• Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly… who would dare to risk reentry in that piece of shit.

    • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      NASA update a few weeks back said all 27 thrusters passed multiple hot fire simulations of the return mission. That overall things looked fine. And they still felt safety factor of riding home on Dragon was better.

      Kinda neat that there are multiple options now. NASA mission leaders felt the same a while back. Even if Starliner seems fine to come home why take even that slight bit of risk.

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is not what I’ve read.

        Boeing engineers tested the thrusters and managed to replicate the issue. They found that there issue was caused by a bulging of a Teflon valve.

        However they don’t understand the root cause of why the Teflon is bulging.

        So Boeing said it’s safe for the astronauts to return on Starliner but they also said that they fixed the thruster issues they had on the previous flight.

        Not all NASA is confident that the Starliner is safe enough.

    • pop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      who would dare to risk reentry in that piece of shit.

      Keyboard warriors of the internet.

      I saw comments mentioning how it was a minor annoyance and they’d be back home in the same craft same week or something close.

      Kids, this is why you take anything from the internet with healthy dose of skepticism.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Listening to NASA’s official press releases isn’t exactly what I’d call being a keyboard warrior. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the most authoritative source as your primary world view, in most cases.