4 ms·
Two of the OMAC thrusters failed during the Starliner insertion burn
- perihelions 4y agoSlightly more information from a Boeing representative here, https://youtu.be/Xnw3_kwaYoc?t=661 https://youtu.be/Xnw3_kwaYoc?t=661 Nothing else is publically available yet, AFAIK.
- remarkEon 4y agoThis guy is saying that it's a redundant design, and the spacecraft is healthy. I figure they must've burned the other ones a little longer? >In a post-launch briefing, NASA’s Steve Stich says a couple Starliner thrusters “failed off” during the orbit insertion burn. Also, a sublimator was a “little sluggish” during ascent, but working fine now. Overall, spacecraft is “doing well”. >Boeing’s Mark Nappi on thruster failures: the system is designed to be redundant and it performed like it’s supposed to. Have a safe vehicle and it’s on its way to the ISS. https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1527456220839391232 https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1527456220839391232
- jkqwzsoo 4y agoI'm reminded of Feynman's bit about the Challenger O-rings. They were not designed to be eroded, so the fact that they survived the erosion was indicative of a design flaw, rather than a safety margin. Similarly, while the design may have redundancies built in, the thrusters are not designed to fail. Two of them failing on the *second launch* is not "redundancy". Each launch had 12 thrusters (if I understand correctly). Out of 24 thrusters launched into orbit, 2 have failed, or 8.3%. If I was heading to the ISS, I'd be taking a Dragon or Soyuz for sure.