Valve vexation: Boeing's Starliner grounded again Boeing's long-delayed Starliner crewed launch, which was scheduled for today, has been postponed yet again, this time due to a valve problem on the Centaur upper stage. Managers pushed back the next attempt to no earlier than May 10. It is the closest Boeing has come to launching a crew in the Starliner capsule. The countdown …
Right up until its merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997. When it started to bump up its own stock price, by buying its own sock with each years profit (To maximize the share options for management). Up until that merger, safety came first, anyone could flag any problems if they saw them. After that merger, I'll let you guess how people who reported potential problems were seen by the company.
The really funny bit of that was that they put the McDonnell Douglas people in charge of the new Boeing.
So you get a moribund company run by fuckwits who've run it into the ground by building cheapshit planes that fall out of the sky and your take is; "Hey, let's see if they can do that again."?
With all the issues that Boeing has had with the Starliner, it's ironic that it's the ultra-reliable Atlas 5 that let the side down this time.
Although "reliable" relates to actual launch failures, not scrubs, I guess. I can't find any reliable stats, but an NSF article from a few years back mentions a 42% scrub rate for the Atlas 5, however that was based on an analysis of recent launches at the time, and may not be generally representative.
On the other hand, if you're going to be strapped into one when it's lit up, recent issues and any pattern, especially a recent increase in scrubs might be more valuable than the overall historic data. 42% scrubs in, say, the last 5 years is worth more than an overall scrub rate of, say, 20% since first production launch. That might sound like things are getting worse or it might mean they are being far more cautious in the lead up to people carrying rating.
"Richard Feynman said something along the lines of "3 million components, all made by the lowest bidder"
In reference to the Shuttle. ULA isn't choosing vendors solely on price if the parts aren't up to scratch. Failures in flight trigger insurance and that means insurance companies will raise the cost of a policy to the point where nobody will fly their payload on that rocket if that happens very often (ever). Penny wise, Pound foolish? This means they will have tight parameters that will cause a scrub. You'll hear of issues where a valve was a bit slow opening or closing. If they can't cycle it a few times and get it within a tight tolerance, that's a scrub. The tolerance may be completely theoretical with no testing to see if the real world isn't as picky.
And no, I don't mean after a crash.
There's no coming back after the door blowing out of that Alaskan Airlines flight. That alone is enough to make people realise they are a disgrace and shouldn't even be allowed to operate as a business anymore. Made so much worse by other totally preventable crashes beforehand.
I'm sure a lot of the engineers are decent people. But they are a shit show of a company and the world does not need any more of their disasters waiting to happen.
> I'm sure a lot of the engineers are decent people.
It is not the engineers who are at fault, engineering and quality control teams have no on-site access to key decision-makers.
Boeing management has moved (Seattle in Washington state->Chicago in 2001->Arlington, Virginia, to be close to the Pentagon in 2022) far far away from production (Seattle in Washington state and South Carolina), so that they can focus on the big picture (mostly maximizing stock price).
"But they are a shit show of a company and the world does not need any more of their disasters waiting to happen"
Without denying the seriousness of Boeing's problems, I'd challenge the statement that they are a shit show creating disasters waiting to happen. In 2023, there were no fatalities from passenger jet crashes or any commercial international flights, that's not incidental, that's down to the work by all of the employees in the aviation industry. In 2017 Harvard published a study that showed passengers had a one in 11 million probability of being killed for every flight, about ten or eleven times your probability of being struck by lightning each year.
Unfashionable though it is to say so, the facts are very clear that Boeing aircraft remain incredibly safe, even if they could be safer. Personally I'd rather fly on Airbus or Embraer than Boeing, but even so, Boeing aircraft remain amongst the safest means of travel you can find. I find facts more helpful than emotion.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/aviation-fatalities-per-million-passengers
> I find facts more helpful than emotion.
The families of people who died - or came close to dying - might disagree.
You've actually outlined the problem very well though. Boeing are trying to use their successes of yesteryear to convince everyone they know what they're doing.
Over time safety should become better, not worse. When was the last time a door blew out on a plane in the manner of Alaskan Airlines? Were Boeing doing better 20 - 30 years ago in that regard? Would you care if you happened to be on that plane?
If you want to talk about facts, start with the fact that Boeing have fucked up very very badly. On multiple occasions now.
"If you want to talk about facts, start with the fact that Boeing have fucked up very very badly. On multiple occasions now."
Which bit about "Without denying the seriousness of Boeing's problems" did you not understand?
"Over time safety should become better, not worse. "
It is. Take a look at the chart I linked, or any other reliable source of aviation safety data.
"Boeing are trying to use their successes of yesteryear to convince everyone they know what they're doing."
Being (and McDs) historic data is much worse than their newer aircraft, so your logic doesn't work. Nobody gives a **** about yesteryear, they care about reliability, safety, operating cost.
"Personally I'd rather fly on Airbus or Embraer than Boeing, but even so"
I'd rather fly on the QE 2 myself. I just need to win the lottery so I can be in at least Princess class. Oddly, point to point ocean travel is nearly non-existent. People would rather only take 2 days to cross the Atlantic than 7. The cost is a factor, but I'll gladly pay a bit more not to be groped by large individuals that couldn't get a job flipping burgers and can't be trusted handling cash.
How are Boeing getting to launch a crewed capsule at this point? I don't recall any tests of a crew-escape system or any of the other stuff that you'd expect before they put people on board. Given the capsule's history of faults before and during previous test flights, it really needs many more test launches before expecting a crew to risk their lives.
It was tested in 2019. Two of the three parachutes opened. I'm not sure if it's been tested since then.
If there's a problem anytime after ignition, the entire capsule uses it's own thrusters to make a quick getaway and hopefully descend gently to the ground on all three parachutes. I think it's in an addendum at the back of the manual, not listed in the index. The Multiple Chute Aerial System I think it's called.
>This launch was set to be the 100th flight of the Atlas V rocket, and notably the first carrying humans.
The Atlas V is no longer being produced. Boeing purchased enough to fulfill the NASA crew contract. So far Vulcan has only launched once, and it sounds like ULA is waiting for someone to foot the bill before they human rate it.
>> So far Vulcan has only launched once, and it sounds like ULA is waiting for someone to foot the bill before they human rate it.
> They need a mission/system that requires that it be human rated otherwise there's no point in spending the time and money.
So, yes, they are waiting for someone to come along with the right kind of mission - who can foot the bill* for the man rating of Vulcan.
* even if that goes on the invoice as sundry extras
The Atlas was developed by Lockheed but it is operated by ULA which is 50-50 Lockheed Martin and Boeing. So Boeing do have some responsibility for the booster.
But in this instance they are doing everything they can to minimise the risk to the brave souls who will be riding the booster and trusting the capsule to keep them alive in an unsurvivable environment so good decision to abort and it whole be seen as such. No pressure should be brought on ULA to launch, not from press or shareholders or anywhere.
One day, Boeing's Starliner will carry a crew to the ISS, and we can retire the nickname "Calamity Capsule."
Or Boeing will add another 'catastrophe' to her name, their involvement gets canned, and the name sticks forever.
If things go pear-shaped I really don't want to see anyone die, but I'll shed no tears for Boeing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/08/boeing-plane-makes-emergency-landing-as-fails-to-deploy/
The nose gear failed to open, so the pilot had to make an emergency landing. Fortunately, nobody was injured, but I suspect the underside of the plane might need repainting.
Here is more detail about what the issue was.
https://youtu.be/HYh-0wmUykA
TLDR: It was only a routine issue on the Centaur that ordinarily could be fixed remotely on the pad. However, the flight rules prohibit making any change to the fuel system while the crew is on board. Therefore , they had to do a complete scrub in order to fix it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
