/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14498702
basically after it separated from the rocket

>>14495537
All right! Thruster Boogaloo part 2!

>>12751976
In recent memory, Starliner (imagine if this had been SpaceX. They would have been so fucked and never flown humans). Apollo 1 was pretty fucking embarrassing too-especially considering the fact that something similar had just happened to the Soviets and there was plenty of writing on the wall that it was imminent

>>12737258
engines are glowing

>>12694645
imagine this but SLS

I was half joking here but holy FUCK that would actually be horrifying. Imagine if that piece of shit misses lunar insertion and sends the crew into deep space. That would be horrifying and probably stymie US space progress for a generation. This shit had better fucking work; we don't need challenger 3.0.

>>12694647
an astronaut quit boeing. Not sure about specifically pulling out of a boeing mission

>>12694659
that's what I had heard, I never bothered to fact check that claim. Here's this particular article if you care enough to look into the matter: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/02/sls-computer-development-first-flight-future/

>>12694674
the cost disparity between the two is insane. That NASA report on their own costs vs commercial crew was hilarious. This one section was basically "commenters online think that the shuttle was expensive, but they're completely wrong in that the costs were far, far worse than they think".

>>12690997
Lurk more

>>12665276
This view made me laugh my ass off

Why is it doing this?

>>12552934
cruel

>>12522251
more likely there's a software problem ala starliner and orion has an rcs seizure and/or goes joyriding in a random orbit

>>12486416
RCS seizure is always a good way to go

>>12460654
lel

>>12302627
>>12302631
Starliner can kill 7-10 people, depending on how many were staying on ISS.

>>11884003
Oompa Loompa dippity dock
You must make sure to use the right clock
Oompa Loompa dippity doo
Or else your capsule will go boogaloo

>>11845241
you forgot the webm

>>11716617
Mission elapsed time clocks don't use time zones. It's an *elapsed* time, and they didn't reset it to zero at launch. This might have been a procedural error, but it sure seems like something that should be automated in the flight software.
>>11716608
There were two other problems. One was that the course correction had two modes, coarse (big thrusters) and fine (little thrusters). In true pajeet form, it used the mission elapsed time clock to decide which one to fire. That resulted in the boogaloo of webm related, which used too much fuel and probably caused a thruster or two to fail. There is also talk that one of the thrusters never even fired at all, meaning it was broken at launch.
The third problem was found after they bothered to do a review of their code after the previous problems. It turns out that the spaceship weight value would not be updated after separating from the service module. This would have caused an incorrect burn which would likely have caused the capsule to back up into the detached service module, a possible loss-of-vehicle failure. They uploaded a corrected version before re-entry.
And then there was the ground abort test when one of the four parachutes (three are needed to land safely) failed to open, apparently due to human error when it was installed.
Redundancy is not to cover for bad quality control in software and manufacturing, it's to handle unforeseen problems and should not get used regularly.

>>11708953
It was the time that the computers started up, they never set the MET clock at launch.
But then they did poo-tier things like "it's been more than five hours, time to start doing course corrections in fine mode!" Whereupon the maneuvering engines started doing a fucking bogaloo and a couple of them failed to overheating. I think one even failed to start at all. Just watch that faggot dance.

>>11243976
>I’m pretty sure it’s easy for trained astronauts to notice when the engines are burning when they shouldn’t be...
This video I saw of a simulation from telemetry shows the maneuvering thrusters doing a freaking boogaloo for 30 seconds. (dammit mechjeb!)

>>11243922
It's NASCAR for nerds.

>>11243966
>it took so long for mission control
Right, because it was during a TDRS blackout window.

>>11244012
>>11244043
But NASA told them they could only use each capsule for one mission, so they made it expendable! (it seems Boeing only plans to make 3 or 4 starliners and will re-use them)

Bruh