Boeing's Starliner

[Xd the great]

30 minutes ago, Nightside said:

Does Boeing have to do an Inflight Abort test like SpaceX? Did they already do it? I only see 1 unmanned mission before their first manned flight.

Yes I think...

[Nightside]

13 hours ago, Xd the great said:

Yes I think...

It’s not on any “commercial space race “ schedules that i’ve seen.

[Canopus]

Boeing doesn‘t seem to do an inflight abort test.

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

Boeing doesn‘t seem to do an inflight abort test.

Boeing will do a pad abort test shortly...either right before or right after the uncrewed flight test...but will not do an in-flight Max-Q abort. It's my understanding that NASA offered both companies the option to either validate Max-Q abort via data or via an actual test. SpaceX has a bunch of spare reused cores laying around gathering dust so it is pretty inexpensive (and easier) to validate with an actual Max-Q abort test, while Boeing expends all its rockets and so it elected to go through the mountains and mountains of paperwork to validate on data alone.

Either one can provide the required safety levels. CST-100's flight abort capabilities will be validated with wind tunnel tests, data from the uncrewed flight, and data from the pad abort.

[sevenperforce]

It should be noted that NASA required validation of a 1-in-270 LOC odds for both vehicles, as opposed to 1 in 90 which was where the Shuttle operated at the end of its life cycle.

Of course STS-1 had a 1:12 LOC probability.

 

[tater]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

I'm going to be a senior when this thing lifts off... All this is going so slow and my life seems to be going by so fast... I'm not ready to be an adult yet, but that's just over a year away.

[wumpus]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:11 PM, sevenperforce said:

It should be noted that NASA required validation of a 1-in-270 LOC odds for both vehicles, as opposed to 1 in 90 which was where the Shuttle operated at the end of its life cycle.

Of course STS-1 had a 1:12 LOC probability.

Any guesses if SLS (first launch, often suggested crewed) is under/over 1:12 LOC?

[tater]

11 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Any guesses if SLS (first launch, often suggested crewed) is under/over 1:12 LOC?

It has to exist first

 

[Codraroll]

34 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Any guesses if SLS (first launch, often suggested crewed) is under/over 1:12 LOC?

I guess an 1:i rate is what currently is on the table.

[insert_name]

first test flight delayed until august

https://spacenews.com/boeing-delays-starliner-test-flights/

[sevenperforce]

On 3/21/2019 at 11:32 AM, wumpus said:

Any guesses if SLS (first launch, often suggested crewed) is under/over 1:12 LOC?

Simply having an abort tower makes it better than 1:12.

[MaverickSawyer]

1 hour ago, insert_name said:

first test flight delayed until august

https://spacenews.com/boeing-delays-starliner-test-flights/

Yeah, Boeing's not having a good time as of late, are they? 737 MAX crashes, KC-46s getting delivered with large pieces of FOD (or, if reports I've heard are true, entire tools) inside them, SLS overruns, Starliner delays...

I'm just waiting for something to drop regarding their fighter division at this point. 

[Ol’ Musky Boi]

Capsule McCapsule Face?

[tater]

Quote

In fact, NASA provided evidence in the release that the delay is actually due to the OFT Starliner not being ready for flight (though the release did not state this as the reason for the delay) – countering their own statement that ULA’s “limited launch availability” was the reason.

Blaming ULA for Boeing's problem.

[Ultimate Steve]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Blaming ULA for Boeing's problem.

Boeing probably can't take that much more bad PR right now, and NASA knows that, but it's still an easy shift to see through if you know anything about the industry.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Boeing CST-100 "The 100".

Crew = 6 SkyCru

 

[Racescort666]

Atlas V was operated by Lockheed Martin before ULA was formed. Hmmm... /baselessaccusation 

On a serious note: they’re trying to make it sound like it’s a schedule conflict with dates that have been well known for some time. If there was an actual problem with the rocket (they have never flown this configuration before), why not say that? If there was a problem with the Starliner integration, why not say that? This whole situation is strange.

[MaverickSawyer]

Boeing is trying to avoid blame, as their PR situation isn't exactly the greatest right now. Simple as that.

[tater]

Which means, what, 4 months late, since it was supposed to fly this month?

[mikegarrison]

22 minutes ago, tater said:

Which means, what, 4 months late, since it was supposed to fly this month?

Four months late is really good compared to the KC-46A.

[tater]

16 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Four months late is really good compared to the KC-46A.

True. It's just funny given the perceived competition to Commercial Crew, and the fact that the first crew demo for them is also an operational mission (which will have to be replaced with a Soyuz flown crew, I suppose).

[tater]

 

[Nightside]

3 hours ago, tater said:

 

Just Americans?

[tater]

Just now, Nightside said:

Just Americans?

That's what it says, though it might be broader than that.

 

Here we go (looks like yes, regarding Americans, probably because their tax dollars developed the vehicles)

Quote

This effort is intended to broaden the scope of commercial activity on the space station beyond the ISS National Lab mandate, which is limited to research and development. A new NASA directive will enable commercial manufacturing and production and allow both NASA and private astronauts to conduct new commercial activities aboard the orbiting laboratory. The directive also sets prices for industry use of U.S. government resources on the space station for commercial and marketing activities.

...

To qualify, commercial and marketing activities must either:

require the unique microgravity environment to enable manufacturing, production or development of a commercial application;
have a connection to NASA’s mission; or
support the development of a sustainable low-Earth orbit economy.
NASA’s directive enabling commercial and marketing activities aboard the space station addresses manufacturing, production, transportation, and marketing of commercial resources and goods, including products intended for commercial sale on Earth. NASA astronauts will be able to conduct coordinated, scheduled and reimbursable commercial and marketing activities consistent with government ethics requirements aboard the station.

For private astronauts:

Quote

NASA also is enabling private astronaut missions of up to 30 days on the International Space Station to perform duties that fall into the approved commercial and marketing activities outlined in the directive released Friday, with the first mission as early as 2020. A new NASA Research Announcement focus area issued today outlines the path for those future private astronaut missions.

If supported by the market, the agency can accommodate up to two short-duration private astronaut missions per year to the International Space Station. These missions will be privately funded, dedicated commercial spaceflights.  Private astronaut missions will use a U.S. spacecraft developed under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.