-
#220
by
Perchlorate
on 25 May, 2022 22:52
-
Congratulations, Boeing!
Hope the issues get buffed out and this becomes a safe and routine service.
-
#221
by
haywoodfloyd
on 25 May, 2022 22:53
-
Isn't it daylight right now in New Mexico?
Why the infra-red image?
Based on the cost of this program, I am disappointed in the video coverage of this landing.
-
#222
by
Pueo
on 25 May, 2022 22:57
-
Isn't it daylight right now in New Mexico?
Why the infra-red image?
Based on the cost of this program, I am disappointed in the video coverage of this landing.
Infra-red has much better contrast against a clear sky than visible light, and is less affected by atmospheric haze thanks to its longer wavelength.
-
#223
by
Rocket Science
on 25 May, 2022 23:07
-
Applause in Mission Control... Congrats NASA/Boeing!
-
#224
by
tea monster
on 25 May, 2022 23:12
-
Congrats to Boeing and the Starliner team, but someone needs to tell them that the world has moved on from VHS video tape.
-
#225
by
StormtrooperJoe
on 25 May, 2022 23:13
-
It is really easy to see how ground landings have a massive advantage logistically. Instead of needing a large specialized ship, they can simply use a couple of plain old trucks and trailers. As a bonus, said trucks can probably be used for general purpose use when not being used to crew recovery, as opposed to a ship that is simply sucking up money when it is not being used for capsule recovery(which is most of the time)
-
#226
by
king1999
on 25 May, 2022 23:16
-
Apollo was done the same way
That one sentence sums up Starliner's design principles very well!
Congrats to Starliner's safe return and landing!
-
#227
by
king1999
on 25 May, 2022 23:18
-
It is really easy to see how ground landings have a massive advantage logistically. Instead of needing a large specialized ship, they can simply use a couple of plain old trucks and trailers. As a bonus, said trucks can probably be used for general purpose use when not being used to crew recovery, as opposed to a ship that is simply sucking up money when it is not being used for capsule recovery(which is most of the time)
Yes, pros and cons. More failure modes on the heat shield ejection, airbags inflation, and timing etc.
-
#228
by
abaddon
on 25 May, 2022 23:18
-
And yet the cost to NASA for the service with the “expensive ship” is massively less.
Can we please not distract from Starliner with (bad) comparisons to that other company?
-
#229
by
Jimmy_C
on 25 May, 2022 23:40
-
Congrats to the CST-100 Starliner team at Boeing on a successful round trip to ISS and back!!!
-
#230
by
ZachS09
on 26 May, 2022 00:03
-
And yet the cost to NASA for the service with the “expensive ship” is massively less.
Can we please not distract from Starliner with (bad) comparisons to that other company?
I'd love not to.
Starliner just got back safe, and IMO, there's a highly likely chance they'll give the go for CFT.
-
#231
by
SoftwareDude
on 26 May, 2022 00:04
-
Rosie is back! Yay! Congratulations Boeing. I had my doubts. Good to be wrong.
-
#232
by
TomH
on 26 May, 2022 03:22
-
We have dissimilar redundancy! Our need to worry about future ride sharing just went down a lot.
-
#233
by
SoftwareDude
on 26 May, 2022 05:53
-
Glad the RCS thruster problems don't seem like a big deal.
-
#234
by
AJW
on 26 May, 2022 07:05
-
When the heat shield is dropped, is it at an altitude where the risk of it hitting the recovery crews approaches zero, or is it tracked and the crews move if it approaches their location?
-
#235
by
Vettedrmr
on 26 May, 2022 10:10
-
When the heat shield is dropped, is it at an altitude where the risk of it hitting the recovery crews approaches zero, or is it tracked and the crews move if it approaches their location?
Considering how late it is released in the landing sequence, I can't see any recovery crews anywhere close to it's predicted impact point.
-
#236
by
gaballard
on 26 May, 2022 15:15
-
I mean Starliner already flew once, and now thrusters are failing on flight #2 (flight attempt #3) that didn't fail on flight #1. What happened to repeatability?
We don't know if they really failed.
Yes, they failed, at least once.
They failed to do what they were supposed to do when they were commanded to do it.
That’s the definition of a failure. It doesn’t always reflect a chronic or permanent condition.
I’d suggest taking some time to peruse a dictionary before posting, but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and all that.
-
#237
by
edzieba
on 26 May, 2022 15:42
-
I mean Starliner already flew once, and now thrusters are failing on flight #2 (flight attempt #3) that didn't fail on flight #1. What happened to repeatability?
We don't know if they really failed.
Yes, they failed, at least once.
They failed to do what they were supposed to do when they were commanded to do it.
That’s the definition of a failure. It doesn’t always reflect a chronic or permanent condition.
I’d suggest taking some time to peruse a dictionary before posting, but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and all that.
That would not mean any thrusters have failed. There are many other things that can render a thruster inoperable without failure, including software inhibits, plumbing issues (e.g. the line freezing seen on Dragon 1), propellant starvation, etc. The actual cause of the issue is important when it comes to resolving the issue, a blanket "but it failed!" is of no value.
If you want to go down the "but it didn't respond as commanded" route: the RCS system responded as commanded. No burns were aborted before completion, and there were no issues manoeuvring near the ISS.
-
#238
by
Jim
on 26 May, 2022 15:56
-
Yes, they failed, at least once.
They failed to do what they were supposed to do when they were commanded to do it.
That’s the definition of a failure. It doesn’t always reflect a chronic or permanent condition.
I’d suggest taking some time to peruse a dictionary before posting, but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and all that.
Not true. they could have been commanded off due to too strict of redlines.
-
#239
by
meekGee
on 26 May, 2022 16:27
-
Yes, they failed, at least once.
They failed to do what they were supposed to do when they were commanded to do it.
That’s the definition of a failure. It doesn’t always reflect a chronic or permanent condition.
I’d suggest taking some time to peruse a dictionary before posting, but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and all that.
Not true. they could have been commanded off due to too strict of redlines.
They could have, but we don't know that.
This mission ended up being a success, but it carries a bunch of asterisks with it. It would have been great if on try #3, it would have gone smoother.
The reason you're getting the push-back is the knee-jerk defense of everything Boeing does with Starliner, including the embarrassing sagas of the valves and "remediations", the parachutes, the mission epoch timer, the communication and software fiascos, the almost recontacting of the backshell - way too many things to have been found in real-time for a company that pitched the approach of "we'll catch it in simulation".
The thrusters (and cooling loop) just got added to the list. Yes maybe it was just red lines set too tightly. And the cooling loops was just water in the coolant.
It doesn't inspire confidence.