Boeing Starliner
Discussion
I couldn't find an existing thread about this so thought I'd start one...
It looks like it could be quite a tight race between Starliner and Dragon to be the first to launch with a crew aboard. SpaceX seem to have been a lot more visible in testing various elements of their spacecraft to date, but perhaps Boeing can catch up
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/ars-peeks-i...
It looks like it could be quite a tight race between Starliner and Dragon to be the first to launch with a crew aboard. SpaceX seem to have been a lot more visible in testing various elements of their spacecraft to date, but perhaps Boeing can catch up
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/ars-peeks-i...
Seems like an aggressive schedule:
http://www.universetoday.com/128868/1st-boeing-sta...
“The Pad Abort test is October 2017 in New Mexico. Boeing will fly an uncrewed orbital flight test in December 2017 and a crewed orbital flight test in February 2018"
When I draw up project schedules I usually include some time after a test to do rework. Rather than assuming everything will go perfectly and no changes will be required.
They are just building the first hull now according to that article. So they are giving themselves over a year from starting assembly to the pad abort test but then only two months between each flight/test. I don't see how they are going to fit in any alterations arising from the tests. I also note that there is a straight line from Pad Abort to orbital flight to crewed flight. Skipping the in-flight abort test. So the chances are that the vehicle which takes humans up in February 2018 would be identical to the one used on the Pad Abort in October 2017.
Sorry to be a pessimist but looking at the SpaceX timelines (May 2015 Pad Abort Test; May 2017 planned for first orbital flight) it strikes me that Boeing, with its many years of aerospace management experience, even if it achieves the Pad Abort test on time is likely to see the first orbital flight in something like 2019 and the first crewed one by around 2020, maybe.
http://www.universetoday.com/128868/1st-boeing-sta...
“The Pad Abort test is October 2017 in New Mexico. Boeing will fly an uncrewed orbital flight test in December 2017 and a crewed orbital flight test in February 2018"
When I draw up project schedules I usually include some time after a test to do rework. Rather than assuming everything will go perfectly and no changes will be required.
They are just building the first hull now according to that article. So they are giving themselves over a year from starting assembly to the pad abort test but then only two months between each flight/test. I don't see how they are going to fit in any alterations arising from the tests. I also note that there is a straight line from Pad Abort to orbital flight to crewed flight. Skipping the in-flight abort test. So the chances are that the vehicle which takes humans up in February 2018 would be identical to the one used on the Pad Abort in October 2017.
Sorry to be a pessimist but looking at the SpaceX timelines (May 2015 Pad Abort Test; May 2017 planned for first orbital flight) it strikes me that Boeing, with its many years of aerospace management experience, even if it achieves the Pad Abort test on time is likely to see the first orbital flight in something like 2019 and the first crewed one by around 2020, maybe.
Boeing are forever pushing the time line backwards, SpaceX seem to be compressing it. They have pushed back pad abort until October 2017 , unmanned mission December and manned in early 2018
Currently testing the pressure vessel, they have a maxg in flight abort planned for later this year, an uncrewed dragon2 mission May 2017 and NASA have already booked a crewed launch for mid 2017..
Hopefully US will have 2 viable ways to get people into space in 2018.
Currently testing the pressure vessel, they have a maxg in flight abort planned for later this year, an uncrewed dragon2 mission May 2017 and NASA have already booked a crewed launch for mid 2017..
Hopefully US will have 2 viable ways to get people into space in 2018.
It seems Boeing have hit a couple of issues which have delayed the first flight
One is the usual problem encountered in building any modern aircraft - it put on a bit too much weight. The second issue is related to the auerodynamics and the acoustic environment just after launch
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/02/boeing-nears-...
One is the usual problem encountered in building any modern aircraft - it put on a bit too much weight. The second issue is related to the auerodynamics and the acoustic environment just after launch
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/02/boeing-nears-...
Doesn't look totally horrific based on the article.
I wonder if this is a case of the old and new worlds colliding. In the old days Boeing would have been able to say "ooh, sorry, went over mass allowance a bit ... chuck us some cash and we'll strap on an extra booster" and "oops, aerodynamics aren't quite right now we have built it, chuck us some cash and we'll have another go".
Now, with a competitor, they have to suck it up and sort it. So they have ...
I wonder if this is a case of the old and new worlds colliding. In the old days Boeing would have been able to say "ooh, sorry, went over mass allowance a bit ... chuck us some cash and we'll strap on an extra booster" and "oops, aerodynamics aren't quite right now we have built it, chuck us some cash and we'll have another go".
Now, with a competitor, they have to suck it up and sort it. So they have ...
I wonder is it the fact that the diameter of the capsule being larger than the top of the rocket that's causing the problems? As they say in the article, an arrangement like this has not been used for an unshrouded payload before and I'm wondering if they are getting bad air flow problems at the rear of the capsule attachment point.
Eric Mc said:
I wonder is it the fact that the diameter of the capsule being larger than the top of the rocket that's causing the problems? As they say in the article, an arrangement like this has not been used for an unshrouded payload before and I'm wondering if they are getting bad air flow problems at the rear of the capsule attachment point.
I don't think you need to wonder Eric you may wish to read the article (no video this time) The Article states:
“They think they’ve got a good solution by putting on an extended skirt behind the capsule. We think that’s a pretty good solution, too, but we really want to see some of that final wind tunnel test data come through.”
Apologies for the cut and past but its what is written
Yep - that is indeed what was written. I like discussing on THIS forum with the people here (with some exceptions, I have to say).So, I posed the query here.
I was hoping someone might come along with a bit more detail as to what the ACTUAL problem is. If it is to do with the shape of the rear of the capsule fairing, what TYPE of issues is it causing and specifically why.
Those who resort to cutting and pasting and posting links demonstrate to me their skills at cutting and pasting and posting links - and little else.
I was hoping someone might come along with a bit more detail as to what the ACTUAL problem is. If it is to do with the shape of the rear of the capsule fairing, what TYPE of issues is it causing and specifically why.
Those who resort to cutting and pasting and posting links demonstrate to me their skills at cutting and pasting and posting links - and little else.
Eric Mc said:
I wonder is it the fact that the diameter of the capsule being larger than the top of the rocket that's causing the problems? .
Clearly it is
Eric Mc said:
As they say in the article, an arrangement like this has not been used for an unshrouded payload before and I'm wondering if they are getting bad air flow problems at the rear of the capsule attachment point.
Clearly otherwise they would not be placing the "skirt" on.It was supposed to have its first manned flight in 2014!
I really dont know how these big aerospace companies function.
ULA recently admitted that spacex had found and fixed the issue with their 2015 launch failure before they would have even allocated a committee to look into the problem...
I really dont know how these big aerospace companies function.
ULA recently admitted that spacex had found and fixed the issue with their 2015 launch failure before they would have even allocated a committee to look into the problem...
RobDickinson said:
It was supposed to have its first manned flight in 2014!
I really dont know how these big aerospace companies function.
ULA recently admitted that spacex had found and fixed the issue with their 2015 launch failure before they would have even allocated a committee to look into the problem...
Government Pork? I still think these "unexpected" issues were planned from the start, when they didn't think they would have a competitor.I really dont know how these big aerospace companies function.
ULA recently admitted that spacex had found and fixed the issue with their 2015 launch failure before they would have even allocated a committee to look into the problem...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff