NASA Commercial Crew (CCtCap) test milestones

[DocM]

 

[DocM]

As expected; Starliner is unlikely too carry crew until 2020, and even that date is full of uncertainty. 

 

Boeing is up to its knees in mixed mammal   excrement, and NASA is not happy.

 

Makes one wonder what it'll take for NASA to do what they did to Rocketplane Kistler during Commercial Cargo; cancel the contract and shift the un-spent funding to the next-in-line; Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser space plane.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

 

Quote

Starliner's first flight delayed, crew mission not likely before 2020

After several weeks of rumors, NASA has officially announced that the first test flight of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft will slip from April to August. However, it's worth noting that NASA still characterizes that as a "working date" rather than a confirmed launch date.

As part of the announcement, the agency also said that the first crewed test flight of Starliner to the International Space Stationwhich theoretically could come before the end of 2019, but now seems doubtfulwill be of extended duration. "NASA's assessment of extending the mission was found to be technically achievable without compromising the safety of the crew," said Phil McAlister, director of the commercial spaceflight division at NASA Headquarters, in a news release. The agency did not say how many months the crew would stay on station.

Extending Starliner's first flight gives NASA more options as it seeks to keep its crew members on the space station. In February, the space agency also began exploring the possibility of buying additional Soyuz rides to the space station through September, 2020, as it waits for Starliner and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft to begin operational service. Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission.
>

[BetaguyGZT]

Yep, saw this earlier. Watch that it slips further now that there's "no rush". SpaceX has already won the race.

[DocM]

Did you see Bridenstein's town hall? He actually said, in front of NASA center managers, that the only US rendezvous and docking capability resides at SpaceX via Dragon 2/Crew Dragon.

 

Drop. Mic.

[BetaguyGZT]

Further proof that SpaceX has won the race.

 

I'd still like Starliner to work -- only this time without the schedule pressure. Build the best craft they can build. It's said that competition is good for everybody and I believe it -- so be that competition.  Push the technologies without sacrificing safety ....

 

And use Vulcan. Don't use Atlas V. Don't use some convoluted launch profile because the rocket can't cope ("Black Zones").

 

But ORION ... that beast needs to be put out of it's misery already.

[DocM]

 

"Hardware readiness" in July doesn't necessarily  translate to launching in July, but it should  mean a late Q3/early Q4 launch is possible.

[Beittil]

Uh oh... 

 

 

 

[DocM]

 

No word if it was the vehicle or ground support equipment (GSE)

[DocM]

Damn...

 

 

[BetaguyGZT]

Welp ... there goes the schedule.  Glad nobody was hurt, but dammit if nobody's having luck with their capsules anymore.

 

Seriously, wtf ...

[+rdlenk Subscriber²]

Space is hard. =/

[DocM]

1 hour ago, rdlenk said:

Space is hard. =/

 

Can you say if was an SD, plumbing or tank failure?

[FloatingFatMan]

 

[flyingskippy]

What would the timeline be if it was a SD, plumbing, or tank anomaly?

 

Would NASA of cleared them for flight for DEMO 1  without thoroughly testing  the SDs?

 

We all know Shelby is going to be using the low res video in the next committee meeting.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

 

Weird that that they were at T-9 before the RUD.  

 

Also,

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

As bad as this is, better now than when crew are on it...

[DocM]

Single-framed through a video and my impressions are, 

 

looks like a pressurization gas tank or its main line let go, causing a white  condensation cloud mistaken by many as an explosion

 

the gas tank event fragged a nitrogen tetroxide tank, causing the brown cloud

 

capsule is still vertical at this point

 

next, the monomethyl hydrazine tank is fragged, detonating

 

capsule tips over to the right & shreds

As far as I know all tanks are spherical titanium COPVs

 

Anyone care to correct this?

[FloatingFatMan]

Some interesting points from Thunderf00t...

 

 

A couple of things to take away from what he says...

 

1.  That camera... WTF did they use? A 1990's webcam?

2.  Hypergolics apparently don't explode, they burn.

 

 

[DocM]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Some interesting points from Thunderf00t...

 

 

A couple of things to take away from what he says...

 

1.  That camera... WTF did they use? A 1990's webcam?

 

2.  Hypergolics apparently don't explode, they burn.

 

 

The video is lores because someone shot a display screen using their cell phone. Crop/zoom = instant small blurry frame.

 

Most spacecraft use hypergolics for reaction control including crewed vehicles; Soyuz, Starliner, Orion, Apollo, Space Shuttle, Shenzhou, etc.  Dream Chaser doesn't use them, but it's not flying yet.

 

Starliner also has its hypergolic abort engines !in the "pusher" configuration - no tower. The advantage is that an abort is available from the ground all the way to orbit (Abort to Orbit if the upper stage fails) rather than just the first 2-3 minutes.

 

Carrying more hypergolics for launch abort increases risk in the same way having a 10 kt nuke drop on your head is "more risky" than having a 1 kt nuke dropping on your head.  

 

thunderf00t is wrong in saying there's not much to go wrong, there's plenty.  Ground support equipment or humans could mess up, or as I postulated above the pressurization gas bottle or it's main line could let go, causing a chain reaction failure of the NTO and MMH tanks and/or plumbing.

 

As for salt water contamination, the SuperDraco's have caps over their nozzles which only fly off if the engine fires. Landing in water absent an abort  they're still in place. 

 

Also; the smaller Draco thrusters had been fired twice before this event using the same propellant tanks. If salt had got in the tanks ISTM the tanks would  have failed then.

[FloatingFatMan]

And his point that hypergolics don't explode?

 

[DocM]

7 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And his point that hypergolics don't explode?

 

Optimistic 🙄

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

I think the point Thunderf00t was making was that they don't tend to explode in the manner seen in that video.  TBH, I think I'll trust him more than yourself; he IS, after all, an actual scientist.

 

I also don't buy your poor video excuse.  I can shoot video from a TV screen and zoom in and crop and it will still look really good.  THAT thing either was deliberately shot with a very low pixel count camera, or it's been intentionally downscaled.

[DocM]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I think the point Thunderf00t was making was that they don't tend to explode in the manner seen in that video.  TBH, I think I'll trust him more than yourself; he IS, after all, an actual scientist.

 

🤷

 

There were multiple events in that video, not one.  thunderf00t is talking out of his arse, again. Nothing new

 

 

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

 

I also don't buy your poor video excuse.  I can shoot video from a TV screen and zoom in and crop and it will still look really good.  THAT thing either was deliberately shot with a very low pixel count camera, or it's been intentionally downscaled.

 

The video was posted by an NSF user who got it from the source, so no.

[FloatingFatMan]

Well, whatever happened, we'll just have to wait for an official report.

 

[Beittil]

Seriously, don't pay any attention to the likes of that thunderf00l type. They are just butthurt trolls waiting for opportunities to start tinfoiling it up hardcore.