• Routine space flight

    From JF Mezei@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 3 21:59:43 2021
    So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
    valve.

    Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
    work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
    something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

    Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
    Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.

    SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
    can't seem to be able to launch 1.


    I wonder if SpaceX will come to a point where the cost of re-using a
    Falcon 9 will drop below the cost of testing a brand spanking new Falcon
    9 (where the odds of failures would be higher than in a flight proven one).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Findley@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 4 07:00:58 2021
    In article <kwmOI.4$uk4.0@fx20.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
    says...

    So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty valve.

    Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
    work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
    something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

    There are many thrusters on Starliner and therefore many valves. From
    an Ars Technica article after the failed OFT-1 flight of Starliner:

    Starliner?s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA
    "Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."
    ERIC BERGER - 1/21/2020, 10:55 AM https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-and-boeing-are-closely- looking-at-starliners-thruster-performance/

    The NASA release did not mention thruster performance, but an
    agency source told Ars that engineers are looking closely at
    the performance of the Starliner propulsion system. In addition
    to four large launch abort engines, the service module has 28
    reaction control system thrusters, each with 85 pounds of
    thrust and 20 more-powerful orbital maneuvering thrusters,
    each with 1,500 pounds of thrust.

    We'll have to wait to find out exactly what failed. Could be hardware
    or software.

    Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
    Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.

    SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
    can't seem to be able to launch 1.

    To be fair, Boeing doesn't have its own launch vehicles, so you're
    comparing apples and oranges.

    Jeff
    --
    All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
    These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
    employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alain Fournier@21:1/5 to JF Mezei on Wed Aug 4 08:46:56 2021
    On Aug/3/2021 at 21:59, JF Mezei wrote :
    So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty valve.

    Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
    work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
    something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

    Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
    Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.

    SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
    can't seem to be able to launch 1.


    I wonder if SpaceX will come to a point where the cost of re-using a
    Falcon 9 will drop below the cost of testing a brand spanking new Falcon
    9 (where the odds of failures would be higher than in a flight proven one).

    I'm not sure but I think I saw somewhere that the glitch Boeing
    experienced is related to the heavy weather that was experienced at the
    launch site a little earlier. So, in this case, the delay might not be
    Boeing's fault. Nonetheless, SpaceX does seem to be a more reliable
    launch provider.


    Alain Fournier

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg (Strider) Moore@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 7 00:03:05 2021
    "Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.3b743d76e7d850d4989df9@news.eternal-september.org...

    In article <kwmOI.4$uk4.0@fx20.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
    says...

    So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
    valve.

    Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
    work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
    something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

    There are many thrusters on Starliner and therefore many valves. From
    an Ars Technica article after the failed OFT-1 flight of Starliner:

    Starliner?s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA
    "Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."
    ERIC BERGER - 1/21/2020, 10:55 AM >https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-and-boeing-are-closely- >looking-at-starliners-thruster-performance/

    The NASA release did not mention thruster performance, but an
    agency source told Ars that engineers are looking closely at
    the performance of the Starliner propulsion system. In addition
    to four large launch abort engines, the service module has 28
    reaction control system thrusters, each with 85 pounds of
    thrust and 20 more-powerful orbital maneuvering thrusters,
    each with 1,500 pounds of thrust.


    And Boeing would really hate to follow the ill-fated OFT-1 flight with an
    OFT-2 flight that suddenly decides to mimic Nauka!


    We'll have to wait to find out exactly what failed. Could be hardware
    or software.

    Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
    Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.

    SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
    can't seem to be able to launch 1.

    To be fair, Boeing doesn't have its own launch vehicles, so you're
    comparing apples and oranges.

    Jeff

    --
    Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
    CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
    IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Findley@21:1/5 to All on Sat Aug 7 09:40:21 2021
    In article <sel0lp$8v3$1@reader1.panix.com>,
    mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...

    And Boeing would really hate to follow the ill-fated OFT-1 flight with an OFT-2 flight that suddenly decides to mimic Nauka!

    Yes, that would be bad.

    Jeff

    --
    All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
    These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
    employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)