Boeing's Starliner Problems Remain Unresolved
Nearly two months after discovering a problem with its Starliner spacecraft, Boeing is still searching for answers, Washington Post
“Several days after Boeing discovered the latest problem with its Starliner spacecraft, it removed the capsule from the rocket and returned it to the factory where engineers have been playing detective, trying to figure out what went wrong. But now, some two months after it first discovered an issue with some of the valves in the spacecraft’s service module, the company still doesn’t know with 100 percent certainty what caused 13 of those valves to remain shut when they should have been open, the latest embarrassment for a program that has suffered a series of blunders. And it’s unclear when the company may attempt to launch it again.”
Keith’s note: Sources have told us that there is a similarity between the valves in Starliner and some of the valves in the SLS.
Worth repeating by Keith: “Sources have told us that there is a similarity between the valves in Starliner and some of the valves in the SLS core stage.”
SLS can be fairly characterized as one expensive failure after another.The sooner we transition from SLS to Starship the better. Just as Boeing is left behind by Space X, it is time to do the same for SLS. I hope the FAA does not delay the first orbital Starship attempt beyond this year.
I don’t understand this. There are no hypergolics on the SLS core, are there?
I believe that there is a reaction control system on the upper stage.
ICPS is basically the same as the Delta IV DCSS. It’s been around forever.
A similarity can be referring to it’s mechanical design and not necessary what fluid or gas the valves have to work with.
Given that the thinking is that NTO+water vapor caused nitrous and nitric acid to form and corrode stuff, lack of NTO would kinda rule out a similar pathology.
That’s just speculation until a cause can be determined.
I’m pretty sure that they know that the valves they’ve been able to access are corroded. That’s not a root cause, but it’s deeper down the failure tree than the point where any random valve would be suspect.
—
Not only that, but there’s no NTO involved.
The part about the similarity if the valves makes my hope of a nice big BANG, at a suitably safe but observable distance, a slightly higher chance of possibility.
It will be more than TWO YEARS between unmanned test flights of Starliner. The second wasn’t even planned but is required due to myriad Boeing failures.
Keith’s note is an example of why this site is a must read. His sources and insights continue to make NASA Watch an invaluable resource.
As for this latest potential SLS issue…when does it end?
Apparently Orion has a problem with the umbilical Quick Disconnect.
https://twitter.com/DutchSa…
https://twitter.com/alvianc…
It seems the Starliner problem isn’t just about the valves. NASA and Boeing haven’t said much, but they have said a few things. Some NTO leakage past the valves (in small amounts that might not be a problem) which then reacted with humid air in the plumbing (which definitely shouldn’t have been there; sealing lines or purging them with dry nitrogen is a typical practice.) That produce nitric acid, which corroded the valves and made them stick. How and why that happened isn’t something Boeing’s commented on. But it’s clearly a error which goes beyond the valves themselves. So, with luck, SLS won’t have a similar problem.
I’m guessing that the problem is that no-one knows when and how the unsafe work to the fuel system leading to humid air contamination took place. Either the records have been destroyed (to protect the managers involved) or no records were made due to the same sloppy processes that caused the problem in the first place. Neither of these options are the sort of thing Boeing would want one of their biggest customers (the US government) to know about.
The SLS program motto “Suddenly you’ll see a glare, then it pieces everywhere.”
It’s a well known phenomena that PTFE will absorb small amount of water over time it causes it to swell a bit..
Has that even been considered?
Note it depends on the type!
The Washington Post article says, “the company still doesn’t know with 100 percent certainty what caused 13 of those valves to remain shut when they should have been open”. However that’s a bit vague because I would think it is common in these type of situations to not be 100% certain. The goal in many cases is to get to a high level of confidence of what caused the problem, apply a fix, then monitor closely from that point on. This allows a program to move forward even without 100% certainty.
Then again Boeing could still be far from having any level of confidence that they have found the problem. That would really be another major blow compounding what is already a string of embarrassments.
Hard to tell from the article or from Boeing where they are now, but the article also states, “an official close to the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said that the company is nearing some final decision points in the probe and hopes to have a path forward soon”.
Final decision points could mean that they have enough confidence in understanding the problem to apply a fix, or maybe just modify their procedures, as a panel member was quoted in the article, “Are there any changes to hardware inspection, testing, vehicle processing or checkout that would minimize the chances of that happening in the future?”
—