Author Topic: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5  (Read 638300 times)

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1680 on: 05/18/2022 08:49 pm »
Just because there's a job req out there doesn't mean the job isn't being done now. People are in acting roles all the time when people retire or get promoted and they haven't found a permanent replacement immediately.
Could be but if true an inopportune moment for such a person to leave or be replaced.
Maybe we should call this thread the Padliner thread.

Offline psionedge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1681 on: 05/18/2022 10:52 pm »
Just because there's a job req out there doesn't mean the job isn't being done now. People are in acting roles all the time when people retire or get promoted and they haven't found a permanent replacement immediately.
Could be but if true an inopportune moment for such a person to leave or be replaced.
That's how real life is. That's why you have backups. If someone gets T-boned leaving work and is in the hospital for a month what are you going to tell NASA?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37647
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21727
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1682 on: 05/18/2022 11:02 pm »

Could be but if true an inopportune moment for such a person to leave or be replaced.

No, it isn't

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 932
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1566
  • Likes Given: 801
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1683 on: 05/18/2022 11:04 pm »
Why is there no Wet dress rehearsal this time? I remember OFT-1 did one... Or is there one planned for today?

Not needed.

If they thought it was needed they would have done it... Obviously. I'm not sure that's insightful. Lol let me try again

Why (did Boeing determine that) no Wet dress rehearsal (needed) this time?


It doesn't exercise the spacecraft and it is only to reduce a schedule risk.

Boeing just likely wanted to reduce exposure.

Exposure to the outside elements more then likely...  ;D

But probably to save $$$ as this re-flight is on their dime.  That would be my guess anyways.

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1684 on: 05/18/2022 11:06 pm »
Just because there's a job req out there doesn't mean the job isn't being done now. People are in acting roles all the time when people retire or get promoted and they haven't found a permanent replacement immediately.
Could be but if true an inopportune moment for such a person to leave or be replaced.
That's how real life is. That's why you have backups. If someone gets T-boned leaving work and is in the hospital for a month what are you going to tell NASA?
What is more likely of the following?

Something happened to the manager of the Crewed Flight Operations and they need to be replaced but will miss OFT-2 and the chance to learn from it.
vs.
Boeing is waiting until Starliner passes OFT-2 before hiring the team for Crewed Flight Operations

I would say the latter is way more probable.
Maybe we should call this thread the Padliner thread.

Offline AstroWare

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
  • Arizona
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 5
« Reply #1685 on: 05/18/2022 11:36 pm »


Why is there no Wet dress rehearsal this time? I remember OFT-1 did one... Or is there one planned for today?

Not needed.

If they thought it was needed they would have done it... Obviously. I'm not sure that's insightful. Lol let me try again

Why (did Boeing determine that) no Wet dress rehearsal was (needed) this time?


It doesn't exercise the spacecraft and it is only to reduce a schedule risk.

Boeing just likely wanted to reduce exposure.

Limiting (environmental) exposure makes sense.

The WDR could also be performed without the payload attached, correct? Like you said, it's a launch vehicle test. It burns down risk, including GSE issues. Especially with a potentially sensitive payload, you wouldn't want to roll out just to find the GSE has an issue. (Last Atlas was March 1st)

OFT-1 did a WDR. OFT-2 (attempt 1) did not. So I don't think it's directly a valve incident mitigation. Especially if the VIF is not environmentally controlled.

Interesting trade offs. Not trying to second guess their decision. Thanks for the more insightful response. :)

Offline 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.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1