On Saturday we noted there were stories that NASA would be deciding what to do about Starliner "next week." Even though today is part of "next week," it's probably being too optimistic to think they might say something today. But I still thought they might.
They didn't, but people looking to be authoritative sources still talked and
it still got reported, which is how we know
one possibility is putting off the Crew 9 launch for perhaps a month.
While the space agency has not said anything publicly, sources say NASA should announce the decision this week. Officials are contemplating moving the Crew-9 mission from its current date of August 18 to September 24, a significant slip.
Nominally, this Crew Dragon mission will carry NASA astronauts Zena Cardman, spacecraft commander; Nick Hague, pilot; and Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; as well as Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov, for a six-month journey to the space station. However, NASA has been considering alternatives to the crew lineup—possibly launching with two astronauts instead of four—due to ongoing discussions about the viability of Starliner to safely return astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to Earth.
I don't want to go into this rabbit hole too far since we have no idea how relevant any of it is, but there's an interesting little side aspect to this story.
Remember the unmanned, second Orbital Flight Test of a different Starliner capsule back in May of '22? That was a completely automated flight. The capsule maneuvered to ISS, docked, then undocked and navigated back to Earth itself. Unlike OFT-1, it was a rather successful test flight.
Apparently one of their tripping points now is that Boeing removed the
software that undocked OFT-2 and got it back to Earth. It can't fly autonomously. In that Saturday post, I recommended they fly Butch and Suni home on a Dragon and let Starliner come back on its own. That option doesn't exist. They apparently can't even undock it from the ISS.
Three separate, well-placed sources have confirmed to Ars that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere.
...
It is not clear what change Boeing officials made to the vehicle or its software in the two years prior to the launch of Wilmore and Williams. It is possible that the crew has to manually press an undock button in the spacecraft, or the purely autonomous software was removed from coding on board Starliner to simplify its software package. Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.
Partial justification for thinking that the software is the issue goes back to
NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager Steve Stich, who is thought to have
referenced this during his most recent press availability on July 25. Stich
was asked whether NASA would certify Starliner for operational missions if the
vehicle returned to Earth autonomously but ultimately safely. He
replied, "Starliner was designed as a spacecraft to have the crew in the
cockpit. The crew is integral to the spacecraft." Is saying it was designed to
have a crew equivalent to saying, "we removed the capability of Starliner
flying without a crew"?
It sort of adds up.
Crew-9: L-R: Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Gorbunov; Nick Hague, pilot; and Zena Cardman, spacecraft commander. One wonders which two would be left on the ground if they go that route. Image credit: NASA
EDIT 0930 8/7/24: Thanks to commenters HMS Defiant and Anonymous at 2005 on 8/6 for pointing out I swapped the names and roles of the two women. And missed correcting this yesterday due to my medical procedure and after effects. It doesn't help to say I have a download of this picture which is exceptionally easy to read because it would probably print out to an 8 by 10... feet on a side, not inches.
While self-driving cars are being successfully developed, NASA removes the ability to bring a spaceship (unmanned, or with an incapacitated crew) back after spending billions to place it in space.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so with all the issues of Starliner they removed the ability for it to actually run itself? Something that even Mercury capsules had.
ReplyDeleteMy... my head hurts.
I wonder what was added to the software package that they needed the room the autopilot software took up.
As to deorbiting, they could manually unlock the docking collar and then give the turd a shove down. Might take a while, but the POS would eventually fall and burn.
The more we learn, the worst the story gets. Seriously, "it was never intended to fly by itself but to be piloted." Soyuz is automated. The CCP capsule is automated. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the friggin Shuttle was automated. All with humans as backup. Cygnus is automated, of course. So are all the Japanese and European
cargo craft that have gotten to the ISS. SpaceX, of course, mastered automated space flight.
DeleteBut Boeing? Jeez Louieeze.
You and Jess before you are on to a critical point. Self-driving cars are almost to the point that you have to pay extra not to get one, like with "Smart TV"s. Almost. They clearly had the software working before.
DeleteThat tells me that either there was something in that software that interfered with the manual operation software, or that the combination was so big it didn't fit in the memory available. I have to figure these are class S semiconductor memories, and probably designed around 8 or 10 years ago. They're not going to be like the terabyte SSDs you can buy today for less than a magnetic drive. They're going to be absurdly small by our standards.
So? It's been a requirement, even during Gemini (where the capsule was the most pilotable vehicle before the Shuttle,) that automated flight capability is mandatory just in case of issues with the crew. Just like manual flight capability is mandatory just in case of issues with the automated flight capability.
DeleteIf Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Flying Space Turd that was the Shuttle all had, with pitifully miniscule to almost-non-existent computers (in comparison to even when the Boeing Turdliner started being created,) automated flight and return capability, then why not the aforementioned Turdliner.
No, there's something more here. Something... seriously wrong, something being hidden from us. There's something much more than 'oops, we forgot to load the flight software.' Something much much more wrong than just even thrusters. Something life-ending, severely catastrophic, a 'world-killing event' so to speak.
Flight software? Phsaw. That's an 'easy out.' And easy to fix. Reboot, reload. If it worked for a TRS-80 or an Apple IIe, then it should work for a 'bespoke' computer system. Unless... it's the computer system, hardware and software, that is the issue. Hmmm... Yeah, that would be a people-killing catastrophic event.
I can't imagine them "just removing" that capability in the software. There had to be some reason for it. To go through all the design reviews, verification, blah, blah, blah to modify the software that much is a nightmare.
ReplyDeleteSomething stinks about this.....
Like I said above, there's something more wrong here. A flight-ending one. And in my ramblings above I have come to the conclusion that the actual whole computer system is kaput one way or another. And with a fly-by-wire system, that's an 'end of mission' error kill.
DeleteRock-Paper-Scissors to decide who gets to ride it down. Who knows? they might make it!
ReplyDeleteThis story just gets better with time... this is sad.
ReplyDeleteWatching Butch and Suni being interviewed last week, they both possessed a deeply worried air to them. Think I would be worried about trying to re-enter the atmosphere at 17,000mph riding that vehicle. Like ah, no thank you dude. Not in this lifetime.
ReplyDeleteYes, gone is the facade of, We love the extended opportunity to gain more knowledge!
DeleteThumbs up.
DeleteStarliner is a lemon. Cancel program.
ReplyDeleteBut, but, but... think of all the people that will be out of work!!
DeleteProgram director and CFO should be amongst the first test crew. You built it, you fly it. If it burns, so does the CEO and the top three levels of management. Incorporate the immolation into the next engine test burn.....saves money that way.
ReplyDeleteSo how do they get rid of the capsule, or do they just leave it attached until the ISS crashes to Earth? If there is one thing that is easy to get to space, it's software - just streams of bits. Can't they swap the software out while it's attached to the ISS? Do they need to put in a cartridge socket like the old Atari 8 bit computers had? "Insert re-entry program now."
ReplyDeleteI'd think they would bring a hard drive (can they just upload the program?) with the needed instructions to the station and fly it back by itself.
DeleteThe line from the source, "Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks." makes it sound like there might not be a way to do without going into the capsule and more like the old Atari than doing it over a radio link.
DeleteReally far fetched is Boeing snatching the deorbit contract.
DeleteOr, under duress, Boeing's plan to lift ISS is accepted.
"Can you demonstrate that this vehicle meets generally accepted standards of safety?"
ReplyDelete]
"Um, we'll get back to you."
Also, "Go ahead, light it, it'll be fine."
It is tying up one of the two docking ports on the ISS. They need to remove it so that a scheduled Dragon capsule can use it. CP
ReplyDeleteWhere previously I mentioned Crew 8 or 9 in play, I didn't include the option of rescheduling. I thought that too outlandish to be mentioned.
ReplyDeleteYet they did it. I wonder how wide and long the rippling effects of such decision.
So why did Boeing remove the ability to auto undock? Lots of speculation. Here's mine; in this scenario of survivability of Boeing, Boeing has made a power play. Holding ISS hostage, forcing 'our way or no way'. Billions of existing and multiples of that amount of future capitalization is at stake. Something had to happen.
There have been calls to oust Stich. Now I wonder if he's an evil genius. Has he bought a secret island liar?
Maybe they can unlatch it and push it away with a long pole....
ReplyDeleteFly the SpaceX ship back to Earth to make room to park. Send up a different SpaceX with the means to return the stranded Boeing passengers and drop off the necessary hardware/software for the Boeing ship so it can make the attempt at returning.
ReplyDeleteMakes perfect sense. Crew 8 is scheduled to depart, and ordinarily the new crew would overlap with them for a week, but not doing that has always been talked about as an option. Send up Crew 9 with Starliner Repair Kit including ways to update the software (as long as it's small enough to fit in the Dragon for 9).
DeleteSeems like the only way to make it work.
Makes too much sense. And there's not enough room for graft for congresscritters and other politicians.
Delete...might want to read the name tags...Stephanie is from my neck of the woods.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure at this point somebody high up in DoD is seriously proposing that they land the ISS and just have the crew hop out.
ReplyDeleteThe picture caption is a little bit hosed.
ReplyDeleteHad a sudden thought, where is the FAA in all this?
ReplyDeleteI mean they are like flies on you know what with SpaceX Experimental un-manned space craft, about threat of public safety and other methods of political control control control and corporate protectionism. Curious.
A friend, a 24 year USAF pilot and an operator in commercial aviation, told me that everything in the FAA is subject to waiver. Key word; everything.
DeleteWhy wouldn't that be the case in space? It is the same FAA.
Anyway, FAA is not lead agency here. What are they gonna do?
Though, I can imagine the hustle between personal fiefdoms within the FAA leaning yay or nay in NASA.
DeleteIt is factual knowledge that a great many within FAA enjoy latitude in how they conduct their office. Some are vicious and vindictive, others only aggressive. To be fair, some are very pleasant.
... tustle ...
Delete