Boeing Starliner First Crewed Launch

[Cosmacelf]

So, didn’t see a thread for this launch. Been watching it, was struck by how huge their Mission Control center is. Also they’ve already had to do procedural hacks to not trip the auto shut off sequences. They had to manually shut down a fan at T-18 minutes before they switched on another subsystem, and then manually turn it back on. I guess the power surge was too much for their advanced electronics.

 

[scaesare]

Made it to MECO, so looks like a good launch....

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yep at T+18 minutes, looks good! ISS docking tomorrow.

 

[Todd Burch]

No one here talking about the helium leaks yet? There have been 3 helium leaks discovered onboard. I was hoping to come here to hear more about the implications. Apparently one of the helium links was discovered before launch (hard to believe)...unless it's just not a big issue, I'm not sure.

 

[JB47394]

No one here talking about the helium leaks yet?

I think we're all trying to figure out if it's tragic, ironic, comedic, or simply absurd at this point. I joked about SpaceX keeping a crew Dragon available in case it was needed, and here we are with Starliner with small helium leaks in two of its thruster packs.

Just prior to the crew sleep period, they decided to close some manifolds in order to isolate the areas where there were leaks.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798517747682525284

 

[ecarfan]

No one here talking about the helium leaks yet?

It was first discussed in the Commercial Crew thread. Now there are new leaks. This is going to be interesting…

 

[Cosmacelf]

Does not sound great. They've basically shut off some of the Reaction Control Thrusters (RCS) because of this. They'll reopen when needed, presumably for ISS docking.

 

[ecarfan]

I cannot attest to the accuracy of this video, but it seems reasonable.

 

[JB47394]

And they're docked.

 

[ecarfan]

Stephen Clark in ars: Boeing’s Starliner finally soars, but mission control reports more helium leaks

Late Wednesday, engineers detected two more helium leaks—one with the other manifold in the port doghouse, and another in the doghouse on the top side of the service module. Brandon Burroughs, a Boeing engineer, described the two new helium leaks as "small" in a discussion broadcast on NASA TV's live coverage of the Starliner test flight. These leaks didn't appear during troubleshooting of the known leak on the ground. With this finding, three of Starliner's eight helium manifolds now show signs of leakage.

So…

Before getting comfortable with launching with the known helium leak, engineers determined the Starliner spacecraft could handle up to four more helium leaks, even if the existing leak worsened, according to Steve Stich, NASA's commercial crew program manager.

So now if before Starliner undocks, three more leaks occur, what do they do? At the rate these leaks are occurring it seems entirely possible that over the next few weeks there could be more.

 

[Grendal]

And they're docked.

In the "second opportunity" for docking. So there was one delay.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Stephen Clark in ars: Boeing’s Starliner finally soars, but mission control reports more helium leaks

So…

So now if before Starliner undocks, three more leaks occur, what do they do? At the rate these leaks are occurring it seems entirely possible that over the next few weeks there could be more.

Reading the comments, while docked, the helium can be shut off from the leaking parts, so there won't be further leaks while docked. The only risk is when preparing to set off, if more leaks suddenly happen.

 

[TunaBug]

How does the Starliner contract work? I've read that there are nine flights: three test, six operational, but what if NASA declares that this one was wonky enough that the next one will be a test flight as well? Is that one less operational mission, or will there still be six of those?

And is there any practical difference between a test mission and an operational mission? Does it matter if the "test" pilots do normal astronaut work on the ISS for six months between the test launch and the test landing? Or are they different groups of astronauts with different training regimens and skillsets, such that test crew can't do operational work and the operational crew cannot do test work?

 

[JB47394]

And is there any practical difference between a test mission and an operational mission?

Fewer crew, shorter time on orbit, etc. Same deal as Crew Dragon.

I've read that there are nine flights: three test, six operational, but what if NASA declares that this one was wonky enough that the next one will be a test flight as well?

There were supposed to be two test flights, one uncrewed, one crewed. The first uncrewed flight failed, and NASA and Boeing agreed that Boeing would fund another uncrewed test flight.

Based on that, NASA could require another crewed test flight, but politics may well decide that the vehicle is operational. That's assuming nothing egregious goes wrong in the rest of this test.

 

[Grendal]

If this one isn't considered a dud. And I expect it will not if there is no major failure in the return. Then the next launch with 4 astronauts will be the start of the six operational flights.

 

[TunaBug]

There were supposed to be two test flights, one uncrewed, one crewed. The first uncrewed flight failed, and NASA and Boeing agreed that Boeing would fund another uncrewed test flight.

You didn't mention the total. Forget my hypothetical question about a 4th test. When there were only two tests planned, before NASA insisted on a 3rd, was the plan for 6 operational missions or 7?

 

[JB47394]

You didn't mention the total. Forget my hypothetical question about a 4th test. When there were only two tests planned, before NASA insisted on a 3rd, was the plan for 6 operational missions or 7?

The contract has always called for up to six operational missions. They're still in the testing phase, and will continue with as many uncrewed and crewed missions as it takes to get the NASA seal of approval. Then they can start on the six operational missions.

Meanwhile, Crew Dragon has completed one uncrewed test flight, one crewed test flight, and eight operational flights, with a ninth coming in August, and another five after that planned through 2029.

 

[TunaBug]

The contract has always called for up to six operational missions. They're still in the testing phase, and will continue with as many uncrewed and crewed missions as it takes to get the NASA seal of approval. Then they can start on the six operational missions.

Meanwhile, Crew Dragon has completed one uncrewed test flight, one crewed test flight, and eight operational flights, with a ninth coming in August, and another five after that planned through 2029.

I was just looking at Atlas and Starliner on Wikipedia. Apparently the additional Starliner test was announced in August 2021, and also in August 2021 ULA announced that all remaining Atlas rockets had been sold. I had been wondering if ULA had to bump somebody from Atlas to Vulcan to make room for the additional Starliner, but maybe Boeing got the last Atlas?

 

[Todd Burch]

So from what I'm reading, one helium leak was discovered *prior* to launch, engineers discussed it, and they decided to go forward.

Does anyone else feel that that they should have addressed those issues before they launched? Especially since two more developed enroute.

I feel that because there were so many delays not only with the Starliner program but also with the launch itself that they were "pressured to go" despite discovering an issue prior to launch.

That seems pretty crazy to me. Pressure to go is a common cause of aviation accidents. Seems you'd want everything showing as functional prior to launch, especially with humans onboard. Doesn't inspire confidence in the decision-making IMO.

 

[TunaBug]

So from what I'm reading, one helium leak was discovered *prior* to launch, engineers discussed it, and they decided to go forward.

Does anyone else feel that that they should have addressed those issues before they launched? Especially since two more developed enroute.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel that way. Certainly that has happened in the past, but past missions, past employees, past management, past culture are not a reflection of today. The past is a good reason to have it on a checklist and make sure that the people making those choices think about it.
But until shown otherwise I don't see any reason to question the decision making that was made at the time.

My guess/hope is that there has been so much poor execution from Boeing in the past few years that pressure is along the lines of "don't kill any more people". Any engineering project has a list of known issues that are minor enough to ship anyhow. I hope this was one of the same, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause any need for an investigation to ask that question. Until then, ship it.