3 ms·

I think it’s a hugely complex problem but it basically boils down to a few key things. - could ISS support docking an additional crew dragon for the time it wo

I think it’s a hugely complex problem but it basically boils down to a few key things. - could ISS support docking an additional crew dragon for the time it would take to return the starliner crew without adversely disrupting other scheduled spacecraft flow? - could spacex have delivered an additional crew dragon to the ISS and departed before any other without downstream impact to future crew dragon missions? - was someone willing to pay for all of this? - could it have been done safely for all crews and the ISS? If the answer was yes to all of those questions, then there likely was a political reason behind waiting to return them on crew 9. What that is, I can’t speculate. If any question gives a “no” then the decision was probably not political but operational in nature.

somenameforme 2y ago
I think the only question that might be a no is 'was someone willing to pay for all of this.' But I think even that being a 'no' is suggestive of a political motivation, given that the alternative (that "we" ended up going with) was borderline ridiculous in the chaos that it caused. We ended up, for the first time ever, with a Russian cosmonaut was in control of an American spacecraft, and a rookie cosmonaut with only basic training on the Dragon at that. It also forced NASA to completely change their safety standards. In particular NASA requires there be a 'lifeboat' on on the ISS for all crew in case of an emergency, but because of the Boeing crew (and the lack of a corresponding vessel), NASA approved a new 'configuration' of the Dragon where up to 3 people could strap themselves to the floor of it, where cargo would normally go, in case of the need of a mass escape from the ISS. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-9 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Crew_Flight_Test#Uncrewed_return_to_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Crew_Flight_Test#Uncrew...
- kcplate 2y ago
  There are stories that Musk was willing to foot the bill. Of course thats easy to say after the other decisions have been made, but my guess is my second point was probably the real no—at least not in a timely or safe enough manner to make the overall future mission disruptions worth it from NASA’s POV.

somenameforme 2y ago

I think the only question that might be a no is 'was someone willing to pay for all of this.' But I think even that being a 'no' is suggestive of a political motivation, given that the alternative (that "we" ended up going with) was borderline ridiculous in the chaos that it caused. We ended up, for the first time ever, with a Russian cosmonaut was in control of an American spacecraft, and a rookie cosmonaut with only basic training on the Dragon at that. It also forced NASA to completely change their safety standards. In particular NASA requires there be a 'lifeboat' on on the ISS for all crew in case of an emergency, but because of the Boeing crew (and the lack of a corresponding vessel), NASA approved a new 'configuration' of the Dragon where up to 3 people could strap themselves to the floor of it, where cargo would normally go, in case of the need of a mass escape from the ISS. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-9 [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Crew_Flight_Test#Uncrewed_return_to_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Crew_Flight_Test#Uncrew...

kcplate 2y ago
There are stories that Musk was willing to foot the bill. Of course thats easy to say after the other decisions have been made, but my guess is my second point was probably the real no—at least not in a timely or safe enough manner to make the overall future mission disruptions worth it from NASA’s POV.