Boeing's Starliner

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Now it's a time for Dreamchaser to come in.

 

[Mikki]

I really don`t want to crash the party but i`ve heard the ISS grew an appendix. Any chance to get rid of it? Can it be remotly controlled and deorbited? Was the helium used to pressurize propellant? Will it weld itself slowly to the ISS if not removed?

[RCgothic]

I don't know who originally started the "Boeing Astronauts Stranded" line, but it's never actually been the case and it seems like a lot of outlets are just copying the lede and running with it.

Edited July 1 by RCgothic

[Ultimate Steve]

14 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

I don't know who originally stated the "Boeing Astronauts Stranded" line, but it's never actually been the case and it seems like a lot of outlets are just copying the lede and running with it.

Yeah. As I understand it, the reason they are keeping it up as long as they are is because they don't understand the service module issues and coming home would destroy the evidence. I bet NASA is enjoying the extra two sets of hands up there. Given that there's only two of that type of docking port, though, that may be a downside. Unsure what was scheduled when, but might cause some scheduling issues.

[kerbiloid]

I believe, both stranded-in-sky astronauts enjoy their unplanned vacation and overtime salary.

[K^2]

13 hours ago, RCgothic said:

I don't know who originally stated the "Boeing Astronauts Stranded" line, but it's never actually been the case and it seems like a lot of outlets are just copying the lede and running with it.

I mean, even if the Starliner was completely DOA, it's not like there is no way to get the crew home. They might be stuck on ISS longer than planned, but you could always work the rotation of the future launches in a way that gets them home soon enough, and lets the normal schedule resume shortly thereafter. Back when the Soyuz was having issues, people were even talking about adding extra seats to the dragon, which it's been designed to handle at least on paper, so something like that would be an option in a genuine emergency.

It's just fun to poke fun at Boeing, and how they're trying to be nonchalant about the whole thing a little too hard, given all the RP disasters they're in the middle of. If it weren't for all the other problems the company has been having, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this beyond the, "Oh, they're going to take a closer look at what's up before heading home."  And yeah, I don't think anyone currently aboard the ISS minds the mission extension. It's not like there's nothing to do or the crew is stuck alone without resources.

[Mikki]

14 hours ago, K^2 said:

...snip... It's not like there's nothing to do or the crew is stuck alone without resources.

Can someone elaborate to me if the chinese could dock to the ISS ? Is it the same standard as soyuz? 

How many dockingports are there? I can count four. Am i stupid?

[K^2]

8 hours ago, Mikki said:

Can someone elaborate to me if the chinese could dock to the ISS ? Is it the same standard as soyuz? 

How many dockingports are there? I can count four. Am i stupid?

Zvezda, Poisk, and Rassvet have docking ports compatible with Soyuz and Progress craft. Pirs used to have one too, but has been decommissioned.

While Chinese spacecraft started out heavily based on Soyuz, I don't know if they would have kept up with any modifications related to ISS and/or went off on their own path for their own station. Keep in mind that it's not just whether or not the ports themselves fit, but everything involved in aligning the two craft together for the docking to happen safely. If the ports themselves are identical, but the alignment guides are installed differently, you're not going to be able to dock. And even if the two systems are completely identical, and you want to take on the risk of manual docking, it's still something entirely untested with any number of potential problems arising.

Honestly, if things were that dire, a better option might be a space walk.

[kerbiloid]

Shenzhou uses androgynous docking system, while the Russian segment is equipped with the extended "hybrid" Soyuzesque one with enforced ring.

Spoiler

On the images above, the adaptor itself looks close to the international standard (derived from Buran), while the original Buran has another set of radial structures (more X-like than the clock-like like here, with incompatible places for cable outlets), so the adaptor itself is probably compatible with the Western segment of ISS.

But the docking targets on the images look having nothing common with the international standard, but obviously look like the Soviet/Russian approaching and docking systems, including the (laser) thing at the bottom, looking close to the Soyuzesque things on the European cargo ships.

So, probably it can mechanically dock to the Western segment, but can approach automatically only to the Russian segment.
So, maybe, it can dock in manual mode.

This again proves, what an outstanding achievement had been performed by Sandra Bullock when it was really needed,

including the fire extinguisher race.

[kerbiloid]

Btw, as the interstellar Daedalus project was based on D+3He fusion into 4He + p, it means that both Daedauls and Starliner flight paths could be found by the traces of helium in space.

Maybe that's why it's called Star Liner.

Edited July 3 by kerbiloid

[Mikki]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw, as the interstellar Daedalus project was based on D+3He fusion into 4He + p, it means that both Daedauls and Starliner flight paths could be found by the traces of helium in space.

Maybe that's why it's called Star Liner.

I think i get the ... joke. Sniffing for isotopes is head on advanced tech i really wonder how long it has been done by the ... supplier.  

[Mikki]

Since this thread has become somewhat unpopular for many parkinglot users i came to the conclusion to execute aswell a "no-outdoor parking" policy. Installing autocannons video surveillance around my property gave me enough confidence to guess that Roscosmos will return the unstranded astronauts in due time.
(Driving away... very slow...)

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, Mikki said:

no-outdoor parking

Can't find the historical picture of the Gemini advanced docking compartment.

As Gemini didn't have a tunnel through the docking port, so going EVA was the only way to move between the ship and the station.

So, it was proposed to make a conical garage of 3+ m diameter around the station docking port.

Gemini floats into the garage, docks to the docking port at the far wall of ~1 m in diameter, and seals the 3 m wide entrance with a rubber obturator ring around its heatshield.
Then the garage is filled with air.

The 0.5 m gap between the conical ship and the conical garage allows to open the hatch door, crawl out, and enter the station hatch in the garage wall.

This would allow to use the regular 2-seat Gemini for crew delivery without using Big Gemini with Apollo-like docking port.

It's a time for larger garages.

[tater]

Update tomorrow, early August return?

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

[kerbiloid]

Quote

We’re updating some software files

A usual Kerbal way of solving problems.
May need a game restart to let the cfg changes be applied.

[darthgently]

16 hours ago, tater said:

 

So, firing thrusters while docked to ISS.  Not atypical at all, right?  It is as if the ISS and it's crew and tasks are only there to play second fiddle to Boeing debugging processes at this point.   Boeing should be paying high dollar for this level of disruption to ISS norms, as any other player would likely be required to do. 

Imagine if SpaceX or Rocketlab approached NASA with a proposal to dock a capsule to ISS and perform these very dynamic tests?  Would the international partners get some say in the matter?  Would impact to ongoing experiments be evaluated?  How long would it take NASA to evaluate the proposal and what would be the price tag associated with the impacts?  But Boeing basically unilaterally foisted this on all parties involved.  I'm bothered

Edited July 26 by darthgently

[tater]

26 minutes ago, darthgently said:

So, firing thrusters while docked to ISS.  Not atypical at all, right?  It is as if the ISS and it's crew and tasks are only there to play second fiddle to Boeing debugging processes at this point.   Boeing should be paying high dollar for this level of disruption to ISS norms, as any other player would likely be required to do. 

Imagine if SpaceX or Rocketlab approached NASA with a proposal to dock a capsule to ISS and perform these very dynamic tests?  Would the international partners get some say in the matter?  Would impact to ongoing experiments be evaluated?  How long would it take NASA to evaluate the proposal and what would be the price tag associated with the impacts?  But Boeing basically unilaterally foisted this on all parties involved.  I'm bothered

The (very involved) customer, NASA, really wants 2 providers. Look at the recent S2 issue with Falcon 9. While quickly sorted out, a longer stand down could be troublesome for ISS operations as well. It's worth it to them to have CST-100 in service, and I think any failure in that program for Boeing is the end of it (as Berger said yesterday). But yeah, Boeing fell down on the job here—which is really surprising given the clear success of programs like the X-37B. Seems like something they should have had sort of "off the shelf," internally TBH.

[darthgently]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

The (very involved) customer, NASA, really wants 2 providers. Look at the recent S2 issue with Falcon 9. While quickly sorted out, a longer stand down could be troublesome for ISS operations as well. It's worth it to them to have CST-100 in service, and I think any failure in that program for Boeing is the end of it (as Berger said yesterday). But yeah, Boeing fell down on the job here—which is really surprising given the clear success of programs like the X-37B. Seems like something they should have had sort of "off the shelf," internally TBH.

The success of X-37B combined with previous Starliner fumbles should have put Dreamchaser on the leaderboard, imo.  But Sierra seems to be dealing with issues or something that has slowed them down on that.  Dreamchaser with the trunk doubles what cargo dragon can handle and I'd think the software would have to be about as stable as X-37B. 

I know I'm presuming a lot here, but results from decades of real world shuttle data and success of X-37B would seem to indicate that Dreamchaser software is likely near "mature"

Edited July 26 by darthgently

[Terwin]

On 7/26/2024 at 7:59 AM, darthgently said:

I know I'm presuming a lot here, but results from decades of real world shuttle data and success of X-37B would seem to indicate that Dreamchaser software is likely near "mature"

I hope not.  

Generally speaking software gets called mature when one or more of the following are true:

1) The software and the hardware it runs on is old enough that no one knows how to fix or update it

2) The software is sufficiently complex and crufty that it can only be updated or maintained by a small number of Gurus that have been working on that system for more than a decade

3) like #2, but all the Gurus are dead or retired(more common than #2)

4) The entire development staff want to discard and replace the system with something less complex and crufty, because it is quickly approaching #2

5) The hardware needed to run the software no longer exists

 

And the only reason to hold on to 'mature' software is because it is business-critical and too expensive to replace.

 

It would be nice if the software development space were stable enough for 'mature' to mean the same thing it does in other industries, but that is not smething I expect to see in my life time.

[darthgently]

4 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I hope not.  

Generally speaking software gets called mature when one or more of the following are true:

1) The software and the hardware it runs on is old enough that no one knows how to fix or update it

2) The software is sufficiently complex and crufty that it can only be updated or maintained by a small number of Gurus that have been working on that system for more than a decade

3) like #2, but all the Gurus are dead or retired(more common than #2)

4) The entire development staff want to discard and replace the system with something less complex and crufty, because it is quickly approaching #2

5) The hardware needed to run the software no longer exists

 

And the only reason to hold on to 'mature' software is because it is business-critical and too expensive to replace.

 

It would be nice if the software development space were stable enough for 'mature' to mean the same thing it does in other industries, but that is not smething I expect to see in my life time.

Now you are just being a curmudgeon.  You know what I meant, lol

[Nuke]

7 hours ago, darthgently said:

Now you are just being a curmudgeon.  You know what I meant, lol

he is not wrong. ive had entire projects mothballed because someone updated a library in ways my program didn't plan for. my game engine is a good example. it runs on opengl 1.3, which was old when i started. why? did you look at how much code you have to write just to get vulkan to render a pixel.?

[darthgently]

25 minutes ago, Nuke said:

he is not wrong. ive had entire projects mothballed because someone updated a library in ways my program didn't plan for. my game engine is a good example. it runs on opengl 1.3, which was old when i started. why? did you look at how much code you have to write just to get vulkan to render a pixel.?

Ok, let me clarify.  By "software being mature" I didn't mean a specific compiled program.  I meant the general math and algorithms required to deorbit and land a shuttle-like lifting-body craft using cross range deceleration and such.  The approach is mature, not the specific libraries and bytes or processing hardware involved.  

Spoiler

Bonus Whinging:

Don't get me started on the bloat in software development.  It is one reason I got out of it professionally.  It started out where devs had 90+% control over the function of their code with the other 10% being hardware changes triggering a recompile now and then.  Then 3rd party libraries came in with their double edge, the bad edge being becoming tied to that API, which may not stay the same, and having to help the 3rd party debug their code, if there is even an avenue to do so,  so it can be reliable for your code.  And then you get caught up in N-way standoffs where library one requires wedge library A version 1 but library two requires wedge library A version 2.  And neither version is stable.  And they all have memory leaks.  Now it is as if most code has become infected with a digital analog to government and corporate bureaucracy.  Sadfunny.

 

[mikegarrison]

14 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Ok, let me clarify.  By "software being mature" I didn't mean a specific compiled program. 

Yes, but it is important.

It is hard to update the certified software of a aerospace vehicle. There is a whole set of steps involving "red label" and "black label" software. (Red label can be flight tested, but is not frozen. Black label software is "frozen" and can't be updated without re-starting the whole certification process. Or something like that.)

Edited July 30 by mikegarrison