The simple solution to verify the readiness of Starliner is to send the CEO of Boeing up on a SpaceX Dragon and see when he’s ready to come back on Starliner.
Ehh, Musk hasn’t ridden on a Dragon yet, and they’re tested and proven. I’m no Bezos fan, but he was brave enough to take a ride on the first crewed New Shepard flight.
@@angryox3102 true, he hasn’t. I don’t think he has any desire to. I bet he would if his life depended on it, do you think Calhoun would get in Starliner if his life depended on it.
Please consider this - during the Reagan Administration in 1986, the politicians were desperately anxious to launch the Space Shuttle with the famous "Teacher in Space" on board. They needed a boost right then. As I remember it, an engineer at the plant that made the solid fuel rocket boosters thought they were unsafe due to the cold weather, etc. They pressured him into signing off on the mission, and the shuttle blew up and killed everybody. That man has to live with that knowledge for the rest of his life. Political pressure was stronger than safety and common sense. Will that happen again today? The government wants to keep Boeing's name clean. The government wants all of us to believe in Boeing, and to forget what has happened. The government wants to sweep it all under the rug. I hope this tragedy doesn't happen again.
@@fredferd965 It doesn't matter who the POTUS was . The point that a mid -level engineer at Morton Thiokal raised the alarm and was roundly told to "shut up"is what is important. Both MT &NASA have blood on their hands. Other crews have paid the price on other missions.
Life of two US astronauts does matter, but it is not the only problem NASA is facing. Boeing Starliner craft must land in designated area on US territory , not somewhere in the Ocean like Crew Dragon craft. Malfunction of trusters could result in landing in the populated area with potentially dangerous consequences.
Seems like they neither trust it for returning astronautes back to earth nor undock it from the ISS autonomiously.. Recover it is the last of their concerne
The one thing everyone has neglected to mention is that the longer Starliner is in orbit attached to ISS, the more it is exposed to the changing temperatures and hazards of space. Each week or month that Starliner remains in orbit complicates the potential for a safe return of Butch and Suni. The so-called "confidence" in Starliner decreases exponentially the longer NASA and Boeing delay the astronauts' return.
While that is true, these craft are designed to be able to stay in orbit attached to the ISS for a minimum of 6 months plus a margin of time longer for safety.
@markb2773 Also true, however, the unpredictability of meteroid impacts and continued "stress testing" of the thrusters can only lead to more degradation of the seals, the service module systems, and the astronauts ability to rely upon those systems in the event of further unforseen complications upon leaving ISS to return home.
@Tinman_56 when u say unforeseen r u talking about stuff like solar flares or political stuff? I mean what happens to sunita and butch if boeing employees go to jail be4 they leave iss?
@TrrsnSmrg Space related anomalies and overtesting or stressing the thrusters on the SM such that when they are requiredto functionat full capacity, they may not. The political aspect of the entire situation is apparent!
Absolutely. Nelson and his cronies need to be broken up. Get politics out of the contracts and how requirements are met. Pay for success not twice as much to fail.
💯 Facts! The reason Crew Dragon is as reliable as it is is because Space X did a lot of Cargo Dragon flights. Change the process - first complete 10 successful cargo flights before you get a crew flight.
Yep, these are tests, only just run, replicating problems with the normal planned mission. If these tests weren't run years ago, what about all the edge case anomalous scenarios?!
The problem seems to be: they can’t return Starliner without crew on board - it apparently doesn’t have the software installed! And installing the software in orbit seems also not an easy task…
It will be sad when NASA tries to save Boeing by just rolling the dice with Starliner. If the reaction thrusters do not fire correctly during the end stages of deorbit, the capsule will not have a chance to recover. Entering not at the right angle, speed or orientation are all bad.
There is always risk, especially in space. The question is, if they use Starliner for the return trip, will the risks involved be determined by the engineering team to be reasonable? One other point, the two crew members r both test pilots, so their degree of risk they may accept will be greater than other crews.
Finally a lady with actual newer facts.❤A channel that isn't click bait. I am unsubscribing from two other channels that recycle space news and subscribing here!
the fact that NASA still can't call it safe to use the Starliner for a return trip should speak oodles of how touch and go this capsule is, this is shoddy construction is so shoddy they can't figure out if it's safe to ride or the door will come off on the way down
note there was nothing at all wrong with the MCAS software. The problem was that the pilots on those planes were not aware of the software at all, and therefore not aware of how it would interact with their inputs.
NASA should insist that Boeing fly the Starliner back on autopilot, and the next CrewDragon can bring the astronauts back. It is the only way to be safe. Boeing already thought that they had fixed all of Starliner's problems from a year ago and they were completely wrong. I would not trust them again in the slightest.
It’s so very refreshing to hear a REAL journalist presenting the information that is actually available! She puts all the news liars in their rightful place, which is to ignore them and/or give them a thumbs down.
A) nasa and boeing have been pretty obtuse during briefings, using terms like can return home in an emergency. It seems like their analysis at that point doesn't meet risk tolerances. B) I don't think they fully understand the root cause of the problem. Thru did a software fix after the last flight, and that doesn't seem to have solved it. The main concern without solid root cause is if they fail at a critical point during reentry, so I can see why they've continued to delay to study it.
I think at this point, the only correct solution would be to procure an alternate return method for the astronauts. The absolute best case scenario is that they make it home safely on Starliner. But at this point it is feeling more like a gamble in the eyes of the public. Even with the reassurance that 'all is well', public opinion is that this mission has failed due to hardware issues, and that the astronauts are stranded. IF they try to bring Butch and Suni back on Starliner, the public opinion will be that NASA took a risk just to save face for Boeing. Even if that is not the case, at this point the damage is done. If there is a major failure of the propulsion system while leaving the ISS, Starliner will likely be unable to return to the ISS, leaving only one abort method (earth). The optics from that happening would be catastrophic, and not just for Starliner. If they return on a Dragon or Soyuz, the only real damage is to Boeing's reputation, which at this point is already in the gutter. There would be the added cost, but that really does not matter at this point. They can still return Starliner, and everything would proceed exactly as it would, just without putting two lives on board. Alternatively, they could do more extensive investigation of the failed hardware in space, the only limiting factor there would be berth space on the ISS. Without the need to return two humans, they could also do a more destructive investigation on the service module propulsion system in space. What I am trying to say is that there is really no benefit to sending Starliner back with humans on board, just bite the bullet and do the right thing. We absolutely need more human rated launch providers. But how many millions of dollars is it going to take to fix this issue? How many other potential failure points are there that we will find later and need to be fixed? I would be much more optimistic of Starliner if they approached development in a manner closer to SpaceX. But right now, fixing a single issue is not something that takes a few months, or is "already fixed on the next craft".
I think in a situation like this, that Boeing should play to their strengths and stick to doing what they do best. I think they should immediately initiate a stock buy-back, upload and install MCAS in the Starliner, give the CEO a large bonus, and then if anything goes wrong during re-entry they can blame the crew.
2024 : We have technical issue unsolved, our transportation capsule is not safe 1969 : Hold my beer, let's go to the moon riding and drifting a fucking lunar jeep
This whole situation is giving off faulty space shuttle vibes. Meaning, at times the Space Shuttle was pushed into launching/landing when there were doubts regarding its safety.
What is reported today by Ars Technica " that the current flight software on board Starliner cannot perform an automated undocking from the space station and entry into Earth’s atmosphere." sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month." This is beyond shocking to me. Someone might have to "manually press an undock button in the spacecraft"
"Boeing is confident?" Famous last words. That's like saying that the Titanic wouldn't sink because White Star Lines called the Titanic "unsinkable." "Starliner" has been a disaster since the very beginning. No one could pay me enough to take a trip on "Starliner." I have more confidence in SpaceX's "Crew Dragon." At least SpaceX has a higher success rate that Boeing nowadays.
So by simulating the conditions in orbit NOW and being able to reproduce these errors, this implies they have not done these test before and the ground, although able to.
Probably one of the best videos I have watched on your channel. Honestly, you did an excellent job and I learned a lot more about the subject. Thank you for taking the time and researching things, the subject matter was well organized and I can tell that you enjoy the topics that you are covering. Keep up the great work, Cheers!
Excellent video, very clear and comprehensive explanation of what is known about Starliner. And I mean Scott Manley level (my max in RU-vid points). Glad the algo brought your channel up, subscribing now.
There is a point they are not mentioning, leaks don't get better, even if system is closed, the deteriorated seals will continue to deteriorate... the Starliner clock is ticking. I don't know what elements they used in the batteries, but the ones I have dealt with need to be deep cycled (in a repair shop) regularly to prevent a memory setting in which degrades their output, they should still be OK, but it is a concern.
Thank you for this extremely informative video. As a layman, I've found it hard to find good information about the Starliner situation that isn't cluttered with PR fluff or undermined by an excessively shallow understanding of the situation. This is good, interesting stuff. Subbed.
Let’s face the reality that the future of the Starliner and Boeing is a lot more important than the possibility that Butch and Sunni May die. I think this extra time taken is just making sure everyone involved in making this decision is covered. Butch and Sunni will return on Starliner. I’m going to return to calling it the Widowmaker
I’ve seen a lot of videos and articles on this topic, and this one is 3x better than all of them. Perfect level of tech, very clearly explained, and perfectly paced. Thank you. #subscribed
Burning up on reentry seems to be a risk if thrusters do not perform correctly. There is only one shot at this. Columbia should be top of mind. That ship was damaged and the decision was made to recenter with a damaged heat shield. Catastrophe
Wow! First time here. This lady needs to be on the news explaining everything ( politics, economics, covid, etc.) like this. No BS, no hype, just spitting facts in a way I can understand.
While yes, the fully fledge OPERATIONAL Starliner will be rated for full 6month duration with extra margin built in for delays and such. This is not the full version of the Starliner. And many components are not qualified for a long duration mission. The Starliner on the ISS is NOT the complete & operational version. IT was tailored specifically for this mission which is the CFT flight test variant meant for a 2 week stay. Just like ORION on its Artemis 1 "test flight" mission, many of the components are sub-variants of the operational version. AKA....rated for a much smaller amount of time. Basically, a cost saving measure (of course it's no coincidence that the many problems this program has had....is correlated with cutting corners to save money and profit more.) For instance....the battery they are using was only rated (initially) for 45 days. And many components using on this CFT are just lesser versions of the operational hardware. Because in their minds why spend money on the full thing for a test. It might surprise people that Orion didn't fly out with its operational life support system on Artemis 1. And yes, that means they didn't fully test out the life support system before they put humans on the very next mission for ARTEMIS 2. If you are thinking that is insane.... then you and me are in the same boat. The reason I'm talking about Orion is because that program shares the same mindset as all these "legacy" aerospace companies do. A BIG reason for the problems they have is the never fully testing FULLY INTEGRATED hardware (another cost saving action). They spend a lot of time testing and simulating hardware separately, and qualifying hardware as an individual component. But never actually testing and seeing how the hardware all works once together which is why you continue to see a pattern of all the "anomalies" having to do with unknown interactions from different components. Which is exactly what's happening now. Ironically this is just another. showcase of why reusability is not only cost effective, but more importantly leads to more secure and safer programs. A part of the Starliner program that I always had a problem with is the basic architecture of the spacecraft. The "service module" that detaches before re-entry is....thrown away. This service module is where the RCS and main thrusters are located. Which means they throw away the most important parts (propulsion) every mission. This is the opposite of how SpaceX handled the design (the thrusters are part of the main spacecraft). Why does that matter? What was some of the issues on the last demo mission? ....Some of the thrusters failed. And while yes they have sensors to collect date....but nothing beats hand-on analysis. They never got to actually see what happened with the failed thrusters on the last mission...so to what should be....no one's surprise guess what ended up failing again?....the THRUSTERS. This is why I couldn't believe they were classifying the second demo mission as a "success" and moving on the next stage of a crewed test instead of redoing the demo mission again. Again the most important component of a spacecraft is the propulsion systems....and MULTIPLE thrusters failed. And I'm starting to feel that same way about this mission because NO ONE has mentioned the possibility of Boeing being required to redo this CTF mission even if the astronauts come back safely on the Starliner. And that sounds insane, given all the problems this crewed test flight has had.
Boeing seem to be as slow and inefficient as government these days... Once we rule out government and private industry as too inefficient, we are left with...... nobody to do the job..... :)
Clarification on the “risk is small…”. The problem with this statement is upon docking with the space station. Butch but had the time and the luxury to slowly dock with the space station. If failure when trying to re-enter the margin for error is zero.
At this point, they shouldn’t take the chance that it is not safe to use to return the astronauts. Since the thrusters are possibly faulty they should not even attempt to fly Starliner without a crew since it might be unsafe for the IIS itself. They should bring SpaceX Dragon up with a reduced crew to provide room for the two Starliner astronauts to use for return to Earth. The Starliner should be jettisoned in an orientation that doesn’t require the use of the damaged thrusters but that would put it on a return trajectory with the intent to allow it to burn up on reentry. It isn’t safe for the IIS or its Astronauts at this point.
Really good overview, thanks for keeping it moored to the facts that NASA has provided. While I am all for redundancy and am hopeful Boeing and NASA can figure out the issues, our astronauts safety comes first.
NASA. Same people who knew a few tiles got knocked off the leading edge of Columbia in 2003, but still told them to reenter. They have done so many great things and are the best in the world. And yes there are risks, but NASA is not perfect. I hope there are no more tragedies.
The mission should never have left the ground given the thruster problem and helium leaks were known and still unsolved issues. This is absolutely NOT the way to run a crewed flight program. The crew should return on Dragon
This is NOT about the Safety of the Starliner! It is the SAFETY OF THE CREW that matters!!! A Helium leak can kill the crew if it DISPLACES OXYGEN, PRESSURE and/or HUMIDITY in the cabin. Unbalaced thrusters will cause the capsule to rotate, vibrate or flip, and possibly change direction and speed of the Starliner. If one seal leaks, identical other seals will also leak eventually. Too many un-predicted THRUSTER ISSUES means that there are are too many factors that are NOT UNDER CONTROL! You don't send two humans in a broken box just to prove that it MAY return to earth.
@generaclesdey4622 True, however, all indicators point to helium leaks in the service module propulsion system and not the capsules propulsion systems, which are independent of one another. No helium leaks have been identified in the capsule. Strictly service module helium and thrusters.
Phone Call to Elon Musk from Bill Nelson: "Hello, Elon... Yea, Hi... It's Bill... Bill Nelson, the director of NASA... Yea, that Bill. How are things goin there at SpaceX? That's great... yea Elon, that's why I'm callin ya today. Any chance our astronauts can hitch a ride home the next time Dragon in the neighborhood?"
What NASA doesnt seem to have or helplessly ignored is the glaring possibility that the two asyronsuts may succumb to sickness as the uncertainty of a rescue mission worryingly still at large!!!!!
I've watched and read everything that NASA and Boeing have commented on. This channel knows as much as me, and as of right now, I have no worries. I trust NASSA and not RU-vid.
If there is helium leak at atmospheric pressure, it's going to get worse at a pressure of zero bar, particularly after all the vibration caused by space flight.
11:50 - Being stranded in space after undocking isn't a worst case scenario. I'm more concerned that the thrusters could fail after firing enough to commit Starliner to reentry but before the proper reentry angle/orientation has been established. They could take their time when approaching ISS, reorient the ship and use working thrusters to compensate for failed thrusters, but there's no time to do that once committed to reentry. The previous self certified "human rated" Starliner that was carrying only Christmas presents missed its ISS orbital insertion. That put it in a weird elliptical orbit while Boeing analyzed their "human rated" software and uploaded new code on orbit and also corrected a software bug that would have probably resulted in Starliner burning up in reentry. Miss your reentry window and you're going to have a bad day. My relatively uninformed aerospace enthusiast spectator estimate was a 40% chance that Starliner would kill Suni and Butch before delivering them to ISS. I was very relieved that didn't happen. Starliner exceeded my dismal expectations. However, with the years of ongoing rookie mistakes and inability to troubleshoot and get back on schedule, it's clear that Boeing isn't even competitive in commercial aviation and has no business attempting aerospace. Astronauts shouldn't need to die to prove this to NASA.
I'm reading the history books that NASA published. Back in the day even the tiniest leak could be reason to postpone a launch until the source and reason of the problem is found. "It's not systemic" is not a good enough reason to go ahead with a launch.
If Boeing could replicate the problem running tests on the ground - why have these tests not been performed anytime in the last 8 years or so? Just like previous flight failures, these are "happy days" tests that only replicate normal operations
Hi Swapna, thank you for preparing such a detailed and high quality video and taking the time and effort to explain the issue in such detail while being neutral and trying to find out what is hapening. I need to understand things to accept them and you brought that level of understanding to me thanks to your video. For the Starliner crew I would prefer to see them return on SpaceX, as the Starliner systems and current failures will go under high stress (as a whole) during re-entry, and even the slightest failures of critical systems during re-entry might end in a disaster. If there is even a slight doubt, the astronauts should return on SpaceX.
Shouldn’t consensus be unanimous when it comes to safety? Have we not yet learned from Apollo 204, Challenger and Columbia fatal accidents that erroring on the side of safety is always the best course of action? Where an ounce of caution turned out to be worth a ton of optimization that nothing will go wrong.
