> It's like you went on a trip and your vehicle is having technical issues, but you are at the hotel so you can extend your stay until the car issue is sorted out. Any reasonable person would call it stranded.
I think it's a little more complicated than that.
Starliner has many redundant systems; from what I can tell, NASA accurately says that it is (probably) safe for Astronauts to return to earth in the vehicle.
However, all of the leaks and thruster problems are in the service module which will burn up on re-entry. Which means that none of the malfunctioning hardware can be examined once the vehicle lands. A big part of the delays are NASA and Boeing trying to recreate the problems on the ground.
There was a helium leak before the vehicle was launched, and the only reason NASA gave the OK is because they thought the understood the problem. But then 4 more leaks sprung up - one of which is quite large; it's pretty clear that NASA and Boeing did not understand the problem. So I think they're trying to be extra cautious.
All that being said, I don't want to make it seem like I think everything is OK or that I'm a Boeing apologist. This is a "test" flight, but really it's supposed to be a demonstration that the capsule is built to standard and is performing properly. It is not.
It is as if you went for a test drive at a dealership, and the breaks stopped working, but you were able to use the e-break to stop and get back to the dealership. Technically, you were "safe"... but it's also not a good experience.
They can't confidently safely return home at this time === stranded. The parent's point was that NASA is using weasel language, when in the past they were not known for stooping to this.
I think it's a little more complicated than that.
Starliner has many redundant systems; from what I can tell, NASA accurately says that it is (probably) safe for Astronauts to return to earth in the vehicle.
However, all of the leaks and thruster problems are in the service module which will burn up on re-entry. Which means that none of the malfunctioning hardware can be examined once the vehicle lands. A big part of the delays are NASA and Boeing trying to recreate the problems on the ground.
There was a helium leak before the vehicle was launched, and the only reason NASA gave the OK is because they thought the understood the problem. But then 4 more leaks sprung up - one of which is quite large; it's pretty clear that NASA and Boeing did not understand the problem. So I think they're trying to be extra cautious.
All that being said, I don't want to make it seem like I think everything is OK or that I'm a Boeing apologist. This is a "test" flight, but really it's supposed to be a demonstration that the capsule is built to standard and is performing properly. It is not.
It is as if you went for a test drive at a dealership, and the breaks stopped working, but you were able to use the e-break to stop and get back to the dealership. Technically, you were "safe"... but it's also not a good experience.