-
#1500
by
DanClemmensen
on 21 Jun, 2024 21:44
-
..... The proximate cause was water causing corrosion. The root cause (source of the water) remains unknown AFIAK. The mitigation was to do stuff to keep the valves dry. I'm not knowledgeable enough to even speculate on how they can analyze the failure this time.
could the sublimator be the cause of it? I know it used more water than expected during launch and IIRC was again refilled on station.
The moisture that caused the August 2021 OFT-2 scrub was thought to come somehow for the ambient Florida air:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner_Spacecraft_2#30_July_2021_launch_attemptI have no idea whether or not this is relevant in any way to the CFT valve issues. In both cases, Starliner sat on the pad for several days because of launch delays, but this may just be a coincidence.
-
#1501
by
OxCartMark
on 27 Jun, 2024 19:52
-
Super admittedly I know very little about Starliner.
I recall seeing news a few years back that Astronaut Chris Ferguson left and the reason for his decision was stated as being for his family which got a bit of a chuckle from some. Had to look up his name just now to recall it and in doing so came across a picture of the originally planned test crew - Chris Ferguson, Nicole Mann, Mike Fincke, none of them flying today. Can someone(s) please comment on the circumstances that lead to their not being there and if any of them have ever expressed reservations regarding Starliner’s suitability?
-
#1502
by
Vettedrmr
on 27 Jun, 2024 20:13
-
What does this have to do with CFT? Butch and Suni are up there; these folks aren't, and why they aren't doesn't add to the conversation, at least IMO.
-
#1503
by
Topash15
on 27 Jun, 2024 20:17
-
Super admittedly I know very little about Starliner.
I recall seeing news a few years back that Astronaut Chris Ferguson left and the reason for his decision was stated as being for his family which got a bit of a chuckle from some. Had to look up his name just now to recall it and in doing so came across a picture of the originally planned test crew - Chris Ferguson, Nicole Mann, Mike Fincke, none of them flying today. Can someone(s) please comment on the circumstances that lead to their not being there and if any of them have ever expressed reservations regarding Starliner’s suitability?
Starliner just took too long. Nicole flew on Crew-5 4 years after she was originally supposed to fly on Starliner. At a certain point, you want your Astronauts doing what you spent all that time and money training them to do. She waited 3 years by the time she was re-assigned.
Michael Fincke was still on the mission and was backup for Butch and Sunni.
To my knowledge, no one has spoken poorly of Starliner. I suspect the media would've been all over that given Starliner's current issues.
-
#1504
by
DwightM
on 27 Jun, 2024 21:30
-
Super admittedly I know very little about Starliner.
I recall seeing news a few years back that Astronaut Chris Ferguson left and the reason for his decision was stated as being for his family which got a bit of a chuckle from some. Had to look up his name just now to recall it and in doing so came across a picture of the originally planned test crew - Chris Ferguson, Nicole Mann, Mike Fincke, none of them flying today. Can someone(s) please comment on the circumstances that lead to their not being there and if any of them have ever expressed reservations regarding Starliner’s suitability?
Starliner just took too long. Nicole flew on Crew-5 4 years after she was originally supposed to fly on Starliner. At a certain point, you want your Astronauts doing what you spent all that time and money training them to do. She waited 3 years by the time she was re-assigned.
Michael Fincke was still on the mission and was backup for Butch and Sunni.
To my knowledge, no one has spoken poorly of Starliner. I suspect the media would've been all over that given Starliner's current issues.
Just for accuracy, the original crew was Chris Ferguson, Eric Boe, and Nicole Mann.
-
#1505
by
zubenelgenubi
on 28 Jun, 2024 02:59
-
Moderator:
I split/merged 4 posts from the Starliner CFT mission thread to here.
-
#1506
by
Jorge
on 28 Jun, 2024 03:22
-
Super admittedly I know very little about Starliner.
I recall seeing news a few years back that Astronaut Chris Ferguson left and the reason for his decision was stated as being for his family which got a bit of a chuckle from some. Had to look up his name just now to recall it and in doing so came across a picture of the originally planned test crew - Chris Ferguson, Nicole Mann, Mike Fincke, none of them flying today. Can someone(s) please comment on the circumstances that lead to their not being there and if any of them have ever expressed reservations regarding Starliner’s suitability?
Starliner just took too long. Nicole flew on Crew-5 4 years after she was originally supposed to fly on Starliner. At a certain point, you want your Astronauts doing what you spent all that time and money training them to do. She waited 3 years by the time she was re-assigned.
Michael Fincke was still on the mission and was backup for Butch and Sunni.
To my knowledge, no one has spoken poorly of Starliner. I suspect the media would've been all over that given Starliner's current issues.
Just for accuracy, the original crew was Chris Ferguson, Eric Boe, and Nicole Mann.
Just for ultra pedantic accuracy, the original-original crew was Ferguson-Boe, with Mann added when CFT mission extension became a thing.
-
#1507
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 31 Jul, 2024 18:52
-
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1684255926658777088
Boeing’s losses on Starliner, by year (per quarterly and annual report filings):
2016 - $162 million
2018 - $57 million
2019 - $489 million
2021 - $214 million
2022 - $288 million
2023 - $257 million
For a grand total of: $1.467 B
From the
latest Boeing filing, I assume the above $257 million figure from mid-2023 became $288 million for the whole of 2023. To which $125 million can be added for 2024 so far. I believe this makes the current total:
2016 - $162 million
2018 - $57 million
2019 - $489 million
2021 - $214 million
2022 - $288 million
2023 - $288 million
2024 - $125 million
________________
Total: $1.623 billion
-
#1508
by
woods170
on 01 Aug, 2024 09:00
-
<snip the darn annoying never ending repeating huge@ss twitter inline frame>
Boeing’s losses on Starliner, by year (per quarterly and annual report filings):
2016 - $162 million
2018 - $57 million
2019 - $489 million
2021 - $214 million
2022 - $288 million
2023 - $257 million
For a grand total of: $1.467 B
From the latest Boeing filing, I assume the above $257 million figure from mid-2023 became $288 million for the whole of 2023. To which $125 million can be added for 2024 so far. I believe this makes the current total:
2016 - $162 million
2018 - $57 million
2019 - $489 million
2021 - $214 million
2022 - $288 million
2023 - $288 million
2024 - $125 million
________________
Total: $1.623 billion
Yes. And by the time Boeing finally starts flying operational missions (sometime late summer next year) at least another nearly $300M loss will have been incurred by Boeing. So, my estimate is that, by the time Boeing starts earning money thru flying operational crew rotation missions, their losses on Starliner will have risen to around $2B.
-
#1509
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Aug, 2024 13:38
-
Yes. And by the time Boeing finally starts flying operational missions (sometime late summer next year) at least another nearly $300M loss will have been incurred by Boeing. So, my estimate is that, by the time Boeing starts earning money thru flying operational crew rotation missions, their losses on Starliner will have risen to around $2B.
But before they can fly Starliner-1, they must pass CFT. I'm sure there is an actual milestone payment for passing CFT, so that reduces the loss. However, if NASA declines to certify the current CFT, then Boeing would need to fly CFT-2, which would increase the loss quite a bit and might delay Starliner-1 even further. Using OFT as an example, OFT-2 caused a one-year delay and a $400 million loss.
-
#1510
by
Vettedrmr
on 01 Aug, 2024 14:01
-
I expect (assuming a successful return), that NASA will check off the CFT milestone, with findings and action items to be satisfactorily closed prior to operational flights. That gets Boeing some reward funds while keeping them on the hook for correcting all the problems CFT has experienced.
-
#1511
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Aug, 2024 14:28
-
I expect (assuming a successful return), that NASA will check off the CFT milestone, with findings and action items to be satisfactorily closed prior to operational flights. That gets Boeing some reward funds while keeping them on the hook for correcting all the problems CFT has experienced.
I think you are correct, but I don't see how NASA can justify it. The thrusters and doghouse constitute a truly mission-critical system that will require at least a minor change and possibly a bigger change. They also demonstrably cannot be thoroughly tested except in space. If crew safety were the only criterion, I think they would require a new OFT (yes, OFT, not CFT) before putting crew on Starliner. I'm concerned that the viability of the Starliner program will override crew safety as a criterion.
Starliner is probably safe enough (safer than Shuttle) and crew will survive all six remaining flights, so this decision will probably not be fatal.
-
#1512
by
Vettedrmr
on 01 Aug, 2024 14:53
-
I expect (assuming a successful return), that NASA will check off the CFT milestone, with findings and action items to be satisfactorily closed prior to operational flights. That gets Boeing some reward funds while keeping them on the hook for correcting all the problems CFT has experienced.
I think you are correct, but I don't see how NASA can justify it. The thrusters and doghouse constitute a truly mission-critical system that will require at least a minor change and possibly a bigger change. They also demonstrably cannot be thoroughly tested except in space. If crew safety were the only criterion, I think they would require a new OFT (yes, OFT, not CFT) before putting crew on Starliner. I'm concerned that the viability of the Starliner program will override crew safety as a criterion.
Starliner is probably safe enough (safer than Shuttle) and crew will survive all six remaining flights, so this decision will probably not be fatal.
Based on my defense aerospace experience, changes to low-rate initial production aircraft were normal; i.e. none of the LRIP aircraft were exactly the same design. So, mods to the doghouse and thruster wouldn't
necessarily require a re-flight before operations begin.
-
#1513
by
DanClemmensen
on 01 Aug, 2024 16:44
-
I expect (assuming a successful return), that NASA will check off the CFT milestone, with findings and action items to be satisfactorily closed prior to operational flights. That gets Boeing some reward funds while keeping them on the hook for correcting all the problems CFT has experienced.
I think you are correct, but I don't see how NASA can justify it. The thrusters and doghouse constitute a truly mission-critical system that will require at least a minor change and possibly a bigger change. They also demonstrably cannot be thoroughly tested except in space. If crew safety were the only criterion, I think they would require a new OFT (yes, OFT, not CFT) before putting crew on Starliner. I'm concerned that the viability of the Starliner program will override crew safety as a criterion.
Starliner is probably safe enough (safer than Shuttle) and crew will survive all six remaining flights, so this decision will probably not be fatal.
Based on my defense aerospace experience, changes to low-rate initial production aircraft were normal; i.e. none of the LRIP aircraft were exactly the same design. So, mods to the doghouse and thruster wouldn't necessarily require a re-flight before operations begin.
The situations are very different. For aircraft, there is a very long history of manned testing, and essentially no history of un-manned testing since it was not an alternative. These aircraft almost always have an escape system and fly missions where escape is possible. None of this is true for spacecraft in orbit. Also, Starliner is not yet a production system, which is sort of the whole point.
NASA may still decide to certify CFT, but I do not think they can use the aircraft analogy as a justification. It also may be in the national interest to go ahead and certify after determining that the risk is acceptable. I don't think so, but I am not on the evaluation committee.
-
#1514
by
Nomadd
on 01 Aug, 2024 19:34
-
A couple of Soyuz survived because they could handle uncontrolled ballistic re-entry. Does Starliner have that ability?
-
#1515
by
meekGee
on 01 Aug, 2024 20:59
-
A couple of Soyuz survived because they could handle uncontrolled ballistic re-entry. Does Starliner have that ability?
* IIRC one did so with the SM still (unintentionally) attached, right?
-
#1516
by
Kaputnik
on 01 Aug, 2024 21:59
-
A couple of Soyuz survived because they could handle uncontrolled ballistic re-entry. Does Starliner have that ability?
* IIRC one did so with the SM still (unintentionally) attached, right?
Several Soviet/Russian spacecraft have encountered problems with SM jettison. Soyuz 5 was one such example. In every case, the SM did eventually detach, allowing the RM to acquire correct orientation.
-
#1517
by
Asteroza
on 01 Aug, 2024 23:32
-
Yes. And by the time Boeing finally starts flying operational missions (sometime late summer next year) at least another nearly $300M loss will have been incurred by Boeing. So, my estimate is that, by the time Boeing starts earning money thru flying operational crew rotation missions, their losses on Starliner will have risen to around $2B.
But before they can fly Starliner-1, they must pass CFT. I'm sure there is an actual milestone payment for passing CFT, so that reduces the loss. However, if NASA declines to certify the current CFT, then Boeing would need to fly CFT-2, which would increase the loss quite a bit and might delay Starliner-1 even further. Using OFT as an example, OFT-2 caused a one-year delay and a $400 million loss.
How would CTF-2 even work out, considering the cycle times for capsule refurb and remaining time before ISS retirement, on top of no spare Atlas V's without bumping a customer like Kuiper? Being unable to complete the last crew mission before ISS retirement, what kind of penalties are involved then (assuming anything beyond mere non-payment of the sixth mission by NASA)
-
#1518
by
Vettedrmr
on 01 Aug, 2024 23:58
-
Being unable to complete the last crew mission before ISS retirement, what kind of penalties are involved then (assuming anything beyond mere non-payment of the sixth mission by NASA)
IMO, most likely no penalties beyond no further payments.
-
#1519
by
whitelancer64
on 02 Aug, 2024 00:11
-
Yes. And by the time Boeing finally starts flying operational missions (sometime late summer next year) at least another nearly $300M loss will have been incurred by Boeing. So, my estimate is that, by the time Boeing starts earning money thru flying operational crew rotation missions, their losses on Starliner will have risen to around $2B.
But before they can fly Starliner-1, they must pass CFT. I'm sure there is an actual milestone payment for passing CFT, so that reduces the loss. However, if NASA declines to certify the current CFT, then Boeing would need to fly CFT-2, which would increase the loss quite a bit and might delay Starliner-1 even further. Using OFT as an example, OFT-2 caused a one-year delay and a $400 million loss.
How would CTF-2 even work out, considering the cycle times for capsule refurb and remaining time before ISS retirement, on top of no spare Atlas V's without bumping a customer like Kuiper? Being unable to complete the last crew mission before ISS retirement, what kind of penalties are involved then (assuming anything beyond mere non-payment of the sixth mission by NASA)
They would have to use the other capsule, the one that flew OFT-2 and is currently being prepared for the first crew rotation flight. Presumably that would preclude the sixth crew rotation flight, yeah.
That said, I think a CFT-2 is extremely unlikely.