Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

Oldfart1939 · 2019-12-20 22:04:40

After a perfect launch on the Atlas 5 rocket, there was a guidance system error related to the clock onboard the spacecraft. After lots of smiley faces in spite of this failed mission, it seems that NASA is again putting the Nelsonesque blind eye to the telescope about another Boeing failure. IMHO, another flight test(on Boeing's nickel) should be carried out prior to a manned flight. Last time Boeing had a demonstration mission, the parachutes failed to deploy properly and a large cloud on Nitric Oxide from the propulsion module contaminated the landing site for some time.

Bottom line: Starliner isn't ready for manned flight.

"Bridenstine declined to speculate whether Boeing would need to fly another uncrewed test flight, this time docking with the ISS, before flying crew. “I think it’s too early to make that assessment,” he said, citing the lack of knowledge on the root cause of the timer problem. Neither Chilton nor Stich said they immediately knew what fraction of the OFT mission objectives won’t be achieved.

However, Bridenstine would not rule out going directly to a crewed flight after this mission despite the problems encountered. “That’s something we’ve got to look at,” he said." Excerpted from Space News.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-12-21 15:22:32)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-21 08:27:34

I would agree not ready and yes to more test flights as well as more ground testing seems in order

original topic Cots status

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 12:44:19

reposting:
Its about time that starline is going to fly.

Boeing's CST-100 Starliner space capsule is ready for its maiden voyage as early as Dec. 20, NASA officials said Thursday. The space agency said the capsule passed a flight readiness review Thursday. The review included dozens of managers and engineers from the space agency, Boeing and launch provider United Launch Alliance. The scheduled launch date is Dec. 20, but alternate dates because of potential delays go into the Christmas holiday, including Dec. 21, 23 and 25 through 28.

Launching on an Atlas V rocket.

Starliner is smaller than Dragon, which SpaceX adapted for human use after using it for years to send cargo to the space station. Starliner is 16.5 feet high when coupled with its service module. Crew Dragon is 26.7 feet high with its trunk.
Boeing holds a contract for two test flights and six missions to the International Space Station. Future Starliner missions depend on NASA's needs for station crews and commercial demand.

That is small but why are they only focusing on Nasa missions sales?

According to Boeing, Starliner is designed to fit up to seven people, but NASA missions will carry a crew of only four or five.
Three astronauts have been designated for Starliner's first missions: Mike Fincke, Nicole Mann and Chris Ferguson.
Boeing also plans to fly private passengers, selling an extra fifth seat on NASA missions. The company says potential customers include commercial and government-sponsored astronauts or private citizens flying as tourists.

Hopefully the price tag per seat will keep it filled

Unlike Crew Dragon or the Apollo-era capsules, Starliner won't land in the ocean. It has parachutes and airbags to drop it into desert landing zones at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, Willcox Playa in Arizona or at Edwards Air Force Base in California. Starliner crew modules are designed to fly up to 10 missions. Service modules are made for each mission.

Landing on land does make for recycling but what is the chances of the air bags failing and causing structural damage?

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 12:45:03

repost:
Boeing will launch its Starliner crew spacecraft for the first time

http://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/launch/index.html

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 12:47:30

At this point though we can not even get off this rock to anything other than what is in LEO. So we will never graduate to planet hunting for a magma dome or vent to tap for energy anywhere else. That is sad that we can not get a rocket to orbit but for cargo ship....

As for a clock there is lots of ways one can be made but the electronic version have lots of failing points from bad coding to just using the wrong parts to start the machine running at a given clock rate to make the code work. I have seen digital engineers use an oscillator without its temperature compensation resistor cause units to fail until they reached a warm temperature. I have seen the wrong devide down of the master frequency cause to wrong cycle to make the counters output incorrect.

GW Johnson wrote:

Spacenut:
And yet I have owned very inexpensive Timex watches for 5 decades now, that all kept very good time for many years, before they quit. That's both mechanical and electronic devices, over that many decades.
Maybe Boeing ought to buy their clocks from Timex.
GW

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 12:48:29

tahanson43206 wrote:

For GW Johnson re #245
A report I ran across in the past day said that the issue with the timing was NOT mechanical. The software (apparently) fetched the wrong time from the Atlas.
I (personally) find it curious that the engineers working on the capsule system would have built such a dependency into their plans. Considering the cost of the overall system, saving a couple of bucks by not having their own timer source seems surprising.
I'll bet that particular detail will be examined closely before the next flight.
(th)

So its a calculated time frame from launch of the rockets first stage to when the next stage takes over. This is not a time but fuel comsumption data for speed of flight number being passed so that momentum equations for burns are correct.

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 12:56:37

I guess a 10 should be given for the landing...
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/12 … 577023799/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spac … SKBN1YQ03X
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/nationa … n/2247721/

kbd512 · 2019-12-22 15:32:14

I keep telling everyone that software complexity is real complexity, every bit as real as any mechanical device ever was. Boeing and SpaceX have both experienced a variety of software failures and SpaceX has also experienced a number of hardware failures. All of that can be overcome, but there's also a real price tag attached to it. It doesn't matter if computerized control looks like "magic" to the untrained eye or not. Everything that went wrong was a result of sophisticated / non-trivial computer software not being 100% perfect, despite all the testing conducted in simulations. A computer simulation clearly can't and won't accurately replicate the actual flight conditions experienced in the objective world in all cases, despite our best attempts. I see this all the time in my line of work. The question that should always be asked is how many actual flight tests a particular computer program has been subjected to. The answer to that question during the first flight test is always "zero". As such, there will always be a "reality curve" to overcome. Ideas about how things will work are great and are necessary starting point to interact with the real world, but then there's the real world and it doesn't care about how you think something should work.

The Boeing 737 MAX debacle was a combination failure that mixed the worst aspects of new software introduced at the behest of the FAA to try to preclude the requirement for retraining pilots on the pitch trim characteristics of a substantially modified 737 airframe, hardware with a well known and completely unavoidable failure mode (blockage of the pitot static tube with FOD) since it was in use before the computer age, and egregiously poor / nearly non-existent training regarding how to interpret the software feedback received in the cockpit. Every computer program needs to be an aid to operation that has a completely manual reversion mode that doesn't require anything more sophisticated than completing an electrical circuit to accomplish. Anything that doesn't require an electrical circuit is even more desirable for backup purposes.

So long as these new computer programs have manual override modes, which I would also question the hell out of if that override is also implemented in a software program, then it's not the end of the world. That mandates having a well trained crew on board that understands the software. I'd wager to say that that is almost never the case for these new computerized airliners and spacecraft. The results of this test is precisely why we will ALWAYS need highly competent, skilled, and well-trained pilots to fly these high performance cutting-edge aerospace vehicles. Naturally, that runs directly counter to the non-evidence-based assertion that we can put Joe Average into one of these new computer-controlled vehicles and somehow that untrained person will figure out how to deal with any potential problems that arise.

SpaceX's capsule exploded simply by firing its thrusters. That was a completely unsurvivable event. Boeing's capsule hasn't exploded yet, but I'm no more confident in their ability to meet the man-rating requirements than I am in SpaceX at this juncture. If Boeing manages to get their capsule back on the ground in one piece, I'll have a little bit of my faith restored in these fancy new computerized contraptions. That said, I also think another unmanned test is in order for both capsules to ensure that they don't explode, blow through all of their propellant from a computer glitch, or have some other previously unknown problem ground them.

I would also like to say that I'm not a fan of our government telling their contractors what to do and how to do it. You get to specify one or the other, but not both. I actually like the fact that SpaceX intended to use powered landings, even if that requires further development to provide the reliability of the system.

I would like NASA to have 3 dissimilar systems to provide assured civilian and military access to LEO:
SpaceX Dragon V2 using propulsive terrestrial or ocean landing with ascent via Falcon 9 or perhaps Falcon Heavy
Boeing Starliner using parachute and airbag terrestrial landing with ascent via Atlas 5 or Vulcan
Sierra Nevada Corporation DreamChaser using runway landing with ascent via New Glenn

It seems we can only afford to purchase 2 exploration class systems:
Lockheed-Martin Orion with parachute and ocean landing with ascent via SLS
SpaceX Starship with propulsive landing with ascent via BFR

It's taken years to get all of those systems operational and we're still working towards that goal. The probability of having all of those systems fail at the same time after they're operational and subsequently losing our access to space is virtually nil. Each provides unique capabilities.

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 16:02:55

It has landed and the decoding of code will take place as sure as anyone can be of wanting to blame it on hardware and not on the software coding....
I agree that we need another to step up to the 2 exploratory class systems level with another vendor as the SLS is to expensive for each launch and the BFR reqires to many refills to be able to do anything real. Maybe Northrup Gruman will do more as well as the others to make it clear that the eggs we have are not going to work as they are.

These are the same airbags that were slated to go on Orion but the pork was to heavy...
ap_19356551339841_custom-0de0e93781542147b6b90b61efea892c317bd8a7-s1100-c15.jpg

The Sunday landing of the test flight – which did not include any crew members – concluded with three red, white and blue parachutes opening up and gliding into the Army's White Sands Missile Range.

ap_19356484725788-056723931bedc1b9d105ad3f470dff3e2db99484-s800-c85.jpg

Its going to be a late christmas as

The capsule was carrying holiday presents, clothes and food, cargo that was supposed to be dropped off at the International Space Station.

kbd512 · 2019-12-22 17:28:31

SpaceNut,

It's good to see that Boeing's capsule is still in one piece after returning to Earth, but now I want to see a successful in-flight abort from both SpaceX and Boeing and a successful ISS docking from Boeing before these capsules are certified for human use. Those were the terms of the contracts and as a tax payer I want what my taxes paid for. No excuses for why the testing criteria weren't met will satisfy me. They knew what the terms were when they took our money. By my count, SpaceX owes us 1 successful in-flight abort and Boeing owes us 1 successful in-flight abort and 1 ISS docking. I'm not upset at all at either company and I'm pleased with the progress that they've made, but none of that changes the terms of the contract. The same terms will apply to DreamChaser whenever SNC is ready for flight.

You know what else I want to know?

How is it that we don't have sufficient TDRS coverage to remotely command capsules headed towards ISS?

If Space Force has any useful role to play in the future, they'd better make damn sure we can at least communicate with our own spacecraft at all times. There's no excuse that passes muster for endangering the most expensive research facility the world has ever known.

tahanson43206 · 2019-12-22 17:39:23

For kbd512 re #10

Thank you for pointing out an immediate and valuable mission for the new force. The mission (as I understand it) does not call for humans on site in the initial startup phase, but at least we are positioning the nation to move in that direction when the time comes, and it surely will.

Science Fiction writers have been exploring related scenarios for decades, so for readers exposed to those writings, the unfolding of the future will not surprise in general, although details are sure to do so.

For SpaceNut .... someone in the media made an incorrect report about the Boeing parachute landing. Apparently they (or their source) thought Boeing was the first to land with parachutes on land in the modern era, but Russia has been doing that for decades, and Blue Origin has been doing the same in recent years.

It is doubtful any reader of the NewMars forum would have made that mistake, but since I can't complain to the media company, at least I can report the error here, where it has a better chance of being appreciated.

(th)

kbd512 · 2019-12-22 18:19:53

tahanson43206,

Edit:
Response moved by SpaceNut to the Space Force thread, so I'm truncating this post since it's drifting off-topic.

Last edited by kbd512 (2019-12-22 21:04:37)

SpaceNut · 2019-12-22 19:42:49

Space Force is here

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-04 08:13:15

Boeing will get eaten by the government's identity politics?

U.S. senators press U.S. airlines, USDOT on flight cancellations
https://ca.yahoo.com/finance/news/u-sen … 53035.html

Boeing's Starliner is years late, but NASA says it's also necessary
https://www.tennessean.com/story/tech/s … 681774002/

Boeing and SpaceX were selected by NASA in 2014 to each develop a new craft that would ferry astronauts to the International Space Station following the end of the space shuttle program.
While both companies were tasked with doing the same thing, the outcomes couldn't be more different.

SpaceX Raises Prices For Rocket Launches And Starlink Satellite
https://codaily.com/spacex-raises-price … rials-cnbc

Buttigieg used disputed Moses story to claim road racism
https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/buttigieg … ad-racism/

Pete Buttigieg Explain the GOP's New Anti-LGBTQ+ Culture
https://www.advocate.com/politics/2022/ … lture-wars

NY Times is thrilled by the political agenda?

"The End of the All-Male, All-White Cockpit" which apparently was so evil the politik wants to replace the Cockpit with 60 IQ feminist transexual islamist types from Wakanda?

Boeing video shows idyllic view from recent Starliner flight
https://www.digitaltrends.com/space/boe … er-flight/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-06-04 08:14:37)

SpaceNut · 2022-06-04 20:23:10

While the war continues the space race has not lost a beat as Nasa is indicating that its not needing any more Russian rides to orbit....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-07-28 02:45:55

Boeing takes additional charge for Starliner astronaut capsule, bringing cost overruns to near $700 million

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/boeing- … llion.html

SpaceNut · 2022-07-28 21:05:52

So, they expect so one else should pay for their own quality control problems....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-26 01:08:50

Boeing Starliner's 1st astronaut flight for NASA delayed to February 2023

https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner- … ruary-2023

GW Johnson · 2022-08-26 09:01:49

They identified more problems to fix in the second uncrewed flight test to the ISS. These are taking longer to fix than expected, at the funding level Boeing is willing to commit. Which is not much, since NASA is not picking up 100% of the tab for Boeing's mistakes. This is quite demonstrably NOT the Boeing that built the B-52.

GW

SpaceNut · 2022-08-27 10:10:03

Other than a contract for filling is Boeing must know by now that they are not going to be able to do low crew count to orbit until the Dragon is retired if there is still a need for that sort of taxi to orbit.

GW Johnson · 2022-09-01 09:47:17

From Daily Launch 9-1-2022:

SpaceX Contracted For Five Additional NASA Missions

CNN (8/31) reports that SpaceX’s “partnership with NASA just got $1.4 billion sweeter, as the space agency announced Wednesday that it’s extending its deal with the company to cover five additional missions.” The newly contracted launches “extend their partnership through 2030 and bring the total contract value to nearly $5 billion for 14 fully operational astronaut missions.”

My take on it: NASA is forced to do this because Boeing’s Starliner is not yet ready to fly, while supplies of its launch vehicle are almost gone, and its replacement launch vehicle is not yet available to fly. That puts Boeing in the position of needing to just cancel Starliner, because the paying market it is supposed to serve is disappearing.

GW

SpaceNut · 2022-09-01 20:53:36

Even with the existing contracts of which I think requires 6 flights to be able to get paid its going to cost more than just money if it fails to deliver them.

SpaceNut · 2023-06-04 09:21:11

GW Johnson wrote:

I'm not quite sure where to post this.
News reports now indicate Boeing has found more safety issues with Starliner, the resolution of which pushes back its first manned flight from this summer into next year. Nobody noticed two fatal flaws until now: (1) flammable adhesive on the protective tape wrapped around all the wiring (the space between the outer shell and inner pressure vessel is chock full of this wiring), and (2) inadequate strength in the "soft links" that connect the parachutes to the capsule (factor 2 over-strength is required to handle loss of one chute increasing the loads on the others).
This thing is now 3 years late flying manned experimentally, and billions over budget that Boeing has been partly forced to absorb, it so obviously being their fault for the problems. NASA still wants it as an alternative to the crew Dragon, but I suspect Boeing no longer wants it, being the money pit it has become. There's now not enough years left in the ISS to justify flying the spacecraft there. There's only 5-7 years of flying to ISS before its time is up, even if Starliner were ready for routine flights today.
GW

Some of this is a big deal as it shows that they have forgotten how to build.

GW Johnson · 2023-06-04 15:08:46

It's not just forgetting how to build stuff, it is having no incentive to do things correctly, because you have little or no competition to keep you honest. The free market is the most powerful engine of creation yet devised. But if there is no competition, it is NOT a "free market" at all!

Aerospace industry consolidation since WW2, and particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union, has done bad things to innovation and to meeting contract requirements.

I just posted an article on this, over at "exrocketman", using a figure out of a government report that I found floating around on LinkedIn. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. My article is titled "Consolidation in Aerospace?", and it is dated 4 June 2023.

GW

SpaceNut · 2023-06-04 15:52:39

We can blame the flyoff competition that did not happen for the status quo on the industry.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2019-12-20 22:04:40

Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#2 2019-12-21 08:27:34

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#3 2019-12-22 12:44:19

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#4 2019-12-22 12:45:03

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#5 2019-12-22 12:47:30

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#6 2019-12-22 12:48:29

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#7 2019-12-22 12:56:37

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#8 2019-12-22 15:32:14

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#9 2019-12-22 16:02:55

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#10 2019-12-22 17:28:31

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#11 2019-12-22 17:39:23

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#12 2019-12-22 18:19:53

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#13 2019-12-22 19:42:49

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#14 2022-06-04 08:13:15

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#15 2022-06-04 20:23:10

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#16 2022-07-28 02:45:55

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#17 2022-07-28 21:05:52

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#18 2022-08-26 01:08:50

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#19 2022-08-26 09:01:49

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#20 2022-08-27 10:10:03

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#21 2022-09-01 09:47:17

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#22 2022-09-01 20:53:36

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#23 2023-06-04 09:21:11

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#24 2023-06-04 15:08:46

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

#25 2023-06-04 15:52:39

Re: Boeing Starliner unmanned orbital test flight

Board footer