The Starliner debacle is now past, with the crew still on the International Space Station, but the capsule safely landed in New Mexico. With all the problems that cropped up on this test flight, NASA thought it best not to risk the crew’s lives riding home in Starliner, despite their both being former Navy test pilots and former NASA astronauts.
One must ask the question:
what went wrong? As near as I can
tell, there were some very serious plumbing
problems. There are two systems
involved. One is the helium gas
pressurant that drives the propellants to the attitude control thrusters and
maneuvering engines, and the other is in
the delivery lines for the nitrogen tetroxide oxidant those thrusters and engines
use.
Those devices use nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer, and one of the hydrazine fuels, as propellants that ignite all by themselves
upon contact. Being helium pressure-driven
instead of turbo-pumped, they are
extremely-simple rocket designs! This
technology dates back over 6 decades, to
the earliest manned space flights in the very early 1960’s. From about 1965 forward, this technology has been very dependable and
reliable.
So, what went wrong with
Starliner? And why?
One problem was multiple helium leaks. There was one known before launch, and more appeared during the flight to the
space station, including one that was
rather large. Closing valves at the
supply tanks stops the leaks, but one
must worry about how long the helium supply will last, when you open those valves to use the
thruster systems, and the leaks resume!
The other problem was thrusters erratically underperforming. The trouble was traced to reductions in
nitrogen tetroxide flow because of some sort of seals swelling when hot, and acting to reduce the oxidizer flow. Thrusters way-underperform when that
happens.
These thruster propellants are very toxic, and they react quite readily and rather
extremely with the materials one uses in the plumbing design. In particular, nitrogen tetroxide has a history of
this, even more so than hydrazine! This is not a new problem, based on the history, back to the early 1960’s.
It was no longer a problem with Apollo or the Space
Shuttle. It is apparently not a current
problem with crew Dragon. But it has
once again become a problem with Starliner!
Why?
There are two suspects for this: one is corporate greed over-riding any ethics, and the other is an interruption of the
passing-on of prior knowledge and history to the current generation of
engineering designers. Both are at work
here!
The corporate greed problem traces directly to the anonymity
of working in a very large organization.
People in large organizations are effectively separated from
face-to-face contact with the people their actions might hurt. So they will do evils, as part of the organization, that they would never do one-on-one, with members of the public. That frees the corporate bigwigs to act in
any manner that maximizes money made, so
long as they do not get caught violating any laws.
The problem of an interruption in the passing-on of prior
knowledge is also related to money! There
is an old saying that I like to quote:
“Rocket science is not really science.
It is only about 40% science,
that being the stuff written down.
It is about 50% art, that being
the stuff never written down, because no
one would pay to have it written down.
And, it is about 10% blind dumb
luck”.
I would only add that’s in production work; in development, the art and luck percentages are even higher! That engineering art is not taught in
schools. It is passed-on one-on-one, on-the-job,
from the old hand to the newbie. Except, it is only passed-on, if the company hasn’t gotten rid of all the
old hands as too-expensive!
Boeing was once renowned for its high-quality aircraft. Bombers included the B-17, the B-29,
the B-47, and the B-52. Transports included the B-377/C-97 that saw
long service as the KC-97 tanker, the
B-707/720, the B-727, the early B-737 models, the B-747,
the B-757, the B-767, and the B-777.
However, in recent
years, Boeing transports have become
more problematical, and they don’t make
bombers anymore (the last being the B-1B actually built by North American
Rockell, whom Boeing bought).
Most folks are aware of the serious troubles with the
late-model B-737MAX series. They might
not be aware of troubles with the B-777-9 certification, the serious quality issues plaguing B-787
Dreamliner assembly, and the KC-46
tanker (based on the B-767) that could not effectively serve as a tanker for 2
years after entering service. We will see how the earlier 737 models work out as the new Navy P-8 patrol plane (update 9-20-2024).
These troubles (and the SLS rocket that is too expensive to
use, plus the failure-prone Starliner)
emerged after Boeing absorbed its last transport competitor, McDonnell-Douglas, and a merged corporate management regime took over. The new regime bragged about converting the
company from a quality product producer, to one that maximized shareholder value. They also moved headquarters away from where
engineering was done, to Chicago (update 9-20-2024), finally to
Virginia, to better lobby Congress.
All this shows in the stock price history plotted over
time. Growth in stock price mostly
surged after the new regime took over,
punctuated primarily by the Covid-induced downturn that affected everybody.
Clearly, money matters, but lives do not, not anymore!
And that simply cannot be tolerated in a manufacturer of aircraft,
or spacecraft!
There are some regulators who need to account for letting
this happen!
The Starliner should have been utilized as a-- cargo vessel-- to the ISS for at least its first few missions. That would have allowed for any malfunctions to be detected and corrected before any crewed flights-- while also allowing Boeing to make money.
ReplyDeleteBut Congress should have also provided funding for the Dream Chaser as a third Commercial Crew vehicle right from the start.
Congress needs to correct this by fast tracking (commercial crew deployment within 4 years) for the Dream Chaser and an Orion B (an Artemis Orion spacecraft designed only for LEO missions).
Having four US commercial space craft capable of being deployed into orbit increases competition, enhances safety, and should lower cost.
Can't argue with what you said. It's just that Congress does not micromanage NASA logically in any way. -- GW
DeleteOf course, none of these Commercial Crew vehicles make any economic sense unless private space companies start to deploy private commercial space stations (no matter how big or small) to orbit that can be used by government agencies, private companies, and by super wealthy tourist and, hopefully, Space Lotto winners from around the world.
Delete