Boeing's Starliner Now Has 5 Leaks While Parked Outside the ISS
gizmodo.comWe really still sure this whole decompression sickness thing was just a “simulation”?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/nasa-accidentally-b...
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.
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?
Theres 2 use cases:
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.
I read that article earlier, but it didn’t mention Boeing so I wasn’t questioning it.
But where Boeing goes, bad things follow.
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.
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".
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.
It seems unlikely though. He was found in the hotel car park in a locked car with the keyfob in his pocket, a suicide note and a gun he was shot in the head with. He also had a history of mental illness. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13431401/boeing-whi...
I agree its unlikely, but none of that makes murder less likely / more difficult. Two easy ways to do that: either shoot him and then lock him in the car, or coerce him into suicide via blackmail (threaten to kill his family, threaten to plant child pornography on his property)
The first one isn't easy - drag the body to the car in daylight in the hotel car park? How are you going to lock it with the fob inside? If I was a hitman I'd do something else.
The second - if you assume it's on behalf of Boeing could easily backfire if he went to the press with the threats.
I’m not arguing one way or another, but why is it hard to lock someone in the car with the fob inside? The fob isn’t the only way to lock a car…you would just press the lock button inside the door, but him inside, then shut the door.
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.
Also, if the litmus for corporate murder is "possible", then that includes essentially any death.
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.
You don't drag the body, you shoot him while he is in his car. Then you lock the doors, shut them, and leave.
I love a good conspiracy theory, but you need to link to some articles about the video cameras.
I apologize, but although I remember reading it, I can't seem to find the article about the video. I have retracted (edited out) the unsubstantiated claim. It does leave the question open though: "where is the video" (if there was one)? As per news articles, an employee claims to have heard a pop at 9:24 am, but that's all we know.
As I only just recently found out about Boeing’s involvement in making missiles which Israel uses in Gaza, it would unfortunately not surprise me if these particular conspiracy hypothesis are more than just hypothesis.
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?
Didn't, but some reasons why?
(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.
a) Defence? Sorry to be nitpicking here, but most of the world would say those missiles are being used for anything but defence.
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.
In American English, "defense" is commonly understood as "the military-industrial complex".
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.'
I’m not from the USA nor am I going to be hoodwinked by American double think of ‘defense’. Batter in though.
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.
Coincidences happen, but it sure is a mighty convenient one in this case.
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/sec...
After getting to know sequential incidents like the Marconi murders of the 1980's, which even today are often dismissed as being anything more than coincidence despite a lot of very weird details, I wouldn't entirely dismiss at least the possibility of Boeing being involved in his death.
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.
Didn’t you hear? Since Hacker News hates Boeing now, all reasoning goes out the window as long as it’s in service of looking smart by dog-piling on the company that the other totally smart HN users also hate.
Think about it this way. If you mentally torture an employee for 30+ years, and lead them to suicide, how are you not culpable?
Discussion [0] (37 points, yesterday, 48 comments)
If it's a Boeing I'm not going.
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.
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.
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_32...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/australia/latam-airlines-flig...
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…
Regarding the turbulence, from Wikipedia:
> 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).
The seat switch was accidentally jammed into the “seat forward” position which led to the pilot (who was strapped in) being physically forced into the controls, leading to a significant pitch down.
https://www.amiflyingonaboeing.com/ (but remember that planes can sometimes change)
A statement as completely absurd as it always was.
If it’s Boeing, I’m boating!
are these actually scary leaks? in the article they say they'd be fine even if the leak were 100x the size.
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.
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.
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?”
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-ge...
It would almost be comical at this point if this company weren't directly responsible for human lives.
this is crazy. so many screws are loose in boeing
That’s terrifying
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,”
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.
> 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.
Mmm.... No.
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".
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?
> 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.
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?
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.
I wonder if there is an Enterprise equivalent for UFOs hire.
Towing fees back to Roswell I could imagine would be pricey.