Engineers said X but managers said It's Fine doesn't fill me with confidence. "Fine if they don't worsen" is so broad that it covers dang near everything that's dangerous. There's no info here on...
Engineers first noticed the helium leak during the first launch attempt for Starliner's crewed test flight May 6, but managers did not consider it significant enough to stop the launch.
Engineers said X but managers said It's Fine doesn't fill me with confidence.
In a statement last week, NASA described the helium leak as "stable" and said it would not pose a risk to the Starliner mission if it didn't worsen.
"Fine if they don't worsen" is so broad that it covers dang near everything that's dangerous. There's no info here on what the engineers think but I hope they take them to heart. Do they really want more Boeing bad news right now?
The narrow launch window + how will this look to investors has me worried for humans onboard. Like it or not the Boeing brand has been severely damaged: i hope the investors enjoyed their brief earnings window that the cut throat cut corners culture got them.
Not just that. Spaceflight is insanely stressful on material. From atmospheric pressure, to launch with tremendous force, to near absolute vacuum is quite a thing. Also To be really blunt and...
"Fine if they don't worsen" is so broad that it covers dang near everything that's dangerous. There's no info here on what the engineers think but I hope they take them to heart. Do they really want more Boeing bad news right now?
Not just that. Spaceflight is insanely stressful on material. From atmospheric pressure, to launch with tremendous force, to near absolute vacuum is quite a thing.
Also
Engineers said X but managers said It's Fine doesn't fill me with confidence.
To be really blunt and oversimplifying it greatly... one is paid to do the math right, and is one to talk it right. My money is on the former, personally.
You're thinking of hydrogen. Helium is often used specifically because hydrogen is so flammable. I'm not sure why Helium is used in this case, but hydrogen is what ignited on the Hindenburg.
You're thinking of hydrogen. Helium is often used specifically because hydrogen is so flammable. I'm not sure why Helium is used in this case, but hydrogen is what ignited on the Hindenburg.
In general helium is an amazing refrigerant and often used in cryogenic cooling since it can go all the way to near absolute zero without becoming a solid. In this case though it looks like they...
In general helium is an amazing refrigerant and often used in cryogenic cooling since it can go all the way to near absolute zero without becoming a solid. In this case though it looks like they use it to manage fuel pressure on the thrusters which is neat!
Starliner's helium system is used to add pressure to the fuel that powers its onboard thrusters, which are used to maneuver the spacecraft in orbit.
This thing will hopefully never get off the ground. We've got better options at this point, even if it's only with one launch provider right now. It is still better than one launch provider and...
This thing will hopefully never get off the ground. We've got better options at this point, even if it's only with one launch provider right now. It is still better than one launch provider and one death provider.
it's been delayed for years and the first (non human passenger) test flight did not go all that well. makes you wonder if it will even actually launch at some point. Boeing has to be so far over...
it's been delayed for years and the first (non human passenger) test flight did not go all that well. makes you wonder if it will even actually launch at some point. Boeing has to be so far over budget...
When you look at the broader problems with things like the Artemis program, it honestly looks as much like corporate welfare as an actual attempt at a manned space program.
When you look at the broader problems with things like the Artemis program, it honestly looks as much like corporate welfare as an actual attempt at a manned space program.
When you look at projects like this and SLS, you really have to wonder how the results of legacy aerospace contractors and government agencies and new private space companies are so ridiculously,...
When you look at projects like this and SLS, you really have to wonder how the results of legacy aerospace contractors and government agencies and new private space companies are so ridiculously, drastically different.
This, SLS, and starship have been in design for roughly the same amount of time. The former two have been plagued by ridiculous safety issues, cost overruns, and delays. SLS has launched once, Starship has launched 3 times, is an order of magnitude cheaper per launch, is fully reusable, and actually pushes the envelope by having a ridiculously, dramatically higher cargo capacity. The starliner and Orion are basically just the same thing as a bigger Apollo capsule, yet Boeing can't even get that right.
I honestly don't understand what the major difference is. Is having a single person in control of all decision making really that valuable? Have legacy aerospace companies just gotten lazy?
I think it’s that legacy aerospace simply hasn’t had to fulfill government contracts in a way that’s efficient, fast, or cost-effective for so long that their entire corporate structure and...
I think it’s that legacy aerospace simply hasn’t had to fulfill government contracts in a way that’s efficient, fast, or cost-effective for so long that their entire corporate structure and management have ossified around operating that way.
At this point the only way that’s going to change is if c-suites and management are replaced wholesale. This might actually happen if the rumors are true and Blue Origin ends up buying ULA (though BO’s track record of timely delivery isn’t exactly sterling either).
Boeing's space division had never won a large fixed-price contract. Its leaders were used to operating in a cost-plus environment, in which Boeing could bill the government for all of its expenses and earn a fee. Cost overruns and delays were not the company's problem—they were NASA's. Now Boeing had to deliver a flyable spacecraft for a firm, fixed price.
Boeing struggled to adjust to this environment. Regarding complicated space projects, Boeing was used to spending other people's money. Now, every penny spent on Starliner meant one less penny in profit (or, ultimately, greater losses). This meant that Boeing allocated fewer resources to Starliner than it needed to thrive.
If you missed it, a few weeks ago, Eric Berger published an article that said, effectively, "it's a miracle that Starliner got launched at all" (back when he was expecting it to be launched a few...
If you missed it, a few weeks ago, Eric Berger published an article that said, effectively, "it's a miracle that Starliner got launched at all" (back when he was expecting it to be launched a few weeks ago).
It is both an enlightening look inside ULA corporatocracy, and a nice chuckle.
Engineers said X but managers said It's Fine doesn't fill me with confidence.
"Fine if they don't worsen" is so broad that it covers dang near everything that's dangerous. There's no info here on what the engineers think but I hope they take them to heart. Do they really want more Boeing bad news right now?
The narrow launch window + how will this look to investors has me worried for humans onboard. Like it or not the Boeing brand has been severely damaged: i hope the investors enjoyed their brief earnings window that the cut throat cut corners culture got them.
Especially since the helium is a key consumable that is used for the control thrusters. If too much leaks out, they can't do orientation maneuvers.
Not just that. Spaceflight is insanely stressful on material. From atmospheric pressure, to launch with tremendous force, to near absolute vacuum is quite a thing.
Also
To be really blunt and oversimplifying it greatly... one is paid to do the math right, and is one to talk it right. My money is on the former, personally.
I don't know anything about engineering, rockets, etc, but isn't helium flammable? How can the leak catch on fire and NOT have anything worsen?
Helium is not flammable, it's a noble gas so very stable.
You're thinking of hydrogen. Helium is often used specifically because hydrogen is so flammable. I'm not sure why Helium is used in this case, but hydrogen is what ignited on the Hindenburg.
It’s also EXTREMELY difficult to fully contain certain forms of hydrogen and not have leaks.
In general helium is an amazing refrigerant and often used in cryogenic cooling since it can go all the way to near absolute zero without becoming a solid. In this case though it looks like they use it to manage fuel pressure on the thrusters which is neat!
Starliner's helium system is used to add pressure to the fuel that powers its onboard thrusters, which are used to maneuver the spacecraft in orbit.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-boeing-targeting-june-1-starliners-debut-crewed-flight-2024-05-23/#:~:text=Starliner's%20helium%20system%20is%20used,maneuver%20the%20spacecraft%20in%20orbit.
This thing will hopefully never get off the ground. We've got better options at this point, even if it's only with one launch provider right now. It is still better than one launch provider and one death provider.
I haven't been following this too closely, but this doesn't sound very surprising? Am I mistaken?
it's been delayed for years and the first (non human passenger) test flight did not go all that well. makes you wonder if it will even actually launch at some point. Boeing has to be so far over budget...
When you look at the broader problems with things like the Artemis program, it honestly looks as much like corporate welfare as an actual attempt at a manned space program.
When you look at projects like this and SLS, you really have to wonder how the results of legacy aerospace contractors and government agencies and new private space companies are so ridiculously, drastically different.
This, SLS, and starship have been in design for roughly the same amount of time. The former two have been plagued by ridiculous safety issues, cost overruns, and delays. SLS has launched once, Starship has launched 3 times, is an order of magnitude cheaper per launch, is fully reusable, and actually pushes the envelope by having a ridiculously, dramatically higher cargo capacity. The starliner and Orion are basically just the same thing as a bigger Apollo capsule, yet Boeing can't even get that right.
I honestly don't understand what the major difference is. Is having a single person in control of all decision making really that valuable? Have legacy aerospace companies just gotten lazy?
I think it’s that legacy aerospace simply hasn’t had to fulfill government contracts in a way that’s efficient, fast, or cost-effective for so long that their entire corporate structure and management have ossified around operating that way.
At this point the only way that’s going to change is if c-suites and management are replaced wholesale. This might actually happen if the rumors are true and Blue Origin ends up buying ULA (though BO’s track record of timely delivery isn’t exactly sterling either).
You're right. This article has more details.
If you missed it, a few weeks ago, Eric Berger published an article that said, effectively, "it's a miracle that Starliner got launched at all" (back when he was expecting it to be launched a few weeks ago).
It is both an enlightening look inside ULA corporatocracy, and a nice chuckle.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/the-surprise-is-not-that-boeing-lost-commercial-crew-but-that-it-finished-at-all/