User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 12:38:58 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PermanentDaylight: Hopefully Boeing tightened the door bolts on this one. It's cool... Boeing farmed out the flight control software to India. Those guys always do the needful when securing hatches. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 12:46:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperHeavy: Pretty sure SpaceX has flown men in their capsule many times, how many have flown in Orion or Starliner? Dragon2 has launched 23 times mainly carrying cargo, carried crew on 8 of those missions to include ISS missions, and they have 7 vehicles in active use. 0 crewed Starliner missions as of yet and only 2 Starliner vehicles built for flight and both companies were awarded contracts at the same time. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 12:50:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SuperHeavy]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Compared to launching on SLS which is a savings of nearly 2 billion USD depending on which accountant you ask. I realize that SLS is a more powerful rocket than FH. But is it really that much of a difference? And for that matter why does a longer trip time wise mean that it's going to cost significantly more? Do they need to keep the entire science team just twiddling their thumbs while the payload is in transit? Space travel demands patience. Even if we come up with fusion drives and solar powered light sails it's going to take a while for ships, probes and whatnot to move from planet to planet. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By Cypher15: Also, putting Europa Clipper on FH was really dumb as now the program will cost even more due to teh much longer travel time. Compared to launching on which rocket? What is the cost of that rocket and the transit time to Jupiter. On Falcon Heavy the travel time is about 5.5 years and the launch cost $178 million US. Compared to launching on SLS which is a savings of nearly 2 billion USD depending on which accountant you ask. I realize that SLS is a more powerful rocket than FH. But is it really that much of a difference? And for that matter why does a longer trip time wise mean that it's going to cost significantly more? Do they need to keep the entire science team just twiddling their thumbs while the payload is in transit? Space travel demands patience. Even if we come up with fusion drives and solar powered light sails it's going to take a while for ships, probes and whatnot to move from planet to planet. What is the travel time on SLS? FH travel time is advertised as 5.5 years. Is the payload designed for the higher thrust and possible increased vibrations? How quickly will a new SLS even be ready? Would there even be an SLS ready for the launch window for the flight path? I'm sure you realize orbital mechanics isn't just a take off any time and fly a million miles and the faster you go the faster you get there scenario. I doubt the entire science team sits there collecting paychecks doing nothing. It's not like they have the entire mission control room sitting there just for a probe. Edit just read: SLS 3 years Falcon Heavy 5.5, SLS launch is 2 Billion more, 1 billion of that is redesigning the satellite to handle the torsional loads from SLS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:08:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperHeavy: What is the travel time on SLS? FH travel time is advertised as 5.5 years. Is the payload designed for the higher thrust and possible increased vibrations? How quickly will a new SLS even be ready? Would there even be an SLS ready for the launch window for the flight path? I'm sure you realize orbital mechanics isn't just a take off any time and fly a million miles and the faster you go the faster you get there scenario. I doubt the entire science team sits there collecting paychecks doing nothing. It's not like they have the entire mission control room sitting there just for a probe. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperHeavy: Originally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By AmericanPeople: Originally Posted By Cypher15: Also, putting Europa Clipper on FH was really dumb as now the program will cost even more due to teh much longer travel time. Compared to launching on which rocket? What is the cost of that rocket and the transit time to Jupiter. On Falcon Heavy the travel time is about 5.5 years and the launch cost $178 million US. Compared to launching on SLS which is a savings of nearly 2 billion USD depending on which accountant you ask. I realize that SLS is a more powerful rocket than FH. But is it really that much of a difference? And for that matter why does a longer trip time wise mean that it's going to cost significantly more? Do they need to keep the entire science team just twiddling their thumbs while the payload is in transit? Space travel demands patience. Even if we come up with fusion drives and solar powered light sails it's going to take a while for ships, probes and whatnot to move from planet to planet. What is the travel time on SLS? FH travel time is advertised as 5.5 years. Is the payload designed for the higher thrust and possible increased vibrations? How quickly will a new SLS even be ready? Would there even be an SLS ready for the launch window for the flight path? I'm sure you realize orbital mechanics isn't just a take off any time and fly a million miles and the faster you go the faster you get there scenario. I doubt the entire science team sits there collecting paychecks doing nothing. It's not like they have the entire mission control room sitting there just for a probe. Oh sure guys, we know it's been 5 years but do you think you can come back to work and finish that project we started?  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:14:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperHeavy: What is the travel time on SLS? FH travel time is advertised as 5.5 years. Is the payload designed for the higher thrust and possible increased vibrations? How quickly will a new SLS even be ready? Would there even be an SLS ready for the launch window for the flight path? I'm sure you realize orbital mechanics isn't just a take off any time and fly a million miles and the faster you go the faster you get there scenario. I doubt the entire science team sits there collecting paychecks doing nothing. It's not like they have the entire mission control room sitting there just for a probe. Edit just read: SLS 3 years Falcon Heavy 5.5, SLS launch is 2 Billion more, 1 billion of that is redesigning the satellite to handle the torsional loads from SLS. Its late, I'm about to go to sleep. But I seem to vaguely recall that the straw that the decision to launch on FH instead of SLS came down to a concern that SLS would shake Europa Clipper to death and FH wouldn't. I don't know how important Europa Clipper is in the grand scheme of things. But it will all unfold one way or another. Hell, it's not outside the realm of possibility that after all this back and forth whatever rocket launches it could blow up halfway up or when they go to detach the whole payload goes dead. Or the thing dies halfway to Jupiter. Failure is always an option. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:22:58 AM EDT
[#6]
Imagine being those astronauts and knowing that Boeing is responsible for your safety
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:26:55 AM EDT
[#7]
And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight......
The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case. When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:31:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Keekleberrys]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Valves not made by Boeing. Same for the wiring harness tape and chute. The tape flammability is an odd one. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By zbrane: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. Oh, so the same “non-conforming” parts thats delayed their simple as fuck jet trainer. Boeing owns this. They are a fucking shitshow at this point and deserve every criticism. |
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 1:48:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Sierra5]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Antero: I wouldn’t fly on a Boeing capsule, but why not just adapt a collar and put it on a SpaceX rocket? They are vastly superior to anything else, safer too. Oh, and reusable as well, because they turn around and land themselves. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Antero: I wouldn’t fly on a Boeing capsule, but why not just adapt a collar and put it on a SpaceX rocket? They are vastly superior to anything else, safer too. Oh, and reusable as well, because they turn around and land themselves. Because the capsule (the payload) is the root of all the problems here and the rocket (Atlas V) is actually a very solid, proven system that existed long before Starliner. Atlas V flies under the flag of ULA now, but it was developed by Lockheed Martin. The liquid fueled engine on Atlas V first stage may be a Russian RD-180, but overall it's been a very, very reliable system with a two decade track record of success. The primary reason the first uncrewed flight test of Starliner was a failure was a lack of integration testing with the rocket by Boeing. The Altas V and Starliner had unsynchronized clocks and the capsule fired it's on-orbit maneuvering system early, leading to insertion into the wrong orbit and premature use of all of the propellant needed to do a rendezvous with the ISS. The lack of clock synchronization turned out to be the tip of the iceberg with software programming flaws. Then you get into the later issues they had on attempts to fly the second uncrewed flight test with the valves. After that test finally flew, issues were discovered with the wiring harness tape and parachutes. These are not issues that are solved by putting a different rocket under the payload, it is the payload itself that is flawed. Integrating Starliner with a SpaceX rocket would likely create more opportunities for error on Boeing's part. Originally Posted By Dagger41: Just like Starship, but Artemis beat it by a mile and didn't blow up over and over again. SpaceX has more Starship prototypes than they have opportunities to fly them. There are more Starship prototypes that have been scrapped than there will ever be SLS rockets built. They're doing real-world ground and flight testing instead of years or decades of ground simulation and testing as has been commonly done. They're building something twice as capable as Saturn V with just a fraction of the development budget. This is a completely different development paradigm than the one used by SLS. The purpose of SS/SH is to radically decrease the cost of access to space with a factory and launch infrastructure capable of building and flying many boosters and ships that are both recoverable and rapidly reflyable instead of dumping it all in the ocean (boosters) or letting them burn up on re-entry (upper stages.) The purpose SLS is to keep sending money to legacy NASA contractors in all 50 states in order to keep congress voting in favor of it. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2024 7:35:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AmericanPeople]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: Dragon2 has launched 23 times mainly carrying cargo, carried crew on 8 of those missions, and they have 7 vehicles in active use. Cargo Dragon just launched on CRS-30 which I assume meant the 30th supply flight. I don't know if the one that exploded with a bad booster/second stage is included in that count. Manned Crew Dragon flights include eight for NASA (just launched Crew-8), Demo-2 with Bob and Doug, three Axiom flights and Inspiration 4...so 13 manned flights. Even if I am off one or two SpaceX has a lot of experience with launching and recovering capsules. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 12:31:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: har har. No one is building a reentry glide vehicle except Sierra Space with its Dreamchaser. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By AeroE: Gravity and the atmosphere, mostly. I was not alluding to a glide vehicle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 12:52:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Keekleberrys: Oh, so the same "non-conforming" parts thats delayed their simple as fuck jet trainer. Boeing owns this. They are a fucking shitshow at this point and deserve every criticism. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By zbrane: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. Oh, so the same "non-conforming" parts thats delayed their simple as fuck jet trainer. Boeing owns this. They are a fucking shitshow at this point and deserve every criticism. Which parts, and why are they nonconforming? I'll state right out that you don't know a damn thing about the T-7A. I do, my signature is on several parts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 1:07:03 AM EDT
[#13]
I musta missed or forgotten the uncrewed flight.
Can it ride on a falcon? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 1:09:01 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Madcat207: I just can't believe an Apollo-esq capsule is still the best Boeing can do since 1970. I know the shuttle had its issues, but it seems crazy that teardrop capsules are the norm still. (I know alot of form follows function, and i am happy that anything is still going to space.. just still). Capsule is really one of the safest easiest ways to bring people back. Lot of space rocks will kind of burn in to that shape if they are oriented. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 1:10:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SuperSixOne: Boeing Not the Brand I'd have confidence in. Good thing it doesn't have wheels. Door might be risky though. Just hope their supply of aerospace grade dishsoap was up to snuff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 6:10:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Sierra5]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Spart: Because the capsule (the payload) is the root of all the problems here and the rocket (Atlas V) is actually a very solid, proven system that existed long before Starliner. Atlas V flies under the flag of ULA now, but it was developed by Lockheed Martin. The liquid fueled engine on Atlas V first stage may be a Russian RD-180, but overall it's been a very, very reliable system with a two decade track record of success. The primary reason the first uncrewed flight test of Starliner was a failure was a lack of integration testing with the rocket by Boeing. The Altas V and Starliner had unsynchronized clocks and the capsule fired it's on-orbit maneuvering system early, leading to insertion into the wrong orbit and premature use of all of the propellant needed to do a rendezvous with the ISS. The lack of clock synchronization turned out to be the tip of the iceberg with software programming flaws. Then you get into the later issues they had on attempts to fly the second uncrewed flight test with the valves. After that test finally flew, issues were discovered with the wiring harness tape and parachutes. These are not issues that are solved by putting a different rocket under the payload, it is the payload itself that is flawed. Integrating Starliner with a SpaceX rocket would likely create more opportunities for error on Boeing's part. SpaceX has more Starship prototypes than they have opportunities to fly them. There are more Starship prototypes that have been scrapped than there will ever be SLS rockets built. They're doing real-world ground and flight testing instead of years or decades of ground simulation and testing as has been commonly done. They're building something twice as capable as Saturn V with just a fraction of the development budget. This is a completely different development paradigm than the one used by SLS. The purpose of SS/SH is to radically decrease the cost of access to space with a factory and launch infrastructure capable of building and flying many boosters and ships that are both recoverable and rapidly reflyable instead of dumping it all in the ocean (boosters) or letting them burn up on re-entry (upper stages.) The purpose SLS is to keep sending money to legacy NASA contractors in all 50 states in order to keep congress voting in favor of it. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. Either you're being deliberately obtuse by ignoring this or you are too old to understand it. I suspect the latter, but wouldn't bet against a mix of both. "infrastructure capable of building and flying many boosters and ships that are both recoverable and rapidly reflyable instead of dumping it all in the ocean (boosters) or letting them burn up on re-entry (upper stages." I'll be waiting for everything in your eloquent word smithing to come to fruition. All of it. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 6:23:48 AM EDT
[#17]
I would be really nervous to blast off in that thing. I bet there will be a Falcon with a Crew Dragon ready for rescue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:19:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Which parts, and why are they nonconforming? I'll state right out that you don't know a damn thing about the T-7A. I do, my signature is on several parts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By zbrane: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. Oh, so the same "non-conforming" parts thats delayed their simple as fuck jet trainer. Boeing owns this. They are a fucking shitshow at this point and deserve every criticism. Which parts, and why are they nonconforming? I'll state right out that you don't know a damn thing about the T-7A. I do, my signature is on several parts. Actual parts not identified, but article about "faulty" parts?? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:20:22 AM EDT
[#19]
When I want to see medical doctor, I always ask for an affirmative action one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:22:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PermanentDaylight: Hopefully Boeing tightened the door bolts on this one.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:42:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Valves not made by Boeing. Same for the wiring harness tape and chute. The tape flammability is an odd one. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By zbrane: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. IIRC the wire harness tape was a vendor issue and Dragon had a lot of it installed as well. |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:56:13 AM EDT
[#22]
I demand an affirmative action doctor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:56:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Boeing will find a way to screw it up
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:00:33 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight...... When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight...... The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case. When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. I'm not familiar with this event and I'm trying to understand what you posted. Was the guy working on the Ordnance systems and initiated an NSI? Or was someone else working on the ordnance system? Or was the ordnance systems secure and the ESD event set off the NSI? While the subcontractor was standing on an unsafe ladder? I work with spacecraft pyros and am genuinely curious about how this went down. Got a link that explains all this? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 6:16:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Sierra5]
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2024 2:50:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RiverSwine45: I'm not familiar with this event and I'm trying to understand what you posted. Was the guy working on the Ordnance systems and initiated an NSI? Or was someone else working on the ordnance system? Or was the ordnance systems secure and the ESD event set off the NSI? While the subcontractor was standing on an unsafe ladder? I work with spacecraft pyros and am genuinely curious about how this went down. Got a link that explains all this? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RiverSwine45: Originally Posted By Cobalt135: And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight...... The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case. When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. I'm not familiar with this event and I'm trying to understand what you posted. Was the guy working on the Ordnance systems and initiated an NSI? Or was someone else working on the ordnance system? Or was the ordnance systems secure and the ESD event set off the NSI? While the subcontractor was standing on an unsafe ladder? I work with spacecraft pyros and am genuinely curious about how this went down. Got a link that explains all this? I'm searching. I read it in a court filing IIRC. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/2/2024 2:52:25 PM EDT
[#27]
May 4th would be a better day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2024 3:05:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: I'm searching. I read it in a court filing IIRC. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: Originally Posted By RiverSwine45: Originally Posted By Cobalt135: And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight...... The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case. When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. I'm not familiar with this event and I'm trying to understand what you posted. Was the guy working on the Ordnance systems and initiated an NSI? Or was someone else working on the ordnance system? Or was the ordnance systems secure and the ESD event set off the NSI? While the subcontractor was standing on an unsafe ladder? I work with spacecraft pyros and am genuinely curious about how this went down. Got a link that explains all this? I'm searching. I read it in a court filing IIRC.      |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2024 10:25:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AeroE]
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By AeroE: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By Cypher15: Originally Posted By zbrane: Bad wiring. Bad software. Bad parachute. Bad valves. It's like the lunar shuttle that almost flew into the sun. But it's all good now. If NASA was remotely not corrupt, Boeing should be flying a second unmanned demo. Oh, so the same "non-conforming" parts thats delayed their simple as fuck jet trainer. Boeing owns this. They are a fucking shitshow at this point and deserve every criticism. Which parts, and why are they nonconforming? I'll state right out that you don't know a damn thing about the T-7A. I do, my signature is on several parts. Actual parts not identified, but article about "faulty" parts?? It's not likely Evelyn Moore understands more about the problem than, "there's a problem". The T-7A is designed for Full Scale Determinant Assembly; parts from vendors show up with full size holes and tolerances at mating surfaces that are ready for assembly with little to no fixturing. FSDA works great when the parts are machined according to the drawing requirements. Apparently every shop that makes a part has to be educated that the processes specified must be followed, otherwise the parts won't fit and new parts are required. That means the temperature of the parts must be controlled, and if that means the shop temperature, too, then the shop has to be cooled in order for the parts to meet dimensional requirements. Airframe assembly is amazingly quick when FSDA is done right. The first two keels for T-1 were scrapped for failure to control the shop temperature. Those parts are exceptionally long, so the issue is magnified. T-1 and T-2 had less than a dozen fasteners each in the forward fuselage that could not be installed, and all of those were repaired by reaming to first oversize. When the first aft fuselage was shipped some airplane foamer commented on seeing crates at SAAB loading on an airplane bound for the US in early evening. The load was at the plant in early morning, and the forward and aft fuselages were spliced by noon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2024 11:15:48 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: It was from someone else digging for the info and they posted screenshots online so this is all there is...... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3BxRXwAcRQKY?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3JwjX0AM3W5z?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3My5XIAARvdY?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3PDLXwAEtmRD?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3XlCX0AAkRyD?format=png&name=large Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cobalt135: Originally Posted By Cobalt135: Originally Posted By RiverSwine45: Originally Posted By Cobalt135: And as far as Starliner issues goes over the valve issues on OFT-2 that postponed the flight...... The feud with Aerojet is not Boeing's first Starliner subcontractor quarrel. In 2017, Starliner had an accident during a ground test that forced the president of a different subcontractor to have his leg medically amputated. The subcontractor sued, and Boeing subsequently settled the case. When a ESD (Electrostatic discharge) on Starliner caused an explosive device to discharge knocking a contractor off a ladder that Boeing had deemed unsafe but chose to use it anyway during parachute testing in 2017. I'm not familiar with this event and I'm trying to understand what you posted. Was the guy working on the Ordnance systems and initiated an NSI? Or was someone else working on the ordnance system? Or was the ordnance systems secure and the ESD event set off the NSI? While the subcontractor was standing on an unsafe ladder? I work with spacecraft pyros and am genuinely curious about how this went down. Got a link that explains all this? I'm searching. I read it in a court filing IIRC. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3BxRXwAcRQKY?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3JwjX0AM3W5z?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3My5XIAARvdY?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3PDLXwAEtmRD?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSe3XlCX0AAkRyD?format=png&name=large Thanks for posting this. Kinda sucks all we got is written for litigation purposes. Looks like this guy's business is lifting for air drops and science projects with balloons. No telling if this was his test to run or Boeing's with his support. Doesn't look like it was the ships ordnance that went off but a test setup system. The big take aways from that is 2.c. says inadequate grounding and 4. says he made the last electrical connection for the release mechanism, that would be the firing line. While ya the ladder is a thing, not ansi rated or is unapproved doesn't much matter, that isn't what made this dangerous. That guy was going for a ride no matter what he was climbing on. A guillotine pyro getting set off isn't a huge danger by itself. What made this a dangerous task is the balloon was full and waiting to go with this guy on top of it. I'm assuming that inadequate grounding means he wasn't wearing a wrist-stat. If he wasn't grounded I'm wondering if he even did a stray voltage check on the firing line before he connected it or if he even knew to do that. Possibly wasn't even an ESD event if that's the case. Sucks he got hurt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 8:06:22 PM EDT
[#31]
"Following a review of the International Space Station operations, NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test now is targeting no earlier than Monday, May 6, for Starliner’s first launch with astronauts to the orbital complex."
Source |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:34:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Boeing, ULA roll Starliner spacecraft out to pad 41 ahead of Crew Flight Test launch in May
"Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner embarked on its last big road trip before its journey to the International Space Station next month. In the pre-dawn hours of Tuesday morning, the capsule and its service module made the slow trek from Kennedy Space Center to Space Launch Complex 41 on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The rollout of the vehicle, named Calypso, is another key step towards the Crew Flight Test (CFT) of the Starliner spacecraft, the first time that it will carry astronauts to and from the ISS. The mission’s crew, NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, were on hand to witness the departure of their ticket to ride. “Big day for our nation. Big day for NASA. Big day for Boeing as we get over to the rocket and mate these things together,” said Wilmore, the CFT commander. “We’re excited to be here at this point, early in the morning, and excited that you came to share the experience with us. So, go Starliner!” The journey from the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) was a slow and steady process. The doors of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF) opened around 4 a.m. EDT (0800 UTC)." |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:39:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tooldforthis: giving the chance, wouldn't even hesitate to hop on that flight Please tell us about your situation, we can offer support! Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:41:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Calypso? Really? That's the name they are going with?
Weird choice. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:48:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Hopefully this works. America could use more than one manned launch vehicle.
I'm thinking Boeing will never be able to compete on cost to orbit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 3:40:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Calypso? Really? That's the name they are going with? Weird choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Calypso |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 3:44:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOk, makes a little more sense that it's named after Jacque Coustou's boat. Still seems like an odd choice of name. Kinda ironic, I was just talking with someone recently about NASA's involvement with undersea exploration. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
