One of my friends during college was a Boeing employee getting his PhD in engineering (I was getting Master's). He said that after he finished PhD he was planning on leaving. I asked why, especially since he had really good pay (he was getting paid $120k a year to get his PhD full-time). He said "I can't say much, but there are a lot of issues at that company that I don't want to get dragged into". This was in 2010.
This is an embarrassment for Boeing but hats off to NASA for actually swallowing a pill admitting there is a problem and taking steps to correct it instead of just ignoring issues like they have in the past
Well, that's what actual engineers and scientists do. It's insulting to compare them to money oriented people like the CEO of Boeing, Musk, Amazon etc.
@@MultiSciGeek really? Maybe you aren't familiar with Apollo 1. Apollo 13. Space Shuttle Challenger. Space Shuttle Columbia. All those spacecraft, in particular the two shuttles, had issues that NASA knew about and ignored because scrubbing launches to actually protect the lives of their astronauts wasn't worth mission delays. The loss of Columbia actually was EERILY similar to this incident. Columbia was at the ISS. They noticed an issue that might present a problem on re-entry. They chose to ignore the problem instead of sending a rescue mission. 7 people died. It's NASA's history.
People are such normies. Space exploration is pretty intense, really not a huge deal to have mechanical flaws. The 737 MAX issue they had on the other hand..
Yes. This is not good at all. Even if they turn things around people are going to remember this and pass on any future programs involving space with this company.
I'm just glad for them there is such an option. Movies have been made with worse delays. Imagine being stuck on mars with nothing but potatoes you have to bioengineer the crap out of yourself for 2 years.
They are astronauts . . . They are happy to be alive. Astronauts train to be in space. Getting stuck on the space station is like getting locked inside Willie Wonka Chocolate factory . . . somewhat safer, because astronauts can follow directions.
Boeing expresses confidence in their vehicle to NASA and NASA responds that they want to evaluate the evidence to determine facts about it. That says so much about the difference in the people running the two organizations. 6:34 Good engineering doesn't run on confidence.
The Boeing experts' confidence is grounded in the facts they've gathered through extensive testing and analysis. Those facts were presented to NASA, and while the decision could have gone either way, NASA chose the path they believe is best. I believe that Starliner's upcoming undock to landing performance will further validate Boeing's work and enhance confidence in the vehicle.
@@jasonowens7829 Well hopefully both the shoots deploy this time, they've already stated they fixed that issue. Would certainly be embarrassing if that happened again
@@hlkihglkhglkhg Five years ago, during the Pad Abort Test, the Starliner landed safely on two parachutes after one failed to deploy. However, since then, Boeing successfully deployed all three main parachutes during both the OFT and OFT-2 missions. This demonstrates that the issues from the Pad Abort Test have been addressed, and the system is performing as expected.
@@jasonowens7829 To be fair to NASA though, its hard to trust Boeing with the lives of two crew members when in the first place all of these problems should have been tested and addressed during the construction process. Even if the known faults have been addressed, the fact that there had been unknown faults makes one wonder whether there are other unknown faults. Additionally, I imagine that the astronauts have limited ability to confirm that the helium leaks and thruster issues did not create unknown faults along the way. All in all, while perhaps in reality re-entry would be fine, it would be the height of irresponsibility on NASA’s part if they gave the go ahead without being reasonably sure of it. And even if they were in fact reasonably sure of it, the optics would have been terrible for NASA. NASA has little to gain from giving the go-ahead, and would instead gain the reputation for being prudent by rejecting. Perhaps the downside would be angering Boeing, but I doubt NASA is particularly concerned with that, especially when Boeing is now known as a partner that goes over-budget, over-schedule, and has a reputation for questionable competency.
Boeing: We are confident it will work. NASA: Why are you confident? Boeing: No idea. I'm just a manager. NASA: Well can you find us some data please? Boeing: Sure. Let me see if one of our sub-managers can find an engineer.
I guarantee there's a small group of engineers/mechanics who were getting rushed by higher-ups to finish the thrusters and seals quick and to cut corners, and they knew the whole time it would probably cause problems like this. I guarantee the culture in the shops where they got built is one of "Don't cause delays and make us look bad by bringing up problems."
No bet. That`s definitely what happened. What amazes me is that it is happening with their spacecraft they are building for NASA. The planes are bad enough, but the spacecraft is way worse, as there is so much less margin for error. If something goes wrong the likelyhood of total loss and death of the astronauts is very high.
It looks like Boeing were 7 years behind schedule to deliver the Starliner spacecraft. So, they had MORE than enough time to deliver a quality product. I don't buy this excuse that the engineers were rushed into it. This just looks like another clear case of incompetence from Boeing.
I am an MBA grad. and I would like to admit with full responsibility that we folks are only good for industries like Investment Banking, Hedge funds, Marketing, Sales that's it !! AT ALL COST and I would repeat AT ALL COST keep us away from industries like Space, Engineering, Marine, Technology & IT, Healthcare (Human & veternary), Pharma, Food & beverage, Defence, Mining, Environment protection, Wildlife & Marine life, Arts & antiques and probably some more industries. Such industries should only be run by people (junior most to CEO) with education, expertise and experience in that particular industry. 😢😢
Nah - this has less to do with ‘MBAs running amok’ and more to do with an ethos in corporate America to eschew accountability at the top. Golden parachutes, CEO pay, lucrative stock options, the toxic environment around how promotions are handled…that’s what drives companies to become entirely driven by the short term. An MBA will know that long term business decisions yield long term positive results….but there’s huge disincentive as a culture to think long term. Especially for publicly traded companies. Plenty of engineers running Boeing too - they are part of that same culture.
When corners are cut expect issues. Is it really necessary to make these guys would shave off $10m worth of safety materials to say they made even more profit 😂
"If it's a boeing I ain't going", is now the appropriate response to anyone booked on a Boeing flight, that being a 2 hour flight or a trip to space or back.
There are really only 2 airplane manufacturers that makes commercial jets, Boeing and airbus. While not as bad, Airbus had had problems with their engines too recently.
I worked for Boeing (cough M Douglas) here in the UK, and there was a lot of issues that trickled down from the US, there are absolutely no surprises that their ship is sinking and I cant lie that im happy to see this. Priorities have always been their image and share price, literally nothing else. Lies, promises of dreams that never materialise and greed, let them sink, as they are physically unable to think differently.
@@lorn4867 nothing to do with you brother! Or absolutely anyone, its the higher ups that only see dollar signs and not the values... boeing gave me a start in aviation, il be forever thankful for that, but i am so happy im out of there.
It's really funny to me that the spaceships in Wall-E were called starliners, and in that movie, generations of people stayed on a ship for 700 years in what was advertised as a 5-year cruise.
With one difference. The Boeing slogan: "Takeoffs are optional, but landings are mandatory." doesn't necessarily apply in this case. What went up, doesn't have to come down this time.
the helium leaks were an issue while still on the ground, and the thruster problems existed on the previous flight. neither were fixed and they flew with crew in it anyway.
It's simple they gambled those astronauts lives in order to attempt to save face. The lack of progress on the program compared to spaceX launching skyscrapers into orbit was making them look bad. Because they are a terribly wasteful and misguided company. They are struggling to keep up.
After all the delays and huge cost overruns, that company has become a farce. Boeing is abusing their perceived position with NASA. Just another mishap on their part, it will cost them deeply.
As someone who’s lived near Boeing HQ their whole life, it’s so crazy to me how far they’ve fallen. They were such a staple in aerospace. Everyone, including members of my own family, knew someone that worked for them. They were a household name but now for different reasons.
@@mistersniffer6838Nope. Replacing engineers with pencil pushers looking to cut costs and maximize profits. You can thank about MacDonnell Douglas for that.
not 25 years... try just 5 years after merger, it's politics and greased hands that kept these secrets from coming out, now they are wanting to go back into space where the public's eye is square on them that everyone is seeing every single problem that they have had. This is a major problem long before Starliner, doors falling off planes, engines falling off planes and taking out wings... most problematic aircraft brand is Boeing. They are a monopoly! they purchased their suppliers of parts, shut those down, went shopping for more suppliers made cut throat deals to unprofitable amounts on their new suppliers, ran them into debt, bought them, closed those suppliers down... Their quality has diminished, they made it so that their suppliers cannot be innovative and expand to become aircraft manufacturers themselves. Once upon a time they did know how to make space worthy equipment, they helped get American boots on the moon and they wanted that again but tried to get their through the same methods they use to build aircraft. Nobody knows how to build a decent aircraft anymore at boeing, and if they do they either aren't showing it or their hands are tied by money grabbing people at the top!
@@magistrumartium Its a metaphor, 'seed corn' is what you keep in reserve for future sowing, for a engineering based company that is R&D, quality control, and the like. If the popular line is true, Boeing inherited McDD's share boosting corner cutting management who destroyed the company's future to ensure share price increases that would benefit them directly.
I remember when I lost my mind during the CrowdStrike crash that my flight is cancelled and I had to wait 5 days in Italy (a foreign country to me) with my family until I get a chance to get back. Now I have to rethink that, it's nothing compared to what these astronauts have to deal with....
Or just hire hreat engineer and pay for their online /distance MBA training my company is doing this for employees who wanna study more . It pays well in long run both for individuals and companies
Boeing have perfected airplane flights a long time ago... and then they focused on cutting costs and perfecting ROI for their shareholders and in the process, they ignored everything they previously learned.
Anyone catch during the live boeing starliner launch, a nasa guy told the Boeing spokesperson the flight is going well ‘so far’. 😂. The look on Boeing spokesperson lady face was priceless and speechless
@@wagnergauer9133 It doesn't matter to the investors. Once the wrong shareholders get involved they gamble the company away until it's nothing. It wasn't until the 2000s we got AI stocks and huge amounts of shortening that this started happening. Before then people literally couldn't gamble companies away because it was too hard.
@@wagnergauer9133feels like thats what EVERY company is doing nowadays. Quality goes down, unnecessary BS + price go up. At least thats my experience in the automotive industry
What you failed to mention is that both astronauts have spent long periods of time on the ISS before so they already know what it's like to be there for an extended period
Yea but was it 8 months?? Plus knowing your going to be there for a long period of time vs thinking your gonna be there for only 8 days is very different.
@@jcallwood25 they are astronauts for a reason. Im sure they're enjoying the time in space . Coldfusion made a scare tactic video. Its boeing test flight meaning shit will and can go wrong and they're learning from it
It would be hard to cut the MacDonnell Douglas cancer out now. Harry Stonecipher and Jack Welch the gold standard for pleasing the market while gutting the company.
@@LittleBlue42no it's Elon. Gywne runs the business contracts. Elon is head of engineering He designed starship. It's his rocket design not someone else's You're forgetting he ran spaceX and was asked by Tesla board to RUN Tesla in 2008 It's his management skills why spaceX and Tesla are the dominant companies you think it's just a coincidence or something? Simultaneously
Imagine explaining this to your landlord. "I'm in space. Yeah, space. I'm serious. I'll pay you when I'm back on earth. When? Fingers crossed for February. Can you put my mail in a box?"
As someone who has worked at Boeing for over 10 years in commercial airplanes, I can tell you that part of the problem is that at least 20% of the workforce just doesn't care. Their ONLY goal is making money. Worse than that, management that doesn't care. If there is a crew or individual that continually messes up, causing hours option hours of rework, management will do nothing about it. In order to perform to any degree as a manager, you have to be a yes man. They get s*** on all day from their yes man managers, so they don't care either. It's been a very sad and embarrassing downhill. I used to have so much pride in where I worked and what we built. But now, half the people that work here have no clue what they're doing and management doesn't do anything about it.
I think the union has something to do with it also. Management mostly to blame, but also the union. Never heard of unionized engineers before, outside of the government. I’m an engineer and I am Appalled
7 years late and fkin $1.5 Billion over budget is just crazy, them still fucking this up is just a sign that the problem goes deeper within the company
The same thing happened to Hewlett Packard when they appointed Carly Fiorina (a secretary with a degree in history) as their CEO. They fired engineers, sold out all the technology they couldn't understand and became a maker of cheap and unreliable computers and printers.
I actually think the opposite is true. The fact they’re prioritising the safety of three astronauts, at astronomical cost to NASA & American tax payers, over risking them dying on return in the Boeing craft, is a great image to protect. Also the fact they’re transparent about what’s happening
SpaceX could retrieve them much sooner. But NASA wants to keep the Dragon spacecraft at the ISS rather than let it do a quick round trip to Earth to drop them off. It's not rocket science. No, wait, it is, but it's just them trying to save a few million bucks.
One question I have kicking around in my head is, if this is how much they fuck around with the spacecraft build for NASA, just how bad are the planes actually? Because if that is the level they mess about with something you never ever should mess about at all, the commercial planes for private companies got to be even worse than we have any knowledge off.
I would think the airliners are actually more important in the scale of something you never mess around because if the space thing fails you lose two astronauts but if the plane fails you lose a lot more people.
Luckily planes get real-world testing thousands of times per day in aggregate. Spacecraft get tested once every few years. What is helping is that many of the Boeing aircraft in the skies are older models and have an excellent track record, the new ones have earned huge doubts over their safety and reliability.
Boeing engineers really need today's sponsor Brillent. They most likely have good engineers. It just the bean counters only pays for the cheapist parts.
As a life long business enthusiast, and proud American 🇺🇸, it pains me that Boeing that once had such a trusted name that the public looked up to in it’s integrity and achievement - threw it away forever due to the incompetence of a corner cutting leadership. The value of Boeing was the fact that it was an institution we as humans never would have imagined it possible. They are like a cheating spouse now.
That's the problem - you are a "business" enthusiast when you need to be a technology and engineering enthusiast. But what do we know - technologists and engineers set prices at cost+. "Business" people set price on "value".
@@igelbofh prices are not arbitrarily by people they are set by the market in a capitalism system. This is the science of economics. This has nothing to do with my point, you also don’t seen to understand.
Being a little older, I understand what you are saying. Corporate focus should be on product excellence - the market will then grade your efforts and either reward or punish your efforts with financial success or failure. At some point in the 70's or 80's, industry lost sight of what actually drives profits.
I remember being called elon rider for saying they're stuck and will probably need outside help weeks ago by reddit horde . I didn't even mention elon or spacex feel little petty but i am happy i was right and i hope they come back safe .
Anyone could see that they probably shouldn't have launched a crew on this mission. The insane amount of delays and budget extentions, it should have been fully tested empty in actual space. This isn't the 1960s there is no reason to risk astronauts on experimental aircraft. Now SpaceX has to figure out a solution to a problem they never planned to deal with, on a much shorter time table and budget. Luckily they are well positioned to do so. But imagine this catastrophe in like 1970. They would be coming back on a Russian shuttle if we got them back at all.
@@TheNitroG1Not too hard. Just add some extra chairs or don't fly as many astronauts. As for suits they can ask them to give them some rough body measurements. SpaceX can then make some loose suits.
Boeing by wanting to giving "maximum return" to shareholders by investing their profits in shares buyouts, having no quality control, and paying a pittance to workers is taking Boeing 's name through the mud and near bankruptcy, just the much celebrated Jack Welch did.
The thrusters started getting rough, The tiny ship was tossed, If not for the courage of the fearless crew The Starliner would be lost, the Starliner would be lost.
no, it's a test flight, they KNEW it was AT LEAST 8 day... Yes, the situation is not very good, but you don't need to speculate and dramatize what you didn't learn about the program...
In a word, "GREAT" story. P.S. as an former aerospace engineer, NASA simply cannot take the small chance of a Starliner disaster!!! What if a door blows off ???
Another major oversight no one has really touched on, is the fact that NASA didn't require a single space suit that would be used by all participating space agencies. That being said, the Starliner should never have launched with all of the problems it still had.
I worked at Lockheed. They had a lot of great engineers and manufacturers. The difference between Lockheed, Boeing, et al and SpaceX is the former are government funded, thus building only what the government has the idea to build. Further, they are burdened with requirements to "properly hire" (i.e. job quotas) and set-asides for "small businesses". SpaceX and other startups approach the requirements with a fresh perspective. They are not burdened with "intellectual momentum" that says "but we've always done it THIS way". So they can innovate. They can design reusability into the system. They can give stock options to the lowly workers instead of just the lofty managers. They don't have to hire anyone who isn't pulling his weight just to satisfy government-funded mandates. All that said, Lockheed has its Skunkworks and Boeing has its Phantomworks. Those are the guys who should be building their spaceships.
Spacex also gets to benefit off of years of public research and data that's already been established by these juggernauts that came before them, that's not forget that. They didn't just get to make stuff up by their own
Can vouch for the "small business" set asides on US government contracts causing headaches. It's probably the single dumbest thing in those contracts and that's saying a LOT.
The astronauts are not "stranded." They are both veterans of multiple missions and have spent over a year in space. "Imagine what they must be feeling?" I'm sure they're feeling just fine. They are seasoned pro's who know that space travel isn't like driving to your downtown office to go to work. And it means they get to spend much more time doing what they love most; spending time in space aboard the ISS. And you can be 100% sure they time the spend will be productive. I really detest it when people try to make some kind of drama out of something like this, as if these people were involved in some kind of catastrophe. They weren't. In fact, the reason they have to wait for another rocket to be prepared and bring them back - a routine mission - is to avoid potential catastrophe. Which is why the Boeing Starliner will be brought back to Earth unmanned. This sort of thing is absolutely normal in space flight and exploration. Think about how many SpaceX rockets crashed or blew up on their way to getting it right. Was SpaceX "embarrassed"? No, because they had no reason to be. It's how you learn all the little things you need to do to get right when it is absolutely critical that you do. And BTW, going into space will always be risky. The best one can do is minimize it as much as possible.
To be just and fair, speculators and evil investors and bankers from Wall Street, who hijacked and cannibalised Boeing and other companies, should go first to prison. Oh but sorry, USA is a brainwashed happy capitalist Country, so most people do not even see the greedy elephant in the room.
It’s not just Boeing that’s failing, every company is struggling to do everything. You can’t even get a McDouble without it being messed up these days.
Without SpaceX, the only alternative would be to use a Russian Soyuz vehicle. Between the cancellation of the space shuttle program and the start of Dragon missions, Soyuz was the only type of vehicle flying astronauts to and from the ISS. They continue to operate even these days, carrying some American astronauts as well.
McConnell Douglas is what brought Boeing to its knees. Pure and simple. They should be dismantled. And until that happens, along with subsequent massive restructure, everyone, from airline companies to private citizens, should boycott any and all new models.
Once upon a time I worked for a badly managed company. They sent me for 10 days in Banff to fix an issue with a customer. I fixed it on the first day and then they sent me next door to do some other work. Then 2 and a half year later I came back home. I spent 2.5 years living for free in Banff (paradise on Earth for those that never been).
@@XXB4XX be specialised in something everybody else sucks at. Then be their only hope to save the company. My luck ran out when technology evolved. Took me a while but I pulled another trick.
@@blink182bfsftw bi-directional comms over coax cables for hotels movie rental systems. That ran on the same wire that was feeding the TVs in rooms. Bad telecom techs across Canada doing their job poorly gave me plenty of occasions to travel.
It all boils down to this: Boeing lost its way when it began pandering to stockholders instead of putting quality first. Cutting corners and employers to boost profit margins and impress holders. This is happening with so many companies and products. It’s just more apparent when the quality issues take the form of a leaky spacecraft.
@@genericalfishtycoon3853 I worked at Microsoft prior to that. I didn't see a lot of corruption, but I was in the hardware department. I prefer working on Linux now.
Extremely scary, way too risky ! I can’t begin to imagine the level of stress felt of everyone involved, ESPECIALLY the astronauts and their family’s !! Just how much oxygen, food & water supply do they have ?! This is so tragic … Your video is excellent ! Thank you !
@9:01 "just take a second to imagine the situation you're in space in an enclosed craft with the same routine you haven't seen your friends or your family in weeks and you don't know when you're going to return" Sounds like me in my basement right now, and like many ppl during lock-downs.
Been your subscriber since your initial videos. You’ve come a long way and I was surprised by your subscribers count. It means you’re putting out quality content. I’m simply happy that I was there since then and still watching. Proud of you
I think SpaceX can put together a mission to bring Butch and Sunni back is way less than 6 months. SpaceX seems to be able to get things done in a hurry. They are already claiming they could launch a new Starliner once a month. But they can't send an unscheduled Crew Dragon to the ISS for 6 months? I suspect it's just a matter of NASA not wanting to pay for it.
As of right now all of Crew Dragons in the SpaceX fleet already have scheduled missions planned for. Endeavour (C206): Crew-8 already at the ISS Resilience (C207): Polaris Dawn (modified for EVA, can't dock to the ISS) already at the pad right now, liftoff scheduled for August 27 Endurance (C210): Fram-2 (modified with a large viewing dome in-place of docking hardware, can't dock to the ISS) Freedom (C212): Scheduled for Crew-9, September launch Unnamed Brand-new Crew Dragon (C213): Currently in production, expected to fly Crew-10 So even if NASA is willing to pay to either: - Rush production of C213 to finish it faster (which will have its own set of problems) - Boot off Fram-2 (which was already paid for by a private customer) and reinstall docking hardware to C210 Both would still take months So right now, Crew-9 is the best option regarding the circumstances.
The last I heard about Boeing is they will re-acquire "Spirit AeroSystems" to bring that company's assembly of Boeing fuselages under a uniform QC/QA program. Fun Fact, Spirit was a part of Boeing until it was spun off (1990s ?).
What happened with Boeing since the merger, and McDonell-Douglas before it, can be attributed to managers using the philosophies of former GE CEO "Neutron" Jack Welch. Boeing needs to go back to how it was run before the merger which brought us the 777. It is one of the safest, most successful aircraft in history.
Keep repeating that until Media picks it up more. Jack Welch dumped tons of Engineers on the street, and treated them like dirt. Boeing is acting like its run by Jack Welch.
9:30 not all docking ports are compatible and some are reserved for the russian capsules. They HAVE to remove Boings capsule but they can't because Boing removed the automatic control software from the unmanned missions before the launch. So the capsule cannot return neither manned nor unmanned and needs some complicated software updates. It's also too dangerous for the space station just to undock the capsule because it would become an uncontrollable object in the same orbit.
Hi Dagogo! Thanks for making this video, a small request can you please add the date and year the news is broadcasted when you show a video the TV? like the one at 4:32
For Boeing I really don't believe that they can regain confidence in any of their programs without at least a decade of just minor problems which all manufacturers will have
I am the retired CEO of a major corporation and Service and Delivery is paramount in any businesses success. Boeing has failed miserable for a while now. Training, improper QC, apparently limited stop work authority, employee evaluation and follow up, job description and duties listing, and I can go on about what can cause one of the most respectable business to do a “face plant” I wish Kelly Ortberg the best in spinning it back around… but there is an old saying that DOES apply in the real world… “1 aw $hit will wipe out a thousand atta boys”.
Reportedely, Boeing argued with NASA to bring said astronauts back on their faulty capsule. Instead of Boeing being embarrassed that the astronauts will be brought back home by SpaceX: Boeing should be embarrassed by their severe lack of quality controls.
It doesn't surprise me that the company who killed a whistle blower so he couldn't say anything is having these failures, after all their issues with their planes. I'm actually sort of scared to die flying on a plane now.
