7 ms·

Boeing's Starliner Now Has 5 Leaks While Parked Outside the ISS

74 points by scblzn 2y ago

seydor 2y ago
this is crazy. so many screws are loose in boeing
gnabgib 2y ago
Discussion [0] (37 points, yesterday, 48 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40662803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40662803
doublerabbit 2y ago
I wonder if there is an Enterprise equivalent for UFOs hire. Towing fees back to Roswell I could imagine would be pricey.
Simulacra 2y ago
Now with 5 leaks, at what point does it make sense to jettison the Starliner and get something else on the pad, something more reliable. Like SpaceX?
- verticalscaler 2y ago
  Starliner wasn't selected based on merit in the first place so only after people will die will it become impossible to pretend otherwise. What incentive do the current decision makers have to own up to their mistake? They'll double down first, watch. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
ramesh31 2y ago
With the officially stated reason from Boeing being "It would be quite involved" to fix before launch: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-and-boeing-are-getting-comfortable-launching-starliner-with-a-known-leak/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-and-boeing-are-ge... It would almost be comical at this point if this company weren't directly responsible for human lives.
Havoc 2y ago
That’s terrifying
- nomel 2y ago
  No it's not. > While Starliner is docked, all the manifolds are closed per normal mission operations preventing helium loss from the tanks, > “We can handle this particular leak if that leak rate were to grow even up to 100 times,”
  - protocolture 2y ago
    Its terrifying that the build quality is so poor due to the issues we have seen. The helium leak is obviously acceptable, but this thing is meant to return humans to the surface, can we trust that it wont have issues in other areas?
    - nomel 2y ago
      > can we trust that it wont have issues in other areas We can trust it's not perfect. For this problem, operating at 1/100 the failure point probably shouldn't stir too many emotions. There's very little in your daily life operating at those types of margins, except maybe the ground you walk on.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    If your propulsion system is developing leaks as you go, and, for good measure, you are also loosing thrusters in critical flight phases, than yes, this is terrifying. What you have is a known failing system, with a very high probability of additional failure as soon as it is repressurised and it enters its next stress cycle. Which is normally when these things like to fail.
    - nomel 2y ago
      > What you have is a known failing system Absolutely not. Engineering in the real world doesn't work like this. You don't design for perfection. You have intentionally defined specs set to what can be intentionally accommodated in your design. In this case you literally have is a system operating at 1% of the value that can be accommodated. That is not a problem. Something undesirable happening does not necessarily mean the system is failing, or that it's even a practical problem.
gwill 2y ago
are these actually scary leaks? in the article they say they'd be fine even if the leak were 100x the size.
- Waterluvian 2y ago
  Yeah this is one of those times my lizard brain wants to say, “that’s terrifying” but my not-as-lizard brain says, “you don’t have a frame of reference. What’s normal?”
- MR4D 2y ago
  In a sense, yes. The leaks shouldn’t be there, which means the craft is out of spec. Being out of spec in one area makes you consider how good/thorough the design and testing was. The next step is to consider what else isn’t working or might break sooner than anticipated. And that is not a pleasant thought.
- czl 2y ago
  You purchased an airplane. How would you feel when on the solo flight home you begin to hear odd sounds "under the hood"? The plane may still be flying ok but might you wonder for how much longer? It is not the noise that's the problem but rather what that noise predicts.
OutOfHere 2y ago
What would one expect from a company that indirectly allegedly has its own employee murdered for speaking up in favor of basic safety. If they don't care about their own employees, and they don't care about hundreds of passengers, they sure as hell don't care about a few astronauts.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  That's a big old "citation needed". As far as I'm aware that's a crackpot conspiracy theory - just because some fringe lunatic alleges something is enough to honestly decribe that something as "alleged".
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Coincidences happen, but it sure is a mighty convenient one in this case.
    - robgibbons 2y ago
      Since you brought up coincidences, a second Boeing whistleblower died not too long after. The first died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the second of pneumonia. https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/second-boeing-whistleblower-dies https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/sec...
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    It is not a fringe theory. It is quite mainstream. Boeing is ostensibly "protected from above" due to their military and space contracts, but as we're seeing with Starliner, such contracts are proving to be a liability.
    - et-al 2y ago
      I love a good conspiracy theory, but you need to link to some articles about the video cameras.
thot_experiment 2y ago
If it's a Boeing I'm not going.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  I don't mind flying on a well-tested 777 (i.e. one that's been in service for years). It's a great design from before Boeing really went down the shitter, and is probably the backbone of most carrier's long-haul intercontinental fleets today. But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.
  - ls612 2y ago
    787 is also a well tested safe design which was designed after those nasty MBAs took over. 11 years and counting without a hull loss gives me confidence flying across the ocean on one of them.
    - hedora 2y ago
      The 777 has killed one and injured 104 passengers this year, and the 787 has injured 50. Are you and the parent comment missing a /s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_32... https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flight-injuries-new-zealand-tuesday-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
      - xeornet 2y ago
        Both of those incidents have a total of zero percent relation to the aircraft being Boeing or its design. The CNN article is wrong, it was since found the seat move switch was pushed and interfered with flight controls. The 777 was severe turbulence. The death was a heart attack. Lol…
        2y ago
leoh 2y ago
We really still sure this whole decompression sickness thing was just a “simulation”? https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-broadcasts-simulation-distressed-astronauts-space-station-2024-06-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-b...
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
  I read that article earlier, but it didn’t mention Boeing so I wasn’t questioning it. But where Boeing goes, bad things follow.
- everforward 2y ago
  I don't think a "leak" would cause decompression sickness. Decompression sickness is caused by bubbles forming when pressure decreases too quickly for the body to expel now-excess nitrogen. A slow, gradual decrease would provide plenty of time to expel excess nitrogen. A leak in a pressure vessel is basically how deep saturation divers re-acclimate to standard pressure, and they're making a much, much larger change in pressure (maximum of 14.5 psi delta on the ISS, ~429.06 for a saturation diver at 1000 ft). It's really a delta P of 10 psi though, since the American space suits are 4.5 psi. There's not really much point in talking about decompression sickness without a space suit; they'd die of lack of O2 or exposure even without DCS. Current recommendations for space walks are a 4 hour denitrogenation period breathing 100% oxygen, and that's pretty cautious. That's based on the denitrogenation rate of the slowest tissues; it could likely be done significantly faster without presenting dramatically increased risks of DCS, and especially so if you only need to avoid type 2 DCS where the bubbles present a risk of dying.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Also, this is helium from the propulsion system. >> Helium is used in the spacecraft’s thruster systems to allow the thrusters to fire without being combustible or toxic. I'm assuming it's used to backfill tanks as they're emptied?
    - CableNinja 2y ago

74 points by scblzn 2y ago

this is crazy. so many screws are loose in boeing

Discussion [0] (37 points, yesterday, 48 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40662803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40662803

doublerabbit 2y ago

I wonder if there is an Enterprise equivalent for UFOs hire. Towing fees back to Roswell I could imagine would be pricey.

Simulacra 2y ago

Now with 5 leaks, at what point does it make sense to jettison the Starliner and get something else on the pad, something more reliable. Like SpaceX?

verticalscaler 2y ago
Starliner wasn't selected based on merit in the first place so only after people will die will it become impossible to pretend otherwise. What incentive do the current decision makers have to own up to their mistake? They'll double down first, watch. Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

ramesh31 2y ago

With the officially stated reason from Boeing being "It would be quite involved" to fix before launch: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-and-boeing-are-getting-comfortable-launching-starliner-with-a-known-leak/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-and-boeing-are-ge... It would almost be comical at this point if this company weren't directly responsible for human lives.

Havoc 2y ago

That’s terrifying

nomel 2y ago
No it's not. > While Starliner is docked, all the manifolds are closed per normal mission operations preventing helium loss from the tanks, > “We can handle this particular leak if that leak rate were to grow even up to 100 times,”
- protocolture 2y ago
  Its terrifying that the build quality is so poor due to the issues we have seen. The helium leak is obviously acceptable, but this thing is meant to return humans to the surface, can we trust that it wont have issues in other areas?
  - nomel 2y ago
    > can we trust that it wont have issues in other areas We can trust it's not perfect. For this problem, operating at 1/100 the failure point probably shouldn't stir too many emotions. There's very little in your daily life operating at those types of margins, except maybe the ground you walk on.
- fransje26 2y ago
  If your propulsion system is developing leaks as you go, and, for good measure, you are also loosing thrusters in critical flight phases, than yes, this is terrifying. What you have is a known failing system, with a very high probability of additional failure as soon as it is repressurised and it enters its next stress cycle. Which is normally when these things like to fail.
  - nomel 2y ago
    > What you have is a known failing system Absolutely not. Engineering in the real world doesn't work like this. You don't design for perfection. You have intentionally defined specs set to what can be intentionally accommodated in your design. In this case you literally have is a system operating at 1% of the value that can be accommodated. That is not a problem. Something undesirable happening does not necessarily mean the system is failing, or that it's even a practical problem.

gwill 2y ago

are these actually scary leaks? in the article they say they'd be fine even if the leak were 100x the size.

Waterluvian 2y ago
Yeah this is one of those times my lizard brain wants to say, “that’s terrifying” but my not-as-lizard brain says, “you don’t have a frame of reference. What’s normal?”
MR4D 2y ago
In a sense, yes. The leaks shouldn’t be there, which means the craft is out of spec. Being out of spec in one area makes you consider how good/thorough the design and testing was. The next step is to consider what else isn’t working or might break sooner than anticipated. And that is not a pleasant thought.
czl 2y ago
You purchased an airplane. How would you feel when on the solo flight home you begin to hear odd sounds "under the hood"? The plane may still be flying ok but might you wonder for how much longer? It is not the noise that's the problem but rather what that noise predicts.

OutOfHere 2y ago

What would one expect from a company that indirectly allegedly has its own employee murdered for speaking up in favor of basic safety. If they don't care about their own employees, and they don't care about hundreds of passengers, they sure as hell don't care about a few astronauts.

WheatMillington 2y ago
That's a big old "citation needed". As far as I'm aware that's a crackpot conspiracy theory - just because some fringe lunatic alleges something is enough to honestly decribe that something as "alleged".
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Coincidences happen, but it sure is a mighty convenient one in this case.
  - robgibbons 2y ago
    Since you brought up coincidences, a second Boeing whistleblower died not too long after. The first died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and the second of pneumonia. https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/second-boeing-whistleblower-dies https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/sec...
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  It is not a fringe theory. It is quite mainstream. Boeing is ostensibly "protected from above" due to their military and space contracts, but as we're seeing with Starliner, such contracts are proving to be a liability.
  - et-al 2y ago
    I love a good conspiracy theory, but you need to link to some articles about the video cameras.

thot_experiment 2y ago

If it's a Boeing I'm not going.

shiroiushi 2y ago
I don't mind flying on a well-tested 777 (i.e. one that's been in service for years). It's a great design from before Boeing really went down the shitter, and is probably the backbone of most carrier's long-haul intercontinental fleets today. But there's no way I'd fly as an astronaut on Starliner. I have very little confidence it won't have a catastrophic failure, considering how Boeing's been doing things lately.
- ls612 2y ago
  787 is also a well tested safe design which was designed after those nasty MBAs took over. 11 years and counting without a hull loss gives me confidence flying across the ocean on one of them.
  - hedora 2y ago
    The 777 has killed one and injured 104 passengers this year, and the 787 has injured 50. Are you and the parent comment missing a /s? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_321 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_32... https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flight-injuries-new-zealand-tuesday-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
    - xeornet 2y ago
      Both of those incidents have a total of zero percent relation to the aircraft being Boeing or its design. The CNN article is wrong, it was since found the seat move switch was pushed and interfered with flight controls. The 777 was severe turbulence. The death was a heart attack. Lol…
      - 2y ago

leoh 2y ago

We really still sure this whole decompression sickness thing was just a “simulation”? https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-broadcasts-simulation-distressed-astronauts-space-station-2024-06-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-b...

hehdhdjehehegwv 2y ago
I read that article earlier, but it didn’t mention Boeing so I wasn’t questioning it. But where Boeing goes, bad things follow.
everforward 2y ago
I don't think a "leak" would cause decompression sickness. Decompression sickness is caused by bubbles forming when pressure decreases too quickly for the body to expel now-excess nitrogen. A slow, gradual decrease would provide plenty of time to expel excess nitrogen. A leak in a pressure vessel is basically how deep saturation divers re-acclimate to standard pressure, and they're making a much, much larger change in pressure (maximum of 14.5 psi delta on the ISS, ~429.06 for a saturation diver at 1000 ft). It's really a delta P of 10 psi though, since the American space suits are 4.5 psi. There's not really much point in talking about decompression sickness without a space suit; they'd die of lack of O2 or exposure even without DCS. Current recommendations for space walks are a 4 hour denitrogenation period breathing 100% oxygen, and that's pretty cautious. That's based on the denitrogenation rate of the slowest tissues; it could likely be done significantly faster without presenting dramatically increased risks of DCS, and especially so if you only need to avoid type 2 DCS where the bubbles present a risk of dying.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Also, this is helium from the propulsion system. >> Helium is used in the spacecraft’s thruster systems to allow the thrusters to fire without being combustible or toxic. I'm assuming it's used to backfill tanks as they're emptied?
  - CableNinja 2y ago