Post by Admin on Dec 21, 2019 22:54:23 GMT
Boeing's Starliner Falls Short in Big Blow to NASA's Crewed Program
In space, you always need to know what time it is.
This morning Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, built to carry NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, suffered an anomaly after it launched from Florida.
Media, satellite trackers, and space enthusiasts around the world were kept in early morning suspense as the picture perfect launch became a crisis high above Earth when the spacecraft was reported to have suffered an "off nominal insertion" into orbit.
So what does this mean for Starliner and NASA's crewed ambitions?
Media, satellite trackers, and space enthusiasts around the world were kept in early morning suspense as the picture perfect launch became a crisis high above Earth when the spacecraft was reported to have suffered an "off nominal insertion" into orbit.
So what does this mean for Starliner and NASA's crewed ambitions?
So...What the Hell Happened?
According to NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, the spacecraft has a "Mission Elapsed Time anomaly causing the spacecraft to believe it was in an orbital insertion when it was not."
The MET is a pretty basic function of a spacecraft, but it is a vital one since everything it's programmed to do happens at a specific time, and for a specific amount of time. It's the basics behind all space navigation.
Boeing seems to have built a modern spacecraft that lost track of the time. Boeing officials say they don’t yet know the root cause.
At an all-hands press conference, Bridenstine said “a lot of things went right” and that “this is why we test.”
Boeing seems to have built a modern spacecraft that lost track of the time.
Although saying the information was still being processed, he said the operators couldn’t correct the mistake and fire the engine to get into proper orbit in time. Bridenstine said “it appears we were between two communications satellites” and couldn’t get a signal to command the spacecraft.
The MET is a pretty basic function of a spacecraft, but it is a vital one since everything it's programmed to do happens at a specific time, and for a specific amount of time. It's the basics behind all space navigation.
Boeing seems to have built a modern spacecraft that lost track of the time. Boeing officials say they don’t yet know the root cause.
At an all-hands press conference, Bridenstine said “a lot of things went right” and that “this is why we test.”
Boeing seems to have built a modern spacecraft that lost track of the time.
Although saying the information was still being processed, he said the operators couldn’t correct the mistake and fire the engine to get into proper orbit in time. Bridenstine said “it appears we were between two communications satellites” and couldn’t get a signal to command the spacecraft.
Boeing and NASA officials, including NASA Starliner astronaut Nicole Mann, have emphasized that had astronauts been on board, they could have saved the mission by taking control of the spacecraft once it was clear that the automation wasn't working.
"If we had crew on board they would have been safe and we may be docking with ISS tomorrow" Bridenstine said.
"If we had crew on board they would have been safe and we may be docking with ISS tomorrow" Bridenstine said.
Will the Spacecraft Dock With ISS?
No. The bad insertion cost too much fuel.
"Because Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control," Bridenstine said.
Those dead bands are like governors that limit the vehicle's behavior during certain phases of flight. During some parts of the ascent, precision is vital and the spacecraft will correct itself constantly. This burns lots of fuel, especially when it happens in the wrong phase of the flight.
"Because Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control," Bridenstine said.
Those dead bands are like governors that limit the vehicle's behavior during certain phases of flight. During some parts of the ascent, precision is vital and the spacecraft will correct itself constantly. This burns lots of fuel, especially when it happens in the wrong phase of the flight.
The flight team has control of the spacecraft and elevated the orbit of the spacecraft with "good burns." This should enable control of the capsule, enough to set it down at White Sands in around 48 hours, so landing there is a big test objective and a badly needed win for Boeing and NASA.
Boeing astronaut Chris Ferguson, who is scheduled to ride in the spacecraft next year, tweeted an update that made it clear that the landing options are being discussed as the capsule rests in a safe orbit.
What Does This Mean for NASA's Crew Program?
Boeing astronaut Chris Ferguson, who is scheduled to ride in the spacecraft next year, tweeted an update that made it clear that the landing options are being discussed as the capsule rests in a safe orbit.
What Does This Mean for NASA's Crew Program?
This was a test launch, and as such, the issues that it suffered can and will be corrected. However, this failure happened early in the mission. Most of the critical things that this cruise was meant to test—like docking to the space station and taking the full ride back down to the surface—remain untested.
The likelihood of NASA doing those things for the first time with people on board are slim.
The likelihood of NASA doing those things for the first time with people on board are slim.
The commercial crew program has always prized competition, which provides some redundancy as well as cost savings and innovation. SpaceX waits in the wings, launching its crewed Dragon capsule from a Falcon 9 rocket within weeks. Much of the hardware for that launch has been used to launch cargo flights to the space station, so the chance of success should be higher than today's less-than-ideal inaugural launch.
This disappointing test is bad news for Boeing, which has already been chastised by the GAO for a $90 million per seat price tag for its flights, (a figure Boeing disputes) while receiving a lot more money than SpaceX.
Delays have already sent NASA back to the Russians for rides to the ISS. It's hard to imagine, even if SpaceX nails their launch, that Boeing's rides will be ready when needed. It's a black eye for NASA and a chance for Russia to once again assert that NASA can't catch up to its workhorse Soyuz.
This disappointing test is bad news for Boeing, which has already been chastised by the GAO for a $90 million per seat price tag for its flights, (a figure Boeing disputes) while receiving a lot more money than SpaceX.
Delays have already sent NASA back to the Russians for rides to the ISS. It's hard to imagine, even if SpaceX nails their launch, that Boeing's rides will be ready when needed. It's a black eye for NASA and a chance for Russia to once again assert that NASA can't catch up to its workhorse Soyuz.