Starliner delays

[billvon 3,114]

After the Starliner space vehicle launch, Boeing detected two additional problems with the vehicle.  One was an increase in the helium leak rate (minor) - a second was a failure of five vehicle thrusters (major.)  It still managed to dock with the ISS after a delay while they dealt with the thruster issue.  They have so far delayed its return five times.  This time they haven't given a date for the return; it is on indefinite hold.

The clock is ticking, though.  The vehicle only has enough consumables to last 45 days on-station, so unless they can return by July 21st, the vehicle will be stuck there.  More likely they will plan an unmanned return before then if they are still having problems.

What I worry about is the pressure that Boeing and NASA are under.   Having to do an unmanned return will look horrible for Boeing; they will appear to be able to do nothing right.  And since the crew will probably then come back in a Dragon, Musk will spend the next year crowing about how the safe, reliable Dragon rescued the poor astronauts from the deadly, defective Boeing vehicle ordered by those tax-money-wasting idiots at NASA.

And NASA is then going to have to explain why they spent $4.3 billion on the Boeing system, given that they spent only $2.5 billion on the Dragon, which has been flying for two years and costs half as much per mission than the Boeing will.  Saying "so yeah it needs some more work and another test flight" will not be a good look for them.

In both the Challenger and Columbia disasters, one of the big factors called out was "normalization of deviance" - the approach "well, it worked before and it's no worse now, so why worry?"  I hope they don't take that approach this time.

[olofscience 492]

This, along with the 737 MAX safety issues, and the general production quality issues that are being found means the rot is all over the company culture, and company culture is set from the top.

The entire upper management needs to go. But since Calhoun is part of the board and is even the chairman! I think the problems will continue and if I was a betting man I'd take a short position on Boeing stock.

[wmw999 2,587]

I wonder if the strong focus on short-term goals of saving money and servicing the stockholders contributes. I do know that Boeing’s federal division had a lot of very good employees who were encouraged to find ways to save money in the 90’s and early 2000’s (my company was a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin).

During Shuttle, IBM was wholly focused on quality; as a company, at my level at least we were encouraged to support the mission, not to come up with boondoggles. I have a feeling that was the same for most of the companies at the first and second-line levels, and very possibly the third. This strong focus on quality led to risk aversion, which increases costs. And, of course, taxpayers are all about cost, as are stockholders.

The systemic things I see that really concern me all have to do with money, which here in the US at least (and much of the world) is power. And we all know that people like power.

I don’t have the solution; this forum (and SC) are more like the donut counter where the old guys in the corner sit every morning and identify the world’s problems.

Upper management at Boeing will be replaced at the discretion of the stockholders, and only if the stock price takes a tumble. And they won’t hire someone who doesn’t want a large compensation package, because he (it’ll be a he) won’t have a “track record of stockholder satisfaction.”

Any more, that’s all that matters. Money makes most people pretty short-sighted. What Boeing needs is a longer-term goal, and the time and resources to address it. So yeah, a huge stock loss will help, but once they get a good quarter and some rich people have gotten their money back, things will go back

Wendy P. 

[sfzombie13 324]

On 6/24/2024 at 12:56 AM, billvon said:

they will appear to be able to do nothing right

they can't keep their planes in the sky and now can't get their rocket back to earth safely with the crew.  perhaps they can't.  two strikes so far, if you're being extremely generous...

[billvon 3,114]

They think they have diagnosed the thruster issue.  They're overheating during operation, and the heat is vaporizing the fuel or oxidizer before it gets to the combustion chamber.  Thus the ratios are dramatically off, and the thruster is generating almost no thrust.

There's no fix for this on-orbit.  About the only thing that they can try now is to set up a re-entry profile so that the vehicle is in the dark ~30 minutes or so before the re-entry burn so the thrusters will be cooler when they start firing.  Sort of a nailbiter, though, if you are depending on those thrusters to work to get the astronauts home.

[wmw999 2,587]

After the Columbia disaster, there was talk that if they had gotten the rescue mission, the pilot/commander types would have drawn straws to see who got to take Columbia home. And the word was that it was the winner, not the loser, who'd get to do it. Because if it works, he's a hero, and if it doesn't, he's still a hero, who goes out in a blaze of glory.

Absolutely no backing, just people who knew lots of astronauts surmising...

Wendy P.

[billvon 3,114]

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale
a tale of a fateful trip
that started from this tropic port
aboard a tiny ship.

The mate was a mighty spacewalker
the Skipper brave and sure
They launched to orbit Earth that day
for an 8 day long tour
an 8 day long tour.

The thursters started firin' rough
their leaky ship was tossed
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
Starliner would be lost
Starliner would be lost.

So join us here each week my friends,
you're sure to be impressed
By our two stranded castaways
Aboard the ISS

[SethInMI 174]

Still seeing rumors that NASA is seriously trying to decide on whether to use Starliner or Crew Dragon to bring the astronauts back.

The debate is something like "Is Starliner safe?, yes.  Is Crew Dragon safer? yes." All about managing risk.  As Bill said, this would be terrible for Boeing if Starliner comes back empty.

[sfzombie13 324]

On 8/1/2024 at 11:06 PM, SethInMI said:

As Bill said, this would be terrible for Boeing if Starliner comes back empty.

and how much worse will it be when they load up the boieng and it does what boeing shit is apt to do right now and explodes or otherwise kills them all on re-entry?  what kind of a look will that be and where can i get in on playing with shorting some boeing stock if they decide to put them on it? 

[jakee 1,594]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:23 PM, wmw999 said:

I wonder if the strong focus on short-term goals of saving money and servicing the stockholders contributes. I do know that Boeing’s federal division had a lot of very good employees who were encouraged to find ways to save money in the 90’s and early 2000’s (my company was a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin).

There's definitely a reason for that. Boeing up to the late '90s was a great company with a quality focussed culture, but since the upper management power struggle following the '97 merger it simply ceased to exist. Ever since it's been McDonnell-Douglas (who had a very shareholder fcussed culture) wearing a Boeing skin suit. 

[TampaPete 55]

Equipment to consider

 

Easy to follow instructions

[TampaPete 55]