Will NASA use a Space X Dragom to rescue the crew of STARLINER

a reply to: firerescue

Unlikely.

The problem is in the service module from what I read. The only reason they are staying in space is to study the problem before they can't anymore.

At least they have a space hotel/lab to hold up in before they return and leave the SM in orbit to burn up as space debris.

Same as Apollo with command and service modules.

a reply to: Degradation33

Not sure I'm following you here, that or you've got some terminology wrong. The 'Command' module returned to Earth on all Apollo missions. Only the Service module was jettisoned to burn up on re-entry (or drift off into space). On the Apollo missions the Command and Service modules stayed attached for the majority of the mission, and the Command Module jettisoned the Service Module only when the Apollo mission was ready to begin de-orbit and reentry procedures. Case in point, the heat shield was on the Command Module only, not the entire assembly.

This is basically how most of the space vehicles like Space X and others work. Soyuz is a little different in that their Service module is much smaller, but the reentry vehicle still separates from the service module prior to de-orbit.

Maybe this is what you meant, but it didn't come across this way. And I should probably add, the retro-burn to begin the de-orbit process requires quite a bit of fuel. This is why the service module is required for so long during the mission. Once you get to speed, staying in orbit is fairly easy, but slowing back down for re-entry burns quite a bit of fuel. Once the vehicle is slowed down enough, then the service module is jettisoned and the atmospheric reentry and braking occurs.

edit to add - The service module is essentially the flying 'gas tank' for the command module (with rockets).

Also from what I have found, each spacex suit is made to the astronaut. That could be a problem.

a reply to: BeyondKnowledge3

Each SPACE X IVA suit is custom fitted to each astronaut Should not be much of a problem as NASA has their measurements

Can turn them over to SPACE X to tailor up a suits in case needed

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

From what I've read all the leaks and problems are in the service module, which they leave behind anyway, so the delay is to study the problem while they can rather than any sort of return logistics issue. Unless I've misread something..

www.cnn.com...

Keeping the vehicle in orbit is essential to studying the issues, which occurred on the Starliner spacecraft’s service module — a cylindrical attachment that sits at the bottom of the spacecraft. The service module will be jettisoned and discarded as the capsule returns home from space.

Because the service module won’t be returning with the mission, engineers will not have an opportunity to gather more data about the technical problems after the astronauts land, noted Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manager, at a Tuesday news conference.

a reply to: Degradation33

Okay, but my point is, the service module stays with the command module until just before reentry. They need it because it carries the fuel they need for the retro-burn to slow down enough to re-enter the atmosphere. Just before reentry the command module jettisons the service module and the service module portion burns up in the atmosphere (later). After separation the command module orients itself to the proper reentry angles and begins the descent through the atmosphere. The command module would burn up too, but it is equipped with a heat shield which is where the proper orientation is critical.

So, you are correct that the service module can only be studied in space, whether docked at the ISS or before it is jettisoned by the command module. No disagreement there.

I only point this out because it sounds like you may be thinking the service module remains at the ISS, and it doesn't. It has to accompany the command module down to just above the atmospheric reentry injection point, and just before this point the service module and the command module separate. Just wanted to clarify this point.

I would bet SpaceX is already quietly working on a plan and probably has been for the last few weeks. They seem rather forward looking.

This is what happens when DEI Ideology festers it's way into the Engineering world . . .

a reply to: firerescue

i wonder why Boeing Starliner has no 'Escape Pods' as back-up rescue/recovery

a reply to: DBCowboy

Department of Entitled Idiots?

a reply to: Degradation33

The service module is the thing that moves the capsule from point a to point b in space. If it doesn't work then they are stuck

It's basically a big rocket engine and a fuel tank.

originally posted by: Raptured

clarification...NASA never made anything. It was mostly Lockheed and other contractors.

Technically I'd say if you have a company builds something for you and they build what you want built then you built it.

Say a company makes widgets and they need a place for their workers to park their cars so the company builds a parking deck. They may higher construction company to do the labor and maybe a architectural firm to design it, but the company was still in charge and it wouldn't have been built otherwise.

Maybe just semantics but I hear people say this and it feels like it's something put in to the zeitgeist to absolve NASA of responsibility.

a reply to: 5thHead

Okay got it. They can't get into position until its fixed. Thruster thing. I did misread it. I thought they were saying the problem wasn't severe enough to prevent return with the craft, and they were delaying it to study it.

Guess that's more Boeing spin to save face?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tolkien

Boeing had a downturn long ago. After the merger it went from an engineer centric company to one who pays shareholders.

They shifted from innovation and being a gold standard to a focus on making money for the market.

Yes, that is certainly part of it.

But DEI poisoned the well. Go to the 3min39 second mark on the following

a reply to: firerescue

I seem to recall a lot of SpeceX blowups and crash landings.

Makes you wonder why NASA abandoned the shuttle with such a relatively clean record, and matured tech?

originally posted by: chr0naut

I seem to recall a lot of SpeceX blowups and crash landings.

It's part of testing rockets. Happens a lot in the testing phase. You can watch videos of NASA blowing up rockets for hours.

Makes you wonder why NASA abandoned the shuttle with such a relatively clean record, and matured tech?

Uhhhhh.... Are you serious? TWO shuttle missions ended in the loss of the entire crew. People died. On multiple flights.

And the tech was never matured. It never got anywhere close to what was promised.

ETA: there were 135 flights of the space shuttle. 2 flights ended in in explosions. Each of those flights had 7 astronauts on board. So, out of 135 flights 14 people died.

That's about 1 death every 10 flights.

a reply to: 5thHead

...

And the tech was never matured. It never got anywhere close to what was promised.

...

Well, I don't know how anyone could quantify the meaning of a "promise" when it comes to space exploration, particularly manned space exploration. And, I don't know how anyone could ever say a promise had been lived up to or not.

I worked in the NASA Space Shuttle program in the 80's and I can tell you this much. The odds of succeeding with any manned space flight are way longer than any responsible gambler would ever bet on in Vegas. The odds are stacked so heavily against success in space it's a wonder we can even do it at all.

I will be the first person to say NASA is bureaucratic, wasteful and terribly inefficient. They are, and there is no argument about it. NASA is no different than many other government agencies.

That said, the Space Shuttle program did things that no other country or corporation on Earth has managed to do, before or since. The International Space Station exists because of Shuttle. Yes, the Chinese managed to establish a small space station, but that was nothing in comparison to the ISS, and Shuttle made the ISS happen. Yes, Space X has replicated some of the re-usability characteristics that the Space Shuttle advertised and achieved, but nothing on the order of Shuttle. And yes, other later programs using lifting body spaceplane technology like X-37 have orbited and returned to Earth, but again, nothing like Shuttle.

Shuttle had a lot of faults, and Shuttle had accidents where people died, but Shuttle, like Apollo, did things which no one else in history has ever been able to achieve...before or since. And, let's not forget...Shuttle was first, just like Apollo was first. First on the Moon, and first on a re-usable spaceplane; Apollo and Shuttle.

So, to suggest that Shuttle was an overall failure is a disservice to what it was and what it accomplished. Shuttle was a revolutionary success for the entire planet.

I am not biased about Shuttle; Shuttle wasn't perfect, but no space program is. I am also probably one of the most outspoken critics of manned spaceflight, I see no point in it. Low Earth orbit, maybe, but beyond that there is no future, IMO.

Like I tell people all the time..."Space is hard". Manned spaceflight is, without exception, the most dangerous and violent experience a human being can survive. It may not appear that way, but when you understand what actually happens in order to put a man into space and bring him/her back alive, you'll see things from a completely different perspective. The fact that humans can survive at all in manned spaceflight is a testament to just how well engineered these systems really are. I have always been amazed that the collective manned spaceflight programs have been able to keep the fatality rate above 50%. Shuttle did a hell of a lot better than that.

Space is hard. And people die in space. And as long as there is manned spaceflight, people will always perish in space.

I've never been to space, but I've worked on a lot of the stuff that has, and I've talked with the people who have.

Space is hard.

(We used to joke that it would be easier to survive jumping over the Moon with a lit stick of dynamite stuck up your @ss than it is to have a successful manned space mission.)

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Starliner return to earth has been delayed again, it will undock from ISS now on June 25 and return back to earth on June 26 at White Sands Test Range in New Mexico

Nasa and Boeing been conducting thruster firings to verify status of each thruster, One has already be shutdown

Hopefully can get things to work before return back to earth ..........

a reply to: firerescue

That's just crazy. I mean, let's hope they get it fixed, but it's not looking good for Boeing or NASA.

I think if I were the Mission Controller I'd be asking some serious questions right now about the possibilities of loading up the automatic / remote reentry modules (if not already done) and deorbiting Starliner Calypso uncrewed. Leave Wilmore and Williams (Calypso crew) aboard the ISS and see what happens. Then, over the next couple months, start working up some joint Space X rescue-resupply missions to bring the Calypso crew back. Even if that means one at a time.

They may not have satisfactory automation for Starliner ISS docking and undocking, but this could be done remotely, as could descent and braking down to the altitude where the Starliner the testing sequence automation could take over for automatic uncrewed reentry. If everything works out, hey, that's great, but if Calypso is lost then at least the crew isn't lost with it.

Thanks God for ISS at this point. None of this would be possible without it.

edit to add - Somewhat darkly ironic that that Sunita Williams (NASA) is the first woman to fly on a maiden crewed test flight of an orbital vehicle. The other first was Judith Resnik, the first woman to fly on a maiden flight of an orbital vehicle (Mission STS-51-L Space Shuttle Challenger), and we all know how that tragic mission ended. Mission STS-51-L Challenger was the mission I worked on, along with the later STS-26 Discovery mission.

Why don’t we just use one of our reverse engineered ufos from Area 51?

Not even going to kid, if something like that happened and the current administration took credit, the old man would probably be elected king of America.

Update on the return of Starliner. Now sometimes in July. NASA is studying the thruster firing data.

I think that unmaned return idea would be best for this flight. It would be a disaster for the crew to be stuck in orbit away from the ISS or burn up from heat shield failure.