Why Does Boeing's Starliner Not Look Burned After Reentry 

Man, endorsements don't get better than this

To be fair, it depends on *what* Orion you're talking about. Obviously we're talking about NASA's Orion here....

So you are responsible for all these TPS reports?

@@alexdhall "I work" certainly signals a current project, and I can't think of any alternative, current, Orion project that involves heat tiles, ablation, heat shields, spacecraft systems, other than NASA's

@@Lightkie I've been hearing this joke since the Shuttle program, and it hasn't gotten old yet.

Seriously. Very deep examinations of simple questions is EXACTLY what we like in this crowd.

He didn’t apologize?

This is literally why we watch his videos, isn’t it?

@@valentinaou6579 PRECISELY!

Because the atmosphere of knowledge is far too dense

Isn't it kerbin

Y’all both wrong

💯

@@jebediahkerman8245 From the kerbal himself

@@jebediahkerman8245 what’s going on bruv 👽😎 🤜🏻🤛🏻

Ahh, FORTRAN. We were still using it in the 80’s at a data processing company. It was cool that after a little while you could read exactly what it was saying.

That’s incredible, by the by those software are still being used today due to their proven validity and overall fast processing.

Oh. FORTRAN the foreign language I had to study in college that I can't speak with anyone anymore 😂😂😂

@@timnor4803 ¿You neglected to sign up for a conversation with Voyager I?

@@SewolHoONCE I missed that opportunity Bruce. I went to college in a time where we learned FORTRAN Cobol and because professors were old Pascal. And basic obviously. If I had taken a couple gap years I could have taken C and C+. And had a much better career path😂

So why won't your fingerprints be burned away during the prey launch disinfection procedure that stops human germs infecting Mars?

It would probs be a good idea to not have any fingerprints on it though, right? :D

> I don't usually comment _Has 748 comments on the channel_ 👀

@@RCAvhstape ;D

@@RCAvhstape Aw reet, mate. Calm down.

If you haven't already seen it, Scott's 2018 "Heat Shields - Things Kerbal Space Program Doesn't Teach" is a great video going into more details about heat shields.

😂😂😂 I can't stop laughing at comments. So ridiculous. Poor real scientists, they can't talk openly and tell the truth because they will lose their job.

KKKKKKKKKKK pica

@@brunorocha2920 Kkkkk so brasileiro vai entender

My memory is that Dan Rasky was one of the main developers of the PICA material for the Stardust mission, and he was sent by NASA to work with SpaceX on the Dragon project, and was the driving force behind the PICA X. Look up Dan Rasky here in YT, he did some very fascinating interviews on his time at SpaceX etc.

I thought that the manhole cover during a nuke test was the fastest object that likely vaporized within the atmosphere.

@@TamagoHead In short: That story is more than likely fake(but blown by media), it might not even fly at speeds near it in the first place

I agree this video actually helped me a lot. I didn’t realize I was flying so dangerously until he told me at the end of the video to fly safe. Scott Manley single-handedly saved my life.

And this is why I still watch Scott after discovering him so long ago!

He didn't answer his own question why SpaceX choose to use that method.

@@LordZordid He touched on it: shallower angle of reentry making less intense heat (but spread over a longer time), and a tradeoff of less labor for maintenance in exchange for the shield being heavier.

@@LordZordid Yeah, let's have another video. And another. And another. I can't get enough of Scott's wonderful videos.

Oh yeah

Outside of music channels during work, absolutely.

Considering these astronomy news videos are alot more polished by just showing the ACTUAL images and video than the dull stock footage astronomy videos. ''*red colored moon surface to represent mars screech*''

I've never understood why anyone WOULDN'T watch videos from start to end. Except for tutorials and such, where there might be a lot of fluff before and after the actual tutorially stuff.

And in the end i am annoyed that it‘s already over…

Damn, I was a kid when MOL was featured in magazine articles. I pored over the illustrations greedily, Gemini was always the sexiest spacecraft to me. I happily retired, so you must have been happily retired for quite a few years now. The scale of the renewal of crewed space exploration by SpaceX must be very exciting for you.

I'm only commenting because my name is so similar to the other commenter! Lol

Thats amazing!

Skylab, a picture by Kelly Freas, was on the cover of Analog SciFi Magazine once. It was so popular they sold prints, and I have one, framed and displayed with my books.

Always wondered about that design. I remember the Soyuz incident where the instrument module failed to detach and the vehicle was headed face first into reentry. If I remember right, the seal of the top hatch going from the descent module to the then detached orbital module started burning and threw tons of smoke into the capsule. Obviously not something you want to happen, but that was also not necessarily a seal designed to withstand windward reentry temperatures comfortably. The hatch that can withstand all that must have some stunning engineering in it. Anyway, Gemini, MOL, what a beast of a vessel and a beast of a concept.

Probably, the photographers assigned to cover the space program were undoubtedly the best in their field.

Yes as a space kid I can never get enough, during the moon landings I was always disappointed as i wanted to watch it all over and over , finally after 50 years I can and have scott fill in vital details. Thank you

Leica and Hasselblad cameras were especially beloved back then. Lust for the Zeiss…

@@jamesocker5235 …NASA has digitized and made available almost ALL images they have. All freely available.

@@ernestgalvan9037 "Lust" is a good choice. I often wonder what happened to all that old stuff presuming they've gone digital.

There's a reason that a fully and rapidly reusable second stage is the holy grail of rockets.

Don't worry, in ten, twenty years we will be banging rocks together again.

@@randomnickify hahaha, we seem to be heading on that trajectory.

“Somewhat toxic”. What an understatement. Fine Beryllium dust is DEADLY.

@@ernestgalvan9037 my mother was English so understatement is inherited! It's funny nowadays they give you a document telling you the dangers of beryllium. Back in 1981 they didn't even mention there was beryllium. We just saw it on the capstan as we cleaned it. We didn't have the internet so we couldn't really look it up I suppose I could have gone to an encyclopedia. I just didn't bother. We weren't really exposed to dust from beryllium because the Mylar tape think of like a cassette tape that kind of material would be run over the top of it and it would spin at ridiculous RPMs. Beryllium was chosen because as I said earlier very little inertia. You could hold one of those things in your hand and it be lighter than a slip of paper. These cap stands had to spend forward and backwards stop instantaneously. Is really amazing how well they performed until adhesive from between the tape and the oxide built up. Once it builds up the tape would stick and it get wrapped around the capstan and crush it. So we were cleaning tape drives couple times a night on 12-hour shifts. Wish I had a picture of one of the drive so I can post it on here assuming that they even what allow me to post it ever.

Aluminum reflects heat incredibly well

Air is great heat shielding too. Between it and the aluminum there's really no need for anything else

Yeah, considering the coffee mugs are basically isolated with air.

To answer your last question: Yes, indeed!

Orion is pretty close to a perfect BLEO capsule.

Boeing and software have a rough relationship, but Starliner is incredibly well engineered. Development has been glacial, but at least the final product matches the original proposal.

@@maxwellquebec8675 Your second sentence is such a weired statement. Why is there so much emphasis on NEVER changing an idea? This isn't the first time I see it. Obviously there is a lot of confidence to gain by keeping the original concept. But the original proposal is an idea in peoples heads. While implementig that idea, the idea meets with the real world, which has zero obligation to match your idea of how things are supposed to work. Why are people so against changing plans if you realize you can achive the same faster, better, cheaper? "Sure you are heading straight for desaster, but at least the product matches the original idea!" This idea doesn't get in my head. And you are saying this on youtube of all places... Do you realize that youtube was originaly designed as a *DATING SITE* ?! They implemented the idea of video sharing on a dating site, then realized the HUGE potential of general video sharing and now it's one of the fundaments of the internet worth Billions. Sould they not have changed plans to "match the original proposal"? Just look at NASA and count the billions that whent down the drain because they proposed something and didn't want to change it no matter what. The strength to say: "Hold up a second, my original idea was suboptimal" seems radically underrated.

Like the THRUSTERS, perhaps?! LOL

Are you certain it’s “ablative” insulation? I’m surprised at the idea that they would use anything ablative on Starship.

I'm pretty sure that's one of questions SpaceX itself asks. And I kinda wonder how it was with the bottom of space shuttle(maybe something kinda similar).

@@zzubra if a tile gives off anything including gas it's ablative which means it gives away something in return for protection. Your response is unthought. And perhaps one of these days you use your real name for verification as a human.

@@ImieNazwiskoOK thank you for a reasonable response

@@ImieNazwiskoOK are you talking about the seals for the doors for the landing gear?

At a guess, I think they would have to be because something coming from deep space will be travelling a lot faster. Anyone who knows the answer to this is welcome to correct me.

Wasn't that a problem mostly not related to Dragon itself(and after few successes)?

You go! And KEEP going. OFT2 was a great success. Failure is only in giving up, which was clearly not the case here. The Black Pearl ended up shinier than its rival, which shows ya…

i for one am happy that spacex sharply distinguishes between tests and operations. there does not appear to have ever been a risk of a "r.u.d.e." or other serious problem with astronauts aboard. from an outside perspective, i don't see the same distinction on the boeing side, but i hope all of starliner's kinks have been worked out. get that test crew home safely!

@LongDong BigCockTouchToe 🤡🏅

@LongDong BigCockTouchToe Holly wall of text copypasta Batman! _"Some audio questions were answered in 0.9 of a second in official NASA tapes."_ Find one of these supposed "official NASA tapes" where the elapsed time from a mission control question to an astronaut response was less than the required 2.6 seconds. Even one. Find it. _"The lunar LEM was 3 sheets of kitchen aluminum foil thick."_ Wrong. The outer thermal protective layer was that thin. The pressure vessel and the structural supports were much, much stronger. Look up photos of the LM being built and you can see what it really looked like under the fragile skin. _"Yet a 10,000 lb rocket did not tear it to pieces."_ Of course not. Why would it? Those 10,000 lbf are directed through the spacecraft's center of mass, and its strongest structural points. It can't do anything to the thin thermal skin. Don't be ridiculous. _"NASA admits using Scotch tape!"_ Provide the source or admit that this is a lie. Those are your two and only options. _"Temperatures of 250 heat on the moon"_ This is a meaningless phrase. Temperature and heat are two entirely different concepts. _"Every country was given a moon rock. The Netherlands tested theirs, it was petrified wood."_ Wrong. NASA only gave one Moon rock to the Netherlands, and it was confirmed to be from the Moon. The petrified wood was from the former Dutch prime minister's personal collection of artifacts, and his estate falsely claimed it was a Moon rock. But NASA never gave anything to the former prime minister in the first place, so that was wrong. _"would leave at busiest times to collect meteorites in the Antarctic."_ Nope. Please stop making things up. _"Why did we silently retire the Apollo Saturn 5, 3-man F-1"_ This makes no sense. How can an engine be "3-man"? Try to at least know what you're talking about. And no, it was not "silently retired," there was nothing "silent" about it. _"We beg Russia for their less powerful rockets."_ No, we don't. Try again. _"All other rockets lift less and mostly to 300 miles."_ And all other rockets are massively cheaper. _"It was quietly retired, even the blueprints lost."_ This is a direct lie. No blueprints were "lost," almost all the diagrams are digitized in some online archive, and the ones that aren't are available in microfiche. _"For 60 years, we use old Mercury (1-man) and Gemini (2-man) Titan and Atlas rockets, upgraded."_ Nope. The Titan series was retired, and the Atlas V is about as different from the Atlas D as the Saturn V is from the Little Joe II. _"After silent 15 years wait replaced by the Shuttle... Half a generation wait."_ 1973 to 1981 is 8 years. Learn some basic math. And those 8 years were anything but "silent." Please stop lying. _"But all F-1 blueprints are missing."_ STOP LYING. Every single time you say this, it continues to be wrong, and you continue to tell more lies. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. _"Why?... Why?... Why?"_ Money. Science deniers like you insist on cutting NASA's budget. When budgets fall, expensive programs get cut. The Saturn V was absurdly expensive, so it got cut in favor of a cheaper option (when you factor in the cost of the Apollo spacecraft, the Shuttle was much cheaper). _"James Webb, the head of NASA resigned DAYS before the 1st mission to the moon."_ James Webb resigned on October 7, 1968. Apollo 8 (the first crewed mission to _orbit_ the Moon) launched on December 21, 1968. Apollo 11 launched on July 16, 1969. You are lying yet again. These are just facts. _"Neil Armstrong resigned and was silent all his life.... His anniversary words"_ Which is it? Was Armstrong a recluse who never participated or spoke publicly again, or did he give these supposedly coded speeches? I think you should stop making things up. _"Who talks that way?"_ Nobody, because you badly mangled the two "quotes" you cherry-picked. Try again. _"He's admitting their shame. And sham."_ Wait, you're capable of reading minds? Do tell! _"Both eyes and film see spots and cloudy patches from X-rays and Cosmic rays."_ Nope. Eyes do not see any of those, first of all, so that's another lie. Also, radiation dosage is cumulative. Spending a few days in space is not nearly enough to develop cloudy patches on film. _"The film from the moon is perfect, spotless!"_ No, it's not. You're expecting the dramatic blotchy patches always shown in Hollywood dramas, when in reality film radiation damage affects colors first. And sure enough, the colors are not correctly calibrated in a lot of the film. But color damage can also be corrected with the development technique, which of course you conveniently "forgot" about. _"-250 temperatures would have cracked and broken the plastic film as it moved through the camera."_ Then it's a good thing that heat and temperature are different! The film never reached -250 degrees, because heat transfers very slowly in a vacuum. So this is another lie. _"In sunlight, +250 temperatures would have melted the plastic film inside."_ Same thing. The heat doesn't transfer. Stop lying. _"The LEM has bright red hypergolic fire and smoke."_ Wrong. Dinitrogen tetroxide (NTO) is only red when it fumes by itself. When burned with Aerozine 50, it produces a clear exhaust plume. You can see this in footage of the LR87 and LR91 on the Titan, which used the same propellant mixture. _"The same SpaceX uses and Soviet thrusters maneuvering toward the Space Station."_ Wrong. Stop lying. Dragon uses monomethylhydrazine and NTO, while the Soyuz uses unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and NTO. The different propellant mixtures produce different exhaust products and therefore differently colored plumes. _"Also look at the test films showing massive billowing dark red clouds from it."_ Find even one single video of the Lunar Module Descent Engine or Lunar Module Ascent Engine showing "massive billowing dark red clouds." Until you do, this is another one of your many lies. _"And no LEM thrusters fire as it rotates and aligns to join with the command module above the moon."_ The thrusters fire in short bursts that last fractions of a second. The film of the docking was taken in 6 FPS. It's not surprising that you can't see the bursts. Please try thinking. _"LEM landing pads in pictures on the moon have no dust in them."_ Of course not, because the engine shut off while the LM was still 2 meters above the ground. Please try thinking. _"There are not even scorch marks under any LEM in moon pics. No craters either."_ Of course there aren't any "scorch marks," there's no oxygen for scorching to occur. That's ridiculous. As for craters, the exhaust was spread out over the entire engine bell, meaning that 10,000 lbf you keep citing produced only 3.7 PSI. Why do you believe that 3.7 PSI should produced "craters"? That's ridiculous. _"Though the massive 10,000 lb rocket exhaust would have thrown dust into the pads."_ Nope. There's no reason for the dust to travel upwards. It got thrown straight outwards horizontally. Remember, there's no atmosphere on the Moon. Air currents don't suck dust in strange directions. The plume was directed downwards and deflected sideways, so the dust got thrown sideways and only sideways. Think, please. _"The engine more powerful than a jet"_ Thrust does not equate to noise. Try again. _"NASA officially says the LEM was 3 sheets of kitchen aluminum foil thick. 12/1000th of an inch."_ Again, that's only the outermost layer of thermal shielding. Please stop drawing false equivalences. _"That engine roars and massively vibrates!"_ If it was vibrating "massively," then the astronauts would have seconds to live, as that would imply combustion instability and imminent explosion. A rocket engine in a vacuum actually runs very smoothly, so please stop lying. _"They couldn't even hear themselves."_ Stop lying. That's all. You'll get a lot further in life if you stop making up random things. _"Yet you never hear anything in their calm, quiet words"_ Of course not, because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum, there was very little vibration, and their microphones were right next to their mouths. _"1969 was the PEAK sun activity of that 11 year cycle, that could kill people in space."_ WRONG. 1968 (not 1969) had the peak number of sunspots, meaning it was the solar maximum. BUT, the most sunspots means the LOWEST amount of solar radiation. It does mean more solar flares, but those are individual events that can be avoided. _"The WORST time to send astronauts! (Protected by 3 sheets of aluminum foil)."_ Nope. And again, it wasn't 3 sheets, and plus that only refers to the fragile LM. The Command Module had even thicker walls than the LM's interior pressure vessel. _"And one Apollo, the landing site was in the dark when they were scheduled to land. You can check the charts."_ This is a lie. You can check the charts, but it's clear you haven't. On all of the Apollo missions, the landing site was in early lunar-morning dawn when the LM landed. _"Fra Mauro, the landing site was completely in the dark at the scheduled landing time of Apollo 13!"_ Incorrect. Apollo 13 was intended to land at around 7 PM (Houston time) on April 15. Sunrise at Fra Mauro occurred around 1 AM, 17 hours earlier. Stop lying. _"Apollo 13 was totally faked!"_ Wrong. _"Another moon trip, video inside Apollo, when supposedly near the moon showed a full big blue earth through the window."_ Which mission, which reel, taken at what point in the mission, with what focal length, with which camera? Be specific, or else you are telling lies by omission. Moral of the story: *STOP LYING!*

“…the designs would be able to change more.’ Ultimately, Physics is the Master, engineers are merely the Learners.

@@ernestgalvan9037 I would rephrase that as the engineers master the possible. Because you are correct. You cannot change the laws of physics. But you can manipulate them to your advantage. And that's what engineers do, make the best compromise possible with the science and materials at hand.

They didn't because it needed to be re-usable, and that would (Theoretically) have been cheaper. Also, shuttle was a plane and could therefore generate lift and prolong re-entry, reducing peak heating.

Too much work to replace it with a new one after each flight.

@@josephastier7421 They ended up doing that anyway? And if I recall correctly I can't understate just how fragile these things are, so tearing them off and slapping new ones happened a lot of times. Foam pieces from liftoff managed to damage them and the burner ones would have probably just shrugged this kind of damage off?

@@EnraEnerato On the shuttle they didn't have to replace it but they did have to inspect it. Even an ablative heat shield needs inspecting, in fact they usually xray them to look for voids. I can imagine on something the size of the shuttle that might have taken some time. :)

@@EnraEnerato The problem with the shuttle was the flaw in its basic configuration where it's heatshield was in the path of launch debris that could strike it. Just as very few materials that were/are practical for this application could tolerate that kind of abuse, the STS probably wouldn't have suffered its damage in the first place.

Yes, Dragon is designed for Falcon 9, similarly, Soyuz is designed for the R7

When you think about it in that case Starliner is kinda weird compared to others because it's significantly wider than the carrier rocket

@@scottmanley thanks Scott - isn't it interesting that this means that our spacecraft are still limited by the size of average US roads? Definitely seems easier to reshape a payload than reengineer a miracle of flight

@@ImieNazwiskoOK perhaps weirder, but it seems superior in this aspect.

@@TheBooban Superior in terms of?

Well that was a burn right there

Good one 😂

That kind of burn needs a better heat shield.

@AWA Books Space Coast Resident to Space Coast Resident what makes Starliner a cash cow?

thats not really why...its because the starliner heat shield isnt ablative. he says in the video, the detached heat shield is only going to expose clean ship on the bottom where you dont even see when its sitting up right.

@@T_Hoog exactly, I was referring to the bottom heat shield.