https://spacenews.com/boeing-performs-starliner-pad-abort-test/
WASHINGTON — NASA and Boeing said a pad abort test of the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle Nov. 4 was a success despite the failure of one of the capsule's three parachutes to properly deploy.
The Starliner lifted off from a test stand at Launch Complex 32 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico at approximately 9:15 a.m. Eastern time. The spacecraft's launch abort engines fired for five seconds, and a separate set of orbital maneuvering thrusters for 10 seconds, accelerating the spacecraft to more than 1,000 kilometers per hour to simulate escaping a malfunctioning rocket on the launch pad.
The capsule soared to a planned peak altitude of about 1,350 meters before jettisoning its service module and heat shield, then deploying its parachutes. The capsule, cushioned by airbags, landed about 90 seconds after liftoff.
...
"We did have a deployment anomaly, not a parachute failure," Boeing said in a post-launch statement. "It's too early to determine why all three main parachutes did not deploy, however, having two of three deploy successfully is acceptable for the test parameters and crew safety." The company added that, at the present time, it doesn't expect the issue to delay the Orbital Flight Test.
...
SpaceX, which conducted a pad abort test of its Crew Dragon spacecraft in May 2015, is preparing for an in-flight abort test in December. On that test, a Crew Dragon spacecraft will fire its SuperDraco thrusters to escape a Falcon 9 nearly 90 seconds after liftoff from the Kennedy Space Center, around the time of maximum dynamic pressure on the spacecraft. SpaceX is scheduled to perform a static fire of those thrusters as soon as Nov. 6 in preparation for that flight.
Boeing will not perform its own in-flight abort test, concluding that data from the pad abort, along with modeling of flight conditions, will be sufficient, an approach NASA approved.
Boeing and NASA are declaring the test a success because the crew and capsule would have been perfectly safe had this happened under real conditions. The capsule is designed to be able to land even following a failure of one of the parachutes. However, the reason that redundancies exist is because there are often unforeseen issues outside of test conditions. Should a test that would result in the crew living, yet one that also fails to function nominally be considered a success? If so, is this success enough to provide sufficient confidence in Boeing's ability to move forward without even carrying out an in-flight abort, which is substantially more challenging than a pad abort?
Related Stories
SpaceX fires up redesigned Crew Dragon as NASA reveals SuperDraco thruster "flaps"
On November 13th, SpaceX revealed that a planned static fire test of a Crew Dragon's powerful abort thrusters was completed without issue, a strong sign that the company has successfully redesigned the spacecraft to prevent a catastrophic April 2019 explosion from reoccurring.
Pending a far more extensive analysis, Wednesday's static fire should leave SpaceX on track to perform Crew Dragon's next major flight test before the end of 2019.
[...] Each capable of producing several dozen pounds of thrust, both Crew and Cargo Dragon use Draco thrusters to orient themselves in orbit, rendezvous with the International Space Station, and lower their orbits to reenter Earth's atmosphere. Crew Dragon's Draco thrusters are also designed to control its attitude during abort scenarios, stabilizing and flipping the spacecraft to prevent a loss of control and ensure proper orientation during emergency parachute deployment. The Draco firings during Crew Dragon's November 13th static fire were meant to simulate that additional use-case.
Aside from verifying that SpaceX has successfully redesigned Crew Dragon to mitigate the failure mode that caused capsule C201's catastrophic explosion in April 2019, the Draco static fires specifically mirrored the burns Crew Dragon C205 will need to perform to successfully complete its In-Flight Abort (IFA) test. As noted by NASA and SpaceX, with the static fire complete, both teams will now comb through the data produced, inspect Crew Dragon to verify its health and the performance of its redesigned high-flow pressurization system, and perform any necessary refurbishment.
NASA's post on Crew Dragon's static fire revealed another thoroughly intriguing detail: the SpaceX spacecraft's SuperDraco thrusters apparently have flaps! A bit of retroactive speculation suggests that SuperDracos are closed out with plugs of some sort to create a seal against the environment before Crew Dragon is rolled out to the launch pad. Perhaps, in the event of a SuperDraco ignition, SpaceX included actuating flaps as a method of resealing those thrusters prior to splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean.
Related: SpaceX Crew Dragon Suffers "Anomaly" During Static Fire Test
Investigation Into Crew Dragon Incident Continues
SpaceX and NASA Investigation Identifies Cause of Crew Dragon Explosion
NASA and SpaceX Hope for Manned Mission to ISS in Early 2020
Boeing Performs Starliner Pad Abort Test. Declares Success Though 1 of 3 Parachutes Fails to Deploy.
Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule:
In releasing the outcome of a joint investigation, NASA said it still has not decided whether to require Boeing to launch the Starliner again without a crew, or go straight to putting astronauts on board.
Douglas Loverro, NASA's human exploration and operation chief, told reporters that Boeing must first present a plan and schedule for the 61 corrective actions. Boeing expects to have a plan in NASA's hands by the end of this month.
Loverro said the space agency wants to verify, among other things, that Boeing has retested all the necessary software for Starliner.
"At the end of the day, what we have got to decide is ... do we have enough confidence to say we are ready to fly with a crew or do we believe that we need another uncrewed testing," Loverro said.
Boeing's Jim Chilton, a senior vice president, said his company is ready to repeat a test flight without a crew, if NASA decides on one.
"'All of us want crew safety No. 1," Chilton said. "Whatever testing we've got to do to make that happen, we embrace it."
Loverro said he felt compelled to designate the test flight as a "high-visibility close call." He said that involves more scrutiny of Boeing and NASA to make sure mistakes like this don't happen again.
Software errors not only left the Starliner in the wrong orbit following liftoff and precluded a visit to the International Space Station but they could have caused a collision between the capsule and its separated service module toward the end of the two-day flight. That error was caught and corrected by ground controllers just hours before touchdown.
Citation: Boeing hit with 61 safety fixes for astronaut capsule (2020, March 6) retrieved 6 March 2020 from https://phys.org/news/2020-03-boeing-safety-astronaut-capsule.html
Boeing to Launch Starliner Spacecraft for Second go at Reaching the ISS After First Mission Failed:
On Monday, Boeing announced it will take a second shot at sending an uncrewed Starliner to the station as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The program aims to launch astronauts from US soil for the first time since the end of the space shuttle era in 2011.
[...] "We have chosen to refly our Orbital Flight Test to demonstrate the quality of the Starliner system," Boeing in a brief statement. "Flying another uncrewed flight will allow us to complete all flight test objectives and evaluate the performance of the second Starliner vehicle at no cost to the taxpayer."
Boeing and NASA have not yet revealed a date for the launch. Starliner must pass its uncrewed flight tests before NASA uses it to send astronauts to the ISS.
Do not cry too much for Boeing as they are the prime contractor for the SLS (Space launch System) which is currently funded to the tune of over $1 billion per year.
Previously:
(2020-03-07) Boeing Hit With 61 Safety Fixes for Astronaut Capsule
(2020-03-01) Boeing Acknowledges "Gaps" in its Starliner Software Testing
(2020-02-07) NASA Safety Panel Calls for Reviews after Second Starliner Software Problem
(2019-12-24) Boeing Starliner Lands Safely in the Desert After Failing to Reach Correct Orbit
(2019-12-23) Boeing's Failed Starliner Mission Strains 'Reliability' Pitch
(2019-12-20) Starliner Fails to Make Journey to ISS
(2019-11-19) Boeing Provides Damage Control After Inspector General's Report on Commercial Crew Program
(2019-11-06) Boeing Performs Starliner Pad Abort Test. Declares Success Though 1 of 3 Parachutes Fails to Deploy.
(2019-09-03) Boeing Readies "Astronaut" for Likely October Test Launch
(2018-04-07) Boeing Crewed Test Flight to the ISS May be Upgraded to a Full Mission
Click to search SoylentNews for more Starliner stories.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:35AM (1 child)
Boeing can just install a "parachute disagree light"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:48AM
An on-board Dislike button deploys an inflatable safe space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:24AM
Same uneasy feeling I would get if my mechanic tried ta assure me the brakes are OK, when it's obvious the brake malfunction indicator is lit.
"Oh, your brakes are redundant. Your car will still stop!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:25AM
I've heard that before and the "sufficient" failed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:42AM (1 child)
Boeing has forgotten how to speak plainly and tell the truth. Shame on them.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:27AM
Maybe the spec was written by the person who could utter this sentence without realising what he was mangling:
"It's too early to determine why all three main parachutes did not deploy, however, having two of three deploy successfully is acceptable for the test parameters and crew safety.".
Specifically the phrase "all three main parachutes did not deploy". subject="all three main parachutes" action="did not deploy". Only sane interpretation: none of them deployed, as they all didn't deploy (if you don't believe me, subsitute "did not" with "failed to"), not the reality he's trying to describe.
Completely different from "not all of the three main parachutes deployed". subject="not all of the three main parachutes" action="deployed". Only sane interpretation: not all 3 deployed, which is the reality he was attempting to describe.
The only positive we can get from this result is that the shutes fail independently of each other, the redundancy is doing its job. However, if the failure rate is 1/3, then they're killing everyone 11% of the time, which ain't a great result. If the failure mode was all-or-none, then the redundancy would be utterly useless.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Touché) by goodie on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:59AM
Sounds just like the way they have described the MCAS on the B737 Max... anyone surprised?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:32AM (1 child)
They should install some kind of Parachute Characteristics Augmentation System. That'll make it extra super safe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:55PM
It would be more consistent it they called it the
Multiple Chute Augmentation System.
I'd like to see the statistics that made this a success.
Seems like if one failed on the first test, the NASA that actually got to the moon would really want to know why before declaring anything.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:43AM (2 children)
Read your bible, people, the number of the beast shall be BOEING! If you substitute the Hewbraic Kabballah values for the Latinate letters, it amount to 666, just like if you added up all the letters in George Walker Buesch: 666, the Number of the Beast!!! And do not get me started on the Donald. Donald Jefferson Trump? 5-7-5? Trump is a haiku! The Japanese have totally owned him! Poor unstable idiot. Too bad he is going to be Impeached, and roasted in the f
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:47AM
Fires of Sloar, as in roasted in, as in,
He could tell you, because he was an accountant, before he was turned into a dog [fandom.com], along with Sigourney Weaver. There are worse fates, you know.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:10PM
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:17PM