Boeing’s Starliner Won't Meet Up With Space Station After Failure to Reach Proper Orbit
Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago to Technology
Early Friday morning, Boeing launched its uncrewed CST-100 Starliner from Cape Canaveral in Florida, but the spacecraft experienced an “off-nominal” orbital insertion that will prevent it from rendezvousing with the International Space Station. It’s a disappointing setback to Boeing’s aspirations to eventually deliver astronauts to the ISS on behalf of NASA.
All seemed well at first, as the uncrewed CST-100 Starliner departed Cape Canaveral this morning atop an Atlas V rocket, blasting off at 6:36 a.m. ET. Around 30 minutes into the launch, however, it became clear that the spacecraft did not reach its intended orbit, and it won’t be able to rendezvous with the International Space Station as planned due to lack of fuel, according to NASA chief Jim Bridenstine.
All seemed well at first, as the uncrewed CST-100 Starliner departed Cape Canaveral this morning atop an Atlas V rocket, blasting off at 6:36 a.m. ET. Around 30 minutes into the launch, however, it became clear that the spacecraft did not reach its intended orbit, and it won’t be able to rendezvous with the International Space Station as planned due to lack of fuel, according to NASA chief Jim Bridenstine.
👍
Merry Christmas, jb.
Use what ever units you want but be sure to convert to unis being used in a project - not done for at least one failed space craft.
The recent orbit failure was from not using the correct timing.
The second is the same for all rational humans, just differing ways of measuring it.
I learned that in an article I read a few years ago. It was persuasive and checked out at the time.
Measurements so vital and global should reflect history as well as accuracy. It's the one thing we should never have to argue about.
I have a suspicion that the change to metrics and the change to latin in science was an exercise to separate us from the past. Yes, we can convert but we shouldn't have to.
Again! another article I should have kept track of.
The only reason that measurement systems were and are sometimes still argued is whether to make human life easier: science, business, being able to understand each other, etc.
If history was so important, humans would still be communicating with grunts or with some language more developed like Greek or Latin or some other fairly wide spread language.
The Imperial standards was in 1878 while the metric standards was in 1789. Seems like the metric system has more history and is much easier to use and understand being more "organic" relating to the 10 digits of the two hands. Or, if you go way back you can have to history of a base 60 number system.
In fact linear measurement in, say feet, is usually done in a decimal notation such as 5.78 feet and not as 5 feet + some egyptian fractions.
That looks very much like a software glitch.
"Administrator Jim Bridenstine saying, “This is in fact why we test.”
"“Had we been on board, we could’ve given the flight team more options,” said NASA astronaut Mike Fincke at the press conference. His colleague NASA astronaut Nicole Mann agreed, saying astronauts could have taken manual control of the thrusters or performed a de-orbit, among many other tasks. “That’s our job—that’s what we’re trained to do,” she said, adding: “We don’t have any safety concerns.”
Well, had crew been on board it may have presented another Apollo 13 event and nobody really wants that. She doesn't know how the system would have functioned or malfunctioned.
And yes there is no way to know that an astronaut would have been able to perform corrective measures in time. But astronauts tend to not be very risk averse. It’s a continuous struggle between those of us willing to go explore new areas and the risk managers who fear losing funding and support when things inevitably go wrong.
The logic (such as it is) works like this: the Starliner is configured to only fly on the expendable Atlas 5, which is expensive compared to the reflyable Falcon 9; the Atlas 5 is booked for the next 8 flights on important missions, so adding another Starliner flight would be A. Expensive, B. Delay Starliner certification, C. bump other Atlas 5 customers.
Boeing has been granted extra money, despite being on a supposedly fixed price contract. They've been allowed to get certification for their abort system with ground testing, not required to actually perform a flight test like SpaceX. They had a parachute failure that was waived off, as the rough capsule landing was considered "survivable." The price per flight is more expensive than the Roscosmos charge for a Soyuz, and far more expensive than a Dragon flight. Nonetheless it seems if the right money crosses the right palms, all is forgiven.