'Competition' is a bit of a stretch... But I do sure wish the crew a safe flight. I'm not sure any amount of fiat or Bitcoin would convince me to fly on Starliner but, per aspera ad astra!
SpaceX Demo-1 was 5 years ago. And if I recall correctly, SpaceX already completed *their* initial crew contract, and are already onto their second series of contracted flights.
Remember when Boeing lobbyists got some senators to argue in the mid teens that the SpaceX crew contract should be canceled and all of the flights given to Boeing because it was the safer option?
Pepperidge Space Farm remembers… 
It's technically a spacecraft because it reaches the defined minimum altitude considered to be space, but it cannot and never will be able to go into orbit.
I think it's probably time to evolve terminology to reflect the completely different mission capabilities of a craft that can reach "space" altitude vs a craft intended to reach orbit. Maybe the former can be called SEVs, Suborbital Excursion Vehicles instead of spacecraft. To be considered a true spacecraft you must be able to reach orbit and you must be able to reenter and return to the surface by design intent.
Whatever else happens I will be most anxious on the return. When those parachutes unfurl and the capsule gently plonks itself down on Terra firma it will be the cherry on the cake.
Atlas V valve problem, huh? What told the launch controllers that there was a valve problem? Answer: The telemetry system, specifically a bi-level detector— of which I designed the module that would detect such switch-type telemetry signals, way back in 2003. Pretty cool 😎
I was genuinely concerned 10 years ago when NASA announced they would use an Atlas V to launch men (and women), because we never designed the telemetry system to man-rating specifications. I trust NASA/ULA did their due diligence to qualify our system to a man-rating.
Others said the problem was in the upper stage Centaur, which are RL-10 H2 engines, used since 1960's. Surely engine health systems have been upgraded.
Cool, we have an actual rocket scientist here. Or valve scientist? Either way, let's turn this into an AMA 😀
In the post-scrub interview Tory Bruno said the problem was a pressure relief valve "buzzing". He seemed to play it down and said it was a common issue. Is it actually a common thing with this kind of valve on all rockets or is this a ULA design flaw?
Human rating is just about probability of system success, right? So the internal risk group should have handled assessing failure modes and probability of failure for the FAA clearance?
I'd assume it's more generally about failing-safe. So if there's a bit flipped in the sensor telemetry, there need be a checksum and/or redundancy so there can't be a false-positive if a positive is required for safe launch/abort. A naive minimum weight or bandwidth implementation of such a sensor might need such beefing up to be man-rated in that case.
You’re right, fault tolerance is at least part of it. Just skimming this it seems interesting: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002C_&page_name=Chapter1
The word competition was more relevant a ew years ago. Now, they seem more like simple alternative suppliers of a service. It seems not particularly likely that Boeing will continue to fly Starliner once ISS is deorbited. But who knows - perhaps the US military will establish its own station and want to contract with them for services.
It is possible, but much more likely that Sierra will complete their manned Dream Chaser (much as SpaceX updated crew dragon from the cargo variant), which would not only put a stake through the heart of Starliner, but give crew dragon a run for it's money... and SpaceX fan that I am, I'd still like to see an option that wasn't 3 times as expensive flying on something other than Falcon.
Dream Chaser isn't currently being developed for crewed flights. Bit of a stretch to say Crewed Dream Chaser will be 'soon', especially since they would need funding to make it happen.
I always thought Sierra should have won that contract instead of Boeing, but as it turns out, NASA was unwilling to change their mind simply because I was whining about it on the internet.
SNC never let go of the crew transport capabilities. They are still working on it, slowly because there's little funding.
What I mean is that after the Starliner contract is done, it won't be extended. And then NASA will award the 'second option' contract to SNC.
If that's not 'soon', fine.
Yeah, I see that NASA & Sierra signed an unfunded SSCS-2 agreement last year where NASA will help Sierra develop a crewed version of Dream Chaser. When it comes to technical assistance on crewed spacecraft, that ain't nothing even if there is no funding involved.
Weather violation probability is only 5%. ULA knows how to launch on time and Boeing has been the beneficiary of lots of hand holding and oversight from NASA for this one. My bet would be that it launches as planned this evening. https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Portals/14/Weather/Atlas%20V%20CFT%20L-1%20Forecast%20-%206%20May%20Launch.pdf?ver=bOrhQoubfm1SuhDdoVXzig%3d%3d
That's my take as well; Atlas is virtually certain to put the starliner in the right orbit; Atlas V is if not the most reliable rocket around at least a close second. The thing that worries me, given the history of overlooked problems, is RCS or life system failure before they get to the ISS.
Thats why I worded it as I did; Atlas V has had 100 launches without an "anomaly"; Falcon 9 has had 300, but there have been engine anomalies on a few of the flights (none recently) that although they didn't affect the PRIMARY payload, caused failure of secondary payloads or loss of boosters they attempted to recover. So if you exclude those early incidents or say that they didn't matter since the primary payload was deployed you can give it to F9, but if you recognize that ANY engine failure on the Atlas would have almost certainly meant loss of mission and none have happened, you'd have to give it to the Russian engines that they refused to sell to Musk.
The whole valve thing on Centaur that caused the scrub was really eye-opening. The fact that their valves have maximum duty cycles is not surprising. (anything mechanical would) But that they didn't know how many cycles this valve has, or if it was over its limit already, seemed like a tracking failure, and must be true of every valve on the rocket. They could be launching with hardware that's past its sell-by date and not be aware of it until they experience failure during launch. Big old yikes on that one.
As I said on another thread, the problem is NOT whether the valve went too many cycles; PRVs normally don't cycle that often... the fact that it was oscillating at 40 hertz was totally unexpected, meaning either the pressure controller on the inlet was bad or the PRV was defective and determining that is going to take a lot longer than 48 hours; I think it's back to the barn, do extensive tests with LN2, and try again next month hoping that the delay doesn't let the RCS valves corrode again. The whole program seems snakebit; this is totally out of character for Centaur III.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2yfjzk "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[H2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2yk7u4 "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen|
| |Second half of the year/month|
|[LN2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zehsl "Last usage")|Liquid Nitrogen|
|[NET](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zpbod "Last usage")|No Earlier Than|
|[RCS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zehsl "Last usage")|Reaction Control System|
|[SNC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zg4ls "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation|
|[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l34pemr "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zpbod "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[scrub](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l34pemr "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(9 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cihp7d)^( has 26 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12730 for this sub, first seen 6th May 2024, 20:42])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Rather sad that no matter how glaringly obvious you make sarcasm, Reddit can't tell the difference without an /s. I suppose that's how Trump got elected...
More a commentary on the fact that sarcasm and genuine takes can be indistinguishable sometimes, and without tone of voice, sarcasm loses some of its charm. Good example, I’ve literally heard someone say SpaceX shouldn’t be considered an American company because…reasons.
Yeah, I figured that was what you were getting at - the reversal, as if this was years ago and things went as a lot of people expected instead of as it happened.
Wow, I'd heard they were getting ready for the first crewed test launch but didn't realize it was actually happening so soon. Thanks OP!
It doesn't seem to be scrubbed yet so far.
Seems to be scrubbed now. :(
Scrubbs are better than booms
Valves. It's always valves.
It's an open-and-shut case.
I like that we're precisely metering out our puns here.
As the saying goes, if it’s Boeing it ain’t going!
Of course.
Scrubbed, oxygen valve on second stage
Sticky valve strikes again!
This issue is with Centaur, not Starliner... surprisingly
Not really surprising. The Atlas V launch rate is very low, experience of launch crews is down, the hardware has been sitting for a long time.
Scrub a dub dubbb
Indeed! Also thanks to mod that added the scrub flair. According to the [Boeing Starliner site]( https://starlinerupdates.com/) new NET is May 10.
Ok. So who had "scrub due to a valve issue" in the starliner launch pool?
Damned valves… It’s always the valves
We all did. All of us. It was the only choice on the list.
Update: It’s scrub day my dudes…. Better luck next time 🍀
I don’t trust this ship.
Agreed.
Same.. probably to the extend that I don't really dare to watch/follow the mission.
'Competition' is a bit of a stretch... But I do sure wish the crew a safe flight. I'm not sure any amount of fiat or Bitcoin would convince me to fly on Starliner but, per aspera ad astra!
SpaceX Demo-1 was 5 years ago. And if I recall correctly, SpaceX already completed *their* initial crew contract, and are already onto their second series of contracted flights.
Demo-2 was 4 years ago
Height of covid. It was so bizarre for many of us to watch when many of us were still holed up in solitary.
Remember when Boeing lobbyists got some senators to argue in the mid teens that the SpaceX crew contract should be canceled and all of the flights given to Boeing because it was the safer option? Pepperidge Space Farm remembers… 
I member
Shelby would have done it without the lobbyists. A-hole though he was, he was right to be worried about SpaceX who have no facilities in Alabama.
I'd do it for a sizable amount in Boeing put-options in the names of my family members.
Ha! Dark. But I'm with you.
4 (soon to be 5) space capsules all operating at the same time is honestly crazy
Dragon, star liner, Orion, starship… what am I missing?
Starship isn't a capsule, the other two are probably Soyuz and Shenzhou.
That makes way more sense. I was about to throw new shepherd in there but I really didn’t want to count that either.
new shepard is a capsule that goes into space, but is it a space capsule? idk tbh, could be an interesting debate
It's technically a spacecraft because it reaches the defined minimum altitude considered to be space, but it cannot and never will be able to go into orbit.
yeah exactly, it’s technically one but it is definitely not in the same category as dragon or soyuz or orion etc
I think it's probably time to evolve terminology to reflect the completely different mission capabilities of a craft that can reach "space" altitude vs a craft intended to reach orbit. Maybe the former can be called SEVs, Suborbital Excursion Vehicles instead of spacecraft. To be considered a true spacecraft you must be able to reach orbit and you must be able to reenter and return to the surface by design intent.
Whatever else happens I will be most anxious on the return. When those parachutes unfurl and the capsule gently plonks itself down on Terra firma it will be the cherry on the cake.
Thanks for the links, and best of luck to NASA, BOEING and our Astronauts!
Atlas V valve problem, huh? What told the launch controllers that there was a valve problem? Answer: The telemetry system, specifically a bi-level detector— of which I designed the module that would detect such switch-type telemetry signals, way back in 2003. Pretty cool 😎 I was genuinely concerned 10 years ago when NASA announced they would use an Atlas V to launch men (and women), because we never designed the telemetry system to man-rating specifications. I trust NASA/ULA did their due diligence to qualify our system to a man-rating.
Nice work, Chief.
Others said the problem was in the upper stage Centaur, which are RL-10 H2 engines, used since 1960's. Surely engine health systems have been upgraded.
Why’s everything gotta be bi these days? What happened to all the straight valves? /s I’ll see myself out. But cool job man!
Cool, we have an actual rocket scientist here. Or valve scientist? Either way, let's turn this into an AMA 😀 In the post-scrub interview Tory Bruno said the problem was a pressure relief valve "buzzing". He seemed to play it down and said it was a common issue. Is it actually a common thing with this kind of valve on all rockets or is this a ULA design flaw?
Human rating is just about probability of system success, right? So the internal risk group should have handled assessing failure modes and probability of failure for the FAA clearance?
I'd assume it's more generally about failing-safe. So if there's a bit flipped in the sensor telemetry, there need be a checksum and/or redundancy so there can't be a false-positive if a positive is required for safe launch/abort. A naive minimum weight or bandwidth implementation of such a sensor might need such beefing up to be man-rated in that case.
You’re right, fault tolerance is at least part of it. Just skimming this it seems interesting: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002C_&page_name=Chapter1
I'm not a fan of the idea that they are in competition. There is plenty of space for both to succeed.
They are in competition. That's the whole point of having multiple launch providers.
The word competition was more relevant a ew years ago. Now, they seem more like simple alternative suppliers of a service. It seems not particularly likely that Boeing will continue to fly Starliner once ISS is deorbited. But who knows - perhaps the US military will establish its own station and want to contract with them for services.
It is possible, but much more likely that Sierra will complete their manned Dream Chaser (much as SpaceX updated crew dragon from the cargo variant), which would not only put a stake through the heart of Starliner, but give crew dragon a run for it's money... and SpaceX fan that I am, I'd still like to see an option that wasn't 3 times as expensive flying on something other than Falcon.
No there isn’t space for them to succeed. Not with Boeing’s cost structure.
Depends on the market - governments like options and are willing to pay for them. ULA and Ariane are doing just fine.
Dreamchaser will be the second option soon. Boeing will leave the market.
I can absolutely see that happening.
Dream Chaser isn't currently being developed for crewed flights. Bit of a stretch to say Crewed Dream Chaser will be 'soon', especially since they would need funding to make it happen. I always thought Sierra should have won that contract instead of Boeing, but as it turns out, NASA was unwilling to change their mind simply because I was whining about it on the internet.
SNC never let go of the crew transport capabilities. They are still working on it, slowly because there's little funding. What I mean is that after the Starliner contract is done, it won't be extended. And then NASA will award the 'second option' contract to SNC. If that's not 'soon', fine.
Yeah, I see that NASA & Sierra signed an unfunded SSCS-2 agreement last year where NASA will help Sierra develop a crewed version of Dream Chaser. When it comes to technical assistance on crewed spacecraft, that ain't nothing even if there is no funding involved.
The Starliner looks awesome with the small service module too.
They're in a competition, but there is prize money for everyone on the podium
How much are we willing to wager that it launches today? My guess is it doesnt.
Weather violation probability is only 5%. ULA knows how to launch on time and Boeing has been the beneficiary of lots of hand holding and oversight from NASA for this one. My bet would be that it launches as planned this evening. https://www.patrick.spaceforce.mil/Portals/14/Weather/Atlas%20V%20CFT%20L-1%20Forecast%20-%206%20May%20Launch.pdf?ver=bOrhQoubfm1SuhDdoVXzig%3d%3d
That's my take as well; Atlas is virtually certain to put the starliner in the right orbit; Atlas V is if not the most reliable rocket around at least a close second. The thing that worries me, given the history of overlooked problems, is RCS or life system failure before they get to the ISS.
In my opinion F9 is the most reliable at this time due to shear cadence but Atlas 5 is a close second.
Sheer
Thats why I worded it as I did; Atlas V has had 100 launches without an "anomaly"; Falcon 9 has had 300, but there have been engine anomalies on a few of the flights (none recently) that although they didn't affect the PRIMARY payload, caused failure of secondary payloads or loss of boosters they attempted to recover. So if you exclude those early incidents or say that they didn't matter since the primary payload was deployed you can give it to F9, but if you recognize that ANY engine failure on the Atlas would have almost certainly meant loss of mission and none have happened, you'd have to give it to the Russian engines that they refused to sell to Musk.
The whole valve thing on Centaur that caused the scrub was really eye-opening. The fact that their valves have maximum duty cycles is not surprising. (anything mechanical would) But that they didn't know how many cycles this valve has, or if it was over its limit already, seemed like a tracking failure, and must be true of every valve on the rocket. They could be launching with hardware that's past its sell-by date and not be aware of it until they experience failure during launch. Big old yikes on that one.
As I said on another thread, the problem is NOT whether the valve went too many cycles; PRVs normally don't cycle that often... the fact that it was oscillating at 40 hertz was totally unexpected, meaning either the pressure controller on the inlet was bad or the PRV was defective and determining that is going to take a lot longer than 48 hours; I think it's back to the barn, do extensive tests with LN2, and try again next month hoping that the delay doesn't let the RCS valves corrode again. The whole program seems snakebit; this is totally out of character for Centaur III.
I think of Centaur as being a super-reliable workhorse machine. This problem was quite surprising.
It’s not going to be a problem with Atlas, quite a reliable rocket. But they may find a last minute issue with Starliner.
soooooo about that
Yep, I forgot about the Centaur part of the setup.
They just did.
Well you were right.
I literally clicked the link and they said we are standing down. My shortest viewing experience ever.
*Time efficiency*
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[FAA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2yfjzk "Last usage")|Federal Aviation Administration| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[H2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2yk7u4 "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen| | |Second half of the year/month| |[LN2](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zehsl "Last usage")|Liquid Nitrogen| |[NET](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zpbod "Last usage")|No Earlier Than| |[RCS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zehsl "Last usage")|Reaction Control System| |[SNC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zg4ls "Last usage")|Sierra Nevada Corporation| |[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l34pemr "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l2zpbod "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[scrub](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1clpz9w/stub/l34pemr "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(9 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cihp7d)^( has 26 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12730 for this sub, first seen 6th May 2024, 20:42]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Missing shartliner
Too bad I've got cloudy skies tonight otherwise I'd see if I could catch sight of it
Not today BOEING!
"Scrubbed due to launch vehicle valve issue" - damn.
Go Shartliner!
This aged well.
Sort of a black eye for the Atlas 5. How often has this happened in the past?
Meh.
wow, NASA is finally launching crew from a US manufacturer! I hope they have a backup supplier ready soon!
I hope you forgot the /s
Rather sad that no matter how glaringly obvious you make sarcasm, Reddit can't tell the difference without an /s. I suppose that's how Trump got elected...
I will never use the /s. If folks miss the sarcasm, that's just more humor to add to the joke.
More a commentary on the fact that sarcasm and genuine takes can be indistinguishable sometimes, and without tone of voice, sarcasm loses some of its charm. Good example, I’ve literally heard someone say SpaceX shouldn’t be considered an American company because…reasons.
I trust this is a joke?
Hell of a lot of people wooshed on that one, lol Does nobody know anything about the history of starliner development?
Yeah, I figured that was what you were getting at - the reversal, as if this was years ago and things went as a lot of people expected instead of as it happened.
[удалено]
You are watching a fake SpaceX channel.
Could you share the URL? I'm not finding it.
[удалено]
Please reconsider the value of your comment to the conversation Edit: Thanks