Boeing’s on a streak...

Piperonca said:
That cost more lives than I'd want to be responsible for.
Click to expand...


That's a very real problem in large organizations. No one person feels personal responsibility. I worked very hard to instill that personal sense in engineers, especially chief engineers, who worked for me. You really do have to feel it in your gut, and realize just how many lives your mistake can cost. One of the most important differences between engineers and physicians is that a physician's mistakes only kill one person at a time, whereas ours kill hundreds at a time.

I wish more engineers would go through a ring ceremony and take the oath as it seems to drive the point home, and the ring's purpose is to be a constant reminder of the need for diligent care in one's work.
 
Warlock said:
Ron my post was about how NASA has lost its way…and focus…to worried about DEI and not on pure engineering and science…I am a child of the Apollo project and came to this country with my parents shortly after Kennedy’s Rice University speech as part of the brain drain. I grew up in the manned space flight community almost from the beginning.
Click to expand...
wait wut? NASA lost it's way because DEI?

It's NASA, they can walk and chew bubble gum a the same time. Come on.
 
Half Fast said:
But expecting NASA to insist on common interfaces for life-critical functions is NOT silly. The DOD often imposed requirements on us for open architectures and common standard interfaces. I don't blame either Boeing or SpaceX; this is NASA dumb-assery.

Look at it this way: both spacecraft have to have the same docking interface to work with the ISS. Why shouldn't both have to have the same spacesuit interface?
Click to expand...
Being able to dock with ISS is a functional requirement. So both ships can dock with ISS. But they can't dock with each other. And that's probably the limit of their sameness. Carrying the other's astronauts isn't a functional requirement.
 
Lindberg said:
Why? How often has this issue come up? Is it often enough to force one of them to use an inferior design in regular ops?
Click to expand...

In small numbers like launches, “often enough” is moot. Diligent engineering requires anticipation of such crises and preemptive design features to mitigate them.

You’re arguing like a Boeing been counter would, and we can see where that thinking gets us.
 
AKiss20 said:
How is it possible that NASA didn’t mandate a single spacesuit design and common interface for the capsule? This seems like systems engineering 101
Click to expand...
Seems logical, but I'd want to see the history behind it.

It may be that SpaceX had already developed their suit, and were unwilling to change the design to accommodate a competitor. Similarly, SpaceX may have patented its suit interface, and was unwilling to let Boeing use it for free, and NASA wouldn't force Boeing to pay the licensing fee.

Space suit design is waaaay outside my experience (other than the original Space Station proposal in the '80s, I never worked a manned program). But here's some quick analysis of the interface issues.

1. Mechanical. It has to fit in the seat, and allow the wearer to rise from the seat and make their way to the hatch without assistance. It also has to accommodate the safety harness. If part of the harness is built into the suit compatibility issues may arrive.

2. Visual. The suit needs to allow the user to see the entire panel in front of them without repositioning. So a suit that goes into a spacecraft with a thin vertical display won't be compatible with viewing a panel that's wide and horizontal. There's also issues with the visor materials being incompatible with the displays, such as a polarized visor that can't handle certain digital displays.

3. Power. All the unmanned systems I worked on had 28V power, but if the SpaceX and Boeing systems were designed for different power, the appropriate converters would be necessary (and a possible failure point).

4. Communications. It may not be just a "headset plug"; wireless systems are all the rage, now. One ship using a wireless system while the other using a wired one would make the suits incompatible.

5. Heating/cooling/air pressure. Not only would this have to be compatible across the two spacecraft, the connectors would have to be located in the same place, as well. Depending on the spacecraft design, this might be part of the issue.

6. Waste disposal. Similar to the heating/cooling/air pressure issues. If one design expects women astronauts to be catheterized, and the other uses Depends, then you've got a disconnect (literally). If an astronaut doesn't know how to catheterize herself.....

None of these issues are unsolvable, given time. There may not have been much time, and, depending on what technology the companies were using, they may have resisted changing designs that were already under development.

The other issue involved in the Starliner astronauts using SpaceX suits. I suspect they haven't had any training. This is remote learning in a big way....

Ron Wanttaja
 
At one point in time, NASA developed technology that was required to be put into the public domain (I'm not including classified technology used for certain systems).

Is that no longer the case?

Why would anyone reinvent the wheel?
 
Bob Noel said:
At one point in time, NASA developed technology that was required to be put into the public domain (I'm not including classified technology used for certain systems).

Is that no longer the case?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but I can see that not being the case anymore. SpaceX has a focus on private utilization in space; I could see them refusing to hand over proprietary technology to the US Government. I think NASA needs SpaceX more than SpaceX needs NASA....
Bob Noel said:
Why would anyone reinvent the wheel?
Click to expand...
When the functional environment of the wheel changes, or the requirements change to the point that the old wheel no longer is viable, or technology gives the opportunity to improve the wheel.
1724596157192.png
Space suits have improved a lot since the Mercury days...
1724596328757.jpeg
Ron Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
In small numbers like launches, “often enough” is moot. Diligent engineering requires anticipation of such crises and preemptive design features to mitigate them.

You’re arguing like a Boeing been counter would, and we can see where that thinking gets us.
Click to expand...
You're arguing like a career NASA program manager. There's a reason NASA is no longer in the manned-spaceflight business.
 
Bob Noel said:
At one point in time, NASA developed technology that was required to be put into the public domain (I'm not including classified technology used for certain systems).

Is that no longer the case?

Why would anyone reinvent the wheel?
Click to expand...
Mercury suits wouldn't have worked in the Apollo program. Apollo suits would have worked in the shuttles. Etc. The wheel gets reinvented regularly.
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding that suits are not always custom made. Rather the various parts are selected out of a bin…
 
Lindberg said:
You're arguing like a career NASA program manager. There's a reason NASA is no longer in the manned-spaceflight business.
Click to expand...


No, I’m arguing like an engineer who has taken a professional oath and is bound by my professional society's code of ethics to hold safety paramount.
 
Half Fast said:
No, I’m arguing like an engineer who has taken a professional oath and is bound by my professional society's code of ethics to hold safety paramount.
Click to expand...
If safety were paramount, no one would ever go into space. Safety being paramount certainly doesn't mean forcing anyone to use an interior suit design, which you'd be doing if you forced everyone to the lowest common denominator.
 
Bob Noel said:
It’s my understanding that suits are not always custom made. Rather the various parts are selected out of a bin…
Click to expand...
IIRC, the components of the suits used on the shuttle had a number of sizes, and the user could mix-and-match the components for a fit.

Like I mentioned in an earlier posting, I've no experience with manned spaceflight or space suit design, but can see how it'd be a huge design issue. The suit is basically a balloon, and balloons don't take naturally to getting flexed. Imagine taking one of these toy balloons and bending it. The bending produces a little bit of creasing, which reduces the volume of the balloon, which cause a slight rise in internal pressure. This makes the balloon want to force itself straight again.
1724610925221.png
So, imagine your "balloon" is the arm of your spacesuit. You bend your arm, and the suit fights to straighten itself out again. It fights you at EVERY motion other than a neutral "starfish." Needless to say, this complicates any sort of work you'd like to do in a vacuum.

So suit designers have to implement constant-volume joints for any portion that the astronaut might want to use in vacuum. Here's a concept from the '50s...
1724611306065.png

Notice the "concertinas" at all major joints. These (hopefully) are constant-volume joints that allow the astronaut to work. In this concept, the designer didn't bother with the fingers, giving them remote "waldos" to operate.

The one at the waist may be, uhhh, wasted. Bending from the waist is difficult in space even without a suit; on Earth, gravity does the trick. In space, ones natural musculature wants to put your body in a neutral position (similar to a "dead man's float") and deviation from that requires muscles that we rarely use. Ed White, the first American to do an EVA, found he couldn't bend over enough to re-enter the Gemini capsule. He had to let air out of his suit before he could bend far enough. Turns out the Soviets (who had been first for an EVA) had encountered the same problem, and just hadn't happened to mention it.....

Here's how your body wants to float in free-fall.
1724612057226.png

The Dragon suits and the Starliner suits are probably primarily meant just to keep the wearer alive during a short-period pressurization loss. May not need much flexibility.

With all this, it is even more surprising that they didn't just come up with a single, universal design.

Ron Wanttaja
 
If I remember correctly, Apollo's 8 through 17 didn't wear their suits on reentry. A7 was suits, but no helmets. Also ASTP and three Skylab missions.

Many of the Shuttle flights were without suits.

The suit issue is an excuse. NASA is just covering for Boeing's Staylonger failures.
 
Couldn't NASA just send the astronauts' measurements and a sufficient sum of money to SpaceX to send compatible suits up?
 
Palmpilot said:
Couldn't NASA just send the astronauts' measurements and a sufficient sum of money to SpaceX to send compatible suits up?
Click to expand...
flyingcheesehead said:
I think that is exactly what is going to happen.
Click to expand...
That gets fun, too. According to Skylab astronaut Bill Pogue's "Astronaut Primer," the human body gets between 1.5" and 2.5" longer on orbit. Ground measurements will be off.

Now, all the SpaceX astronauts who launch in their bespoke suits encounter the same issue. So it may get accounted for in production.

Still, one has to consider whether the measurement process is compatible between the two. If the Starliner astronauts had their suits custom cut in person (e.g., technician shaping the suit on the physical body rather than working to a set of dimensions) vs. the SpaceX 3-D scan, it may get a little sporty. Best bet would be to find two individuals of the same size and body type as the stranded astronauts, ensure they can comfortably wear the backup Starliner suits, and have them as the models for the 3-D scanning.

I'd work on developing the appropriate adaptors to be able to use the Starliner suit on the Dragon. Likely going to need it anyway....

Most people just don't understand how fundamentally different space operations are from terrestrial life.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I'm not sure why would you'd have two different approaches to suits and then mandate they be the same. Compatibility is fine if that's part of a functional design requirement, but it also forces one or the other to not follow what their engineers consider the optimum design. Of course, one will end up being better than the other, and over time it should become the model....but which one?

Regardless, i think this will be a relatively straightforward process if there is cooperation.
 
Half Fast said:
That's a very real problem in large organizations. No one person feels personal responsibility. I worked very hard to instill that personal sense in engineers, especially chief engineers, who worked for me. You really do have to feel it in your gut, and realize just how many lives your mistake can cost. One of the most important differences between engineers and physicians is that a physician's mistakes only kill one person at a time, whereas ours kill hundreds at a time.

I wish more engineers would go through a ring ceremony and take the oath as it seems to drive the point home, and the ring's purpose is to be a constant reminder of the need for diligent care in one's work.
Click to expand...
I don't have inside info, but I don't think this in a problem with the engineers. I think it's multiple problems with the corporation. Shute, about a hundred years ago, believed that the driving force to quality was competition. I believe that's true, and I'll add that I believe it's good that there's an engineer or technical person at the top. Kelly Johnson was an engineer. Carroll Shelby was a pilot.

Back to Shute's premise, he didn't predict that companies to exist without any competition, either because they were hired by the government for effectively blank-check bids (cost plus), or because they have an effectively monopoly on a particular slice of technology.

I do have a solution for that 'too big to fail' or non-competitive company, though. It's not my idea...it was part of the premise of the book that led to the movie Blade Runner. Once a company generates more than X percent of their gross income from cost-plus or non-competitive contracts, you start a mortality timer. They get a fixed 10 year lifespan, plus or minus a few years. Corporations going away is a natural part of a well functioning economic system. Propping them up forever is not.

Before anyone thinks that's nuts, I'll point out that we did that with the AT&T monopoly a while ago. Many predicted the whole phone system would fall apart, when the actual effect was an incredible increase in communications technology and availability. Now that was based on tech, but the drivers to improve that tech came from the economic side.

So to wrap up a way too long winded thing, what we need now is another company to compete with SpaceX, so that they don't end up in the same spot as Boeing when Boeing exits the space program.

Oh, and we need to replace enough of the NASA top admins to get to the point where they stop lying to us. Yes, the astronauts are stranded, unless they don't understand what the definition of "stranded" is. Claiming otherwise doesn't make your organization look smarter. Some of us still remember when you decided to launch a shuttle in freezing weather based on extrapolated data and against the advice of the engineers.

Edit - wow that was way to long! I apologize to all and will now take a much needed nap.
 
wanttaja said:
That gets fun, too. According to Skylab astronaut Bill Pogue's "Astronaut Primer," the human body gets between 1.5" and 2.5" longer on orbit. Ground measurements will be off.

Now, all the SpaceX astronauts who launch in their bespoke suits encounter the same issue. So it may get accounted for in production.

Still, one has to consider whether the measurement process is compatible between the two. If the Starliner astronauts had their suits custom cut in person (e.g., technician shaping the suit on the physical body rather than working to a set of dimensions) vs. the SpaceX 3-D scan, it may get a little sporty. Best bet would be to find two individuals of the same size and body type as the stranded astronauts, ensure they can comfortably wear the backup Starliner suits, and have them as the models for the 3-D scanning.

I'd work on developing the appropriate adaptors to be able to use the Starliner suit on the Dragon. Likely going to need it anyway....

Most people just don't understand how fundamentally different space operations are from terrestrial life.....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
No tape measure at the space station?
 
Albany Tom said:
Oh, and we need to replace enough of the NASA top admins to get to the point where they stop lying to us. Yes, the astronauts are stranded, unless they don't understand what the definition of "stranded" is. Claiming otherwise doesn't make your organization look smarter. Some of us still remember when you decided to launch a shuttle in freezing weather based on extrapolated data and against the advice of the engineers.
Click to expand...
That was not NASA, that was Morton Thiokol. The infamous "We'll call you back in 10 minutes" followed by the "Take off your engineer hat and put on your manager hat"... Thiokol called back and said go, so NASA went. There was certainly pressure to go from NASA with all of the publicity around the teacher in space program, but NASA didn't override a no-go from Thiokol - Thiokol changed to "go".
 
Palmpilot said:
Attributing NASA shortcomings to DEI also assumes facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...
Attributing almost anything people disagree with to DEI seems to be a national sport these days. I've encountered plenty of middle-aged white males in my aerospace career that must've had naked pictures in very compromising poses of the company president/general manager to be able to stay in their current job.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That was not NASA, that was Morton Thiokol. The infamous "We'll call you back in 10 minutes" followed by the "Take off your engineer hat and put on your manager hat"... Thiokol called back and said go, so NASA went. There was certainly pressure to go from NASA with all of the publicity around the teacher in space program, but NASA didn't override a no-go from Thiokol - Thiokol changed to "go".
Click to expand...
NASA applied A LOT of pressure to Thiokol, making veiled threats about their upcoming contract renewal if they were going to wreck NASA's highly optimistic launch schedule. Yes, Thiokol's management caved in and overrode the engineers, but NASA has a large portion of that blame on their shoulders. As they do for Columbia as well. And Apollo 1.
 
Racerx said:
No tape measure at the space station?
Click to expand...
No tailors at the space station. Amateurs trying to measure, will give amateur results. Multiple dimensions to be taken, too.

Also, due to zero-g, it's difficult if not impossible to stand erect for the measurements.

Ron "I dress sunward" Wanttaja
 
hmmm, I guess no one up on the station is smart enough to compare body measurements ... Maybe the 2 unknowns (Butch and Sunita) could be compared to the other 10 on the station.

sometimes good enough is good enough.
 
Lindberg said:
If safety were paramount, no one would ever go into space. Safety being paramount certainly doesn't mean forcing anyone to use an interior suit design, which you'd be doing if you forced everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
I don't believe anyone has ever been "forced" to be an astronaut. Making safety paramount has never meant removing all risk.
 
Bob Noel said:
hmmm, I guess no one up on the station is smart enough to compare body measurements ... Maybe the 2 unknowns (Butch and Sunita) could be compared to the other 10 on the station.

sometimes good enough is good enough.
Click to expand...
Not saying it's impossible, just there are pitfalls. No one has ever been measured for a space suit while on orbit, by someone who has never measured anyone before on Earth OR in space. Get a measurement too small, then potentially the suit out-and-out won't fit. Get it too large, it may work, but may hinder anything the occupant needs to do in it. Considering they're just spam in a can and are coming back as passengers, not flight crew, this may not be an issue.

The way I understand it, the SpaceX suits are sized by a 3-D scan of the wearer...not by tailor-type measurements. So you have the potential for conversion error.

Like I said in an earlier post, they just need to find folks on Earth who closely match the body dimensions of the two (as shown by their ability to don the backup space suits) and measure THEM for the suits.

Ron Wanttaja
 
I don't think that the spacesuit measurements will be much of a problem. They do not have to work in the suits, just wear them and ride home. It doesn't have to be a perfect fit.
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't think that the spacesuit measurements will be much of a problem. They do not have to work in the suits, just wear them and ride home. It doesn't have to be a perfect fit.
Click to expand...
This was a flight test designed to find weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. Perhaps this is one of those areas.
 
JOhnH said:
I don't believe anyone has ever been "forced" to be an astronaut. Making safety paramount has never meant removing all risk.
Click to expand...
Vladimir Komarov would like a word.

He got on top of that rocket, pretty well knowing he was going to die, to spare his friend and national hero Yuri Gagarin.
 
Interesting discussion of the new CEO's qualifications, and of the task ahead of him.

 
flyingcheesehead said:
Vladimir Komarov would like a word.

He got on top of that rocket, pretty well knowing he was going to die, to spare his friend and national hero Yuri Gagarin.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forgot to qualify "American" astronaut. But wasn't Vladimir a cosmonaut?
 
Larry in TN said:
I don't think that the spacesuit measurements will be much of a problem. They do not have to work in the suits, just wear them and ride home. It doesn't have to be a perfect fit.
Click to expand...
Perfectly true, with the caveat: It cannot be too small to the point where it cannot be made air-tight. The other factor is that it cannot be so badly sized that it impedes an emergency egress. Mind you, this could be waived.

By the time the suit is delivered to orbit, it's too late to fix such problems.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top