Boeing Is Still Fixing Broken Valves On Starliner
NASA, Boeing Make Progress on Starliner Valve Issue
“Work progressed to restore functionality to several valves in the Starliner propulsion system that did not open as designed during the launch countdown for the Aug. 3 launch attempt. The valves connect to thrusters that enable abort and in-orbit maneuvering.”
Keith’s note: How – why – did this spacecraft – one that is supposed to eventually fly humans – ever make it to the launch pad without fully operational propulsion valves in the first place? Just wondering.
Yeah either these valves were never tested before rollout to the pad or something big happened on the pad to cause such a widespread failure mode. Either way more investigation is required before that thing should fly.
Perhaps more than a year of sitting around waiting for a flight affected them?
I think this is a good point. But then what inspection cleared the ship for launch, given that it has sat for an unexpected period of time ? What else is hiding, waiting for “Murphy’s opportunity” ?
Maybe “we” (ie NASA) thought that sitting isn’t a big deal ? That may have been a position before, but do we know more now ??
If Boeing didn’t recheck critical hardware before restacking the vehicle after that long a stand-down, then someone needs to ask ‘why’.
Worth repeating: “How – why – did this spacecraft – one that is supposed to eventually fly humans – ever make it to the launch pad without fully operational propulsion valves in the first place?”
This seems to be a reoccurring pattern with Boeing aircraft and spaceships. Space X is scheduled to launch 18 people to orbit (14 to ISS and 4 Inspiration) before Boeing launches its first crew to orbit. Unless, that is, Boeing falls further behind.
How much longer before we drop SLS and Boeing?
When Congress drops SLS.
Keith nails it.
Why the hell was this not checked before it was stacked?
Hubris –》Actual incompetence–》 actual crap
August 03…Boeing delays launch due to “a valve (singular) issue”.
Six days later…6 of 13 valves: still being worked on.
This, from a “long time establishment” (whose past aviation/space achievements I greatly admire) space contactor that entered the Commercial Space competition with a political, historical & monetary advantage.
While an admitted SpaceX supporter; I take no joy from this.
I am exactly the same way. I support Space X, but take no joy in the apparent downfall of one of America’s most prestigious aerospace companies ever.
It’s not just Boeing. The Starliner propulsion system, including the valves, came by way of Aerojet Rocketdyne
https://www.rocket.com/spac…
Boeing was the integrator, it was their job to test and accept the articles in question.
I take no joy either but I sure feel frustration as an American who wants a secondary, safe, reliable and functional domestic means of getting people into orbit and back.
Boeing’s problems started when the corporate HQ was moved from Seattle to Chicago. The Jack Welch disease seems to have severely crippled Boeing.
If the position of the valves could not be determined, could an inadvertent firing have occurred? Is it only the Russians that have this problem>
Snake-bit from the start. Boeing lost a Starliner service module in 2018 when valves stuck open and it spilled propellant all over the test stand.
https://spaceflightnow.com/…
Did Boeing ever disclose the root cause of that problem? Without the corporate spin talk?
AFAIK, not publicly.
Are these the same valves that are causing the current issues?
Who knows? 13 valves malfunctioned in this incident and Boeing’s not clarified either incident.
At what point will NASA insist on multiple successful launches and flights of Starliner before agreeing to put people in this capsule and on top of this system? Demonstrating one successful flight of this thing just won’t cut it.
As with many folks in the discussion, I take no pleasure in watching the erosion of quality, competency and reliability at Boeing.
How many times can I upvote this?
There. I added one.
So, I don’t know how this works and this is about to show. Just what hoops would NASA have to jump through to cancel Boeing’s contract on the grounds of unabashedly poor performance (bordering on farcical) and hand it over to Sierra Nevada?
NASA canned RocketPlane-Kistler in Commercial Cargo 1, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
The problem with that comparison being that Kistler was not mobbed up into Patron/Vassal relationships under half of NASA’s relevant Appropriations Sub-committees members, in both the House *and* the Senate. No later than 1995 Boeing already had Senator Shelby as a Patron, and the “Harmonization Mergers” between 1993 and 1997 in aerospace only deepened that relationship of dependence.
I don’t think RocketPlane-Kistler had as many lobbyists as Boeing does.
Rocketplane Kistler and the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (not Commercial Cargo 1) was a very different matter. The contracts required the companies (Kistler and SpaceX) to put a significant amount of their own money into the projects. Kistler was in bad financial shape and couldn’t support its financial commitments to the COTS contract. So as long as Boeing has money to spend on Starliner, that precedent doesn’t apply. But I suspect their commercial crew contract has a lot of other clauses about nonperformance.
It would be interesting to know the differences with an apparently very successful Boeing program for the X-37B. Are these different groups within Boeing?
So apparently putting a simple LEO-targeted capsule – an “American Soyuz” as we called it in the mid 2000s – on top of an EELV turns out not to be, well… simple, quick, cheap or particularly safe.
There is no win condition for the Starliner anymore. It’s a dead end.
Boeing is only ever going to build exactly two of them. They aren’t a pathway to something better. Boeing has no interest in developing a “Starliner 2” or anything like that. It exists because of a US Taxpayer funded competitive contract. It’ll fly until the US Taxpayer spigot stops, like all Boeing space endeavors.
It flies on the Atlas V, another dead end. 15 years ago, this would have been an exciting development. Now it’s hitching a ride on the last dinosaur. It is expensive and cannot be reused. It is due to be retired sometime this decade in favor of Vulcan, a rocket Boeing is having a heck of a time actually flying.
Meanwhile its competition flies regularly, cheaply, and is reusable. Not to mention it’s just an all round superior design, from the rocket to the capsule.
So how does this end well for Boeing? It flies, sets no landmarks, fulfils the contract and makes a meager profit? And then Boeing decides against anymore Starliner activity later this decade, due to low returns? Because that’s how I see this going.
Having a second space capsule to send to the ISS is an arbitrary,, expensive and bad requirement and needs to go away. If there is a CREW Dragon failure, ground it for a month, isolate the failure then launch again. Such duplication in capabilities made sense when we were talking about EELVs. But for a manned capsule? It’s inviting more risk and more uncertainties rather than retiring them. The risk and costs involved in making Plan B work, just so it can be there in the event Plan A is grounded, is better spent in making Plan A better in this particular case.
They built 3 but Spacecraft 1 was retired. Now they’re in the position of losing one more puts all their eggs into one basket.
I’m with Ben Russell-Gough (below) – find a reason, any reason, to fire Boeing and get Dream Chaser in the game. It was done to RocketPlane-Kistler for Commercial Cargo 1, replacing their vehicle with Cygnus.
Just for reference, the Starliner is designed to fly on a Vulcan or a Falcon 9, as well as an Atlas V. Assuming it can fly successfully on anything. The holdup with Vulcan appears to be the BE-4 engines which Blue Origin is, theoretically and eventually, providing. And Vulcan is being developed by ULA not Boeing.
FYI—Boeing built and has aided in the mission flights of the very successful X-37-B spaceplane , also known as OTV. There are two of them and they have flown six missions, and the onboard RCS thrusters must work splendidly on those very long duration missions. The one in orbit now has been there for 16 months. So Boeing isn’t always the chump , just old school steampunk . It might be time to endow Sierra Nevada and Dreamchaser Crew with some hedge funding . We’re also not hearing much squawking about Orion and Lockheed . Who’s looking in on them ? Time to reassess all the options.
Boeing doesn’t operate any, um, nuclear plants, do they?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Boeing is continueing their habit of poor design, underrated quality and possibility poor workmanship. The management failed miserably on the 737max and still haven’t got it right. This same attitude has got the company mired in disaster once again! 13 valves are not operating correctly? This craft should have not made it to the launce pad. This should have been tested several times over in the manufacturing facility. Are they useing proper quality hardware or trying to go cheap like on the 737 plane. Boeing management ought to get rid of many management and those engineers who supported the defective parts. Good engineers will not sacrifice adequate design, parts or workmanship. This ought to be of severe embarrisment to all of Boeing. Our corporations have chosen to become hasbeens. Likely they outsourced everything to the Chinese and did not try it out first. Next they need to look for modules that spy on us from this equipment. Why has our corporations allowed these foreign countries to take control of all aspects of design and manufacturing? We are now at their mercy, and we don’t have to be. Blast their hides for selling out America to China!
“we solved all 80 issues and we have a great machine now”
“oh .. well except for the valves”
I currently work for Boeing and seeing that their capsule failed to launch on time doesn’t surprise me or my coworkers. It’s embarrassing to say the least. They’re more focused on diversity and adding more useless managers to the mix than they are of actually putting out products on time.
It sounds like the valves did work properly, but that they just didn’t store it properly and it wasn’t designed to sit around for such a long time while they got their software guano together.
But then one would think that they knew that and had a test regimen all put together to recertify the hardware before flight time.
It I didn’t already know they were Boeing, I’d think they were total newbies at this.
What if it had launched in that condition? Did an on-orbit quality control problem by the Russians prevent an on-orbit quality control problem by Boeing?