So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
valve.

Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.

SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
can't seem to be able to launch 1.

I wonder if SpaceX will come to a point where the cost of re-using a
Falcon 9 will drop below the cost of testing a brand spanking new Falcon
9 (where the odds of failures would be higher than in a flight proven one).

In article <kwmOI.4$uk4.0@fx20.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
says...
>
> So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
> valve.
>
> Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
> work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
> something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?

There are many thrusters on Starliner and therefore many valves. From
an Ars Technica article after the failed OFT-1 flight of Starliner:

Starliner?s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA
"Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."
ERIC BERGER - 1/21/2020, 10:55 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-and-boeing-are-closely-
looking-at-starliners-thruster-performance/

The NASA release did not mention thruster performance, but an
agency source told Ars that engineers are looking closely at
the performance of the Starliner propulsion system. In addition
to four large launch abort engines, the service module has 28
reaction control system thrusters, each with 85 pounds of
thrust and 20 more-powerful orbital maneuvering thrusters,
each with 1,500 pounds of thrust.

We'll have to wait to find out exactly what failed. Could be hardware
or software.

> Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
> Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.
>
> SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
> can't seem to be able to launch 1.

To be fair, Boeing doesn't have its own launch vehicles, so you're
comparing apples and oranges.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Aug/3/2021 at 21:59, JF Mezei wrote :
> So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
> valve.
>
> Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
> work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
> something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?
>
> Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
> Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.
>
> SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
> can't seem to be able to launch 1.
>
>
> I wonder if SpaceX will come to a point where the cost of re-using a
> Falcon 9 will drop below the cost of testing a brand spanking new Falcon
> 9 (where the odds of failures would be higher than in a flight proven one).

I'm not sure but I think I saw somewhere that the glitch Boeing
experienced is related to the heavy weather that was experienced at the
launch site a little earlier. So, in this case, the delay might not be
Boeing's fault. Nonetheless, SpaceX does seem to be a more reliable
launch provider.

Alain Fournier

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
news:MPG.3b743d76e7d850d4989df9@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>In article <kwmOI.4$uk4.0@fx20.iad>, jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca
>says...
>>
>> So Boeing had to scrub launch of its Starliner again due to some faulty
>> valve.
>>
>> Considering the years of testing and Boeing's experience building "must
>> work" hardware, how come they had a failed valve? Isn't a valve
>> something they can test easily and repeatedly to ensure it is reliable?
>
>There are many thrusters on Starliner and therefore many valves. From
>an Ars Technica article after the failed OFT-1 flight of Starliner:
>
>Starliner?s thruster performance receiving close scrutiny from NASA
>"Many of the elements of the propulsion system were overstressed."
>ERIC BERGER - 1/21/2020, 10:55 AM
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/nasa-and-boeing-are-closely-
>looking-at-starliners-thruster-performance/
>
> The NASA release did not mention thruster performance, but an
> agency source told Ars that engineers are looking closely at
> the performance of the Starliner propulsion system. In addition
> to four large launch abort engines, the service module has 28
> reaction control system thrusters, each with 85 pounds of
> thrust and 20 more-powerful orbital maneuvering thrusters,
> each with 1,500 pounds of thrust.
>

And Boeing would really hate to follow the ill-fated OFT-1 flight with an
OFT-2 flight that suddenly decides to mimic Nauka!

>We'll have to wait to find out exactly what failed. Could be hardware
>or software.
>
>> Ironic that SpaceX seeks to imitate the routine commercial flights of
>> Boeing aircraft while Boeing can't imitate itself.
>>
>> SpaceX launches Falcon9s so often it is hard to keep track. And Boeing
>> can't seem to be able to launch 1.
>
>To be fair, Boeing doesn't have its own launch vehicles, so you're
>comparing apples and oranges.
>
>Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

In article <sel0lp$8v3$1@reader1.panix.com>,
mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com says...
>
> And Boeing would really hate to follow the ill-fated OFT-1 flight with an
> OFT-2 flight that suddenly decides to mimic Nauka!

Yes, that would be bad.

Jeff

--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.