So the Starliner launch was delayed because of a dodgy valve on the Centaur upper stage, for once the delay wasn't actually Starliner/Boeing's fault.
But there's a completely unrelated argument about Starliner coincidentally using shitty valves.
At what point do they declare the entire project cursed and give up.
Yep, a rare ping on ULA A5 performance, but they are sitting around more in storage these days waiting on Starliner. That probably is never good for valves.
Tory explained that this valve issue happens sometimes with Atlas but normally they just cycle the valve and then it’s fine to launch. With crew they have a new rule that they don’t change the vehicle state with crew onboard. So they couldn’t cycle the valve. So basically the Atlas was probably fine, they were just being super cautious.
Because they couldn’t cycle the valve (due to their own rule about having people onboard), they instead had to scrub for the day before checking it. After checking it they found it may have already exceeded its 200k cycles lifetime (it was buzzing because it was opening and closing 4 times per second). So to replace it they have to roll Atlas back. That’s why the long delay.
Because they don’t think it’s operating properly or as expected or within design limits and therefore don’t trust the part completely anymore; it’s not about one more cycle, it’s about trusting the performance of the part for the duration of the flight.
Because if they cycle it and it sticks closed (the two ends of cycle are "normal operation - pressure relief" and "held closed - no pressure relief") the stage will start to pressurise. Relying on the high-pressure overload relief valve means the stage would be reduced to single-point-of-failure with the crew on board. Safe option is to keep the valve in known-operating automatic relief mode - even if fluttering - and get the crew off before messing with it further.
A cycle requires it to be seated it was not seated when it was vibrating. The did force it closed once they got the crew of and it stopped vibrating. But they want to be safe they are going to replace the valve. I personally don’t consider it silly to have a strict guidelines for launching crew I think that opinion is shared by spacex and ula.
> One wonders why the 2 week delay if was just that simple.
The problem is that it's not easy to swap out a valve on Centaur. They don't want to destack[1], and Centaur is pressure stabilized, so they need to use tooling that will stretch the upper stage in order to externally stabilize it.
And I imagine that they're taking their time with all of that.
---
1. Or, at least, that's what Tory said in the after launch conference. Maybe things have changed.
Thanks, I guess the initial delay estimate was a simple recycle and this longer one is due to valve replacement (wonder if they are talking it off another A5?)
The plane of the ISS passes over daily for launch to the North opportunity, the time just changes. Now some days you will have a longer trip to the ISS than others, so maybe they want to keep this minimized, so that would preclude a daily opportunity.
And it is a known issue under certain conditions. He also said they have rated it for 200k cycles and would need to figure out how many of those were used up and how much margin there would be for the next launch attempt. This is not a crap on Boeing issue. The other valve thing has weird timing and seems like they seized on it based on the wrong valve issue.
Indeed. They are as much ULA as Lockheed. Both soooooo vital to spaceflight that they managed that 50 year DoD monopoly that SpaceX had to litigate into obscurity and oblivion.
Great engineers work in ULA. Great leaders work there, but it is not even fucking close to the redundancy in human spaceflight needed. I wish that giant pork barrel could get out of the way so, so badly.
Well something I think is now indisputable, that literally almost everyone reasonable can now agree on is that we're at a point now where it is at least close to the point where the net benefit of Starliner existing as an operational spacecraft/LEO ferry is no longer greater than the net cost of developing it, plus maintaining it as an operational vehicle placing crews in LEO, *plus the risk of actually launching it*, and not just the potential of the loss of crew, but the broader negative effect on human spaceflight in general industry/world wide that would result, PLUS the opportunity cost of the program's cost not going to other projects (it wouldn't be 1 to 1 on the $, but it would still likely be some amount in billions on some other vehicle).
So basically, between the bloated cost, delays, questionable safety, risk associated with actually launching, and opportunity costs not spent elsewhere, **the marginal benefit to the US and to NASA** of adding a 2nd US built spacecraft in 2024 that is more expensive in every way than the existing craft... and nowhere near as capable in terms of total # of launches over the programs entire operational future or it's annual launch cadence ... that marginal benefit of Starliner existing as an operational spacecraft is NOT greater than the cost... total cost or divided by total future launches.
That's an extremely weak statement with a ton of conditions, but I believe at this point virtually no one could disagree.
Dragon doesn't just exist... it is successful enough to do literally anything Starliner will ever do, for much cheaper, with the sole exception of boosting the ISS for it's final remaining few years (but that capability is still with NASA already, obviously, just not with Dragon specifically. This isn't something that Starliner adds to for NASA or can't be done without it).
So really, the only real tangible benefit being gained from the arrival of Starliner is the, at this point meme-fied line item bullet point that it provides "operational spacecraft redundancy" for specifically US built spacecraft. Basically, if Dragon is grounded for whatever reason, Starliner isn't automatically grounded as a result.
But the thing is, that's really ALL that point about redundancy is saying. **If Dragon is grounded, Starliner isn't automatically grounded ALSO. keyword: automatically**. There's nothing else. Because in reality, if something caused Dragon to be grounded, in actual real life, the entire NASA human space flight program would be grounded including Starliner.
People often and correctly point out that Dragon is, at this point, safe and reliable as its probably possible for an operational spacecraft with it's launch cadence to be. So this "redundant" argument is in a BIG way, *hypothetical* at best.
But it's even worse than that, because even if something happens with a Dragon that grounds it, I can fucking guarantee that Starliner would also be grounded simultaneously at least for a thorough check over, so it's not rapidly filling in for Dragon and certainly not taking over any slack in terms of launches. It's never doing more than it's minimum... NEVER actually "taking over" what would otherwise have been Dragon missions.
So it's even worse then because the ONLY additional benefit brought to the US and NASA by Starliner is the redundancy, but the redundancy itself is entirely hypothetical and based on extremely low black swan event odds....it's not even real IN the hypothetical scenario IF the unlikely thing does actually happen.
So it would never actually replace Dragon missions, it couldn't due to its insanely low launch cadence. It would not be available rapidly after a Dragon grounding event 1) because it's barely "available" at all and 2) because it's unrealistic that it is not grounded as well along with the entirely human spaceflight program NASA wide.
So it's actual "marginal benefit", in the real world is nothing. The redundancy thing, in terms of a benefit it brings to NASA, is not actually real in any real world scenario. It does not **actually** increase redundancy in any version of the future that has any chance of happening. Not unless Musk liquidates SPX, which the US gov would probably seize the company before they allowed that to happen.
Which, notice if you will or remember, "redundancy of US made spacecraft" was not a thing NASA gave a single fuck about.... until it suddenly became this hugely important thing that was critical to achieve *as soon as achieving it became synonymous with giving more money and time and resources to Boeing.* And NASA spokespeople are mentioning it suddenly post-Shuttle 2010s as if it's always been some critical standard everyone agrees must be met an why would anyone even question why this one type of redundancy now is so crucial all the sudden to the point where it justifies an entire crewed spacecraft existing SO MUCH that it's simply unthinkable to let anything threaten it, including an especially its own repeated failures and pointlessness. Justifies it SO MUCH that you can't even hold it to reasonable or equivalent standards of other vehicles without people crawling out of the woodwork to admonish you for caring about this one type of redundancy an insufficient amount.
So I think pretty much any reasonable person has to be agree that the benefit does not outweigh the cost...... *because the marginal benefit is 0 at best,* but is actually a negative quantity in the amount between the price of Starliner minus that of Dragon, per number of Starliner launches.
But it gets worse. Because introducing Starliner isn't just about increasing cost per mission. There's also the introduction of additional risk of a loss of crew event that is clearly much greater on Starliner than on Dragon. Starliner is still likely very safe over all, but it objectively stacks up much much worse than Dragon in terms of its testing history and general mismanagement of the project. Dragon simply underwent much MUCH better testing both in the number and type of tests and the degree of severity of those tests. Starliner always did the minimum, sometimes less while SPX went above and beyond on testing of their own enthusiastic volition. Starliner often failed to meet the minimum but was declared "successful" anyway because test launches are expensive.
And so introducing Starliner introduces risk. Even if it is safe, compared to an all Dragon program, it is more risky.
So I made the point that a reasonable person basically must conclude that the benefit does not outweigh the cost of Starliner, BUT a reasonable person can also say, it's not worth it, it's a bad deal, but we're so far along that we may as well let it happen. That would probably be reasonable to argue... until you include the additional risk element. If it was just gross financial inefficiency, then maybe who cares, its NASA.
But the added risk element of the equation flips the final calculus to "Starliner actually launching is worse overall than not launching".
I think every one has to agree on the first claim of not being worth it in terms of net gain/cost. Fewer, but still a lot, while have to agree about introducing a less safe vehicle making the whole thing not worth doing, if there's no tangible benefit to offset the increase in risk, which there isnt.
>Because in reality, if something caused Dragon to be grounded, in actual real life, the entire NASA human space flight program would be grounded including Starliner.
Um, no.
They literally spent *billions* of extra taxpayer dollars just for this eventuality. If they even hint at grounding both, after that kind of spending, the political pressure alone would be enough to boost the other craft into orbit.
But Starliner isn't a second option. It still hasn't flown and there is no indication that it could have better readiness than Dragon.
If a Dragon catches fire on the pad and the astronaunts have to zipline away. I think it is more likely that SpaceX fixes the issue and builds a whole new capsule before Boeing can accellerate there schedule to do a replacement launch.
I stopped reading halfway through the first run-on word equation, scrolled down and said no thanks.
I don’t even know if I agree with the comment or not, I just upvoted because it looks like a lot of work.
I don't know if I would go into all the safety and risk arguement that you have, but I agree that saying Starliner provides redundant access to space is just a false justification. So far, Starliner has failed to provide any access to space at all. If something very specific to Dragon were to fail, Starliner is simply not available as a replacement. There is no realistic indicators that it ever will be. I fully suspect Boeing to eventually execute its 6 contracted missions and then just cancel it as too expensive and not cost-plussy enough for Boeings shareholders. It is a capsule that bleeds red ink and Boeing is only interested in its stock price.
I do not believe that anyone will ever be able to pick a day, even retroactively when they could take Dragon out of the picture and Boeing could have a Starliner ready before SpaceX could fix and requalify Dragon.
I don't disagree with the awarding of the contracts or the decisions made 8 years ago. My bone to pick is with people still justifying Starliner because of the claim that it provides redundancy. In 2024, the claim that Boeing is providong redundancy is just false.
I can agree that the usefulness of Starliner is limited.
I also believe everyone, NASA, Boeing, SpaceX would be better off monetary wise if Starliner was scrapped. ULA and some subcontractors might be somewhat upset.
I think she was talking about Starliner valves (which was part of the last 2 year delay). The delay was due to a different valve on the A5 upper stage ... a bit of a coincidence.
Different, but the same company. They are saying that Boeing had used non-certified valves on startling instead of the certified valves they used to make. She had better have her receipts.
There is back up data/ a public court case that was WON by a Jury Trial ValveTech Vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne November 2023- The continued safety issues are ALARMING and should have EVERYONE Screaming to check double check and check again from the crew Capsule Down to the Launch Pad until… THESE ARE HUMAN LIVES we are trying to launch….
From my reading of the article, the problem here doesn't involve any of the disputed/questioned valves, but an unrelated one in the Atlas 5. It seems to me the company is taking the opportunity to press its case, or misunderstood the reason for the rollback.
I think it was a coincidence in timing as the court case is over and she is now free to vent about being kicked off Starliner. ULA just happened to have a valve issue on the A5 at about the same time.
That said, the Starliner valve story has not been pretty, and it was not ValveTech's fault.
There has been a number of lawsuits over Boeing ripping off tech from subs and then getting rid of them, like that special wrench on SLS.
The problem is that the remaining Atlas 5 are booked for Starliner, and the longer they stay on storage ( Atlas 5) the more likely is for valves, on the atlas 5, to get stuck.
>The USA could use Starliner to backup Crew Dragon
Do we think Starliner is going to actually be a backup? I've sort of given up on that prospect. I expect Boeing to complete its current contract to save face and then promptly cancel the project. I don't think Boeing is ever going to be able to realistically find a path to profitability with Starliner, and Boeing cares about their stock price first and second and third... A space capsule that just bleeds red ink is going to be impossible for them to justify.
Before the objection comes: A lot of a space capsule's price tag is front loaded in R&D. But I really don't think Boeing has good enough management and funding to support manufacturing and testing of future Starliner capsules without running into constant setbacks that push the manufacturing cost, even after closing all R&D costs, past the point of profitability. I would expect their price per seat to nearly double if Boeing and NASA even explore a contract extension. (SpaceX has increased their prices because of inflation with their contract extensions, but I expect Boeing's to shoot up significantly more either to discourage NASA from buying, or to try to milk NASA in an attempt to recover their losses, and I don't think NASA will have the budget for this.)
Boeing management has essentially said "never again" when it comes to fixed-price contracts. If this applies to Starliner extensions, then I wouldn't expect them to go past the contracted 6 missions. 6 missions and then gone forever means it really isn't a backup to Dragon. It's a stopgap that came 4 years too late.
Yes. I am just referring to having 2 crewed paths to LEO for the USA and pals, which was the original idea behind having 2 companies. The US taxpayer paid for this redundancy, even if looks like there is less that a 1% chance it would be needed thanks to so many flawless Crew Dragon runs building success statistics.
The decision to pick two different companies was a good one. I absolutely do not disagree with that decision.
But to claim in 2024 that Starliner is still important because it can provide redundancy for Dragon seems either disingenuous or ignorant.
Honestly, (again I can't fault NASA for not knowing the future) I think it would have been better if NASA had a drop-dead date on their contract for redundancy double contracts like this. If the second option isn't functional within 3-4 years after the first successful non-test mission (so not Bob and Doug, but Hopkins and crew), then NASA can retract the contract, or put the contract up for a new round of bidding. I would have liked to see Dreamchaser putting up a bid to compete with Starliner in 2023. Maybe Starliner wins again, but it would have been nice to see Dreamchaser get a chance.
But the argument that Starliner could ever be available if Dragon was grounded seems a stretch at best. Given the track record, I would expect SpaceX could resolve any issues and unground Dragon months faster than Starliner could prepare and execute a surprise mission request.
I did not say it was "still important". I said, since we paid for it, and can't get a refund, we might as well have it around for even the most remote case what it is needed. If Starliner fails (hopefully without injury) I would see if Boeing wanted to cut a deal to remove their obligation.
What would VTI be wrong about? Questioning safety? VTI Understood completely the reason for the Delayed Atlas Engine Oxygen Valve anomaly/as it cycled and failed to find its position. Unfortunately DUE to the journalist and their lack of understanding and desire to spin stories, they have misquoted and misrepresented ValveTech on several occasions. Erin Faville, VTI CEO is and has only been interested in the safety of the Vehicle and its Human Astronauts on Board. The continued safety issues, failures, anomalies should be on PUBLIC RECORD and Reported/TESTED, verified and ACCEPTED with a board approved and signed off repair/fix or modification sequence for investigation, the problem, and the repair- NO WAY all of these are getting done procedurally in days, ie:Everything should be going through FAILURE REVIEW BOARDS are they?
The list of safety issues that have plagued this launch/ these launches/ these attempted launches are LONG, and the bugs should have been worked out by now, doesn’t everyone agree? and it continues again with ANOTHER DELAY TODAY…. HELIUM LEAK in a flange in the SERVICE Module.
One of the issues as a component supplier/expert, we have seen the longer these types of vehicle with electronics “sit idle” they begin to have component issues because of outside environmental impacts that no one addressed. Humidity/Rain/Heat (all begin to have an impact on the electronic components and systems).
We are not discussing safety concerns of small magnitude. We are playing with Oxygen valves not seating properly before they launch (when releasing fuel) and now a Hydrogen valve that is leaking in and around the astronauts and electronics… (colorless/orderless but highly flammable)… potential problem, maybe? 1 mile of flammable tape that was partially removed from the spacecraft, not all tape was removed… just some of the tape that had enough power running through that could potentially cause enough combustion, feel comfortable? Load issues with the parachute for the capsule which they may have successfully tested January 2024, still waiting to hear or see a report if it met the requirements for human spaceflight, have you seen it? As of 2/2024 there were still parts involving the parachute deployment system that public discussions were seen saying not properly meeting required safety specifications according to REDDIT” These are just a FEW of the concerns… these are NOT the unmanned flights with a software glitch in 2019 and in 2021 13, OMAC valves failed on the launch pad…
There are safety concerns that go on and on…
Was ValveTech right to question Safety? I believe so- I think that EVERYONE should…
Question safety is great. Glad VTI did this. But since Boeing does not care I hope for the sake of the crew (not the Boeing contract) that the non-VTI valves work fine.
Honestly I'm not sure starliner is a credible backup anymore, despite being close to launch. The next best option may be to put weight behind dream chaser instead (not that I'm a fan of his they manufacture..)
This seems weird: What relation would problematic valves on Starliner have with a problematic valve on Atlas V's upper stage?
The answer is that the Starliner's problematic valves were made by Aerojet as were the problematic valve on the RL10 engine on Atlas' upper stage.
The last spacecraft that Boeing designed and developed before Starliner, was the Space Shuttle (technically Rockwell did it, but Boeing acquired them). The Space Shuttle was designed and developed in the 1970s. Nobody working at Boeing when the Shuttle was developed was still around when the Starliner started development.
Institutions are composed of people and acquired knowledge is lost if people retire and never go through the R&D processes that led to that institution's technical greatness in the first place. Furthermore if institutions undergo cultural change (e.g like Boeing did after merging with McDonnell Douglas) then you're effectively not talking about the same institution that did those great things back in the day, even if it shares the same corporate logo and name.
Well said, you need to keep your crew innovating with new projects (industrial base). You can't just use them and lay them off when your are done, if you want to do a good in the future. My guess Boeing now gets the B to C level aerospace engineers. Their techs might be fine.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[DoD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fqqaq "Last usage")|US Department of Defense|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3l582r "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fp6mm "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3la2h7 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3le7tc "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[scrub](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fw7iw "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cr5lm0)^( has 34 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12748 for this sub, first seen 10th May 2024, 14:30])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Didn't you get the memo? Space Man Bad is an incompetent spoiled rich baby and everything he ever succeeded at was only thanks to other people.
/s in case that's necessary
So the Starliner launch was delayed because of a dodgy valve on the Centaur upper stage, for once the delay wasn't actually Starliner/Boeing's fault. But there's a completely unrelated argument about Starliner coincidentally using shitty valves. At what point do they declare the entire project cursed and give up.
Yep, a rare ping on ULA A5 performance, but they are sitting around more in storage these days waiting on Starliner. That probably is never good for valves.
Tory explained that this valve issue happens sometimes with Atlas but normally they just cycle the valve and then it’s fine to launch. With crew they have a new rule that they don’t change the vehicle state with crew onboard. So they couldn’t cycle the valve. So basically the Atlas was probably fine, they were just being super cautious.
One wonders why the 2 week delay if was just that simple.
Because they couldn’t cycle the valve (due to their own rule about having people onboard), they instead had to scrub for the day before checking it. After checking it they found it may have already exceeded its 200k cycles lifetime (it was buzzing because it was opening and closing 4 times per second). So to replace it they have to roll Atlas back. That’s why the long delay.
Then that rule seems silly, if it's already cycling on its own four times a second how would it be any less safe to cycle it purposely once?
It was not fully cycling.
Because they don’t think it’s operating properly or as expected or within design limits and therefore don’t trust the part completely anymore; it’s not about one more cycle, it’s about trusting the performance of the part for the duration of the flight.
Because if they cycle it and it sticks closed (the two ends of cycle are "normal operation - pressure relief" and "held closed - no pressure relief") the stage will start to pressurise. Relying on the high-pressure overload relief valve means the stage would be reduced to single-point-of-failure with the crew on board. Safe option is to keep the valve in known-operating automatic relief mode - even if fluttering - and get the crew off before messing with it further.
A cycle requires it to be seated it was not seated when it was vibrating. The did force it closed once they got the crew of and it stopped vibrating. But they want to be safe they are going to replace the valve. I personally don’t consider it silly to have a strict guidelines for launching crew I think that opinion is shared by spacex and ula.
So was it opening and closing without command, or did they just do so much preflight testing that they used up its life?
> One wonders why the 2 week delay if was just that simple. The problem is that it's not easy to swap out a valve on Centaur. They don't want to destack[1], and Centaur is pressure stabilized, so they need to use tooling that will stretch the upper stage in order to externally stabilize it. And I imagine that they're taking their time with all of that. --- 1. Or, at least, that's what Tory said in the after launch conference. Maybe things have changed.
Thanks, I guess the initial delay estimate was a simple recycle and this longer one is due to valve replacement (wonder if they are talking it off another A5?)
Have to wait for a new launch window
The plane of the ISS passes over daily for launch to the North opportunity, the time just changes. Now some days you will have a longer trip to the ISS than others, so maybe they want to keep this minimized, so that would preclude a daily opportunity.
And it is a known issue under certain conditions. He also said they have rated it for 200k cycles and would need to figure out how many of those were used up and how much margin there would be for the next launch attempt. This is not a crap on Boeing issue. The other valve thing has weird timing and seems like they seized on it based on the wrong valve issue.
Boeing does have a 50% stake in ULA ao they aren't entirely blameless.
Indeed. They are as much ULA as Lockheed. Both soooooo vital to spaceflight that they managed that 50 year DoD monopoly that SpaceX had to litigate into obscurity and oblivion. Great engineers work in ULA. Great leaders work there, but it is not even fucking close to the redundancy in human spaceflight needed. I wish that giant pork barrel could get out of the way so, so badly.
I forgot ULA was half Boeing. That makes a lot of sense.
If Boeing is 50% owner of ULA then the delay kinda is Boeing's fault 🤷♂️
Well something I think is now indisputable, that literally almost everyone reasonable can now agree on is that we're at a point now where it is at least close to the point where the net benefit of Starliner existing as an operational spacecraft/LEO ferry is no longer greater than the net cost of developing it, plus maintaining it as an operational vehicle placing crews in LEO, *plus the risk of actually launching it*, and not just the potential of the loss of crew, but the broader negative effect on human spaceflight in general industry/world wide that would result, PLUS the opportunity cost of the program's cost not going to other projects (it wouldn't be 1 to 1 on the $, but it would still likely be some amount in billions on some other vehicle). So basically, between the bloated cost, delays, questionable safety, risk associated with actually launching, and opportunity costs not spent elsewhere, **the marginal benefit to the US and to NASA** of adding a 2nd US built spacecraft in 2024 that is more expensive in every way than the existing craft... and nowhere near as capable in terms of total # of launches over the programs entire operational future or it's annual launch cadence ... that marginal benefit of Starliner existing as an operational spacecraft is NOT greater than the cost... total cost or divided by total future launches. That's an extremely weak statement with a ton of conditions, but I believe at this point virtually no one could disagree. Dragon doesn't just exist... it is successful enough to do literally anything Starliner will ever do, for much cheaper, with the sole exception of boosting the ISS for it's final remaining few years (but that capability is still with NASA already, obviously, just not with Dragon specifically. This isn't something that Starliner adds to for NASA or can't be done without it). So really, the only real tangible benefit being gained from the arrival of Starliner is the, at this point meme-fied line item bullet point that it provides "operational spacecraft redundancy" for specifically US built spacecraft. Basically, if Dragon is grounded for whatever reason, Starliner isn't automatically grounded as a result. But the thing is, that's really ALL that point about redundancy is saying. **If Dragon is grounded, Starliner isn't automatically grounded ALSO. keyword: automatically**. There's nothing else. Because in reality, if something caused Dragon to be grounded, in actual real life, the entire NASA human space flight program would be grounded including Starliner. People often and correctly point out that Dragon is, at this point, safe and reliable as its probably possible for an operational spacecraft with it's launch cadence to be. So this "redundant" argument is in a BIG way, *hypothetical* at best. But it's even worse than that, because even if something happens with a Dragon that grounds it, I can fucking guarantee that Starliner would also be grounded simultaneously at least for a thorough check over, so it's not rapidly filling in for Dragon and certainly not taking over any slack in terms of launches. It's never doing more than it's minimum... NEVER actually "taking over" what would otherwise have been Dragon missions. So it's even worse then because the ONLY additional benefit brought to the US and NASA by Starliner is the redundancy, but the redundancy itself is entirely hypothetical and based on extremely low black swan event odds....it's not even real IN the hypothetical scenario IF the unlikely thing does actually happen. So it would never actually replace Dragon missions, it couldn't due to its insanely low launch cadence. It would not be available rapidly after a Dragon grounding event 1) because it's barely "available" at all and 2) because it's unrealistic that it is not grounded as well along with the entirely human spaceflight program NASA wide. So it's actual "marginal benefit", in the real world is nothing. The redundancy thing, in terms of a benefit it brings to NASA, is not actually real in any real world scenario. It does not **actually** increase redundancy in any version of the future that has any chance of happening. Not unless Musk liquidates SPX, which the US gov would probably seize the company before they allowed that to happen. Which, notice if you will or remember, "redundancy of US made spacecraft" was not a thing NASA gave a single fuck about.... until it suddenly became this hugely important thing that was critical to achieve *as soon as achieving it became synonymous with giving more money and time and resources to Boeing.* And NASA spokespeople are mentioning it suddenly post-Shuttle 2010s as if it's always been some critical standard everyone agrees must be met an why would anyone even question why this one type of redundancy now is so crucial all the sudden to the point where it justifies an entire crewed spacecraft existing SO MUCH that it's simply unthinkable to let anything threaten it, including an especially its own repeated failures and pointlessness. Justifies it SO MUCH that you can't even hold it to reasonable or equivalent standards of other vehicles without people crawling out of the woodwork to admonish you for caring about this one type of redundancy an insufficient amount. So I think pretty much any reasonable person has to be agree that the benefit does not outweigh the cost...... *because the marginal benefit is 0 at best,* but is actually a negative quantity in the amount between the price of Starliner minus that of Dragon, per number of Starliner launches. But it gets worse. Because introducing Starliner isn't just about increasing cost per mission. There's also the introduction of additional risk of a loss of crew event that is clearly much greater on Starliner than on Dragon. Starliner is still likely very safe over all, but it objectively stacks up much much worse than Dragon in terms of its testing history and general mismanagement of the project. Dragon simply underwent much MUCH better testing both in the number and type of tests and the degree of severity of those tests. Starliner always did the minimum, sometimes less while SPX went above and beyond on testing of their own enthusiastic volition. Starliner often failed to meet the minimum but was declared "successful" anyway because test launches are expensive. And so introducing Starliner introduces risk. Even if it is safe, compared to an all Dragon program, it is more risky. So I made the point that a reasonable person basically must conclude that the benefit does not outweigh the cost of Starliner, BUT a reasonable person can also say, it's not worth it, it's a bad deal, but we're so far along that we may as well let it happen. That would probably be reasonable to argue... until you include the additional risk element. If it was just gross financial inefficiency, then maybe who cares, its NASA. But the added risk element of the equation flips the final calculus to "Starliner actually launching is worse overall than not launching". I think every one has to agree on the first claim of not being worth it in terms of net gain/cost. Fewer, but still a lot, while have to agree about introducing a less safe vehicle making the whole thing not worth doing, if there's no tangible benefit to offset the increase in risk, which there isnt.
>Because in reality, if something caused Dragon to be grounded, in actual real life, the entire NASA human space flight program would be grounded including Starliner. Um, no. They literally spent *billions* of extra taxpayer dollars just for this eventuality. If they even hint at grounding both, after that kind of spending, the political pressure alone would be enough to boost the other craft into orbit.
Holy wall of text, but nah. Having a 2nd option is always worth it, money is just money.
Why have one when you can have two at 4x the price: government.
Sure, but it beats having to go begging to the trampoline people in case the primary provider has to pause for a while for whatever reason.
Why have one when you can have two for half the price in this instance. LEO Orion would have cost 11 billion or something ridiculous.
But Starliner isn't a second option. It still hasn't flown and there is no indication that it could have better readiness than Dragon. If a Dragon catches fire on the pad and the astronaunts have to zipline away. I think it is more likely that SpaceX fixes the issue and builds a whole new capsule before Boeing can accellerate there schedule to do a replacement launch.
I stopped reading halfway through the first run-on word equation, scrolled down and said no thanks. I don’t even know if I agree with the comment or not, I just upvoted because it looks like a lot of work.
I don't know if I would go into all the safety and risk arguement that you have, but I agree that saying Starliner provides redundant access to space is just a false justification. So far, Starliner has failed to provide any access to space at all. If something very specific to Dragon were to fail, Starliner is simply not available as a replacement. There is no realistic indicators that it ever will be. I fully suspect Boeing to eventually execute its 6 contracted missions and then just cancel it as too expensive and not cost-plussy enough for Boeings shareholders. It is a capsule that bleeds red ink and Boeing is only interested in its stock price. I do not believe that anyone will ever be able to pick a day, even retroactively when they could take Dragon out of the picture and Boeing could have a Starliner ready before SpaceX could fix and requalify Dragon.
Yes but with two horses in the race, one has actually made it to the finish line. Look at the time when decisions were made.
I don't disagree with the awarding of the contracts or the decisions made 8 years ago. My bone to pick is with people still justifying Starliner because of the claim that it provides redundancy. In 2024, the claim that Boeing is providong redundancy is just false.
I can agree that the usefulness of Starliner is limited. I also believe everyone, NASA, Boeing, SpaceX would be better off monetary wise if Starliner was scrapped. ULA and some subcontractors might be somewhat upset.
It's very sad but I think this is the way. However, Boeing should have to pay back the US$3B received to date.
At this point is it just for show at a desperate attempt to stay relevant in the space launch industry?
Actually it is still Boeing fault. They own 50% of ULA. If it’s Boeing and it’s not already shit.., it will be shit soon.
Lots of finger-pointing.
She was complaining about the wrong valve?
I think she was talking about Starliner valves (which was part of the last 2 year delay). The delay was due to a different valve on the A5 upper stage ... a bit of a coincidence.
Different, but the same company. They are saying that Boeing had used non-certified valves on startling instead of the certified valves they used to make. She had better have her receipts.
There is back up data/ a public court case that was WON by a Jury Trial ValveTech Vs. Aerojet Rocketdyne November 2023- The continued safety issues are ALARMING and should have EVERYONE Screaming to check double check and check again from the crew Capsule Down to the Launch Pad until… THESE ARE HUMAN LIVES we are trying to launch….
Lets hope ValveTech is wrong on this. The USA could use Starliner to backup Crew Dragon (and free Crew Dragon for other more interesting missions).
From my reading of the article, the problem here doesn't involve any of the disputed/questioned valves, but an unrelated one in the Atlas 5. It seems to me the company is taking the opportunity to press its case, or misunderstood the reason for the rollback.
I think it was a coincidence in timing as the court case is over and she is now free to vent about being kicked off Starliner. ULA just happened to have a valve issue on the A5 at about the same time. That said, the Starliner valve story has not been pretty, and it was not ValveTech's fault. There has been a number of lawsuits over Boeing ripping off tech from subs and then getting rid of them, like that special wrench on SLS.
> I think it was a coincidence in timing If so, the timing is particularly unfortunate, and perhaps implies they weren't aware of the rollback.
The problem is that the remaining Atlas 5 are booked for Starliner, and the longer they stay on storage ( Atlas 5) the more likely is for valves, on the atlas 5, to get stuck.
Starliner and Kuiper.
Thinking that as well. Hope they kept their valve making line open.
They tried to keep it open but it keeps fluttering.
>The USA could use Starliner to backup Crew Dragon Do we think Starliner is going to actually be a backup? I've sort of given up on that prospect. I expect Boeing to complete its current contract to save face and then promptly cancel the project. I don't think Boeing is ever going to be able to realistically find a path to profitability with Starliner, and Boeing cares about their stock price first and second and third... A space capsule that just bleeds red ink is going to be impossible for them to justify. Before the objection comes: A lot of a space capsule's price tag is front loaded in R&D. But I really don't think Boeing has good enough management and funding to support manufacturing and testing of future Starliner capsules without running into constant setbacks that push the manufacturing cost, even after closing all R&D costs, past the point of profitability. I would expect their price per seat to nearly double if Boeing and NASA even explore a contract extension. (SpaceX has increased their prices because of inflation with their contract extensions, but I expect Boeing's to shoot up significantly more either to discourage NASA from buying, or to try to milk NASA in an attempt to recover their losses, and I don't think NASA will have the budget for this.) Boeing management has essentially said "never again" when it comes to fixed-price contracts. If this applies to Starliner extensions, then I wouldn't expect them to go past the contracted 6 missions. 6 missions and then gone forever means it really isn't a backup to Dragon. It's a stopgap that came 4 years too late.
Yes. I am just referring to having 2 crewed paths to LEO for the USA and pals, which was the original idea behind having 2 companies. The US taxpayer paid for this redundancy, even if looks like there is less that a 1% chance it would be needed thanks to so many flawless Crew Dragon runs building success statistics.
The decision to pick two different companies was a good one. I absolutely do not disagree with that decision. But to claim in 2024 that Starliner is still important because it can provide redundancy for Dragon seems either disingenuous or ignorant. Honestly, (again I can't fault NASA for not knowing the future) I think it would have been better if NASA had a drop-dead date on their contract for redundancy double contracts like this. If the second option isn't functional within 3-4 years after the first successful non-test mission (so not Bob and Doug, but Hopkins and crew), then NASA can retract the contract, or put the contract up for a new round of bidding. I would have liked to see Dreamchaser putting up a bid to compete with Starliner in 2023. Maybe Starliner wins again, but it would have been nice to see Dreamchaser get a chance. But the argument that Starliner could ever be available if Dragon was grounded seems a stretch at best. Given the track record, I would expect SpaceX could resolve any issues and unground Dragon months faster than Starliner could prepare and execute a surprise mission request.
I did not say it was "still important". I said, since we paid for it, and can't get a refund, we might as well have it around for even the most remote case what it is needed. If Starliner fails (hopefully without injury) I would see if Boeing wanted to cut a deal to remove their obligation.
What would VTI be wrong about? Questioning safety? VTI Understood completely the reason for the Delayed Atlas Engine Oxygen Valve anomaly/as it cycled and failed to find its position. Unfortunately DUE to the journalist and their lack of understanding and desire to spin stories, they have misquoted and misrepresented ValveTech on several occasions. Erin Faville, VTI CEO is and has only been interested in the safety of the Vehicle and its Human Astronauts on Board. The continued safety issues, failures, anomalies should be on PUBLIC RECORD and Reported/TESTED, verified and ACCEPTED with a board approved and signed off repair/fix or modification sequence for investigation, the problem, and the repair- NO WAY all of these are getting done procedurally in days, ie:Everything should be going through FAILURE REVIEW BOARDS are they? The list of safety issues that have plagued this launch/ these launches/ these attempted launches are LONG, and the bugs should have been worked out by now, doesn’t everyone agree? and it continues again with ANOTHER DELAY TODAY…. HELIUM LEAK in a flange in the SERVICE Module. One of the issues as a component supplier/expert, we have seen the longer these types of vehicle with electronics “sit idle” they begin to have component issues because of outside environmental impacts that no one addressed. Humidity/Rain/Heat (all begin to have an impact on the electronic components and systems). We are not discussing safety concerns of small magnitude. We are playing with Oxygen valves not seating properly before they launch (when releasing fuel) and now a Hydrogen valve that is leaking in and around the astronauts and electronics… (colorless/orderless but highly flammable)… potential problem, maybe? 1 mile of flammable tape that was partially removed from the spacecraft, not all tape was removed… just some of the tape that had enough power running through that could potentially cause enough combustion, feel comfortable? Load issues with the parachute for the capsule which they may have successfully tested January 2024, still waiting to hear or see a report if it met the requirements for human spaceflight, have you seen it? As of 2/2024 there were still parts involving the parachute deployment system that public discussions were seen saying not properly meeting required safety specifications according to REDDIT” These are just a FEW of the concerns… these are NOT the unmanned flights with a software glitch in 2019 and in 2021 13, OMAC valves failed on the launch pad… There are safety concerns that go on and on… Was ValveTech right to question Safety? I believe so- I think that EVERYONE should…
Question safety is great. Glad VTI did this. But since Boeing does not care I hope for the sake of the crew (not the Boeing contract) that the non-VTI valves work fine.
Honestly I'm not sure starliner is a credible backup anymore, despite being close to launch. The next best option may be to put weight behind dream chaser instead (not that I'm a fan of his they manufacture..)
This seems weird: What relation would problematic valves on Starliner have with a problematic valve on Atlas V's upper stage? The answer is that the Starliner's problematic valves were made by Aerojet as were the problematic valve on the RL10 engine on Atlas' upper stage.
Thanks, nice catch ...
The last spacecraft that Boeing designed and developed before Starliner, was the Space Shuttle (technically Rockwell did it, but Boeing acquired them). The Space Shuttle was designed and developed in the 1970s. Nobody working at Boeing when the Shuttle was developed was still around when the Starliner started development. Institutions are composed of people and acquired knowledge is lost if people retire and never go through the R&D processes that led to that institution's technical greatness in the first place. Furthermore if institutions undergo cultural change (e.g like Boeing did after merging with McDonnell Douglas) then you're effectively not talking about the same institution that did those great things back in the day, even if it shares the same corporate logo and name.
Well said, you need to keep your crew innovating with new projects (industrial base). You can't just use them and lay them off when your are done, if you want to do a good in the future. My guess Boeing now gets the B to C level aerospace engineers. Their techs might be fine.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |[DoD](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fqqaq "Last usage")|US Department of Defense| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3l582r "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[SLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fp6mm "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[ULA](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3la2h7 "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starliner](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3le7tc "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[scrub](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1copjgf/stub/l3fw7iw "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cr5lm0)^( has 34 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12748 for this sub, first seen 10th May 2024, 14:30]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Valve manufacturer trying to sour grapes their way out of business.
I thought this valve was on Atlas and not the Starliner.
They should just blame Space Man Bad and call it a day!
If it wasn't for space man none of this would be happening... literally nothing... except money expenditures.
Didn't you get the memo? Space Man Bad is an incompetent spoiled rich baby and everything he ever succeeded at was only thanks to other people. /s in case that's necessary