Among other concerns: apparently Nasa would like to determine the cause of the glitches. Much of the evidence would burn up on reentry, so remaining docked at the ISS is the only way to conduct forensics, despite a less-than-ideal environment.
(I'd picked this up recently in a podcast discussing Starliner.)
Indecision is the problem. If they lack confidence in the craft, organize a rescue. Bring the boeing craft back on autopilot, which if not possible now could be arranged give time. The net result would be to demonstrate innovation and flexibility in space. Not a great day for boeing but a huge PR day for Nasa and SpaceX. It would be a mini Apollo 13 moment, absent the risk. With the ISS's time limited, Nasa needs to portray confidence and an ability to lead. This indecision comes off as weak.
I'm curious why they didn't do an unmanned live test, like SpaceX did with Crew Dragon? I'm reminded of the old adage, "never fly in a plane with a tail number less than 10". Is it just the expense? I presume we're past the point where we need humans to drive the thing.
The long delays on the ground indicated a high level of unexpected behavior. Not what you want in rocket systems.
> There may also be a way to overcome the overheating problem by changing insulation on the doghouses or by software adjustments to fire the thrusters less often.
Ah yes, working around a hardware design issue via a software update. That's never caused issues for Boeing before!
I was pretty surprised that they didn't test the hardware in that way even before flying it the first time. It looks like this issue is clearly reproducible on the ground with partial integration, not even the full spacecraft.
Cost presumably. Those thrusters use hypergolic propellants which are corrosive so would need to replaced after every test. Now that's not to say they couldn't have done it - the LEM from the Apollo days also used hypergolics and they did test those on the ground.
Looks like Boeing will be doing another unmanned flight test at their expense. It would be foolish for NASA to certify the vehicle for future manned missions if they can't demonstrate the overheating issue is solved.
This is the best possible outcome. You don't want people to die, but you want the SLS to fail to such a degree that NASA can overcome the Congress pressure and ditch it.
15 comments
[ 8.0 ms ] story [ 63.1 ms ] thread(I'd picked this up recently in a podcast discussing Starliner.)
The long delays on the ground indicated a high level of unexpected behavior. Not what you want in rocket systems.
I guess they got lucky, considering test 1 and this one (the manned test) were/are both unsuccessful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Orbital_Flight_Test_2
Ah yes, working around a hardware design issue via a software update. That's never caused issues for Boeing before!
And that, in turn, is arguably because after a couple decades' worth of outsourcing, Boeing itself is no longer integrated.
That's the Goldilocks of failure. We are lucky.