Astronauts stranded in space due to multiple issues with Boeing's Starliner — and the window for a return flight is closing

Live Science ^ | 6/24/24 | Ben Turner

[iamgalt]

Then the question still applies

[iamgalt]

Then the question still applies

[markman46]

the suits are custom made for each astro that rides on dragon

[cgbg]

Please explain—are you saying that if the Boeing product cannot safely return there are no alternatives—the astronauts are stranded up there?

[markman46]

the starliner can return the astronuts, boeing is responsible for this HE leaks and the thruter issues, they were seen on the OFt-2 flight, same thruster issues.
nothing wrong with the heat shield. only need 7 hrs of HE to return. NASA is getting as much data as they can.

the issue with hitching a ride back on dragon or a soyus is the seats in each and the launch and entry suits warn by the starlines astro’s incompatablies is all.

they will be returning.

lots of questions too about the issues on the spaceflight sights worth reading.

onlt boeing knows about the HE valve issue if its substandard manufacturing or what.

the thruster issue can be reviewed when the capsule comes back. the service module is left in orbit.

[cgbg]

I think that was a “yes”.

;-)

[Fledermaus]

Bought some. Didn’t work.

[Fledermaus]

Ground Control to Major Tom

[markman46]

LOL ;-) maybe

[StAnDeliver]

SpaceX to the rescue, Starliner sent empty to a crispy grave...

[StAnDeliver]

"the suits are custom made for each astro that rides on dragon"

Crew Dragon suits are not custom-made, SpaceX makes them jockey-style, up and down the size chain. There are suits in Texas for Barry and Sunita right now.

Hey, Boering, if you're offended that SpaceX is about to get a huge publicity boost, I have advice for you: suck my loose helium.

[markman46]

yes each dragon crew is fitted at spacex for their suit

[Paul R.]

...except for SpaceX.

[rx]

An aspiring, heartless NASA drone will have already noted that absorbing the life insurance costs for those lost/left behind will be far cheaper than going all out by attempting extreme rescue measures, using the word “expensive.”

We didn’t see NASA sending out rescue teams to attempt to aid any possible Challenger survivors on January 28, 1986, though, as was later determined, those crew members—possibly all of them—likely survived the crash and died only many hours later.

[rx]

NASA and its astronaut and official spokesman, Donald Pettit, Ph.D., may well have felt forced to claim that they had "lost the tech" to go to the moon, despite the arguable absurdity of the claim. The tech we had throughout the Apollo project has long since still existed in leftover hardware, software, printouts, drawings, design notes and manpower expertise. Unlike the vicious destruction by WJB Clinton's White House employees of all things that would aid in the transition to the incoming George W Bush presidency, down to the removal of the the 'W's on computer keyboards, NASA experienced no such purposeful damage as or after the Apollo project wound down.

Although Ford hasn't and doesn't find it advantageous to revitalize the assembly line for a 1970-era Mustang, such would be technically possible. This was proved by Volkswagen's 1970s recreation of "Super Beetles" as they saw fit to modernize the 1940's era design originals.

Yet, it would be incredibly daunting currently to recreate the thousands of third-party parts to make a 1970s-era Ford Mustang, as most of the subordinate parts are not being made and Ford would have little influence to get them all remade from many and varied manufacturers, many of whom no longer exist. Ford wouldn't have rights to remake many of those possibly-essential parts. If it were ultimately deemed a worthwhile venture, most parts would probably do better to be recast in modern ways through more current technology that has been advanced in the intevening half century. There would be so many glitches encountered in the recreation of a truly 1970s-era Mustang that it would almost certainly preclude such a project's, feasibility, cost-effectiveness and ultimate success.

I believe it's to this kind of thinking that Pettit and NASA blusteringly distracted our attention.

Additionally, I point the reader to a related, more indepth discussion of all that at https://www.aulis.com/deception.htm

What NASA is actually hiding in that explanation toward a remake of an Apollo-style moon mission, is all the sleights of hand that NASA perpetrated with Apollo and its later cover-ups. To make a new moon mission work, NASA would not be able to foist their phoney explations onto a no-longer-as gullible scientific community and a relatively more technologically-aware populace.

We may continue by visiting https://www.aulis.com/traj_craft.htm, but let me summarize and encapsulate:

Many, even here, twist the necessary shielding requirements for survivability discussion to imply that the only danger is "getting through the Van Allen Belts (VAB)," or that it would merely depend on clever, optimal exit and re-entry trajectories. If one could only find an acceptably safe path toward and return from the moon! But were such known, assessed, scheduled, and calculated for the actual Apollo missions? Absolutely not! What NASA has blathered and lied about is just so much BS!

All such machinations are full-blown attempts at cover-up! The danger from radiation is everywhere beyond the protection of [what God providentially foresaw in] the VAB. Even if a manned 1968-72 Apollo mission hypothetically could have traversed the VAB unscathed, no such mission could have returned healthy astronauts from the moon. By the time they were recovered from under their parachutes in the sea, almost certainly all life in those capsules would have already been extinguished and moldering.

Former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe: "We don’t have [..] the means to provide shielding sufficient to preserve human life" [anywhere beyond Low Earth Orbit]. "As it stands, the radioactivity is so extraordinary you wouldn’t make it, much less get back."

Beyond LEO, both within and without the VAB, in what is commonly considered space, O'Keefe says, "The radiation is everywhere.

No amount of exposure to radiation can be considered safe."

[NorthMountain]

No amount of exposure to radiation can be considered safe.

BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha!!!!

You're being exposed to radiation right this very second.

And guess what, sonny-boy?

YOU, YOURSELF are the source of some of that radiation.

You have just about beclowned yourself as thoroughly as one can.

[rx]

Poorly reasoned ridicule doesn’t raise one’s IQ, daddy-o.

The clear context of my quotes of former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe—for the literate, at least—was that space-based radiation not shielded by the VAB.

Your apparent beef is with Administrator O’Keefe, whom I merely quoted. Bwahaha, yourself.

[NorthMountain]

The “linear no threshold” model of radiation exposure is:

1) Not consistent with reality.

2) Not actually taken seriously by anyone, even the people who promote it. Anyone who actually took it seriously would live in a lead-lined underground bunker, and never venture forth therefrom ... but still be exposed to some radiation.

It is worthy of ridicule, because it is ridiculous.

BTW, I have already visited aulis dot com, many times ... it is fraught with error both as to fact and as to logic. You pretty much wreck your credibility when you rely upon it for your “information”.

[MortMan]

Boeing moved their headquarters from Redmond WA a few years ago.

[rx]

I referred the reader to aulis.com not because I believe, as a devotee, everything stated, but because they have a lot of interesting stuff that one should consider.

You did not respond to anything I said directly other than to attempt tofurther slather on ridicule without substantively discussing any point at issue. How about trying some discussion for what I said and quoted, e.g. in support of my points from the former NaSA administrator?