159

Boeing says its space mission is 'going well' as astronauts stranded (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by tarsisurdi@lemmy.eco.br to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

EDIT: they’ve changed the article’s original title :(

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 82 points 5 months ago

Jesus Christ, the astronauts aren't stranded. The first manned flight of a new vehicle and there were some issues on the part that gets jettisoned and burned up, so they can't inspect it afterwards. They're trying to analyze it while they have it, and even with the leak they could be to there a month with no issue.

Boeing deserves the bad press they're getting on the planes lately, but this is crap.

[-] atocci@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

As Business Insider previously reported, helium supports Starlink's reaction control system thrusters, which allows them to fire.

Can't even get the spacecraft's name straight

[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

Ha! I didn't even notice that.

Starlink, Starship, Starliner... who can keep them straight?

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

This comes up on every one of these articles. The astronauts are in no way stranded.

There's a common sense operating rule on the station: every person on board ISS must have a dedicated seat in a ride home that is ready to undock and leave within 30 minutes notice.

Right now, the Starliner capsule is certified and ready for that role for the two test pilots. The crew dragon and soyuz are docked to handle the rest of the station crew.

Earlier today there was an emergency shelter event on the station when some debris got unusually close. In this type of event all crew evacuate to the escape spacecraft and close hatches. So if something does hit the station, it's less likely someone gets hurt during a depressurization.

Starliner served as an emergency shelter for this exercise, because it is certified for emergency reentry, and the five identified helium leaks are not close to preventing it from returning safely.

To get from ISS to a landing site requires no more than 5 hours of RCS operation. There is plenty of margin in the helium system to cover 5 hours.

[-] Talaraine@fedia.io 7 points 5 months ago

No commentary on the fact that they launched them with a helium leak in the first place? Seriously? They found the problem and scrubbed a launch, only to go forward with it when they couldn't figure it out. WTF man.

Now the helium leak is worse, and you're just gonna give them a pass.

[-] atocci@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

They scrubbed, investigated, found it was acceptable, launched, and discovered previously unknown issues. The original leak isn't getting worse, they discovered more, smaller leaks, that still don't pose a danger to the mission.

Discovering the cause of the 5 RCS thrusters shutting down with only 4 of them being able to restart is the current focus of things, because the spacecraft is no where near running out of helium.

It's all still within the scope of this test flight's objectives, so they technically aren't wrong to say things are going well even when they've found issues.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Question: If you had to design a bridge, and you did, and it was built, and then you noticed it sways in the wind, would you tear it down?

And if you answer yes: This is normal. Bridges are designed with a certain level of flex in mind, and they have redundancies to allow for this. Too much is a problem of course, but a certain amount is normal and budgeted for.

And it's similar here: The helium leaks were not planned to be there, but there's a certain redundancy in the system which means that a certain level of helium leakage is not an issue.

[-] tarsisurdi@lemmy.eco.br 6 points 5 months ago

Probably the reason why they changed that original headline, but it’s hilarious regardless

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

well, it's, uh, still in space, so it's doing well. Can you imagine if it stopped being, in, uh, space? that'd be problematic.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Emergancy Mars landing it is!

[-] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

If I was a Boeing shareholder, I would be mad as a wet hen right about now. Amid a string of phenomenally bad business decisions that culminated in the flying [sorta] tin can that is the 737 MAX, Boeing is handed an aerospace companies PR wet dream: transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. They then proceeded to drop that softball so hard that the thud could probably be heard from Mars.

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

It's almost as if someone could have learned something from the fact that NASA struggled hard without institutionalized deviation whenever their budget was constrained and they were pushed for results.

Also, it's almost as if there's a reason no good government should let any corporation go un-controlled. Ever.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

SpaceX has been paid on delivery of promised services, and their success rates are much higher. That’s the opposite of control; that’s the government stepping back from owning a company’s costs. Seems to work a lot better than the tight relationship Boeing and government have.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

[-] aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Previously unannounced experiments with cannibalism in zero gravity can now begin.

Boeing shares up 78% on the news.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

I wonder how they will spin it if the crew gets fried at re-entry - whenever this may be...

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Well yeah. They were making Boeing look bad. No longer a problem.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago

I wish I could remember the film this reminds me of. I thought it was Jodie Foster, but after reviewing her movies, it isn't.

[-] leverlo@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Gravity (2013)?

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago

Yes! It was a good movie, too. I need to rewatch that. Sandy doesn't look like Jodie, I guess my brain just thought drama= Foster.

Thanks so much!

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

Boeing spokesperson

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024

159 points (86.0% liked)

Not The Onion

12390 readers

1922 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world