Boeing's Starliner Is Delayed Another Year - Were the Alternatives Better?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 06. 2024
- After a planned launch in July was aborted due to issues with the valves it's looking like Starliner will be lucky to get a crewed Demo launch in 2022 and maybe be operational in 2023. Let's take a look at the alternatives that came from the commercial Crew development program.
Follow me on Twitter for more updates:
/ djsnm
I have a discord server where I regularly turn up:
/ discord
If you really like what I do you can support me directly through Patreon
/ scottmanley - Věda a technologie
Boeing announced recently a bold plan to get two men onto a bus to Cleveland by early 2024.
With or without delays?
I thought that was by early 1924?
And they failed preemptively.
@@lordshipmayhem >>> No, the two guys from 1924 are still waiting to go...😊
That would be the Boeing Greyhounder?
"The James Webb Space Telescope will launch before Boeing put crew into space" sounds like a mean spirited meme but here we are
If SLS or Starship beats Starliner Boeing shouldn’t ever touch a spacecraft ever again
@@JayDaGod_1 boeings problem seems to be writing functional software at all.
@@lostpony4885 nah. Boeing problem is much worse. their employee aren't it used to be since Boeing focusing on fulfilling diversity quotas instead if people with genuine skills.
Sounds like new Glenn might beat Boeing to orbit lmao
@@buenaventuralosgrandes9266 Ah yeah, I'm sure it's because I've hired some people with brown skin and not because they've gotten used to the government constantly giving them money to deliver nothing for the past 20 years... That's not racist at all...
Let's not deny an achievement here! By 2021, Boeing, as part of the commercial crew program, managed to send two astronauts to Space(X)!
Let's remember one thing here...Boeing is contracted with a government agency. The govt routinely requires contractors to alter the laws of physics. This is always very difficult and expensive. Any delays and cost overruns are 100% the fault of the govt.
@@MrPLC999 I fail to see how Boing's software problems were caused by the government, SpaceX delivered earlier at HALF THE PRICE per seat, there is no excuse for Boing here
lol GOOD ONE ! But really we all know by now anything that is run or funded by the government is DOOMED to be over budget and late. And may not work at all when done.
has anyone been fired over this debacle yet ? I don't think Boeing's software guys got the 'fly safe' memo.
@@MrPLC999 The difference is, Boeing (and ULA etc.) have got fat over the years by taking 'Cost Plus' government contracts, where any overruns and delays are paid for by the government. They've never had any reason to work faster, because however long they took, they'd still get paid.
The Commercial Crew program (and the Commercial Cargo program) are straight-forward contracts, the Government pays $X million to Boeing and SpaceX (I think it's about $4M to Boeing, and $2.5M to SpaceX), for six flights to the space station. If they go over budget, tough, they have to pay out of their own pocket.
Boeing aren't used to working like this, SpaceX are.
If Boeing does update the software, I hope they tell the pilots about it.
Good reference .MCAS
Good reference .MCAS
Damn, that was fucking savage! 😂
Ooof
The situation is unlikely to arise under normal operations and average astronauts will instinctively know how to respond within half a second. Therefore there is no need to include information regarding the update and its autonomous actions in the manual.
Know then, that it is the year 10191. The known universe is ruled by the Padisha Emperor Shaddam IV, and Boeing's Starliner is almost ready for lift-off.
Meanwhile, the spacing guild navigator tanks start sporting SpaceX logos…
Oh wait, we have some news coming in from the Starliner side... oh... Ok... It seems as though Starliner has had a software failure, and so we will go back to the processing facility to fix its 42069th failure in a row.
Oh that's no good, Boeing finally got their software issues sorted out, but then the Butlerian Jihad happened and now they're not allowed to use computers anymore and they have to start over with Mentats!
The Second Galactic Empire rose and fell, but Boeing toiled onward to Starliner's maiden voyage...
So is the problem that they just don't have the spice flowing to spec?
At this point, the steampunk cannon-launcher and space-bullet ship from Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” looks like a pretty convincing alternative to Starliner.
my man, outfuckingstanding comment sir
Yes, accelerating a pod in a cannon to more than 11 kilometers/second while keeping the crew alive sounds much more plausible than Starliner launching within the next 12 months.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 it really does.
Well, even though Monsieur Verne was a Frenchman, you have to admit that few things are as stereotypically American as the _Columbiad._
I mean you coul also give that tax money to spacex but we cand try the canon if you insist.
The year is 2178. The colony cluster known as Side 7 has declared independence against the Earth's Federation. While this is unfolding, Boeing announces its first succesful flight of Starliner. In other news, the Soyus program has once again, renewed its contract for space ferrying for another 100 years.
R7 family is embodiment "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It launched first ICBM, first satellite, first human to space, and afer all those years, it's still flying.
@@cola98765 It really is. The Russians realised that it was indeed cheaper (And arguably safer) to keep on upgrading the R7 family instead of experimenting with new rockets so they just kept using it and fixed any issues it presented. Now it is one of the safest methods of going into space.
"Soyus"
Fuck that shit lunch an ops cluster and take back the colony and eliminate the perpetrator and stope all parts and file and place blocked around the colony😤
@@dkbros1592 Too late, the unthinkable has happened and the rebels killed an entire settlement inside an Earth allied colony. We don't have many details, but astronomers say the dead colony is moving in an alarming fashion towards Earth. In other news Boeing's first official launch for Starliner ended in tragedy this evening when...
Boeing has received nearly $2 Billion more in funding from NASA yet it seems increasingly likely that Crew Dragon will finish all 6 of it's operational crew flights before Boeing finishes a single one.
Check out the USAF KC-46 Pegasus (KC-135 replacement) debacle. They could have gone with a proven working solution from Airbus, but instead they went with Boeing who now can't seem to deliver an aerial refueling plane capable of aerial refueling.
@@JonMartinYXD i talked with a few law makers that pushed for boeing to get the contract. They said if they could go back, they would tell boeing to kick rocks. As soon as they got the contract, they pulled their military production facility out of our state. Just kept it there for leverage, and went back on their word.
Yep
Well Scott, here's the thing. In 2009, when these contracts were first being moved around, SpaceX had just successfully gotten their first rocket into orbit *ever* the year before. The first commercial Dragon flight didn't occur until 2012. Out of all the competitors, Boeing was the only one that had built space-rated vehicles (mostly by gobbling up the competitors in the years since Apollo and Shuttle). So, yeah, it's totally fair to heap scorn on them. Yes, spaceflight is hard. Yes, things can go wrong. But for the absurd amount of money being put into Boeing, and to be caught up on trivial matters (at first), you truly have to just shake your head in disbelief. I mean, Boeing is getting paid 60% for each Starliner seat, and it hasn't even carried a single astronaut while we have THREE Dragons in rotation!
I know that came out as SpaceX fanboy stuff, but the thing is that Boeing started with all the chips in their favor (not to mention their partial ownership of ULA), and they still fumbled.
From first looking at the everyday astronaut video and seeing how you get into the starliner it looked at best outdated compared with dragon
And they had so much more money and experience
Designed by committee built as cheaply as possible
I lost faith in Boeing a long time ago. Same goes for ULA.
I know Boeing did a lot of good stuff back then. But this is 2021, space just can't stuck in the past. I watched a video talk about Boeing is being control by money people not engineer for long time. I know they just got a new engineer CEO, but this is really sad for a company that was famous for their innovation and technology.
For NASA/US tax payer, it just makes no sense to pay the extra money for the same service while SpaceX can do the same and better. If Boeing still can't get the Starliner to work in 2022, NASA should just cut the lost and cancel the contract.
@@captainahab5522 and the complete and utter inability to adapt. NONE of the old skool rocket builders have even one design in the works that incorporates reusable parts. It remains to be seen if Starliner will be reusable, or "refurbishable", in latter case the refurbishment will be so expensive NASA could buy two dragons instead, which ARE reusable in the sense that they are servicable like a car or bus.
"It didn't reach the space station mostly due to software problems" - Boeing brought this on themselves by letting so many senior engineers go a few years back. So many companies consider us "expensive" and reap the rewards when they prefer juniors over us. I have so little sympathy for them. Same with the MAX debacle.
It's common in a lot of industries. The funny thing is that the same managers who think an engineer fresh out of school can do the job just as well as an experienced engineer will claim that a business manager just out of school couldn't do their job as well because they don't have the same experience.
Basically they can see the value of experience in doing their role but not others.
That and a poorly done qa process (no full up wet run after integration? Wtf)
Next up in the queue for that foot-shooting ride is Rolls Royce... how can this lesson never be learned? especially at RR of all places too.
Not sure having senior engineers around would have avoided the MAX disaster given everything else we learned, but this isn't really the place for that one. How much autonomy does Boeing's space divison have?
As someone studying software engineer I have to agree with you. I have done 2 years now and its a math teacher that talked about pointers because we have absolutely no classes above basic poo programming in java. Thankfully im autodidact and i can tell you the future of software engeneer aint looking great by the few people i managed to find who know how a computer actually works.
Most of the software classes are about purely theoretically building a set of documentation and i was teamed with people who did nothing more the hello world in java
@@peter4210 I have a software engineering degree ( with other bits ) - you will learn more in the first three months of a proper job than the entire thing, if you're determined to do a good job. Or you can bluff your way through endless contracts & not learn anything at all, if you like.
Boeing is finding out that keeping your experienced engineering staff around, and listening to them, is more important than moving a headquarters full of MBAs to Chicago.
As someone with an MBA: yes. Yes it is.
Like Musk said, too many MBAs running American companies instead of engineers.
I just love that Boeing tried to throw shade at Space X just before the first Starliner launch, justifying the higher costs on better safety checks and higher quality operation. Then their first Starliner launch went sideways and now they are delayed again.
Of course, Boeing isn't footing the bills for these mistakes, the US government is, giving Boeing no real incentive for actually putting the extra cost towards the supposed better safety checks and higher quality service.
CC is fixed price; Boeing doesn't get paid for a flight unless it accomplishes a particular milestone, and Boeing took a $400 million ($440 million?) charge to cover the reflight.
That's assuming Boeing doesn't manage to sweet-talk NASA out of additional funds. They did it earlier in the program, but it seems less likely given that SpaceX is flying and NASA is unhappy with Boeing.
@@EagerSpace I would have liked to say that Boeing were hoisted by their own petard... but they have yet to leave the ground.
I mean subsidies company’s to make them more compete e at the start then just tradition into cooperate welfare is just the standard.
Between 737Max and Starliner, it’s looking like Boeing engineering management has some serious problems.
For REAL tho.
@@sncy5303 Exactly, there are some amazing engineers at boeing, but you can't really blame them for what is a management problem
787 dream liner
You forgot about the 787.
Don't forget the 787
Capsule: I'm going back to the shop; not feeling up to flying today.
Atlas booster: I have better things to do than wait around for you with the meter running. Hop in Lucy, I'll give ya a lift.
Seeing as we're all getting Beatles references with "Lucy in the Sky with Diamond".
The Altas gave Lucy a Ticket To Ride.
We're all Dreamchaser Believers.
While Boeing need Help!
And Starliner might be launched When its 64.
Someone else can link the Blue Meanies (from Yellow Submarine) to a certain litigious space company.
@@davidpriestley1650 Lucy in the sky with *mach* diamonds
@@rasaecnai Well one of the optics is a piece of industrial diamond.
It gets very meseeks with a disposable booster
"and find a way to give more money to Boeing" - ending with a zinger that we all know is the only reason Boeing hasn't gone bankrupt.
Maybe they'd have straightened out some of their issues if they had some financial pressure.
@@Br3ttM Increased financial pressure brought us the 737 max.
Are Boeing funnelling cash into the back engineering program of recovered ET craft, that are all in private aerospace ( Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman etc)
Zefram Cochrane has more of a chance of completing his first warp capable ship before Boeing gets a crewed Starliner off the ground.
"NASA established the Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office (C3PO)"
Okay, which one of you clever guys named that department?
prissy, golden plated and often needed rescue…
R2D2 anyone…
@@allangibson2408 Re-entry Research & Data Demonstration
@@allangibson2408 Rocket Research and Development Department
we are made to suffer - it is our lot in life
Correction here; the crewed Dream Chaser did not at any point ever have or need anything like the Shooting Star module that the current Cargo DC does. It was an all in one lifting body design. Shooting Star is really needed to expand the cargo capabilities of DC so that it can carry external payloads as well as increase internal pressurized cargo, the solar arrays and propulsion is nice bonus.
Also a plus that any waste payload from the ISS can be discarded through the SS module.
In some sick, twisted, fantasy I see Superheavy with Starship on top, but instead of the nose cone, it's a Dream Chaser.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 LOL
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 That is one... weird image in my head...
But boeing used their lobbyists to get the contract
My confidence in Boeing will improve if they can succeed in releasing a helium balloon that will go up. I'm honestly betting against them. :-(
Savage!
@@citizenblue My "meanness" comes from such disappointment in them. This rocket is a mess honestly. The whole SLS program has eaten up billions and really nothing done, while Space X announces something new and the following year it seems to be flying.
I wonder what Space X could have accomplished if they'd been given those billions? I swear, Boeing needs to replace their management team or something? It's bad when the Russians joked that they'd be happy to help them... Now that was savage. ;-)
@@louissivo9660 Oh, I absolutely agree! Not to mention the corporate ethos of the upper management. Boeing's days are numbered in my opinion, and I think it all began when they absorbed McDonnell Douglas and the engineering took a backseat to profit. SpaceX is revolutionizing the launch industry, but more than that they are inspiring future engineers, technicians, and startups to break the mold and solve problems we previously thought unsolvable. The reaper is at the door of legacy aerospace.
They can do it given 1 year time duration. 100 mil usd. They will then extend the date by 10 years and require 900 mil usd more. Citing harm to their work force and placing in jeopardy the re election of local politicians. Of course they will get this.
Not a problem. Just tell them you want the balloon to go DOWN. That should do it.
It's amazing how SpaceX has absolutely dominated the big defense contractors in the space game. It really sheds a light on how bloated and bureaucratic the whole thing is..
Yes. I'm not a SpaceX fanboy, I'm an "actually innovating while also being much more cost effective" fanboy. Every aerospace company should be learning lessons and following suit (intelligently, not haphazardly like some are), and they have the benefit of it being a much lower risk investment than when SpaceX did it because SpaceX already proved it can be done.
My hope is not that SpaceX does "all the rockets" from now on, but that all rocket companies go the reusable route (as much as feasible) and drop costs accordingly.
Mostly it's a Senate thing, they forced the others to spread out design and manufacture across the US, SpaceX doesn't do that.
I hardly call winning 40% of the defense contract "Dominating".
That just shows "spacex" is a state project, "run" by a PR puppet Elon Musk
@@cokeforever you’ve got a point on the state-run part. I hate to be so pessimistic, but SLS might’ve been flying by now if NASA hadn’t shovled as much money into SpaceX.
Good to see someone use the correct terminology : “Silly Buggers!”
Got a big haha from that myself. It would be even funnier if they people he called that would fully take on board what he just called them. Kinda old school but still, it paints a pretty picture.
Got to wonder why a 'privately funded' space system had to rely on the government for money.
"Just in case one of the other proposers wanted to fly their spacecraft on top of something that had already been declared incredibly dangerous." Man, a burn that good could carry a crewed capsule into orbit all by itself.
Δv = ∞
Liberty solved the vibration issues. It has a much heavier second stage.
Loved that throw away comment!
Always love Scott's incredibly subtle burns
It's amazing to me that the other vendors received far less funding and one of those is flying... and Boeing with the never-ending bucket of money is not. It says so much.
Boeing should start making candles ... that's a technology they might be able to cope with
Hell no, they'd probably put in some kind of catastrophic failure into the candles burning your house down.
Boeing got picked because of their history, at the time SpaceX was the new upstart and hadn't really done anything yet. In 2021 SpaceX have firmly established themselves as one of the premier space launch companies. Still would have love to see Dream Chaser launch with a crew, it is a cool concept. Maybe after they've got some cargo launches it can be revisted.
“One of”? Who else is remotely close to SpaceX?
@@tonyhawk123 Rocketlab maybe? I also am confident in some of the small startups we see today (Firefly, Relativity, e.t.c)
@@tonyhawk123 ULA and Arianespace have solid track records and vehicles
@@pipess7064 As long as you are not using vega rockets Ariane does indeed have a solid track record.
Yes, there really couldn't have been any other choices. Dream Chaser was a risky design from a new company with no track record, and NASA had to be shy of any flying lander that used heat tiles. SpaceX was a new company, and their design was moderately innovative (risky) with the service module and LES capabilities all built into the capsule. Boeing had the overall safe design, from a big "reliable" contractor who knew how to get things done. For the second, SpaceX was as risky as NASA could get.
Another fun fact, the original plan for long duration Shuttle missions included remaining docked to the then Space Station Freedom for stays of up to three months using a combination of the Extended Duration Orbiter pallets, throttling down the fuel cells to minimum, along with other conservation measures, and supplementing from SSF itself (like what happened eventually with ISS).
The big question marks at the time were the ability of the commander and co-pilot to fly the orbiter after so long in space as well as the safety margin in maintaining enough tire pressure, and the potential for a debris or micrometeoroid impact that could cause serious damage to the vehicle.
Interesting, never thought about that. Pilots body being limp after months in space can indeed be an issue during landing
Commander and pilot, not co-pilot. Just for reference
Unfortunately the only EDO unit constructed was destroyed during the Columbia disaster, and since the Shuttle program is going to be retired, NASA decided not to rebuild it
Thats an intersting thought experiment
@@TheDesktopOrbinaut Yes and no. There was a qualification unit built that might have been refurbished into an operational one.
Imagine the disappointment of being a rookie astronaut being assigned to your first flight crew, only to find out it’s the Starliner, and it’s a coin toss whether you’ll be getting to space or collecting social security first.
You'd be lucky to collect SSI.
Wow, I didn’t realize that Starliner was still a thing Scott? Next you’re going to tell us that NASA is still funding SLS!
By the time SLS gets to Mars, it'll be a historic mission photographed the whole time by tourists ferried up there on SpaceX rockets.
wasn't there some guy who quit so he would not be guilty of the inevitable deaths that are to come from this?
…NASA funds nothing… NASA has no money.. It is CONGRESS who ‘FUNDS’ projects… it is CONGRESS who has the money…CONGRESS doles out the cash…CONGRESS controls the horizontal, they control the vertical, they can change the focus from a soft blur to crystal… uh.. yeah, sorry, I got carried away to the outer limits of the situation….
Don’t even remind me… 🤦🏻♂️ We could’ve hired another half-dozen companies to build rockets and space capsules for the same amount of money.
@@ernestgalvan9037 thats why they call it the senate launch system
At this point maybe a trampoline would be better
boeoeoeoing
@@wyattroncin941 oh I see what you did there 😂
Just borrow the trampoline that got Space X to the ISS.
@@lanzer22 roscosmos style
Don't tease! Boeing might start a 'gofundme' page!
lol at Boeing - they are starting to make Blue Origin look good
Woah, woah, woah! There’s nothing in existence that’ll be worse then blue origin, not even my ex.
Makes you wonder where all the money has gone.
@E Van You mean Boeing is a dying manufacturer, but you probably knew that!
To be fair, we're talking about 2012 Blue Origin here, which I would argue actually was good. The rocket design that would've launched that Biconic is excellent, and probably would've been flying reusably by today had they gotten the contract and gone that direction. Frankly, they should've built it anyway.
@@jef_3006
Arguably, Blue Origin is still a good company, just with a tarnished reputation that may not reflect the skill or capabilities of its engineers at the moment.
It only seems to reflect the majority of the Company’s management and legal divisions which, frankly, never laid a hand on a wrench their entire lives. Arguably they’ve only laid hands on green paper.
Boeing needs to be broken up into separate companies for commercial airliners, military, and space. Each of the smaller companies could actually focus on its core mission, rather than having a group of bean counters ruin everything they touch.
Its not Boeings size. Its that they built in Seattle but moved all the decision makers to Chicago. (This was before the SC plant).
Ask yourself what company seperates the decision makers from the engineers.
So of course they began to farm out the engineering.
Boeing needs to start making all of their products in AMERICA!
@@fredferd965 that is kinda ridiculous statement no?
The real thing that needs to happen is to publically out the corporate weasels who have ruined this once proud engineering giant. Hiding behind the name Boeing has allowed these slime balls undeserved anonymity. Publically reveal the personal profit they've reaped in greedy manipulation. Total up the waste in public monies and the cost in human life and lay it squarely at their named doorsteps.
That's just the usual fantasies from loon town, the irrational fetishization of small business.
Fly safe... or don't fly at all. Yeah, I just listened to the media briefing. It was cringeful, and I felt sorry for the Boeing and NASA representatives taking the heat. At the same time, I feel kind of amazed and almost proud of the level of savviness among the media representatives. A lot more eyes are watching nowadays, and a lot more closely than ever before.
One thing you can say about Boeing, they're consistent. Stall liner lives up to its name.
Like 737 max had maximum ground impact
And Boeing thought that SpaceX would have trouble getting to space.
Boeing said that they (Boeing) would land astronauts on Mars first, too. Elon Musk responded: "Do it!"
There’s a rumour that Musk calls the Boeing CEO every morning and just quietly chuckles down the line.
@@peteconrad2077 Elon can't do that to Bezos, though, because Bezos is always on the phone with his own and Tory Bruno's attorneys 24/7. Fortunately, he can still hear Elon laughing at him in his mind, as well as feel Bruno's hot breath on his face.
One rumour is that they were counting on that. Boeing would kind of pretend to work on Starliner, then SpaceX would fail, then Boeing would be in a strong position to ask NASA for more time and money. Basically just using the program to transfer taxpayer dollars to shareholders. But when SpaceX succeeded Boeing needed to actually build something, quickly and on budget.
@@JonMartinYXD sounds entirely plausible.
8:00 Sassy Scotty 😂😂😂 "In case other parties wanted to put their capsules on top of what had already been declared an incredibly dangerous vehicle."
I had to listen to that three times - the delivery was flawless. Seconds earlier I was commenting "Awesome, let's cobble together the crummiest components of the last 40 years." Scott crushed my snark by a mile.
CZcams algorithm rubbing salt in the wound suggesting this video to me today.
This is when NASA really need to reassess Sierra Nevada’s crew dream chaser
SN has been keeping this in mind. They accepted the cargo contract and will be launching dream chaser, but they mention that they are developing a crewed version every chance they get.
I have been told that Dream Chaser is 75-80% ready for human crew use. So hopefully in near future we can start seeing NASA switch to it. But the government is really friendly to Boeing so who knows.
@@remeg.3295 Whatever happened to the proposal for Dream Chaser to be Europe's own dedicated launch vehicle for their astronauts to reach space so ESA didn't have to rely on American and Russian launch services?
@@mlc4495 monneeeh man, there is barely budget for science, developing a vehicle is expensive as heck
Never going to happen, Shuttle had been canned on the grounds of, cost, short space duration capability, but most importantly safety. NASA's own calculations had odds of 1-120 for catastrophic failure with total loss of crew.... that's just not acceptable rate even for astronauts who accept space is dangerous. And compare that to NASA's 1-270 minimum failure rate for Crew Dragon, though importantly not necessarily catastrophic with one abort system and two emergency landing systems. The fact that Dream Chaser has no abort system and is launched within the fairings, it's more than likely the risks are just as high as the shuttles were. Also before anyone says the Dream Chaser can be configured without fairings, mounted and abort off the top off a vehicle as seen in some renderings published... that's complete nonsense and NASA have dismissed that idea and as they themselves spent years at design stage calculating if that could work for the shuttle, and concluded it wouldn't..
4:54 On the form I noticed _'Commercial Crew & Cargo Program Office (C3PO)'_ Found the Star Wars fans!
You've only noticed that like 10 years later?
This is what happens when the bureaucrats & bean counters have more say than the engineers do.
Ain't that the truth..
Love the subtle dig at Boeing's history of milking the taxpayer for as much as possible at the end.
Watching SpaceX beat big and powerful competitors is so satisfying 😂
There's no particular reason to root for them.
@@samsonsoturian6013 Yes there is. Boeing has wasted trillions of tax dollars by now on what SpaceX has been able to do most of without any significant funding. Boeing needs to be made a complete laughing stock of at this point, along with the senators who keep giving money to their personal friends by calling it "budgets".
@@samsonsoturian6013 Maybe the fact it'll force the companies like Boeing to Adapt or Die, rather than bottomfeeding off of contracts and little else?
@@andersjjensen please leave PMCs to those of us that know the first thing about PMCs.
@@higueraft571 as if they weren't already. Or did you just say that rhetorically.
Heck we have a better chance of seeing elder scrolls six coming out before Starliner launches
and maybe the next GTA
It just works (tm)
@@marcogenovesi8570 😆 yeah
And Half-Life 3!
@@ShawFujikawa Half Life 6 ? yikes, that really is a long time
Really appreciate your insights and views on the alternatives, particularly the technical reasons.
Years ago the saying was “If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going”.
Now the correct saying would be “If it’s Boeing, it’s not going”
Heh!...
The dual VA capsules on proton was just for re-entry testing. For actual missions the capsule would be mated to a FGB to make the TKS spacecraft.
The TKS would be pretty cool too. Easily the spacecraft with the largest pressurized volume ever flown next to the space shuttle (since it's basically a space station module mated with an engine to let it go places). It could have been adapted to interplanetary missions, etc. You could use it to build a space station in lunar or martian orbit by just sending more TKS and docking them to build up a growing facility. If you had a space station made with like 10 used TKS there'd be so much redundancy that if one sprung a leak or something you could just dump the broken module.
@@NozomuYume Totally agree, I have always loved the TKS/VA combo and wish it got more love, heck, Chelomei at OKB-52 deserved much love all around if you ask me. Many promising projects that never got their chance to shine, when they sure would have...
I read "Starliner", I click. And laugh. Then I worry for the life of whoever will be on the first crewed flight.
Titanic was a "liner".
@@lostpony4885 You might be on to something... 🤔 Naahhh... it's just another Boeing screw up.
The first Starliner crewed flight will *not* be led by retired Boeing astronaut Chris Ferguson. That speaks volumes...
I worry for the cargo. At this point they are not going to find a whole lot of people that want to try their luck
You'd have to be a brave human to get on this thing.
Very detailed and informative. Best of all though: always gets it across in an unbiased manner. Love ya Scott. Fly safe.
Great editorial. Thanks for the insight, Scott. You do it so well.
I love the NSF live from Boca going on in the background
I love the NSF stream in the background
I love the fact that the NASA spaceflight live stream is running in the background.
'Crewed Demo Flight' ... somehow I got reminded of Crew Dragon Demo-2, originally meant to stay just 2 weeks, but extended to 2 months, and SpaceX just went, "Okay, no problem! We can do it!" And they just went and did it.
I love that NASA decided to call it’s programme C3PO…
NASA called its first shuttle "Enterprise" from Star Trek
its
@@kennethkho7165 Wrong.
@@marionette5968 wrong.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Remember when Boeing's own astronaut quit? Pepperidge farms remembers.
Fergy, the pilot of the last Space Shuttle landing, couldn't hack the wait and safety of Starliner. We now have 2 Astronauts transferred to Spacex Dragon and more will come. I guess Fergy would have given his right leg to fly Dragon too. They are choosing young, new Astronauts to get real space experience so the older guys are back seated. However, who wants to bet that Artemis achieves it's full program with Congress holding the money.
The first rule of Pepperidge Farm is: you do not talk about Pepperidge Farm... unless you _want_ to have the munchies really bad.
Thanks for the great summary and analysis. I was on the team that designed the Cygnus vehicle.
Gotta say, Scott. I love your analyses better that any other. You have a well studied and coherent method of explaining what is current at NASA. I always look forward to your videos on anything Space related. Thank You.
Dreamchaser had the right mix of X-38 heritage, dissimilar redundancy, huge cross-range and rapid reuse. At the time it was thought that SpaceX and SNC were the higher risk options despite both programs being farther along than Starliner.... look where that got us. We need to stop rewarding Boeing's poor performance across many of their product lines.
ah, but have you considered that lobbying
@@DallinBackstrom there's always that. But this was more than just successful lobbying.
"Dreamliner?" as in 787 plastic fantastic, or did you get spellchecked? Just seems an oddball mixed statement!
I believe you meant "Dream Chaser" not "Dreamliner". But fully agree, a crew rated Dream Chaser would be fantastic
Actually, at the time of the selection in 2014, Dream Chaser was at least a year behind either SpaceX or Boeing due to not only less funding during the development rounds, but also because SNC decided to forgo the hybrid rocket system they were working on and instead go with another form of engines for RCS, orbital maneuvering, and launch abort.
Enjoyed the NSF live convo the other day! I'm sure this video is good as well...
One Boeing test-crew member bailed out some time ago ("personal reasons"), and now two more got re-located. I wouldn't be surprised if the few remaining candidates would also find a way to get of the death trap. I hope so for their safety.
That's OK, their geriatrics doctor will get them a pass to get out of it.
I understood why the shuttle needed to retire, but having a clear and complete analysis is very helpful. Always enjoy your videos Scott. Thanks.
Playing Silly Buggers! So nice to hear someone else use that phrase :)
I hear it all the time in the UK, but Scot probably gets weird looks using it in the US
Thanks Scott, excellent as always.
Love your hoodie Scott! ive just been replaying the long dark for the second time. Such a great game!
Great quality video thanks Scott 👍🏾
NASA is partly to blame for Boeing being drugged into poor performance, delays, and waste. Cost Plus is huge incentive for unlimited payout during delay. Reach your goals and the gravy-train stops.
Starliner wasn't cost-plus but SLS is, either way Boeing is swindling and fleecing them
The main problem with all of NASA's progress is down to mismanagement and politicization.
glad someone else sees this. Boeing has gotten fat at the trough of public spending. They could sit back and milk the system. Now they've got serious competition, and it seems the only way they can remain viable is by lobbying congress.
@@1224chrisng Good point and you are correct... technically... but though the contract was not officially cost-plus, anytime they went crying to NASA for more funding, they got it. Boeing was always the "favored child" and Space X the orphan beggar.
@@1224chrisngYou are right, Starliner is not cost-plus, but for a company like Boeing cost-plus is a hard habit to quit, it is quite well embedded in their corporate system.
...but it's Boeing. They make even my procrastination and delays look good.
They can make it look good to the ones with the money, not anyone else. Certainly not the people like us.
8:55 would have been funny to see the distinction between the first class and economy on spacecraft.
First Class - seated in the front, abilty to return to Earth in case of failure.
Economy - seated at the back, make sure your life insurance covers this.
I'd be willing to help financially support an effort to get Scott Manly into space ❤️
Anyone remember those carefree days long ago when we thought SpaceX and Boeing were neck and neck in a race to launch NASA crews?
At this rate SLS will still be going through certification when Spaceship returns from the moon with the first batch of tourists....
@@andersjjensen Starliner is only going to the ISS, not the moon. Also, SLS must launch in the next 8 months (otherwise it will need new SRBs). I'm 99% confident SLS will launch before the end of March, so well before Starliner (mid-2022).
@@Infinite_Maelstrom
I'm glad someone is confident.
@@jshepard152 Indeed, I am 99% confident of that conclusion.
This is one of several bets I have (with myself) about space launches. (The closest & longest-running (since 2018) of these is SLS v Starship. I think SLS will launch first, but for quite a while it looked like I'd be wrong.)
@@Infinite_Maelstrom Well it's now May and the SLS wet dress rehearsal was a total failure.
I could see (assuming StarLiner ever gets to that point, I have my doubts ATM) that fifth StarLiner seat going to a researcher for a private company that is willing to have a staffer in the ISS for the six month commitment. Other than that, space tourism will be closer to the Crew Dragon model: entire capsule for several days in a dedicated flight.
I'm not quite as pessimistic about the Sierra Nevada spaceplane. Once you've flown the cargo version, you've worked out a lot of the bugs on the concept already, and then you can build and fly a couple of crew versions as unmanned cargo vessels if needed to help get it crew-rated. Would this work?
By the time Starliner has launched a few crews we'll have Starship operational. At that point it'll be obsolete.
@@Zerbey starship crew compatability is a long way away- with the way the flip maneuver is looking I doubt they'll ever get crew certified
The fifth seat is a Boeing scam to squeeze more money out of a launch that is already fully funded, whereby the extra $90m falls straight through to the bottom line.
@@thePronto Exactly. Scott alluded to it in the video but really the 5th seat will end up being used by NASA after Boeing gets its Senators to purchase the seat.
Long term I'm wondering if it might be superseded by advances in spaceplane technology. By the mid 2030's we could be seeing SSTO designs taking off from runways instead of launch pads. I know a lot of people have doubts that SSTO spaceplanes will ever be economic, but I'm optimistic that there will be advantages in turnaround time and longevity, not to mention crew comfort. A space industry where spaceplanes are used for passengers and light cargo, and something like starship for the heavy stuff could be an option.
TheRegister has a very apt name for Starliner calling it "Boeing's Calamity Capsule".
9:00 Scott, allow for minor addition. The normal use of the VA crew capsule was intended to be with the TKS. This never happened with a crewed version although there were plans to fly it in connection with the Salut 6 project. However the scheme with two crew capsules was an uncrewed test configuration to fly two VAs at one Proton. The schemes was utilized several times. Indeed, during one test the lower capsule died with the rocket and the upper one which was equipped with the safety system survived and was once again utilized after the failure.
NB: The TKS was the VA’s service and cargo module. They never flew together. Instead the TKS was transversed into space station modules. The latest still flying with the ISS.
If I remember right, when the Shuttles were flying, at least one extra Soyuz was always docked to the station as a lifeboat. That way crew carried up by the Shuttle could remain there for long durations after the Shuttle had departed. When I was working on what was then called Space Station Freedom, emergency escape was never even considered.
Even if the Starliner concept is superior to all the alternatives, even Dream Chaser, that in no way excuses Boeing's extremely poor performance in executing it. At what point do you conclude, "Yeah, Starliner was a better idea, but Boeing just can not make it work and a different vessel that works is better than one that doesn't?" I will grant you, we are not there yet but the initial contracts were for six flights. SpaceX will have accomplished at least five of theirs before Boeing launches their first crew. if there are any more delays, SpaceX will have fulfilled their entire contract and be working on the next before Boeing puts a man in orbit. The purpose of having two independent space launch providers was so that the United States would not be lose its manned space capability should something happen to ground one of them. I don't think anybody ever expected the wisdom of that philosophy to be so starkly demonstrated before one of the providers ever became operational. In a worst case scenario, when does NASA finally cut Boeing loose and rebid the contract?
Boeing winning the contract was the worst case scenario. Or to put it in numbers, in the same amount of time since Starliner won the Competition in 2010, NASA Went from not launching anyone to landing humans on the moon. Boeing's merger with McDonnell-Douglas was the end of that company's good years.
@@twotone3471 Well, as Scott pointed out, much of the delay, in both projects, was due to political interference but, yeah.
"I don't think private passengers would stay on the station for 6 months"
I mean I'd be down for a 6mo stint on the station. Would be the ultimate view for a work from "home" type thing :D Granted the cost may be a killer
Well, the more fundamental problem is, the station couldn't support the private passenger for 6 months. Its life support sustains a max of 7 crew long-term.
And when you get back home to earth you'll start releasing objects midair, having gotten used to 0g
Was anybody else just thrilled with that Discovery footage? Just awesome!!
I love The Long Dark logo on your jacket. It's a great game.
12:30 OK, here's a fun "what if" project. Design a reentry capsule to be carried uncrewed in the Shuttle bay and left attached to the ISS as an emergency return vehicle. (AKA escape pod.) A lot less life support capacity, RCS fuel, no toilet, etc, should lighten it considerably. Simple batteries. 2 small or 1 large? Fun permutations.
And then just attach a booster to that capsule and cut the redundant Shuttle. :) Let's call it ... the Shuyuz!
Should’ve went with Sierra Nevada. It’s Gerst’s missed opportunity.
It still seems like a pretty good option even for cargo
Easy to say now. But at the time that would mean NASA bet it all on two unproven companies with innovative unproven designs. Boeing's rot hadn't started showing, they were seen as the reliable company with a long track record of being able to deliver cutting edge aircraft, and had an aerospace division. Unlike Starliner, Dragon incorporates the LES and service module functions all into one reusable spacecraft. It's more likely that if Gerst had chosen Sierra Nevada it would have been instead of SpaceX.
@@donjones4719 You're absolutely correct. This is why NASA really wanted Congress to fully fund all three designs.
(except there was no chance that Gerst would drop SpaceX. They were the only American company actually building an operating a pressurized space capsule at all at the time).
*Should have gone but in hindsight maybe you're right.
@@donjones4719 I disagree. It was chosen simply because it was a “nobody was fired for buying IBM” type decision. Commercial Crew and CRS/COTS was about pushing American capabilities forward, not treading water. We chose a less risky option expecting SpaceX to fall way behind Boeing and we got the exact opposite. Sierra Nevada was the obvious right choice then, and even more so in hindsight.
Gotta love the NSF stream in the background. A true tank watcher.
You Scott! Nice section of your library behind you. Happy to report I own about half of the books I can see there. REAL books like yours! Cheers.
04:15 "So that is not good."
Scot summarizing Boeing's space program in five words.
I love that you have Starbase live steaming in the background. I literally have that stream open 24/7 on one of my devises, be it at home or work
Dream Chaser pressure structure was built at my work and I touched it! :)
Very informative, as usual!
Maybe Boeing’s been too busy flying tic-tac orbs trolling the Navy…
/s
Holla folks watching this in May 2024 and we are *still* talking about screwed up valves
They should send Scott Manley up there. He's paid his dues. He is not going to be weird staying at ISS for day or two and return with the returning crew.
The algorithm very sensibly recommended the video a year later. 😊
Ooh, Long Dark merch. I'm still looking forward to that game finally being done.
The new stuff is cool too, but I‘m forever gonna miss the old intro and outro.
lol at having Nasa SpaceFlights stream on the laptop in the background there :) awesome stuff as always Scott.
My favorite detail is that the office for the commercial program is named "C3PO"!!!! (Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office)
At the rate they are going Boeing seems to be headed in the same direction as General Motors and IBM - giant enterprises that once dominated their industries but now seen their best years gone by.
Boeing's problem: non-engineers have too much power. A counter-example is the genius of Google: Larry Page wrote in their original by-laws that engineers had more decision power than accountants or even high level managers.
When I started in the industry in 1981, Boeing was run by an Engineer. T. A. Wilson, an engineer, was the CEO back then.
As far as I am aware, this is how Boeing was run up until their merger with McDonnell Douglas back in 1997
Excellent stuff bro
Love the shade he threw on ATK. That got a chuckle.
Honestly, with all the delays and issues Boeing is having with Starliner, and the fact that Crew Dragon is already an operational spacecraft, I can see NASA just pulling the plug. Why waste additional resources on this, that can then be diverted to the Artemis program? That's just my take on it.
At this point Orion genuinely would’ve done a better job getting crew to ISS instead of Starliner and even Dragon in the 2010’s
I wish we got to keep Dreamchaser in 2014
So you think that a capsule designed to fly on a $1.5 billion dollar per launch rocket would have been a better idea? Seats on dragon are $55million each. Seats on Orion would be $300million each.
@@avgjoe5969 Orion could have been given a LEO optimized service module (similar to Starliner)
Ideally I’d want Starliner to fly between 2011-2020 to fill in the gap between Shuttle and Dragon/Dreamchaser, it would’ve been the best possible spacecraft to do it
Boeing had more than enough money to do it and would’ve worked amazingly, they’ve come too late into the game though, there are 2 spacecraft better than it
Not quite.... Orion is still not docking-rated, nor is it man-rated.
I'm always impressed by Scott's inside knowledge and sharp analysis.
I have no inside knowledge - it’s all public.
Thanks for another great video, Scott! Early 2023 sounds about right for Starliner, sadly.