Boeing Starliner
Discussion
I’m asking the question - why aren’t NASA specifying that flights be done on at the very least partially reusable boosters - it’s all very well having your spangly new capsule but the rest of the stack - it’s waste on an epic scale.
I’d love to know the bottom line cost of demo flights + crewed flights per unit compared to SpaceX - it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s ten times the price. There’s no need in this day and age - nasa should be pushing for this.
I’d love to know the bottom line cost of demo flights + crewed flights per unit compared to SpaceX - it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s ten times the price. There’s no need in this day and age - nasa should be pushing for this.
Simply put, NASA wanted two suppliers for their ISS crew flights and only one company offers a partially reusable rocket.
Boeing charge about $90 million a seat for ISS flights, which is slightly more than NASA were paying the Russians for Soyuz.
SpaceX charge $55 million per seat I believe.
Boeing are paying all the costs of this demo flight however.
Boeing charge about $90 million a seat for ISS flights, which is slightly more than NASA were paying the Russians for Soyuz.
SpaceX charge $55 million per seat I believe.
Boeing are paying all the costs of this demo flight however.
Dog Star said:
I’m asking the question - why aren’t NASA specifying that flights be done on at the very least partially reusable boosters...
For cargo maybe but if it was your life on top of the firework would you want it to be second-hand? Seems to me that these things are strained to the max on just one take-off; more likely to fail on the second.
Simpo Two said:
For cargo maybe but if it was your life on top of the firework would you want it to be second-hand? Seems to me that these things are strained to the max on just one take-off; more likely to fail on the second.
Err...SpaceX have flown crew missions on pre-flown boostersSimpo Two said:
MartG said:
Err...SpaceX have flown crew missions on pre-flown boosters
Maybe they have, but the risk can only be greater with every re-use. As ever, margins will be cut until something goes wrong.I'd happily take a Dragon ride in both a pre-enjoyed capsule and nicely run-in booster - fooked if I'd be getting in a factory-fresh Starliner and Atlas combo though.
The Atlas on it's own is probably OK, but there are so many gremlins on the Starliner there probably isn't room for them all to fit comfortably inside and they'll be wanting to spread out and bugger up the Atlas as well.
eharding said:
NASA, the US DoD and a plethora of commercial customers disagree.
I'd happily take a Dragon ride in both a pre-enjoyed capsule and nicely run-in booster - fooked if I'd be getting in a factory-fresh Starliner and Atlas combo though.
The Atlas on it's own is probably OK, but there are so many gremlins on the Starliner there probably isn't room for them all to fit comfortably inside and they'll be wanting to spread out and bugger up the Atlas as well.
For decades the two workhorses of the US space program has been the Delta and Atlas boosters, which have a history going back to the late 1950s. As a result, they are very tried and tested and pretty reliable. The worrying part of the Starliner programme is the capsule which Boeing has struggled massively to get to work properly.I'd happily take a Dragon ride in both a pre-enjoyed capsule and nicely run-in booster - fooked if I'd be getting in a factory-fresh Starliner and Atlas combo though.
The Atlas on it's own is probably OK, but there are so many gremlins on the Starliner there probably isn't room for them all to fit comfortably inside and they'll be wanting to spread out and bugger up the Atlas as well.
Reusability is gradually becoming the norm. SpaceX is way ahead of everybody on this but at the moment, if you want flexibility and alternatives to using SpaceX Falcons, you are going to have to stick with Deltas and Atlases. As I'm sure you all know, there are new boosters coming along which will venetually replace the Atlas and Delta.
I noticed a comment on the livestream which I thought was particularly dumb:
"Hope Musk is watching - this is how the professionals do it"
Yes - 2 years late, over budget, and throw the booster into the ocean...and the on screen graphics were rubbish, while the video was mainly non existent. If that's how 'the professionals' do it give me SpaceX every time !
"Hope Musk is watching - this is how the professionals do it"
Yes - 2 years late, over budget, and throw the booster into the ocean...and the on screen graphics were rubbish, while the video was mainly non existent. If that's how 'the professionals' do it give me SpaceX every time !
MartG said:
I noticed a comment on the livestream which I thought was particularly dumb:
"Hope Musk is watching - this is how the professionals do it"
Yes - 2 years late, over budget, and throw the booster into the ocean...and the on screen graphics were rubbish, while the video was mainly non existent. If that's how 'the professionals' do it give me SpaceX every time !
Indeed - I think Starliner exists merely as an option 2 and a sop to the pork barrel politicos. "Hope Musk is watching - this is how the professionals do it"
Yes - 2 years late, over budget, and throw the booster into the ocean...and the on screen graphics were rubbish, while the video was mainly non existent. If that's how 'the professionals' do it give me SpaceX every time !
The equivalent SpaceX demo flight was in early March 2019, over three years ago. Since then, they’ve done the manned demo and recently launched the 4th full crewed mission. They’ve also had to take up the slack caused by Starliner’s lack of availability, while simultaneously sending ISS cargo flights and dealing with a busy commercial launch program. I think that’s pretty professional somehow.
Starliner has twelve of these thrusters and they’re mounted on the service module, not the capsule itself. They have multiple redundancy for a reason, so the flight computer was able to adapt and carry on. It’s in a good orbit and still headed to the ISS.
Starliner has twelve of these thrusters and they’re mounted on the service module, not the capsule itself. They have multiple redundancy for a reason, so the flight computer was able to adapt and carry on. It’s in a good orbit and still headed to the ISS.
It's expected to dock with the ISS at ~12.10 am tonight, UK time.
They'll open the hatch and enter the capsule later on Saturday (~4.45 pm, UK time). It's carrying over 500 pounds of NASA cargo and crew supplies and will be able to return a similar amount of gear to Earth later on.
Undocking and landing in New Mexico is scheduled for Wednesday 25th May, if the weather cooperates.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/oft-2/
They'll open the hatch and enter the capsule later on Saturday (~4.45 pm, UK time). It's carrying over 500 pounds of NASA cargo and crew supplies and will be able to return a similar amount of gear to Earth later on.
Undocking and landing in New Mexico is scheduled for Wednesday 25th May, if the weather cooperates.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/oft-2/
Leithen said:
Apparently the OMAC thrusters aren't used for docking, but they would be used for giving the ISS an orbital boost on future missions. Not sure if they are required for the deorbit burn.As Angry Astronaut has pointed out however, while the thruster issue is unresolved/undiagnosed, do they really want to dock it to the ISS - what if it's a stuck valve leaking propellant which could collect then explode ?
He has a real downer on all things Boeing, but yes, NASA are pretty strict about stuff like that.
On the very first Cargo Dragon flight in 2012, the Falcon 9 lost an engine on the way up. The flight computer was able to adjust with the other engines, but NASA basically told SpaceX to ditch the secondary payload, an Orbcomm-G2 satellite so as not to increase risk to the primary mission further.
According to Wiki, "NASA requires a greater-than 99% estimated probability that the stage of any secondary payload on a similar orbital inclination to the International Space Station will reach their orbital altitude goal above the station. Due to the engine failure, the Falcon 9 used more propellant than intended, reducing the success probability estimate to approximately 95%. Because of this, the second stage did not attempt a second burn, and Orbcomm-G2 was left in an unusable orbit and burned up in Earth's atmosphere within 4 days after the launch"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1
Here's an NASA article about the development of the these thrusters for Starliner (from 2013 LOL)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-and-aerojet-ro...
On the very first Cargo Dragon flight in 2012, the Falcon 9 lost an engine on the way up. The flight computer was able to adjust with the other engines, but NASA basically told SpaceX to ditch the secondary payload, an Orbcomm-G2 satellite so as not to increase risk to the primary mission further.
According to Wiki, "NASA requires a greater-than 99% estimated probability that the stage of any secondary payload on a similar orbital inclination to the International Space Station will reach their orbital altitude goal above the station. Due to the engine failure, the Falcon 9 used more propellant than intended, reducing the success probability estimate to approximately 95%. Because of this, the second stage did not attempt a second burn, and Orbcomm-G2 was left in an unusable orbit and burned up in Earth's atmosphere within 4 days after the launch"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-1
Here's an NASA article about the development of the these thrusters for Starliner (from 2013 LOL)
https://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-and-aerojet-ro...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff