Some other person, who isn't you, and isn't your boss, or your boss's boss would like it if the barrel got into space. It doesn't, but that's okay because they have no power over you or your boss. Not to mention that both you and your boss both have some pork, so you're both happy whether or not the barrel goes into space.
There is no problem here to solve.
That's why you can't solve the problem. There isn't one. Everyone directly involved is very happy. You can't "fix" happy people.
Maybe people have a negative impression of the GM take over, but it was the best option and "worked".
> NASA is giving Boeing another four days, extending Wilmore and Williams' mission onboard the ISS from June 14 to no earlier than June 18, though it's unclear whether the leaks are to blame for the delay.
No, no one have conclusively say that Starliner is stuck on ISS because of helium leak
I dunno. I do agree this is entirely clickbait. The author makes a couple implications but fails to make an argument or even really connect their observations and conclusions.
If you see a spoiled child being a brat, do you blame the child?
In highly regulated industries there’s a revolving door issue where private employees join government, write the specifications, then return to private industry at a higher level.
But yeah in this case I agree regulators and company controls should have a pause or mitigation plan before running at risk. Guess we’ll see over the next few days.
I agree, but I think the need for this points to a pretty glaring level of brokenness in capitalism.
(I'm also assuming by your second "should" that there's an implicit "in an ideal world" prefix, since I really do not have much faith in the regulatory process that constrains Boeing.)
"Hello, im from the government and im here to help"
Good News: There's no real risk to them remaining on ISS at this point, short of some major incident on the ISS itself which required immediate evacuation.
Less good:
Even if Boeing had a spare Starliner (they don't), they don't have a spare rocket to put it on.
Even if Boeing had a spare fully stacked Starliner + Rocket, I'm not sure anyone (even Boeing) would trust their process to be agile enough to launch a recovery mission any time soon.
So that leaves Russia's Soyuz and SpaceX's Crew Dragon.
Using Soyuz would be a major political headache, aside from anything else. It'd require scrapping the next planned Soyuz mission - it may take several months to get that ready. I believe they have to (and would) have to send it up manned.
Using Crew Dragon may be possible, No idea on where SpaceX is as with having refurbished/ready to go capsules on hand, but they have enough launch cadence that it may be possible.
Space Suits then become a problem - they're specific to each launch vehicle, and customised for each wearer. So lead times there become an issue.
Soyuz can be launched to the ISS with no crew. The Russians sent up a Soyuz with no crew a few years ago when the Soyuz they used to get up there stared leaking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_MS-23
(Of course it probably would launch manned because they would only be picking up 2 people)
Though that would leave the current crew stranded up there until a replacement spacecraft can be sent. That takes several months.
This has happened before. The Soyuz docked to the ISS in Dec 2022 was damaged by a micrometeorite strike and was deemed unsafe, leaving that crew essentially stuck up there until a new Soyuz was sent back up in Feb 2023. (The damaged Soyuz was later remotely flown back empty.)
This only works when you're talking about switching between the same system.
Astronauts who flew up on Starliner can't just get into a Soyuz and fly home.
Their space suits won't work, and they can't just borrow the other guy's - they're custom fit.
That organization would be running circles around current rocket companies
Obviously the leaks here are a lot more serious. My experience of significant leaks in spacecraft propulsion would lead me to believe that there are welding issues. It can be very difficult to weld some of the materials used in these system, adding to the fact that they are all bound to be very thin walled. Cracks in welds can be hard to find, although I would expect every weld in a system like this to be X-ray inspected, and maybe also penetrant tested.
On the projects I have seen with issues like this, the main culprit has been steps in a procedure being skipped. Inspections signed off despite not being performed. I would highly doubt that this is the case here though, even with Boeings recent track record. Human spaceflight is treated different.
Yes, lots of dissimilar metals welded together, using TIG, inertial/friction, electron beam, and probably other welding techniques.
>Cracks in welds can be hard to find, although I would expect every weld in a system like this to be X-ray inspected, and maybe also penetrant tested.
Indeed they are, and not just the welds. Any fracture critical component should have 100% nondestructive testing performed. This includes radiographic, liquid penetrant, helium leak test, etc., often all of the above. Like you, I would also be surprised if there were a single component or subsystem that was not subjected to these tests
Because with the way Boeing does things, that would be an actual problem.
Unfortunately, several hundred boeing product users didn't get the opportunity to come back.
After the numerous launch scrubs, this one way ticket to the ISS was already a distinct possiblity. Maybe boeing won't be able to bring these astronauts back either.
From a wider persoective, this really highlights why human space travel should be minimized. Outside of teenage boy spaceman fantasy and various government's desire to start shooting people in space, there is very little reason.
The earth is going to be fine. It’s humans who are in danger.
