This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Boeing's Starliner Is Back In Space – And Docked With ISS

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 20, 2022
Filed under , ,
Boeing's Starliner Is Back In Space – And Docked With ISS

Keith’s update: Starliner docked with the ISS on Friday night.
Boeing Starliner Launches To The International Space Station, NASA
“Starliner lifted off on NASA’s Boeing Orbital Flight Test-2 (OFT-2) at 6:54 p.m. EDT from Space Launch Complex-41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Following an orbital insertion burn 31 minutes later, Starliner was on its way for a rendezvous and docking with the space station.”
Starliner enters orbit, headed to space station, but not without a glitch, Washington Post
“Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft finally reached orbit Thursday on its way to docking with the International Space Station, completing a major step after two previous failed attempts that became part of the company’s many woes and a symbol of its fall from grace. But the accomplishment was marred when at a postlaunch briefing, Boeing revealed that two of the four thrusters that were to put the spacecraft into the correct orbit failed.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

31 responses to “Boeing's Starliner Is Back In Space – And Docked With ISS”

  1. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    It is my understanding that the two OMAC thrusters worked normally on a second burn. I’m starting to wonder if Boeing hasn’t ironed out the pre-launch test contamination problem and that the thrusters had to ‘cough out’ some kind of blockage.

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      This is a new service module. Everything should have been super clean… =(

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        I’m still waiting for another shoe to drop

        • Bill Housley says:
          0
          0

          I hope that they shutoff from automatic safeties out of an abundance of caution after some insignificant malfunction of a redundant sensor or something. If that’s the case then they can easily identify and resolve the issue from telemetry without the need to examine the engines post flight which they can’t do with a service module.

          Also, if that be the case, they come out of it looking good rather than bad and they and everyone else can look forward with confidence toward the crewed test flight. I think everyone wants that.

    • Christopher James Huff says:
      0
      0

      One thruster shut off after one second, the next after 25 seconds. That doesn’t sound like the valves weren’t opening. Maybe pressure sensors weren’t giving the expected readings? Or valve stiction was messing with the control loop, if these thrusters have such a thing.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        2 RCS thrusters also failed during approach, and the docking ring had to be extended retracted and re-extended. There was also a cooling loop failure, Boeing saying that it was probably water they got caught in the filter and froze. What’s water doing in an ammonia cooling loop?

        Seems to me this makes the thruster system redesign necessary before this thing flies any people. My question is, will all of this require a third orbital flight test?

        • Christopher James Huff says:
          0
          0

          I think the docking ring was actually on the ISS side.
          Anhydrous ammonia is quite hygroscopic, perhaps they were careless in handling it before it was loaded. Or there was moisture in the loop from assembly or storage, and they didn’t dry it out first. They seem to be rediscovering all the ways moisture can be a problem…

        • Skinny_Lu says:
          0
          0

          So, Aerojet is on the hook for the performance of the propulsion system. I can already hear the arguments back and forth….. Boeing is already blaming them. Who will pay for the redesign? Is NASA going to bail them out or Boeing eats it?

          • Ben Russell-Gough says:
            0
            0

            I suspect that will be a question for a $100M lawsuit (with a similarly-eye-watering counter-suit).

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          Probably the redesign thruster system should be tested in orbit. However could be tested without the Starliner with something like the Sherpa platform/tug. Boeing don’t have spare Atlas V available.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I think there is zero chance of NASA expecting a OFT-3 (unless something goes wrong on reentry.) NASA agreed to the test, its requirements and the criteria for a successful test. They’re legally bound by that. Successful orbital insertion was one of the requirements. It sounds like successful orbital insertion without having to use a redundant thruster was not a requirement. NASA can’t change their minds and say, “Well, even though it wasn’t part of the success criteria, we’re going to insist on a third OTF.” In a legally binding contract, NASA said that Boeing could go on to the CFT (as in crewed flight test) if the OTF demonstrated certain things. NASA’s basically stuck with that, and can’t legally add additional conditions.

          • Skinny_Lu says:
            0
            0

            Very well. There is no requirement to waive… I believe they did demonstrate redundancy, a nice feature to have. However, the individual failures of a critical, high reliability component is unsettling, to say the least. My prediction is “the team” will talk themselves into accepting the test and moving on with crew…. Much more to follow.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            Seems like most if not all of the problems had the potential only to end a mission early without docking, but it doesn’t sound like any of them would have been life threatening if there had been crew on board.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            If I remember correctly Boeing wasn’t actually required to do OFT-2 either. After the problems getting into orbit, the OFT-1 capsule went though a demonstration of all of the maneuvers for rendezvous and docking, up to but of course not including actual capture. Physical docking was not in the test requirements that Boeing submitted to NASA, which NASA approved. That’s why Boeing didn’t immediately commit to doing a second test flight.

            Of course in reality they had little choice after the multi-faceted debacle that was OFT-1. Not to mention the eighty or whatever it was additional corrections that NASA later required after their investigation.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            If the actual test requirements are publicly available, I’ve never heard about it. Normally those sorts of details wouldn’t be. There was certainly some discussion between NASA and Boeing about whether or not OFT-1 satisfied the requirements for the test. The eventual conclusion was that it did not, so they had to do OFT-2.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            During the post flight press conference for OFT-1, when the question was asked whether there would be a redo of the test flight, Jim Bridenstine said it was too early to assess that. Steve Stich then said that there was no hard requirement on an ISS docking before crewed flight, that it was more of a nice to have.

            My guess is that while NASA probably could not legally force them, they probably made it clear that they wanted another test flight and Boeing complied, in spite of the huge cost they would incur.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            Exactly.

            Nor do I think it will be a big deal in the end. They’ll find the problem. It’ll have to do with moisture maybe (common theme with this vehicle it seems) and they’ll fix it easily.

    • space1999 says:
      0
      0

      I watched the press conference, and my take away was that two of the redundant thrusters in one OMAC pod failed to complete one of the burns, but the third did. It didn’t seem like the two that failed were used subsequently. It was my understanding that the third thruster was used thereafter and they didn’t try the other two thrusters again. Apparently even if all 3 thrusters went out in that one pod, they still could de-orbit successfully.

  2. David Fowler says:
    0
    0

    It is a nice-looking spacecraft. Love the blue markings.

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      Capsule certainly looks nice…and traditional. I can’t explain why, but the service module’s stubbiness doesn’t seem particularly elegant to me. (The way it looks on top of its rocket (with an ‘eaves-like’ underside, as it were) also looks…clunky. I love hammerhead rocket shapes like the Titan IIIE-Centaur, but that stubby gumdrop clump atop the Atlas…looks like a stubby gumdrop clump.

      The proportions of the Apollo CSM always seemed right to me; perhaps even perfectly right, like in a golden ratio way. I suspect that the CSM will forever be the paradigm against which I will judge all other spacecraft of the capsular type. This may have something to do with my initially having grown into my love of spaceflight (I was 5yo when Apollo 11 flew) while watching and then studying the Apollo missions. [One of my greatest thrills was having the opportunity to train one of the Apollo-era astronauts for his last Shuttle flight.]

      Dragon and its service module aren’t quite as ‘right’ to me as Apollo but they do seem kinda cool (in a Fireball XL-5 sorta way).

      The ESA-provided service module with its smaller diameter underneath Orion…looks kludgy to me, solar-panel storage space notwithstanding. Too bad it couldn’t have been made wider to accommodate two shuttle OMS engines; that could have solved a number of issues while it gave it cleaner lines.

      Cheers!

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        Apparently they originally planned to have a tapered skirt for Starliner, but where the shockwave was reattaching to the rocket after passing the capsule was causing problems. Using a non-tapered skirt causes the shockwave to reattach farther down the rocket which apparently eliminates whatever the problem was.

        The downside is that it makes the Starliner/Atlas stack look like a Pez dispenser.

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          THAT was the impression vaguely haunting the back of my brain! Pez… Brilliant perception!

      • Chris Owen says:
        0
        0

        Fireball XL5 – yeah my reaction also!

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        I think the Shuttle OMS engines were already spoken for, being used for Orion. There are only so many old Shuttle parts left.

  3. Earl Blake says:
    0
    0

    Could the abort thrusters be repurposed after separation from the second stage? I’m thinking station re-boost.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      The RCS thrusters are use for station re-boost. The abort thrusters are too powerful. The abort and RCS thrusters shared the propellants IIRC.

    • Brian Thorn says:
      0
      0

      No, they’re much too powerful. The IDA/PMA couldn’t handle that stress. Same as Dragon’s Super Dracos.

  4. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    Virtually any new air or space vehicle can have some “minor” glitches, which will be analyzed and corrected. Fortunately, these weren’t a real problem. Congratulations, Boeing! Good to see another system becoming available.
    Ad Astra!

  5. space1999 says:
    0
    0

    Congrats to the Starliner team! So far so good… not perfect but good enough to dock at the ISS