I guess I should stop complaining when my return flight is delayed by 4 hours.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
352 points (98.6% liked)
News
23413 readers
3174 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If your flight is on a Boeing aircraft, you’re likely in the same situation as the astronauts.
What I can’t understand about this situation, is they’ve apparently been studying the craft’s helium leaks this whole time. But, as far as I’m aware, they’ve done 1 EVA to look at the thing. How are they inspecting the physical condition of hardware(pipes, seals, welds, brazed joints) via software from the ground and the results of one EVA. I also can’t see NASA giving the green light to really strip the Starliner to the guts while it’s attached to the space station, so did the astronauts even get a chance to look closely to find these leaks. A quarter of my job is finding leaks in high pressure piping systems, and you often have to really get in there and remove all the panels to pinpoint a leak. I highly doubt nasa has allowed the crew to rip apart a space capsule the same way I would rip apart a rooftop unit.
What I can’t understand about this situation, is they’ve apparently been studying the craft’s helium leaks this whole time. But, as far as I’m aware, they’ve done 1 EVA to look at the thing. How are they inspecting the physical condition of hardware(pipes, seals, welds, brazed joints) via software from the ground and the results of one EVA.
The thing that takes the most time isn't looking at the thing, it's doing the engineering to figure out WTF you're going to do about it afterward.
How are they inspecting the physical condition of hardware(pipes, seals, welds, brazed joints) via software from the ground and the results of one EVA.
Well, there are a whole lot of sensors and monitors on all of the hardware in that capsule, and all that data gets collected. So they can tell a lot about what's going on with the capsule even remotely. But it's still a lot of data to dig through and analyze.
And then once you identify the problem it's like... "well the temperature on component X went way past its lower limit and one section of the fuel line went way over pressure and this third sensor isn't responding at all", so... now you know some things, but that might not immediately tell you what exactly happened, or why it happened. And then once you figure out why it all happened, there's trying to figure out how to prevent it reliably without introducing new problems.
And I think you're right that it is actually pretty hard for the engineers to do all that without physically being there. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the slowdown is due to needing to replicate the problem in simulations or physical mockups down on earth.
as far as I’m aware, they’ve done 1 EVA to look at the thing
Don't think so.
They do have access to camera imagery, but as you say, most problems like this probably need much more intrusive investigation.
But they are totally not stranded.
Based on my knowledge gained by watching multiple space station related movies there are several emergency escape capsules up there, so they aren’t technically stranded until those don’t work also.
There is also at least one astronaut up there who smuggled a pack of chewing gum that can be used to plug the leaks once all other options are exhausted, but he hasn't told anyone because he'll get in trouble.
You jest, but a pinhole leak can be temporarily safely sealed on the ISS with a finger over it.
"The spaceship is at nearly 100 atmospheres of pressure!"
"Well how many atmospheres is it rated for?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so typically between zero and one"
Having also watched some classic sci-fi movies, I hope no one installed the ChatGPT module in the ISS computer system.
In unrelated news, the capsule has been renamed the SS Minnow.
*Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a space-bound flight,
That started from the launch pad,
And soared into the night.
The crew was a brave expedition,
Their mission to the ISS,
They docked at the space station,
For a stay they hoped would be a success.
But then a mishap came their way,
The systems went awry,
And now they're stuck in orbit,
With no way to say goodbye.
So this is the crew of the ISS,
Stranded in the sky,
With floating and fixing their new routine,
They’ll adapt and try to get by.
They’ll orbit 'round the Earth each day,
In their floating, cosmic home,
With teamwork and resilience,
They’ll make it through alone.*
PS, I didn't write this.
No no no, they chose to be on the deserted island. Definitely not stranded
stranded technically comes from the germanic word, strand, which means beach. They're nowhere close to sand!
Mission managers were aware of the leaks before the vehicle lifted off but had said they were unlikely to affect the flight or the astronauts’ safety.
So managers made that decision? Not engineers? Rocket scientists?
So they are all jockeying over who is going to fall on their sword when this ship blows up on reentry. We're going to hear later about an engineer who tried to put a stop to it but was overruled because there was only a 30% chance of everything going to hell. It's the Challenger all over again in slow motion.
Just scuttle the ship and send a rescue mission. And fire whoever they are throwing under the bus, since that's the only closure we're likely to get.
Steve Stich, the manager for the program, is an engineer.
I'll take that shred of hope. Thanks.
As an aside, turning on split vote count display on Lemmy really shows how petty some people can be.
Who in their right mind decided that this comment was worth a downvote?
I have a very small very petty fan club. Fortunately, I don't care other than I laugh that I'm living in their head rent free.
Mission Manager is a technical role, not a managerial position. They might also be people managers, but the role is about managing the mission. And even if they are also people managers, they had to be engineers or scientists first to start working at NASA.
And I think they can't simply scuttle the ship. I read they need humans in the ship to get it to properly disconnect from the station.
they had to be engineers or scientists first to start working at NASA
NASA actually employs a very large number of people who are neither scientists nor engineers. Going to space requires a very diverse workforce.
Also, it’s not “Mission Manager”, it’s “Mission Operations Manager”.
You’re right that someone doesn’t end up as the MOM of a mission without experience in the technical roles that they are managing.
NASA actually employs a very large number of people who are neither scientists nor engineers. Going to space requires a very diverse workforce.
Thanks for stating the obvious. I pretty clearly meant working at NASA in a technical role where one could move up to managing engineers/scientists. You don't move from Human Resources or Legal or Janitor or Machinist or Admin Assistant or Graphic Designer or whatever to Mission Ops Manager or to a role people managing engineers/scientists (this COULD happen but would be incredibly rare).
As far as correcting me on Mission Operations Manager, I have no clue what their title is. I was only responding to the actual article saying "Mission managers were aware of the leaks."
The leaks were examined and found to benon-critical. They were even controllable. No helium has leaked since docking with ISS and there is plenty to get home.
The problem has been the crew capsule and the space propulsion module are 2 different pieces. The capsule comes home. The propulsion module gets ditched in space. NASA and Boeing have been taking their time to review the propulsion module (leaks and all) while docked at ISS because they can't bring it home.
Nothing much has changed from all that. NASA is in control of the mission. It's all proceeding at their pace. I wouldn't trust any spin Boeing makes. But watching the NASA mission reports shows there isn't much reason for concern.
The fact that NASA has been considering the option to use the Dragon capsule to bring them back shows that there is some concerns.
That's overblown per the latest NASA update a couple hours ago.
While waiting on engine test results part of the mission team has been brainstorming all kinds of new return contingency ideas that were never an option in the past. The SpaceX idea is one of 4 or 5 mentioned. It's just the one the media ran with.
The main announcement today though was that all thrusters passed 3 hot fire simulations of a return mission. And that Starliner is likely fine to come home. The issues during approach seem to be understood and worked out.
Glad to be wrong about all that. Being an astronaut was my biggest dream 40 years ago. But we can't all be astronauts, so I had to settle for my second dream - shitposting on the internet.
In all seriousness, it's important work for the future of humanity. I don't want someone to fuck it up for profit or because it's not their ass on the line. I'm glad those fears are unfounded here.
I think or hope that these managers were engineers in the past but at the same time wont be surprised if they are not. I mean like, isn't it a thing in the aerospace or any engineering industry to promote engineers up until they become managers and such? It does feel like Challenger 2.0 :( hope they return safely.
Technical people that move into management usually (but not always) suffer from something I’ve started calling management brain rot. They’re exposed to the spreadsheet warriors and their corporate jargon, and it doesn’t take long for the good ones to give up and the bad ones to thrive in a, let’s call it, “low-information environment.”
The first-time I was promoted to management, I had no idea what I was doing. Managing people is a totally different skill set to the highly technical positions I had before. So I decided to look into management courses etc. to try to figure it out. I convinced my company to pay for a few graduate level courses.
After a very short time in these courses, it became abundantly clear nobody else had a clue either. They had ideas and "case studies' but no actual proof of anything. It was all a bunch of bullshit fads to make money.
Over the decades I have come to understand why a good manager is such a unicorn. A good manager has to care about both the people and the business equally. It's a razor thin balancing act. I have met exactly one person who fits this model.
You have to care about the people, to foster a culture of caring about the work. Caring, motivated people are the backbone of a business - they aren't easily replaceable resources that you just hire off the street as needed.
suddenly the carrots and the sticks are strictly tied to Key Performance Indicators, which are ultimately short-term financial with inflation. whats best or safest or ecological or wise or in the long term best interests of the workers or the customers doesn't come into the math. try to refute this and you are quickly replaced.
Any time I hear anything about KPIs I immediately turn my brain off not because I don't understand it, but because I maliciously don't give a fuck.
I've been out of work for 4 months and tbh, getting desperate. But I saw a job posting that talked about KPIs and didn't even apply. Homelessness would be less shitty than dealing with that (I say having never been homeless and probably not going to be).
This is the Mission Manager, not "manager." The person who is the Mission Manager can be but isn't necessarily also a people manager.
I feel like if I were an astronaut I'd be thrilled to have my ISS stay extended lmao
I do love that Boeing is like "we have no idea what the fuck went wrong. Here's the data cause we give up." Boeing sure is turning de a new leaf and putting safety first. /s
It could be worse at least they are on the iss and not orbiting in the capsule
Here is the latest update from today: https://www.youtube.com/live/wLNeIx7AwVE?feature=shared
Some interesting info. Lot more than the news will ever cover.
tl;dl
Starliner thrusters all passed 3 hot fire simulations of a return mission. Probably fine to fly home.
Ground testing was able to match what happened to the thrusters on approach. NASA now more confident the theory around fuel flow restrictions was correct.
Catch is they'll never know for sure because the thrusters in space can't be taken apart to examine. And they won't make it back to Earth because they're on a portion that detaches before re-entry.
The rumors around using Dragon for a return mission are true. But in that NASA has had time to think up multiple scenarios that weren't ever possible prior for return missions. There are now around 4-5 options thought up. NASA might go on to test some of those ideas out.
ISS has so many ships docked, with more planned, that a decision on Starliner is happening soon. Regardless of if people are aboard, it needs to leave ISS by September if I was following along correctly.
They've probably finished all the scientific tests they had to do, and played as much Hearts as they can stand.
How will that weightless man and woman get busy and stay diverted?
The whole article is worth a read. What a shitshow.
If they actually send up a SpaceX capsule to pick them up, they should not fly empty. They should take the managers responsible for this project up, and let them return in the Boeing capsule.
"Are we at Mars yet?"
view more: next ›