Starliner Completes Crucial Pad Abort Test, One Parachute Fails
WHITE SANDS, NM (NASA PR) — Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft completed a critical safety milestone on Monday in an end-to-end test of its abort system. The Pad Abort Test took place at Launch Complex 32 at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
The test was designed to verify each of Starliner’s systems will function not only separately, but in concert, to protect astronauts by carrying them safely away from the launch pad in the unlikely event of an emergency prior to liftoff. This was Boeing’s first flight test with Starliner as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program to return human spaceflight launches to the International Space Station from American soil.
“Tests like this one are crucial to help us make sure the systems are as safe as possible,” said Kathy Lueders, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manager. “We are thrilled with the preliminary results, and now we have the job of really digging into the data and analyzing whether everything worked as we expected.”
During the test, Starliner’s four launch abort engines, and several orbital maneuvering and attitude control thrusters simultaneously ignited to rapidly push the spacecraft away from the test stand. Five seconds into flight, the abort engines shut off as planned, transferring steering to the control thrusters for the next five seconds.
A pitcharound maneuver rotated the spacecraft into position for landing as it neared its peak altitude of approximately 4,500 feet. Two of three Starliner’s main parachutes deployed just under half a minute into the test, and the service module separated from the crew module a few seconds later. Although designed with three parachutes, two opening successfully is acceptable for the test parameters and crew safety. After one minute, the heat shield was released and airbags inflated, and the Starliner eased to the ground beneath its parachutes.
The demonstration took only about 95 seconds from the moment the simulated abort was initiated until the Starliner crew module touched down on the desert ground.
“Emergency scenario testing is very complex, and today our team validated that the spacecraft will keep our crew safe in the unlikely event of an abort,” said John Mulholland, Vice President and Program Manager, Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program. “Our teams across the program have made remarkable progress to get us to this point, and we are fully focused on the next challenge—Starliner’s uncrewed flight to demonstrate Boeing’s capability to safely fly crew to and from the space station.”
Boeing’s next mission, called Orbital Flight Test, will launch an uncrewed Starliner spacecraft to the station on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 41. Launch is targeted for Dec. 17.
Learn more about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at:
49 responses to “Starliner Completes Crucial Pad Abort Test, One Parachute Fails”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Fly Boeing if you want to land hard in a cloud of NTO
Not to mention a main parachute malfunction.
With all of Boeing’s troubles since then, ISTM the ’97 merger may not have been for the best.
better then blowing up
Yes, at least there is a body to bury.
it will be curious to see why it didnt deploy…but talking with folks at the mother ship and NASA…it doesnt seem to be of big concern…the test will likely be ruled a success
Yea, that seems to be how they are spinning it. Kinda like the tiles falling off of the Shuttle Orbiter on all those flights before the Columbia Accident.
https://twitter.com/Commerc…
its different.
Sure, Bob. Different. Right. Anything you say, Bob.
This is a big concern, IMHO. Just because Boeing and NASA put a positive spin on it today doesn’t mean that the test was successful.
I watched the video several times and it sure looked like there was something leaking from the service module (orange/brown cloud) during the parachute deployment sequence. That doesn’t seem right to me at all. Parachutes and hypergolic propellants aren’t a good combination (this isn’t peanut butter and chocolate).
The sequence is curious, you would think they would cut the SM loose prior to chute deploy. While, not analogous due the propulsion being in a different location, Dragon2 jettisons the trunk prior to chute deploy.
two issues with that …first if you cut the service module lose pre deployment you change the vehicles center of mass before deployment…and second you now have to bodies with different vertical (negative rates) which can then collide. once the chutes deploy you drop the SM it goes down at a very high rate which the capsule goes less…no chance at hitting each other
Change the CM is not that big of a deal, can be managed just like in D2 case. Yea, I could see case where mass properties of Starliner SM are closer to capsule than trunk for D2. In the case of D2 the separation distances widened very quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
it is it isnt it all depends why.
the service module is designed to do this, it vents the NTO before the service module goes away and crashes…that doesnt happen on a normal landing as the service module is long burned up. it in large measure prevents the service module from being a bomb descending.
it all depends on what caused the chute to not deploy. the drogues did and to me that points to a bridle failure. if it is a bridle failure (again IF) well thats not the first nor the last time that will happen…I’ve had three back in the day when I use to jump for fun:)
they probably already know the cause…for what it is worth none of the folks I know at the mother ship and the program seem worried even in private
What, me worry?
I’d be wary of any design that is venting nitrogen tetroxide during parachute deployment, which is what I saw in the video. Nitrogen tetroxide isn’t a chemical to be cavalier with.
NTO and nylon don’t play well together, which is not good for parachute lines, bridles, etc.
The Boeing webcast host lady warned in the beginning of the webcast that we were likely to see such leaking from the Service Module and maybe even flames (though I was surprised to see that cloud lingering by the capsule). So, that was part of the plan (“a feature, not a flaw”, so to speak).
Regarding the parachutes, I don’t see how this gets brushed aside as not a big deal. I’m not saying it’s the end of the world, but they should have to have 10 fully successful deployments (or some similar number) in a row such as SpaceX is required to have, too. Boeing and NASA can claim that Boeing does more modeling, but the ability to model large multi-chute systems is widely acknowledged as limited, and they clearly demonstrated on one of their only two all up tests before flying humans that they don’t have their modeling of chute deployment nailed
At Boeing, nothing seems to be a matter of big concern these days. That’s the largest part of what’s wrong with the place. I will admit, though, that compared to all the other stuff Boeing has on its plate these days – particularly the 737 MAX debacle – maybe this is comparatively small beer. I can certainly appreciate that the mere potential of killing three or four astronauts at a time probably doesn’t rank anywhere near the top of a list whose capstone item includes already having killed over 300 via unforced error with the company’s best-selling product.
coming from a guy who shills for a company that blew up its capsule
No one died, unlike in 737 MAX case. And before you go back to pilot error, lack of human factors understanding is on Boeing.
Yes. But also a company that doesn’t seem to screw pooches with nearly the regularity – or consequences – of the company you shill for.
I think this is a big fat F. Flying first with crew is again in SpaceX’s court to lose. It looks as if SpaceX has developed a much better chute system under the years of rejections by NASA that prompted them to come up with an affordable means of testing in flight. Boeing needs the same oversight. Landing so close to the dumped NTO tank is not going to work in anybody’s book. If the Astronauts accept that …….
Andrew, get with the program.You know Boeing never uses the “F” word.
https://twitter.com/jeff_fo…
Their spin Dr’s would just say it stands for “F”uture success pending. While I’m much more accepting and understanding of establishment human institutions, I’m not a fan-boy. I can call a failure a failure. That the American political right and libertarians lost the ability to do so against itself is one of the big reasons I left it so long ago.
It was certainly a failure. I’m not sure the pad abort test needs to be done over. That would only make sense if something unique to a pad abort scenario, like low-altitude atmospheric density or the “coma” of vented NTO is causally implicated in the parachute failure.
But, at a minimum, the uncrewed flight test (OFT), now scheduled for Dec. 17, should be pushed back until it can be flown with revised chutes. Otherwise, the first flight with corrected chutes will be the first that carries crew (CFT) – not a good idea.
SpaceX has the opportunity of the upcoming In-Flight Abort (IFA) test to demonstrate its new Mk3 chute system in an emergency scenario, but Boeing, of course, famously eschewed an IFA test.
As for abandoning the Right in favor of the Left because the former supposedly can’t acknowledge failure, you pretty much departed the frying pan for the fire. As someone with at least an intermittently functioning brain and a career in academe, you seem a likely candidate to be consumed by the flames of the Millennial Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution now ongoing. Good luck and watch your back.
I say I’m left to people like you because otherwise it degrades into senseless mud fest. It’s something you’re ready to accept, and so I’ll give it to you. To a true leftist, they’d consider me rightist with leftist tendencies. You’re both magical thinkers, and neither side really takes into account what human politics are based in and all about. Until that’s part of the overall model, no system is going to work out all that well. What I do like about the left over the right is their interventionism. As I get older I’m much less interesting in letting nature run it;s course unimpeded by human intervention.
NASA’s goading of SpaceX over the past two years has proded them to make what looks to be an excellent parachute recovery system. That’s good leadership.
The original rightists, based on the seating arrangement of the French Estates General, were traditionalists and royalists. These days, rightists are exponents of individual liberty, market economics and limited government – pretty much a complete transformation of outlook under a common, and legacy, designation.
Leftists started out as iconoclasts, anti-religionists, levelers, statists and believers in the fundamental malleability of human nature. That’s pretty much where they still are.
Leftists these days seem virulently opposed to any “intervention” anent non-human nature, reserving their “interventions” for aspects of human nature and culture – generally the wrong ones, in my view.
I wouldn’t characterize NASA’s behavior anent parachutes in recent years as “goading” so much as kvetching and whining. It certainly doesn’t constitute any kind of “leadership.” Had that been so, all three of NASA’s current contractors for manned vehicles would have responded usefully, but only SpaceX did.
As with so much else, SpaceX seems to have decided that a lot less was actually known about parachutes, as systems, than was commonly believed – even, originally, by itself – and went back to first principles to improve understanding.
It’s indicative of the essential managerial and intellectual bankruptcy of OldSpace that neither Boeing nor LockMart made any such efforts. But that’s pretty much par for the course when an organization is already convinced it knows everything of importance anyway.
the dumped NTO tank will be in sea water so it wont matter except to some dead fish the chute…
there is a big difference between deployment failure and chute failure. from what i AM READING THIS noon the problem is pretty minor
I don’t think the water is going to turn off the BFRC. That tank needs to fall much further away. Okay on the chute system malfunction, but parachutes only work when they’re open. 🙂
Chris seems pretty comfortable with it…ie the abort profile…
I’m afraid I agree with others this is probably another example of Boeing glossing over a real problem and their cozy relationship with their regulator resulting in the equiv of regulatory capture by the regulated party. When a whole parachute fails to deploy on a capsule recovery system, I just can’t fathom how it’s not a major malfunction. It seems to me that they are asking flight controllers to assess the situation in some future disaster. I’m really hoping there’s a serious review of what did and did not happen in this test.
there willbe a serious review but if what I am being told is correct its not a major issue…its in the drogue bridle issue. thats not uncommon in large chute deployments
Looks like a fire.
https://twitter.com/FxPhilW…
Cue the environmentalists. Not only does the Starliner pollute the oceans with spent boosters filled with toxic waste, the Service Module also pollutes the oceans in the event of an abort, or WSMR when it does a normal “safe” landing after its flight.
Boeing is just one environmentally unfriendly business, from jetliners to rockets.?
SpaceX should have converted Dragon 1 to Crew. Many successful flights. No parachute failures. Could have been done in ’12 if NASA had paid for it. But wait. SpaceX said they were going to do that on there on dime if they did not get the Crew Contract. And they would have tended Dragon Lab. If SpaceX had only done that, Crew would have launched a long time ago. NASA is dumb. They should have told SpaceX what to do. They should hire SpaceX right now to convert Dragon 1 and fly it for backup. Preferably using RSRM-1 and BO SRM abort system. Green fuel for the thrusters. Faster, better, cheaper and safer. America deserves the best.
Oh yes I forgot. Antares 2nd stage. RSRM-1 has 200,000lb more thrust than the Russian engines they are using. They said they strengthen the 1st stage so they do not have to throttle back. RSRM-1 is made of steel so it can not and does not have to throttle back. Only burns for 2 min instead of 4 with Antares now. The increased thrust should make up th difference. The weight has to be right to keep the Gs down. I guess it would not work since NG keeps buying foreign for the 1st stage. Buy American.
American leadership cadres are in love with the idea of outsourcing. Let someone else do the hard work so leadership can focus on leading. NASA is content to outsource to the Russians, and the Russians are a state actor. SpaceX and Boeing chose a path to maximize money flow into their enterprises, nobody was really looking to keep the gap in American human spaceflight as short as possible.
Actually SpaceX works hard to reduce outsourcing, building their own engines, structures and components as much as possible. It’s how they keep their costs low. I suspect the only reason they outsourced, to an American firm, parachutes was because they saw it as a dead end technology based on their long term goals. You should stop trying to paint with a broad brush as Boeing and SpaceX are two very different firms.
I was not alluding to that, I was painting with too board a brush justifiably. Musk is not a problem on the front of the balance between vertical integration and outsourcing. He is the best example of a real world solution we have on hand here in the US. My only quible is Tesla did not fight long and hard enough for auto transport ships to make their return journey’s back to Asia and Europe filled with Tesla’s instead of Gigafactory 3 and 4 being built overseas. However to me it just shows the effectiveness of nationalist industrial policy vs the American free marketeer. The American free marketeer always serves the policy of the foreign command economy and fights the policy of his own national interest. It’s a culture even someone like Musk gives into when the pressure is applied.
Boeing and SpaceX are two different firms. And we need them both.
How many Gs? Actual abort is nobody gets killed or just get hurt. That is all that is all that is required. A test has a long list of what should happen. NASA should make them do it again. Or at least not pay for the full amount agreed upon.
How many Gs is certainly a good question, but assuming that was okay (we don’t have any reason to assume otherwise so far), the abort test seemed to pass the ol’ eye test – the capsule got quickly away from the simulated launch pad and appeared to land in good shape.
I think parachute deployment should have to be redone multiple times, but not the whole abort test (assuming, as you said, that various parameters such as pre-established g limits were met)
It will be hard to duplicate the conditions that lead to the parachute non-deployment. You can’t just simply push some test article out of a cargo plane.
maybe so. What would you advise then?
If I were Boeing management. Just redo the pad abort test or do a inflight abort test with a boilerplate Starliner on a cheap launcher. The launch abort system seems to function as expected for the Starliner. It is the parachute deployment sequence that have to be validated with a nominal parachute deployment.
The parachute deployment failure just doing a pad abort. Puts into doubt that the entire launch escape system will function properly inflight. Without actual physical testing, IMO.
SpaceX would probably sell them a ride on a used F9 cheap for an IFA. But knowing old space it would probably add a year to the Starliner program doing the integration and mission planning for it.
No, there is a huge cost/time to integrate payload without fairing, this is why you should choose a cost effective launcher to begin with.
The basis for the estimate of a delay for a year or so. But than it also takes time to build an expendable Atlas V. So Boeing has put itself between a rock and a hard place, just as it did with the B737 Max.
Actually was thinking of used Peacekeeper ICBM 1st stage motor or a Castor 120 motor as the cheap launcher. You only need to loft the broilerplate Starliner to the maximum expected speed for abort separation. Use of solid motor mimics having the two solid rocket boooster on the Atlas V/Vulcan Centaur.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
A little search found this. Dropping CST-100 from 35,000 is not enough. 100,000′ would be better.
They have been using a balloon. Out of an airplane at least it may have to work in 200mph wind. In a real return it may be that or faster. In balloon or heli it does not look like they fall until it gets to 200MPH. Maybe a balloon drop from 100,000′. I don’t think it can get that much weight that high. It weighs like 28,000lbs.