Boeing's Starliner Now Has 5 Leaks While Parked Outside the ISS
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-b...
But where Boeing goes, bad things follow.
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.
>> 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?
1) To keep the fuel/oxidizer pressurized and liquid (by pressure) as the tanks content empties.
2) for RCS thrust, as a cold gas thruster.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/02/sec...
At least for Boeing, they’ll be benefiting from the fear other potential whistleblowers may have.
But it’s also possible that Boeing don’t know about the deaths because someone else has done it for them. But that’s when we start going down the rabbit hole of suspects from Mossad to the CIA!
Regardless, the big question is: Would they have the stomach to do it if they they could get away with it?
…to ME, that has a very easy answer.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Not rational enough? Or too rational?
(a) You're starting from just finding out Boeing is a major defense contractor.
(b) Everything after that is your opinions on conspiracy theories, without any content.
b) So tell me, would Boeing benefit from whistleblowers being too scared to blow their whistles? If I am wrong to make that assumption, then please tell me why? AND for a business which provides the actual missiles which have wiped out around 15000 children, would that company have any qualms about a threat to their business disappearing?
What I said was logical. And there is no way you will be able to provide anything which is more logical and SANE than what I have said. But, I am OPEN to think about whatever reply you have.
Your opinion can be logical, but everyone has their own opinion.
If you want suggestions, I'd recommend taking an approach of "What are you including in your comment that would interest or inform someone, versus the other millions of opinions on the internet?"
Or, 'Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.' https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Also, while we're at it, 'Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.'
Yes, opinions are like arsehole’s… everyone has one. However, for lack of logical opinions like mine in a sub thread relating to thoughts of conspiracy, I personally feel that mine does have the ability to spark a second thought about a situation. If you don’t agree, that’s your opinion.
And thanks for your tips on emphasism - highly interesting and informing.
The second - if you assume it's on behalf of Boeing could easily backfire if he went to the press with the threats.
I have a normal 2016 car which can do this no problem— maybe it’s impossible with other cars but that would seem very odd to me.
90 year old expiring from cancer? That's what they want you to think!
In fact, we'll never know. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... or at least, some.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it proof.
Large companies are in certain ways like governments, by which different parts of them can be doing entirely different, even divergent things that aren't quite congruent with the benefit of the wider whole. In other words, often one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, even if the activity is batshit crazy and a bad idea, and this is sometimes by design.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_32...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
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…
> The autopilot, being engaged, pitched the plane downwards to return to 37,000 feet (11,278 m).
That was the strong negative G maneuver that broke the ceiling by crashing people into it. There was a second strong acceleration when it returned to the desired altitude. My reading of this is that most of the injuries were due to the autopilot’s reaction to the turbulence. Otherwise, it just would have been an unexpected increase to about 1.4 G followed by the cabin pitching around.
For the other one, why is the seat capable of interfering with controls? (Also, that doesn’t match the pilot’s story, which was that the screens cycled off and on, unless the seat can press the “reboot plane” button).
It would almost be comical at this point if this company weren't directly responsible for human lives.
> 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,”
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?
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.
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.
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.
That's absolutely how it works in engineering. You build fail-safe systems when you can, if safe-life systems where you must.
There is no redundancy in the structural integrity of an aircraft wing. Once it falls off, everybody dies.
Similarly, there are little redundancy margins in a spacecraft propulsion system. You will plan for a thruster malfunction, but if you loose your entire control system in flight, or if you develop 5 different leaks in flight, than it's safe to say you have a failing system. At no point in the design phase were any of those failure modes deemed "acceptable".
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
Towing fees back to Roswell I could imagine would be pricey.