “new release” by doing it in configuration.

If you need to upload and test changes (and test them before you upload), any changes, that is, in effect, a new release.

The rest is just word salad to comfort managers.

I don't know specifically know how they're managing their configuration, but switching out the MDL had to result in a version bump somewhere. In this world, they don't just willy-nilly change configuration files.

 

[Nexus]

Those astronauts must have some interesting feelings right now. That thing fails and either burns up or skips off the atmosphere, they're going to be super thankful they're hitching a ride with someone else. Everything goes fine, and they're going to be thinking they would be home by now.

Question on pay. Do astronauts get paid more when they're in space? Do they get more when they're on a first flight for hazard pay? I'd like to think they're at least getting a big fat paycheck for being stuck up there.

This made me interested enough to google for it, even if its just general NASA astronaut pay. Unsurprisingly looks like they are just paid on the civilian GS pay scale: https://spaceimpulse.com

And it is on the top end of it. (Wanna say highest is GS-15, but going off memory didnt bother googling it)
Im sure there's various "stipends/housing/COLA/danger pay (being in space?)" But all of it would be public knowledge somewhere on .gov sites like military pay.

Civilian Astronaut Salary​

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

NASA’s civilian astronauts are paid on the General Service (GS) pay scale used for civilian US government employees. According to Federal Pay, astronauts would rank at GS 12-13, translating to $84,365 to $115,079 according to 2024 GS rates. However, NASA’s website lists its 2024 astronaut pay as $152,258 a year; its 2020 call for astronaut candidates listed a range of $104,898 to $161,141 at GS levels 13-14.

 

[mcswell]

If the fundamental issue is that the thrusters are overheating because the doghouses retain heat too well, and the doghouses are only there to protect the thrusters from atmospheric forces during launch, then maybe the solution is as simple as jettisoning, retracting, or hinging away the thruster housings once Starliner is out of atmosphere, before orbital insertion.

The thrusters on the sides of the Apollo command module were not protected (in the sense of being inside doghouses) at all, even at launch. But I guess they must have been sturdier than these thrusters are, else they would not have added doghouses in the Starliner design.

 

[Markkf]

Well Boeing stock is probably not going up next week.

I do hope it isn't coming crashing down. Really it would be nice to see this thing make it back in one piece. Think its time to admit defeat and cancel it, I don't however want to see it burn up like a 27 year old rock star taking people in their orbit with them.

While I agree it would be fitting if it spent a few days in orbit before they fixed it and it came back.

 

[Markkf]

This made me interested enough to google for it, even if its just general NASA astronaut pay. Unsurprisingly looks like they are just paid on the civilian GS pay scale: https://spaceimpulse.com

And it is on the top end of it. (Wanna say highest is GS-15, but going off memory didnt bother googling it)
Im sure there's various "stipends/housing/COLA/danger pay (being in space?)" But all of it would be public knowledge somewhere on .gov sites like military pay.

Are any of them still active duty military? In the old days there was a mix of active duty and retired or reserve officers. IIRC the retired or reserves were paid more.

 

[Elessedil]

Since I just so happen to live between those latitudes, I will be wearing a baseball cap for protection, until this emergency is over. I expect my government to announce when I am safe.

Can a multilayer tinfoil hat double as a Whipple shield? Asking for a friend.

 

[butcherg]

The problem with this is that they did their qualification flight with one set of software and flew with another. Whether the different software is a result of different binaries or config files that result in totally different behavior is a distinction without a difference.

The qualification flight was supposed to be a final test before we put astronauts on that exact working system. Swapping out the software right when you put people on board invalidated the previous tests.

They had to swap out the auto/manual MDL after OFT-2 for CFT-1, that's apparently the designed mechanism for making the mode change.

There's a lot of configuration management activity behind doing this they haven't described, but having worked with 3 other aerospace contractors beside Boeing on their flight software management, none of them would exercise any less diligence in configuration-managing such a change to insure it was made reliably. Note, NASA wouldn't accept any less, either.

What was really the issue is that they chose not to run the software qualification campaign for the CFT-1 software version with both auto and manual MDLs, the reason for the 4-week estimate to revert to auto mode in the in-flight vehicle. However, if they're planning to return the vehicle next week, they were apparently able to do the re-qual testing in less time, yay.

 

[Roamer]

They had to swap out the auto/manual MDL after OFT-2 for CFT-1, that's apparently the designed mechanism for making the mode change.

There's a lot of configuration management activity behind doing this they haven't described, but having worked with 3 other aerospace contractors beside Boeing on their flight software management, none of them would exercise any less diligence in configuration-managing such a change to insure it was made reliably. Note, NASA wouldn't accept any less, either.

What was really the issue is that they chose not to run the software qualification campaign for the CFT-1 software version with both auto and manual MDLs, the reason for the 4-week estimate to revert to auto mode in the in-flight vehicle. However, if they're planning to return the vehicle next week, they were apparently able to do the re-qual testing in less time, yay.

Anybody know exactly how they (Boeing software dude on earth) 'update' the MDL/config file(s) on Starliner docked to ISS? Do they use FTP/SFTP/SCP/etc to copy the new file over the old file? Or do they telnet/ssh/RDP into the computer and use vi/notepad/etc to update the existing file? Someone (highly trained astronaut pilot) goes into Starliner from ISS and uses a keyboard to use vi/notepad to update the file? Something else?

 

[butcherg]

Anybody know exactly how they (Boeing software dude on earth) 'update' the MDL/config file(s) on Starliner docked to ISS? Do they use FTP/SFTP/SCP/etc to copy the new file over the old file? Or do they telnet/ssh/RDP into the computer and use vi/notepad/etc to update the existing file? Someone (highly trained astronaut pilot) goes into Starliner from ISS and uses a keyboard to use vi/notepad to update the file? Something else?

Really good question. For all the systems I worked, we went to the site with media...

I don't think they'd fat-finger it. I'm pretty sure it is some sort of file replacement procedure, so they can reliably run MD5 sums (or whatever folk use these days for such) to verify file contents against the command media back on Earth. They manage the vehicle from the ground, wouldn't surprise me if they scp-ed it up there over that network (TDRSS?).

I am certain it's done under authority of a work order, in accordance with some sort of step-by-step procedure, QA-witnessed and stamped as each step is executed, because in my 20 years with my Boeing program and visiting others, I never saw work on an article done any other way. A lot like the old Strategic Air Command: In SAC, there's a right way, a wrong way, and the SAC way. Only the SAC way is correct...

 

[GreyGoshawk]

I believe (before the decision that Starliner was doing an unmanned return) there were Ars discussions on the possibility of additional data-gathering with the thrusters before jettisoning the aft section. At the time, the Ars consensus seemed to be "No."

Now that the decision has been made, has anyone heard of NASA/Boeing discussions to get additional in-flight Data? (I expect engineers to recommend "Yes," managers to say "No," and lawyers to exclaim "Hell, no!")

 

[thermocouple]

This made me interested enough to google for it, even if its just general NASA astronaut pay. Unsurprisingly looks like they are just paid on the civilian GS pay scale: https://spaceimpulse.com

And it is on the top end of it. (Wanna say highest is GS-15, but going off memory didnt bother googling it)
Im sure there's various "stipends/housing/COLA/danger pay (being in space?)" But all of it would be public knowledge somewhere on .gov sites like military pay.

Then there is the question if space has a locality adjustment for the GS schedule pay. It would be hard to justify an adjustment since living costs are no doubt covered while in space.

 

[NetMage]

Then there is the question if space has a locality adjustment for the GS schedule pay. It would be hard to justify an adjustment since living costs are no doubt covered while in space.

Not a lot of useful places to spend a per diem in space.

 

[DDopson]

Not a lot of useful places to spend a per diem in space.

Imagine getting a space-scaled cost-of-living adjustment. Your per-diem would be in the ballpark of $1M per day. I'd starve myself and come home emaciated, but set for life.

 

[Znomit]

Your per-diem would be in the ballpark of $1M per day.

And a"day" is 90 minutes!

 

[irnoob]

I hope it survives reentry so they can figure out where they fucked up and fix it.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

I hope it survives reentry so they can figure out where they fucked up and fix it.

The fucked up thrusters are in the service module which will be jettisoned from the capsule and burn up. No feasible way to do any hands-on analysis of the actual hardware post-flight.

 

[irnoob]

The fucked up thrusters are in the service module which will be jettisoned from the capsule and burn up. No feasible way to do any hands-on analysis of the actual hardware post-flight.

Oh. That's a shame. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[orwelldesign]

... but the thermal cycling / life cycling part of qual testing was too unconservative and didn't simulate the environment correctly so adequate margin was not demonstrated.

If the environment was simulated, nothing was "demonstrated." It was simulated, right? That's a different thing.

SpaceX's { hardware-rich || blowing stuff up until it works } approach is the only way to actually demonstrate things, no? The "simulate the hell out it" approach is demonstrably inadequate.