• AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 months ago

    after being delayed for so long, while costing significantly more than SpaceX’s offering, this is really just a very bad look

    and, its coming at a time when everyone is already suspicious of Boeing from their aircraft manufacturing practices

      • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But in SI you can easily (and metrically) translate it to volume/s, which would then probably be less cumbersome.

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The volumes would be different on either side of the leak. Usually you standardise leak measurements to STP, and give it in standard cubic centimetres per second, SCC/s, i.e. ‘how much fluid would be escaping if it were in a room at one atmosphere of pressure at 20°C’. Makes it easier to compare.

  • x4740N@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is this really going to turn out to be another challenger, fucking hell

    • atocci@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, it won’t. At least, not because of a helium leak. Starliner is currently holding ten times the amount of helium needed to safely deorbit the capsule. These new leaks aren’t anything mision-endangering and are leaking hundreds of times slower than the one they detected beforehand that NASA still deemed acceptable to launch with.

    • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      More like Columbia, where the issue is detected and they bring it home anyway and it breaks up on reentry.

      • x4740N@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’ve always wondered if there was a viable solution to save the Colombia astronauts

        • atocci@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It was possible to save them, but it wasn’t actionable. The level of danger the crew was in wasn’t fully understood, and NASA didn’t believe that they were going to lose the crew and ship on reentry, so nothing was done.

          I would recommend watching this whole video if you have the time, but I’ve linked to the most relevant chapter. It’s a very good breakdown about the failures of NASA’s risk management around the space shuttle.

        • Gerudo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The only option they had were to send another shuttle up and transfer to it. There was nothing in place to repair the heat shielding, even if they had known the amount of damage.

          The shuttle transfer would have been something never attempted or even planned for.

  • Nicarlo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’ve been out of the loop but when I hear that Boeing had built and was launching a spacecraft I immediately knew there was going to be problem. If they have a document history of cutting corners on their aircraft, what would make people think this would be any different.

    I hope the astronauts can make it back without incident but knowing Boeing they might use the reentry as an opportunity to “disappear” the whiteness