[rx_tx]

A few tidbits/notes I took:

- They'll reconfigure Crew-8 for 6 occupants for contingency evac between Starliner undock and Crew-9 arrival.

- Starliner leaving ISS autonomously early September

- Crew 9 launching no later than Sept 24th with 2 crew + 2 empty seats

- Crew 9 coming back down in ~Feb 2025

[dev_tty01]

>- Crew 9 launching no later than Sept 24th with 2 crew + 2 empty seats

Actually, they said no sooner than Sept 24th.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

Why have Crew 9 up there until February?

[dotnet00]

That's the standard crew rotation cycle, and their capsules stay as emergency escape vehicles during their stay.

[rx_tx]

Maybe NASA still wants to get something for the money spent launching Crew 9 and get some science done, not just be a rescue mission. They don't want to cut that mission short.

[dylan604]

Sure, if Starliner returns in auto mode successfully, then Boeing will be able to save face, and NASA will be able to take some stock in that. However, if there is a viable alternate option that has a much better track record of working, NASA would potentially not survive as an agency if there was a catastrophic ending to a Starliner return with the astronauts on board.

So from a keep humans safe while still attempting to complete the Starliner mission as much as possible, to me this is the best solution. In fact, it's kind of bonus for Boeing to test the automated return that was not part of the original mission. </spinDocter>

[sebazzz]

Crew-8 has only 4 seats right? Does reconfiguring mean “configure life support for 6 crew members”?

[daveevad]

> - Starliner leaving ISS autonomously early September

What shall we make of all of this should it succeed?

[tlb]

Suppose they’ve estimated the risk of failure (and killing the astronauts) as 10%. Then

- returning Starliner empty is the correct decision

- a successful return doesn’t indicate they were wrong about the risk

- the experts will learn a lot more from poring over mission data