Starliner orbit

In article ,
says...

On 2019-12-26 06:53, Jeff Findley wrote:

Again, this is b.s. Bridenstine isn't being truthful about this. NASA
made this a requirement for all commercial crew vehicles when the
requirements were originally written. This is for contingencies:

In fairness, I don't think NASA has abandonned this. But more like
re-organized the testing before the ship gos into "production" to make
sure everything gets validated.

This flight tested launch, re-entry, landing, and ECLSS. I could see
NASA stating that the ship to put humans on next flight even if that
flight fails in the same way as first one.

But it's the things that Boeing didn't get to test on this uncrewed
flight that are concerning to me. Things like the ECLSS didn't get
tested to their full duration due to the fact this flight was cut short.

You could manifest a new flight to re-run the past failed flight. Or you
could keep the same manifest as before, except you take what would have
been the first production flight and shift it to "testing", giving you
enough test flights to complete all the required testing.

In the end, Boeing would still build the same number of capsules/rockets
as planned, but one of them would be paid "test" rate instead of
"production" rate.

I don't know exactly what they had planned for this particular capsule,
but Boeing is planning on reusing Starliner capsules. In theory, that
should provide additional flexibility. In practice, they're not going
to want to refly this uncrewed test flight because that would come out
of their pockets (since commercial crew is a fixed price contract).
Boeing will do everything in their legal/financial power to convince
NASA that Starliner is a.o.k. to fly with crew on the next flight.

My guess is the next Starliner flight will be crewed. The crew will
simply "monitor" the automated rendezvous and docking.

One could argue oppopsite:
First do a manual docking to prove it can be done. Then test automated
on next flight, knowing that if it fails, the astronauts are able to
take over and do it manually.

NASA knows manual dockings work. Every single docking NASA has done
throughout its history has been manual. Every single shuttle/Mir and
shuttle/ISS docking was done manually. I know an ex-NASA guy who helped
write the laptop software which aided astronauts to fly the shuttle on a
rendezvous and docking (it was called RPOP for Rendezvous and Proximity
OPerations).

Boeing needs to test automated rendezvous and docking in order to enable
Starliner to perform a contingency "rescue" mission to ISS.

Another possibility might be to do both in one flight. First dock
manually, then undock, back off to where ship normal does a station
keeping stop, then engage automatic docking. So you could theoratically
test both in one flight.
(assuming fuel permits this).

Possibly, but I'd still expect the automated rendezvous and docking to
be tested first. With a crew on board, they could abort the automated
rendezvous and docking at any time (so could the ground or ISS crew).

But "business as usual" is better PR for Boeing that shows it is moving
forwards with project, especially if it is able to get crewed flight
before SpaceX. So making next flight crewed is likely important to Boeing.

Bigger question is when NASA can end its contract with Russia for taxi
services. First crewed flight (in test, whether SpeceX or Boeing)? Both
SpaceX and Boeing doeing first crewed flight? Or when one or both reach
"production" status with all testing suiccesful.

Most likely, after the crewed test flights of both Dragon 2 and
Starliner are complete. If they have not completed their test programs,
they're not "operational" yet, are they?

There is likely some political pressure for NASA to make this happen
sooner rather than later, especially if they have contracted for X
flights and that X is about to end. USA would much rarther not have to
extend the contract because SPaceX/Boeing are late.

Obviously, but safety is supposed to be more important than schedule.
That's why Bridenstine's statements on the matter are quite troubling to
me.

Bridenstine is simply glossing over the uncrewed Starliner test flight's
complete failure to dock with ISS, setting the stage for the next flight
to be crewed.

at the PR level, he glossed over the problem as a simple timer issue
that is easily fixed. But left out the issue of attitude control which
went nuts.

What we don't know is what NASA/Boeing did to regain control of the
ship. And what we won't know is why RCS misbehaved.

We do know. Since it thought it was 11 hours in the future, it engaged
its fine control mode for the RCS (needed for something in the future).
This happened before the originally planned orbit insertion burn. That
was the first sign to Boeing/NASA that something was horribly wrong. In
that mode, it was firing its thrusters like it was in the middle of a
burn (even though it wasn't), so it was very aggressively trying to hold
its attitude (even though the attitude wasn't right, again because it
thought it was 11 hours in the future).

Everything on this flight depended on that mission timer. Since it was
wrong, all of the rest of the mission software that depended on it was
doing the wrong things at the wrong times.

Damning with faint praise. It was a failed mission where they managed
to recover Starliner intact.

In fairness, not a complete failure. It did launch and land succesfully,
and apparently ECLSS in capsule worked. This may be enough to justify
putting hgumans on the next flight.

Even in its haste to put people in space and later on the moon, NASA
flew several uncrewed test flights of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo CSM, and
Apollo LEM. It's only the space shuttle that first flew crewed (with
only two crew in full pressure suits and ejection seats). It was only
after STS-1 landed and all the data was analyzed that NASA found how
close it came to failure (for multiple reasons!).

It's best we don't rush to put crew on Starliner, IMHO. If SpaceX had
failed in the same way Boeing did on this flight, I'd bet my last dollar
NASA would make them refly the test without a crew. Why should Boeing
get a free pass when crew safety is on the line?

What worries me was that NASA was very quick to state that the ship was
ready to fly humans, focusing on simngle timer issue, instead of "we'll
wait for a full analysis before making decision on further flights".

This is exactly my point! It was NASA Administrator Bridenstine setting
this tone, and it's very troubling. It puts middle managers and the
engineers in a precarious position that could get astronauts needlessly
killed in order to meet an arbitrary schedule.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
I don't know exactly what they had planned for this particular capsule,
but Boeing is planning on reusing Starliner capsules. In theory, that
should provide additional flexibility. In practice, they're not going
to want to refly this uncrewed test flight because that would come out
of their pockets (since commercial crew is a fixed price contract).
Boeing will do everything in their legal/financial power to convince
NASA that Starliner is a.o.k. to fly with crew on the next flight.

Or... convince NASA if they really want another flight they have to modify
the contract.
But I agree, they'll most likely do a crewed flight next.
This is one area where I think SpaceX has a huge advantage: incremental
costs.
I'm pretty confident the costs to SpaceX is far lower than Boeing's so
SpaceX could do another flight without it costing as much.
(This is ignoring the price of the flights that NASA is paying which are far
higher).


Most likely, after the crewed test flights of both Dragon 2 and
Starliner are complete. If they have not completed their test programs,
they're not "operational" yet, are they?

Nope, but come mid-January or so, we should know for sure about SpaceX and
Dragon.

And this is another area I'll give to SpaceX, and you sort of mention below.
SpaceX is actually flying a MaxQ abort.
Boeing... doing it all by analysis. I can tell you which one gives me more
confidence.


Even in its haste to put people in space and later on the moon, NASA
flew several uncrewed test flights of Mercury, Gemini, Apollo CSM, and
Apollo LEM. It's only the space shuttle that first flew crewed (with
only two crew in full pressure suits and ejection seats). It was only
after STS-1 landed and all the data was analyzed that NASA found how
close it came to failure (for multiple reasons!).

On the other hand, w/o a crew on board, STS-1 would have most likely broken
up on re-entry.
And with a crew on this flight, they probably could have saved the mission.


It's best we don't rush to put crew on Starliner, IMHO. If SpaceX had
failed in the same way Boeing did on this flight, I'd bet my last dollar
NASA would make them refly the test without a crew. Why should Boeing
get a free pass when crew safety is on the line?

I agree 100%

What worries me was that NASA was very quick to state that the ship was
ready to fly humans, focusing on simngle timer issue, instead of "we'll
wait for a full analysis before making decision on further flights".

This is exactly my point! It was NASA Administrator Bridenstine setting
this tone, and it's very troubling. It puts middle managers and the
engineers in a precarious position that could get astronauts needlessly
killed in order to meet an arbitrary schedule.


Not like NASA has EVER done that. Oh wait...

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

On 2019-12-27 12:01 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Not like NASA has EVER done that.Â* Oh wait...

Jeff


Maybe it would have been best if Bridenstein hadn't been there at all.
Sometimes leaving things unsaid can be very helpful.

There is one item that Bridenstein pointed out during the post landing
presser I found interesting. And that is even with this anomaly a lot of
things got tested on this flight that would not have been tested
otherwise, including the ground crew response.

But yeah I think because of the 'general attitude' during that presser
there will be pressure put on NASA by Boeing to fly the next mission
crewed. I think, since this mission failed, there should be another with
the same criteria. Get it right first. No one here I believe actually
thinks SpaceX would have gotten a pass had this happened to them, right?

Incremental costs are a thing. This is tossing away an Atlas V each
time. Really noticeable now isn't it? I can remember back in the
mid-2000's when people didn't buy into reusable boosters and thought
this cost would be a wash between the systems.

Not a consideration now? Just try and say it ain't so....

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message ...

On 2019-12-27 12:01 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Not like NASA has EVER done that. Oh wait...

Jeff


Maybe it would have been best if Bridenstein hadn't been there at all.
Sometimes leaving things unsaid can be very helpful.

There is one item that Bridenstein pointed out during the post landing
presser I found interesting. And that is even with this anomaly a lot of
things got tested on this flight that would not have been tested otherwise,
including the ground crew response.

But yeah I think because of the 'general attitude' during that presser
there will be pressure put on NASA by Boeing to fly the next mission
crewed. I think, since this mission failed, there should be another with
the same criteria. Get it right first. No one here I believe actually
thinks SpaceX would have gotten a pass had this happened to them, right?

Incremental costs are a thing. This is tossing away an Atlas V each time.
Really noticeable now isn't it? I can remember back in the mid-2000's when
people didn't buy into reusable boosters and thought this cost would be a
wash between the systems.

Ayup, I suspect SpaceX looked at "cost of flying a used Falcon 9 and doing a
Max Q abort" vs. doing it all in simulation and spending time convincing
NASA our analysis is good enough and decided the incremental cost of the
former was cheaper and faster.



Not a consideration now? Just try and say it ain't so....

Dave

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

On 2019-12-27 16:52, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

[snip]
What worries me was that NASA was very quick to state that the ship was
ready to fly humans, focusing on simngle timer issue, instead of "we'll
wait for a full analysis before making decision on further flights".
This is exactly my point! It was NASA Administrator Bridenstine setting
this tone, and it's very troubling.

I don't recall any such statement or tone from Bridenstine in the press
conferences. Contrariwise, at about 37:15 into the post-landing press
conference, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kocZnVAbRsk, Bridenstine all
but interrupts the Boeing guy to say that even had the mission gone
apparently perfectly, they would still have to review _all_ the mission
data before deciding to fly crew.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .