Poll

Will the CFT Starliner land safely?

Yes, Butch & Suni could have ridden it down with no problems
42 (68.9%)
Yes, but occupants would have been uncomfortable
3 (4.9%)
Yes, but occupants would have landed off-target
3 (4.9%)
No, occupants would have been seriously injured
0 (0%)
Some combination of 2, 3 & 4
10 (16.4%)
No, capsule will be lost at some point in the return
3 (4.9%)

Total Members Voted: 61

Voting closed: 09/07/2024 11:32 am


Author Topic: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6  (Read 630498 times)

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1920 on: 09/21/2024 01:24 am »
Eric Berger reacts: "Well this is an interesting Friday news development. For what it's worth, Boeing still has not publicly committed to the Starliner program since the vehicle's return two weeks ago."

Wall Street Silver prods him: "What do you think is likely? 50% [chance] they just cancel it? Boeing is just going to lose money on the Starliner. It will never get enough trips to the Space Station to be profitable and the Space Station end of life is already within sight. Or would that be too embarrassing?

Eric responds with an even more intriguing reply: "I’m on at least 50 percent at this point."

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1837255550393802882
« Last Edit: 09/21/2024 03:33 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1647
  • Likes Given: 4426
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1921 on: 09/21/2024 02:25 am »
Cross post from the Exp 71 thread.

During a crew call down to note/recognize the departure of Flight Director Ed Seitz to the gateway program, Butch made a cryptic reference to Ed's leadership leading to the successful Starliner approach and stated that a very not so successful outcome was possible, if not likely.  Butch also hinted that details might eventually become public.

Also from the Exp 71 thread:
...
Transcribing Butch's comment that you referred to there:
Quote from: Butch Wilmore
And I can tell you something special, not a lot of people know, but on June 6 of this year, there were a lot of possible outcomes that could have occurred, and, uh, probable outcomes, depending on how things went, but due to you and your leadership, uh, the best possible outcome is the one that we wound up having. So, there's a couple folks up here that, personally, are very grateful for that, and, uh, we will never forget that, of course, and many won't as well. And as we go on, the story will get told more and more, and more information will come out, but Ed, you and you guys, you saved the day, and we are eternally grateful for that.

Later, Suni also referenced CFT:
Quote from: Suni Williams
We've gone through a lot together, ... a flight assignment that would never end, and now a flight that's going on and on, that never ends! [Laughter]

Full audio is on the Exp 71 thread:
...
Here's audio (8m50s) of that tribute to Ed Van Cise / Carbon Flight.
Space-to-Ground, 2024-09-20 19:29 UTC.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1202
  • United States
  • Liked: 1105
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1922 on: 09/26/2024 01:31 pm »
Cross post from the Exp 71 thread.

During a crew call down to note/recognize the departure of Flight Director Ed Seitz to the gateway program, Butch made a cryptic reference to Ed's leadership leading to the successful Starliner approach and stated that a very not so successful outcome was possible, if not likely.  Butch also hinted that details might eventually become public.

Also from the Exp 71 thread:
...
Transcribing Butch's comment that you referred to there:
Quote from: Butch Wilmore
And I can tell you something special, not a lot of people know, but on June 6 of this year, there were a lot of possible outcomes that could have occurred, and, uh, probable outcomes, depending on how things went, but due to you and your leadership, uh, the best possible outcome is the one that we wound up having. So, there's a couple folks up here that, personally, are very grateful for that, and, uh, we will never forget that, of course, and many won't as well. And as we go on, the story will get told more and more, and more information will come out, but Ed, you and you guys, you saved the day, and we are eternally grateful for that.

Later, Suni also referenced CFT:
Quote from: Suni Williams
We've gone through a lot together, ... a flight assignment that would never end, and now a flight that's going on and on, that never ends! [Laughter]

Full audio is on the Exp 71 thread:
...
Here's audio (8m50s) of that tribute to Ed Van Cise / Carbon Flight.
Space-to-Ground, 2024-09-20 19:29 UTC.

We know there were thruster issues during approach, so Butch could simply be referring to the behind the scenes discussions of whether to proceed with docking or abort and go home. Perhaps there was a push in NASA to abort and he saved the day by convincing them to proceed?

Or he could be referring to something else that we don't (yet) know about.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6434
  • Liked: 581
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1923 on: 09/27/2024 02:13 am »
Cross post from the Exp 71 thread.

During a crew call down to note/recognize the departure of Flight Director Ed Seitz to the gateway program, Butch made a cryptic reference to Ed's leadership leading to the successful Starliner approach and stated that a very not so successful outcome was possible, if not likely.  Butch also hinted that details might eventually become public.

Also from the Exp 71 thread:
...
Transcribing Butch's comment that you referred to there:
Quote from: Butch Wilmore
And I can tell you something special, not a lot of people know, but on June 6 of this year, there were a lot of possible outcomes that could have occurred, and, uh, probable outcomes, depending on how things went, but due to you and your leadership, uh, the best possible outcome is the one that we wound up having. So, there's a couple folks up here that, personally, are very grateful for that, and, uh, we will never forget that, of course, and many won't as well. And as we go on, the story will get told more and more, and more information will come out, but Ed, you and you guys, you saved the day, and we are eternally grateful for that.

Later, Suni also referenced CFT:
Quote from: Suni Williams
We've gone through a lot together, ... a flight assignment that would never end, and now a flight that's going on and on, that never ends! [Laughter]

Full audio is on the Exp 71 thread:
...
Here's audio (8m50s) of that tribute to Ed Van Cise / Carbon Flight.
Space-to-Ground, 2024-09-20 19:29 UTC.

We know there were thruster issues during approach, so Butch could simply be referring to the behind the scenes discussions of whether to proceed with docking or abort and go home. Perhaps there was a push in NASA to abort and he saved the day by convincing them to proceed?

As the on-console NASA Flight Director, Ed was the one who had to be convinced and had full authority to proceed within the Flight Rules. Well, him and the ISS Flight Director, anyway.

His team orchestrated the hotfire test that recovered all but one of the failed thrusters and turned a Flight Rule NO-GO condition into a GO.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2024 03:08 am by Jorge »
JRF

Offline StraumliBlight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
  • UK
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 216
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1924 on: 09/27/2024 10:24 pm »
Steve Stich discussed some of the potential Starliner modifications today at 1:05:30.


Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7546
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2348
  • Likes Given: 2175
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1925 on: 10/04/2024 07:56 pm »
With today's Vulcan Cert-2 launch, it's interesting to note that Starliner launches on Atlas are planned to use AJ-60A rather than GEM-63 solids. Here's a situation where being ultra-conservative might have played in Boeing's favor.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6695
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5448
  • Likes Given: 2267
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1926 on: 10/05/2024 02:13 am »
With today's Vulcan Cert-2 launch, it's interesting to note that Starliner launches on Atlas are planned to use AJ-60A rather than GEM-63 solids. Here's a situation where being ultra-conservative might have played in Boeing's favor.
Atlas V has launched about 20 times since 2020, with most launches using multiple GEM 63, for a total of about 43 GEM 63. There have been no failures, anomalies, or "observations".

Vulcan Centaur has launched twice, with two GEM 63XLs on each launch, for a total of four GEM 63XL, with an anomaly on one of the four.

At this point, we have no reason to believe that the anomaly on the GEM 63XL is relevant to the GEM 63. I have no insight into all of the differences between the '63 and the '63XL, but one difference is a substantial increase in thrust.

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13823
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones and Thunderbirds
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 11697
  • Likes Given: 9322
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1927 on: 10/05/2024 02:42 am »
With today's Vulcan Cert-2 launch, it's interesting to note that Starliner launches on Atlas are planned to use AJ-60A rather than GEM-63 solids. Here's a situation where being ultra-conservative might have played in Boeing's favor.
Atlas V has launched about 20 times since 2020, with most launches using multiple GEM 63, for a total of about 43 GEM 63. There have been no failures, anomalies, or "observations".

Vulcan Centaur has launched twice, with two GEM 63XLs on each launch, for a total of four GEM 63XL, with an anomaly on one of the four.

At this point, we have no reason to believe that the anomaly on the GEM 63XL is relevant to the GEM 63. I have no insight into all of the differences between the '63 and the '63XL, but one difference is a substantial increase in thrust.

It's not meant to answer your question on thrust, but just historical family history and the difference between the GEM 63 and 63XL.

Quote
GEM 63:
The GEM 63 is a 63-inch-diameter strap-on solid rocket booster that powers ULA’s Atlas V launch vehicle.
Here are the key specifications for the GEM 63:

Nozzle Exit Cone Diameter: Approximately 58 inches.
Propellant Mass: About 97,195 pounds (44,200 kilograms).
Burn Time: Approximately 97.6 seconds.
Maximum Thrust: Around 370,835 pounds-force.
Total Length: More than 72 feet (791 inches).
Motor Diameter: 63 inches.
Exit Plane Diameter: 54 inches.

GEM 63XL:
The GEM 63XL is an extended version of the GEM 63, designed to provide additional performance for ULA’s upcoming Vulcan Centaur launch vehicle.
Notably, the GEM 63XL holds the distinction of being the longest monolithic, single-cast solid rocket motor ever produced.

Here are the specifications for the GEM 63XL:
Nozzle Exit Cone Diameter: 60 inches.
Propellant Mass: Approximately 105,497 pounds (48,000 kilograms).
Burn Time: Approximately 87.3 seconds.
Maximum Thrust: Around 463,249 pounds-force.
Total Length: Impressive 864 inches (more than 72 feet).
Motor Diameter: Still 63 inches.
Exit Plane Diameter: Slightly larger at 56 inches.

Why the XL?:
The GEM 63XL’s extended length allows it to provide more thrust and performance, making it ideal for supporting heavier payloads and ambitious missions.
Manufacturing the GEM 63XL as a single piece (monolithic) enhances reliability by reducing joints and hardware.
In summary, the GEM 63XL has a slightly larger nozzle exit cone diameter and propellant mass compared to the GEM 63. Both boosters are part of the Graphite Epoxy Motor family, ensuring reliable access to space for various payloads.

« Last Edit: 10/05/2024 04:07 am by catdlr »
It's Tony De La Rosa, ...I don't create this stuff, I just report it.

Offline tbellman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1024
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1928 on: 10/05/2024 10:24 pm »
Quote
GEM 63:
Total Length: More than 72 feet (791 inches).

GEM 63XL:
Total Length: Impressive 864 inches (more than 72 feet).

791 inches is significantly less than 72 feet (slightly less than 66 feet).  And the 864 inches of the GEM 63XL is exactly 72 feet, not more than.

I hope their actual engineering is better than the above PR blurbs...

(Also, how the heck do they get six significant digits on the thrust?  [Neither figure looks like false precision from converting an approximate number in kilonewtons to pound-force.])

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12209
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7786
  • Likes Given: 3900
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1929 on: 10/06/2024 08:11 pm »
Please move further discussion about the Vulcan LV anomaly to the Vulcan Discussion thread, and leave this thread to be specifically about Starliner.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 1030
  • Likes Given: 3837
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1930 on: 10/12/2024 09:06 am »
https://spacenews.com/boeing-plans-more-commercial-crew-charges/

Quote from: Jeff Foust in SpaceNews
Boeing expects to take up to several hundred million dollars in additional charges against earnings for its CST-100 Starliner commercial crew program in the third quarter.

Offline WmThomas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • An objective space fan
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 5881
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1931 on: 10/15/2024 08:07 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1202
  • United States
  • Liked: 1105
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1932 on: 10/15/2024 08:13 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Would you be comfortable to fly on a plane that had many fault codes and warning bells in the cockpit during the flight but then landed safely?

Offline Twark_Main

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4035
  • Technically we ALL live in space
  • Liked: 2152
  • Likes Given: 1303
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1933 on: 10/15/2024 08:39 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Cf.

"The Shuttle landed fine! Why worry about some partial O-ring burn-through?"

      -or-

"The Shuttle landed fine! Why concern yourself with a little foam shedding?"

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
  • Liked: 3895
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1934 on: 10/15/2024 09:22 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Would you be comfortable to fly on a plane that had many fault codes and warning bells in the cockpit during the flight but then landed safely?

Actually, yes, I would.  I would not, however, be fine with flying on a plane that just landed with an engine out before the engine failure was fully understood, and the engine repaired or replaced.

Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1935 on: 10/15/2024 09:38 pm »
I would not expect certification until Boeing proves to NASA that they understand and have resolved what's causing the thruster failures.  A safe unmanned return doesn't mean much if they don't know what's causing the failures.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3263
  • Liked: 4338
  • Likes Given: 5888
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1936 on: 10/15/2024 09:42 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Would you be comfortable to fly on a plane that had many fault codes and warning bells in the cockpit during the flight but then landed safely?

Actually, yes, I would.  I would not, however, be fine with flying on a plane that just landed with an engine out before the engine failure was fully understood, and the engine repaired or replaced.
Since Starliner has "thrusters" and not "engines", it sounds like you are saying all of Starliner's faulty thrusters that failed need to be fully understood before certification?  "Repaired or replaced" doesn't make sense in this context, since most of them were expended on the service module...

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
  • Liked: 3895
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1937 on: 10/15/2024 10:02 pm »
NASA seems to be unsure whether to certify Starliner after CFT-1.

Of course, they didn't feel comfortable with Starliner's problems going to station on CFT-1, and so they sent it back without crew.

But in overview, the Starliner made it to the ISS with crew aboard, and then came back to Earth fine without crew. If the crew had stayed aboard, they would have landed fine.

So I'm not sure why Starliner shouldn't be certified.

Now, I'm no Starliner fan, but hasn't Starliner performed the tasks it was supposed to perform in the CFT-1 test?

Would you be comfortable to fly on a plane that had many fault codes and warning bells in the cockpit during the flight but then landed safely?

Actually, yes, I would.  I would not, however, be fine with flying on a plane that just landed with an engine out before the engine failure was fully understood, and the engine repaired or replaced.
Since Starliner has "thrusters" and not "engines", it sounds like you are saying all of Starliner's faulty thrusters that failed need to be fully understood before certification?  "Repaired or replaced" doesn't make sense in this context, since most of them were expended on the service module...

Understood and replaced with a new design and build that will fix the root cause.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6695
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5448
  • Likes Given: 2267
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1938 on: 10/15/2024 10:28 pm »
Since Starliner has "thrusters" and not "engines", it sounds like you are saying all of Starliner's faulty thrusters that failed need to be fully understood before certification?  "Repaired or replaced" doesn't make sense in this context, since most of them were expended on the service module...
Understood and replaced with a new design and build that will fix the root cause.
There were at least three separate independent serious failures. Two of them were on the SM, which by design cannot be recovered for analysis. This means that the root cause analysis, however exhaustive, can never be completely validated based on that CFT. For me, this means it's very difficult to know that a new design will actually solve the problem. I feel that another uncrewed flight is needed.

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
  • Liked: 3895
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6
« Reply #1939 on: 10/15/2024 11:11 pm »
Since Starliner has "thrusters" and not "engines", it sounds like you are saying all of Starliner's faulty thrusters that failed need to be fully understood before certification?  "Repaired or replaced" doesn't make sense in this context, since most of them were expended on the service module...
Understood and replaced with a new design and build that will fix the root cause.
There were at least three separate independent serious failures. Two of them were on the SM, which by design cannot be recovered for analysis. This means that the root cause analysis, however exhaustive, can never be completely validated based on that CFT. For me, this means it's very difficult to know that a new design will actually solve the problem. I feel that another uncrewed flight is needed.

Yup.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0