-
#100
by
Robert_the_Doll
on 20 May, 2022 23:33
-
Spectacular view at 10 meters:
-
#101
by
Lars-J
on 21 May, 2022 00:08
-
Here is a still from 3 seconds into the twitter video showing Starliner's thruster firing for Inbound Fly-around Maneuver 1. What are the two large/bright dots flying outward?
I know that with boosters the answer is always, "It's just ice! (or oxygen snow)," but what are we seeing here? I'd have thought that by this point all of the RCS thrusters would have already been test tired, and we wouldn't be seeing their covers flying away, but not knowing any better, that's what I'd guess.
It is either
A) thruster cover flaps that finally flew off, or
B) ice or frozen propellant from thrusters
-
#102
by
Robert_the_Doll
on 21 May, 2022 00:40
-
We have a new crew-capable spacecraft docked to ISS:
-
#103
by
Surfdaddy
on 21 May, 2022 00:41
-
We have a new crew-capable spacecraft docked to ISS:
Needs to finish its entire mission first, and pass eval of all results.
-
#104
by
Tywin
on 21 May, 2022 00:53
-
-
#105
by
Rocket Science
on 21 May, 2022 01:03
-
Congrats Boeing, welcome to ISS Starliner!
-
#106
by
DwightM
on 21 May, 2022 01:13
-
Great day, congrats! Thanks for the coverage!
-
#107
by
king1999
on 21 May, 2022 02:08
-
We have a new crew-capable spacecraft docked to ISS:
Needs to finish its entire mission first, and pass eval of all results.
-
#108
by
MySDCUserID
on 21 May, 2022 02:13
-
Congratulations, Boeing!!! What a fine flying machine you have created!! Job well done!!!! Also... two different models of American-built, human-capable spacecraft at ISS: USA! USA! USA! Nobody comes to close in human spaceflight!
-
#109
by
gaballard
on 21 May, 2022 02:20
-
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail. Truly top notch engineering from Boeing on this vehicle.
-
#110
by
Robert_the_Doll
on 21 May, 2022 02:24
-
Press conference.
-
#111
by
MySDCUserID
on 21 May, 2022 02:37
-
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail. Truly top notch engineering from Boeing on this vehicle.
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail. Truly top notch engineering from Boeing on this vehicle.
Still managed to dock, didn't it? And that wouldn't have happened without NASA's approval. And NASA would not approve without confidence.
-
#112
by
punder
on 21 May, 2022 02:45
-
Have to admit I blew off a fair chunk of my workday watching this dang thing. Way to go, Boeing, congrats!
Like others, I kept seeing those flappy bits, thought they might be video artifacts due to the bright sunlight… turns out they are a high-tech environmental sealant known as “butcher paper.”
More amusement… in the earlier press conference, the NYT reporter (iirc) asked Stich (iirc) why the thruster housings are called “doghouses.” I was amazed, just look at them, boxy structures with an opening at one end, duh. But Stich couldn’t explain it himself! C’mon, guys!
-
#113
by
edkyle99
on 21 May, 2022 03:54
-
Two U.S. crew capable (or soon to be capable) spacecraft docked at ISS and a third inside the VAB, all built by different companies. Remarkable.
- Ed Kyle
-
#114
by
DescartesWasBeautiful
on 21 May, 2022 04:33
-
In the discussion about the severity of the thruster problems, I don't think I saw where anyone pointed out a recent Space News article (
https://spacenews.com/boeing-considering-redesign-of-starliner-valves/ ) that indicated that Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne had been fussing with each other over the earlier valve failures and that Boeing was already considering valve redesign(s). (BTW, does anyone know if these A-R thrusters are being used in any other spacecraft?)
Earlier posts mentioned problems with early Dragon thrusters and the history of Space Shuttle thruster problems, but there were thruster problems late into the lunar Apollo and Skylab Apollo programs as well. Mike Collins briefly recounted in Carrying The Fire a thruster problem with one of the Columbia Command Module's reentry RCS thrusters that was detected during reentry checkout after SM separation. Even though the CM RCS set was pretty limited, he was sure they could workaround the one bad thruster. I believe from reading the Apollo crew technical debriefs that the Apollo Service Module RCS thruster isolation valves were prone to being triggered by things like pyro events and often had to be reset by crew action. There were also multiple problems with the Service Module RCS thruster quads early on Skylab 3 (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_3 ) that resulted in the Apollo-Saturn 1b Skylab Rescue stack being moved to LC-39 until it was determined that the CSM could be maneuvered satisfactorily with only two of the four quads working.
-
#115
by
libra
on 21 May, 2022 07:39
-
Spectacular view at 10 meters:
Couldn't help thinking "Apollo has returned".
-
#116
by
kevinof
on 21 May, 2022 08:42
-
Great that it’s finally at the ISS and shouldn’t have taken this long but congrats to the team at Boeing who have had a tough time over the last year or so. Fantastic to see it docked and NASA now has their second option (pending reviews).
However when I look at Starliner and the big picture I go “meh”. It’s a solution to a request, it’s an MVP and is never going to move us forward in space flight. I wished they had stuck with their original (2015?) setup and asked what does a spacecraft need to be in the 2030s ? Instead they went with something from the past and went traditional. And as in boats, traditional doesn’t mean right, it just means old.
It’s not even Apollo 2.0, more like 1.1.
So very happy it’s got there and docked but pushing the boundaries it’s not.
Spectacular view at 10 meters:
Couldn't help thinking "Apollo has returned".
-
#117
by
wedge
on 21 May, 2022 11:59
-
-
#118
by
LouScheffer
on 21 May, 2022 13:51
-
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail.
Not a thruster expert, but why would a thruster fail?? I thought these were simple, pressure-fed devices, with roughly one moving part - the valve that lets fuel/oxidizer into the chamber. On the earlier RCS failures, they said the symptom was low chamber pressure. The valve didn't open all the way? This seems odd - thrusters have been used for decades, and surely the bugs worked out by now? Or something partially clogged the valve? That seems unlikely, since if that was the suspected failure mode, debris could clog all the valves, yet NASA was OK with continuing. So what could cause this?
-
#119
by
Khadgars
on 21 May, 2022 14:19
-
Great that it’s finally at the ISS and shouldn’t have taken this long but congrats to the team at Boeing who have had a tough time over the last year or so. Fantastic to see it docked and NASA now has their second option (pending reviews).
However when I look at Starliner and the big picture I go “meh”. It’s a solution to a request, it’s an MVP and is never going to move us forward in space flight. I wished they had stuck with their original (2015?) setup and asked what does a spacecraft need to be in the 2030s ? Instead they went with something from the past and went traditional. And as in boats, traditional doesn’t mean right, it just means old.
It’s not even Apollo 2.0, more like 1.1.
So very happy it’s got there and docked but pushing the boundaries it’s not.
Spectacular view at 10 meters:
Couldn't help thinking "Apollo has returned".
IMO not the right way to look at Starliner and Crew Dragon. Both were tasked specifically to function in LEO and both should do the job well.
If you're looking for advancing capability, Orion and Starship are your cup of tea.
