-
#80
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 18 Dec, 2019 20:48
-
-
#81
by
Jeff Lerner
on 18 Dec, 2019 22:02
-
https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1207409799706664961
Lots o’ buttons on the #Starliner control panel. Interesting to see the different design choices with each @Commercial_Crew providers.
Reminds me of a fighter control panel...Boeing fighter plane heritage ?..go with what you know .?
I’ve been looking for a complete Dragon 2 panel picture to compare ...anyone got one ?
-
#82
by
gemmy0I
on 18 Dec, 2019 22:54
-
Reminds me of a fighter control panel...Boeing fighter plane heritage ?..go with what you know .?
IIRC it's derived from the 787 Dreamliner control panel (and maybe some of its avionics software too, probably at least the part that interfaces with the control panel).
I do particularly enjoy how the "Cabin Temp" dial looks
just like the dials most cars in the 80's, 90's, and 00's had for the exact same purpose.
Anyone know what the big scary-looking "EJECT MODE" handle is for? No way that thing has ejector seats, right? I suppose it could vaguely make sense for triggering the launch abort system, but it would seem weird to label it "EJECT" in that case (versus something more precisely descriptive)...
-
#83
by
Tobias_Corbett
on 18 Dec, 2019 23:05
-
Reminds me of a fighter control panel...Boeing fighter plane heritage ?..go with what you know .?
Anyone know what the big scary-looking "EJECT MODE" handle is for? No way that thing has ejector seats, right? I suppose it could vaguely make sense for triggering the launch abort system, but it would seem weird to label it "EJECT" in that case (versus something more precisely descriptive)...
I assumed it was to “eject” the hatch for if the crew needs to quickly egress, although that’s just a guess.
-
#84
by
Rocket Science
on 19 Dec, 2019 20:16
-
Awesome work with the broadcast! Things are getting a little exciting!
-
#85
by
ace5
on 20 Dec, 2019 00:02
-
Any estimates for Atlas V total weight for this mission?
-
#86
by
deadman719
on 20 Dec, 2019 12:54
-
Awesome work with the broadcast! Things are getting a little exciting!
I actually turned off the broadcast after first stage separation. The lack of telemetry and/or graphics removed my intrest in the stream. Viewing people staring at their consoles was less than inspiring.
I realize things have changed from the early days of spaceflight, and my view above is based on being spoiled with lots of real time information.
Kind of surprised to hear about the issues Starliner is having.
-
#87
by
jpo234
on 20 Dec, 2019 16:29
-
-
#88
by
abaddon
on 20 Dec, 2019 16:30
-
Being discussed/updated in the ULA section in the respective mission threads.
-
#89
by
libra
on 20 Dec, 2019 16:36
-
What a saga COTS / CCDEV has been so far !
2014-2015 saw the twin losses of Cygnus (October) and Dragon 1 (June). Unlike the Shuttle disasters, these vehicles just shrugged off and carried on.
And now, 2019, here we go again - Dragon 2 flies then explodes on the ground. CTS-100 gets into orbit but get lose, burns his props, miss the ISS and has to return after 48 hours. Both incidents delaying the closure of the "gap" lasting since July 2011.
-
#90
by
Lars-J
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:13
-
Yes, this mission is being discussed in the ULA forum.
But to make this specific to Starliner - the decision to insert it in a suborbital trajectory raised eyebrows here (for good reason) - and no we appear to see the drawback of this decision.
I know there must have been real engineering reasons behind it (some have suggested that it was requested by Boeing, so they could use up the abort propellant with an orbital insertion), but really... that begs the question if THAT design trade off was worth it.
-
#91
by
Rocket Science
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:21
-
Awesome work with the broadcast! Things are getting a little exciting!
I actually turned off the broadcast after first stage separation. The lack of telemetry and/or graphics removed my intrest in the stream. Viewing people staring at their consoles was less than inspiring.
I realize things have changed from the early days of spaceflight, and my view above is based on being spoiled with lots of real time information.
Kind of surprised to hear about the issues Starliner is having.
My comment was about "our-own NSF" pre-launch broadcast yesterday at the pad with "our-guys". I do agree that could have used some onboard rocket-cam views and graphics that we have been used to for today's launch, but really that's all PR and not a mission requirement... Oh well, maybe next time...
-
#92
by
JAFO
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:30
-
Reminds me of a fighter control panel...Boeing fighter plane heritage ?..go with what you know .?
IIRC it's derived from the 787 Dreamliner control panel (and maybe some of its avionics software too, probably at least the part that interfaces with the control panel).
I do particularly enjoy how the "Cabin Temp" dial looks just like the dials most cars in the 80's, 90's, and 00's had for the exact same purpose.
Anyone know what the big scary-looking "EJECT MODE" handle is for? No way that thing has ejector seats, right? I suppose it could vaguely make sense for triggering the launch abort system, but it would seem weird to label it "EJECT" in that case (versus something more precisely descriptive)...
Reminds me more of a 737. (note: I have about 4,000 hours flying the 787.)
-
#93
by
yokem55
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:31
-
Yes, this mission is being discussed in the ULA forum.
But to make this specific to Starliner - the decision to insert it in a suborbital trajectory raised eyebrows here (for good reason) - and no we appear to see the drawback of this decision.
I know there must have been real engineering reasons behind it (some have suggested that it was requested by Boeing, so they could use up the abort propellant with an orbital insertion), but really... that begs the question if THAT design trade off was worth it.
Yeah, presuming Centaur has the margins (and deorbit margins) I would expect the suborbital spacecraft separation decision to get a revisit after this. SpaceX was able to 'fix' the Draco valve issue on CRS-2 precisely because they had the time to do so. I would think that getting an insertion that gives Starliner more time to fix any issues that come up would be a big boost to the overall margins for the mission.
Now, if Atlas would need another SRB to get Starliner into a fully orbital trajectory, that might really limit the desirability of that approach as that might put some G-load issues on the meatware early in flight.
-
#94
by
seawolfe
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:40
-
Yes, this mission is being discussed in the ULA forum.
But to make this specific to Starliner - the decision to insert it in a suborbital trajectory raised eyebrows here (for good reason) - and no we appear to see the drawback of this decision.
I know there must have been real engineering reasons behind it (some have suggested that it was requested by Boeing, so they could use up the abort propellant with an orbital insertion), but really... that begs the question if THAT design trade off was worth it.
Yeah, presuming Centaur has the margins (and deorbit margins) I would expect the suborbital spacecraft separation decision to get a revisit after this. SpaceX was able to 'fix' the Draco valve issue on CRS-2 precisely because they had the time to do so. I would think that getting an insertion that gives Starliner more time to fix any issues that come up would be a big boost to the overall margins for the mission.
Now, if Atlas would need another SRB to get Starliner into a fully orbital trajectory, that might really limit the desirability of that approach as that might put some G-load issues on the meatware early in flight.
Would adding another SRB change the G load that they were trying to maintain on the vehicle? They kept stressing throughout the flight of the Atlas that the booster was throttling to maintain that 3 G load.
-
#95
by
woods170
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:41
-
Yes, this mission is being discussed in the ULA forum.
But to make this specific to Starliner - the decision to insert it in a suborbital trajectory raised eyebrows here (for good reason) - and no we appear to see the drawback of this decision.
I know there must have been real engineering reasons behind it (some have suggested that it was requested by Boeing, so they could use up the abort propellant with an orbital insertion), but really... that begs the question if THAT design trade off was worth it.
Yeah, presuming Centaur has the margins (and deorbit margins) I would expect the suborbital spacecraft separation decision to get a revisit after this. SpaceX was able to 'fix' the Draco valve issue on CRS-2 precisely because they had the time to do so. I would think that getting an insertion that gives Starliner more time to fix any issues that come up would be a big boost to the overall margins for the mission.
Now, if Atlas would need another SRB to get Starliner into a fully orbital trajectory, that might really limit the desirability of that approach as that might put some G-load issues on the meatware early in flight.
It was reported by ULA just a few days ago that N22 Atlas V is perfectly capable of delivering Starliner all the way into orbit. The reason it delivers Starliner to suborbital is because Boeing requested it. Reason: burn of excess (and no longer needed) abort propellant by doing the final orbital insertion burn. That makes sure Starliner doesn't carry around an excessive amount of fuel on ISS approach and docking, and during post-undocking flight.
-
#96
by
TorenAltair
on 20 Dec, 2019 17:50
-
[...]
It was reported by ULA just a few days ago that N22 Atlas V is perfectly capable of delivering Starliner all the way into orbit. The reason it delivers Starliner to suborbital is because Boeing requested it. Reason: burn of excess (and no longer needed) abort propellant by doing the final orbital insertion burn. That makes sure Starliner doesn't carry around an excessive amount of fuel on ISS approach and docking, and during post-undocking flight.
That's what I never understood. Why implement by design a potential single point of failure? As yokem55 wrote, CRS2 for example, had the time margin and reserves to fix delayed firing. Soyuz and Progress for example had similar things like CRS2 happen and could manage it.
-
#97
by
deadman719
on 20 Dec, 2019 18:00
-
Awesome work with the broadcast! Things are getting a little exciting!
I actually turned off the broadcast after first stage separation. The lack of telemetry and/or graphics removed my intrest in the stream. Viewing people staring at their consoles was less than inspiring.
I realize things have changed from the early days of spaceflight, and my view above is based on being spoiled with lots of real time information.
Kind of surprised to hear about the issues Starliner is having.
My comment was about "our-own NSF" pre-launch broadcast yesterday at the pad with "our-guys". I do agree that could have used some onboard rocket-cam views and graphics that we have been used to for today's launch, but really that's all PR and not a mission requirement... Oh well, maybe next time...
My apologies for the misunderstanding!
The NSF team always provides top notch work!
-
#98
by
ChrisWilson68
on 20 Dec, 2019 18:08
-
What a saga COTS / CCDEV has been so far !
2014-2015 saw the twin losses of Cygnus (October) and Dragon 1 (June). Unlike the Shuttle disasters, these vehicles just shrugged off and carried on.
And now, 2019, here we go again - Dragon 2 flies then explodes on the ground. CTS-100 gets into orbit but get lose, burns his props, miss the ISS and has to return after 48 hours. Both incidents delaying the closure of the "gap" lasting since July 2011.
Failures during testing aren't too surprising. That's what testing is for.
-
#99
by
Jim
on 20 Dec, 2019 18:22
-
[...]
It was reported by ULA just a few days ago that N22 Atlas V is perfectly capable of delivering Starliner all the way into orbit. The reason it delivers Starliner to suborbital is because Boeing requested it. Reason: burn of excess (and no longer needed) abort propellant by doing the final orbital insertion burn. That makes sure Starliner doesn't carry around an excessive amount of fuel on ISS approach and docking, and during post-undocking flight.
That's what I never understood. Why implement by design a potential single point of failure? As yokem55 wrote, CRS2 for example, had the time margin and reserves to fix delayed firing. Soyuz and Progress for example had similar things like CRS2 happen and could manage it.
It is also is a guarantee of return due to a failure of the propulsion system.
