Jump to content

Boeing's Starliner


Kryten
 Share

Recommended Posts

LOL. They just called out that they have confirmation of a good MET on their internal clock. I guess they learned *that* lesson.

Hey! That's Cape Cod. I used to live in the Boston area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

"Mach 23"?

Aren't they at an altitude where the concept of "Mach number" is basically unimportant?

The entire graphical display is useless.  No velocities, the progress bar doesn't move in an analog manner.  I sure hope the software on Starliner is better than what is running the stream graphics, lol.  It sure seemed like the boosters were dead weight for a lot longer than they needed to be.  That was kind of strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, darthgently said:

The entire graphical display is useless.  No velocities, the progress bar doesn't move in an analog manner.  I sure hope the software on Starliner is better than what is running the stream graphics, lol.  It sure seemed like the boosters were dead weight for a lot longer than they needed to be.  That was kind of strange.

The last part is because at certain speeds there is a danger of the boosters recontacting the core

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, insert_name said:

The last part is because at certain speeds there is a danger of the boosters recontacting the core

So the burn rate or fuel quantity is adjusted to have the boosters finish outside that "certain speed" range.  I'd think.  I know SRBs are hard to "tune" but it was my understanding that the ability to tune these particular boosters in segments was part of their coolness.  I may be thinking of another flavor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

"Mach 23"?

Aren't they at an altitude where the concept of "Mach number" is basically unimportant?

I said this same thing to my son as I listened/watched (he was driving, so I got to watch).

4 minutes ago, darthgently said:

The entire graphical display is useless.  No velocities, the progress bar doesn't move in an analog manner.  I sure hope the software on Starliner is better than what is running the stream graphics, lol.  It sure seemed like the boosters were dead weight for a lot longer than they needed to be.  That was kind of strange.

There was no MCC Houston footage because it might show proprietary Boeing information apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, darthgently said:

It sure seemed like the boosters were dead weight for a lot longer than they needed to be.  That was kind of strange.

They've been flying Atlas Vs for a long time now. I think they have earned our trust that they know what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tater said:

proprietary Boeing information

We sure wouldn't want to give away Boeing and ULA leading edge secrets on fully expendable launch technology and arcane wisdom on how to achieve basic orbit to other nations who may be watching from their fully functional and orbiting space station.  IP lawyers can miss the forest for the trees at times, lol

4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

They've been flying Atlas Vs for a long time now. I think they have earned our trust that they know what they are doing.

Understood, but I thought I'd seen the boosters separate sooner after flameout in prior launches.  That was the point of my comment.  Not critical, just curious what is up.  I have no doubt ULA knows what they are doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

We sure wouldn't want to give away Boeing and ULA leading edge secrets on fully expendable launch technology and arcane wisdom on how to achieve basic orbit to other nations who may be watching from their fully functional and orbiting space station.  IP lawyers can miss the forest for the trees at times, lol

Unsure what it was they were concerned about, that's just what I heard from someone there.

Could be ITAR related, too.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, darthgently said:

It sure seemed like the boosters were dead weight for a lot longer than they needed to be. 

As said before, lifting them out of the thicker air where recontact may be an issue. The trade off for slanted nose comes on the solids; ULA need to go the kerbal way and slant them to aid in separation (j/k, I’m sure there’s other complications with that).  It could be worse; one of the Indian launch vehicles has the core burn out before the boosters! (IIRC)

Glad to hear it was apparently a successful launch though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

It could be worse; one of the Indian launch vehicles has the core burn out before the boosters! (IIRC)

Now that is very kerbal;  just a bit moar booster than core, as it should be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...