Concerning the Stranded Astronauts

Given the unforeseen extension of the astronauts' mission, how should mission planners re-evaluate life support systems and resource management for potential future long-term space travel?

On April 13th, 1970, I was watching the movie Marooned with my brother, which was being played on TV . Walter Cronkite came on TV and interrupted the program to say that the men in Apollo 13 were in trouble. How surreal is that!

NASA: We need you to build us a crewed spacecraft Boeing: A crude spacecraft? No problem

Not too long ago a story like this would mesmerise the world in disbelief. Today it's barely a footnote

Boeing Starliner has been plauged by problems, giving them a free pass on this is a cop-out. They should be called out for what this is, poor engineering culture and execution.

This is the first time I have heard the word "stranded" used to describe this situation. In fact, NASA originally made this public, they were VERY adamant about the astronauts NOT being stranded. When I found out they were relying on a Boeing product to ride back to Earth, I knew the word stranded would have been more accurate.

"Hey, astronauts! Bad news! You'll be stuck in space for a while longer!" "Err, Houston? That's cool, over."

NEIL: What I think the real story is and would love to hear you comment on.... is Boeing. Boeing, over budget, delays and delays, problems. Do a comparison of what Starliner has accomplished, the money spent, technical innovations achieved, timeframe of work, number of flights flown, contracts awarded, basically a full rundown comparing the Starliner to SpaceX Crew Dragon. People should be informed in things like SpaceX had to sue to get into the outer space club...... That is not right.

Astronauts being "marooned" is not the important part of this story, it's the failure of the Boing Starliner module. Another nail!

The biggest downside is they're both basically eliminated from future Moon and Mars missions due to the prolonged radiation exposure tagged onto their existing life-time allowance. They're going to log an extra 5.75 months and that's basically 6 months worth of radiation that has to come off of your total time in space allowance. Even with the stations' shielding, a year on the ISS still exposes them to more radiation than experienced by residents of Japan who lived near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents of 2011. They're both going to get roughly 150 millisieverts of radiation exposure and that's going to take them out of future mission consideration due to previous missions and their already accrued radiation amounts. On Earth, humans are exposed to 3 to 4 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation a year, mostly from natural sources like some kinds of rocks and the few cosmic rays that get through the atmosphere. On the International Space Station, astronauts get about 300 mSv per year. Until now, a 55-year-old male NASA astronaut was limited to an effective dose of 400 mSv over his career, while a 35-year-old female astronaut could only be exposed to 120 mSv. NASA is looking at raising the allowance level to 600 mSv for astronauts, and if they do so then perhaps Wilmore and Williams will be able to be put back on future Moon/Mars rosters. But right now, this is the end of both of their space faring.

"that's what you do when you get older. You bring not knowledge to a thought but wisdom". Damn that's a good line

The issue isn't the astonauts having their stay extended on the ISS. The issue is the severe neglect by Boeing when it came to the craft and them actively arguing with engineers advising them about problems with the craft. This has been a history with Boeing not just with the spaceflight program, but also their aircraft. They constantly put people at risk due to them cutting corners and ignoring issues because profit. The astronauts were put at risk because Boeing did not do due diligence and address issues as they cropped up because they deemed that it wasn't important enough. Boeings neglect has cost mission delays as well and has gone over budget, being a liability to multiple organizations. THAT is the issue.

couldn't stop focusing on chuck laughing in the background

Saying it was Boeings first attempt is just flat out wrong. It’s the THIRD flight of Starliner!

I think the big deal is that the spaceX dragon routinely goes to the iss and was supposed to be inexperienced kid and ULA is supposed to be the adults that really know what they are doing

Neil, this is the third test of Starliner and the first crewed test. Their second test managed to dock with ISS for the first time, and during that test they found a problem with their thrusters. For some reason, they proceed with the crewed flight test without finding the root cause of the thruster issue found on the previous test, and here we are.

1960s definition of 'stranded' is two astronauts stuck in a tiny capsule with little oxygen, no food or water and only a crazy hair brained life risking scheme to recuse them. 2024 definition of being stranded is two astronauts having to extend their mission in a multinational space station, with half a dozen other astronauts, with enough supplies for several months while awaiting someone to decide which or who's system will be sent up to bring them back sometime, but no rush.

If an airline which is supposed to get you home leaves you stuck in an airport then you are refered to as a stranded passenger. By that definition these astronaughts are stranded.

Every time I see my friend who works at Boeing I give him crap about why "he" stranded those astronauts and when "he's" going to pick them up.

They are definitely Stranded as in Stranded in the ISS due to failures of the Boeing Spacecraft.