Updates Boeing's CST-100 Starliner

[DaveS]

I'm not so worried about the cloud of unburnt propellants, as I doubt that the crew's immediate response to a pad abort would be to open the hatch and their helmets right after splashdown. Furthermore, I doubt that the capsule immediately begins to take in air from outside after landing, either. So you just sit tight, run on the capsule's internal ECLSS until rescue personnel arrive and deem the area safe.

This was pretty much the conops for shuttle landings, that the crew was given the GO to doff the pressure suits once the forward area around the orbiter had been declared safe by the ground SCAPE crew. The ground SCAPE crew was the only ones allowed anywhere near the orbiter initially. The rest of the orbiter recovery convoy held back some 2000 ft until the SCAPE techs had checked the orbiter for any leaks of hazardous gases. Once they had given the all clear did the rest of the convoy move in.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Boeing statement:

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-11-04-Boeing-statement-regarding-CST-100-Starliner-pad-abort-test

The parachute did not fail, but its deployment system. Two parachute are still fine for NASA during the test, which I can on one hand understand, but on the other hand, it does not generate much confidence into the spacecraft.

 

[dman]

Was a two-main-shute landing planned, or did the third one fail to deploy?

Well as Meatloaf said 2 Out Of 3 Aint Bad ………

This marks another major screwup for Boeing

 

[IronRain]

Launch day! Starliner will launch on her first journey to the ISS:
https://spacelaunchnow.me/launch/atlas-v-n22-cst-100-starliner-orbital-flight-test/

 

[Notebook]

Boeing prepares to launch astronaut capsule for Nasa
By Jonathan Amos
BBC Science Correspondent

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50855395

 

[Notebook]

Under 5 mins:
https://spacelaunchnow.me/launch/atlas-v-n22-cst-100-starliner-orbital-flight-test/

 

[Urwumpe]

Still waiting for the Orbit Insertion Burn...

Off-nominal Orbit insertion, something minor failed, possibly a too short burn.

Spacecraft is in a stable orbit, batteries are good.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------

NASA webcast for the launch ended earlier as scheduled , so it does not look too good.

 

[IronRain]

I've read on Twitter that Starliner could reenter any minute now. Lots of speculating though..

 

[Urwumpe]

I've read on Twitter that Starliner could reenter any minute now. Lots of speculating though..

Latest update from NASA: Stable orbit, batteries charging... nothing about it being in suborbital orbit.


They are still troubleshooting the issue, but time is ticking away. The capsule is only designed for 120 hours of freeflight.

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Looks like the telemetry visualization indicates that the Starliner was firing about into antinormal direction, instead of raising the perigee. Its possible that the orbit is a bit less stable as the newsbriefings suggest.

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Starliner was not yet sighted by ground observers - that is no big issue, it could also be just in Earths shadow then. But usually those people know when they could sight a spacecraft.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

The 9 am press conference has been cancelled.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

The cause of the anomaly is now described by Bridenstine as a "Mission Elapsed Time"-anomaly, making the spacecraft believe, it was in a orbital insertion burn, when it was not...

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Looks like Boeing managed to recover the failed insertion burn at a point in the past orbit.

https://starlinerupdates.com/boeing-statement-on-the-starliner-orbital-flight-test/

 

[4throck]

Error related to Mission Elapsed Time it seems.

Jim Bridenstine on Twitter:
"Update: #Starliner had a Mission Elapsed Time (MET) anomaly causing the spacecraft to believe that it was in an orbital insertion burn, when it was not. More information at 9am ET:

https://twitter .com/JimBridenstine/status/1208020657583341569


Don't know if it's a software or hardware problem, but it's hard to image the clock failing

 

[GLS]

The 9 am press conference has been cancelled.

NASA TV says 9:30 AM EST, or in about 15 minutes.

 

[4throck]

Yes, on NASA TV
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/#public

 

[GLS]

causing the spacecraft to believe that it was in an orbital insertion burn

Hmm, wasn't it doing the first burn, to go from suborbital to orbital? Isn't that called "orbit insertion"? :shrug:

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Briefing starting now...

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------

MET clock error.
Tight attitude deadbands.
Too mch prop burned trying to keep attitude during burn.
THe next orbit the "ground commanded burn" (to get to the ISS) could not be done due to low prop, but now raising orbit.
If crewed, they would have been safe and could override things and recover.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

ULA boss saying that they hit the bullseye == not our fault :lol:

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Boeing boss: orbit allows a possible return to White Sands in 48h.
75% prop available

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Orbit is 216x286km.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

Could have recovered from the problem with real-time ground commands, and saved the rendezvous, but they where between TDRS sats at the time. :uhh:

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

Possible issue in the comm as well, causing the "between TDRS" thing.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

... and the daily "news reported stupidity moment": Does the issue "between TDRS sats" mean that space is getting too crowded?
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

Oh, the issue appears not to have been during the burn, but (before or after?) when the tight deadbands of the burn were applied, thus burning the prop trying to keep the attitude needlessly.

 

[4throck]

Yes the TDRS thing is odd.

But the entire thing is strange
Their automation was based ONLY on a timer ?
Lol, the early soviet probes were like that !
That's Luna 3 tech FTW

Don't want to be negative but it's the 4th (after Schiaparelli, Vikram, Beresheet) mission that seems to have problems with computer logic, if I'm not mistaken...

 

[Urwumpe]

Their automation was based ONLY on a timer ?
Lol, the early soviet probes were like that !

Why is that bad, if the technology usually works? How would you time the ignition of thrusters?



If you need to fire lets say 35 seconds before apogee and switch to a finer attitude control mode 45 seconds before apogee, how would you solve this?

 

[4throck]

You should have some reality checks along the way, besides time info.
That's what I meant by timer only (rely blindly on clock information only, even if it's nonsense).

Considering your example, the problem would be that the spacecraft started fine attitude control (step 2) without ever being in step 1.
You can perhaps solve this by cross checking fuel quantities. You can't be on step 2 without first spending the amount of fuel needed for the 35 second burn.

 

[Urwumpe]

Considering your example, the problem would be that the spacecraft started fine attitude control (step 2) without ever being in step 1.
You can perhaps solve this by cross checking fuel quantities. You can't be on step 2 without first spending the amount of fuel needed for the 35 second burn.

But that is too late. You need to be in fine attitude control already before the burn, switching control modes during a burn is a bad idea generally.



Also, the design problem is: How do you detect the state? Lets say you set a flag in memory. But now software module xyz used a different revision of the memory layout as abc? How do you prevent this technically? The only place you can do this is on the ground. And even there, errors CAN happen.

 

[Notebook]

Scott Manley chap has had a first look. Had to get out of bed.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QKr4-tNtPc"]Boeing's New Spacecraft Gets Lost On Way To Space Station - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dman]

Headline - BOEING BOTCHES ANOTHER

Boeing having rough couple of months with 737 MAX screwup, problems with KC 46 aerial tanker plane . Poor manufacturing and Quality control Air Force finding parts and tools left inside of aircraft

If this was Japan the CEO and top Management would have had to commit Hari Kari …...

 

[4throck]

So Starliner read the wrong time from Atlas V.

“Our spacecraft needs to reach down into the Atlas 5 and figure out what time it is. We reached in and grabbed the wrong coefficient.”

:facepalm: