You are not logged in.
I watched this video on YouTube yesterday and posted it elsewhere but it didn't seem to evoke a response given the status of the Boeing Starliner with two highly "at risk" astronauts aboard--now stranded on the iSS--I felt this was a very important program!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPs19M2 … WL&index=5
I think that a viewing and a response from the more engineering types here would be "interesting!"
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by NewMars members over time.
The video linked by Oldfart1939 is 29 minutes long. It opens with a review of the use of hypergolic fuels over a number of years. It segues into a discussion of the predicament of the two astronauts who flew up to the ISS on the Boeing Starliner.
(th)
Online
Like button can go here
ISS has plenty of resources that can be managed but planning is just that to be able to maintain the crew count and supplies. This is no different that when a crew is on mars and we need something critical in a period of time. It still comes down to safe level of resource to survive.
Offline
Like button can go here
The formula for plane change dV in the video is correct. It is also given in the orbits+ course materials. The estimate provided in the video is wrong, however, and way-underestimated.
The estimates for dV to change orbital altitudes in the video are incorrect, and underestimated. The correct procedures are in the orbits+ course materials.
The estimate for a deorbit burn in the video is incorrect, and an overestimate. The correct values and procedures to find it, are in the orbits+ course materials.
The estimates for the hypersonic airbreather space plane as a rescue vehicle are not just wrong, they are way, way, way wrong! Such will require nuclear propulsion to do that job as a single stage item.
It is possible to do it as a two-stage item, with chemical propulsion, but only with vertical launch. We have already been down that road here on the forums, and that argument continues, even today. But I stand by the results I have gotten!
Starliner is still badly flawed, but I am as yet unconvinced the two astronauts are doomed to death in it, if they try to return in it. I would recommend not certifying it for manned flights until the flaws are corrected (and they are numerous). But I really doubt NASA will do that.
Meanwhile, Boeing has pretty much gotten all the income-above-cost that they are likely to get out of Starliner. They know that. They are looking for a reason to cancel it, before it costs them more to correct the remaining numerous flaws, than the remaining flights to ISS are worth.
THAT ugly place is where we really are. It's not about lives, it's about money.
GW
Last edited by GW Johnson (2024-06-25 18:27:58)
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
I still stand by what I wrote in post #4, about Starliner, the test flight, and Boeing.
I would only add that 2020 hindsight says NASA was rather dumb to remove the 3 lower seats from crew Dragon. You do not have to fill them for a given mission. But if those seats are NOT there, you cannot do the rescues that you would like to do, without reducing crew size ahead of time. And THAT is a very stupid place to be in, NASA!
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here