-
#120
by
kevinof
on 21 May, 2022 14:32
-
Huh? That was my point. If they went for something more than an MVP it would be a much better solution. They didn’t and it was an opportunity missed.
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.
-
#121
by
Robert_the_Doll
on 21 May, 2022 16:24
-
No wonder they made this time, Jebediah Kerman was in command.
-
#122
by
Thorny
on 21 May, 2022 16:25
-
Huh? That was my point. If they went for something more than an MVP it would be a much better solution. They didn’t and it was an opportunity missed.
Wouldn't that be a great example of "the better is the enemy of the good enough"?
-
#123
by
Khadgars
on 21 May, 2022 16:33
-
Huh? That was my point. If they went for something more than an MVP it would be a much better solution. They didn’t and it was an opportunity missed.
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.
I guess I just don't understand your point. You are complaining about Starliner (same holds true to Crew Dragon) about limited capability even though they do their design and contract task well when two other spacecraft received contracts and are in production for the very capability you are asking for.
-
#124
by
Jim
on 21 May, 2022 16:38
-
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail. Truly top notch engineering from Boeing on this vehicle.
They did not "failed"
-
#125
by
Jim
on 21 May, 2022 16:42
-
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?
What says they "failed"? There are many things that can cause thruster problems. Slow valves, bad instrumentation, too tight on redline limits, debris, etc.
-
#126
by
Jim
on 21 May, 2022 16:43
-
Huh? That was my point. If they went for something more than an MVP it would be a much better solution. They didn’t and it was an opportunity missed.
Not true. This was to make money.
-
#127
by
gaballard
on 21 May, 2022 18:13
-
Per the press conference, they also had several RCS thrusters fail. Truly top notch engineering from Boeing on this vehicle.
They did not "failed"
Space is hard; grammar even more so. It wasn’t The Write Stuff y’all idolize, after all.
-
#128
by
JoeFromRIUSA
on 21 May, 2022 19:03
-
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!
Took them long enough
-
#129
by
meekGee
on 21 May, 2022 19:13
-
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!
Took them long enough
I think a good summary is "damned by faint success".
They made it, but barely. Success, but trailing a bunch of asterisks.
This being try #3, you'd expect a "more perfect" flight.
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
-
#130
by
Zed_Noir
on 21 May, 2022 21:21
-
<snip>
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
Seem to recall the previous reentry was from a lower orbit. So not quite the same.
Hopefully the new software works and no more thruster issues. Too bad Boeing couldn't recovered the OMAC thrusters for physical examination.
-
#131
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 21 May, 2022 21:40
-
A Note is that there has been only 2 flights. The third item was a pad very long launch scrub and slip to this launch and flight.
All of these items are issues and all will be reviewed in nauseating detail before actual crew is placed aboard. Some issues may end being a larger problem than others but without details cannot say just how much of an impact on the review process outside of the time already allocated for review of the flight details if any they will cause.
A humorous issue was the "T" on one of the computer displays not being in the center of the keep out circle as expected. Not sure where that display was at ISS or the MCC. It is just another one of those issues that have to be handled/reviewed. There are a bunch of little things and will be more on the way back.
A basic note is that the Dragon, Cygnus, and HTV end every flight with a list of items that happen and are reviewed before the next flight. A Note here is that if the AXIOM I flight had not been so issue free the Crew 4 launch could have been delayed for extra time to review and resolve beyond the hours already allocated.
The primary item is there will always be some nagging little problems occur. It is just hopped that the problems encountered can still allow for the mission to go forward. In this case it has to this point. And hopefully the return will be likewise.
-
#132
by
DMeader
on 21 May, 2022 21:46
-
I think a good summary is "damned by faint success".
They made it, but barely. Success, but trailing a bunch of asterisks.
This being try #3, you'd expect a "more perfect" flight.
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
A lot of the criticism Boeing and Starliner gets just makes my blood boil. Are you forgetting all the stuff that SpaceX has blown up over the years? Sheesh.
-
#133
by
Lemurion
on 21 May, 2022 21:58
-
I think a good summary is "damned by faint success".
They made it, but barely. Success, but trailing a bunch of asterisks.
This being try #3, you'd expect a "more perfect" flight.
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
A lot of the criticism Boeing and Starliner gets just makes my blood boil. Are you forgetting all the stuff that SpaceX has blown up over the years? Sheesh.
No, we're not. But Boeing and SpaceX are completely different organizations and in this case Boeing is getting criticism based on what it's doing. SpaceX could blow up a hundred Dragons and it wouldn't have any effect on the potential severity of Boeing's Starliner issues. Remembering SpaceX blew up a Dragon on the pad doesn't make Boeing magically better.
-
#134
by
toren
on 21 May, 2022 22:09
-
As a self-avowed SpaceX fanboi and Boeing skeptic, I have to say it's good seeing a significant step forward from someone other than SpaceX for once. If that's damnation with faint praise, so be it. Congratulations so far and good luck for the rest!
-
#135
by
king1999
on 21 May, 2022 22:32
-
-
#136
by
meekGee
on 21 May, 2022 22:33
-
I think a good summary is "damned by faint success".
They made it, but barely. Success, but trailing a bunch of asterisks.
This being try #3, you'd expect a "more perfect" flight.
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
A lot of the criticism Boeing and Starliner gets just makes my blood boil. Are you forgetting all the stuff that SpaceX has blown up over the years? Sheesh.
Whataboutism again.
Nobody forgot Dragon's teething problems.
But Boeing is getting slammed for all the right objective reasons, and also partly for wrong reasons (their condescending attitude throughout)
Like everyone else, congratulations for getting there. But there's getting there, and there's getting there, and this was the second type.
This was not the flight after which Boeing says "ok it took three tries but we aced it".
This was not the first time this spacecraft was in space, so losing multiple thrusters (of multiple types IIUC) plus other issues is just embarrassing and way out of the realm of "minor stuff happens".
And the valve issue wasn't a test article, it was a bone fide launch attempt. And the Spacecraft had to be scrapped afterwards.
All the indignation and deflections and hissy fits won't change that.
-
#137
by
thirtyone
on 21 May, 2022 23:16
-
[deleted earlier comment]
Seeing the evidence from the whole valve sticking issue, I was already suspecting that maybe Aerojet didn't do its job. More of these thruster issues are sounding like AJ's problem. Yes, Boeing is responsible for the project, but I'm pretty sure the type of engineering issues would be more on the, you know, propulsion system subcontractor...
-
#138
by
saturnapollo
on 22 May, 2022 00:24
-
So very happy it’s got there and docked but pushing the boundaries it’s not.
It's one and only purpose is to ferry crew to and from the ISS. If it does that well, then that is all that is required of it. The Rusians have been using the Soyuz to do that job since the 1960s. They don't believe in reinventing the wheel if something works well. There is no need to push the boundaries for what is basically a taxi.
Keith
-
#139
by
MySDCUserID
on 22 May, 2022 01:41
-
I think a good summary is "damned by faint success".
They made it, but barely. Success, but trailing a bunch of asterisks.
This being try #3, you'd expect a "more perfect" flight.
Shrug. It should be downhill from here though. They already did re-entry once.
A lot of the criticism Boeing and Starliner gets just makes my blood boil. Are you forgetting all the stuff that SpaceX has blown up over the years? Sheesh.
.
And the valve issue wasn't a test article, it was a bone fide launch attempt. And the Spacecraft had to be scrapped afterwards.
Apparently you forgot that OFT stands for Orbital Flight TEST.