• atocci@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    151
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just to be clear on this again, they aren’t “stuck” because they’re in danger, the stay keeps getting extended so engineers can gather as much information as possible about the leaks before they return. Starliner is still fully capable of reentry, but this is Boeing’s last chance to collect data that can be used to fix these issues in the future. The leak problem is in Starliner’s service module, which detaches from the capsule before reentry and burns up in the atmosphere, so there won’t be anything left to study after the astronauts return.

    • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I agree the headline isn’t accurate to NASA’s statements, but I also feel everyone is weighing whether there is something we don’t know.

      • atocci@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I get that, but because the leak isn’t even on the part of Starliner that will go through reentry, whether or not it will impact its ability to survive the return trip shouldn’t be in question.

        • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          People keep saying that, but it isn’t true that the leak being in the disposable part of the vehicle means it’s not a safety problem.

          It’s the pressurisation system for the thrusters. If that fails, then they won’t be able to control the capsule until it hits the atmosphere. That could mean they get stuck on the ISS, in the most extreme case, or it could mean that they lose thrust mid-manouvre and they re-enter the atmosphere incorrectly. That could be anywhere from inconvenient (they miss their landing spot and someone has to come get them), to dangerous (they land so far away that they’re in danger of sinking or being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them) to outright fatal (they skip off the atmosphere, or tumble their way into reentry and burn up)

          • atocci@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is a good point. It’s definitely a possibility something catastrophic could happen like that, but the small scale of the leaks and amount of extra helium on board makes it very unlikely at least.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            to dangerous (they land so far away that they’re in danger of… being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them)

            I know Soyuz was designed to land in Kazakhstan or whatever, but is Starliner (or Dragon, for that matter) even capable of landing on solid ground without damage and/or injuries?

            • atocci@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Yes it is actually! When it finally returns, this Starliner will be landing in New Mexico at the White Sands Space Harbor, which is basically a backup space shuttle landing strip.

                • atocci@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It’s not designed to like Starliner, but Dragon can in emergency situations. Starliner has airbags to cushion it on touchdown, but Dragon doesn’t so it would probably be a much rougher landing for the astronauts.

      • atocci@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, there’s only one Soyuz from the Russian side of things, and its seats are spoken for

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m sure the astronauts that have to do all this extra overtime because boeing thought their space capsule didn’t have to be airtight probably feel that way

        • atocci@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Wanted to clarify again since I wasn’t specific earlier. The capsule itself is airtight, no danger there. What’s leaking is helium, which is kept in compressed tanks in the service module and used to pressurize the reaction control system thrusters. The tanks aren’t leaking though, it sounds like the leak is somewhere between the tank and the thrusters, which is what needs to be researched.

          • Infynis@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            I’ll also clarify. I was being totally hyperbolic. I do understand it’s not actually air, but I’m not too worried about misrepresenting Boeing at the moment

            • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’m not too worried about misrepresenting Boeing at the moment

              That’s fine, it’s telling the truth about Boeing that gets really dangerous.

        • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          They are probably also interested in the 3000+ safety protocols in place that keeps them alive in the event of a leak in the vacuum of space.