NASA and Boeing deny Starliner crew is stranded: We're not in rush to come home
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
It's like you went on a trip and your vehicle is having technical issues, but you are at the hotel so you can extend your stay until the car issue is sorted out. Any reasonable person would call it stranded.
It is sad that NASA has lost it's integrity and trying to cover up for private company.
I think it's a little more complicated than that.
Starliner has many redundant systems; from what I can tell, NASA accurately says that it is (probably) safe for Astronauts to return to earth in the vehicle.
However, all of the leaks and thruster problems are in the service module which will burn up on re-entry. Which means that none of the malfunctioning hardware can be examined once the vehicle lands. A big part of the delays are NASA and Boeing trying to recreate the problems on the ground.
There was a helium leak before the vehicle was launched, and the only reason NASA gave the OK is because they thought the understood the problem. But then 4 more leaks sprung up - one of which is quite large; it's pretty clear that NASA and Boeing did not understand the problem. So I think they're trying to be extra cautious.
All that being said, I don't want to make it seem like I think everything is OK or that I'm a Boeing apologist. This is a "test" flight, but really it's supposed to be a demonstration that the capsule is built to standard and is performing properly. It is not.
It is as if you went for a test drive at a dealership, and the breaks stopped working, but you were able to use the e-break to stop and get back to the dealership. Technically, you were "safe"... but it's also not a good experience.
Boeing has all kinds of problems and I think everyone could agree well this didn’t work like we expected.
But they throw away this module, this is maybe their best time to figure out what went wrong.
I think for everyone’s hope, we see Boeing get itself together and become what it portends itself to be; because competition is good.
I wish the headlines are about how they are losing and not how anything is reckless or the sky falling. They are just getting their collective plans handed back to them by their competitors as ha you lose.
There's no danger to anyone on SSIS.
> They even launched with a helium leak
I don't know how big of an issue this is,but I wonder how much of that decision was based on engineering vs pressure to launch as they were way behind schedule.
Reminds me of the challenger space shuttle disaster [1], where the chief engineer (from a contractor) flat out refused to sign off on the launch due to several safety concerns, but NASA pressured them and overruled them and then tried to cover up their mistake.
Quotes from [1]:
> "And I made the smartest decision I ever made in my lifetime," McDonald told me. "I refused to sign it. I just thought we were taking risks we shouldn't be taking." Your Letters Helped Challenger Shuttle Engineer Shed 30 Years Of Guilt The Two-Way Your Letters Helped Challenger Shuttle Engineer Shed 30 Years Of Guilt
> McDonald persistently cited three reasons for a delay: freezing overnight temperatures that could compromise the booster rocket joints; ice forming on the launchpad and spacecraft that could damage the orbiter heat tiles at launch; and a forecast of rough seas at the booster rocket recovery site.
> The NASA official simply said that Thiokol had some concerns but approved the launch. He neglected to say that the approval came only after Thiokol executives, under intense pressure from NASA officials, overruled the engineers.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/03/07/974534021/remembering-allan-m...