It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing's Starliner thrusters failed on Demo mission

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
A lot has been publicized about the clock failure that prevented the Starliner from making it to the ISS, one of the main objectives of the mission. Now a NASA agency source came out that says 8 or more thrusters failed on the mission and one thruster never fired. Initially Boeing denied this report.

As a result of the failed thrusters in appears the Starliner may have failed the 'abort demonstration' maneuver that simulated an approach to the ISS and back off, a dock abort. Boeing denies they failed this test.


Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed.

....Both Boeing and NASA officials said it would be premature to discuss the matter further until the investigations are complete.


Starliner’s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA

This makes it more likely Boeing Starliner with have to do another unmanned test before being allowed to launch humans. Boeing has already requested and received more tax payer money and likely will ask for more taxpayer money if another unscrewed Demo launch is required.
edit on 22-1-2020 by jrod because: F




posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Man, Boeing has really been screwing the pooch lately. I guess they're another corporate entity too big to fail. They shouod really take a look at their business model and how they engage with their employees.
edit on 2212020 by AutomateThis1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

"Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."

You would imagine they would have been able to calculate the tolerances required.

Supposed to over-engineer such important system components if anything not under engineer them.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

They did, but you can only over engineer so much. They weren't supposed to burn that much, but had to because of the lower orbit.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

It's not entirely clear it was their fault though. That's what it's being investigated.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I understand that. I'm really not trying to be antagonistic towards Boeing. They've done many great things. It just seems that here lately they haven't been able to catch a break.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Guess it was just an unforeseen circumstance then.

I mean if they were doing a job in an environment, or at an altitude, that they were not designed to operate in, failure was always going to be on the cards somewhere along the line.

This being just another learning exercise and hopefully helps contribute to future success.
edit on 22-1-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

They kind of brought it on themselves, but yeah, every time they turn around something is biting them in the butt. They just ended their XS-1 development.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Clearly Spacex has more fresh blood, enthusiasm and vigor for the whole space thing nowadays so I think it's probably a waste to even bother with a dinosaur behemeth like Boeing.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:57 PM
link   
There was a time when I said, if it’s not Boeing I’m not going. Well that ship has sailed. I wish them luck.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

They have had their issues too. No one has developed a space program without issues.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's the truth. There are going to be errors. That's how progress has been made for ages. It would be really suspect if there weren't ever errors, and our space program was nothing but successful. I'd be more inclined to buy into the alien interference theory if that were the case lol



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: jrod

"Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."

You would imagine they would have been able to calculate the tolerances required.

Supposed to over-engineer such important system components if anything not under engineer them.



I have to also voice the same conserns.

Look I can see say not expected to break free of ground clamps (yes extreme example).

but if say the booster failed to gain full orbit that there is a reasonable minimal altitude if that failue happened that the engines should be able to last until orbit.

I suspect that they tried to cut corners on what could fail situaiton(s) and engineered the engines to meet the bare minimum enginering to meet that requirement.

Given the new metals available today I suspect COST / PROFIT was the motive and it bit them in the butt.

Like (know not them but example) the choosing to use one o ring on shutle boosters vs two.

glad this was discoverd BEFORE a human tragety....

IMO this should be one area that this should not have happnened.

you know like the 737 computer system not having a back up or warning system....(yes I went there)

scrounger



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: andy06shake

They did, but you can only over engineer so much. They weren't supposed to burn that much, but had to because of the lower orbit.

Boeing has had nothing but issue after issue recently, a little birdie told me they are scrapping the max8 in entirety soon and reeling over damage control over that and all the other recent issues.



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

They'll lose a lot more than $12B if they do. They currently have over 3200 Max 8 orders waiting for delivery.



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 06:52 AM
link   
At about 4:20 in this video there is a clip from mission control when the thrusters went haywire. I saw this shortly after the anomaly and it made me question if a faulty clock was the main issue. You can clearly tell the thrusters are firing sporadically. This is likely where they were 'overstressed'.



It should be noted that the clip from mission control is at 4x speed.
edit on 23-1-2020 by jrod because: Add note

edit on 23-1-2020 by jrod because: G



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So Boeing is sucking at the moment... failed Derpa SPACE PLANE contract kapoot.

Doesn't Lockeed Martin still have an advantage?

Edit wrong thread.

Looking for the Boeing Failure of the space plane they pulled ould of..


edit on 24-1-2020 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

They pulled out of the XS-1 because they were including their own money in the program, which they can't afford to do. They don't know why the thrusters had issues beyond having to fire far longer than originally designed for.



posted on Jan, 24 2020 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bigburgh

They pulled out of the XS-1 because they were including their own money in the program, which they can't afford to do. They don't know why the thrusters had issues beyond having to fire far longer than originally designed for.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join