Boeing Starliner

[MartG]

Getting ready for a second attempt at the test flight

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/01/18/boeing-makin...

[MartG]

Another delay

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/02/20/launch-of-st...

Call me picky, but shouldn't spacecraft avionics components be inherently protected from power surges ?

[MartG]

Now no earlier than 2nd of April

https://www.spaceupclose.com/2021/02/nasa-boeing-s...

[MartG]

Good old Boeing doing what it does best...being over budget and way behind schedule - though to be fair the new delays are more to do with scheduling conflicts with other ISS activity.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/03/02/boeings-next...

Edited by MartG on Wednesday 3rd March 11:32

[MartG]

Now targeting July 30th ( though I personally will be surprised if it doesn't slip again )

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2021/06/23/r...

[MartG]

"Starliner OFT-2 launch scrubbed indefinitely while the ISS is assessed for whatever the heck happened shortly after the Nauka module's docking and hatch opening. And no, I don't believe Boeing supplied Nauka its navigation software. 😏 Likely issue was that Nauka's systems weren't "standing down" as planned after docking. Not the best news for Boeing; it was tough to find a launch window for OFT-2."

[MartG]

"More time is needed to assess incorrect valve indications, not all valves were in proper configuration for launch of Starliner on August 3 ahead of its next flight test to the International Space Station according to Boeing Space and NASA. A new launch date will be set once the issue has been resolved"

[MartG]

Flooble said:

MartG said:

"More time is needed to assess incorrect valve indications, not all valves were in proper configuration for launch of Starliner on August 3 ahead of its next flight test to the International Space Station according to Boeing Space and NASA. A new launch date will be set once the issue has been resolved"

So if there hadn't been a scrub thanks to the Russians and a Thunderstorm, they'd have launched it and it would have again failed?

More likely they would have reached the same point in the countdown and noticed the valve anomaly

[MartG]

You'd think that after the debacle of the first test flight they'd have made sure everything was perfect for this one BEFORE rolling it out for launch

[MartG]

Beati Dogu said:

... ULA will now have pad time to conduct a wet dress rehearsal of Vulcan...

Is that 'wet' as in fully fuelled, or 'wet' as in rained on to see how many valves fail ?

[MartG]

I've seen a rumour going around that Boeing knew about the valve problem months ago, but carried on with the rollout anyway for PR reasons - quite how the current situation is any better than delaying rollout while the valves were fixed or replaced is yet to be explained

One other point that has been raised is the way Boeing are apparently saying leaks of nitrogen tetroxide propellant are regarded as 'normal' - if it is normal how much propellant would be remaining after 6 months docked at the ISS ?

[MartG]

Back in the factory...I wonder how much the farce of stacking and rollout cost Boeing

https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-oft-2-space...

[MartG]

Flooble said:

...- is it three or six missions that are the minimum to complete the contract?

It would be a bit embarrassing for Boeing if they unilaterally killed off the Starliner, making NASA's entire '2nd source for manned flight' ethos a huge waste of time and money - it certainly could prejudice them getting any future NASA contracts

[MartG]

14 said:

... so if Boeing don’t plan on getting Starliner certified to fly on Vulcan then that would be an extremely poor business decision.

Not if they think they can bill NASA for the extra work

[MartG]

Beati Dogu said:

The capsule has an endurance of 7 days I believe.

I suspect that is standard 'ISS ferry' spec, and that endurance would be increased for lunar missions e.g. adding extra consumables ( O2, water, food, LiOH canisters )

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

Seems like it's held together by not very sticky tape and chewing gum.

FTFY

[MartG]

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 boosters

[MartG]

How many presenters do they need !?

[MartG]

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 !

[MartG]

Leithen said:

Apparently two of the thrusters failed.

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 ?