United Launch Alliance president and CEO Tory Bruno explains what caused the scrub of Boeing Starliner's first crewed launch attempt on May 6, 2024. Credit: NASA
This is what makes Tory such an asset. Not a single weasel word was used in this announcement and he told us exactly what was wrong and what will be done about it. We need more like him.
We all saw this coming. Words mean nothing contrasted to actions. Explaining who hardware works at that simplified manner is useless. They are done. I say this as someone who spent years maintaining stuff like this in Nuclear power plants. He talks like he’s selling us on Boeing. Don’t need that Tony. Try building something reusable…
@@samsthemank Um you mean like Vulcan that was canceled for years Because He and Blue have been lying about the rdy states of the BE4? You mean that ULA?
Burnos done nothing but talk out his ass, How do you think there 4 years behind? Same with him talking out his ass with vulcan. Him even saying they have a known issue and havent bother to fix it, This is why this is being scrubbed, This isnt being straight forward this is just kicking the can down the road.
I had heard good things about Tory Bruno and was convinced that he’s a straight arrow about 30 seconds in. He delivered a difficult message without arrogance or apologies. Just clear facts, no lame excuses or empty promises.
all that he said was a lame excuse... They fully well know the valves have limits on cycles, wth are you tanking 6 hours in advance? It comes down to pure planning!!! PERIOD!
Tory Bruno is an impressive guy. A CEO who knows in minute detail how his launchers are built and operated. Boeing would benefit a lot from having a guy like Tory as a CEO instead of some schmuck bean counter.
The best accident is the one you prevent. In this day and age I commend their procedure focusing on the upmost sustain for life and safety. This is true leadership.
Scrubs are common across the aerospace industry. Weather, mechanical, procedural limits are all very common. No need to blow this out of proportion just because it’s boeing as the payload and more importantly there are people up there. Even with the pressure of needing to succeed for Boeing, ULA made the right call because you can always stop and pause rather than take unneeded risk.
@@Harald-There's been multiple falcon 9 scrubs and if I am remembering correctly, falcon heavy as well. Things happen, that's just the industry. As stated in the video, it wasn't a "big deal" but there's no need to take extra risk with a crew on board. Very responsible decision from ULA, who has a 100% mission success rate btw.
@@tylerprow6441 Falcon 9 has had multiple scrubs, especially in the beginning. The only difference it was with over 220 successful launches with 98% successful booster recoveries! Nobody can touch that!
He really does. There are two videos of him explaining about their rockets in smarter every day channel. If you are interested in rockets you should see them! 😊
No one has ever designed a good cryogenic valve. It’s always been a problem. If you could build a better mouse trap, plenty of aerospace companies would buy them.
This is The Guy who should be running the Commercial Aircraft Division of Boeing!!! People first kind of guy to create and operate by those flight rules.
The bigger issue here is the supposed trip to Mars. The rocket that would be used for the return trip will be dormant and inaccessable for at least a year, possibly two. What are the chances that it will work after that time? Or that neither the oxidant nor the fuel has evaporated / leaked ?
@@easternyellowjacket276 a sense of humour normally develops once you are an adult. Let me know when you catch up or go back to counting rivet heads. 😂
@@Anmeteor9663 The sad thing is, your slogan was something someone else said, and when they said it, it wasn't funny either. But you repeated it like it was some sort of accomplishment.
@@easternyellowjacket276 AnMeteor modified the old phrase regarding Boeing, many more will do the same and all without cheating off one another. The Boeing stock buybacks and other profits before product culture have placed Boeing in the predicaments that their own corporate "leadership" created.
No doubt Tory made the right call to scrub the launch and gave a great explanation of the problem and why the call was made. The reason this scrub is being magnified so much isn't due to this event alone but rather that its another continued delay on a project already years behind schedule. Also contributing to the magnification of ULA's issues is the fact SpaceX has been successful for years transporting folks to and from the ISS reliably and affordably. When the ULA does succeed, it needs to find a cost effective way to compete against SpaceX so it's not looked on as an expensive backup option to SpaceX.
That was a great explanation by Tory Bruno! Thanks Tory for walking us through all the relevant aspects of the valve characteristics and operation! Wow, I was really able to understand exactly what the valve issue was and why the mission was scrubbed with humans on board as opposed to a satellite. Not usually a big deal to remedy when humans are not part of the equation. Tory, you really gave us the ability to gauge the degree of seriousness of this valve issue! It takes all the sensationalism out of this scrub event. Thanks again.
Nobody is perfect and I am sure Bruno has his flaws but he is a damn good communicator. His leadership would be a huge asset to a company like Boeing or Blue Origin. I respect Shotwell's leadership of SpaceX but having so much public comms go through Musk is infuriating as we get a wild mix of relayed facts and bullshit depending on his mental state which seems increasingly erratic.
All those people ragging on Boeing's spaceflight division long after the problems of the unmanned flight test 1 and 2 were dealt with are completely disregarding that standards for manned capsules are quite high. The "flammable tape" issue is related to that. The so-called flammable tape is found on many airliners you fly on and is "flammable" under only the most extreme conditions and the rules put in place after Apollo 1. SpaceX had many problems fixing the Dragon 2 to abide by manned flight rules as well. (If you don't have selective amnesia, you will remember the Dragon 2 EXPLODED during a test that no one thought would be hazardous.) This valve fluttering problem is another example of how differently treated unmanned flights are in comparison to manned. Because NASA is so careful, I have full confidence in the Boeing Starliner after NASA gives it the green light. Always remember, the Space Systems division is separate from the Military Equipment division and the Commercial Aircraft division of Boeing.
Valves are valves. Nothing is ever perfect 100% of the time, no matter how good you make them. Remember it was a Helium valve that stuck open which caused an over pressure event on the recent Peregrine lunar lander that caused it to go awry and never get the chance to attempt a landing.
I wouldn't get on *Boeing's* capsule either, but that has nothing to do with *ULA's* rocket. Scrubbing a launch over something minor like a temporary valve issue is normal and not a sign of a defect. SpaceX regularly does the same, sometimes even multiple times for the same launch. That's just the nature of working with cryogenic propellants.
Hmmm... 200,000 cycles "buzzing" at 60 cycles / second = 4.6 days of constant cycling. How does a new, single-use rocket stage get a relief valve to the end of its 200,000-cycle life? Color me skeptical...
I think its silly to claim 'manual' control. Even cars in heavy traffic are as good or some say better than human drivers. They are focusing on the wrong thing.
I have an hypothesis why in the early 1960s the country that was building Lada "cars" was winning every space first accomplissement. They had assigned all their top gun engineers to their very visible space program , and their car industries were left with mediocre engineering . For the sake of these braves astronauts, I hope that Boeing has done the same for their space program, and I wont be flying soon in their Lada aircrafts.
Boeing need to shutdown operations and have real engineers take control of it all instead of the suits that made a joke of the name. Engineers wont make the right economic calls but they wont push something not ready on the pad.
12 дней назад
As I understand, that was an issue which is in the responsibility of Boeing.
This is common in the space flight industry, most launches have scrubs occur before launch. The CEO of ULA is himself an engineer, and an excellent one at that. The Atlas V is one of the most reliable rockets ever made, with only one failure in its over 20 year operation. The only reason ULA and Boeing decided to scrub the launch was squarely for safety.
It's important to note that Boeing is a large company with several divisions, so the commercial aircraft division (with all the manufacturing issues) is separate from the aerospace & defence teams. Space flight requires completely different checks & balances, and Boeing has partners to hold them accountable - incl. ULA, the company Bruno (the guy in this video & an engineer himself) heads up. Scrubs like this are normal in space flight, especially with humans onboard... no hardware reaches the pad with question marks over it's safety, but if things don't happen as expected during the launch sequence they will immediately stop it. It doesn't matter how big or small the issue is... if it's not right, scrub the launch. They can't afford to take any chances with people sitting on top of a giant rocket, and even for missions where there is no crew aboard it's _far_ too expensive to risk losing the ship & cargo. So while Boeing definitely needs a shake-up _especially_ in it's commercial manufacturing business, it's important not to jump to conclusions about the safety of their aerospace operations.
Appreciate the thorough explanation from ULA, and Tony does it well. Also, If their crew feels safe enough to fly on it and risk their families, then I'd absolutely get on this!
I miss Shorty Powers, Jules Bergman, Frank Reynolds, and Walter Cronkite from the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo days… No nonsense reporting, no over the top smiles even when discussing serious life affecting matters… and if I hear one more hyperventilating giggling “Absolutely!”…….
@stargazer7644 It's not how it is supposed to work, but in the realm of profits and ego - not all operators make the right call. This, of course, includes Boeing as well as others that have demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward space flight development.
Sharp tongues say: "Would you fly with a Boeing Starliner, when you know parts are falling off from Boeing Airliner ?" Thats a cheap choke. But truth is, that this company has done many shortcuts to make the production and operation of their airliners cheaper. They have gone too far with cost cuts! But I don't think that the Airliner problems have something to do with the Starliner problems, and definitely not with this launch attempt breakup, because the problem was not Boeings part this time, it was a problem with the carrier system rocket provided provided by theyr project partner United Launch Alliance (ULA).
@@easternyellowjacket276 But it IS your fault that you're too stupid to know what it takes to qualify. I don't have any paws and I can't bark very loud but I think they would still let me on.
So flight rules … not a valve , mine costs £6 whats yours cost? . Sounds like you’re not over budget, late or inept. Sorry guys i love nasa but what is going on!
@@robertpalmer3166 I was referring to the comments being made not to the video. I believe NASA is handling it very well. Everybody seems to be on the bandwagon to blame Boeing.
@@w4drone720ULA was born from the merging of the launch services devisions of *both* Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Moreover, although it is not entirely independent, ULA is nevertheless distinct from either of its parent companies. ULA retains an exemplary track record, which is not tarnished by the less-than-stellar performance of Boeing in recent years. Indeed, this issue was with the booster, not the capsule, and it sounds like it should be a quick fix. Many of the commenters seem to mainly be here to criticize Boeing-which, okay, Boeing definitely deserves criticism in a lot of areas, but this relatively mundane scrub of a rocket they don’t even build feels like the *one* area where that isn’t the case!
@@Delta-V-Heavy It sounded like a centaur issue, which is the upper stage of the Atlas. There is no reason for an SRB to have a LOX vent, not sure why the news quoted that immediately. That being said, i dont quite understand a lot of the hate in the comments
in reality who doesn't know what a relief valve is? He explained it like he would to inept people of NASA. Look at the things ordinary people build these days.@@ptonpc
"what im really saying is, We have a long term problems that we havent fixed but where just going to ignore that and hope it doesnt blow up or fail." fixed it for him.
@@easternyellowjacket276 Yup. People love to make statements and opinions when they have extremely limited knowledge as to what they are talking about.
@@Captain_Jebediah Yep. Pot shots from those that can't comprehend the complexities of space travel and its dangers. They seem to think things happen "magically". Science is rigorous. It's just too much for them.
Perfect response. Clear, concise. Tory explained exactly what the issue is in a way laymen can understand, along with the "why"... exactly what reporters need. It's clear Tory knows his hardware, and it would be equally easy to tell if a speaker did not. This four minutes was more informative than an hour of NASA or ULA talking head managers spouting platitudes and generalizations. This is how an after action press conference should be!
A trillion dollars later... meanwhile SpaceX has been there and back many, many times at a fraction of the cost. Why are we bothering with this dinosaur tech?? Gov't hand out pork barrel politics. Agree that Mr. Bruno is an asset to the program, but what about the program in general? What are we really doing here??
Wait... You have a known issue with a valve that can affect a launch, and you don't have a gauge that will let you know an important piece of information? Seriously?
@@rick67hou This valve releases the gaseous oxygen overpressure as the liquid oxygen boils into a gas and vents it overboard. It keeps the tank from overpressuring. It has nothing to do with fuel.
Why was it scrubbed? Probably because they were afraid of something falling off of it mid-flight. It was manufactured by Boeing after all. DEI for the loss!!
While I agree that the blame being lobbed at Boeing for this specific incident is weird, the point you’re trying to make isn’t as strong as you probably hoped it was. It’s akin to the “you say you wish to improve society, and yet you participate in society” argument
@@waynespringer3320 maybe so, but we have spent MORE on it that we did on SpaceX's Crew Dragon. It is time for it to fly. Boeing says it is ready and NASA, after extensive reviews, says it is too. In any event, it costs so much that the 6 ISS crew rotation flights are all it will ever see. Adding in the cost of the Atlas 5 vehicles means each flight will cost nearly a Billion dollars. Ultimately that sux for taxpayers. Boeing got $4.2 Billion to develop Starliner. SpaceX got $2.6 to develop their Dragon, yet it is Boeing that is over budget (by a Billion) and 4 years late to the game.
Why do Right Wingers such as yourself cry, whine and lie? I mean, listen to the moron you think is an eligible candidate whine about everything with his endless legal problems that he brought upon himself. Endless cry baby.
Ok, I guess you won’t mind if I refer to you by any pronoun then, since clearly you don’t have a preference. She (Alitlweird) doesn’t seem like a very pleasant person, he certainly isn’t someone I would get along with. They also seem to lack basic knowledge about what pronouns are, meaning we can refer to her with whatever pronouns we feel like without him caring
Only because NASA gave them hundreds of millions in R&D for their Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon and Cargo Dragon when they were in bankruptcy in 2008 and that did save them because they did have any money left at that time....and NASA paid half of their rocket....
They're already using SpaceX. The entire purpose of this is so they don't HAVE to use SpaceX. You can't replace the thing you want to avoid with the thing you want to avoid.
The point is redundancy. If crew dragon were to suffer an in-flight accident and was grounded as a result, there would be no domestic backup to launch or recover crew
A valve not functioning properly is a big deal. Disappointed that they are playing this down. If it is an ongoing problem that they have to keep resetting, that then suggests a design issue.
Why didn't you listen to the explanation given? This is something that happens rarely, and they have a tested and functional procedure for when it comes up. They just won't allow ANY procedures like this when crew is present as a matter of policy. Now how in the world did you twist that into what you said?
@@stargazer7644 They said in the video that it has happened repeatedly over time. Other reports confirm this. Thus not "rare". Turning it off and on again was a reasonable workaround when boosting cargo because they could accept the risks to do it when loaded. Not allowing the procedure when crew on board is prudent. But it should also have been revisited in an engineering refresh long before this. Life critical systems require a higher degree of reliability. But even for cargo there should be iterative improvements to eliminate known issues.
@@stupidburpHe literally said in this very video that they saw a sustained buzz in one other flight, and short buzzes on 3 or 4 flights. They've launched this rocket almost 100 times. If 1% of flights isn't "rare", how exactly do you define rare?
So, there was a danger to the crew, you were lucky to help them escape. You were extremely lucky to be able to cycle the valve before it became a failure that destroyed the booster, eh ???
You missed the part where he said it's a common issue and that if they were launching an unmanned mission that it would have been cycled on the pad and launched.
There was no danger to the crew or the booster. Introducing the corrective action would lead to a state of heightened risk, so they cleared the crew prior.
