e-FTW
New electron smell
Finally, views of Snoopy! He was actually quire useful as you can see him bounce around because of the thruster firings.Internal Starliner video:
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Finally, views of Snoopy! He was actually quire useful as you can see him bounce around because of the thruster firings.Internal Starliner video:
So the IFA mission that was planned for today has been pushed out 24 hours due to poor weather in the capsule recovery area (rough seas, high winds). Understandable, but it led me to wonder this: why did SpaceX elect to land their capsule in the ocean and Boeing elect to land their capsule on land?
It would seem that returning a capsule to solid ground has several advantages; no pitching seas, easier for the recovery support team to get to, less costly because no ship needed, etc. Obviously the Russians have done it on land for the entire history of their manned space program, but then they have a huge suitable land area (the Central Asian steppes) and no easy access to a suitable ocean area.
Also obviously, the US moon program in the 60’s always landed manned capsules in the ocean, as far as I know. Boeing decided not to do it that way. Why?
I tend to agree.This is speculation on my part but the original intention was SpaceX's powered landing with a water landing as the backup. It was a year or two into the process that SpaceX dropped the concept of powered landing for the capsule. Once that was gone, SpaceX either had to redesign the capsule from scratch or go with their backup water landing. Boeing chose a land landing from scratch and had to make that very complex design work. Capsules landing in water is a tried and true system with vast amounts of history and data to back up how safe and successful the system is. So SpaceX, in this case, went with the simpler choice.
Elon says the best part is no part. Thus, the best landing cushion is no landing cushion.This is speculation on my part but the original intention was SpaceX's powered landing with a water landing as the backup. It was a year or two into the process that SpaceX dropped the concept of powered landing for the capsule. Once that was gone, SpaceX either had to redesign the capsule from scratch or go with their backup water landing. Boeing chose a land landing from scratch and had to make that very complex design work. Capsules landing in water is a tried and true system with vast amounts of history and data to back up how safe and successful the system is. So SpaceX, in this case, went with the simpler choice.
One can tell that Bridenstine still knows how to behave like a politician. His statement reads like a bunch of double-talk mixed with a dose of hedging.
"The team will review the primary anomalies experienced during the Dec. 2019 flight test" So Jim, does this mean that Starliner experienced multiple anolmalies?
"Once underway, the investigation is targeted to last about two months before the team delivers its final assessment.", but in the meantime "NASA is evaluating the data received during the mission to determine if another uncrewed demonstration is required. This decision is not expected for several weeks" . Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, looks as though NASA will decide on a crewed or another uncrewed flight before the independent investigation has been completed.
Yes I remember that but I thought it was NASA who told SpaceX that a retropropulsive landing was not acceptable to them.This is speculation on my part but the original intention was SpaceX's powered landing with a water landing as the backup. It was a year or two into the process that SpaceX dropped the concept of powered landing for the capsule.
Excellent point.Elon says the best part is no part. Thus, the best landing cushion is no landing cushion.
Yes I remember that but I thought it was NASA who told SpaceX that a retropropulsive landing was not acceptable to them.
Personally I think they have to redo the flight test.
Devils advocate... the crew on the space station is still at significant risk in a botched docking, even if the spacecraft has no crew. Potentially a live crew could abort docking. So it’s not entirely clear what the safest course of action is.
Actually no. NASA just said that, if SpaceX was going to do powered landings then a significant amount of testing would have needed to be done to prove the safety. That testing would have come with a significant price tag that SpaceX would have had to cover. So SpaceX, not NASA, dropped propulsive landings for Crew Dragon. The even more significant reason was that SpaceX and Elon decided that they weren't going to use Crew Dragon for Mars. The earliest stages of Raptor and BFS (Starship) were already being considered which was much closer to Elon's vision for Mars colonization. So Crew Dragon and powered landings became obsolete and unnecessary for cost and lack of need.
It's still an idea that SpaceX could revive but spending the money and effort to prove it out when you will soon(ish) have a fully reusable Starship and Super Heavy at your disposal...
They need a full engineering review. That error was indicative of horrible engineering design.
That is overly harsh. Complex systems always have bugs. That's why you do testing.
The Space Shuttle has its first ever launched scrubbed because the computers wouldn't synchronize. Turned out there was a minor design flaw and therefore a small chance (something like one in a hundred) that when you turned the computers on they wouldn't sync up. The solution turned out to be the old "turn it off and back on again".
The Shuttle program was incredibly careful about software bugs, and the possible impact of fixing a bug causing new ones. As a result they would usually implement workarounds for known bugs instead of fixing them. They had a phonebook sized document full of bug workarounds on board.
SpaceX took four attempts to reach orbit...
I could go on but you get the point.
Quote from Eric, "The NASA source said eight or more thrusters on the service module failed at one point and that one thruster never fired at all." Ouch.