Starliner

[alanm232]

Tension in the room. There must be no more politics involved. People's lives are more important than losing face at an obvious failed venture. Starliner must return empty.

 

[DaGuyDaGuy]

Umm, let me get this straight. We have a crippled ship with questionable thrusters that had trouble docking with astronauts aboard. Now they intend to bring it back empty after aging ungracefully with the first maneuver a "breakout burn that will take Starliner up, over and back behind the station". WHAT? I think NASA and Boeing managers need to submit urine samples.

 

[starman2]

It was reported that the thrusters went "off-line". That spells Single Event Upset (SEU) which is from radiation. The electronics that control the thrusters were probably weak and didn't have enough shielding.

Check this: https://www.rlassoc.org/Space News/Weather in Space/space_weather.htm

 

[billslugg]

The thrusters went off line because a poor thermal design caused them to overheat and Teflon seals melted, the pieces jamming the orifices on the control valves.

 

[starman2]

One way or another the thrusters had problems, so what is meant by the exclaim "Astronauts would have been fine on Boeing's Starliner during landing" ? (see https://www.space.com/nasa-boeing-starliner-cft-could-have-returned-safely-with-crew-nasa-says)

The Starliner made it to reentry - but only by some chance - since it did not have a complete set of thrusters. The above exclaim would only be valid if there were no problem at all with the thrusters, and it was a matter of a mis-command (such as a pilot error). But the thrusters were verified malfunctioning.

​

 

[billslugg]

The statement the astronauts would have been fine was made in hindsight, only after NASA saw it re-enter successfully.

 

[starman2]

But it was only by chance that it re-entered "successfully". Not a good statement.