Boeing Starliner

I was watching the stream and the live stream chat had the occasional Boeing joke.

Went on my jog and came back to news of a scrub. The chat was full of Boeing jokes.

They had no mercy.

Edit: Of course it was an issue with the Centaur so not really Boeings fault. But still....
 
Last edited:
Cannonfodder43 said:
I was watching the stream and the live stream chat had the occasional Boeing joke.

Went on my jog and came back to news of a scrub. The chat was full of Boeing jokes.

They had no mercy.

Edit: Of course it was an issue with the Centaur so not really Boeings fault. But still....
Click to expand...
Just like how any engine issue with a Boeing is still Boeing's fault.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1787680410970820723
View: https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1787680410970820723


A5/Starliner CFT: Bruno said if this had been a satellite launch, engineers would have carried out a realtime procedure to reseat the valve and the satellite would be in orbit; but the flight rule for a piloted launch forbids any alterations of the rocket in its "fueled state;" as a result, the launch was scrubbed
Click to expand...

Here’s Tory from the press conference:

View: https://youtu.be/HYh-0wmUykA
 
The issue with Atlas has happened before of late, but as you can see from the post above can be fixed at pad on an uncrewed flight, but rules are different here.

Next launch attempt NET 10th May.
 
So the launch rocket had to be de-tanked first before the fix on the LOX valve could be made?
 
NMaude said:
So the launch rocket had to be de-tanked first before the fix on the LOX valve could be made?
Click to expand...
As a manned mission? Yes. No manipulating valves once fueled for a manned mission.

If it was an unmanned mission, they'd have electronically bumped that valve a couple of times before scrubbing the launch.
 
This is odd
Starliner launch is postpone to 17 May, do stuck value in ULA Centaur stage
while News, Social media and Youtube blame Boeing for that...
 
At least they are taking the time to fix the valve Michel Van for it to be postponed to 17 May. It is also odd why Boeing get's the blame when it is clearly UCL's problem after all they are the ones who supplied the rocket, Boeing are the ones who supplied the capsule. I also wonder who supplied the wonky valve in the first place?
 
FighterJock said:
At least they are taking the time to fix the valve Michel Van for it to be postponed to 17 May. It is also odd why Boeing get's the blame when it is clearly UCL's problem after all they are the ones who supplied the rocket, Boeing are the ones who supplied the capsule. I also wonder who supplied the wonky valve in the first place?
Click to expand...
Wonky Valves, Inc.?
 
FighterJock said:
At least they are taking the time to fix the valve Michel Van for it to be postponed to 17 May. It is also odd why Boeing get's the blame when it is clearly UCL's problem after all they are the ones who supplied the rocket, Boeing are the ones who supplied the capsule. I also wonder who supplied the wonky valve in the first place?
Click to expand...
The media is incapable of understanding that engines/rockets come from a different maker than the capsule.
 
FighterJock said:
It is also odd why Boeing get's the blame when it is clearly UCL's problem after all they are the ones who supplied the rocket,
Click to expand...

Someone needs to point out to the press that Boeing doesn't manufacture the Centaur rocket-stage of that matter the entire launch rocket.
 
NMaude said:
Someone needs to point out to the press that Boeing doesn't manufacture the Centaur rocket-stage of that matter the entire launch rocket.
Click to expand...
No, Boeing needs to at least threaten to sue some reporters for defamation, because it's NOT THEIR PRODUCT that had caused the launch failure.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, Boeing needs to at least threaten to sue some reporters for defamation, because it's NOT THEIR PRODUCT that had caused the launch failure.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that, what Boeing needs to do is contact the news agencies who've made this claim, point out their mistake and demand that they publish a retraction. If they don't well then Boeing's lawyers response will be "See you in court" before Boeing files a defamation lawsuit.
 
NMaude said:
I hadn't thought of that, what Boeing needs to do is contact the news agencies who've made this claim, point out their mistake and demand that they publish a retraction. If they don't well then Boeing's lawyers response will be "See you in court" before Boeing files a defamation lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Not in a million years, could you imagine trying prove damages suffered by Boeing, which would be necessary. Especially, when Boeing has managed to come up ways to damage themselves heretofore never thought possible - i.e. - using the wrong tape on wiring for the entire capsule. Well, I guess they are consistent. The girls and boys at Boeing better learn to live with it. They created their own beast.
 
djfawcett said:
Not in a million years, could you imagine trying prove damages suffered by Boeing, which would be necessary. Especially, when Boeing has managed to come up ways to damage themselves heretofore never thought possible - i.e. - using the wrong tape on wiring for the entire capsule. Well, I guess they are consistent. The girls and boys at Boeing better learn to live with it. They created their own beast.
Click to expand...
So, you'd be okay with every media outlet slandering your work, when what caused it is literally something provided by NASA?
 
More details from Tory Bruno on the valve issue:

It kinda reads to me that the issue is that the fault was picked up by the noise ... people by chance hearing it near the rocket. And not some other established safety system? ie. safety protocols.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788517469625172470
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1788517469625172470


It was detected by near by accelerometers
Click to expand...

yeah... wouldnt expect a buzzing relief valve to do much except possibly damage itself if it opens and closes enough times
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788517814749343905
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1788517814749343905


exactly
Click to expand...

If I'm correctly, the valves are multipurpose. Not only over-pressure relief, but mechanical/electrical/remotely contolled solenoid or motor for "manual" open/close operation of ports.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788518342787006482
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1788518342787006482


Sort of. It has a solenoid that allows us to command it closed when we don't want it operating at all.
Click to expand...

So it has to re-cycle and get back to its prior State before the elements around the valve got weirded out by the gas situation well that's what I got out of what you said anyway
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788518505748336764
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1788518505748336764


Pretty much
Click to expand...

Buzzing, chatter? Weak spring oscillation? Airbubble? FOD? Faulty seal? Metal fatigue? Internal corrosion? Scored cyclinder wall? Hairline cracked housing? Several possibilities. Would be interesting to attempt to reproduce condition in lab after replaced. Go Starliner, Go ULA
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788519405418140009
View: https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1788519405418140009


No. Just the very unique temp, stiffness, and almost closed boundary layer flow (kind of like ground effect) that this type of pressure regulating valve will sometimes get into. Which is why cycling will often interrupt it.
Click to expand...
 
Either those are fantastically sensitive accelerometers or that valve was shaking BAD.

This sounds like something that should be put into the valve control software. Valve fluttering? automatically cycle open/shut.

Either that or the rule about "Thou shalt NOT cycle valves once the stack is fueled" needs revision.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So, you'd be okay with every media outlet slandering your work, when what caused it is literally something provided by NASA?
Click to expand...
No where in my post do it suggest I approve of slander. I am just stating the reality. Moreover, Boeing is not entirely innocent concerning the valve. They own 50% of ULA. Do you really think changing a name eliminate culpability? The real issue is that Boeing has committed so many ridiculous mistakes that anything that should happen, good or bad, in and around any of their programs will be deemed Boeing's fault by the public (and media).

As far as your suggestion of a slander suit, that is a none starter for all the reasons I suggested earlier. My suggestion to Boeing is to get their corporate heads out of their backsides, and start performing like a legitimate prime contractor they once were. Bottom line, stop making foolish errors! Then, with time, the bullseye will be removed from their forehead.
 
djfawcett said:
No where in my post do it suggest I approve of slander. I am just stating the reality. Moreover, Boeing is not entirely innocent concerning the valve. They own 50% of ULA.
Click to expand...
Only an owner. ULA is its own company with separate employees and assets from Boeing and LM. Boeing and LM have no involvement in ULA day to day operations. Boeing and LM are only involved in ULA strategic decisions (like developing Vulcan).
 
Besides, Atlas was LockMart last I heard.

Delta IV was Boeing's EELV. I must admit it was a good rocket---and though I never thought I would hear myself say this---I miss it.
You guys did good work there.

It wouldn't have needed a skirt for that. Same fuel and everything.
I'm trying to imagine what it would have looked like atop Delta III....
 
Scott Kenny said:
So, you'd be okay with every media outlet slandering your work, when what caused it is literally something provided by NASA?
Click to expand...
First, Boeing would need to prove identifiable damage. Then they would have to prove the statement was false and easily falsified.

Headlines like, "Boeing's Troubled Starliner Program Hits Another Delay" (I just invented that headline) while perhaps framed sloppily, or even misleading, are not false: the program is troubled, and it did hit another delay.

Assuming they could find articles actually false and which they could identify damage regarding (which is a lot more difficult than you seem to believe), then Boeing in the midst of seemingly never-ending hits to their reputation and PR crises would have to spend money to try to prove it's case in a court while creating headlines like, "Litigious Boeing Fights to Protect Its Tarnished Legacy".

Sloppy headlines or poorly framed headlines and articles are not slander. If it is demonstrably untrue, then they'd have to prove their reputation or finances have been damaged -- and that the damage they identified is the result of the article/headline, and not their string of self-inflicted woes. Exactly how much of Boeing's $110 Billion market value was lost due to the specific article or articles in question? Prove that number with a preponderance of evidence. Good luck proving any of that against a platform big enough to actually collect more than it would cost to sue, never mind the headlines generated when you sue the small fry platforms as though they are the reason your stock is going down.

It's a lose-lose proposition unless you have an egregious example.
 
publiusr said:
Besides, Atlas was LockMart last I heard.

Delta IV was Boeing's EELV. I must admit it was a good rocket---and though I never thought I would hear myself say this---I miss it.
You guys did good work there.

It wouldn't have needed a skirt for that. Same fuel and everything.
I'm trying to imagine what it would have looked like atop Delta III....
Click to expand...
No, Atlas and Delta has been ULA since 2006. Not LM or Boeing.
Delta IV wasn't a good vehicle; too expensive and had a performance shortfall. it required different core boosters for each configuration.

Delta III wouldn't have the performance for Starliner.
 

P.A. VOICE:
Trans-Stellar Space Lines would like to apologise to passengers for the continuing delay for the departure of this flight.

FORD:
Hey, weird.

P.A. VOICE:
We are currently awaiting the loading of our compliment of small, lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment, and hygiene during the flight, which will be of two hours duration. Meanwhile we thank you for your patience. The cabin crew will shortly be serving coffee and biscuits… again.

FORD:
Zaphod! How long has this ship been standing here?

ZAPHOD:
Man, there’s a departure board right behind us and I’ve been looking at the flight schedules. Man this ship is late, man this ship is very, very late! Man this ship is over nine-hundred years late.
 
www.nbcnews.com

First crewed launch of Boeing's spacecraft is delayed yet again due to a new issue

An issue with the capsule's rocket forced the launch to be postponed last week. But now, a new technical issue concerning the Starliner itself has forced another delay.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

So, they would have launched with a known issue that is now decided to be sufficiently concerning that it delays the launch, that’s in no way concerning.
 
Oh help! not another delay? So now it is issues with the Starliners rocket that is the cause this time. Better get them both sorted before attempting to launch.
 
Flyaway said:
www.nbcnews.com

First crewed launch of Boeing's spacecraft is delayed yet again due to a new issue

An issue with the capsule's rocket forced the launch to be postponed last week. But now, a new technical issue concerning the Starliner itself has forced another delay.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

So, they would have launched with a known issue that is now decided to be sufficiently concerning that it delays the launch, that’s in no way concerning.
Click to expand...
Or, you know, there's a limit to how long they can hold helium inside a pressure cylinder or dewar in Florida heat, and this new delay is simply refilling the system...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom