this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
101 points (99.0% liked)

Space

8790 readers
28 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

well lets hope its still viable. they sure as fuck cant wait for another boeing ship.

[–] PancakeTrebuchet@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

In the event it was deemed too compromised, how long would it take to get an emergency Dragon capsule up there?

[–] Steve@startrek.website 7 points 5 months ago

After this, the FAA should require Boeing to pay spacex to maintain a crew dragon rescue ready to launch at all times the starliner is on orbit.

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

Honestly SpaceX probably has one on standby right now.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe. There are only four Crew Dragons. One’s attached to the station right now, and one’s had its docking equipment removed in preparation for the spacewalk on the Polaris Dawn mission. That leaves two. I’m sure one’s already in prep for the next regularly scheduled crew rotation. A rescue mission would mean either leaving two of the astronauts scheduled to fly that flight on the ground to leave open seats for the Starliner crew, or a special mission using the last Dragon.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depending on how the Starliner leaks progress, I might be fine with lying on the floor of a Cargo Dragon.

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

Originally they had planned on two more seats in the Crew Dragon behind / below the commander and pilot, but when they switched from a powered land landing to a parachute splashdown, they had to adjust the angles of the seats & the travel in the seat suspension. Those changes required them to drop the second row of seats.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Originally they had planned on two more seats

I think the original design had three seats in the second row, for a total of seven.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

boy, those voice transmissions back to base informing of these leaks would be worth listening to.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Boeing and redundancy are like oil and water

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

To be fair, regarding redundancy:

The astronauts only need seven hours of "free-flight time" to perform the end-of-mission maneuvers and Starliner currently has enough helium for 70 hours of free-flight time, Boeing said.

[–] SatouKazuma@ani.social 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Boeing said

Do we really trust them at this point? I mean, if true that's great, but they've lied before.

[–] atocci@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

From a business point of view, I don't think lying about this is in their best interest. If they lie to the FAA about their passenger planes, maybe they get an investigation and a fine. If they lie to NASA about the safety of Starliner, they lose their only customer for it.

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

Trust? No.

Hoping their greed results in safe conclusion to the mission.

[–] SatouKazuma@ani.social 1 points 5 months ago

If they succeed, it'll be in spite of their greed, not because of it.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Man I love nasa!

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, to be fair, I'd like to know more about the volume lost here.

For example people often struggle to imagine that the sun is losing 4.7 million tons every second. Or that ships constantly take on water they have to pump out. This is part of normal operation, and while the helium leaks here clearly are not, if built with a degree of redundancy in mind, certain loss rates are entirely acceptable.

Or not.

Depends on the volume involved. πŸ˜…

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

Dosage makes the poison for sure.

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wanted to come in here and say something about helium being so small that a small leak would be very easy to miss but 5?

[–] Glimpythegoblin@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

Not to mention that they make helium leak detectors. I'm not an expert but I built a helium tight 60000psi system a couple weeks ago first try. Granted it didn't have to survive a trip on a rocket.

[–] Doombot1@lemmy.one 5 points 5 months ago

lol, I worked on a project at my company that sent a box with various instruments up to space sometime in February… but it’s waiting on something that’s on the Starliner before it can be unboxed and used, so now it’s just been sitting for 4 months and will continue to do so for god-knows-how-long