4 ms·

>> "If we'd have had a crew on board the spacecraft, we would have followed the same back away sequence from the space station, the same deorbit burn and execut

by ethbr1 2y ago

>> "If we'd have had a crew on board the spacecraft, we would have followed the same back away sequence from the space station, the same deorbit burn and executed the same entry. And so it would have been a safe, successful landing with the crew on board," said Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/astronauts-would-have-been-fine-on-boeing-s-starliner-during-landing-nasa-says/ar-AA1qvWiV https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/astronauts-would-h...

nick3443 2y ago
Russian roulette is safe! I played once and didn't die!
- ethbr1 2y ago
  The point that half this comment section is missing is this is the sort of thing we want to encourage. The US spent extra money funding two separate vendors. One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. That's a great place to be in! The alternative, having to return astronauts on a high risk vehicle because it's the only option, is not a place we ever want to be in.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    What is not great is the fact that vendor 1 exhibited a string of concerning anomalies and accidents. Vendor 1 may be institutionally unfit to be a leg on which the US space program stands.
    - nick3443 2y ago
      Year reading the starliner wikipedia page was eye opening, every single test phase had issues, and repeated issues over a long period with the same systems (thrusters) is really damning.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. > The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. Anyone reading this five years ago would be absolutely shocked to discover which vendor is which.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      The most underrated and impressive achievement of SpaceX, IMHO, has been their designing missions for higher technical risk while managing safety impacts. It's easy(ish) to go fast and break things. It's much harder to go fast and break things, except also never break things when it really matters.
charles_f 2y ago
They didn't come back, though. It's still a success in the sense that it was a test mission and determining there was a problem is valuable, but Starliner is not ready
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Considering both recent US vehicle losses have been on re-entry, I feel NASA is vindicated on being ultra-conservative around that stage. So anomalies that might be acceptable during ascent would be unacceptable during decent. Personally? I'm glad Boeing launched. I wish they were perfect technically, but I also realize that an infinite amount of time and money doesn't protect against unknown-unknowns. IMHO, they should be operating more like SpaceX (and the earlier days of the US space program) -- using calculated risk and engineering to decide when it's reasonable to do an inherently risky thing, when doing so is needed to move the entire program forward.
hcks 2y ago
This is actually an incredibly stupid thing to say which reflects poorly on NASA management

by ethbr1 2y ago

nick3443 2y ago

Russian roulette is safe! I played once and didn't die!

ethbr1 2y ago
The point that half this comment section is missing is this is the sort of thing we want to encourage. The US spent extra money funding two separate vendors. One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. That's a great place to be in! The alternative, having to return astronauts on a high risk vehicle because it's the only option, is not a place we ever want to be in.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  What is not great is the fact that vendor 1 exhibited a string of concerning anomalies and accidents. Vendor 1 may be institutionally unfit to be a leg on which the US space program stands.
  - nick3443 2y ago
    Year reading the starliner wikipedia page was eye opening, every single test phase had issues, and repeated issues over a long period with the same systems (thrusters) is really damning.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  > One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. > The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. Anyone reading this five years ago would be absolutely shocked to discover which vendor is which.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    The most underrated and impressive achievement of SpaceX, IMHO, has been their designing missions for higher technical risk while managing safety impacts. It's easy(ish) to go fast and break things. It's much harder to go fast and break things, except also never break things when it really matters.

charles_f 2y ago

They didn't come back, though. It's still a success in the sense that it was a test mission and determining there was a problem is valuable, but Starliner is not ready

ethbr1 2y ago
Considering both recent US vehicle losses have been on re-entry, I feel NASA is vindicated on being ultra-conservative around that stage. So anomalies that might be acceptable during ascent would be unacceptable during decent. Personally? I'm glad Boeing launched. I wish they were perfect technically, but I also realize that an infinite amount of time and money doesn't protect against unknown-unknowns. IMHO, they should be operating more like SpaceX (and the earlier days of the US space program) -- using calculated risk and engineering to decide when it's reasonable to do an inherently risky thing, when doing so is needed to move the entire program forward.

hcks 2y ago

This is actually an incredibly stupid thing to say which reflects poorly on NASA management