There was some tension in the room', NASA says of decision to bring Boeing's Starliner spacecraft home without astronauts

[Admin]

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft will fly back to Earth for a landing on Sept. 7, but without its crew. Its two astronauts will ride home on SpaceX Crew Dragon in February 2025.

There was some tension in the room', NASA says of decision to bring Boeing's Starliner spacecraft home without astronauts : Read more

 

[Viking]

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft will fly back to Earth for a landing on Sept. 7, but without its crew. Its two astronauts will ride home on SpaceX Crew Dragon in February 2025.

There was some tension in the room', NASA says of decision to bring Boeing's Starliner spacecraft home without astronauts : Read more

Send two Boeing execs up on the Dragon and let them bring the Starliner home.

 

[trailrider]

If it weren't for the fact that Starliner will have to depart the station, freeing up the docking port, I'd be inclined to agree. However, I think it ought to be the engineers who designed the thruster section, or maybe the managers who insisted on the design, and whoever designed the thruster system and the "doghouses" that contain them. The idea of reusability is to get all the parts back that are critical so if there are problems you can look at them directly, and not guess about what is wrong!

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Jokes apart,

It is prudent when there are choices, as we had if Columbia situation was as openly explained as Starliner's? I had suggested five options for Columbia on the eve after disaster and several were adapted for future missions. Even then Columbia Crew could have stayed on ISS.

Anyway, we will hopefully get deeper analysis of service module thruster firings and firing frequency or sequence as well as performance of thrusters onboard the Command Module Starliner upon landing at California after Friday.

Yes it is a costly business but we all know risks of test fights with humans as more are to come in Artemis moon revisits as many segments have to be yet proven.
Finally I would like us (US) to have Boeing as an option if they can correct and demonstrate through future robotic and human space flights that Starliner is an option to fly humans in addition to crewed Dragon and falcon combination.

It is necessary when genius like Elon Musk SpaceX control might one day be out of NASA's hands, and options must be kept to avoid Shuttle gap like periods.
Regards.
Thanks.
Ravi

 

[edfran]

Jokes apart,

It is prudent when there are choices, as we had if Columbia situation was as openly explained as Starliner's? I had suggested five options for Columbia on the eve after disaster and several were adapted for future missions. Even then Columbia Crew could have stayed on ISS.

Anyway, we will hopefully get deeper analysis of service module thruster firings and firing frequency or sequence as well as performance of thrusters onboard the Command Module Starliner upon landing at California after Friday.

Yes it is a costly business but we all know risks of test fights with humans as more are to come in Artemis moon revisits as many segments have to be yet proven.
Finally I would like us (US) to have Boeing as an option if they can correct and demonstrate through future robotic and human space flights that Starliner is an option to fly humans in addition to crewed Dragon and falcon combination.

It is necessary when genius like Elon Musk SpaceX control might one day be out of NASA's hands, and options must be kept to avoid Shuttle gap like periods.
Regards.
Thanks.
Ravi

The only option for Columbia was for another Shuttle to be sent up to bring the Columbia crew home. Columbia had no means to reach the ISS and no means of repair on orbit. If concern had been high enough, the crew could have found a way to inspect the wing integrity visually. BUT......even if they had seen the wing damage, there was nothing that could have done to save the crew. Some realized that, I believe.

 

[Jan Steinman]

Jokes apart…

It is necessary when genius like Elon Musk…

Oh, I thought we were still on the "jokes" part.

Musk is a capitalist, not a genius. Unless by "genius", you mean someone who took a thriving and dominant social media platform and turned it to crap. Looks like Tesla is next.

The only thing you need to be a capitalist is money. You don't even have to be good with money! When it's your daddy's money, you can burn it, just like Musk's preferred political partner.

I can imagine Musk doing the same thing to space flight. The people under him have done some amazing things, but the banks are already clamouring for the money he wasted on "X", and someday he could decide to bleed his space business dry. Then, it will be rush things out for income, and and things like faulty thrusters.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster :

"Possible emergency procedures
In its report, the CAIB discussed potential options that could have saved Columbia's crew.[34] They determined that the mission could have originally been extended for up to 30 days, after which the lithium hydroxide canisters that were used to remove carbon dioxide would have run out.[5]: 173  On STS-107, Columbia was carrying the Extended Duration Orbiter, which increased its supply of oxygen and hydrogen.[35]: 398  To maximize the mission duration, non-essential systems would have been powered down,[35]: 399  and animals in the Spacehab module would have been euthanized.[35]: 397

"When STS-107 launched, Atlantis was undergoing preparation for the STS-114 launch on March 1, 2003. Had NASA management decided to launch a rescue mission, an expedited process could have begun to launch it as a rescue vehicle. Some pre-launch tests would have been eliminated to allow it to launch on time. Atlantis would have launched with additional equipment for EVAs, and launched with a minimum required crew. It would have rendezvoused with Columbia, and the STS-107 crew would have conducted EVAs to transfer to Atlantis. Columbia would have been remotely deorbited; as Mission Control would have been unable to remotely land it, it would have been disposed of in the Pacific Ocean.[35]: 400–404

"The CAIB also investigated the possibility of on-orbit repair of the left wing. Although there were no materials or adhesives onboard Columbia that could have survived reentry, the board researched the effectiveness of stuffing materials from the orbiter, crew cabin, or water into the RCC hole. They determined that the best option would have been to harvest tiles from other places on the orbiter, shape them, and then stuff them into the RCC hole. Given the difficulty of on-orbit repair and the risk of further damaging the RCC tiles, the CAIB determined that the likelihood of a successful on-orbit repair would have been low.[35]: 405–406"

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Regarding Jan's post:

I do agree that Musk's behavior is a vulnerability for SpaceX. That is just an additional reason for NASA and Space Force to continue to work to create options for launch, orbiters, etc.

But we also need to be realistic about the likelihood that Boeing will provide a viable option in the near future. Recently, Boeing has been failing in a lot of ways, and it also could just decide to no longer even attempt to support NASA because it is losing money doing so.

Regarding "capitalists" building space systems. we really don't have an option. The U.S. government does not have enough control to marshal all of the people and resources needed just with government employees.

Even "totalitarian" states such as the Soviet Union and China found it necessary to have "industrial leaders" who could effectively produce the technological products desired by the political leaders. And, those "industrial leaders" became personally wealthy and powerful enough politically that the politicians themselves began to feel threatened by them.

So, let's put aside the political system sniping comments and focus on the realities of the available options. The U.S. is not going to change its political system in order to reach the Moon again or Mars, either. Nor should it, considering that it is not necessary nor even the least desirable available option. Any strategy that involves all people being perfect and behaving selflessly simply is not a realistic option available to us.

 

[COLGeek]

Political discussions are off the table gents. Please remember that. Thank you.