This article is mostly just quoting from Ars, link should probably be:
<a href="https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/yes-nasa-really-could-bring-starliners-astronauts-back-on-crew-dragon/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/08/yes-nasa-really-could-...</a>
What I don't see is discussion of the longterm future of the program. This specific unit? Sure. It would be higher risk to propose crewed return in it, compared to using another craft. Not that using another craft is entirely risk free given the issues of suiting up for the return when you were issued kit for the other space craft, but I would think in risk terms thats lower risk.<p>I am more interested what this does to a programme mired in cost overruns, delays and failure. In an election year. Mechanically, you would think this problem with helium leaks is fixable. Politically, this may be the straw which breaks the camels back.
It's sounding like Boeing and NASA ignored the most important lesson from Challenger: Don't launch if you know there's a problem.<p>And for the same reason: political and business pressure.
I think that has been clear for quite a while.<p>It is also worth noting that the two extra people
are eating and breathing (hopefully) and using
other resources that were not budgeted for.<p>It is not a problem short term.
ISS is supposed to have supplies for 3 or 6 months
(I cant remember which).<p>But this will mean that the next supply shipment
needs to be heavier than budgeted for.
1. Unless Boeing decides themselves to back out of the contract, I don't really see Starliner "failing".<p>I do think that it will be quite expensive if they have to re-do the crew flight test - there'll be a substantial delay while they address the failures and Boeing will have to eat the cost of a full Starliner cycle (including a new service module) along with an Atlas V. I can't tell if the potential profit of the other operational missions is worth it or not in that case.<p>2. From what I understand, Boeing and NASA believe that the cause of the thrusters malfunctioning and the helium leaks is a combination of exposure to corrosive propellant (NTO/MMH) and the heating effect of the "doghouse" which is an insulated structure on the side of the service module that houses many thrusters and is insulated to protect the systems from low temperatures by being exposed to the vacuum of space.<p>3. IMO, most of Starliner's failures have stemmed from a reluctance from Boeing to embrace integrated hardware-in-the-loop testing. Instead they seem to rely on component level testing and analysis. The problem with that approach, of course, is that it's pretty bad at catching unknown unknowns.<p>If Boeing had opted for a in-flight abort test (like SpaceX) instead of doing a pad abort test, they would probably have caught the timer issue that plagued OFT-1.<p>Likewise, if they had fueled up Starliner and let it sit for an amount of time that is likely to occur pre-launch, they would have caught the valve corrosion issues that delayed OFT-2.<p>You can see some of the details about the doghouse here[1]. As you can see, it appears like all of the testing was done with the insulation off and many of the systems stripped out of the doghouse. It seems likely that this overheating issue would have been caught much earlier if they had conducted more integrated testing.<p>---<p>1. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Starliner/comments/1eiggns/boeing_cst100_starliner_crewed_flight_test_cft/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Starliner/comments/1eiggns/boeing_c...</a>
It's the best effort a strategic defense contractor can deliver without competitive bidding or nonperformance penalties. Why should they deliver anything but failure when the government (NASA) will just ask them to do the same thing again with a "different" result? They pinky promise it will be different this time.
Thinking about recycling on the ISS.
Whatever can be reused is a big plus.<p>I often find it fascinating to ponder that most all atoms on
earth have been here a very long time and will stay around
for a very long time. (I think).<p>When I drink a glass of water, I figure atoms making up this
specific water has probably been through the cycle of
digestive systems and plant millions of times.
and yet it is wet, tasty and safe.<p>IIS is a closed system.
In theory all the atoms remain.
Currently they do recycle urine.<p>What would be involved in breaking down fecal matter
far enough that something nutritious could be recovered
and reused after a proper and safe process.<p>There has to be a lot of useful atoms available in it.<p>Presumably, the energy required to do anything like this
would make it entirely impossible.
So it turns out that the tendency to enshittification isn't limited to online platforms. What happened to Boeing should become a lesson for bean counters everywhere, and we should try to ensure that our economic system doesn't reward such behavior at other companies.