Boeing and NASA are moving ahead with the upcoming Starliner demonstration launch despite an active helium leak. The launch is now on the books for Saturday, June 1, at 12:25 p.m. EDT. If all goes as planned, Starliner will rendezvous with the International Space Station the following day and return to Earth on June 10. If not, it will be another embarrassing setback for Boeing’s troubled spacecraft.

Technicians discovered helium escaping from the fuel system earlier this month after valve issues caused NASA to halt the last launch attempt. NASA said in a recent news conference that the extremely slow leak does not pose a danger to the spacecraft. This is based on an exhaustive inspection of Starliner, which was removed from the launchpad along with the Atlas V so the valve in ULA’s rocket could be swapped. It was then that the team noticed the helium leak in Starliner.

Even though the optics of launching with an active leak aren’t ideal for the troubled Boeing craft, NASA says engineers have done their due diligence during this multi-week pause. Every space launch has risk tolerances, and NASA has judged this one to be in bounds. Helium is a tiny atom that is difficult to fully contain—even the highly successful SpaceX Dragon has occasionally flown with small leaks. While helium is part of the propulsion system, this inert gas is not used as fuel. Helium is used to pressurize the system and ensure fuel is available to the spacecraft’s four “doghouse” thruster assemblies and the launch abort engines.

    • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “We fly with worse problems all the time.”. NASA: "Oh ok, you’re clear to launch. "

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Have they considered submerging the spacecraft, to see where the bubbles come out? 🙃

  • hopesdead@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I don’t trust Boeing with airplanes anymore. What makes you think I trust them with spacecraft of any kind?

  • ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Mission Control : “You are clear to launch.”

    Astronaut (in comically high pitched voice) : “Um, are you sure the leak is contained?”

    Mission Control (stifling giggles): “Oh for sure.”

    At that precise moment the door to the astronauts cockpit falls off onto the launch pad.

    • ScrotusMaximus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      Boeing just doesn’t know what that is. They’ve never seen a leak. What does that even mean “to vent us out?”

  • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I distinctly remember growing up hearing there’s not even a .01% margin for error on spacecraft. That they must be so durable to withstand the conditions of leaving/reentry and the shuddering vibrations. I realize it’s different, but the big fear is always having another Challenger. Challenger didn’t just break up, it exploded into 2 pieces on national television. " teacher going to space" had a TV in every classroom across the country watching it.

    Helium seems used in the modern rocket to keep hot gas pipes separate from cold liquid fuel. 3 minutes before launch the system is charged and maintained by ground, just before ignition it’s disengaged and the system has to support itself. The helium on board only needs to stay pressurized for the 7 minutes or so it takes before the thrusters are spent, and purged, and that’s why they don’t view it as an issue. But still sounds like fuckass Boeing being ok gambling with lives while NASA shrugs - again.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “First woman in space will be a teacher”

      Valentina Tereshkova was the first woman in space, orbiting the Earth in a Soviet capsule in 1963.

      Sally Ride was the first American woman in space, as a part of STS-7 in 1983.

      The Challenger Disaster took place during STS-51-L in 1986.

      Christa McAuliffe, who was chosen as part of NASA’s Teacher in Space Project, was never a nominee for any “first woman in space” acknowledgements.

      • 𝔼𝕩𝕦𝕤𝕚𝕒@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Didn’t mean to be so incorrect (off by 23 years) there was some kind of accolade for her, maybe it was just being a teacher? I’ll fix the post tho

        • Jay@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          30 days ago

          First civilian

          In 1984, President Ronald Reagan announced the Teacher in Space Project, and McAuliffe learned about NASA’s efforts to find their first civilian, an educator, to fly into space.[20] NASA wanted to find an “ordinary person,” a gifted teacher who could communicate with students while in orbit.[6][15] McAuliffe became one of more than 11,000 applicants.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christa_McAuliffe

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          They’ve launched dogs, monkeys, and whatnot before.

          Sure, those were still way more skilled than Boeing executives, but there’s also uncrewed launches, so that’s no excuse.

          Call them payload or cargo or ballast instead of astronauts if you want, what counts is launching the fuckers into space and (hopefully) not bringing them back.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      Morton Thiokol

      you mean Allan McDonald?

      Interestingly enough:

      The focus of the commission’s investigation shifted to the booster rocket O-rings, and the concerns and efforts of McDonald and his engineers to stop the launch which were ignored by NASA officials. McDonald’s comments to the commission led to him temporarily losing his position with Morton Thiokol, being demoted.

      The presidential commission was alarmed at Morton Thiokol’s decision to punish McDonald and introduced a joint resolution that threatened to prevent Morton Thiokol from receiving further contracts from NASA. Given the commission’s threat, Morton Thiokol promoted McDonald to vice president and tasked him with improving the rocket joints that failed during Challenger’s launch.

      Perhaps the U.S. govt needs to step in again to right the ship at boeing. Well, I’m being coy, of course the U.S. gov’t has to step up and do something. Companies should never be some sacred cow that we’re afraid of upsetting.