Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6

[Athelstane]

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

[kdhilliard]

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:

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:

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.

[mn]

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:

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:

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.

[Jorge]

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:

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:

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.

[StraumliBlight]

Steve Stich discussed some of the potential Starliner modifications today at 1:05:30.

[sdsds]

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.

[DanClemmensen]

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.

[catdlr]

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.

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.