3 ms·
This wouldn't have been deadly either, the craft would now land instead of reaching ISS.
by mzs 7y ago
This wouldn't have been deadly either, the craft would now land instead of reaching ISS.
- gpm 7y agoYes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
- jacquesm 7y agoThey claim they could have made the ISS, but I find that hard to believe.
- 0xffff2 7y agoBecause you're better informed than the NASA Administrator, or because it's easy to be cynical on the internet?
- jacquesm 7y agoBecause not getting to the ISS would mean a mission failure of a much worse kind than temporarily being stuck in the wrong orbit. If astronauts were on board (which they are not, I know) that would mean no relief and a complete loss of mission, if they could make it to the ISS then that would be 100% mission success in spite of being stuck for a while.
- mannykannot 7y agoThe specific claim seems to be that if the capsule were manned, the crew could have intervened, when the problem was first detected, to correct the error. With no crew aboard, ground control was unable to make the correction because, at precisely that time, the vehicle was in a dead zone between communications satellites. It is not entirely clear to me whether this would have been the chosen course of action had it been manned, or whether it is merely being presented in support of the statement that it would not have created a dangerous situation.
- jacquesm 7y agoInteresting, that wasn't clear to me before. Thank you.