Boeing Starliner
Discussion
With Starliner only rated to launch on Atlas, and all the Atlas boosters now booked, what booster would Boeing use to launch any other Starliner missions?
Since they only have two capsules (each rated for 10 flights) they don't have a huge amount of contingency.
E.g. if they complete the Crew Flight Test and the remaining 6 operational missions that will be a total of OFT-1, OFT-2, CFT, Crew1-6 = 9 missions. I'd expect that if they had to put the capsule on a new booster, even if they were allowed to hand-wave the Pad Abort Test and In-Flight Abort test again, there would at least be an uncrewed test flight and a crewed test flight before they started doing operational launches? Leaving them with just nine further flights, and assuming they actually achieve the 10-flight reuse target (my uninformed gut tells me that they probably won't, with some "unexpected issue" limiting reuse)
Since they only have two capsules (each rated for 10 flights) they don't have a huge amount of contingency.
E.g. if they complete the Crew Flight Test and the remaining 6 operational missions that will be a total of OFT-1, OFT-2, CFT, Crew1-6 = 9 missions. I'd expect that if they had to put the capsule on a new booster, even if they were allowed to hand-wave the Pad Abort Test and In-Flight Abort test again, there would at least be an uncrewed test flight and a crewed test flight before they started doing operational launches? Leaving them with just nine further flights, and assuming they actually achieve the 10-flight reuse target (my uninformed gut tells me that they probably won't, with some "unexpected issue" limiting reuse)
Flooble said:
With Starliner only rated to launch on Atlas, and all the Atlas boosters now booked, what booster would Boeing use to launch any other Starliner missions?
My feeling is that they are hoping NASA will pay for man-rating the Vulcan, rather than Boeing having to pay for it themselves. Not sure who paid to man-rate the Atlas V.Of course they'd never consider putting it on a Falcon 9
Starliner is supposed to be platform independent, so that includes Falcon 9. Stranger things have happened. What with them trying to offload ULA, they might just want the cheapest lift to space they can get.
Looking at the Orbital Reef blurb, they just mention Boeing will build one of the modules and provide crew transport with Starliner. I can’t see any mention of what rocket it would use. Even New Glenn potentially. Who knows; it’s al vapourware at the moment anyway.
Looking at the Orbital Reef blurb, they just mention Boeing will build one of the modules and provide crew transport with Starliner. I can’t see any mention of what rocket it would use. Even New Glenn potentially. Who knows; it’s al vapourware at the moment anyway.
Apparently the launch is tonight UK time, considering the problems Boeing is having with their planes, why would anyone risk getting on a spaceship from them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpeg21x7n7qo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpeg21x7n7qo
FMOB said:
Apparently the launch is tonight UK time, considering the problems Boeing is having with their planes, why would anyone risk getting on a spaceship from them.
People still risk getting on their aeroplanes... and I expect the staff who design and build the space rockets are different from the ones who design and build aeroplanes.'"The engineering team has evaluated the vehicle is not in a configuration where we can proceed with flight today," an official in Mission Control said'
= something's broken. Splendid jargon; it reminds me of 'unplanned spontaneous disassembly'...!
= something's broken. Splendid jargon; it reminds me of 'unplanned spontaneous disassembly'...!
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 7th May 10:24
Simpo Two said:
'"The engineering team has evaluated the vehicle is not in a configuration where we can proceed with flight today," an official in Mission Control said'
= something's broken. Splendid jargon; it reminds me of 'unplanned spontaneous disassembly'...!
AKA something fell off and the needle on my BS-ometer is bent.= something's broken. Splendid jargon; it reminds me of 'unplanned spontaneous disassembly'...!
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 7th May 10:24
Expect nothing less from Boeing these days.
Beati Dogu said:
If they’d been launching a satellite they likely would have cycled the valve and carried on if it passed. Since they had crew onboard, their policy is not to do that.
Quite right too with lives at stake.Do the crew have any means of saving their skins if the thing goes pear-shaped somewhere on its flight? I recall the Apollo emergency nose rocket that could fire the crew capsule to safety.
Simpo Two said:
Beati Dogu said:
If they’d been launching a satellite they likely would have cycled the valve and carried on if it passed. Since they had crew onboard, their policy is not to do that.
Quite right too with lives at stake.Do the crew have any means of saving their skins if the thing goes pear-shaped somewhere on its flight? I recall the Apollo emergency nose rocket that could fire the crew capsule to safety.
Despite the nice Boeing lady claiming "great success" only two of the three main chutes deployed, but NASA trusted Boeing who said that was good enough. I'm not sure they'd be so trusting today.
My fear is that the manned Starliner test might go awry on account of a weight and balance issue, not taking into account the extra mass of the two sets of enormous unisex high-zinc brass balls attached to the crew members willing to fly that thing.
I just came across this article.
I wonder how much traction/degree of seriousness, NASA will treat this?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nasa-contrac...
I wonder how much traction/degree of seriousness, NASA will treat this?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nasa-contrac...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff