This animation shows Boeing Starliner launching to space on board a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket. Starliner is one of two spacecraft built to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Credit: Boeing
It is of utmost importance that we prioritize the safety of astronauts in space missions. The current state of the Boeing capsule does not ensure their safety, despite the work done on it. Therefore, it is crucial to conduct further tests on the capsule without crew to confirm its safety. Considering Boeing's previous safety record, it would be unsafe to permit crew transportation without thorough testing and confirmation of its safety. Let's prioritize human lives and make safety our top priority.
I mean this time there are astronauts on board who can take control in the likely event that the computer software fails. I'm half convinced a piece of the craft is just gonna fly off mid-flight seeing how their planes have been lately
This isn't cost-plus contract. This is fixed price. Boeing is paying out of their own pocket. I get you're trying to be anti-Boeing, but you're incorrect about how Starliner is paid for.
@@Baerchenization"they have not archived a single of their goals" So what about :- Their falcon 1 which became the first private rocket to put a satellite into orbit in 2008. Their cargo dragon which was sending cargo since 2012 which has sent more than thousand tons of cargo to the ISS Their falcon 9 which had more than 300 successful flights + more than 300 successful landings with a multiple launches per week launch cadence alongside with a success rate of 100% in its block 5 version. Or their falcon heavy which had 9 successful launches in a row since its first flight which had the only one landings failure. Their crew dragon which was working since 2020 already having sent more than 50 people to the ISS at this point. Also an huge number of NASA/DOD contracts they were given for launching payloads by falcon 9 & falcon heavy rockets.
@@RandomPerson-V The main prosime with Falcon was that it would cost 1/10th to launch compared to the Space Shuttle. Remember, Musk always does everything for a 1/10, because he knows everything better than anyone else, even though he has no clue about it. Like Hyperloop tickets would cost 1/10 of highspeeed rail, he can tunnel for 1/10 of the cost, city to city glbal rocket travel cheaper than a plane ticket, solar roof tilles would be cheaper than regular tiles etc etc. Now, launching with SpaceX turned out to be more expensive, that is according to NASA's numbers as well as SpaceX's. So that is one failed key promise. And the reason why it would be cheaper is of course genius Musk would not throw his rockets into the ocean after one flight, he would re-use them. Old Gwen Shotwell, and Musk, are on record saying over and over that reusabilty does not really count, if it is not rpidly reuable, that is, if you can turn around and insta launch again, i.e. in ca 28 hours or so. Now, Falcon has never been fully reusable in all these years, only one stage, and rapidly is right out the window, the fastes ever was like a month. So the promise to make rocketry much cheaper and rapidly reusable has failed entirely. Are you with me? And Heavy, that thing is a garage queen that seeming barely ever flies. So now Musk is repeating all the promised regarding Falcon for StarShip. He failed entirely because there are two schedules against which we can check. The first one is his own, by which he wanted to have landed on Mars already 2 years ago, and humans on Mars this year. Now he did not, which is not as such terrible, there are always delays with this sort of thing. But it is Musk''s space program and so when he thought he would land on Mars already 2 years ago, surely he knew where he was standing at that time, becaue that is the time he signed a contract with NASA for 3 billion bucks, and that is the oher schedule, and that included all the milestones like going to orbit, refuel testing etc etc and it included landing on the Moon by March 2024. None of this has happened, this rocket cannot even carry a dummy payload, which every rocket every does. Not only that, after seemingly having been finished 10 times over with at least the engine design - again the best in the world of course, NASA now says it is not even clear whether the engines even have enough thrust for the job, and whether they are reliable, which is too kind of them, as they are clearly not. And only recently super brain Musk figured that once in a sudden, this basically fully developed rocket cannot launch 100 tonnes, but only 40-50. When did he figure that? Who is doing the math at SpaceX? Some special needs kid? So that is why he has not achieved anything, in particular in relation to the job at hand, for which he has been contracted, namely the Moon mission. See, that is how that all works. He says a Starship launch will cost 2 million bucks now - NASA gave him 3 billion, so they basically bargained for 1500 !!!!!!!! launches, do you believe it? Why does Musk keep asking for more money all the time? Musk is an idiot. The actual launch cost is 1 billion, because he launched twice, and has spent 2 of the 3 billion already.
Starliner will service the International Space station along side Crew dragon, it is good to have multiple operation vehicles doing ghis job in case one has an issue.
@@HowToSpacic I'm pretty sure that SpaceX is keeping up with and exceeding their own expectations. If you're unable to see that Jeff has already failed to be the next Elon... then I don't real know what to say to you. I love watching Blue Origin slam back to earth using parachutes. Astounding use of technology!
@@Been.Here.Since.2007the idea was to prevent a monopoly but they made the mistake of choosing Boeing's Starliner over the Dream Chaser Spaceplane. They're both only now ready but the plane has had a much better track record. Now we're gonna have to wait a lot longer to see a crewed version of that. Granted, SpaceX hasn't gotten abusive with their monopoly yet but it's never a good idea to assume things will stay like that - just look at Soyuz and the russians
Kinda hars to recover stages on a rocket that was never designed to be recoverable It's better than leaving the stage in orbit and contributing to kessler syndrome until we eventually lose all our satellites and access to space entirely (Oh yeah if it makes you feel better, the Atlas V is gonna be retired either this year or next year, it only has 17 flights left and will be replaced with a rocket designed for eventual recovery and reuse, the Vulcan Centaur)
