ULA Atlas V Launch Thread - Starliner CST-100 Orbital Flight Test

[Anonymous No.11238153]

benis rocket edition

WHEN: Friday, December 20 6:36 AM EST / 11:36:43 UTC
STREAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIDytLL734A
Probability of weather delay: 20%
Launch site: Space Launch Complex 41, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida (East Coast)
Payload: Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner
Purpose: Orbital Flight Test for the commercial crew program
Payload Mass & Destination Orbit: ~13,000kg; LEO (docks with the ISS ~24hr after launch)
Mission Profile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYACbP8eH38
Press Kit: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/commercialcrew_press_kit.pdf
Stats: This is the first flight of a DEC in its Common Centaur configuration; the 81st launch of the Atlas V and ULA's 136th mission.

Learn more:
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html
http://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/launch/index.html

[Anonymous No.11238156]

[Anonymous No.11238158]

[Anonymous No.11238162]

[Anonymous No.11238172]

[Anonymous No.11238173]

[Anonymous No.11238176]

odd fact; the Atlas has been fueled for a while already. Never knew that.

[Anonymous No.11238177]

[Anonymous No.11238178]

>>11238153
>11:36 UTC
so 8 hours from now?

[Anonymous No.11238185]

[Anonymous No.11238188]

>>11238178
20 hours

[Anonymous No.11238189]

[Anonymous No.11238192]

[Anonymous No.11238209]

>>11238153
>benis

[Anonymous No.11238313]

do you think Boeing will win an Emmy for the stream like SpaceX/NASA? hehe

[Anonymous No.11238325]

>>11238313
Boeing won’t be streaming, it’ll be NASA and ULA.

[Anonymous No.11238352]

probably wont explode unlike SpaceX's offerings

[Anonymous No.11238359]

Now people are just trying to bait angry responses...

[Anonymous No.11238363]

>>11238359
Sad. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.11238377]

These guys walk up to you in the KSC and smack your rocket’s thrust-structure, what do?

[Anonymous No.11238395]

>>11238377
expend them

[Anonymous No.11238403]

>>11238377
ask for a coupon for the space depot

[Anonymous No.11238688]

NSF pad stream soon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLI37bW4WDk

[Anonymous No.11238711]

>>11238377
>and over there you'll see the Propellant Depot...

[Anonymous No.11238726]

[Anonymous No.11238729]

[Anonymous No.11238744]

>>11238726
thats a big nozzle

[Anonymous No.11238765]

>>11238744
4u

[Anonymous No.11238771]

>>11238729

Is that Jim Bob?

[Anonymous No.11238774]

>>11238771
jim, mann and finke

[Anonymous No.11239413]

10 hours left

[Anonymous No.11239597]

who here /wakingupearly/?

[Anonymous No.11239598]

>>11239597
I fell asleep at like 3 pm and woke up at 8 pm and now my sleep schedule is fucked

[Anonymous No.11239638]

SAY IT WITH ME
>AMERICAN

[Anonymous No.11239642]

>>11239638
anon please we are civilized here, do not use meme template format posts

[Anonymous No.11239647]

>>11239642
>ON

[Anonymous No.11239655]

>>11239647
anon please what are you trying to say

[Anonymous No.11239658]

>>11239655
>SOIL

[Anonymous No.11239778]

>>11239658
UNDIES

[Anonymous No.11239873]

Does this mean Boeing is ahead of Space X?

[Anonymous No.11239880]

>>11239873
Wait for the in flight abort early next month to tell

[Anonymous No.11239893]

>>11239873
Boeing is catching up to SpaceX
we'll know after the in-flight abort next month, and the schedules for the crew missions start firming up

[Anonymous No.11239903]

interesting

[Anonymous No.11239947]

>>11239893
>>11239880
Would Boeing also have to go through the in flight abort test as well? Who comes up with these test plans? Is it NASA or do the contractors come up with a test plan and then NASA reviews it?

[Anonymous No.11239949]

>>11239947
Contractors came up with the test plans, Boeing did a pad abort test down in white sands

[Anonymous No.11240360]

Livestream is up!
https://youtu.be/PIDytLL734A

[Anonymous No.11240361]

Lunch soon

[Anonymous No.11240365]

I know Atlas is incredibly reliable and all, but I wonder what the insurance policy for the Blue Team is like, considering their spending close to 2 hours right next to a fully fuelled rocket venting cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen.

[Anonymous No.11240389]

10 min

[Anonymous No.11240398]

90 sec

hillary had epstein killed

[Anonymous No.11240401]

SpaceX snipers on standby

[Anonymous No.11240402]

>>11240401
this

[Anonymous No.11240403]

[Anonymous No.11240404]

>Using solids on a man-rated spacecraft in 2018+1

[Anonymous No.11240405]

why are they holding on to the srb's?

[Anonymous No.11240407]

Has there ever been uglier piece of shit?

[Anonymous No.11240411]

No rocket cam? No trajectory graphics? SpaceX has really spoiled me on launch webcasts.

[Anonymous No.11240415]

>>11240411
ULA usually have rocket cam on the second-stage and trajectory graphs, it’s not just SpaceX thing. Don’t know why that’s not the case today.

[Anonymous No.11240417]

Why is the control room full of fat boomers? Compare this to the SpaceX control room.

[Anonymous No.11240418]

>>11240407
Shuttle, at least, was a horrible beast of a super heavy launch vehicle with a monstrous orbiter astride it, this has stripped all the horrible beauty out but kept the ugly of Shuttle

[Anonymous No.11240419]

What a boring launch

[Anonymous No.11240422]

>>11240401
Kek

[Anonymous No.11240423]

>>11240415
Yeah I know. Though ULA launches had more bad CG models than rocket cams.

[Anonymous No.11240425]

Unironically want something to go wrong just so we only get spacex launches (and therefore graphics, cams) from now on

[Anonymous No.11240426]

>>11240417
I mean the SpaceX control room is full of skinny soiboys and Mexicans instead...

[Anonymous No.11240427]

>>11240423
They usually have a cam on the back of the Centaur tho

[Anonymous No.11240433]

>>11238313
Post Launch assessment, no.

[Anonymous No.11240434]

Not even an on screen T+ counter? What the FUCk

[Anonymous No.11240436]

Is it really that hard to slap camera on a rocket?

[Anonymous No.11240442]

>>11240436
No ULA do it all the time: >>11240427

[Anonymous No.11240449]

>>11240434
I see a CG model of Starliner at mission control. How hard is it to show that on the stream??? Or am I on the wrong stream?

[Anonymous No.11240452]

>>11240407
Does this look any better?

[Anonymous No.11240453]

Oh shit orbital maneuver delayed??

[Anonymous No.11240456]

Oh fuck lads, the RCS got it into orbit! We didn't lose it!

[Anonymous No.11240459]

Ahhhhhh

[Anonymous No.11240460]

>>11240452
that's a launch with a fairing, Dragon 2 on top of Falcon 9 is beautiful

[Anonymous No.11240464]

RIP

[Anonymous No.11240466]

did he just say off-nominal insertion?

[Anonymous No.11240470]

the absolute state of ULA

[Anonymous No.11240472]

>>11240466
"We do have an off nominal insertion reported, we do have spacecraft control. GNC team are assessing their next maneuvers, spacecraft batteries are good, and the spacecraft is in a stable orbit".

So is it in the proper orbit for ISS-docking or is it still in the suborbit?

[Anonymous No.11240478]

>>11240472
The astronaughts are fucking dead

[Anonymous No.11240482]

>>11240472
They said that the "orbital insertion burn" didn't happen, but they're also saying it's in a """""stable""""" orbit.

[Anonymous No.11240483]

OOH NONONNONONNO
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

BOEING BTFO
SPACEX WINS

[Anonymous No.11240484]

>>11240470
ULA did nothing wrong. This is all on Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11240485]

>>11240478
Fuck. No life-signs detected in the capsule.

[Anonymous No.11240486]

>>11240484
ula is boeing

[Anonymous No.11240487]

https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208002471701962752
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11240489]

they should go outside and fix the rocket i saw that in space movie on apple.

[Anonymous No.11240490]

STREAM ENDED

[Anonymous No.11240492]

>>11240486
Subsidiary. ULA as a launch provider has been good. Boeing, as a spacecraft manufacturer, seems to be going the same path as their aircraft division.

[Anonymous No.11240493]

>>11240487
If it software glitch it can be fixed, but if it something related with thrusters they're fucked.

[Anonymous No.11240495]

>>11239903
So was this the issue?

[Anonymous No.11240497]

78 km perigee
oh no

[Anonymous No.11240498]

>>11240495
we don't know!

[Anonymous No.11240503]

Why is commercial crew so cursed?

[Anonymous No.11240504]

This is what happens when you hire Indians to program your spacecraft for 25 cents per hour.

[Anonymous No.11240505]

nasa stream automatically took me to basedstronaut. Closed immediately

[Anonymous No.11240508]

Did they hire 737 max programmers?

[Anonymous No.11240509]

>>11240503
Isn't for spacex. They're doing fine.

[Anonymous No.11240510]

>>11240470
>>11240484
>>11240486
>>11240492
ULA did nothing wrong, once Starliner is separated, Atlas’ job is done. Also, ULA maybe a subsidiary of Boeing but it’s staffed by very different people and Atlas 5 is a Lockheed design.

[Anonymous No.11240512]

let's all dance on Boeing's grave

[Anonymous No.11240514]

>>11240509
well, fine is maybe a bit much.
better than Boeing, thats for sure

[Anonymous No.11240515]

>>11240509
I mean you wouldn’t have be saying that in April

[Anonymous No.11240517]

>>11240509
Anon, they blew up a capsule.

[Anonymous No.11240518]

>>11240510
ULA failed to achieve the desired orbit. Yikes. Look like spacex really is teabagging them to bankruptcy.

[Anonymous No.11240521]

>>11240515
>>11240517
Uh leaking oxidiser was fixed. Completely settled issue.

[Anonymous No.11240523]

>>11240521
But that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, his statement was that commercial crew is pretty cursed due to the issues it’s had/having.

[Anonymous No.11240524]

>>11240518
ULA wasn't supposed to send Starliner to Orbit.

[Anonymous No.11240525]

>>11240518
Source? They were first reporting attitude problems on the broadcast and then changed to this off-nominal insertion description (whatever that means).

[Anonymous No.11240527]

>>11240510
So who gonna blame who?

[Anonymous No.11240528]

Press conference at 9am eastern

[Anonymous No.11240530]

Boeing BTFO.
SpaceX BTFO.
Soyuz wins again.

[Anonymous No.11240532]

>>11240527
Boeing obviously, it was their engines on Starliner responsible for orbital insertion.

[Anonymous No.11240537]

>>11240530
>Boris with a drill

[Anonymous No.11240538]

>>11240530
>SpaceX BTFO.
?

Musk just started fapping to this news

[Anonymous No.11240540]

Was someone at Boeing expecting this to happen, and that's why the stream was so embarrassing?

[Anonymous No.11240542]

>>11240540
Space X snipers had an inside man

[Anonymous No.11240545]

Did they reuse the 737 MAX software? lol

[Anonymous No.11240546]

So what happened next? If the manage to relight engines will they still go to ISS?

[Anonymous No.11240548]

>>11240546
I doubt it. They probably even won't allow it get close if the issue is with attitude control.

[Anonymous No.11240549]

>>11240546
That "stable orbit" probably puts them to deorbit VERY soon. This is mission failure.

[Anonymous No.11240551]

Bruno just got MUSKED

[Anonymous No.11240552]

>>11240528

[Anonymous No.11240554]

GOT THAT BITCH DOT COM

[Anonymous No.11240555]

>>11240546
>>11240548
>>11240549
We should probably wait until the problem is revealed before speculating, but if it’s an ACS failure, NASA aren’t gonna let it within 100km of the ISS.

[Anonymous No.11240559]

>>11240551
I don’t know what Tory has to do with Boeing’s capsule...

[Anonymous No.11240562]

>>11240555
HULLO tweeted a capture of Starliner performing a burn 90 degrees to prograde. Whatever the issue is, it aint pretty.

[Anonymous No.11240564]

>>11240559
Oh yeah, I'm sure hes quite ambivalent that he won't be launching astronauts into space anytime soon and will instead be watching SpaceX

[Anonymous No.11240566]

>>11240559
the fucker is behind everything in space
just like how Obama was behind me not having enough milk for my cereal this morning

[Anonymous No.11240567]

>>11240562
>ywn be a prototype spacecraft dabbin on earth as you fly by

[Anonymous No.11240569]

>>11240564
I kinda feel bad for him. He's been tweeting about OFT and giving any and all updates on Atlas. Now his parent company is shitting the bed.

[Anonymous No.11240575]

wonder where it will splash down

[Anonymous No.11240577]

>>11240436
It was on for a bit

[Anonymous No.11240580]

>>11240575
hopefully directly on top of Zhongnanhai

[Anonymous No.11240581]

>>11240508
Kek

[Anonymous No.11240584]

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1208006636746330120

Did someone mix up Sine and Cosine in the code?

[Anonymous No.11240587]

I used to work with a guy who said "Boing! Boing!" whenever someone on the radio talked about Boeing's stocks.

He was a cool guy.

[Anonymous No.11240589]

>>11240562
>HULLO tweeted a capture of Starliner performing a burn 90 degrees to prograde. Whatever the issue is, it aint pretty.
>90 degrees to prograde.

was deja vu playing in the background?

[Anonymous No.11240590]

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1208011260559802368

s-sorry Rosukosumosu-kun. whaaaaa! it's not like I need a soyuz seat or anything! b-baka!

[Anonymous No.11240591]

if it’s Boeing...

[Anonymous No.11240599]

>>11240591
its going

[Anonymous No.11240600]

>>11240599
to have an issue with the angle of attack

[Anonymous No.11240604]

>>11240599
sideways

[Anonymous No.11240608]

>>11240599
suborbital

[Anonymous No.11240610]

>>11240600
I wonder how many news outlets is gonna use this for Starliner too if this really is a Attitude/Orientation issue.

[Anonymous No.11240612]

>>11240584
boeing became space -x

[Anonymous No.11240619]

and on that bombshell...

[Anonymous No.11240625]

From starlinerupdates.com (lol)

"The spacecraft currently is in a safe and stable configuration. Flight controllers have completed a successful initial burn and are assessing next steps.

Boeing and NASA are working together to review options for the test and mission opportunities available while the Starliner remains in orbit."

Sounds like they are going to do "other" tests now instead of the planned ISS docking.

[Anonymous No.11240626]

Lol they're now changing from "Stable Orbit" to "stable configuration"

[Anonymous No.11240627]

Musks face when

[Anonymous No.11240628]

Imagine if there were astronauts on board

[Anonymous No.11240629]

sorta reminds me of the ZUMA situation

[Anonymous No.11240630]

>announcer calls launch "The Rise of Starliner"
>it's an embarrassing failure
It's like poetry, it rhymes.

[Anonymous No.11240631]

>>11240625
>Sounds like they are going to do "other" tests now instead of the planned ISS docking.

They have to do a bunch of tests before Starliner gets permission to rendezvous with ISS anyway, it’s not an either or situation.

[Anonymous No.11240634]

>>11240630
One might even say that Boeing is a hack fraud?

[Anonymous No.11240637]

Lol the service Boeing used to create that update site has this to say on its site
>Jetty is designed to be used for high stress incidents
wew

[Anonymous No.11240638]

[Anonymous No.11240639]

>>11240631
I dont think they have the fuel to get to the ISS at this point. Sounds like they have used some for orbit maintenance. Just guessing.

[Anonymous No.11240641]

Boering on suicide watch.
Elon in Godmode.
All hail our saviour

[Anonymous No.11240642]

"A joint news conference will be held at 9 am Eastern on NASA TV. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11240643]

x>>11240608
it made it to orbit, TEL reports say 187x222 km
so it made it to orbit

[Anonymous No.11240646]

Update on the issue -
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208020657583341569?s=20

[Anonymous No.11240647]

>>11240639
I don’t think they need much fuel to get to the ISS, they will just have to wait for a later alignment. The real problem could be if their off nominal insertion burn altered the capsule’s inclination, inclinations changes take a lot of fuel.

[Anonymous No.11240648]

>>11240647
I win.
https://twitter.com/JimBridenstine/status/1208021843388633090?s=20

[Anonymous No.11240649]

>>11240646
Starliner prematurely ejaculated, causing it to miss any action with lady ISS.

[Anonymous No.11240651]

Someone explain the dead bands he’s talking about

[Anonymous No.11240654]

Jesus Christ, Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11240657]

Well, at least they still have opportunity to recover it in intended landing zone.

[Anonymous No.11240660]

>>11240542
They have orbital snipers now.

[Anonymous No.11240661]

>>11240642
Just clicked on it and it says 9:30 AM ET... which is good because I just woke up and trying to catch up on what happened first.

[Anonymous No.11240662]

>>11240642
moved to 9:30
"9:30 a.m. – Boeing Orbital Flight Test Launch Team post-launch news conference"

[Anonymous No.11240664]

So is it software problem? It would be fucking funny after their plane problems.

[Anonymous No.11240666]

RESULTS!

[Anonymous No.11240668]

>>11240664
It was a clock problem...

[Anonymous No.11240669]

>Tim Dodd gets called out for apologizing for Boeing/ULA
>"I AM NOT, IM THE BIGGEST FAN OF SPACEX"

Not helping timmy

[Anonymous No.11240670]

>Boeing
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11240671]

>>11240669
>I-I-'M NOT SHILLING FOR THEM GOY-I-I MEAN GUYS
>ALSO YOU ARE IDIOTS

[Anonymous No.11240672]

>>11240666
I don’t know why your bringing ULA into this, considering they just performed a successful launch.

[Anonymous No.11240676]

>>11240664
The good news is there were no vertical stabilizers on it!

And they were still kind of close behind SpaceX on that flag race.

[Anonymous No.11240677]

>MAX 8 SECONDS FLIGHT TIME

[Anonymous No.11240678]

>>11240612
underrated.

[Anonymous No.11240681]

>>11240660
reusable orbital snipers

[Anonymous No.11240683]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR MONEY US TAXPAYER BROS
also THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY THANKS YOU FOR FUNDING OUR FURTHER MISSIONS

[Anonymous No.11240686]

>>11240651
When you maneuver, you are never 100% on point. You allow some error, go past your target, refine that after a few seconds, and basically kinda overshoot on multiple sides but stay within some percentage of a degree of your targeted attitude.
These allowable errors for which you do not correct are tightened during a powered burn because you want the impulse precisely aimed; additionally, the propulsion can introduce larger, sudden errors. This tightens your allowable error and you must improve the reaction time of your rcs.

This state uses more rcs recourses, overcorrecting and keeping too tight a lock.

[Anonymous No.11240691]

"The ISS rendezvous has been cancelled, as Starliner used up too much fuel due to the off-nominal orbit insertion."

THE STATE OF B*EING

[Anonymous No.11240695]

wtf bros..
how do we win against it?.. it's too powerful

[Anonymous No.11240698]

So is this what you call an "orbital abort test"?

[Anonymous No.11240705]

>>11240695

[Anonymous No.11240709]

Ironically this mission would have been successful if a crew had been on board, who would have been able to manually stop the off-nominal burn.

[Anonymous No.11240711]

>>11240672
Wasn't the whole reason for those goofy thrusters on Starliner because A5/Centaur couldn't give it enough boost?

[Anonymous No.11240713]

>>11240695

[Anonymous No.11240714]

>>11240709
As an astronaut I would love to set foot in a spacecraft made by Boeing :^)

[Anonymous No.11240720]

>>11240695
send more gopnik workers to Roskosmos

[Anonymous No.11240721]

>>11240713
what is he doing?

[Anonymous No.11240723]

>>11240711
No, it was to keep the spacecraft in safer path so that a abort would be easier on passengers

Actually read instead of saying stupid shit

[Anonymous No.11240726]

>>11240711
No, it was primarily due to wanting a flatter trajectory to reduce Gs and allow Starliner to abort safely throughout the entire ascent. Secondary reasons for it apparently include Boeing wanting to burn off leftover propellant from the abort system and to allow Starliner to re-enter if it’s thrusters fail, instead of being stranded in orbit without a way to return. It’s really neat honestly.

[Anonymous No.11240727]

>>11240711
cutting away at the insulation to find the hole

[Anonymous No.11240729]

Boeing is a dumpster fire across the board.

[Anonymous No.11240730]

>>11240727
>>11240721

[Anonymous No.11240734]

>>11240721
cutting away the insulation to check out the sealant used to fill the drill hole in the orbital module from the outside before they de-orbit it

https://youtu.be/eBQqk8cc7MM?t=18073

[Anonymous No.11240738]

>>11240721

MS-09 had a hole drilled into the spacecraft and was covered up by something, they had to perform a spacewalk and cut open the protective covering to take a closer look at it from the outside and take samples to help in the investigation to see whether it was an act of sabotage or a quick coverup of of an act of incompetence.

[Anonymous No.11240742]

say hello to your pilot!

[Anonymous No.11240743]

>>11240695
>>11240713

We just need to admit defeat and recognize that 21st century CAD and CNC-driven overengineering will never be able to hold a candle to a Kruschev-era Soviet space tractor that launches on glorified V-2 engines lit with literal matchsticks and for 50 years needed to have the launchpad aimed down the orbital inclination like a giant NERF foam rocket because the analog flight computer could only navigate along a single plane.

[Anonymous No.11240746]

>>11240742
nice gif, I can almost make out a person in it

[Anonymous No.11240748]

>>11240721
As a Soyuz Spacecraft Stabber, he plays a similar role to the ULA snipers, only up close and personal. He is attempting to sabotage the spacecraft and get away without detection.

[Anonymous No.11240750]

>>11240723
>Actually read instead of saying stupid shit
I'm sorry, read what? Boeing doesn't exactly make it easy to find out details about their shit, and if you mean in this thread, I just fucking woke up.
And it wasn't "saying stupid shit", I was asking a fucking question.

[Anonymous No.11240751]

>>11240746
woops sorry

[Anonymous No.11240753]

>NASA can't even have press conferences on time

DEFUND

[Anonymous No.11240758]

https://youtu.be/21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11240760]

>>11240738
i was wondering if it was about this
>>11240748
elon musk must have wanted his revenge for being prohibited from buying a soyuz

[Anonymous No.11240764]

Someone on Everyday Astronaut's stream said that RCS stood for Residual Confidence Spent, which i found slightly amusing

[Anonymous No.11240765]

>>11240751
Watching his Stream. Dude's a crybaby.
>Muh #TeamSpace

Love Chat Wilding tho.

[Anonymous No.11240767]

>>11240738
>and was covered up by something
My guess is Ivan had a bit too much vodka, and maybe his babushka was angry at him, so he started drilling holes, and one made it through. Then when either he sobered up or Boris came by and saw it, he covered up the hole with some epoxy. Since it was put in from the inside, there wouldn't have been much to hold it on the back side, and over two weeks it slowly weakened until it popped in and started the slow leak.
Then Rogozin made his stupid remark about how it might have been one of the Amerikanski astronauts that drilled it so he could go home early, because of course none of the cosmonauts would have done such a thing.

[Anonymous No.11240771]

IT BEGINS

[Anonymous No.11240772]

meanwhile at the ISS

[Anonymous No.11240775]

What happened with the starliner did it explode?

[Anonymous No.11240776]

>Today, a lot of things went right!
Space is hard, bros!

[Anonymous No.11240777]

Presser starting. I did not expect Starliner's Press Conference would have been worse than Elon's droning on during DM-1.

[Anonymous No.11240781]

[Anonymous No.11240782]

>>11240775
We should have been so lucky, it just fucked up its insertion burn by using up too much fuel. Kerbal would have had a much more fun failure.
>Boeing
>software problem
Now he's saying the burn happened during a gap between TDRIS sats and they couldn't talk to it. That's bad luck but it doesn't fix the Boeing-tier software.
>B-b-but muh no crew on board to stop it!

[Anonymous No.11240783]

>>11240765
90% of e-celebs have terminal brain cancer

[Anonymous No.11240785]

>>11240775
Somebody set the mission clock wrong, it made it to orbit but won't make it to the ISS

[Anonymous No.11240786]

>>11240775
Not yet, but it's in a very low orbit that should decay within days.

[Anonymous No.11240794]

>>11240785
gonna be 10 billion tex dollars to get a now clock

[Anonymous No.11240795]

Landing at White Sands in 48 hours. Glad they have the issue worked out and have been able to manually implement a backup.

[Anonymous No.11240796]

>>11240776
>set clock wrong
>s-space is hard b-bros

[Anonymous No.11240797]

Bruh

[Anonymous No.11240800]

US ASTRONAUTS
US ROCKETS
US SOIL

[Anonymous No.11240801]

So the big question: are they going to have to do it again? NASA is rightly grouchy about shit approaching ISS, so are they going to have to do another unmanned launch first? Or does Boeing get yet another free pass on a "mostly successful" test?

[Anonymous No.11240804]

>>11240801
I doubt they will get a free pass as it was a mission failure.

[Anonymous No.11240807]

>>11240800
RUSSIAN ENGINES

[Anonymous No.11240809]

>>11240797
>the little RCS that did his best

[Anonymous No.11240810]

>>11240801
SpaceX will be able to approach the ISS next flight with astronauts after blowing up a capsule, for comparison. Boeing will go through hell to fix avionics issues like this and SpaceX probably have the flag now unless they drop the ball again.

[Anonymous No.11240816]

>>11240751
"I'm so excited for China!"

Yep, fuck Tienanmen and Hong Kong, THEY LOVE STAR WARS JUST LIKE ME!

[Anonymous No.11240818]

>>11240810
>>after blowing up a capsule
>On the ground
>After it already had a perfect flight, and NASA isn't letting them re-use capsules, unlike Boeing
>When telemetry showed it wasn't the engines
>When they found the cause and fixed it
>When it was months ago and they still won't be doing the manned launch for at least 2-3 months more
Meanwhile, Boeing gets a pass for a chute not popping at all during the ground abort test.

[Anonymous No.11240822]

>>11240801
It seems like they have enough fuel for some orbital demonstrations, if they find the root cause of the failure and do a successful dress-rehearsal of an ISS approach in their current orbit, I don’t think NASA will make them fly uncrewed again.

[Anonymous No.11240823]

>>11240818
Exactly. SpaceX had a problem and spent a few months fixing it and now the problem's over. Boeing just had a problem, and now will spend a few months fixing it.

[Anonymous No.11240824]

>>11240797
fucking mechjeb, so god damn inefficient

[Anonymous No.11240830]

>737 MAX: GARBAGE
>KC-46: GARBAGE
>STARLINER: GARBAGE

Goddamn did the MD merger really kill Boeing.

[Anonymous No.11240832]

>>11240823
>Boeing just had a problem, and now will spend a few months fixing it.

It depends on the severity of the problem, could be a really easy fix considering it’s just a timing issue.

[Anonymous No.11240833]

Stop with the fearmongering it's just unmanned test capsule nothing to see here.

[Anonymous No.11240835]

>>11240832
SpaceX only had a valve issue. No matter how simple it is, NASA is going to make it complicated.

[Anonymous No.11240837]

>>11240830

It has to be the ghost of the DC-10 spreading its curse onto Boeing everywhere, manifesting itself as software.

[Anonymous No.11240838]

Here's a tip for the guys at Boeing

[Anonymous No.11240839]

>>11240837
Software is bottom of the totem pole at Boeing

[Anonymous No.11240840]

>>11240804
It's Boeing. If they don't get a free pass someone's not getting a retirement.

[Anonymous No.11240845]

So maybe they're going to pretend to do this in their failed orbit?

[Anonymous No.11240849]

>>11240845
among other things

[Anonymous No.11240856]

>>11238153
Mike is a really nice guy, I don't want to see him die on Boeing's shit liner

How do we save him boys?

[Anonymous No.11240859]

>>11240838
So was it really a "clock" issue?

[Anonymous No.11240861]

>>11240856
Ironically, today’s issue wouldn’t have happened if he and the other astronauts had been onboard.

[Anonymous No.11240862]

Remember the good old days of the space shuttle and manned controls? Before these autonomous systems started shitting up our flight vehicles *sips* ah nothing like the good old days.

[Anonymous No.11240866]

>>11240698
Abort from orbit works as planned.

[Anonymous No.11240867]

>>11240859
And a satellite coverage issue

[Anonymous No.11240869]

>>11240861
Can this meme die? By this logic, none of the 737 maxes should have crashed because there should have been a pilot there to shut-off the MCAS system. You can't just assume the pilots would fix the issue.

[Anonymous No.11240871]

Fucking snipers ruining spaceflight progress s m h

[Anonymous No.11240872]

>>11240861
somehow I have a hard time believing Boeing right now

they have proven to be liars over and over

we will see how the re-entry goes, I have my doubts about that

[Anonymous No.11240874]

>>11240869
Teslarati cope

[Anonymous No.11240880]

>>11240839
>Software is bottom of the totem pole at Boeing
Boeing is good at hardware but stupidly ignorant with software.

[Anonymous No.11240883]

>>11240872
It should have MAXimum chute coverage at 737m altitude. At least it is planned to go down from there

[Anonymous No.11240884]

>>11240880
Stupidly, retardedly ignorant with software.
Buddy of mine who worked in Charleston for them said every single project he took seriously died (because nobody was actually using it and they were just paying people to keep it working for no reason)

[Anonymous No.11240890]

>>11240872
I'll be laughing my ass off if the parachutes not-failed again.

[Anonymous No.11240901]

>>11240823
>>11240832
Spacex's problem was something that happened on the ground after a successful flight
Their problem was one that can be fully tested on the ground, and will be tested again in flight before flying astronauts.
Boeing failed to even make their intended orbit, they should be forced to fly this mission again to prove their problem is fixed.

[Anonymous No.11240910]

>>11240901
At least it will spin up the market for Expandable Rockets

[Anonymous No.11240915]

they aren't honestly considering docking crew to station before an uncrewed starliner has docked?

[Anonymous No.11240916]

>>11240861
That's a meme. If they were on board, they wouldn't have gotten the update from the satellites anyway to contact with ground control.

[Anonymous No.11240919]

>>11240786
So? It‘s designed to survive reentry.

[Anonymous No.11240927]

>>11240915
Jim B may not want to pay more Soyuz Seats so he's keeping the option open.

[Anonymous No.11240928]

>>11240927
Might want to see a doctor to see if he has Go Fever.

[Anonymous No.11240963]

>>11240927
Just fly dragon twice next year :^)

[Anonymous No.11240965]

>>11240915
>yfw they go directly to crewed docking
>yfw it explodes on contact with ISS, killing everyone and floods LEO with debris for a decade
>mars by 2040 guys!! (since boeing fucked space until then)

[Anonymous No.11240975]

would it have saved the mission?

[Anonymous No.11240983]

>>11240910
Maybe they can fly it on a re-used F9?

[Anonymous No.11240986]

>>11240983
And have a finely crafted AMERICAN capsule touch a filthy REUSABLE FOREIGN rocket? NO WAY! How DARE you think about tainting proud AMERICAN spaceflight!

[Anonymous No.11240991]

>>11240986
DEPOT
E
P
O
T

[Anonymous No.11240992]

>>11240862
>Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1.

[Anonymous No.11240994]

>>11240862
No because the space shuttle operated on autonomous controls with redundant computer systems. Actually even the Apollo 11 had redundant computer systems for flight automation and translating controls.
Get bent, zoomer.

[Anonymous No.11240996]

>>11240991
WHO DARES SPEAKETH THAT ACCURSED WORD!

[Anonymous No.11241004]

>>11240996
>>11240986
Shelby-memes are great desu

[Anonymous No.11241051]

>>11240915
You want the American Flag left there by the Last American Space shuttle fall in the hands of dirty PRIVATEERS!?
I'll be damn if it doesn't dock this wouldn't have happened if it had people on board already.

[Anonymous No.11241055]

>>11240965
Yeah but think about all the movies we will make about the event

[Anonymous No.11241123]

>>11240975
Only if there was also an unmanned finger to press it.

>>11241051
Please calm down Mr. Senator. We're doing all we can to hold back SpaceX about the parachutes.

>>11241055
>Houston, I think we have a... clock problem?

[Anonymous No.11241127]

>>11240986
Atlas and Antares are more foreign than Falcon (Russian and Ukrainian parts).
Or is the administration considering California a foreign power now?

[Anonymous No.11241134]

>>11241127
>California is a foreign power
correct

[Anonymous No.11241136]

Someone give me the tl;dr on all this. How bad is the situation?

[Anonymous No.11241144]

>>11241136
They set their clock wrong and got themselves stuck in the wrong orbit.
They‘ll probably do a little bit of the song and dance that they had planned for success in the wrong orbit instead.
The problem itself is probably minor and might just take an adjustement of procedures. It‘s up to Nasa if they want to risk a crew on a vehicle that never proved docking successfully before.
It seems crazy to consider the idea, but this is Boeing, they usually get away with ridiculous shit.

[Anonymous No.11241158]

>>11241136
minor problem leading to a bad looking situation, but Boeing had several minutes to salvage it, instead of a few milliseconds, so nothing did an unplanned reentry/exploded

[Anonymous No.11241164]

>>11241136
Engines burned too much fuel because the clock was set wrong, and vehicle status was being determined from it, so it can't reach ISS.

Something in the computers decided it was already in orbit because of the wrong clock, so it used a higher resolution course correction or something. And it happened during a gap in TDRS coverage, so they couldn't stop it right away.
So they're going to try to argue that ascent and landing was more important for the first mission being unmanned, and that this was "good enough", just like the launch abort test when one parachute failed to open, and it landed in a big fog of NTO. (Orange cloud bad!)

[Anonymous No.11241165]

>>11241144
>>11241158
Cool, that's what it sounded like. So definitely something that hits the 'worry' button but not TOO bad. Is it possible they'll delay the first crewed mission and just do another orbital test?

[Anonymous No.11241170]

>>11241165
they're going to get mired in paperwork for months like SpaceX was after their anomaly, hopefully
they'll probably just do the crewed test after they work through the paperwork

[Anonymous No.11241174]

>>11241164
So someone fucked up the computer programming then

>>11241170
I hope it's not too big of a setback.

I don't want a huge disaster to turn the public away from space travel, jesus

[Anonymous No.11241176]

>>11241174
yes, Boeing doesn't take software seriously and fucks their programmers over constantly

[Anonymous No.11241177]

>Mr Bridenstine remained upbeat, taking the positives out of the day's events.
>"A lot of things went right," he said. "This is why we test."
>The Administrator then suggested that had astronauts been in the capsule, they could have fixed the fault and re-directed the craft to the space station.
>Nasa astronaut Mike Fincke, who has already been selected to fly on a future Starliner, agreed with this assessment.
>"Had we been on board, we could have given the flight control team more options on what to do in this situation," he said.
It's gonna get a pass... WHAT A FUCKING JOKE....

[Anonymous No.11241181]

>>11241174
>I don't want a huge disaster to turn the public away from space travel
It would be even worse if a completely Boeing fuck-up causes SpaceX to take a hit in public opinion too.

[Anonymous No.11241184]

>>11241176
But...but isn't that kind of important when everything is automated? lol

[Anonymous No.11241191]

>>11241174
sir pls do not making fun of my programing skils it top notch sir

[Anonymous No.11241196]

>>11241158
>minor problem leading to a bad looking situation
That isn't a minor problem at all, they're now incapable of reaching the ISS and the mission has failed. The situation doesn't 'look' bad, it is bad. At least pretend to be reasonable in your assessment of the situation, BIDF.

[Anonymous No.11241209]

Whats the next step in Boeing's master plan?

[Anonymous No.11241212]

>>11241209
Maybe the capsule wanted to head to Mars instead of ISS?

[Anonymous No.11241221]

>>11241209
Invest more in their sniper squads

[Anonymous No.11241245]

>>11241196
Agree. If they used a fully reusable vechicle they could have another go. But in this situation they've lost a rocket.

[Anonymous No.11241252]

>>11241245
Imagine if they threw away four RS-25 engines, only for the "third stage" to fuck up.

[Anonymous No.11241255]

>>11241252
isn't Orion designed by Lockheed Martin?

[Anonymous No.11241274]

AHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF BOEING!

[Anonymous No.11241318]

Still can't believe NASA picked a shitty Apollo wannabe over a true god

[Anonymous No.11241329]

>>11241274
I love the headlines.
If this was SpaceX we would have seen
*aham*
>craft will crash land on earth
>another failure of spacex
>craft failed to dock

[Anonymous No.11241336]

>>11241252

It still hurts my that they are willingly throwing away those iconic Shuttle engines into the sea instead of making more of the brand new ones and using those instead. The legacy RS-25's are part of our heritage for crying out loud, they belong in a museum!!

[Anonymous No.11241342]

>>11241329
OH NOEZ NOT TEH DRUDEG TOO

[Anonymous No.11241355]

>>11240994
Was memeing Bridenstine from the press conference buddy. He literally says this at 32:18.

https://youtu.be/NpQlxN4xbKM

[Anonymous No.11241376]

>>11240555
>We should probably wait until the problem is revealed before speculating
I wish to understand the emotional substructure of this attitude. let’s start with assessing the damage done by premature speculation and we shall see that it is zero. why do you disagree?

[Anonymous No.11241377]

>>11241376
well it wastes my time
we could be sitting here and laughing at Boeing but instead we're polluting the discourse with garbage

[Anonymous No.11241388]

>>11241377
if you blink some cues in Morse, we might be able to find out where are you held prisoner by those evil people who force you to read these threads.

[Anonymous No.11241391]

>>11241388

[Anonymous No.11241401]

>>11240629
You mean in the sense that the launch vehicle performed perfectly and the payload immediately shit the bed?

[Anonymous No.11241484]

>>11240713
fucking black astronaut trying to steal the stereo from the soyuz, can't expect anything else with americans

[Anonymous No.11241518]

>>11241484
actually it's a gopnik

[Anonymous No.11241524]

>>11240797
lol it literally looks like ksp game gone wrong in which he just eyeballed where to start the gravity turn and has to burn verticlaly to avoid getting backinto the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.11241532]

>>11241524
every single rocket is like that, it's really weird

[Anonymous No.11241533]

Didnt the starliner caspule also had an issue in which the thrusters during the abort cut the strings from the chutes and then it basically sprays the astronauts with hydrazine?

[Anonymous No.11241542]

>>11241533
yes, what a good failure mode

[Anonymous No.11241626]

>>11241318
indeed, Dream Chaser is a beauty. The shuttle concept, right-sized.

[Anonymous No.11241640]

>>11241626
>the shuttle concept, right-sized
that's literally not Starship

[Anonymous No.11241650]

>>11241209
Additional investigation into spacex parachute failures that could possibly strand our American astronauts in space with no means of returning back home alive. 6-18 months will suffice. Do it.

[Anonymous No.11241707]

Can't trust Boeing anymore. Planes, shutes, and now this... company has become GM

[Anonymous No.11241724]

>>11241707
Being both too big and too well connected to fail inevitably leads to failure.

[Anonymous No.11241835]

>>11241640
By "shuttle concept", interpret that as an orbiter with fixed wings capable of landing on conventional runways.

[Anonymous No.11241838]

>>11241835
incorrect, the "shuttle concept" refers to a reusable orbital vehicle, preferably with significant [math]\Delta[/math]v to enable it to act as it's own second stage
as you can see, the STS as deployed diverged significantly from this concept (which is why it failed)

[Anonymous No.11241842]

>>11241838
>semantics
No one cares anymore. It does the aircraft-like return mode properly without being a complete pain in the ass to fly again, which is what most people focus on.

[Anonymous No.11241843]

>>11241842
the word for that is VTHL, and is merely an accessory to the shuttle concept

[Anonymous No.11241948]

>>11239873
No.

[Anonymous No.11241953]

>>11241948
lol, that post did not age well

[Anonymous No.11242452]

>>11240743
they don't think it be like it is, comrade, but it do

[Anonymous No.11242667]

>>11241953
Right?

[Anonymous No.11242676]

>>11240425
uhhhh based?