this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
339 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59404 readers
3730 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 95 points 3 months ago (3 children)

The crew should come back on the Dragon and Boeing be required to solve the problems and carry out another test flight. It is unacceptable that Boeing wants to bring the astronauts back without understanding some of the failures on the Starliner.

[–] YourAvgMortal@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago

I’m sure they understand the problems, and they understand that solving them would eat into their profits

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Another test flight will be a bit of a problem. There are no spare Atlas V rockets. They will either have to convince Amazon to give up one of theirs or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

or they will have to launch one of the missions on Vulcan Centaur, which is not currently crew rated.

That's okay; the next Starliner test flight clearly shouldn't be crew rated either!

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 16 points 3 months ago

This is exactly it for me. A problem is one thing, a problem can be addressed. But a problem whose core cause is not understood can't be quantified or addressed.

So you have a thruster pack that's overheating and they don't even know why, you have helium that's leaking and they don't even know why, so I ask why is it even a question what to do?

I am among other things a private pilot, I fly little propeller airplanes around for fun. Lots of private pilots do stupid stuff, and some get killed as a result. I'm talking for example pilots who want to get back to their home airport, so they fly over five airports that all sell fuel without landing but then run out of gas and crash half a mile from their home airport. So there is a saying, before you do anything risky, consider how stupid you will look in the NTSB report if it doesn't work out. And the pilot who intentionally flew below fuel minimums looks pretty damn stupid, destroyed a $100,000 airplane and lost his life so he could save 20 bucks on cheaper gas.

Point is, the same principle applies to all of the recent space disasters. Challenger was obviously not the right decision to launch. Columbia obviously a serious risk that was ignored. And that brings us to Starliner, we have serious fundamental problems that could definitely lead to a loss of ship and crew situation and we don't even understand what is causing those problems. Now imagine Starliner fails. How stupid will that decision look? Probably even dumber than Columbia or Challenger, because unlike those two disasters we know ahead of time that something is very wrong.

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Shitty Boeing aside, how are they eating up there? I don't know anything about space station food logistics, but if a planned week has turned into ten weeks, surely there must be a resource strain.

Edit: Google search says they can regularly send up unmanned supply ships.

[–] model_tar_gz@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can’t wait to see this project too in Google’s graveyard.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah, the old lemmy switcharoo

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

They eat whichever astronaut dies first.

Just don't question the cause of death, because it will be blunt force trauma

[–] mihnt@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't they have their own version of MREs they use for situations like this?

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They just send up more food.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Imagine that Uber Eats bill.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Fr. Imagine the expected tip.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Instructions: please ring door bell

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Please leave anywhere near the airlock. Pls don't ring or knock, dogs bark.

they must have a significant food bank supply, including some kind of reserve replacement nutrients in the event shit goes wrong. That or an incredibly redundant delivery network.

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 7 points 3 months ago

Cygnus, last mission launched on 4 August 2024.

[–] Mythnubb@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

I was curious about this same thing.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago

I though I read they're currently housed in the ISS so they should have reserves. I initially thought they were stuck in their launch vehicle.

[–] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 43 points 3 months ago (4 children)

In this particular situation, if Boeing says it's safe, I would be inclined to trust them, because if they make the return happen, and it fails, Boeing is done fore. As a crew member though, I would pass for sure and wait for a Dragon

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 57 points 3 months ago (2 children)

How many people died because boeing made shitty planes and didn’t train their crew properly?

Is boeing done for?

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They get one last chance! If they kill these astronauts this time, we'll be really, really mad like for real!

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 11 points 3 months ago

Don't worry, we have enough tax payer's money to bail them out if anything goes wrong.

/s

[–] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think messing up on NASA projects will hurt a company way more. Of course aviation is supposed to be safe, but even the 737 Max has flown thousands of hours. Comparing how many people that have flown on them, versus how many that have been hurt/killed, is still a small number, which is still is supposed to be zero of course.

Traversing space, a pinnacle of engineering, is quite another level of danger, and if you insist on your product being functional and safe, and then kills two astronauts, would cause a whole different level of backlash

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They already couldn't afford this situation, and look where they are.

What's an improbable "acceptable risk" to them may not be good enough for NASA, especially if they don't really understand what's wrong.

[–] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 1 points 3 months ago

True. Didn't think of it that way

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I am not sure that businesses like Boeing make risk decisions like that. You would think that they would only take a risk that they know they can win, but many times they take a risk and hope that the dice land their way. This would be lives at risk, with calculations assessed by people with very poor records with such assessments.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They could feel like there's nothing more to lose if it doesn't make it back but they might be able to claw their way back if it succeeds. "They" being the individuals making the recommendation, not the individuals more concerned about the company overall. If Boeing decides the spaceflight industry isn't worth the risks, a downsize or complete closing of that part of the company could cost the jobs of those who are the experts in this situation.

So it might not be a case of "we think it's safe to return". It might be "returning safely is the only scenario where we aren't fucked, so let's roll the dice".

[–] HejMedDig@feddit.dk 2 points 3 months ago

That's a very valid point

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The question facing NASA's leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth from the International Space Station in Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, with its history of thruster failures and helium leaks, or should they come home on a SpaceX Dragon capsule?

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

The question facing NASA’s leadership today? Should the two astronauts return to Earth...

"Alright, just hear me out..." -Boeing

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago

The lives of two government employees are in the balance, and taxpayers paid Boeing for most of the Starliner spacecraft's development costs.

Money money money...

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 23 points 3 months ago

Three Starliner mission managers had key roles on Columbia's ill-fated final flight.

I was gonna take issue with that statement until i read this. Causality does seem more probable.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Will those Astronauts get overtime pay?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 36 points 3 months ago

Unfortunately they’ve been moving backwards across the time zones, resulting in them owing NASA money

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

This is an excellent article. I’m glad they took time to go into the history of these folks.