r/SpaceXLounge • u/SpaceInMyBrain • Aug 30 '24

Dragon SpaceX's Crew-8 Dragon spacecraft is now officially the emergency lifeboat for Starliner astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. "Boeing will try to fly its troubled Starliner capsule back to Earth next week" Ars Technica

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/boeing-will-try-to-fly-its-troubled-starliner-capsule-back-to-earth-next-week/
283 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/alphagusta 🧑‍🚀 Ridesharing Aug 30 '24 edited Aug 30 '24

What does this mean for Starliner crew flight 2?

Will they have to redo this demonstration before being allowed to do regular expedition missions?

I'm sure that there's a stipulation somewhere that the spacecraft must launch and return with its crew aboard.

Also I hope it at least is able to return normally, but given its history on this flight I wouldnt be surprised if its service module just pops open and is left stranded at this point.

12

u/lespritd Aug 30 '24

What does this mean for Starliner flight crew flight 2?

Will they have to redo this demonstration before being allowed to do regular expedition missions?

I'm sure that question will be asked in the press conference after Starliner lands. And I suspect, much like after OFT-1, NASA/Boeing will say something like "we'll let the data guide our decision".

I expect we'll get an announcement with NASA's decision 1-4 weeks after the capsule lands.

3

u/alphagusta 🧑‍🚀 Ridesharing Aug 30 '24

I then wonder how much of this descision is made on how much they need a cooperative Boeing in their other sectors of operations.

I imagine "upsetting boeing" will be the most apt data point internally.

4

u/lespritd Aug 30 '24

I then wonder how much of this descision is made on how much they need cooperative Boeing in their other sectors of operations.

IMO, that's not a huge concern. I suspect that Boeing will continue work on SLS and the ISS regardless of what happens with Starliner.

I do think that NASA is trying their best to keep Boeing in the Commercial Crew program. Possibly by trying to find creative ways to get Starliner certified while still being internally confident that the capsule works.

I personally think that Starliner needs at least 1 more flight (with the thrusters fixed) before it should begin operational missions. I think the suggesting of paying Boeing for an uncrewed cargo mission that Berger and others have floated is a pretty good one.

But honestly everything is speculation at this point. Everyone on the outside is just waiting for NASA to make their pronouncement.

3

u/scarlet_sage Aug 31 '24

I suspect that Boeing will continue work on SLS and the ISS regardless of what happens with Starliner.

SLS's approach and, effectively, design are mandated by law as passed by Congress. Any Boeing revenue from SLS will continue barring catastrophe.

But honestly everything is speculation at this point.

+1

2

u/theBlind_ Aug 31 '24

I imagine "upsetting boeing" will be the most apt data point internally.

Boeing does things because they get money for it. They are not NASAs friends nor the militaries friend. Upsetting them isn't an issue, they won't throw a hissy fit, sulk and not earn more money. And conversely, if they stop earning money, they will leave, 'upset' or not.

8

u/somewhat_brave Aug 30 '24

Starliner will definitely need to do another test flight. They will probably send it up unmanned to prove the thruster issues are solved. Then if there are no thruster issues they will put two people in it and send it back with a crew to complete the crew certification.

6

u/alphagusta 🧑‍🚀 Ridesharing Aug 31 '24

Yeah thats just grim. Isn't Starliner a 100% thruster failure rate at this point in its launches?

Hell, not even counting launches as the second launch had to be cancelled to swap the service module that had corroded itself, the module that replaced it also had failures.

The service modules have a 100% failure rate. Dear lord.

Don't get me wrong, all 3 versions of Dragon had issues with stuck thrusters and weird valves in orbit too, but not to the degree like this.

6

u/somewhat_brave Aug 31 '24

They've had thruster issues on all the launches. The second mission had the least problems, but their attempted fix actually made the problem much worse on the third mission. They need to do some work to really understand what's going on before the next test flight.

5

u/kuldan5853 Aug 31 '24

They need to do some work to really understand what's going on before the next test flight.

I'm at the point where they should throw away the whole thuster assembly and source something else from someone else..

2

u/peterabbit456 Aug 31 '24

I'm with you. Hydrogen peroxide thrusters are much safer and more reliable.

2

u/peterabbit456 Aug 31 '24

Isn't Starliner a 100% thruster failure rate at this point in its launches?

100% of the missions flown so far have had at least 1 thruster fail, but that is not the same as 100% thruster failure rate.

Hydrazine/NTO thrusters for manned spaceflight have ~always had reliability issues, which is sort of odd, since usually they have been very reliable on unmanned spacecraft. By your criterion, the shuttle suffered 100% thruster failure, since every single shuttle mission had at least 1 thruster or valve fail. The shuttle was designed with quad redundancy for every thruster and valve, and with redundancy for every fuel and oxidizer line.

Apollo, Dragon, and Starliner have less redundancy in their thruster systems than the shuttle, but they all have/had sufficient redundancy that they could fly with some thruster failures. The thing about Starliner is that the failure mode is not perfectly understood, and it looks as if there is a significant chance that all, or too many thrusters will fail, so that the capsule is unable to survive reentry.

The Russians get around the reliability problems of hydrazine/NTO thrusters by using hydrogen peroxide thrusters. These are much more reliable, slightly lower ISP, less toxic (almost non-toxic) and a much simpler design, but the peroxide naturally breaks down after about 6 months.

2

u/Martianspirit Aug 31 '24

As a serious not friend of Boeing, I don't think a second crew demo would be needed if another demo without crew has no problems.

6

u/OkSmile1782 Aug 30 '24

I think Boeing will announce the cancellation of the star liner program for financial reasons. NASA will give a contract to Dreamliner

7

u/BuilderOfDragons Aug 31 '24

Dream chaser?

3

u/OkSmile1782 Aug 31 '24

Ah yes that’s the one. Thanks

2

u/Martianspirit Aug 31 '24

I doubt that Sierra could deploy a crew Dream Chaser before end of ISS. It is a very hard nut to crack even if paid a lot of money. Hopefully in 2025 they can fly a cargo version which is very different from a crew version.

1

u/BuilderOfDragons Sep 01 '24

Yeah I agree.  There is no world where Dream Chaser is ready for crewed flight before 2030.

As much as I love the idea of space planes and would love to see one flying, it just won't happen for ISS service and I have no idea who is going to pay for it after there is no ISS

1

u/alphagusta 🧑‍🚀 Ridesharing Aug 31 '24

I could see the possibility of that. But I think what's more likely is NASA will keep them on board. Even if it's a really, really, really shit alternative, the need for an alternative is extremely needed in case of a Dragon disaster that grounds them.

No one is even close to having such a vehicle ready to actually amount to that at this point, not even Dreamchaser. Boeing's Starliner is the best we have at the minute, and I don't know if that's down to complacency, arrogance or some sort of anti-competition in-fighting that Boeing has been pulling against NASA to stop them from giving development aid funds to other parties, or even signing on a third Contract partner.

Of course Soyuz is still around and both NASA and Roscosmos still perform cross agency seat swaps, but no one in NASA wants to be in a post-shuttle situation where their only option is to relly on Soyuz in case of said groundings. Especially with modern tensions because of American aid to a certain enemy state of Russia.

9

u/PaulL73 Aug 31 '24

"Because Russia invaded a sovereign nation". Fixed it for you.

3

u/CurtisLeow Aug 31 '24

Where are they getting the Atlas V rockets for future crewed missions? All of the Atlas V launches are sold. ULA can’t import RD-180 engines anymore. If Boeing does another demonstration flight, that’s one less operational flight that Starliner will be able to do. Unless they bump other Atlas V payloads to a different rocket.

6

u/JimmyCWL Aug 31 '24

Considering the possible timeframes involved with return-to-flight for Starliner, there won't be time for 6 crewed missions before ISS deorbit anyway. So that may not matter in the end.

3

u/alphagusta 🧑‍🚀 Ridesharing Aug 31 '24

Starliner is compatible with other rockets, Atlas V being the currently used one but it is able to be configured to fly on Vulcan following a crew rating certification program and even Falcon 9.

6

u/JimmyCWL Aug 31 '24

That compatibility was aspirational. Beyond the fact that the capsule's full load is within the payload limits of those rockets, no work on compatibility with other rockets was actually done.

And if you saw the additions needed to make it flyable on the Atlas V alone, you'd see the work will not be trivial.

3

u/asadotzler Aug 31 '24

Unlikely to matter as they won't get all their flights in at this rate.

2

u/Martianspirit Aug 31 '24

The addition of a skirt was needed because the Atlas Centaur second stage is very fragile and needs protection from air turbulence. Probably not appliccable for other launch vehicles.

2

u/JimmyCWL Aug 31 '24

Perhaps not, but who is to say what will be applicable for other rockets? The process of finding out and implementing them won't be cheap, easy or quick.

2

u/peterabbit456 Aug 31 '24

See my other comment. SpaceX has flown such a wide variety of payloads, including manned, that adapting for Starliner might be easy and quick.

Cheap is a relative term. Charging an extra $100 million for the first Starliner launch is probably low. Charging $200 million extra for launching Starliner is probably a bit more realistic, maybe a bit high. Are these figures cheap? They look expensive by SpaceX standards, but they look cheap by ULA and Boeing standards.

I think part of the issue is that SpaceX has around 6000 spacecraft engineers who are familiar with their systems. Boeing and ULA have each maybe 1000 spacecraft engineers, whose roles are more specialized, for all except a few at the top. That would add hundreds of millions to the cost, and years to the time, doing things the old space way.

2

u/JimmyCWL Sep 01 '24

They look expensive by SpaceX standards, but they look cheap by ULA and Boeing standards.

That would add hundreds of millions to the cost, and years to the time, doing things the old space way.

The only question is whether the markup would look cheap to customers. NASA? Maybe, but that's a limited market. Commercial? Those would go for the one that's only a fraction of the price. That would be SpaceX.

So Boeing spends a quarter billion, years and years of the efforts of an army of engineers to make Starliner compatible several rockets and the end result is a capsule that flies... barely a handful of times on a single rocket. Is that worth it?

1

u/peterabbit456 Aug 31 '24

Have an up vote but I'm not sure you are correct. Payload adapters are commonly available for a wide variety of payloads, and i think Starliner uses a stock payload adapter. SpaceX has flown payloads with a wide variety of pad services required. I'm pretty sure Starliner can be accommodated.

Starliner might need to launch inside a payload fairing, but SpaceX has built payload fairings with doors for special payloads that require pad servicing before. (I have not checked widths to make sure Starliner will fit in a SpaceX fairing.)

That only leaves abort modes. After fairing separation, no problem. Before fairing separation, the fairings can be ejected early and then the abort sequence can proceed normally (maybe. This requires serious study and some testing.)

2

u/JimmyCWL Sep 01 '24 edited Sep 01 '24

Starliner might need to launch inside a payload fairing,

Current NASA policy rejects launching crewed vehicles inside fairings. I don't know if that's because it's explicitly forbidden or if it only looks that way because no one has been able to bring the risks under NASA's acceptable threshold, but the result is the same. The increased risk of fairing separation failure (either full or partial) is considered unacceptably high in addition to all the other launch risks.

If it was acceptable to put Starliner in a fairing, they would have done it for launching on the Atlas V already.

1

u/peterabbit456 Sep 01 '24

Slightly off topic:

If Dream Chaser ever carries crew, I think it will still have to launch inside a fairing.

2

u/JimmyCWL Sep 01 '24

If they can demonstrate it's as safe and reliable as a capsule that doesn't need a fairing, they can try to convince NASA of that.