I get that, but because the leak isn’t even on the part of Starliner that will go through reentry, whether or not it will impact its ability to survive the return trip shouldn’t be in question.
People keep saying that, but it isn’t true that the leak being in the disposable part of the vehicle means it’s not a safety problem.
It’s the pressurisation system for the thrusters. If that fails, then they won’t be able to control the capsule until it hits the atmosphere. That could mean they get stuck on the ISS, in the most extreme case, or it could mean that they lose thrust mid-manouvre and they re-enter the atmosphere incorrectly. That could be anywhere from inconvenient (they miss their landing spot and someone has to come get them), to dangerous (they land so far away that they’re in danger of sinking or being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them) to outright fatal (they skip off the atmosphere, or tumble their way into reentry and burn up)
to dangerous (they land so far away that they’re in danger of… being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them)
I know Soyuz was designed to land in Kazakhstan or whatever, but is Starliner (or Dragon, for that matter) even capable of landing on solid ground without damage and/or injuries?
Yes it is actually! When it finally returns, this Starliner will be landing in New Mexico at the White Sands Space Harbor, which is basically a backup space shuttle landing strip.
It’s not designed to like Starliner, but Dragon can in emergency situations. Starliner has airbags to cushion it on touchdown, but Dragon doesn’t so it would probably be a much rougher landing for the astronauts.
This is a good point. It’s definitely a possibility something catastrophic could happen like that, but the small scale of the leaks and amount of extra helium on board makes it very unlikely at least.
I agree the headline isn’t accurate to NASA’s statements, but I also feel everyone is weighing whether there is something we don’t know.
I get that, but because the leak isn’t even on the part of Starliner that will go through reentry, whether or not it will impact its ability to survive the return trip shouldn’t be in question.
People keep saying that, but it isn’t true that the leak being in the disposable part of the vehicle means it’s not a safety problem.
It’s the pressurisation system for the thrusters. If that fails, then they won’t be able to control the capsule until it hits the atmosphere. That could mean they get stuck on the ISS, in the most extreme case, or it could mean that they lose thrust mid-manouvre and they re-enter the atmosphere incorrectly. That could be anywhere from inconvenient (they miss their landing spot and someone has to come get them), to dangerous (they land so far away that they’re in danger of sinking or being eaten by bears before anyone reaches them) to outright fatal (they skip off the atmosphere, or tumble their way into reentry and burn up)
I know Soyuz was designed to land in Kazakhstan or whatever, but is Starliner (or Dragon, for that matter) even capable of landing on solid ground without damage and/or injuries?
Yes it is actually! When it finally returns, this Starliner will be landing in New Mexico at the White Sands Space Harbor, which is basically a backup space shuttle landing strip.
Neat, thanks! (What about Dragon?)
It’s not designed to like Starliner, but Dragon can in emergency situations. Starliner has airbags to cushion it on touchdown, but Dragon doesn’t so it would probably be a much rougher landing for the astronauts.
That is a really cool name
This is a good point. It’s definitely a possibility something catastrophic could happen like that, but the small scale of the leaks and amount of extra helium on board makes it very unlikely at least.
Oh, sure. It’s not likely to be a serious threat, but not for the reason people keep saying