User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 12:05:43 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NASA teleconference has started and at this point no decision has been made on the return capsule. Ken Bowersox (former astronaut) uses the future tense when discussing that decision. An animation of the teflon seal swelling should be available soon. One option is two of the original Crew-9 people go up and Butch and Sunni stay with them and return around February 2025. Stich mentioned something about maybe adding one or more people to the Crew-8 Capsule but I did not understand the details. That was around 12:44 PM EDT. Stich reiterated that no return capsule decision has been made. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 12:11:27 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When your one week business trip turns into 8 months I can't remember if it was Bob or Doug. But one of the guys who flew the first crewed Dragon flight to the ISS did an interview with the Fighter Pilot Podcast awhile ago and in that interview he said that one of the reasons why he took that assignment was because he didn't want to be away from his family for the usual many months stay on the station. Just go up. Make sure the thing works then back down. No muss, no fuss. The irony of that compared the current situation is rather amusing to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 12:40:20 PM EST
[#3]
This is beyond fucking ridiculous.
Whoever made the decision to launch people in that death trap, at NASA and Boeing, needs to be under indictment for attempted murder.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 1:20:20 PM EST
[#4]
Roundup of today's @NASA Teleconference about @Space_Station Operations and @BoeingSpace 's Starliner CFT mission: Crew-9 - NASA has set up the Crew-9 Dragon to have the flexibility to launch with 2 astronauts, and return with 4 in Feb 2025; SpaceX Suits for Butch & Suni are ready, SpaceX Seats for Butch & Suni are ready. - However, the Crew-9 contingency has not been “formally” enabled yet. - Steve Stich would not say which 2 astronauts would not fly on Crew-9 at this time. - They have another contingency to allow 3 crew members on the Crew-8 cargo pallet if they need to undock Starliner autonomously prior to the arrival of Crew-9 - which would leave Butch & Suni without their spacecraft accessible as a Safe Haven. Starliner CFT - Ken Bowersox and Dana Weigel would not say which vehicle for Butch & Suni's return they’re leaning towards right now as “it could change drastically” over time. - NASA could certify Starliner for operational crewed missions without bringing Butch & Suni back onboard the vehicle, pending data reviews of the thruster/helium issues. - The Starliner software is the same whether crewed or uncrewed. What needs to be updated is a “specific set of mission parameters”. NASA calls those Mission Data Loads. July SpaceX Task Order - The SpaceX Task Order in July was for a contingency where Tracy Caldwell Dyson would return on Dragon, and not Soyuz MS-25. Similar to Frank Rubio & Soyuz MS-22. Fleet Management - Crew-9’s Falcon Booster is now going to be flying on a Starlink mission prior to Crew-9, because of the 1 month slip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 2:20:04 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: - NASA could certify Starliner for operational crewed missions without bringing Butch & Suni back onboard the vehicle, pending data reviews of the thruster/helium issues. Wut. I get the process thinking behind this one, but it still seems ridiculous that Boeing doesn't have to perform at least as well as SpaceX to receive certification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 2:50:17 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut. I get the process thinking behind this one, but it still seems ridiculous that Boeing doesn't have to perform at least as well as SpaceX to receive certification. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: - NASA could certify Starliner for operational crewed missions without bringing Butch & Suni back onboard the vehicle, pending data reviews of the thruster/helium issues. Wut. I get the process thinking behind this one, but it still seems ridiculous that Boeing doesn't have to perform at least as well as SpaceX to receive certification. How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:01:29 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? Everyone gets a trophy nowadays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:07:12 PM EST
[#8]
Bonuses are in order!
Great job, Brownie!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:25:22 PM EST
[#9]
 Boeing and NASA Have A BIG Problem With Starliner... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:27:30 PM EST
[#10]
The tortured way any information about this is released to the public is making Boeing look worse than the technical failure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:34:45 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: - NASA could certify Starliner for operational crewed missions without bringing Butch & Suni back onboard the vehicle, pending data reviews of the thruster/helium issues. Wut. I get the process thinking behind this one, but it still seems ridiculous that Boeing doesn't have to perform at least as well as SpaceX to receive certification. How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? How is 2 tests that didn't complete and then crewed on a 3rd launch which had problems before they left and launched anyways sufficient? Government... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:36:08 PM EST
[#12]
Holy shit, they are gonna leave them up there until February of 2025 to come back on crew Dragon? That's fucking embarrassing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 3:59:19 PM EST
[#13]
At this point the only worse result of this CTF would have been it failing to get to orbit again.
This is just the embarrassment of "old space" on repeat for weeks and months… |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:01:12 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: - Steve Stich would not say which 2 astronauts would not fly on Crew-9 at this time. Probably the Pilot and MC. I doubt they'd let the Roossskie go up as 1 of the 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:06:53 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is just the embarrassment of "old space" on repeat for weeks and months Also, bear in mind that for the past several years Boeing and NASA have been hiring based on qualifications other than competence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:15:41 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistorySome first day intern probably showed up, mangled his local code, then: git commit -m "Legacy code deleted" git push -f origin master |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:23:33 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some first day intern probably showed up, mangled his local code, then: git commit -m "Legacy code deleted" git push -f origin master Quote HistoryQuoted: Some first day intern probably showed up, mangled his local code, then: git commit -m "Legacy code deleted" git push -f origin master |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:26:07 PM EST
[#18]
I bet those two have some serious stank going. They aren’t like a normal ISS crew and don’t likely have 6 months of supplies, ie clean underwear. There isn’t a clothes washer onboard. Maybe there should be.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:29:33 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:I bet those two have some serious stank going. They aren’t like a normal ISS crew and don’t likely have 6 months of supplies, ie clean underwear. There isn’t a clothes washer onboard. Maybe there should be.  You just handwash it, then hang it outside on a clothesline to dry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:29:35 PM EST
[#20]
In the near future on the ISS........
Butch/Suni - Yo NASA, we're still up here! NASA - No problem, we'll get you down real soon. Butch/Suni - Hey, is the Dragon capsule that just docked our ride? NASA - Noooo, that is the Space X ISS de-orbit module. Butch/Suni - Wait .... what? NASA - What? TYCOM |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 4:45:06 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bet those two have some serious stank going. They aren’t like a normal ISS crew and don’t likely have 6 months of supplies, ie clean underwear. There isn’t a clothes washer onboard. Maybe there should be. Doesn’t ISS already have the rep of having an ancient stinky gym smell? I’m not saying it couldn’t get worse, just that it’s already pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:01:45 PM EST
[#22]
There's no smell in space.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:07:59 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bet those two have some serious stank going. They aren’t like a normal ISS crew and don’t likely have 6 months of supplies, ie clean underwear. There isn’t a clothes washer onboard. Maybe there should be. Reportedly they had supplies on the Cygnus that just arrived at the ISS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:12:26 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reportedly they had supplies on the Cygnus that just arrived at the ISS. I am sure they are happy to see their luggage filled made it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:17:57 PM EST
[#25]
Steve Stich, the NASA Commercial Crew Program lead that reportedly told the Columbia crew that there was no need to worry (prior to them burning up on entry), said that the software on this flight is the same as on the uncrewed OFT-2 flight. Only the Mission Data Load (MDL) is different.
He also said that they change MDLs all the time. That sounds to me like they can do it during a flight...but that is not verified. If it can be done during a flight like OFT-2 that may have been a week long, how does it take four weeks now to verify a new MDL? I do not expect an honest answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:19:01 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am sure they are happy to see their luggage filled made it. Supposedly their extra undies were removed to put in equipment for the urine processing system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:22:09 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Supposedly their extra undies were removed to put in equipment for the urine processing system. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am sure they are happy to see their luggage filled made it. Supposedly their extra undies were removed to put in equipment for the urine processing system. I wonder what kind of problems they're having up there due to the extra people on board that weren't supposed to be there this long. Doubt they would tell us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:28:28 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do not expect an honest answer. I think this is now obvious. I honestly don't know how anybody could become a NASA astronaut and, thereby, put their life in the hands of administrators like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:28:42 PM EST
[#29]
This is like Gilligan's Island in space. 3 hour tour lasting for years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:33:04 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder what kind of problems they're having up there due to the extra people on board that weren't supposed to be there this long. Doubt they would tell us. There may have been a mention of some impact. Maybe they used "extra burden" or something like that. They just sent up a Cygnus supply vessel so consumables should not be an issue. They can send up a Cargo Dragon early possibly. Does the air purification system work well enough? I would be more concerned with an organization whose decision making has already contributed to the deaths of 17 people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:35:32 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There may have been a mention of some impact. Maybe they used "extra burden" or something like that. They just sent up a Cygnus supply vessel so consumables should not be an issue. They can send up a Cargo Dragon early possibly. Does the air purification system work well enough? I would be more concerned with an organization whose decision making has already contributed to the deaths of 17 people. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I wonder what kind of problems they're having up there due to the extra people on board that weren't supposed to be there this long. Doubt they would tell us. There may have been a mention of some impact. Maybe they used "extra burden" or something like that. They just sent up a Cygnus supply vessel so consumables should not be an issue. They can send up a Cargo Dragon early possibly. Does the air purification system work well enough? I would be more concerned with an organization whose decision making has already contributed to the deaths of 17 people. Space flight is risky business. I'd be more worried about riding in a module built by a company who's criminal actions resulted in the death of hundreds of people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:38:46 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Space flight is risky business. I'd be more worried about riding in a module built by a company who's criminal actions resulted in the death of hundreds of people. I imagine someone will be in here shortly to inform us that if those men flying those crashed 737 MAXes had just been better pilots then they and their crew and passengers wouldn't be dead... And if so then perhaps Boeing would have been able to sweep this under the rug. Or more likely they would have ignored the problem until some planeful of Shmucks with a mediocre pilot fell out of the sky. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:43:29 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I imagine someone will be in here shortly to inform us that if those men flying those crashed 737 MAXes had just been better pilots then they and their crew and passengers wouldn't be dead... And if so then perhaps Boeing would have been able to sweep this under the rug. Or more likely they would have ignored the problem until some planeful of Shmucks with a mediocre pilot fell out of the sky. There may be an element of truth to that but the real problem was MCAS and all the fucked up kludges just to avoid a new type certificate or whatever the proper term is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 5:47:02 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There may be an element of truth to that but the real problem was MCAS and all the fucked up kludges just to avoid a new type certificate or whatever the proper term is. That's my view on the subject. We have a long established precedent of aircraft and even airliners having serious flaws in their flight control systems. But what Boeing did with the 737 MAX was laziness and greed of a high order. As discussed in detail in this thread and elsewhere. There's some people and companies who demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And for every story of a plane saved by luck and/or a skilled pilot. We have plenty that were not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 6:01:03 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's my view on the subject. We have a long established precedent of aircraft and even airliners having serious flaws in their flight control systems. But what Boeing did with the 737 MAX was laziness and greed of a high order. As discussed in detail in this thread and elsewhere. There's some people and companies who demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And for every story of a plane saved by luck and/or a skilled pilot. We have plenty that were not. Ideally this event will not result in two more deaths if NASA chooses the Starliner return with astronauts and it fails in a manner that causes breakup during entry. I am a bit sad that my prediction of a SpaceX Crew Dragon "Uber" flight may not even be on the table. I wonder if NASA did not want to pay that cost, they did not want additional negative press for Boeing...or SpaceX could not make it happen in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 6:24:43 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: - NASA could certify Starliner for operational crewed missions without bringing Butch & Suni back onboard the vehicle, pending data reviews of the thruster/helium issues. Wut. I get the process thinking behind this one, but it still seems ridiculous that Boeing doesn't have to perform at least as well as SpaceX to receive certification. How is that possible? Don't the test missions have to be COMPLETED for it to be certified? How is doing half the job sufficient!? Waivers. Same way that craft was only certified to be on station for 45 days and when that didnt pan out they re-certified it for longer. Or when the SLS booster certification was coming due and instead of destacking the SRBs they just signed in an extension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 6:27:35 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Steve Stich, the NASA Commercial Crew Program lead that reportedly told the Columbia crew that there was no need to worry (prior to them burning up on entry), said that the software on this flight is the same as on the uncrewed OFT-2 flight. Only the Mission Data Load (MDL) is different. He also said that they change MDLs all the time. That sounds to me like they can do it during a flight...but that is not verified. If it can be done during a flight like OFT-2 that may have been a week long, how does it take four weeks now to verify a new MDL? I do not expect an honest answer. Software changes mid flight, while possible, is probably not advised. As a person who deals with software development daily, the last thing you want to do is test in your prod environment unless its a last ditch scenario. Space is unforgiving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 6:54:28 PM EST
[#38]
Loading an old flight package absolutely can bring a new problem into the mix.
It isn't that it takes 4 weeks to load the OFT2 flight package to Starliner. They are going to have to load this into the big computer and run through the whole thing to make sure nothing was changed in the last 2 years since it was used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 7:00:08 PM EST
[#39]
Also there is more to the Crew 9 flight getting punted than just because Starliner is fucking things up. The Falcon 9 1st stage booster for the Crew 9 flight got water intrusion in the fuel tank during transport from McGregor. After changing some parts out and a drying process it was decided to let Starlink use it for a shake down flight and they'll get it back afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 7:19:39 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Loading an old flight package absolutely can bring a new problem into the mix. It isn't that it takes 4 weeks to load the OFT2 flight package to Starliner. They are going to have to load this into the big computer and run through the whole thing to make sure nothing was changed in the last 2 years since it was used. Something about that makes me laugh. It seems absurd to think that one can leave something like that for 2 years and expect it to work just fine. I don't claim to have any kind of detailed knowledge of these things though. At least we aren't in some science fiction setting where you can leave a spaceship buried under sand for 5,000 years or so and expect it to start right up and fly to space without so much as a check engine light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 8:35:58 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: oof.jpg Gives new meaning to the term "2 weeks". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One option is two of the original Crew-9 people go up and Butch and Sunni stay with them and return around February 2025. Gives new meaning to the term "2 weeks". I thought it was only supposed to be a three hour tour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 8:58:23 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought it was only supposed to be a three hour tour. Even the news readers are saying it be like Gilligans Island up in hear!  Boeing Starliner astronauts may remain in space until February |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 9:27:37 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ideally this event will not result in two more deaths if NASA chooses the Starliner return with astronauts and it fails in a manner that causes breakup during entry. I am a bit sad that my prediction of a SpaceX Crew Dragon "Uber" flight may not even be on the table. I wonder if NASA did not want to pay that cost, they did not want additional negative press for Boeing...or SpaceX could not make it happen in a timely manner. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's my view on the subject. We have a long established precedent of aircraft and even airliners having serious flaws in their flight control systems. But what Boeing did with the 737 MAX was laziness and greed of a high order. As discussed in detail in this thread and elsewhere. There's some people and companies who demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And for every story of a plane saved by luck and/or a skilled pilot. We have plenty that were not. Ideally this event will not result in two more deaths if NASA chooses the Starliner return with astronauts and it fails in a manner that causes breakup during entry. I am a bit sad that my prediction of a SpaceX Crew Dragon "Uber" flight may not even be on the table. I wonder if NASA did not want to pay that cost, they did not want additional negative press for Boeing...or SpaceX could not make it happen in a timely manner. Again, it's extremely unlikely the Stayliner Command Module would fail to reenter the atmosphere safely. There's been no questions about the CM thrusters. The concern is about the Service Module thrusters - given one has failed, the possibility exists the SM could fail to get the craft in the correct orientation for the retro burn - in which case, the crew could run out of oxygen before the orbit decays sufficiently for reentry. Your Dragon Uber flight is very much on the table. Are you reading your own thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 9:45:37 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, it's extremely unlikely the Stayliner Command Module would fail to reenter the atmosphere safely. There's been no questions about the CM thrusters. The concern is about the Service Module thrusters - given one has failed, the possibility exists the SM could fail to get the craft in the correct orientation for the retro burn - in which case, the crew could run out of oxygen before the orbit decays sufficiently for reentry. Your Dragon Uber flight is very much on the table. Are you reading your own thread? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's my view on the subject. We have a long established precedent of aircraft and even airliners having serious flaws in their flight control systems. But what Boeing did with the 737 MAX was laziness and greed of a high order. As discussed in detail in this thread and elsewhere. There's some people and companies who demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And for every story of a plane saved by luck and/or a skilled pilot. We have plenty that were not. Ideally this event will not result in two more deaths if NASA chooses the Starliner return with astronauts and it fails in a manner that causes breakup during entry. I am a bit sad that my prediction of a SpaceX Crew Dragon "Uber" flight may not even be on the table. I wonder if NASA did not want to pay that cost, they did not want additional negative press for Boeing...or SpaceX could not make it happen in a timely manner. Again, it's extremely unlikely the Stayliner Command Module would fail to reenter the atmosphere safely. There's been no questions about the CM thrusters. The concern is about the Service Module thrusters - given one has failed, the possibility exists the SM could fail to get the craft in the correct orientation for the retro burn - in which case, the crew could run out of oxygen before the orbit decays sufficiently for reentry. Your Dragon Uber flight is very much on the table. Are you reading your own thread? Define extremely unlikely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:15:38 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the near future on the ISS........ Butch/Suni - Yo NASA, we're still up here! NASA - No problem, we'll get you down real soon. Butch/Suni - Hey, is the Dragon capsule that just docked our ride? NASA - Noooo, that is the Space X ISS de-orbit module. Butch/Suni - Wait .... what? NASA - What? TYCOM Made me think of this Spirit rover comic from about a decade ago...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:24:50 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Made me think of this Spirit rover comic from about a decade ago... https://external-preview.redd.it/UpwArmNVj29Hz5GF16ZEvb-G2LqII0lOaPU1czVRca4.png?auto=webp&s=e2c6bf7c87921e50cc91b455da3074b4f34bb577 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In the near future on the ISS........ Butch/Suni - Yo NASA, we're still up here! NASA - No problem, we'll get you down real soon. Butch/Suni - Hey, is the Dragon capsule that just docked our ride? NASA - Noooo, that is the Space X ISS de-orbit module. Butch/Suni - Wait .... what? NASA - What? TYCOM Made me think of this Spirit rover comic from about a decade ago... https://external-preview.redd.it/UpwArmNVj29Hz5GF16ZEvb-G2LqII0lOaPU1czVRca4.png?auto=webp&s=e2c6bf7c87921e50cc91b455da3074b4f34bb577 I hate that comic. Edit: makes me sad |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:26:51 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Define extremely unlikely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's my view on the subject. We have a long established precedent of aircraft and even airliners having serious flaws in their flight control systems. But what Boeing did with the 737 MAX was laziness and greed of a high order. As discussed in detail in this thread and elsewhere. There's some people and companies who demonstrate that they can't be trusted. And for every story of a plane saved by luck and/or a skilled pilot. We have plenty that were not. Ideally this event will not result in two more deaths if NASA chooses the Starliner return with astronauts and it fails in a manner that causes breakup during entry. I am a bit sad that my prediction of a SpaceX Crew Dragon "Uber" flight may not even be on the table. I wonder if NASA did not want to pay that cost, they did not want additional negative press for Boeing...or SpaceX could not make it happen in a timely manner. Again, it's extremely unlikely the Stayliner Command Module would fail to reenter the atmosphere safely. There's been no questions about the CM thrusters. The concern is about the Service Module thrusters - given one has failed, the possibility exists the SM could fail to get the craft in the correct orientation for the retro burn - in which case, the crew could run out of oxygen before the orbit decays sufficiently for reentry. Your Dragon Uber flight is very much on the table. Are you reading your own thread? Define extremely unlikely. Less likely than the Stayliner crew running out of oxygen b/c the SM thrusters failed in such away they couldn't orient correctly to perform the retro burn or the retro thrusters failed AND SpaceX not being able to get to them in time to perform a heroic rescue spacewalk straight out of early 60's science fiction. IE, if 27 of the 28 SM thrusters work to get the Stayliner in the correct orientation for the retro burn, and the retro engines work, the CM's thrusters will work well enough to keep the CM in the correct orientation for reentry. The question is all about those 27 thrusters - given they've already shut down the 28th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:30:01 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see Starship being man-rated. You are probably correct about more Crew Dragons. With Starliner almost surely out of the running to do operational missions, SpaceX should know if they need more Crew Dragons based upon expected flights plus a pad and flight limits per capsule. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Space X needs to build more Dragons. I know the plan is for them to eventually be superseded by Starship, but they need to have more of the proven systems as insurance and to make up for the Starliner program not working out. I don't see Starship being man-rated. You are probably correct about more Crew Dragons. With Starliner almost surely out of the running to do operational missions, SpaceX should know if they need more Crew Dragons based upon expected flights plus a pad and flight limits per capsule. Why not? People thought reusing boosters was insane and now it’s routine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:32:30 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fact, he is not physically fit enough to make the ride and it would make zero sense for him to risk EVERYTHING he has worked for. He will remain the boss and smoke weed with Joe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Dragon will bring them home, but Musk ain't going to be on that ride. Fact, he is not physically fit enough to make the ride and it would make zero sense for him to risk EVERYTHING he has worked for. He will remain the boss and smoke weed with Joe. Lol. Its not a physically taxing thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2024 10:36:04 PM EST
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
