This is a warning from experts. We all hope that it will not happen, however, NASA also needs to ensure that every solution is taken to ensure the safety of astronauts on the ISS.
What’s unbelievable is that Kevin is too busy hearting comments for farming engagement to change the title. Total loser who’s desperate for validation on the internet. The ‘00s called, they want their cringe back
CLICKBAIT! Starliner's chances of getting home are almost nil but hitting the ISS after release is not a realistic possibility. Which anonymous experts did this evaluation come from?
@@robg6202 They have software to use without pilots, it just takes a month to load, lol! They earlier announced that they cannot un-dock un-piloted unless this is done. If you somehow manually ejected the Starliner without a pilot or the software update you would probably suffer some risk of collision but nobody has suggested doing any such thing. BTW, straight from NASA is not a name. My original question stands. Which expert brought up the subject of possible collision under any scenario that is actually being considered?
There's no such thing as "drifting away safely". If you push an object away from another orbiting object, the object will eventually seem to come back from the opposite direction and indeed collide with the other object. If on EVA you throw a wrench down towards Earth, an hour and a half later that wrench will hit you coming from the opposite direction. To get an object away from possible contact takes more than one burn. The risk is of Starliner losing propulsion after the initial burn pushing it away. If it cannot execute a second and third burn, but only executes the first burn, then it necessarily impacts the station after a single orbit; or at best after many orbits. The possibility of Starliner hitting the ISS is far, FAR more real than most people think. Those who call this title "clickbait" it's because they don't have a clue about orbital dynamics. The other part of the title, "NASA Can't Control Starliner Propulsion" is also true. A mature control system on a spacecraft has basically 3 modes AND combinations of the three: Auto mode, Manual (astronaut pilot mode), and Remote control mode. Starliner doesn't even have two of these modes, let alone all three, much less mixed modes. If you need help understanding how primitive the programming level of BOEING is, consider again the first flight of Starliner. Do you remember what happened? A time was incorrectly communicated from the rocket's computer to Starliner during ascent. The error was 11 hours. And so Starliner thought it was close to the ISS and began to spend a lot of fuel keeping very accurate attitude control, as if it were about to dock. As a programmer myself, I vomit every time I remember that. How could a BOEING programmer be so unbelievably thick as to base the flight control state on just one single timer? It is frankly unbelievable that anyone could be so stupid. This is below entry level programming experience. It is the mother of incompetence. Single point of failure right there, with no checks and balances ... If time is X do Y. Period. X is wrong? The mission be damned. ... And then NASA looked at the code and made 72 recommendations (to fix 72 equally dumb oversights). And if they had spent 10 times longer the list would have contained 720 items. BOEING hired the one US citizen with the lowest IQ to do this? More likely they had 100 programmers to begin with, but just fired any programmer that talked back to or who challenged the authority of the spiffily dressed but useless bean-counters, and the one stupid programmer was all they had left. ... That's my theory. If you reward obedience, you punish independence, conviction, creativity and excellence.
" If you push an object away from another orbiting object, the object will eventually seem to come back from the opposite direction and indeed collide with the other object" Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that. Can you explain?
@@alexanderSydneyOz Suppose you're in a circular orbit, like the ISS. On EVA you throw a wrench towards Earth. Its trajectory may look to you simple, linear, downwards, but in reality you've made its orbit an ellipse. In about 30 minutes its altitude will stop decreasing, and start rising back. In about an hour it will be further from Earth than you are, by about the same distance as it traveled downwards originally. At about 90 minutes it hits you in the back of your head. Now, if you throw an object forwards or backwards from the ISS, the situation is more complicated, and you won't get a collision in 90 minutes; it may take months; but it will come, as the elliptical orbit you've created for it is not synchronous with yours, but it is still in the same plane, and intersecting. In orbital mechanics, the simplest orbital transfer, i.e. how to move from orbit A at 300 km to oribit B at 400 km, say, takes two burns. First burn while at 300 km makes your orbit an ellipse for which the apogee is 300 km, but the perigee is 400 km. Now you wait, for say 50 minutes, until you reach the 400 km perigee, and now you execute a second burn, to convert this elliptical orbit to a circular orbit at 400 km. This is called "circularizing the orbit". Same applies in changing to a lower orbit, except the two burns are backwards. The best you can do with a single burn is to change your orbit into an ellipse; and this ellipse intersects the original orbit. You NEED two successful burns, minimum, to get away from the ISS safely. There is no "drifting away". In fact, any objects, such as tools, that astronauts have lost to space over the years, WILL come back at some point and hit the ISS, and probably a few have, already. Except that they were not moving away fast, so they probably didn't come back fast enough to do damage.
I hate click bate. I like this channel, but get annoyed by the constant deceptive titles. Honestly have been watching less for this very reason. Plenty of other channels to watch.
You mean to tell us NASA has been subjecting multinational astronauts to the danger of not having an emergency eject system for pods, capsules, or other hardware??? Oh wait, it is government owned and operated.
This channel and their constant click-baiting titles. If you want to actually seem credible, stop with this nonsense. You generally do provide good information (even if frequently regurgitated from other news sources). There is no need to keep doing this.
This is outrageous -- claim that Starliner will crash into the ISS is not just clickbait, it's staggeringly disgusting to state this as a given. The departure from ISS requires well controlled propulsion and if it were to lose thrusting capabilities there is a small chance it could hit the ISS as any spacecraft departing the ISS with a propulsion problem might do. The ISS, however, does have maneuvering capabilities that it needs to re-boost it's orbit AND to avoid collision. Seriously Great SpaceX, this is what you are now?
Imagine how soulless you have to be to like this comment as a creator and not even fix the title. Pathetic and weird RU-vidr - someone out there is making better content with less cringe
4:00 it is absolutely irresponsible of you to speak with all this hyperbole and hypothetical about crashing into the ISS. The chances of that happening is so infinitesimal, that it is embarrassing for you to even talk about it the way you are. And that stupid image you posted of flames coming off of all parts of the ISS was really beyond belief.
@@ninetailscosmicfox5585you're welcome to go watch angry astronaut. He hates on SpaceX enough that you'd think Elon himself kicked this guy's dog. If that's your thing
@@LifesaGambleZL1 not '...must not of...', fren; '...must not've...', as in '...must not have...' -#TheApologeticUsageNazi ;-) also, the vid, and the channel, are 100% clickbait, fren.
@@ScottRagland just because you think something doesn’t mean it is. You can not give total description of what a video is about in the title. Click on it or don’t. No one makes anyone do things they don’t want to do. If you don’t like this groups block them. Simple as that. No need to come on their video to bash them because you feel a certain way. SMH. Go live your life the way you want. Instead of bothering people because you feel like it. It’s harassment what you are doing and it is liable for a law suit. Some of you really need to think before doing things before you get into trouble over bs crap. Have a great day.
I'm unsubscribing. This is click bait. Using the word "to" instead of "could" change the whole context. I don't appreciate clickbait. This is not the first time I've seen it here. Goodbye and shame on you.
Okay... I like your channel for the updates you provide, but it is getting to be more and more sensationalist in its content. While I agree there is a risk of the spacecraft losing control, the odds of it crashing into the ISS are minimal - far more minimal that the REAL threat of losing two astronauts when it can't re-enter the atmosphere correctly because of the thruster malfunctions. PLEASE stop using sensationalist tactics to get people to watch your feed - you don't need it - you provide good content in the way of updates without all the BS - Sticking to that will improve your credibility.
Despite your good info, the title was extremely misleading. This was my first interaction with your channel, but if this is how you put out content, you will not find me in your subscribers list.
good call, fren. for years were GS my topmost among many Spacex channels; formerly played almost their every post at least 2x full thru. for some weeks/mos now, have i been dump n jump only, once they begin rephrasing same news they just said, usually about 1/3 into runtime, because the rest is just rephrase after rephrase, adpadding into 8-10-12-14 or more mins the info it took only the first 3-4 mins to tell us. healdines are nowadays more oft than no just flat lies. scroll a few of late post threads, then chk threads more than 90 days old; the diff is stark, fren. sad but true, alas.
You gotta tamp down the title hyperbole... otherwise the actual content might annoy. By the way a small suggestion… Change your sign off to "things are looking up". Small change but good vibes.
I had the same thoughts. Completely power it down and leave it there. Must be a port thing, or is it a mass thing? Extra mass, extra fuel to adjust orbit. May as well get rid of the dead weight?
there are not enough docking ports-- there are only two parking spots and Starliner is taking up one of them. Other cargo and crew modules need to dock there, two at a time.
Right. And they can't flash the firmware to fix it? I think they can but want human control to get it safely away from the ISS in case the thrusters go crazy and need manual control. We put a man on the moon 50 years ago and rocketdine forgets how to make vacuum feed valves? There's a massive issue with boeing! Thank god for Elan.
High comment count, a ton of which are calling you out for yet more Clickbait. Does this mean anything to you, or is any attention better than no attention? Problem is, that even with SpaceX not enough going on to justify daily posting. Can’t keep from being repetitive and long-winded. Don’t keep tainting the good
The title of this video is blown way out of proportion! The title is stating that it will crash into the ISS! That is not a for gone conclusion. Like so many titles on you tube, They are blown way out of proportion to attract viewers. Let's calm down on the titles!
I don't understand the problem just cancel this ,lives are more important than this expensive tin can ,let SpaceX continue its remarkable positive achievements
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale a tale of a fateful trip, that started from this tropic port, aboard this tiny ship. The mate was a mighty sailin' man, the Skipper brave and sure..
I think I'm done with this channel. It used to be no-nonsense Space-X updates. Not sure why the owner feels the need to always have clickbait titles. I guess he thinks we're stupid and need to be tricked into watching the video.
We are BOO..EING we have to cut corners make every $$ we can as our godly masters demanded of us. Nothing else matters more! U have better shut up or else U will end up like whistle-blowers against us & we know why - GOD's intervention !@#$ LOL
Ship up some magnetic thrust units and attach to the outside of the starliner. Let it drift away, then use the attached temporary thrusting units to move it further away. Then, attempt using starliners own thrusting to reach the needed reentry flight path.
@@colonbina1 'Thanks for your great contribution.' thanks for confirming your flat lie titles, and your flat lie content, will continue to increase, clickbaiter. keep doubling down your clickbait lies w more and more such 'f*ck off, user' fingers in our eyes; your fall will be all the faster, and more gloriously deeeelish, therefore.
When you say "undock passively" do you mean simply disconnect it, or use a small amount of pressure from one of the compartments in the station to blow it free?
The whole reason for having two vendors was to avoid the failure of one vendor disrupting the operational schedule. And here we have one vendor upsetting the entire schedule. One of the ancillary problems is that NASA did not insist on a common external interface to.the life support system on the competing solutions. We also know that Orion has different space suits, and presumably different LSS interfaces. Dies the Trash liner not have an external handle that the Remote Manipulator can grab to then shove the Trash liner well clear of the ISS before it uses its thrusters. I believe Crew Dragon has one that it inherited from Cargo Dragon. It is always a hood idea to.have both a belt and suspenders when you are 500km from the nearest mechanic.
Cancel it? Every Starliner mission has had issues, they haven't produced a flawless flight yet and ISS is only five years from retirement. Even as reckless as the Russians are sometimes accused of, they didn't risk cosmonauts lives on a compromised spacecraft. Given the ISS deadline, given we have a reliable and qualified manned spacecraft, and given we have several reliable resupply spacecraft, it may be time to pull the plug on Boeing. After 14 years and over $5B, the Starliner is more of a liability to both NASA and Boeing, than an asset to the space program. There will be consequences, Boeing is replacing their CEO and since we expect a change of administration it's probably going to cost Nelson his job at NASA, but at some time you have to cut your losses, so cancel it.
Can the Starliner be fixed? Such a waste of time, resources, and money$ If it is unsafe and unreliable perhaps it should be canceled before someone gets killed!
This whole fiasco reeks of incompetence all around. As a former manager of a company, I would have pushed for cancellation of Star-liner years ago and re-invested into other companies.
Inb4 “Kevin” (who is probably just one of Elon’s bots pretending to be human) loves this comment as if “he” (aka it) lacks any self-awareness whatsoever.
Remember that time NASA had 2-3 days to figure out how to bring the Apollo 13 crew home safely and pulled it off? Maybe they should dig those guys up out of retirement.
Re the subsurface water on Mars. Well! kilometres deep! That's terribly interesting. Not entirely unsurprising, and utterly useless. Colonising the planet is possible albeit difficult, but drilling that far to tap water is effectively impossible. Personally, I would be more focused on using surface water stored as ice. Even that is not without its challenges, but possible at least.
28 thrusters means there's significant redundancy. Countering by shutting off reciprocal thrusters and compensating with flow from adjacent thrusters can resolve most scenarios. Not a perfect solution, but a workable one. It's the whole reason so many thrusters were used in the first place.
Is there any way that the capsule can be be pushed far enough away from the ISS with the Canada arm and left stationary so that when the ISS is far enough away it can be it can be fired back to earth and burn up on reentry.Not ideal i know because they won't learn as much as if they can get it back in one piece but i am no expert and just a layman observer.
NO. Spacex does not have a monopoly on engineering talent. Rather, Musk's vision provides a sphere which allows engineers to thrive and innovate. Why is that not obvious?
Not watching after 43 seconds. Why don’t you try video titles with the truth? I clicked on this video specifically because of the title. I will never make that mistake with you again.
