Poll

Should NASA require Boeing to repeat its Starliner Orbital Test Flight due to the recent software issues?

Yes
460 (95.6%)
No
21 (4.4%)

Total Members Voted: 481

Voting closed: 02/21/2020 10:34 pm


Author Topic: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4  (Read 426836 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4545
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #1 on: 04/23/2019 02:54 pm »
In the water.

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1120699843444465664

Somewhat amusing that Boeing has told the assembled media if this test doesn't go to plan, they aren't allowed to publish anything!

They really can't get their media message right at all.
I guess they're new on the aerospace scene... ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #2 on: 04/23/2019 05:24 pm »
Boeing says it was the 45th or concerns relating the 45th's accounts - worried about negative pics, but also Boeing worried about unflattering pics of the boilerplate, etc. etc.

https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1120739794714279936
« Last Edit: 04/23/2019 05:25 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #3 on: 05/16/2019 03:09 pm »

Does anyone know the breakdown in mass between the Starliner capsule and its service module?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Bubbinski

I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Joseph Peterson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 14347
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #5 on: 05/24/2019 05:19 pm »
Quote
WASHINGTON — Boeing has completed ground testing of the thrusters for its CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle, nearly a year after a setback in earlier testing of those thrusters.

In a statement, Boeing said it completed hot-fire testing May 23 of the spacecraft’s entire propulsion system, including various thrusters, fuel tanks and related systems within a “flight-like” service module of the spacecraft. Those tests took place at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico.

A series of tests demonstrated thruster firings for in-space maneuvers, high-altitude aborts and low-altitude aborts. The company said the tests were all successful.

https://spacenews.com/boeing-completes-tests-of-starliner-thrusters/

First, great to hear the tests were all successful.

Can someone clarify what "flight-like" means?

Offline OM72

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Houston, TX
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #6 on: 05/24/2019 06:10 pm »

Can someone clarify what "flight-like" means?

It simply means the SM tested was the design intended for flight. 

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • Liked: 884
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #7 on: 05/24/2019 07:24 pm »
As someone who does lots of destructive testing (hypervelocity impact testing for meteoroid and orbital debris work), we use both analog and flight-like articles.

Analog test articles are inexpensive approximations to the flight configuration that we use to get a better understanding of the test behavior.  When we think we're zeroed in on the right size shot, we switch to flight-like hardware to confirm that the approximations made for the analog hardware don't leave us with any surprises when applied to the more expensive hardware.

Offline otlski

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 179
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #8 on: 05/25/2019 11:18 pm »

Does anyone know the breakdown in mass between the Starliner capsule and its service module?

SM dry mass = 10000 lbs.
SM wet mass = 15000 lbs
CM dry mass = 14000 lbs
CM wet mass = 18000 lbs 

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7992
  • Liked: 6532
  • Likes Given: 2927
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #9 on: 05/27/2019 10:06 pm »

Does anyone know the breakdown in mass between the Starliner capsule and its service module?

SM dry mass = 10000 lbs.
SM wet mass = 15000 lbs
CM dry mass = 14000 lbs
CM wet mass = 18000 lbs

Wow. That's a lot. The N22 can get that to orbit?

LSP says that is 541 territory.
« Last Edit: 05/27/2019 10:08 pm by envy887 »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4424
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1152
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #10 on: 05/27/2019 11:24 pm »

Does anyone know the breakdown in mass between the Starliner capsule and its service module?

SM dry mass = 10000 lbs.
SM wet mass = 15000 lbs
CM dry mass = 14000 lbs
CM wet mass = 18000 lbs

Wow. That's a lot. The N22 can get that to orbit?

LSP says that is 541 territory.

The Atlas V 541 have to deal with gravity loss with the puny single Centaur when orbiting large mass payload to LEO. According to wikipedia the Atlas V 402 can get 12500 kg (27557 lb) to LEO. So adding the 2 SRB should give adequate margins to orbit the Starliner stack.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32942
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 21787
  • Likes Given: 3950
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #11 on: 06/21/2019 07:35 am »
From the GAO report. New information is that four of the eight valves failed to close in the anomaly. The uncrewed flight is flying with the faulty valves, since the abort system will be disabled.

"In June 2018, Boeing experienced an anomaly while testing its launch abort engines. During a test firing, four of the eight total valves in the four launch abort engines failed to close after a shutdown command was sent. In response to this event, Boeing initiated an investigation to identify the root cause. According to Boeing officials, Boeing plans to replace components on all of its service modules except for the uncrewed test flight service module. This is because the abort system will not be active for the uncrewed test flight. Boeing plans to resume testing its launch abort engines in May 2019. A NASA official told us that addressing this anomaly and identifying its root cause resulted in a 12-month schedule delay to launch abort propulsion system testing."
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32942
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 21787
  • Likes Given: 3950
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #12 on: 06/21/2019 07:40 am »
Think its worth repeating all these program risks from the GAO report.

"• Parachute System Certification. Boeing is conducting five parachute system qualification tests to demonstrate that its system meets the Commercial Crew Program’s requirements, which will be validated on two spacecraft flight tests. However, in August 2018, Boeing identified a faulty release mechanism for its drogue parachute—which initially slows down the capsule—during its third parachute qualification test that successfully deployed all parachutes. Identifying and fixing the faulty mechanism delayed its fourth parachute qualification test. According to a NASA official, Boeing is conducting testing to qualify an alternative design, and Boeing must qualify this alternative design before the crewed test flight.

Launch Vehicle Engine Anomaly. Boeing is addressing a safety risk related to a launch vehicle component. Specifically, during a 2018 launch, the launch vehicle engine position during ascent deviated from commands but the launch vehicle provider stated that it achieved all mission objectives. Program officials told us that they have insight into the launch vehicle manufacturer’s ongoing investigation and have participated in a separate independent review team. Boeing will implement a set of corrective actions for the uncrewed test flight, and will continue testing the engines for the crewed test flight.

Spacecraft-Generated Debris. Boeing is addressing a risk that under normal operating procedures the initiators that trigger separation events, such as the separation of the crew and service module prior to re-entry, may generate debris and damage the spacecraft. These components function as expected, but Boeing plans to install hardware to contain debris generated when the initiators fire. Program officials told us that they believe Boeing has identified a solution that will be sufficient for the uncrewed and crewed test flights, but the program is continuing to explore a possible redesign for future operational missions.

Spacecraft Forward Heat Shield. We had previously found that Boeing was addressing a risk that during descent a portion of the spacecraft’s forward heat shield may re-contact the spacecraft after it is jettisoned and damage the parachute system. Since our last report, Boeing tested the performance of the forward heat shield in worst-case scenarios and found there was no damage to the parachute system or the spacecraft. After reviewing test data, the program determined that Boeing had completed the mitigation activities and, as of February 2019, no additional steps were needed."
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6716
  • California
  • Liked: 8142
  • Likes Given: 5191
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #13 on: 08/22/2019 02:28 am »
From the update thread:

You might be wondering how they are going to achieve such an ambitious time goal when it seemed to take a while to get things together for the first one?

Well, at the AEHF-5 Social we got a peek inside the Atlas Spaceflight Operations Center (ASOC) where they keep the boosters before sending them out to the Vertical Integration Facility (VIF). It turns out ULA already has the fully assembled Atlas V core and Dual Centaur upper stage for the Crewed Flight Test. They are currently sitting inside the ASOC awaiting a hopeful launch before the end of 2019.

Well nobody expected ULA to be the long pole for this anyway, so it doesn't mean much. What people are wondering is will the spacecraft itself meet the schedule?

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #14 on: 08/24/2019 10:36 am »
Think its worth repeating all these program risks from the GAO report.

"• Parachute System Certification. Boeing is conducting five parachute system qualification tests to demonstrate that its system meets the Commercial Crew Program’s requirements, which will be validated on two spacecraft flight tests. However, in August 2018, Boeing identified a faulty release mechanism for its drogue parachute—which initially slows down the capsule—during its third parachute qualification test that successfully deployed all parachutes. Identifying and fixing the faulty mechanism delayed its fourth parachute qualification test. According to a NASA official, Boeing is conducting testing to qualify an alternative design, and Boeing must qualify this alternative design before the crewed test flight.

Launch Vehicle Engine Anomaly. Boeing is addressing a safety risk related to a launch vehicle component. Specifically, during a 2018 launch, the launch vehicle engine position during ascent deviated from commands but the launch vehicle provider stated that it achieved all mission objectives. Program officials told us that they have insight into the launch vehicle manufacturer’s ongoing investigation and have participated in a separate independent review team. Boeing will implement a set of corrective actions for the uncrewed test flight, and will continue testing the engines for the crewed test flight.

Spacecraft-Generated Debris. Boeing is addressing a risk that under normal operating procedures the initiators that trigger separation events, such as the separation of the crew and service module prior to re-entry, may generate debris and damage the spacecraft. These components function as expected, but Boeing plans to install hardware to contain debris generated when the initiators fire. Program officials told us that they believe Boeing has identified a solution that will be sufficient for the uncrewed and crewed test flights, but the program is continuing to explore a possible redesign for future operational missions.

Spacecraft Forward Heat Shield. We had previously found that Boeing was addressing a risk that during descent a portion of the spacecraft’s forward heat shield may re-contact the spacecraft after it is jettisoned and damage the parachute system. Since our last report, Boeing tested the performance of the forward heat shield in worst-case scenarios and found there was no damage to the parachute system or the spacecraft. After reviewing test data, the program determined that Boeing had completed the mitigation activities and, as of February 2019, no additional steps were needed."

this is how an aviation company charge with flying people safely does things.  Boeing did not expect it would take this long, but they misjudged the Dreamliner and it is (not only a great flying platform) but is the aviation technology of the future.  Starliner is the same thing...

 it takes some time but well its flight safety   software companies issue updates after blue screens or whatever they are called now as the pieces of disaster are picked up
  :)
« Last Edit: 08/24/2019 10:48 am by TripleSeven »

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #15 on: 08/24/2019 11:20 am »
From the update thread:

You might be wondering how they are going to achieve such an ambitious time goal when it seemed to take a while to get things together for the first one?

Well, at the AEHF-5 Social we got a peek inside the Atlas Spaceflight Operations Center (ASOC) where they keep the boosters before sending them out to the Vertical Integration Facility (VIF). It turns out ULA already has the fully assembled Atlas V core and Dual Centaur upper stage for the Crewed Flight Test. They are currently sitting inside the ASOC awaiting a hopeful launch before the end of 2019.

Well nobody expected ULA to be the long pole for this anyway, so it doesn't mean much. What people are wondering is will the spacecraft itself meet the schedule?

You did ask a question...so I answer


when Boeing Test Aviators Experimental,  not computer geeks on a keyboard who have no experience in the air or much past the keyboard and in the flight sit safely on the ground

  say it is ready ...safe flights
« Last Edit: 08/24/2019 11:27 am by TripleSeven »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6716
  • California
  • Liked: 8142
  • Likes Given: 5191
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #16 on: 08/24/2019 02:59 pm »
Well nobody expected ULA to be the long pole for this anyway, so it doesn't mean much. What people are wondering is will the spacecraft itself meet the schedule?

You did ask a question...so I answer


when Boeing Test Aviators Experimental,  not computer geeks on a keyboard who have no experience in the air or much past the keyboard and in the flight sit safely on the ground

  say it is ready ...safe flights

Huh? This is the most bizarre post you have made on this forum.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33280
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 58588
  • Likes Given: 26211
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #17 on: 08/27/2019 06:03 am »
Talk from April 2018 just posted:


Online Vettedrmr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Hot Springs, AR
  • Liked: 1445
  • Likes Given: 2391
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #18 on: 09/08/2019 11:15 am »
Quick question I haven't found an answer to: When will the Ground Abort test sequence in?  Before OFT?  After OFT but before CFT?  For some reason I'm just not finding anything.

TIA, and have a good one,
Mike
Aviation/space enthusiast, retired control system SW engineer, doesn't know anything!

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9347
  • US
  • Liked: 11925
  • Likes Given: 5279
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 4
« Reply #19 on: 09/08/2019 01:08 pm »
Between OFT and CFT seems to be the current plan.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1