Seems there (to me) nothing wrong with the capsule, it's just the service module.
No, if you reread the article carefully, one of the monoprop thrusters in the crew module also failed:
One of 12 separate thrusters on the crew module also did not work in tests before reentry. Stich said those thrusters are a different design from those on the service module and it wasn’t clear why it failed.
In some ways, that’s more worrisome than the biprop thrusters on the service module, which Aerojet Rocketdyne probably just used the wrong sealant on (Teflon instead of Kalrez). Monoprop is supposed to be more fail-safe and shouldn’t have the same sealant issue.
Add in Starliner’s helium leaks and what we’re seeing out of Boeing on the EUS for SLS, and the monoprop thruster failure seems to fit the overall pattern of sloppy work out of Boeing these days. Very worrisome.
Another question; Is it safe enough to use the capsule/service module for human flight?
NASA will have to do more analysis and testing to get at root causes and determine whether the qualification requires flight testing or can be done on the ground. Several TBDs...
NASA seemed to have been spooked by all the problems the Starliner had, frankly rightfully to be concern.
It’s a simple rule — fly like you test. NASA couldn’t determine from the ground whether Calypso was flying like they had tested, so they didn’t risk the astronauts on the return trip. With Challenger and Columbia, NASA did not fly like they had tested and 14 astronauts paid the price.
