From: snidely.too@gmail.com   
      
   The Running Man explained on 6/4/2024 :   
   > On 02/06/2024 14:22 Snidely  wrote:   
   >> On Friday or thereabouts, The Running Man declared ...   
   >>> On 30/05/2024 18:35 Snidely  wrote:   
   >>>> The Running Man  scribbled something on Thursday the 5/30/2024:   
   >>>>> On 30/05/2024 11:17 Snidely  wrote:   
   >>>>>> Starliner is again at SLC-41 ahead of crewed launch, L0 currently June   
   >>>>>> 1st 12:25 pm EDT.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> /dps   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> --   
   >>>>>> Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence   
   >>>>>> went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his   
   >>>>>> precious heavy water.   
   >>>>>> _The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> AFAIK the Crew Dragon docked at the ISS isn't suitable for a rescue   
   >>>>> mission since it's not modified to perform an EVA. Only the Crew Dragon   
   >>>>> capsule being  used for the Polaris Dawn mission is fitted (or being   
   >>>>> fitted) for EVA.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why are you talking about rescue missions?  Starliner's heat shield is   
   >>>> intact.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> /dps   
   >>>>   
   >>>> --   
   >>>> potstickers, Japanese gyoza, Chinese dumplings, let's do it   
   >>>   
   >>> Because they said there's about a 0.75% chance that the helium leak could   
   >>> result in a failure to initiate the retro-burn.   
   >>   
   >> Was that 0.75% before or after the new backup backup procedure was   
   >> implemented (using 4 RCS thrusters twice)?   
   >>   
   >> /dps   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >> Who, me?  And what lacuna?   
   >   
   > Here's your answer:   
   >   
   > "As it turned out, there was something to be concerned about. The review   
   > turned up what he called a ?design vulnerability? with Starliner?s propulsion   
   > system that had not been recognized. Starliner?s service module has four   
   > areas called ?doghouses? spaced 90 degrees apart that host both larger   
   > Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control (OMAC) thrusters and smaller   
   > reaction control system (RCS) thrusters. If two adjacent doghouses failed for   
   > some reason, though, it would prevent the spacecraft from doing a deorbit   
   > burn even though the spacecraft is designed with multiple ways to carry out   
   > the deorbit burn using combinations of OMAC and RCS thrusters."   
   >   
   >    
      
   I believe, from my sources, including NSF and Ars Technica, that that   
   finding was from before the additional mode was added.  The review that   
   revealed the above issue was what prompted the software update.   
      
   /dps   
      
   --   
   "That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"   
      
   " Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."   
                   -njm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)