Beccab Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 8 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said: No, I think it's a fixed-price, just that they quoted (and were awarded) a price nearly double what SpaceX quoted They also were given 300 millions extra years after the contract was awarded for "more schedule flexibility in crewed launches" during 2019, so while formally fixed price Boeing still has some... peculiarities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Yeah, they are eating the first SM. I assume they have a good idea what the issue was, I just wonder about the actual problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: But it's a cost-plus contract, right? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 (edited) They have completed fuel offload from the service module. Now they are able to proceed with swapping out the current (damaged) service module for a new one. Because the fuel is so dangerous and toxic, this step had to be done very carefully, before they could start the disassembly process. Quote The investigation into the valve issue continues to substantiate that the most probable cause is interaction of moisture with nitrogen tetroxide that permeates through the Teflon seal in the valve, leading to corrosion. Testing continues to fully understand how this occurrence affects the valves in various environments. Tests include environmental seal evaluation and exposing valves, in a controlled setting, to temperatures and conditions similar to those the spacecraft experienced prior to the planned launch of OFT-2. The results of these tests will help in the ongoing development of remediation efforts to prevent similar issues on future service modules. For example, the team designed a purging system that will be integrated into the spacecraft to protect the valves from potential exposure to moisture at the factory, launch complex and launch pad. Edited January 19, 2022 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: They have completed fuel offload from the service module. Now they are able to proceed with swapping out the current (damaged) service module for a new one. Because the fuel is so dangerous and toxic, this step had to be done very carefully, before they could start the disassembly process. How long did that take? It's been half a year since it went back from the pad and a few months since the last time Starliner schedule was moved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Beccab said: How long did that take? It's been half a year since it went back from the pad and a few months since the last time Starliner schedule was moved I just gave you all the information I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 25, 2022 Share Posted January 25, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wumpus Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 On 1/19/2022 at 1:54 AM, Beccab said: How long did that take? It's been half a year since it went back from the pad and a few months since the last time Starliner schedule was moved Do they have a rocket? I understand that it was originally going to use an Atlas V, but that rocket has since been launched and there are no other Atlas V rockets being made. There's also the soon-to-be-canceled Delta IV rocket and the still-waiting-for-Vulcan-engines Centaur. Sending up your "proof of safety" mission on an entirely new rocket seems like it defeats the purpose, but this appears to be a pork project anyway (that appears to be costing Boeing far more than the pork is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Delta IV is not crew-rated and all Delta IV launches are already committed anyway. Atlas V is likewise no longer selling any new launches, but all the already-ordered Starliner launches are already on the books. So that means they will be Atlas V launches. Also, I believe ULA has already taken delivery of all the RD-180 engines for their committed Atlas V launches, so they are not worried about that part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 1 hour ago, wumpus said: Do they have a rocket? I understand that it was originally going to use an Atlas V, but that rocket has since been launched and there are no other Atlas V rockets being made. There's also the soon-to-be-canceled Delta IV rocket and the still-waiting-for-Vulcan-engines Centaur. Sending up your "proof of safety" mission on an entirely new rocket seems like it defeats the purpose, but this appears to be a pork project anyway (that appears to be costing Boeing far more than the pork is worth. The Atlas V vehicles to fulfill the initial Starliner contract have been held aside, so all planned launches can fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 33 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Delta IV is not crew-rated and all Delta IV launches are already committed anyway. Atlas V is likewise no longer selling any new launches, but all the already-ordered Starliner launches are already on the books. So that means they will be Atlas V launches. Also, I believe ULA has already taken delivery of all the RD-180 engines for their committed Atlas V launches, so they are not worried about that part of it. To add to this, ULA has also currently no plans to crew rate Vulcan on their own unless a customer pays for it. If I remember right the estimate was of a few tens of million dollars, but it's been a while so I may be wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 I fully expect Vulcan to get crew rated eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beccab Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 So do I, but with either Sierra Nevada Corp or NASA itself paying for it, and not soon. If Starliner is set to make a CC launch per year, that means there is zero need to fly on Vulcan until 2029 at minimum with the current contracts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 I'm still hearing May as the target as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 15, 2022 Share Posted April 15, 2022 I've been hearing "around May 20" for a while now from someone involved, and, there we go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted April 15, 2022 Share Posted April 15, 2022 Yeah, I just heard this. Target is 6:54 eastern time on May 19. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 (the wrong blue they are using really bugs me) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 (edited) "wrong blue"? Interestingly enough, Google says that "Boeing Blue" is hex code 0039A6, but Boeing sources say it is Pantone 286c or hex code 0033A1. 0033A1 is a deeper blue than 0039A6. https://www.color-hex.com/color/0033a1 https://www.color-hex.com/color/0039a6 According to Wikipedia, NASA's blue is Pantone 286, or hex code 0B3D91. The addition of a little red into it makes it looks a bit "flatter" blue, to my eyes on my screen. https://www.color-hex.com/color/0b3d91 The blue in that photo appears lighter in color, but that could be just the lighting. Edited May 3, 2022 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 1 hour ago, mikegarrison said: According to Wikipedia, NASA's blue is Pantone 286, or hex code 0B3D91. The addition of a little red into it makes it looks a bit "flatter" blue, to my eyes on my screen. The US flag. The Union is not the right color. Blue PMS 282. Upper right: 0033A1 is PMS 286C (second row, middle). Far, far too light. Boeing doing Boeing color is fine, obviously, and NASA meatball is close enough to not matter (SpaceX is worse in some ways by having the meatball AND the worm, per the worm design doc only the worm!). The US flag is not negotiable, however. Still, looks washed out even for their stated colors—wonder if it's an illusion caused by the gray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Pantone 286 and Pantone 286c are not the same color. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 20 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: Pantone 286 and Pantone 286c are not the same color. Coated (C) looks darker/more saturated because of the gloss, sure. hard to find 1 chart with both, and it's on a screen, anyway (gloss). The real US flag is literally on the wall. The flag on the capsule is wrong. They are not even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 59 minutes ago, tater said: Still, looks washed out even for their stated colors—wonder if it's an illusion caused by the gray? Could there be a protective film over the whole thing, causing the washed-out effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerwood Floyd Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 30 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Could there be a protective film over the whole thing, causing the washed-out effect? That's always been my theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 It's just washed badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.