Tour a Boeing Starliner simulator with two NASA astronauts! 

I doubt they're worried. It's 50x safer than the shuttle.

@@jshepard152Starliner is NOT 50x safer than the shuttle. Until starliner proves it is safe, it cannot be compared to shuttle. And so far, the problems with starliner and the Boeing company in general do not inspire confidence

@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze Successful 2nd uncrewed flight test. No issues were being tracked with Starliner at the time the malfunctioned valve was discovered on the launch vehicle (not on Starliner)

@@GrapeFlavoredAntifreeze Starliner has a launch escape system, which has been tested, and most likely works. The back of the envelope math is this. 1:100 rockets fail on launch. So you would have a 1% chance of dying on any launch. But your launch escape system will save you, 99% of the time. This is a feature of capsules, not space shuttles. So your odds of dying are now 1% x 1%. Both the rocket and the escape system would both have to fail, at the same time, for you to die. Very unlikely. But that's a safe vehicle, i.e, a capsule. In a shuttle emergency, the big plan is, you die. 2/135 missions ended with dead astronauts scattered across the ground, or scattered in the ocean. So those odds are known, and they're not good. So yes, Starliner, even with its likely flaws, is at least 50 times safer than shuttle. Most any capsule would be. Plus Atlas V is very reliable, and has been made more reliable during the human rating process. A "Boeing bad" argument doesn't change any of those basic facts.

@@jshepard152 You only make this argument based on Starliner actually having a 1:100 chance of failure, but you don’t know thats a fact. Thats just a estimate number you came up with from data on previous capsules. And by the way, if the launch has a 1% chance of failure but a 99% chance of the LES saving your life in the chance of that failure, then thats only a .01% chance of dying, not a 1% chance. And yes, Shuttle was inherently dangerous, but we actually know how dangerous it was because it flew over a hundred times. If Starliner flies and fails 3 out of 5 launches, that kinda throws your guesstimate number out the window, doesn’t it?

Parable: when one door closes, another opens Boeing: OOPS!!!!

And now she's on a list to go to the moon.

@@goodkrypollo1706really? Where can I find the list.

Why was that even worth saying

You can bet they have the most diverse work force possible ensuring the diversity of space industry's diversity in space.

@@camojoe83 Blaming Boeing's incompetence on black people is weird. The white CEO cuts corners and ignores numerous safety regulations. Additionally, they murder their whistleblowers who talk to the press about these things. Has nothing to do with 'diversity' or whatever (I bet there are barely any black people working there anyway)

it is

Well, it has one advantage ...it lands not on water, but on land

Also, it's larger than Dragon.

@@ashokkumartripathi9098 Also it has less usable space. Dragon is as tall and as wide as a human. Starliner is just wide. More space but you cant fly around or do a flip.

@@javierderivero9299 True. Dragon 2 had the ability to hover and land on the ground on legs (or use the parachutes) but this was not explored as it required a Lot of certification and they just went with the parachutes... also the legs would penetrate the heat shield... so all the certification work was more than just busy work. Technically, as is, it could still hover and bump down if it had to. (Wouldn't be my first choice.)

Terrible.

Boeing has a long list of products. Many of them were super successful and are to this day. Boeing makes the Apache attack helicopter, B-52 nuclear bomber, Chinook, Globemaster, and F/A 18.

@@goodkrypollo1706 Way to defend a company that kills it's whistleblowers.

Agreed 👍🏼

@@goodkrypollo1706 Most of the quality Boeing products were designed long before the company went to crap. A lot of folks will correctly point to the McDonnel Douglas merger as the start of the nightmare.

well.. we know the problems that still exist (like the heat shield)..

@@joeyhouben3270 The only heat shield problem I've read about recently is on Orion. Those pics came out a few days ago.

Even the russians don't want to fly in it

Should they be insulted by sudden demotion to "expendable test pilots" or did they even notice?

Here's hoping they survive the dream. (Boeing leadership needs to be shown the door. This shouldn't have been so hard.)

Shows how little you know of the astronaut program lol

Boeing also received more funds to develop this shit hole.

Wikipedia. Suni Williams. It's that easy.

Yes, the company is ULA, United Launch Alliance. Thankfully, it has its own management that's independent of Boeing. The Atlas V has a sterling reputation for reliability. Last night there was a valve problem on the Atlas V but it's the kind of small glitch that's common in the launch business.

By the gayest, brownest hands possible!

Thankfully this is the one exception - sort of. This was built on a fixed price contract so the failures and fixes and delays were paid for by Boeing - they've lost a billion dollars on this. (Previous NASA contracts for something like this were cost-plus.)

Of course.

Sure. Google "Boeing Starliner space suits." They're ugly as hell but NASA made sure they work.

The commander will be looking at a screen in front of them, that console doesn't contain a window. I do like the physical controls.

@@donjones4719 There is a window, I believe just above and a bit to the left of the commander’s console, which the commander can easily look through from the seated position. This is the big rectangular window you can see on the outside of the capsule.

Yes. 50 years later, this is the best they could do with $5 billion.

Ever been inside an Apollo Command Module? This is a lot bigger.

Yep that's about right

It's all about asthaetics. This is larger than Dragon and could land on land unlike Dragon.

@@ashokkumartripathi9098 Dragon could have landed on land. NASA steered them into water recovery.

zero fatalities but they had a single fail on the manned version. On the other versions they are about 97% success rate.

What about Soyuz 1 and 11?

SpaceX and Dragon are way superior, obviously. But the difference in the award amounts is perennially mis-interpreted. The contract is for the number of flights (6 operational flights after the crewed test one), not for the spacecraft. The cost includes the rocket. Since Starliner could only launch on an expendable rocket, Atlas V, it inevitably was going to cost more per flight, even if they developed Starliner for the exact same cost as Dragon. Also, SpaceX had been flying Cargo Dragon for years, they had the heat shield tech and other systems tech, a lot of basic design stuff and even tooling. Yes, Dragon 2 is a lot different from Cargo Dragon but that's still a big head start cost-wise.

@@JohnSmith-uy2jg To avoid a monopoly and or single point of failure. What if a critical fault or mishap grounded the falcon 9 or dragon?

@@timboatfield Big issue is the human rated Atlas rocket is now obsolete, only a few left then what? Also last I heard Boeing have no plans beyond their current NASA contract to make Starliners.

@@favesongslist Totally valid points. I was just answering the question. It must be getting close to a record of how many times you can lose faith in a company!

@@timboatfield Sadly so true. Lets hope Sierra Space's Dreamliner human rating is supported by the US gov, they are one amazing company.

Get off your one track mind, it's not healthy.