Parachute Fails To Deploy During Boeing's Starliner Abort Test. 

Dino 😎

Part of why I'm a bit afraid of the commercial space-age :p NASA: Unless everything is tested 100% fine 50 times, we won't launch. (and it still led to deaths btw) Any for-profit company: Well there's only a 33% chance everyone will die, it's all fine o/

@@Thalanna If anything, NASA has a super high standard. There is a reason not a single capsule is on schedule, the safety precautions are very strict.

@@Thalanna And even with these odds, for-profit companies are making mad dosh - people don't care if it's 100% safe, they just want launch stuff into space.

@@Thalanna nothing is a 100% well only death but if you can go to space why not

Wasn't there a trend for shaky cam in movie industry recently?

@@jur4x you mean like Cloverfield?

@@ICANanimations Oh, that's just perfect example.

@@ICANanimations Well, when your carrying a camera while running from horrifying space critters, I would expect the image to be a touch shaky.

They did spot a flying saucer. It was the plummeting service module and the heatshield.

Its probably Bill's fault... it is always Bill.

@@andromenia1...DAMN YOU BIIIILL

At least the chutes didn't deploy when the thrusters turned on, making it flip all over the place and go nowhere.

@@nathanaelvetters2684 which is basically every staging issue

Check Yo Staging!

... as you drive blithely down the freeway (cars and trucks in the background).

​@@tdubveedub No wonder Boeing wanted to do the test in secret. Only after NASA called them out did they agree to make the test public and made sure that the footage was barely watchable. At least Elon saw problems early on with parachutes and made the executive decision to go fix it no matter the cost. Not sure this is a similar situation with Boeing but you have to think chute not deploying, breaking off or burning through the cords might related to what SpaceX is trying to fix.

Considering Boeing's recent track record with airliner design faults, I'm questioning their trustworthiness in terms of making absolutely sure their safety systems work as intended...

Don't worry: not to be outdone, SpaceX uses the same stuff.

"Please remain in your seats until the toxic cloud has dispersed..."

"Don't be sad - cuz two out of three ain't bad." - Dr Meat Loaf

That's the motto of the Diversity Camera Crew.

2 out of 3 is not acceptable we need everything to be perfect because if our rockets and command pods fail even 1 little light we need to fix it ASAP or else Naša won't use it.

wow that smells like indian food in a used diaper...

It's made with bits of real parachute, so you know it's good

To be fair though, there's a difference. A parachute that FAILS means it's being deployed but doesn't do any aerobraking due to it failing to open up. If it didn't deploy at all though, then that means it didn't do anything whatsoever, therefore could obviously not fail..

@@captainoblivious_yt Try splitting that hair with a future occupant of this vehicle.

@@Thumbsupurbum It's not splitting hairs.. It's an important distinction and to not see it as such would be an oversimplification.

Boeing should lie and say it was an intentional demonstration of the capsule landing on only 2 parachutes.

The parachute itself did not fail, but it did fail to deploy. As Captain Oblivious points out, it is important to pinpoint the precise nature of the failure in order to prevent this from happening again.

it comes pre-installed for your inconvenience

"No safe option." ;)

Laughs in Airbus/SpaceX

If Boeing would keep to that word they would have made the Boeing 2707

Boeing is the sound that their aircraft make when landing.

Yes. Yes you are.

Scott: *yes*

Too funny. Good catch.

"Space capsule " probably.

Glad I read the comments first. Was going to say the same thing... 😁 😜 😂 😂 😂 😂

Dick Scobee used to say the same thing

Tell that Apollo 1

@@DrJump3r they understood this better than anyone. The information from that failure came at a horriffic price, but it was priceless information.

@@DrJump3r or 13, since 1 was destroyed in a test.

@@gregsteele806 ???? the Apollo 1 tragedy was a test failure.. Apollo 13 was an in flight failure

It happens when you're a rocket nerd who can't stop spouting off about Ignition! to everyone. (Me. I should really finish that book....)

@@petlahk4119 I need to finish it too! you are not alone! great book though

The orange is nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine is colorless. There's probably not too much hydrazine leaking - you can tell by the distinct lack of a towering inferno. There's a great old NASA safety video about the two if you're curious. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zha9DyS-PPA.html

Seriously! That shit is *not* good.

It makes me want to check wind direction and that my running shoes work. But yeah I get it.

I wonder how difficult it would be to prevent that. Using all the fuel up would help, or maybe using a thruster after separation.

And there's a highway downrange of it...

If you watch Bridensteins interview with Everyday Astronauts about Aerospikes, Bridenstein touches on the improvements to parachute science. huge ones

I run a rocket club for kids....rockets are easy. It is just a bit of maths. Parachute Science is far more complicated.

@@BrianBell4073 As someone builing a hybrid rocket, the science sucks either way lol

@@colekelly4701 We have never suffered a destructive launch. We've left a few divots in runways though when the Parachute Science didn't do what it was supposed to.

".... by crashing the plane"

Head of Boeing, Dennis: 180! Darts opponent: No Dennis you need 3 bullseyes for 180 not 2! Dennis: …

Wry :)

Paul V3D You don’t need any bullseyes for 180!!! You need treble 20’s!!!!!

RBMK reactors don't explode comrade...

Ha ha ha. Yeah. Kinda a shade easier to glibly state. When it isn't your arse in the hot seat. Should ask them if THEY are ready to go in another similar test, with them in it. Talk is cheap.

It's the PR people on the ground saying that.

@Smarticus Funny thing about SpaceX is that they went so rigorous beyond NASA's already strict requirements that NASA had to reevaluate their own safety standards. They pushed SpaceX so hard that NASA started to feel inadequate and incompetent from the results.

SHOULD

@@BrokenLifeCycle Was wondering about this. After Boeing had their first problems with parachutes (a while ago), NASA was scrutinizing what went wrong. Seems NASA discovered there were more ways for things to go wrong then they'd ever thought, and that's why they expanded the testing program for both companies. To me that was the likely scenario. Makes rational why NASA paid Boeing extra for extra tests, if they changed the parameters. But at the end of the day, SpaceX is ahead.

My suspicion is that maybe Spacex will somehow manage to land the booster to befuddle Jeff Bezos

In actual flight the service module will burn up in the atmosphere ...

@@Graviton1066 but not in an abort. A real launch abort should look exactly like the test.

@@Jehty_ except Starliner would land on water in real abort conditions where there would be no problems with hypergolic cloud

@Smarticus Oh hi! It doesn't have to land on land, and they've done testing of water landing and recovery procedures for Starliner. It'll go into the water like Crew Dragon. It does make refurbishment significantly more difficult as far as I'm aware, which is why the nominal scenario is landing on land.

@@anushervontabarov8568 why wouldn't there be a problem with hypergolic if they land in the water? It doesn't really make a difference if something hits water really fast or the ground, or does it?

"Would you like a flashing LED warning you in case our fancy flight computer malfunctions again and tries to kill everyone on board? That'll be 86000 dollars."

Also Boeing - "We dont need to do QC work, clean anything, inspect military cargo planes we just built or verify their arnt tools loose inside the walls of those cargo planes" Military - "We no longer want your cargo planes, let us know when you take them apart, rebuild and QC them". Boeing - "We dont need to QC our teams work on the capsule" Hopefully NASA - "We dont need your contract, its canceled and you owe us 3 billion dollars"

@Truth NASA ain't the only guys to have killed astronauts. Well technically yes since only American and European space travelers are called astronauts. Russians are cosmonauts, Chinese are Tychonauts etc... First part is that languages word for space and second part is greek for traveler. But yes plenty of cosmonauts have unfortunately died. The only people to have died in space where cosmonauts. And early Sojuz capsule had a faulty valve and it opened the cabin to vacuum before reentry. That was the time when they removed to suits to cram an additional crew member inside. They redesigned it so three cosmonauts in suits would fit after that. That's why you wear a pressure suit inside the spacecraft.

​@TruthNo your backpedaling. Either case you're wrong. The Space Shuttle killed a bunch of astronauts. Not NASA. And it was the only vehicle flying. It's not like they had 3 ways to get to orbit and each killed someone. There was the Shuttle and that was. Did it have a launch abort system? Nope so if something happens you got a problem. And it held an unprecedented amount of crew, so only two tragedies end up in many lives lost. Anyway your previous comment shows you don't know what you're talking about so why am I wasting my time with you...

Silt ^

Bolt if they even wanted, they would not have reliable information this early. Getting to root cause may take months of investigation...

Grigory Buteyko Thats why i also said “what could’ve gone wrong”

Fortunately for Boeing not much competition left except for SpaceX at this point. Elon is a rocket surgeon, Boeing... not so much. Boeing has millions to spend on lobbying for more guvment billion dollar handouts though.

Sounded like a good plan. After all, Boeing has so much public trust. Never before have they seemed disingenuous and shady. ;-)

@@Bolt99K There's no good reason for Boeing to speculate on what might have gone wrong. They'll have engineers figuring that out and then they can release preliminary conclusions once some actual thought has been put to it. Otherwise it'd just be Boeing talking about every single thing on the fault tree because nothing had been eliminated yet

Haha I noticed that too. When he said I hope we never have to use this, his tone sounded like he really hopes they never actually have to use it given the results of the test.

@@Coasterlocity - "I hope to never be in a high-speed crash in a reliant robin if, god forbid, I ever find myself driving a reliant robin."

@@petlahk4119 hehehe, can't blame ya there. That's kinda how I feel about a Ford Pinto in a high speed rear end collision.

@@Coasterlocity Don't worry, you wouldn't be feeling things for very long in such a scenario.

@@petlahk4119 this reminds me of that legendary top gear episode

In fairness, the reason there are 3 parachutes is primarily redundancy. IIRC impact will be survivable even if just the one is used

Yes, but it's not redundant anymore if 3 don't consistently open. I guess more tests will be needed to change that ratio.

@@trezapoioiuy ... That's the point Hevlikin was trying to make! As long at there are a MINIMUM number (e.g. 2 or 1) of consistently opening chutes things are actually OK, within specification. Keep in mind they don't just do one test ... they do several, as many as possible, and then crunch all of the numbers, get probabilities for success & failure of every part of the system. After all of that is done they either passed or failed to meet the minimum requirements as set forth by NASA.

@@digiacomtech5589 are you also saying that 2/3 success rate is fine for a parachute system? If one failed this easily, the other two can also fail. The system must be redesigned.

@@zoltankurti ... How can you tell ANYTHING, derive any statistics, from only one test? Especially without any post test analysis. Where they lucky that only 2 came out? Is 2 vs. 3 a trend? Perhaps they were extremely UN-lucky that one failed. Perhaps is was some other system failure? A packing failure, a connector failure, an installation failure, a pre-flight inspection failure? How can you possibly justify saying "one failed this easily" by watching a single test? Who can say at this point without further investigation and analysis whether this is a trend or a fluke. Bottom line is you can't draw any conclusions from just one test without any post test analysis. But please do please tell us you have ALL of the pertinent detailed information and post test analysis at your disposal to base your assumptions on. All I am saying is without the actual NASA requirements and post test analysis it's only speculation as to whether this is a PASS or a FAIL. For all we know the requirement might be for only one to reliably/repeatedly deploy and any additional parachutes are merely beneficial. Perhaps the test actually included a single parachute failure in order to test landing impact metrics? Surely in a perfect world we would only require what is actually needed and nothing more. However, we don't live in a perfect world and that is why redundancy is built into life support equipment systems. That is, one may be all that is needed to land safely, but two is better, and three better still. We can calculate the odds that only one, two, or three will fail given further testing. The only question is if those calculates failure rates meet acceptable flight safety parameters/limit IAW the established NASA systems requirements.

Isuzu Slider congratulations, I truly and literally laughed out load 😂

:'D

Ever since Starhopper, flying water towers have become really trendy.

I was going to say the top of a silo, but that's probably because I live in farm country. Either way, doesn't look like something that should fly lol

Maybe thats why aliens always go to farmers fields. They think we have a vast fleet of space ships, but are actually just grain silos.

When "failure is not an option."

To SpaceX's excuse, all RUDs are called "Anomaly".

@@AWZool Operational anomalies are mishaps. Crewed mishaps are are accidents. (If I got the NASA jargon right.)

Boeing capsule explodes - "it didn't fail, it just dissassembled."

It failed to deploy?!

My thought exactly---I wondered if the spokes-personages really were that ignorant or just too young to remember reality.

Or the X-37 a the other week?

They probably meant capsule. But, yeah, also a failure.

Im now just picturing a space shuttle with adorable little skees under it and im totaly down for this consept.

It's right there in the name, a space plane....

Error task failed successfully

Nah, they chose to spectacularly detonate the Falcon 9 in that abort test. They also did hundreds of somewhat public parachute landing tests before the abort test.

I thought it was gonna Boeing. LOLOL. Yeah. OK. I'll get my coat. TAXI...

@@rationalmartian another Martian,hello brother

It was supposed to, but 1 out of 3 of the airbags also failed!

A bounce is bad, it means higher impulse. Them engineers know what they're doing.

@@MushookieMan But how could they be "Boeing" engineers if it doesn't bounce ?

😂😂

Lol!

MCAS* and dont r/woosh me i know its a joke

"Our planes didn't crash, they just failed to stay in the air."

close enough

I'm sorry you lost your dad. Sounds like you guys had a really good time being into space and rocket stuff. 🙂

You do know that in an actual abort the service module lands in the ocean, not on land and so breaks apart and sinks quickly, right?

@@thomasackerman5399 Only if launched from KSC. As a surface lander this could launch from other sites like Vandenberg or White Sands.

@@thomasackerman5399 its the whales problem after that.

Yeah given the precautions they take with the X37B even after it's been in space 2 years and landed intact, I don't think this is acceptable, the whole touchdown area is coated in hypergolics including the outside of the capsule. Those poor astronauts would be stuck there a while until the hazmat team can gear up, get there, and clean things off.

Yeh. It won't matter if the whole area is covered in DNT, cos in an emergency abort, it's not like you're going to want to get out of the capsule in a hurry or anything.

+1

We were Convair - General Dynamics, but yeah. Agreed.

Can't wait for the sequel, loss of 3! /s Everyone is pointing out how this combined with Max is making boeing look really bad. I agree with them. I woudln't want to be on a boeing anything these days, especially not as an astronaut.

Boeing specialize in making lawn darts, the 737max is highly succrssful at this but the capsual failed this critical lawn dart test so must be redesigned

@@snarkylive It's not unstable, with a few hours of sim time any 737 pilot could fly it without MCAS no problem. MCAS was changed late in the design to make the plane mimic the handling characteristics of the normal 737 so they could retain the same type-certificate rating (the FAA has criteria for what is an acceptable deviation from the handling characteristics of a plane to be considered the same type). There was nothing wrong with the MAX other than Boeing needing it to be rushed and retain the same type-rating (airlines wanted the plane specifically to avoid retraining their pilots, which is expensive). Hell MCAS itself would have been fine had they not made the ungodly stupid decision of programing it to only take readings from one sensor (there are two attitude sensors), instead of crosschecking the values and either having a program to identify and discard errant values or simply to disengage the system and alert the pilots when there is a certain margin of disagreement between the readings. I've seen people on RU-vid who make drones and model rockets with better software than what Boeing rushed into the MAX, that's the real issue here.

@@snarkylive The 737Max was TOO stable - it wouldn't drop it's nose to recover from a stall. The 737NG series are suffering from cracks in the wing attachment structure at about 25000 cycles (about 10% of the aircraft of this age have a major crack). (This part is supposed to be rated for 90,000 cycles and is not replaceable). The exact same structure is present in the 737Max but none of them have the same number of cycles yet. And then you get to the 787....

MrMattumbo youre right, the 737max is not UNstable, but it is LESS stable than the 800 model. One of the “different handling chatacteristics” mcas was trying to help pilots avoid was that the 737 max can stall more easily on ascent, especially with 737 pilots who arent used to it. This fundamentally wouldnt exist if boeing didnt say hey lets slap these huge engines on at a different point and fuck up the moment balance! Absolutely shit idea from the start. They shouldnt have messed with the subtleties of a good airplane design and expect software to fix it. Yes, their software was terrible, and yes if they had paid for training no one wouldve died and we probably wouldnt be talking aboht it. but IMO its just a bad idea in the first place to make that kind of a design change to save some money.

@@jeffharper4509 The big engines shifted the centre of drag at high angles of attack forward. Fitting a bigger horizontal tail or strakes (like a LearJet) would have fixed it aerodynamically but chucking an electronic patch was "faster" and "cheaper".

@@jeffharper4509 Makes you wonder if they couldn't have just made the landing gear longer to clear the ground with the new engines. Would'nt change the flight characteristics or weight and balance much, if any. Airbus has longer gear for the same engines on similar aircraft.

I was thinking the same thing, this was not quite as bad as the first dragon 2 test but right up there with the word Anomalys.

yeah, in the Apollo days at splashdown a dye marker was used for the recovery crew. But this plume was never part of the preview animation, so maybe they've got a leaky valve issue as well.

Oh boy do I have news for you now

Pretty soon people are just gonna start strapping boosters onto water towers

I noticed the delay in the countdown .If this happened in an abort situation they would have been toast

yeah, I thought for a moment it had burst into flames and was about to do a RUD - it was hard to tell with the shaky out-of-focus cam at the time. Maybe Boeing have a leaky valve problem as well, as the plume sure didn't match the preview animation.

Not an exploding capsule. Cry more

RUSD rapid unscheduled disassembly

@@BattleDroid-sd4rp He's talking about a launch abort test. So, it would, in fact, be scheduled rapid disassembly of the booster.

Failure is always an option. - Mythbusters-

The capsule is planned to land in the ocean, but it's also planned to deploy three parachutes!

Yup! LOL!!

Hey, at least it will be exciting!

'splosions

​@@cosmonautbilly9570 Ah, because of all the schools between Space Launch Complex 41 and the ocean.

This is not science, merely engineering.

That’s right but “tests” with a lot of press coverage are meant to show the progress a builder has achieved (ie they ought to be successful). The actual testing is supposed to have already been done.

​@@pansepot1490 not only that, parachutes on capsules is nothing new. We have them since over 50 Years and normally that should work now flawlessly

@@frankderks1150 Engeneering: "The creative application of scientific principles to develop structures, machines, apparatus or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination." So this is derived from science, and thus a part of science. And by the way, the comprehension of problems that might emerge during spaceflight helps discover and develop all things related to spaceflight, and almost all the things related to spaceflight are science related. (I used the word science in a wider context here).

@@Singurarity88 Try over seventy years since the first capsule re-entered....

Yes, but in your skydiving-example, the main parachute still failed! So it can not be thought of as axeptable. A reserve should always be a reserve...