Starliner launch scrubbed due to valve issue
Yesterday’s Starliner launch was scrubbed before launch because ULA had detected an issue with a valve on the Atlas-5’s Centaur upper stage, causing that valve to flutter because it had not closed in the proper position.
At the press conference that followed, ULA’s CEO Tory Bruno explained that during an unmanned launch, engineers would have simply cycled the valve, which almost always works to get it to seat properly. ULA launch rules however forbids it from doing so on a manned launch, because that would be the equivalent of fueling the tank with people on board the rocket. The Atlas-5 was initially not built for manned flights, and though it has been upgraded to man-rate it, those upgrades did not permit ULA this capability, unlike SpaceX’s Falcon 9, which get fueled entirely after the crew boards Dragon.
They are reviewing the data to see if the valve will need to be replaced. If not, the launch could happen quickly. If it does, the launch will be delayed slightly longer, but not significantly. Right now ULA, NASA, and Boeing are targeting a May 10th launch.
It is worth listening to Tory Bruno’s explanation of the situation because of its clarity. I have embedded his comments below, time-stamped to when he began speaking.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Yesterday’s Starliner launch was scrubbed before launch because ULA had detected an issue with a valve on the Atlas-5’s Centaur upper stage, causing that valve to flutter because it had not closed in the proper position.
At the press conference that followed, ULA’s CEO Tory Bruno explained that during an unmanned launch, engineers would have simply cycled the valve, which almost always works to get it to seat properly. ULA launch rules however forbids it from doing so on a manned launch, because that would be the equivalent of fueling the tank with people on board the rocket. The Atlas-5 was initially not built for manned flights, and though it has been upgraded to man-rate it, those upgrades did not permit ULA this capability, unlike SpaceX’s Falcon 9, which get fueled entirely after the crew boards Dragon.
They are reviewing the data to see if the valve will need to be replaced. If not, the launch could happen quickly. If it does, the launch will be delayed slightly longer, but not significantly. Right now ULA, NASA, and Boeing are targeting a May 10th launch.
It is worth listening to Tory Bruno’s explanation of the situation because of its clarity. I have embedded his comments below, time-stamped to when he began speaking.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Booster is an Atlas V N22 model (No fairing=N, 2 strapon boosters=2, 2 RL-10 engines=2) not a Vulcan. Not yet certified for Vulcan if ever.
When are these companies just going to admit it and launch their ships on a Falcon 9? At least until their launchers are more reliable.
Not surprised Bob wrote Vulcan instead of Atlas V.
It’s 2024, I think it’s unlikely Boeing/ULA originally thought Starliner would be launching on an Atlas V in 2024.
Starliner was supposed to be in service years ago, had things gone according to plan the supply of Russian RD-180 engines should have been exhausted.
Have to figure ULA was planning on having Vulcan qualified to take over from Atlas V.
Between Boeing and Blue Origin it’s a good thing we have Falcon/Dragon!
Mitch S: Gosh, I didn’t realize until now that I slipped and typed Vulcan instead of Atlas-5 that first time. Now fixed.
”When are these companies just going to admit it and launch their ships on a Falcon 9? At least until their launchers are more reliable.”
1) The whole point in having two crew providers is to have dissimilar redundancy.
2) Atlas V is already more reliable than Falcon 9 (.9901 vs. .9880).
mkent wrote: “Atlas V is already more reliable than Falcon 9 (.9901 vs. .9880).”
I suspect that those are numbers for launches after they have lifted off the pad, but I also suspect that scrubs and other non-weather, launch-vehicle related delays would reduce those reliability numbers. Monday’s scrub would count for one of those scrubs. In your mind, dear reader, does Monday’s scrub reduce the vehicle’s reliability?
Edward: An excellent point. SpaceX launches nowadays are almost never scrubbed for technical reasons. Atlas-5 launches are quite routinely. For efficiency and profit the difference can be significant.
”In your mind, dear reader, does Monday’s scrub reduce the vehicle’s reliability?”
Of course not, by definition of the word “reliability”, as used by the launch industry. The payload still exists in usable form.
”SpaceX launches nowadays are almost never scrubbed for technical reasons.”
That’s incorrect. It happens quite frequently. It happened just last night, in fact, to Starlink 8-2. That flight was originally scheduled for April 28, re-scheduled to May 4th, re-scheduled again to May 8th, re-scheduled yet again to May 9th, and then re-scheduled at least one more time to May 10th.
The previous flight from Vandenberg was even worse. After the payload had been encapsulated (so I’m not counting the numerous lengthy payload delays here) the fairing recovery vessel was sent out to sea, brought back in, sent out to sea again, brought back in again, and finally sent out to sea once more. We know these were launch attempts from the NOTAMs, and SpaceX normally waits out weather delays out at sea, so these delays were almost certainly not weather related.
But unlike ULA, SpaceX doesn’t normally announce their delays unless they happen during a webcast (and sometimes not even then). And since most SpaceX webcasts now start at T-minus 4 minutes and include only the countdown net, most SpaceX delays are never even announced, let alone explained. You have to figure them out from the NOTAMs, marine traffic, and weather reports.
So while SpaceX is hands down the world’s most prolific launch provider and its reliability is quite good, its reliability is not better than ULA’s, and its dispatch reliability probably isn’t either.
MKent,
Welcome back!
I was just thinking of you while I was posting in another thread.
MKent,
Adding to your comment about the reliability of the Atlas. I off-handedly proposed on this site to have all the Atlas 5 launches left to be re-manifested on the Falcon. When the Atlas is gone there will be no more redundancy for manned launches. As soon as SpaceX, “the fair-haired” boys who have seemed licked all the problems with launching to their “supporters”, has their bad day that is coming, we will be asking the Russians to save the Space Station.
As I recall, you got into trouble for dissing SpaceX’s “supporters” here.
mkent,
You wrote: “But unlike ULA, SpaceX doesn’t normally announce their delays unless they happen during a webcast (and sometimes not even then). And since most SpaceX webcasts now start at T-minus 4 minutes and include only the countdown net, most SpaceX delays are never even announced, let alone explained.”
These are not entirely correct. SpaceX scrubs are announced, but for Starlink launches, few people pay attention. The same goes for the abbreviated webcasts. The Starlink webcasts are abbreviated, because there is so little new to say about the payload or the launch, anymore, but the other customers usually get much longer coverage. It is a long standing tradition that U.S. launches have been covered on closed circuit television for the payload-customers to watch, and for decades the people who built the satellite have had launch parties, often in the company cafeteria, for the workers and their families to watch the launch. Coverage traditionally ends a few minutes after payload release.
“‘In your mind, dear reader, does Monday’s scrub reduce the vehicle’s reliability?’
“Of course not, by definition of the word “reliability”, as used by the launch industry. The payload still exists in usable form.”
I asked “in your mind,” rather than the launch provider’s. I know that the published numbers are successful vs. partially successful vs. failed launches. It is fine for the payload to live to fly another day, but customers do like to have their revenue streams begin sooner rather than later. Commercial space companies still have to make payroll and cover interest on loans, and delays can be costly. The launch industry may have its definition of “reliability,” but customers prefer to have their hardware on orbit in a timely manner.
In order to be more competitive, one place I worked making commercial communications satellites was trying to reduce the time between signed contract and launch. The director considered these satellites to be commodities, where the customer’s main concerns were price and availability (time to revenue service).
A scrub for weather is difficult to avoid, but a scrub for technical reasons means there is a problem with the launch system. If it is the launch company’s part of the system, then perhaps the reliability is not as good as desired. On-time launches are preferred. A disappointed customer is not as happy as you want him to be.
So if the scrub is due to a problem on the launch company’s end, then I consider the reliability to be reduced. Reliability is more than merely getting to orbit or getting to the correct orbit as opposed to a different-but-useful orbit. It is getting it there when you say you will.
If you are NASA, and you planned to have a Starliner arrive on a certain date and had arranged other schedules to accommodate that particular arrival date, how happy are you whenever the schedules have to be rearranged yet again so that Starliner can arrive about the time it was meant to depart? In this case, there isn’t much external activity for three months, so there shouldn’t be any drama about this delay.
So maybe reliability is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe for the launch provider it can be defined as: ‘hey, dude, at least we didn’t break your stuff.’