Posts: 258 From: Montclair, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2010
posted 03-28-2022 10:19 AM
I'm curious, what is going on with Boeing CST-100? Will they be launching the next unmanned test anytime soon?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-28-2022 10:20 AM
NASA officials have recently said that Boeing is on track to launch its second Orbital Flight Test (OFT-2) in May.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 04-14-2022 02:11 PM
Update from Boeing:
The launch of Boeing's CST-100 Starliner spacecraft atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on the company's second uncrewed Orbital Flight Test-2 (OFT-2) for NASA's Commercial Crew Program is targeted for 6:54 p.m. EDT, Thursday, May 19, from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.
The uncrewed mission will test the end-to-end capabilities of the Starliner spacecraft and Atlas V rocket from launch to docking and return to Earth at one of five designated landing zones in the western United States. Following successful completion of the OFT-2 mission, NASA and Boeing will determine a launch window for NASA's Boeing Crew Flight Test (CFT), Starliner's first flight with astronauts aboard.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3458 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 04-15-2022 08:48 AM
Assuming Boeing has ironed out Starliner's problems and the spacecraft becomes fully operational, what launch vehicle will be used once Atlas V is phased out?
I'm not up to speed on the development of Vulcan Centaur and the BE-4 engine, but I get the impression we may be waiting a while. I have read that the Boeing Starliner is compatible with the Falcon 9. Is it realistic to expect Starliner to be launched by Falcon 9? They may fit together mechanically, but would they be "a good fit?"
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 04-15-2022 09:28 AM
Starliner will transition from Atlas V to Vulcan.
The first Vulcan launch is on track for later this year, per United Launch Alliance, but even if that slips a bit, there is still time before the transition is expected.
Starliner may be launch vehicle independent, but I do not believe there have been any talks about using Falcon 9.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3458 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 04-15-2022 03:36 PM
Perhaps I'm just looking at that 2022 prediction with a degree of skepticism born of multiple delays with SLS and Super Heavy. If there is indeed no need to "bridge the gap" between Atlas V and Vulcan Centaur, that will at least avoid the need for an awkward phone call: "Hello Elon, it's Jeff. Got a minute? I have something to ask you...")
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 04-15-2022 05:22 PM
The call would be between Boeing and SpaceX, who have worked together before to launch satellites, so it wouldn't be that awkward.
That aside, regardless if Vulcan enters service this year or next, Starliner will continue to fly on Atlas V through 2024 (with launch vehicles already assigned), so there is little concern at this point.
Blackarrow Member
Posts: 3458 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
posted 04-17-2022 04:16 PM
I think the issue of who would phone whom is rather academic until (unless?) the Starliner actually flies successfully.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5076 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
The launch of Boeing's CST-100 Starliner spacecraft atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on the company's second uncrewed Orbital Flight Test-2 (OFT-2) for NASA's Commercial Crew Program is targeted for 6:54 p.m. EDT, Thursday, May 19, from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.
NASA and Boeing will hold a joint media teleconference at 11 a.m. EDT Tuesday, May 3, to discuss the OFT-2 mission and provide an update on spacecraft readiness.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5076 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-04-2022 09:20 PM
Piece falls off Boeing Starliner as it trundles toward launchpad.
After years of setbacks, Boeing is finally rolling out its Starliner spacecraft to the launchpad today for its second attempt to rendezvous with the International Space Station.
Doing no favors for the spacecraft's reputation for jankiness, it ran into yet another mishap along the way. While strapped to the back of a large truck, a piece of the capsule's window appeared to pop off, tumbling down to the asphalt, as spotted in footage shared by CBS space news reporter William Harwood. ...
Boeing later confirmed to Harwood that it was a protective window cover that had fallen off the capsule.
SkyMan1958 Member
Posts: 1197 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
posted 05-04-2022 10:40 PM
Even if it launches on time and has a successful mission, I would think any astronaut traveling on future Starliners would have a definite pucker factor going on.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-04-2022 10:56 PM
Some of the active astronauts I have spoken with, both on and off the record, have expressed a stronger desire to fly on Starliner than be assigned to the alternatives.
Once Starliner begins flying crews, I think the reasons why will become clear.
CMD_OVRD Member
Posts: 64 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jul 2009
posted 05-05-2022 02:02 PM
Can you give us an idea of what some of those reasons are? I've always wondered what the astronauts' thoughts were on the various vehicles.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-05-2022 02:36 PM
Starliner's controls were designed with pilots in mind and the spacecraft defaults to manual control if the autonomous system fails (rather than defaulting to ground control). Astronauts flying on Starliner can have full control over everything that the spacecraft can do, rather than just monitor systems on screens.
Starliner's ability to touch down on land is also viewed as a plus, especially after a long-duration mission.
I also understand that the Starliner suits, designed and built by David Clark, offer more protection for its wearers, including anti-g compression.
CMD_OVRD Member
Posts: 64 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jul 2009
posted 05-05-2022 06:13 PM
Good stuff Robert! Thanks for that!
Obviously, the two companies had somewhat different design philosophies. I can understand why any pilot would prefer to have manual control as the standard default (just as the Mercury astronauts demanded!)
Just like Boeing, David Clark has a rich history in design of space and aviation hardware. From what I’ve seen of the suits, they also appear to be more comfortable than the SpaceX design.
I’m hoping that Boeing is finally able to overcome their issues and re-establish their presence in U.S. manned spaceflight. Looking forward to the test flight later this month!
oly Member
Posts: 1382 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 05-05-2022 09:51 PM
While we all recognise the idea about astronauts preferring to have the option of manual control of a spacecraft, there are more negative points than positives about including all of the instrument panels, controls, and other pilot's related equipment needed to give a pilot the information required to navigate and control a spacecraft.
This engineering challenge is also being addressed by aviation and pilotless aircraft, and in other areas like driverless cars, trains, and autonomous mining equipment. Why build all of the instruments and control to operate a vehicle when we don't need them?
Where the cost per person to orbit is so expensive, and mission duration is measured by months, the amount of time during a mission where manually piloting a spacecraft is even possible is very small, having to even select a crew member with pilot experience for a mission designed to ferry crew between Earth and the space station has become a negative point in the discussion.
Starliner was offered up by Boeing as a vehicle for the commercial crew program to ferry crew and equipment to the ISS. Astronauts spend more time doing maintenance, science, and PR than anything to do with piloting during a mission on the ISS. Astronauts no longer need to be pilots for ISS missions.
During the launch phase of a mission, can a pilot do manually what automated systems can do faster or more accurately? The crew can't manually fly the rocket from the pad to orbit, no launch vehicle ever has had that capability. The only manual options crew had during the launch is when to abort, and realistically, if you are going to allow someone to sit there and try to figure out if that loud banging and violent shaking are meant to be like that or a sign something bad is happening, it is probably too late to do anything about it anyway. Theoretically, the shuttle crew could manually fly the vehicle after an abort event back to land, but the entire process was automated and the process of landing a glider versus a capsule descending under a parachute does not matter for this discussion.
We are unlikely to see a capsule land under a parachute after re-entry at the shuttle landing facility any time soon.
Land landings may seem more ideal because not dropping your expansive spacecraft into seawater and having to make the vehicle waterproof sounds like an expensive idea, but restricting yourself to a landing area that is flat, unpopulated, and free of hazards, makes things far more difficult.
While sea states can make water landings dangerous, so do mountains, hills, valleys, trees, powerlines, fences, buildings, roads, and the myriad of other things on land that can become dangerous for a land landing. When everything goes as planned, and the capsule lands in the middle of the designated landing site (middle of nowhere), the land landing system is ideal. But when things go wrong such as a launch abort or a thruster fuel valve failing to open after long-duration spaceflight, causing the vehicle to miss the landing area, landing on land versus landing on water may not be such a great idea. I doubt skilled manual piloting would be the make-or-break influence in such conditions.
If Starliner is used for missions other than ISS commercial crew missions, where manual control of the vehicle is a prerequisite or more desirable than automated control, Boeing may get bonus points.
And the idea that pilots can switch to manual control and wrestle the spacecraft back for a safe landing due to a total electrical system failure or the vehicle is damaged during re-entry is a non-starter. The system is fly-by-wire. There are no manual cables and controls to manipulate to fly the vehicle. Defaulting control to the pilot versus designing a system with total redundancy seems odd.
G-suits only offer help during positive high G conditions over a few seconds. They offer no help in negative or lateral G conditions, where forcing blood to the brain just makes things worse. During launch and re-entry, spacecraft are designed and oriented so that the G load is crew positive, however, the duration is longer than a G-suit is designed to handle or crew G strain exercises can compensate for which is why astronaut G tolerance conditioning is important but moot after a long duration mission.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5076 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-06-2022 07:08 AM
quote:Originally posted by oly: And the idea that pilots can switch to manual control and wrestle the spacecraft back for a safe landing...
This is where Russian Soyuz design philosophy differs (combining both capsule geometry and control interface via a PYC Decent Control Handle to manually command roll control for capsule steering down the reentry corridor during off nominal ballistic decent).
328KF Member
Posts: 1354 From: Registered: Apr 2008
posted 05-06-2022 09:11 AM
This thread discusses the manual control option for the Saturn V. It's noted that Cernan once said he could “fly” the launch vehicle using the joystick. He also stated this in the "In The Shadow of the Moon" documentary.
CMD_OVRD Member
Posts: 64 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jul 2009
posted 05-06-2022 11:39 AM
quote:Originally posted by oly: The only manual options crew had during the launch is when to abort...
There was a time when a pilot named Wally sat there and tried to figure it out. History says that he made the right choice. I sometimes wonder how a modern automated system would’ve handled that same event.
Jim Behling Member
Posts: 1716 From: Cape Canaveral, FL Registered: Mar 2010
posted 05-06-2022 03:05 PM
The incident would not have happened in the first place to make a choice. The engine shutting down would have stopped all events in the first place and the cable coming out would not matter with modern avionics.
perineau Member
Posts: 333 From: FRANCE Registered: Jul 2007
posted 05-07-2022 05:22 AM
Pete Conrad on Apollo 12 had a tough call to make too, and I don't know if a machine would have reacted in the same way.
capoetc Member
Posts: 2294 From: McKinney TX (USA) Registered: Aug 2005
posted 05-07-2022 04:18 PM
Machines react (malfunctions notwithstanding) in the way they were programmed to react, even when that program results in unintended consequences.
As a pilot with a lot of experience flying high performance and cargo/passenger type aircraft, I can tell you that the best defense against mishaps is a well-trained pilot.
And I can verify Robert's statement above: I have yet to speak with an astronaut who stated that he would prefer to fly something other than the Starliner if given the option (I say "he" because I have yet to speak to a female pilot-astronaut about the matter).
Also, just because a flight vehicle is "fly-by-wire" does not mean that there are not physically-separate systems to control the vehicle. One system is used by the automated system, in most cases there is a mode by which the pilots can take control of the automated system and fly it manually, and then there is also a completely separate system that allows the pilots to manipulate the systems manually. I suppose you can argue that all of these fly-by-wire systems can fail simultaneously, but in practice such incredibly bad luck is highly unlikely.
oly Member
Posts: 1382 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 05-07-2022 11:25 PM
quote:Originally posted by capoetc: As a pilot with a lot of experience flying high performance and cargo/passenger type aircraft, I can tell you that the best defense against mishaps is a well-trained pilot.
Herein lies a problem. There are numerous examples of fly-by-wire aircraft with automated systems where the actions, or inaction, of the pilot overriding or misinterpreting the system, or failing to act, have resulted in a loss of control of the aircraft because they failed to expedite good situational awareness of the immediate problem or recognize the system configuration fast enough.
The 1988 Airbus A320 Air France crash is a prime example, there are many others.
No system is perfect, and humans always think that they can do a better job than the machine, yet keep inventing new machines.
SpaceAholic Member
Posts: 5076 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-11-2022 12:48 PM
Boeing Co. is feuding with Aerojet Rocketdyne, a key supplier for its Starliner spacecraft, Reuters reports.
Boeing in a statement provided by a spokesperson to Reuters acknowledged for the first time that it ultimately intends to redesign Starliner's valve system to prevent a repeat of the issue that forced last year's test-flight postponement. The Boeing statement said that "we are working on short- and long-term design changes to the valves." ...
A team of Boeing and NASA engineers is in general agreement that the cause of the stuck valves involves a chemical reaction between propellant, aluminum materials and the intrusion of moisture from Starliner's humid Florida launch site.
Aerojet engineers and lawyers see it differently, blaming a cleaning chemical that Boeing has used in ground tests, two of the sources said.
An Aerojet representative declined to comment.
oly Member
Posts: 1382 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 05-11-2022 08:48 PM
The referenced article does not read well for Boeing. It states that Boeing is pushing ahead with the test flight knowing that a problem exists with these valves.
Given that the flight test is a requirement for crew rating certification, Boeing now says they recognize a design flaw exists and will implement a fix later. Remember that Boeing stated that it was being proactive when it announced "it would fly a second orbital test at no cost to the government to prove the Starliner system meets NASA's requirements, including docking to the space station."
NASA required SpaceX to freeze their design (Block 5) and fly a specified number of flights before the Falcon 9 could be considered for crew certification, and did the same with the Dragon spacecraft.
Given that Boeing has experienced issues with both the aircraft and spacecraft programs where they were granted self-administered oversight (by the FAA and NASA respectively) it may be prudent for Boeing to put a convincing case forward that they have fixed the problem before they say it is ready to carry people, not cross their fingers that it works this time and maybe have an unflown fix in place for a crewed flight (which is how this reads). They would be wise to remember that NASA investigation panel was disappointed when it determined "Boeing did not perform a full, end-to-end integrated test of Starliner in a Systems Integration Lab with ULA's Atlas V rocket." They may want to dot every "i" this time.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-11-2022 10:33 PM
NASA has reviewed and approved of Boeing's actions with regards to the valves. At today's flight readiness review, NASA signed off on Boeing and ULA proceeding with the OFT-2 launch.
At a press conference following the review, Boeing's commercial crew program manager Mark Nappi said:
There has been a very thorough set of troubleshooting and testing that was performed by us, NASA and our suppliers and a detailed fault tree was developed.
The first step to understanding what you're going to do next is understanding what the root cause is. And so that has been agreed to by the team that did the troubleshooting and the testing, based on all those results. Now we have a mitigation for OFT-2.
The second step is, where do we go from here? There's still a little bit more testing that has to be completed. We have to close out a couple other areas on the fault tree, but we're already looking at different options for what we do for CFT [the crew flight test] and what we do for the missions after that.
It has not been decided exactly what we're going to do yet, but I can tell you that a redesign is definitely on the table, and once we get all the information that we need, we'll make that decision.
Nappi's counterpart at NASA, Steve Stich, agreed with Nappi:
I really don't have anything to add to what Mark said.
Now that we understand root cause and understand the factors, we'll go look at it and participate with Mark and the team and see what areas, as Mark talked about, we go and enhance the valves with — different materials, different way to seal it, those sorts of things. NASA is heavily engaged in participating.
SpaceAngel Member
Posts: 390 From: Maryland Registered: May 2010
posted 05-18-2022 08:58 AM
How's the weather looking for tomorrow's launch?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-18-2022 09:23 AM
The 45th Weather Squadron forecast calls for a 30 percent probability of violating weather constraints, with the major concerns being cumulus and anvil clouds.
The forecast worsens significantly in the case of a 24-hour delay, with a 70 percent probability of violating weather constraints, with flight through precipitation adding to the cumulus and anvil cloud concerns.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-19-2022 04:47 PM
NASA live video
Starliner is preparing for liftoff! At 6:54 p.m. EDT (22:54 UTC) on Thursday, May 19, Boeing's spacecraft launches aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket on a demonstration flight that gets it one step closer to certification to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
Gordon Eliot Reade Member
Posts: 118 From: Palo Alto, Calif. Registered: Jun 2015
posted 05-19-2022 06:52 PM
It was a beautiful launch. Let's hope it's the beginning of a beautiful mission and many beautiful flights to come.
Ken Havekotte Member
Posts: 3443 From: Merritt Island, Florida, Brevard Registered: Mar 2001
posted 05-19-2022 07:27 PM
What a spectacular liftoff of Boeing's second uncrewed OFT-2/Starliner launch atop an Atlas V booster rocket this evening.
It was my first-ever live liftoff as seen from the LC-39 Observation Gantry's top floor. Pad 41 from the gantry tower is less than 2.4 miles away, even closer than any press site viewing area. It was quite impressive, even for this veteran up-close rocket launch observer.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-19-2022 08:26 PM
During the orbital insertion burn, two of Starliner's orbital maneuvering and attitude control (OMAC) thrusters "failed off" but, as designed, redundant thrusters were able to compensate. From Mark Nappi, vice president and manager of Boeing's commercial crew program:
We had two thrusters fail. The first one had fired. It fired for a second and then it shut down. The flight control system did what it's supposed to and it turned it over to the second thruster. It fired for about 25 seconds and then it shut down. Again the flight control system took over and did what it was supposed to and went to a third thruster and we had a successful orbital insertion.
So the system is designed to be redundant and it performed like it was supposed to and now the team is working on why we had those those anomalies occur.
There are 12 rear-facing (port) OMAC thrusters, grouped into four "dog houses," and the two that failed are part of the same housing (the third thruster in the trio is working fine).
The failed thrusters are not expected to have an effect on the OFT-2 mission going forward as planned.
The only other issue seen during ascent was a "sluggish" sublimator used to cool the Starliner. It is also not an issue for the mission going forward.
Here is a view from the Centaur upper stage showing the Starliner after separation:
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-20-2022 05:02 PM
Boeing/NASA live video
After the successful May 19 launch, CST-100 Starliner is docking autonomously to the International Space Station.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-20-2022 08:29 PM
Photographs by Expedition 67 flight engineer Sergey Korsakov from aboard the International Space Station:
Well done, Starliner!
Gordon Eliot Reade Member
Posts: 118 From: Palo Alto, Calif. Registered: Jun 2015
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-21-2022 08:00 AM
Photographs by Expedition 67 flight engineer Samantha Cristoforetti from aboard the International Space Station:
Welcome Starliner!
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-21-2022 11:11 AM
Boeing/NASA live video
See the International Space Station Expedition 67 crew open Starliner's hatch and go inside the spacecraft.
oly Member
Posts: 1382 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 05-22-2022 11:26 PM
Some amazing photographs coming from the ISS these days.
Gordon Eliot Reade Member
Posts: 118 From: Palo Alto, Calif. Registered: Jun 2015
posted 05-23-2022 10:56 AM
Any idea when Starliner will undock from the ISS?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 48433 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 05-23-2022 11:16 AM
The earliest date for Starliner's undocking is Wednesday (May 25), but that is pending a weather review for the primary landing site at the White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico.
If the first opportunity is approved, then undocking would be at 2:36 p.m. EDT (1836 GMT), setting up a landing at 6:46 p.m. EDT (2246 GMT).
posted 03-28-2022 10:19 AM
advertisement