Starliner's Space Station Flight Was 'Wilder' Than We Thought (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0176939449
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/04/06/0136232/starliners-space-station-flight-was-wilder-than-we-thought
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/the-harrowing-story-of-what-flying-starliner-was-like-when-its-thrusters-failed/
> Starliner had flown to within a stone's throw of the space station, a safe harbor, if only they could reach it. But already, the failure of so many thrusters violated the mission's flight rules. In such an instance, they were supposed to turn around and come back to Earth. Approaching the station was deemed too risky for Wilmore and Williams, aboard Starliner, as well as for the astronauts on the $100 billion space station.
>
> But what if it was not safe to come home, either?
>
> "I don't know that we can come back to Earth at that point," Wilmore said in an interview. "I don't know if we can. And matter of fact, I'm thinking we probably can't."
After a half-hour exclusive interview, Ars Technica 's senior space editor Eric Berger says he'd heard "a hell of a story."
> After Starliner lost four of its 28 reaction control system thrusters, Van Cise and this team in Houston decided the best chance for success was resetting the failed thrusters. This is, effectively, a fancy way of turning off your computer and rebooting it to try to fix the problem. But it meant Wilmore had to go hands-off from Starliner's controls. Imagine that. You're drifting away from the space station, trying to maintain your position. The station is your only real lifeline because if you lose the ability to dock, the chance of coming back in one piece is quite low. And now you're being told to take your hands off the controls...
>
> Two of the four thrusters came back online.
>
> Wilmore: "...But then we lose a fifth jet. What if we'd have lost that fifth jet while those other four were still down? I have no idea what would've happened. I attribute to the providence of the Lord getting those two jets back before that fifth one failed...
>
> Berger: Mission Control decided that it wanted to try to recover the failed thrusters again. After Wilmore took his hands off the controls, this process recovered all but one of them. At that point, the vehicle could be flown autonomously, as it was intended to be.
"Wilmore added that he felt pretty confident, in the aftermath of docking to the space station, that Starliner probably would not be their ride home," according to the article. And Williams says it was the right decision.
> Publicly, NASA and Boeing expressed confidence in Starliner's safe return with crew. But Williams and Wilmore, who had just made that harrowing ride, felt differently.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/the-harrowing-story-of-what-flying-starliner-was-like-when-its-thrusters-failed/
Ouch (Score:2)
Talk about a Major Tom moment! Wonder when Starliner will actually be safe for human travel...
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite potentially "never", in the sense that NASA or Trump might "allow" them to exit their contract, cancelling further development of the system.
Actually had a bit of an argument on that with somebody online not long ago, they were convinced that Musk would cancel the contract to save the fed money. They just couldn't seem to understand that Boeing has already been paid everything they're going to be paid for it, and are now burning through their own money to fulfill the contract at a major loss.
As such, holding their feet to the fire to fulfill the contract actually "helps" Musk and SpaceX more, by making them bleed even more money. So I judged it unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is on the hook for Starliner, but what about the boosters NASA wastes on launching it?
Lack of information.... (Score:5, Informative)
You should have lost that argument.
It's a firm fixed price contract, with payments made at specific milestones. The actual contract, and the actual milestones, is not public information so there's always going to be some speculation involved in how much money is left on the contract that Boeing could get paid.
But, speculating here, getting Starliner certified to carry NASA crew to the ISS is something that stands out as perhaps the most obvious milestone possible. If there's a milestone payment associated with that (likely, IMHO), they'll get that if they ever get certified. They'll also get paid for each NASA mission that goes to the ISS. So, IMHO, you're likely wrong with "Boeing has been paid everything they're going to get paid for". They're not getting any more money until they meet the next milestone, whatever that is.
Re: (Score:3)
Given Starliner's history of failure, 'm honestly in disbelief NASA even ALLOWED Starliner to launch with humans on board without requiring that it successfully make MULTIPLE successful unmanned supply runs to the ISS first.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I could SWEAR I remember SpaceX launching several Dragon capsules for unmanned ISS supply runs before its first manned launch.
Regardless, that should be NASA's firm requirement for Starliner NOW... no humans until it successfully completes at least 2 or 3 u
Re: (Score:2)
Crew Dragon is not the same as Cargo Dragon. My understanding is there are significantly more complex systems onboard Crew for life support, additional radiation shielding, communications, and internal controls for thrust, yaw, pitch, attitude, and roll (commonly referred to as RCS). Cargo doesnt have a lot of those additions and was therefore independently certified. Human rating is a different certification as well.
As for Boeing, they should have to complete the contract or never receive another contr
Re: (Score:2)
> NASA must have been absolutely desperate for a second US provider of space rides
Well, given what their other option is, their position is easy to understand.
I would not want to be dependent on a blood-pissing junkie with a Hitler complex and illusions of grandeur for a core part of my activities either.
Re: (Score:1)
That blood-pissing junkie with a Hitler complex and illusions of grandeur just creamed the entire field of competitors in one of the hardest industries in the world to enter: Space services.
If I were going to space, it would have to be in a SpaceX vehicle, or id say no way Jose. But you do you.
Re: (Score:1)
> one of the hardest industries in the world to enter: Space services.
"Space services"? LOL.
Most of the ketamingo launches are his own space junk and a few nanosats, piggybacking on your tax dollars.
WHO THREW THAT (Score:1)
To the Moon! *thwap* OWW
I hate to say it, but SpaceX rocks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Boeing seems to have failed. I lost belief in Mush himself, however.... I have faith in SpaceX. They have a CEO, a woman, who is decent and does her job. Everybody in SpaceX does their jobs. I have faith in them.
Re: (Score:1)
Elon is the principle engineer at SpaceX and much of the direction comes from him. He is also the CEO. Gwynn Shotwell is the President. It was Elon who came up with the MechaZilla tower to catch booster and starship, for example. He also leads that organization to excellence. It isn't like Boeing just didnt have the resources or money to hire people. They just didn't lead their engineers well. Musk did. Much as you might hate him. He is demonstrably wiser than you. Maybe reconsider your own world view?
Re: (Score:2)
I really do not believe you. Musk is spending his time tweeting and taking drugs. That is obvious. You seem like a PR person. Mush is also spending his time taking down the USA, the "deep state". Professionals who take care of National Parks, and who makes vaccines in order to keep Americans Healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Off topic, but if Republicans believe in Religion, and in family values, why support Musk? Musk has 15 children and 3+ wives? Republicans are against drugs however Musk is a drug user. To be consistent... Republicans should be for drug use.
"the providence of the Lord" (Score:2)
We can obviously attribute all the Starliner problems to the providence of the Lord who found put that Butch and his DEI pasenger were wearing clothes of mixed fibres (Leviticus 19, 19).
It's time we stopped sending religious nutters to space and hoping they behave rationally up there.
Re: (Score:2)
America is a "Melting Pot", it seems obvious that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, be a part of it. America is not just a white powerful guy nation.
Thrusters failed on trip down as well (Score:3)
I remember reading that the capsule suffered more thruster failures on the unmanned trip home, even though it was able to successfully re-enter atmosphere and land.
I'd equate it to a 747 losing an engine and rudder control, managing to land and disembark passengers, then after "repairs" done by a small field tech with very limited tools, heads back without the passengers, but suffers another engine failure on the way back.
If I was one of those passengers, I'd be 100% with not being on that flight back, even if it made it back "safely".
Especially if I'm getting to spend another week in some tropical paradise* on the airline's dime waiting for another plane.
As a note, the dragon capsules have a history now of working without serious failures.
*They're astronauts, being in space is what they want.