Agree, put them in either a SpaceX capsule or a Soyuz. Something you know works. The Boeing capsule can still make its return flight to prove itself, it doesn’t need people in it to do that

I would argue that it has already proven itself to be unfit for crewed flight. Test failed. At that point it becomes irresponsible to put humans back on board if there is any alternative. If they want to continue to channel their inner Sisyphus, they can do that on the next “proving” flight. There’s NFW this flight will qualify the vehicle as safe for crewed flights.

I tend to agree with you, but we really don't know what the "problems" are and how significant they are. Boeing and NASA aren't saying...

I tend to agree with you, but we really don't know what the "problems" are and how significant they are. Boeing and NASA aren't saying...

On the Shuttle, each thruster was fed by a "quad check valve" with the MMH coming in one side and the N2O4 coming in the other. Obviously, you don't want the hypergols to mix anywhere other than in the chamber of the thruster. I really don't remember all the details.

Hypergolic RCS thrusters are nothing new. I would think that these would be high on the reliability scale. Their lack of dependability on Starship is, to me, a cause for a deeper dive prior to certification, however according to Space.com, NASA doesn't seem to consider it a deal breaker.

Hypergolic thrusters do have high reliability, because they do not need an ignition source, not cryogenic, and less moving parts compared to rocket engines like turbopumps. However in the case of Starliner it appears they are overheating the valves causing the propellant to vaporize. This produces less thrust than they expect. The issue would seem to be something they could improve through software by reducing the duty cycle or roll orientation to help cooling.

Source: https://www.inverse.com/science/boeing- ... ce-station

That was some good information.

"commander Butch Wilmore and pilot Suni Williams, will spend at least a few more weeks on the space station as engineers on the ground conduct thruster tests to better understand issues..."

Weeks??? This is starting to stink.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/n ... -in-space/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E6WxpGKZQo

edit: I only briefly perused the link and I did not see what the headline said. I'll look at it again later.

I guess technically weeks. Starliner is reported to be able to remain docked to the ISS for 45 days. Why this limitation I’m not sure. It launched on June 5 and docked the next day, so that makes July 21 the 45 day mark, so they have at most three weeks before they have to depart. I’d guess they’ll leave around mid-month.

Can starliner return without a crew if it needs to?

I assume the ISS can support the extra 2 astronauts semi-indefinitely if they have to wait for a ride down. (I suspect they are not too unhappy - time on the ISS has to be something every astronaut wants, or they are in the wrong business)

Well, technically it could, and probably would operate autonomously even with the crew on board, but of course “can it” is at the heart of the discussion.

I'm not sure that is a valid assumption. We definitely don't want a situation like they had on the Space Shuttle Columbia when they ran out of toilet paper.

c'mon John, surely there are a few spare montgomery ward catalogs lying around they could use