Avatar2go wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Perhaps not as smoothly as expected or wanted. 2 thrusters shut down unexpectedly during the insertion burn. The FCS was able to adapt but still not a good look at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/19/2313 ... nasa-oft-2

Today, the thruster firing seemed to go well initially, and Starliner is in its intended orbit. However, after the flight, Boeing revealed that two thrusters actually failed during the orbital insertion, shutting down earlier than intended. The first shut down after one second, and the flight control system rerouted to a second thruster nearby. However, that one also shut down early after just 25 seconds, and the system had to reroute to a third thruster, which worked as intended. All in all, it didn’t affect Starliner’s ability to reach its planned orbit. Boeing is studying the issue, though the company and NASA claim the failed thrusters should not impact Starliner’s ability to perform the rest of its mission.

To clarify from the post-launch media briefing, there are 12 OMAC thrusters distributed between 4 doghouses. In the port doghouse, 2 of the thrusters had early shutdowns, but the 3rd was ok. Starliner has levels of redundancy that include the loss of any one doghouse, with the others compensating. The RCS thrusters can also suffice in a pinch. It was not necessary to invoke those scenarios.

They are reviewing the data to understand the early shutdowns on the 2 thrusters, and may be able to recover them in flight. They mentioned that it could be an instrumentation or software setting issue.

Overall the flight is still nominal and there are no concerns about the mission at all. There are 4 more OMAC burns scheduled, 3 before the docking and 1 for de-orbit. All could also be done with RCS if that became necessary.

I appreciate your comments on here, they are clear, concise, with a level of detail that is interesting, but not overwhelming with tech jargon. Oh and without a level of hysteria, just reporting the details, Thanks.

LTEN11 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Perhaps not as smoothly as expected or wanted. 2 thrusters shut down unexpectedly during the insertion burn. The FCS was able to adapt but still not a good look at all.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/19/2313 ... nasa-oft-2

To clarify from the post-launch media briefing, there are 12 OMAC thrusters distributed between 4 doghouses. In the port doghouse, 2 of the thrusters had early shutdowns, but the 3rd was ok. Starliner has levels of redundancy that include the loss of any one doghouse, with the others compensating. The RCS thrusters can also suffice in a pinch. It was not necessary to invoke those scenarios.

They are reviewing the data to understand the early shutdowns on the 2 thrusters, and may be able to recover them in flight. They mentioned that it could be an instrumentation or software setting issue.

Overall the flight is still nominal and there are no concerns about the mission at all. There are 4 more OMAC burns scheduled, 3 before the docking and 1 for de-orbit. All could also be done with RCS if that became necessary.

I appreciate your comments on here, they are clear, concise, with a level of detail that is interesting, but not overwhelming with tech jargon. Oh and without a level of hysteria, just reporting the details, Thanks.

Agreed. Very insightful as well

Starliner is holding at 10 meters off of ISS Harmony. A delay of about 90 minutes as they have addressed various minor issues. Docking expected 8:46 pm ET.

Docking complete

Congrats to Boeing! Long time coming and good to see this program starting down the right track.

Starliner soft capture at 8:28 pm, hard docking at 8:50 pm ET. Docking 100% successful. Hatch opening tomorrow with coverage starting around 11:30 am ET.

A good mission thus far, NASA worked about 20 minor issues over the flight. All resolved without difficulty, including the earlier OMAC thruster issue.

From the post-docking Starliner media conference, the two OMAC thruster problems were both low chamber pressure, which triggered a shutdown. Happened a second time today so they just mapped those thrusters out, since they have plenty of redundancy. Two RCS thrusters also failed during maneuvering today, but again there is ample redundancy so they just turned them off.

Also had a problem develop in the two cooling loops, which developed excess pressure and low flow rates. They resolved this by duty-cycling the radiators to boost flow and lower pressure, which has worked well as again there is ample capacity. Thought to be related to the system possibly freezing as there was a very low heat load without the crew.

There was an intermittent problem with one of the Starliner directional antennas, that caused momentary LOS to ground stations, but communication was continuous to ISS. Also the docking system got into an incorrect configuration when the ring was extended, but stowing it and resetting the system fixed the issue. Lastly there was small glitch in the computer graphics drawing, that showed a small offset in the Starliner location. They confirmed the offset was not real and proceeded.

Leuders mentioned that all the effort, planning, and time invested in the spacecraft pays off, when unexpected problems occur but the team quickly works around them. That is an excellent point, and exactly right.

Congrats to Boeing and the Starliner team. My hope is that this is the beginning of more favourable news and fortunes to come from Boeing. It’s good to be able to show and demonstrate that the company is still able to deliver great engineering feats. Well done

Hatch opening occurred about 30 minutes ago. ISS crew now aboard Starliner.

Jebediah Kerbin was the zero-g indicator

Rogozin looking more and more foolish now. From where I’m standing, I see 2 new and modern American spacecraft docked to the ISS. So much for the broomsticks.

For all the misgivings and problems they’ve had, it is great to see starliner operating as it’s supposed to. Can’t wait to see it fly crews.

Also got me wondering…to my knowledge, once starliner is certified for human spaceflight, this will be the first time the US has multiple spacecraft options. NASA had a tendency to finish one project before starting the next. But within the next few years, the USA could potentially have 3-4 viable options (excluding Virgin, blue origin since they’re tourist rides)

FGITD wrote:

Rogozin looking more and more foolish now. From where I’m standing, I see 2 new and modern American spacecraft docked to the ISS. So much for the broomsticks.

For all the misgivings and problems they’ve had, it is great to see starliner operating as it’s supposed to. Can’t wait to see it fly crews.

Also got me wondering…to my knowledge, once starliner is certified for human spaceflight, this will be the first time the US has multiple spacecraft options. NASA had a tendency to finish one project before starting the next. But within the next few years, the USA could potentially have 3-4 viable options (excluding Virgin, blue origin since they’re tourist rides)

Rogozin actually congratulated Nelson on the success of Starliner. Also Roscosmos said this week they had deemed commercial crew safe, and were willing to allow cosmonauts to participate. The Russian ISS commander gave welcoming remarks in English today. So the Russians may be toning things down a bit.

Agreed that it's good to see US space flight options expanding. Starliner had a tough journey but it's there now.

FGITD wrote:

Rogozin looking more and more foolish now. From where I’m standing, I see 2 new and modern American spacecraft docked to the ISS. So much for the broomsticks.

For all the misgivings and problems they’ve had, it is great to see starliner operating as it’s supposed to. Can’t wait to see it fly crews.

Also got me wondering…to my knowledge, once starliner is certified for human spaceflight, this will be the first time the US has multiple spacecraft options. NASA had a tendency to finish one project before starting the next. But within the next few years, the USA could potentially have 3-4 viable options (excluding Virgin, blue origin since they’re tourist rides)

I find it absolutely fascinating, how russia just blew it.
They inherited, from USSR, a proven workhorse, that saw hell and high water, and was capable of riding crew to safety through anomalies, malfunctions and outright disasters. The Soyuz.
All they needed to do was to milk it, and convince everyone else (Americans first and foremost) -- you have a safe guaranteed human ride to LEO. Focus on your investment into something beyond. Just don't forget to send the check for that taxi ride to LEO.

In the meantime, they managed to alienate, and downright piss off, pretty much everyone. Everyone of consequence, at least.

Now they have a billionaire geek and an entrenched aerospace giant, with NASA contracts in hand, delivering solutions focusing specifically on that -- a human ride to LEO. Plus a couple of more billionaires developing human flight to LEO -- both joyrides, and the real thing too.

Godspeed Starliner!

Can someone compare Starliner vs Crewed Dragon in terms of development cost and time? Everyone says SpaceX is best, but where they better in this case?

kitplane01 wrote:

Can someone compare Starliner vs Crewed Dragon in terms of development cost and time? Everyone says SpaceX is best, but where they better in this case?

In the Simplest terms, Boeing and SpaceX were awarded the contracts with the same requirements simultaneously and at present, Boeing has yet to fully complete 1 test flight. Crew dragon on the other hand completed its first Manned flight almost 2 years ago and has just about completed the original contract for manned flights.

It could be argued that SpaceX either had an advantage or disadvantage in that they were also developing and using their own launch vehicle. It gave them more vertical integration and oversight…but also a huge amount of responsibility that fell exclusively on them

One major difference was that SpaceX, as the new kid on the block, had embedded NASA engineers, whereas Boeing was thought to not need them. After OFT-1, Boeing got them too, as well as heavy scrutiny from ASAP.

So there was a loss of institutional knowledge that occurred at Boeing, within the context of CCP, in terms of developing and carrying out a rigorous test program for their internal capsule development. Which was the root cause of the OFT-1 problems.

For all the criticism of NASA and claims that they can be supplanted by commercial entities, they are a deep reservoir of knowledge and experience, which has benefitted all their commercial partners.

Another difference was that SpaceX was developing a crew version from their established cargo version of Dragon, whereas Boeing was starting from scratch with a new vehicle. So Starliner was expected to take longer and cost more. But the OFT-1 issues were completely avoidable, so the delay past that is completely on Boeing, as is all the excess cost.

What is the cost per launch comparison? What is NASA, ESA or private companies paying for a seat / launch?

I mean SpaceX Crew Dragon vs Boeing Starliner.

JetBuddy wrote:

What is the cost per launch comparison? What is NASA, ESA or private companies paying for a seat / launch?

I mean SpaceX Crew Dragon vs Boeing Starliner.

A Falcon 9 launch alone can be ordered for 65 million $, but add to that the capsule maintenance, refurbishment, the crucial keep-those-humans-alive systems and other costs...

"NASA paid an average of $55.4 million per seat on Roscosmos’ Soyuz launch system between 2006 and 2020. By the end of that period, NASA was paying the Russian agency a reported $86 million per seat. The same OIG report estimated SpaceX’s average cost per seat to be $55 million and Boeing’s $90 million."

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/nasa- ... 0-million/

JetBuddy wrote:

What is the cost per launch comparison? What is NASA, ESA or private companies paying for a seat / launch?

I mean SpaceX Crew Dragon vs Boeing Starliner.

NASA paid $86M per seat for the Soyuz missions. Recently they extended the SpaceX contract by 12 seats for $75M per seat. The Starliner cost , as part of the original development contract, is $90M per seat.

However these numbers don't consider included cargo (up & down), which both vehicles can carry. Starliner can potentially carry one more astronaut per launch, although there are no plans to do so. That seat will be used for cargo instead. Also NASA paid Boeing a premium for the ability to add launches if needed.

As things have worked out, NASA has now paid SpaceX for the extra flights, so likely will hold the acquired Boeing extra launch capability in future reserve.

We won't have a true comparison cost until NASA extends the contract for Starliner seats, which might not happen if the ISS is retired in 2030. There is probably already enough capacity to last until then.

Tugger wrote:

OK, and the next next question: How many Starliner capsules is Boeing contracted to or expected to build?

SpaceX has already halted building new Crew Dragon 2's as the current fleet of four will suffice for current expected flight needs.

Tugg

They are all built. 4 Crew Dragon and 2 Starliner. That's what was needed to fulfill the contractual obligations. Each could build more if requested.

Starliner can turnaround faster since it doesn't land in water. Boeing was originally going to build 4 but decided 2 was enough.

Avatar2go wrote:

Tugger wrote:

OK, and the next next question: How many Starliner capsules is Boeing contracted to or expected to build?
SpaceX has already halted building new Crew Dragon 2's as the current fleet of four will suffice for current expected flight needs.
Tugg

They are all built. 4 Crew Dragon and 2 Starliner. That's what was needed to fulfill the contractual obligations. Each could build more if requested.
Starliner can turnaround faster since it doesn't land in water. Boeing was originally going to build 4 but decided 2 was enough.

You want to bet Starliner will turn around faster? They have about six times as much to replace as Dragon every flight.
The count sort of tells you the attitude of each company. SpaceX built one more than they needed for the NASA and private flights on their own dime to account for unexpected problems. Boeing built the bare minimum and will leave NASA hanging if anything goes wrong. SpaceX spending their own money to go above and beyond contract requirements is why they were able to make up for Boeing's mess in the first place.

Nomadd wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Tugger wrote:

OK, and the next next question: How many Starliner capsules is Boeing contracted to or expected to build?
SpaceX has already halted building new Crew Dragon 2's as the current fleet of four will suffice for current expected flight needs.
Tugg

They are all built. 4 Crew Dragon and 2 Starliner. That's what was needed to fulfill the contractual obligations. Each could build more if requested.
Starliner can turnaround faster since it doesn't land in water. Boeing was originally going to build 4 but decided 2 was enough.

You want to bet Starliner will turn around faster? They have about six times as much to replace as Dragon every flight.
The count sort of tells you the attitude of each company. SpaceX built one more than they needed for the NASA and private flights on their own dime to account for unexpected problems. Boeing built the bare minimum and will leave NASA hanging if anything goes wrong. SpaceX spending their own money to go above and beyond contract requirements is why they were able to make up for Boeing's mess in the first place.

As noted, SpaceX is being paid for the extra flights. I'm sure NASA is glad they were able to step up the flight frequency to make up for Boeing, as was the design intention, but I have no doubt Boeing would have done the same if the situation was reversed.

Starliner is designed to fly every six months and to be re-used 10 times, so it could in theory handle the scheduled crew rotations. But as NASA has stated, the intention is to have redundancy and alternate missions, with one per year for each vendor, with the other vendor having the ability to step up if something happens to the other's program.

Thanks Avatar2go and Flyingturtle for your answers on cost. The figures were along the lines of what I thought.

I have a follow up question as well.

I heard that Starliner has the function of correcting ISS flight by using it's thrusters. The same as Soyuz can (but on their own docking ports). But SpaceX Crew Dragon doesn't have that option? What makes it so, is it to do with where they are docking on the station? Are they using different docking ports? I thought they were both using the International Docking Adapter.

I appreciate any responses.

JetBuddy wrote:

Thanks Avatar2go and Flyingturtle for your answers on cost. The figures were along the lines of what I thought.

I have a follow up question as well.

I heard that Starliner has the function of correcting ISS flight by using it's thrusters. The same as Soyuz can (but on their own docking ports). But SpaceX Crew Dragon doesn't have that option? What makes it so, is it to do with where they are docking on the station? Are they using different docking ports? I thought they were both using the International Docking Adapter.

I appreciate any responses.

Dragon has 16 Draco thrusters in the 100 lb class. Starliner has 28 thrusters in that class. These are for reaction control, but are suitable to boost the station at low delta-v.

Dragon also has 8 Super Draco thrusters in the 16,000 lb class, where as Starliner has 4 thrusters in the 40,000 lb class. But these are used for crew launch abort and are too powerful to be used for boosting the ISS. They are safed in orbit.

Finally Starliner has 20 OMAC thrusters in the 1,500 lb class. These could also potentially be used to boost the ISS, at high delta-v.

The Cygnus spacecraft has successfully boosted the ISS with its 100 lb class engine, as a test of capability, at very low delta-v.

Obviously one issue is that the thrusters have to be positioned behind the spacecraft, and only some of the thrusters for each are in the right orientation. Starliner has the service module which fulfils that purpose. Crew Dragon has to fire around the trunk, so would have some cosine losses.

Bottom line is that Starliner is better suited to the boosting task than Crew Dragon. But both spacecraft are capable in theory.

What fuel does the Starliner use. Not the launch vehicle,but the actual capsule? (Googling does not reveal an answer.)

kitplane01 wrote:

What fuel does the Starliner use. Not the launch vehicle,but the actual capsule? (Googling does not reveal an answer.)

Both commercial crew vehicles use hypergolic propellants, hydrazine fuel and nitrous tetroxide oxidizer. Crew Dragon has the 2 sets of Draco and Super Draco thrusters mounted in the capsule itself, with the trunk having no propulsion. Starliner has 4 sets of thrusters, 3 sets in the service module and 1 set in the capsule for re-entry.

Avatar2go wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Thanks Avatar2go and Flyingturtle for your answers on cost. The figures were along the lines of what I thought.

I have a follow up question as well.

I heard that Starliner has the function of correcting ISS flight by using it's thrusters. The same as Soyuz can (but on their own docking ports). But SpaceX Crew Dragon doesn't have that option? What makes it so, is it to do with where they are docking on the station? Are they using different docking ports? I thought they were both using the International Docking Adapter.

I appreciate any responses.

Dragon has 16 Draco thrusters in the 100 lb class. Starliner has 28 thrusters in that class. These are for reaction control, but are suitable to boost the station at low delta-v.

Dragon also has 8 Super Draco thrusters in the 16,000 lb class, where as Starliner has 4 thrusters in the 40,000 lb class. But these are used for crew launch abort and are too powerful to be used for boosting the ISS. They are safed in orbit.

Finally Starliner has 20 OMAC thrusters in the 1,500 lb class. These could also potentially be used to boost the ISS, at high delta-v.

The Cygnus spacecraft has successfully boosted the ISS with its 100 lb class engine, as a test of capability, at very low delta-v.

Obviously one issue is that the thrusters have to be positioned behind the spacecraft, and only some of the thrusters for each are in the right orientation. Starliner has the service module which fulfils that purpose. Crew Dragon has to fire around the trunk, so would have some cosine losses.

Bottom line is that Starliner is better suited to the boosting task than Crew Dragon. But both spacecraft are capable in theory.

Thank you, that is very informative!

Starliner is loaded with 600 pounds of return ISS cargo, including nitrogen-oxygen recharge tanks, and the hatch is closed. Will depart Wednesday at 2:36 pm ET for re-entry and desert landing around 6:49 pm ET.

Hatch closed today at 2 pm. The return to Earth is tomorrow.

The spacecraft is scheduled to autonomously undock from the space station to begin the journey home at 2:36 p.m. EDT Wednesday, May 25. NASA and Boeing are targeting 6:49 p.m. for the landing and conclusion of OFT-2, wrapping up a six-day mission testing the end-to-end capabilities of the Starliner system.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/cove ... n-to-earth

Avatar2go wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

What fuel does the Starliner use. Not the launch vehicle,but the actual capsule? (Googling does not reveal an answer.)

Both commercial crew vehicles use hypergolic propellants, hydrazine fuel and nitrous tetroxide oxidizer. Crew Dragon has the 2 sets of Draco and Super Draco thrusters mounted in the capsule itself, with the trunk having no propulsion. Starliner has 4 sets of thrusters, 3 sets in the service module and 1 set in the capsule for re-entry.

Thanks again for your contributions to this thread. Very helpful!

Avatar2go wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

They are all built. 4 Crew Dragon and 2 Starliner. That's what was needed to fulfill the contractual obligations. Each could build more if requested.
Starliner can turnaround faster since it doesn't land in water. Boeing was originally going to build 4 but decided 2 was enough.

You want to bet Starliner will turn around faster? They have about six times as much to replace as Dragon every flight.
The count sort of tells you the attitude of each company. SpaceX built one more than they needed for the NASA and private flights on their own dime to account for unexpected problems. Boeing built the bare minimum and will leave NASA hanging if anything goes wrong. SpaceX spending their own money to go above and beyond contract requirements is why they were able to make up for Boeing's mess in the first place.

As noted, SpaceX is being paid for the extra flights. I'm sure NASA is glad they were able to step up the flight frequency to make up for Boeing, as was the design intention, but I have no doubt Boeing would have done the same if the situation was reversed.

Starliner is designed to fly every six months and to be re-used 10 times, so it could in theory handle the scheduled crew rotations. But as NASA has stated, the intention is to have redundancy and alternate missions, with one per year for each vendor, with the other vendor having the ability to step up if something happens to the other's program.

I'm not talking about SpaceX simply flying extra flights when Boeing couldn't do it. SpaceX actually built an extra capsule above the contract requirement on their own so they'd be ready for what happened. Boeing couldn't have done the same because they'd never consider spending their own money to to do the same.

Nomadd wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Nomadd wrote:

You want to bet Starliner will turn around faster? They have about six times as much to replace as Dragon every flight.
The count sort of tells you the attitude of each company. SpaceX built one more than they needed for the NASA and private flights on their own dime to account for unexpected problems. Boeing built the bare minimum and will leave NASA hanging if anything goes wrong. SpaceX spending their own money to go above and beyond contract requirements is why they were able to make up for Boeing's mess in the first place.

As noted, SpaceX is being paid for the extra flights. I'm sure NASA is glad they were able to step up the flight frequency to make up for Boeing, as was the design intention, but I have no doubt Boeing would have done the same if the situation was reversed.

Starliner is designed to fly every six months and to be re-used 10 times, so it could in theory handle the scheduled crew rotations. But as NASA has stated, the intention is to have redundancy and alternate missions, with one per year for each vendor, with the other vendor having the ability to step up if something happens to the other's program.

I'm not talking about SpaceX simply flying extra flights when Boeing couldn't do it. SpaceX actually built an extra capsule above the contract requirement on their own so they'd be ready for what happened. Boeing couldn't have done the same because they'd never consider spending their own money to do the same.

Just to clarify, SpaceX was originally to construct 6 Crew Dragons, one for each contracted flight. After consultation with NASA, they agreed that the capsules could be refurbished and reused. That meant they needed at least 3 capsules to fulfill the contract, with no margin. The 4th capsule adds margin and will be needed by the contract extension to add 3 more missions. Also allows them to conduct commercial missions.

In contrast, Starliner was always intended to be re-used 10 times, with a 6-month turnaround, so that 2 capsules were enough to cover the contract, with margin. A third Starliner used for testing, was retired after the pad abort test.

Starliner landed in New Mexico at 6:49 pm ET, after a successful mission to ISS. Nominal re-entry & landing. Post-mission conference at 9 pm ET tonight.

The camera views were amazing! Congratulations, Boeing and NASA.

Congrats Boeing!

Very interesting to see how different it is compared to the Crew Dragon.

I agree with BEG2IAH, the camera views including the infrared and heat signature was 10/10.

From the post-mission conference tonight, Starliner performed extremely well and accomplished all mission objectives. A few glitches but no show-stoppers that are likely to interfere with the CFT-1 flight late this year. NASA and Boeing will now review all the flight data prior to determining the schedule going forward.

After undocking, they test fired the 2 OMAC thrusters that had shutdown early after launch, and observed the same issue of partial thrust. So those thrusters were not used for the re-entry burn, but they got good engineering data. They also fired 6 of the RCS thrusters as a test of the 2 that had shutdown during the docking approach. All 6 thrusters functioned normally so they were all used in the re-entry maneuvers. Lastly they had one monopropellant RCS thruster on the capsule that appeared to have a marginal issue during descent. They will examine the data and the thruster itself to see what happened, but again there was redundancy so no threat to the mission.

They also had a momentary communications dropout from the Starliner on descent, as the antenna lost and then regained tracking of the satellite. They will look into that issue as well. Parachute and landing bag systems worked flawlessly. Starliner landed 3 tenths of a mile (one half km) from the target, which is considered excellent for a parachute landing from space.

ULA also published the Starliner orbital insertion accuracy plot for Atlas and Centaur. It was near-perfect, a bullseye on RAAN, inclination, and apogee, with only a small deviation on perigee. All done with an instantaneous launch window.

Tugger wrote:

No bounce house this time?
Tugg

The shelter enclosure was there tonight, they had it deployed on the ground next to Starliner and ready. But the weather was good so didn't really need it. They will probably use it overnight.

For OFT-1, they landed in winter (16 degrees) and before sunrise, so wanted to shelter Starliner quickly.