Boeing Starliner Orbital Flight Test (OFT)

[DocM 16,618]

OFT = Orbital Flight Test

 

Un-crewed, like Crew Dragon DM-1 earlier this year.

 

NASA...

 

Oct. 24, 2019

MEDIA ADVISORY M19-116

NASA Invites Media to Boeing Orbital Flight Test Launch for Commercial Crew

Media accreditation is open for Boeings uncrewed Orbital Flight Test (OFT) to the International Space Station, as part of NASAs Commercial Crew Program.

The launch of Boeings Starliner spacecraft on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket is targeted for Dec. 17 from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida.

The flight test will provide valuable data on the end-to-end performance of the Atlas V rocket, Starliner spacecraft, and ground systems, as well as in-orbit, docking, and landing operations. The data will be used as part of NASAs process of certifying Boeings crew transportation system for carrying astronauts to and from the space station.

Media prelaunch and launch activities will take place at neighboring NASAs Kennedy Space Center and CCAFS.

Media accreditation deadlines are as follows:

International media without U.S. citizenship must apply by 11:59 p.m. EDT Sunday, Oct. 27, for access to Kennedy media activities.
U.S. media must apply by 4 p.m. EST Friday, Nov. 15.
All accreditation requests should be submitted online at:

https://media.ksc.nasa.gov
>

 

[Unobscured Vision 2,678]

/sigh ....  

 

This SM and capsule needs massive changes to it's Recovery and Retropropulsion systems. It's going to kill people.

[DocM 16,618]

I'm hoping the skirt over the upper portion of the Centaur upper stage does its job; preventing aerodynamic loads from crushing the Centaur.

 

Setup: Starliner masses about 13,000 kg. The heaviest payload Atlas V has previously orbited was a Cygnus cargo vehicle at 7,492 kg.

 

Payoff: the Atlas V N22 (no fairing, 2 solid boosters, 2 engine Centaur) has insufficient deltaV to both insert Starliner into orbit and for Centaur to re-enter for disposal. 

As a result, Starliner is inserted into a sub-orbital trajectory and must burn its service module engines to make orbit.

Edited November 17 by DocM

[Unobscured Vision 2,678]

Yep. I'm of the opinion that the Atlas needs to be the N552 variant with custom flight software to adjust for black zones + g-load alleviation. That's the only way to get it uphill with fuel margins. Throw the damned kitchen sink at getting it into the parking orbit.

 

/sigh ...

 

Seriously, this is how they're gonna do it, huh.

 

We said before -- YEARS AGO -- that this spacecraft was going to be too much for an Atlas V as they described doing it. Effing jokers.

 

I'd feel better about it if they'd use a Delta 4 Heavy. Get it human rated (build in the needed systems and safeties, etc) and use that. Atlas V isn't the rocket for the job.

[DocM 16,618]

2 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

>

I'd feel better about it if they'd use a Delta 4 Heavy. Get it human rated (build in the needed systems and safeties, etc) and use that. Atlas V isn't the rocket for the job.

 

I believe "the plan" is to only fly Starliner on Atlas V until Vulcan-Centaur V is ready. They've even sized Vulcan-Centaur V's tanks etc. so the Crew Access Arm wouldn't need extensive mods for Boeing' Starliner or Sierra Nevada Corp's Dream Chaser.

 

Note: Centaur V is a 5.4 meter diameter Centaur upper stage vs. the existing 3 meter Centaur III.

 

Mass to LEO

 

Vulcan-Centaur V (2 SRBs): 14,300 kg

Vulcan-Centaur V Heavy (6 SRBs): 27,900 kg

 

Pushing Starliner to LEO would be no problem.

 

And let's be honest here; Vulcan is actually Delta V with a fuel switch from liquid hydrogen to methane - a re-branding.

Edited November 17 by DocM

[IsItPluggedIn 1,684]

Are they still building Vulcan? I have not heard anything about it for a while. If i remember correctly they were trying to get funds from the airforce to build it.

 

 

If they are having such issues with a 522 why not use the 542 or 552, is there a technical issue or does it just cost them more?

 

[DocM 16,618]

1 hour ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Are they still building Vulcan? I have not heard anything about it for a while. If i remember correctly they were trying to get funds from the airforce to build it.[/quote]

 

Slowed because of Blue Origin's BE-4 methane engine being stuck in development hell. For many months they couldn't run it higher than 70%, and, Blue being Blue, their process is tortoise-like.

Quote

 

If they are having such issues with a 522 why not use the 542 or 552, is there a technical issue or does it just cost them more?

 

Its an N22, "No" fairing.

 

Adding solid rocket boosters (SRBs) incrementally increases risk to the crew, remember Challenger?  Never know when one will do this (which is why SpaceX avoids solids like the plague),

 

 

Edited November 17 by DocM

[Unobscured Vision 2,678]

Vulcan-Centaur ... gah I'd love for them to get away from that stupid assed Centaur engine. 1950's tech. 

[DocM 16,618]

6 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Vulcan-Centaur ... gah I'd love for them to get away from that stupid assed Centaur engine. 1950's tech. 

 

Centaur V is essentially a 5.4m ACES stage minus the Integrated Vehicle Fluids hardware (Rousch Racing 6 cylinder piston engine for pumping and generation - running off ullage gases, etc.) Two tank lengths, depending on the mission requirements; 11.7 m (standard) or 13.6 m (Centaur V Long) 

 

RL-10 has evolved. The RL10C-X is a largely 3D printed by prototype of  RL10C-1-1, Vulcan-Centaur's engine.

 

 

RL10C-3 will be used for SLS's Exploration Upper Stage.

 

RL10C-5-1 will be used for Northrop-Grumman's Omega upper stage.

 

Edited November 18 by DocM