Stich explained that the plan is to monitor the leak in the lead-up to launch and, after reaching the International Space Station, reassess the leak rate.

I got major 'O-ring' vibes after reading that.

I can't believe they're going to fly with that leak.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] partial_accumen 47 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.

In SRB O-rings, fire gets OUT of where you want the fire to stay. In this situation the worst case scenario is that the helium would not be available to push fuel out of the fuel storage tank to the place where fire is suppose to occur. So again, in worst case, it won't be a giant fireball, but no thrust of the spacecraft in space when you want it. You'd like get lots of notice if this is going to be a problem in the future and be able to take different actions.

That said, none of this kind of problem should occur so far into development and after 2 previous flights.

[–] CosmicCleric 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.

I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened

My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can't maneuver the craft, which means they can't get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.

And if the shuttle tiles situation tells us anything, they don't take everything with them up into space, to do on-site emergency repairs.

Even if they brought extra helium with them, if the leak is widened (launch vibrations, etc.) to a point where the helium escapes too quickly now, before the whole reentry sequence completes, then they're stuck.

Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn't get any worse. Feels like a 'roll of the dice' moment.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] partial_accumen 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened

No argument from me there. Starliner has been a mess managerial.

Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.

Halfway across the desert.

My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.

If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there's any risk of lack of helium, they won't fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe. My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.

[–] CosmicCleric 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.

I guess I'm used to the old NASA, where they would never 'play the Vegas odds', risk the astronauts under any condition, besides the normal risks of just launching in a rocket in the first place.

Interesting to see how having a private business corporation involved would change that mindset.

I do hope you're right, for the crews sake.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

If they dock successfully with the ISS, and before they leave they think there's any risk of lack of helium, they won't fly Starliner home. The crew of two could just stay safe on the ISS, and a Crew Dragon (with two empty seats) could be flown up to bring the Astronauts home safe.

Imagine the PR nightmare for Boeing if they have to send a competitors spacecraft up to return the astronauts they launched? I’d almost wish for this to happen just for the embarrassment it would cause Boeing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Is it an external leak? Or an internal one?

IE is it leaking into the fuel vessel and pressurizing it unintentionally? Or just leaking to external "void" space?

[–] partial_accumen 4 points 6 months ago

I don't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if they ran the fuel system lines into the pressure vessel. I can see no benefit to doing so, and only extra work and risk, so my assumption is the leak just leaks into space.

[–] CosmicCleric 4 points 6 months ago

Is it an external leak? Or an internal one?

My guess would be internal to the engine/compartment somewhere, with limited or no access to the broken part, or else they would have repaired it instead of just monitoring it.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 6 months ago

Both once the hatch door falls off mid-flight.

[–] kokesh 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Imagine being chosen not for Dragon, but for this... I would be shitting myself now.

[–] partial_accumen 16 points 6 months ago

One of the Astronauts chosen for Starliner already retired years ago because the Starliner development took so long, so its down to a crew of two.

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit 4 points 6 months ago

They calculated that the thrusters would still work normally with up to 4 leaks of that size, or one leak up to 100x that size. And the affected thrusters are the backup for the backup for what they're actually using to maneuver.