SpaceX vs Boeing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 май 2024
- The first manned spaceflight of Boeing’s Starliner capsule was scrubbed due to a defective valve. But looking at it on the pad, it’s hard to avoid getting a distinctly 20th Century vibe. The SpaceX Dragon capsule, meanwhile, looks like it’s from the future. So the question isn’t whether or not the Strainer will succeed; the question is whether or not it DESERVES to succeed.
Join our crack team of elite anti-elitists by becoming a member or making a one-time donation right here:
billwhittle.com/register/
![[adult swim] - Smiling Friends Season 2 Episode 5 Promo](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uStNEeR8LT4/mqdefault.jpg)
Who will be surprised when a cargo door flies off the Starliner at launch?
The government is never good at innovation and forward thinking.
The only Starliner I'll ride in, is my Dad's 1961 Ford Galaxie!
I would very much like to be wrong, but my first thought when the Starliner launch was scrubbed was "this was a planned scrub". It wasn't ready to be launched. They knew it wasn't ready, but they had to put on a show. So, planned scrub.
I'd like to be wrong about this.
you're not wrong. You saw it clearly.
I wouldn't get on a bicycle that was manufactured by Boeing.
Didn't Bill espouse how incredibly almost perfect the planes and lack of crashes have become , not long ago here on a video of theirs.?
How did the planes suddenly become so imperfect ?
You know what? I would
A Boeing bicycle seems much more their speed.
@@poom641 DEI. Poor management pushed it to the brink.
The entire industry was being held together by overworked underappreciated CIS white guys.
They either quit, or retired, or are now unalive.
That leaves nobody who actually knows how any of this works.
This is how complex systems fail, not at all, then all at once.
@@RainedOnParade Well enjoy riding on square tires.
@@poom641 diversity, inclusion, and equity...........
Anymore, "Government Funded Project" is just another way of saying _Managed Expensive Incompetence._
Government development vs Corporate development. Nuff said.
What's the difference?
With all of the issues Boeing planes having lately, who tf would want to fly into space in something made by them?
Astronauts: "If it's Boeing, I'm NOT going!"
I have a bad feeling about Starliner....
Deja Vu of Challenger..Columbia..
NASA will not learn until someone dies
Exactly. NASA as a rocketry company is a dinosaur.
At one point in our history pilots and astronauts understood that they were in an experimental new program and knew that there was much risk involved in trying out these new machines. It shouldn't be quite that way today. But with NASA and Boeing building these machines.....
Heeeere am I, floating in my tin can. Faaaar above the world. Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do.
Ground Control to Major Scott- Our chances for the Moon are shot...
@@kmech3rd 🤣👍
Correct Bill. Artemis shouldn’t succeed because it cannot succeed.
My first thought was "People were of a different caliber in 1960's. Smarter, independent, innovative, adaptive, patriotic. The Greatest Generation, Part II" These people are gone.
My second thought was government in 1960's was at the end of one era - Limited government. We now have Unlimited Government. We shot right past the Nannie State and now are in the Omnipresent, All-Powerful State, where bureaucracy lives and rules forever.
I work for Boeing. It’s a shame as to what’s become of the company. We are being run by VCs. We’ve had a financial focus since we hired Harry Stonecipher from GE. People ask me about what’s wrong with Boeing. I say, “We are an airplane company being run by people who don’t like airplanes.” SpaceX is running circles around us. I’ve had a great career and will retire in January. Luckily, I am running a cutting edge project to go out on top. We are moving our 3D design 20 years ahead since the finance guys took over.
Steve, saying the Starliner looks like something from "Battle Beyond the Stars" is an insult to the people who made the models for the movie.
A flywheel 😂 Scott
The “Reason” you spoke of is money grift or at best graft. When repeated failures when using old technologies results in being awarded more taxpayers’s money, it is time to kick them (both NASA and Boeing) out of the space race.
Go DreamChaser!!!
I wonder what's going on with dream chaser. Haven't heard anything in a month or so
@@patrickdurham8393 , apparently they have a few more things to test. The last I heard, with the successful first launch of Vulcan, they are just waiting on DreamChaser.
To be fair, it was the ULA Atlas rocket that malfunctioned. And if it had malfunctioned on one of the previous 100 unmanned flights, they would have recycled it,and launched last Monday.
Because it was a MANNED launch, they didn’t’t want to risk it.
At her than that, I agree with what you say about Boeing & NASA.
Bill you are exactly correct. NASA and Boeing are already gone, they just haven’t left the stage. What did it for me was when Airbus, a conglomeration of European countries, can beat you, as they have beaten Boeing, then you do not deserve to exist.
committed to woke, of course.
Like Y.T. ... they now put ads right in the middle or somewhere while videos are playing .
They want so badly for me to pay the y.t. monthly fee, but i won't support endless c e n sor s h i p . . . . . I'll just search for alternatives
I spent four years of my Air Force career (1986-90) working on an air defense system that Boeing was lead contractor for. The only positive memory I have of Boeing was the ice cream in their Kent, WA, cafeteria, which was quite good and inexpensive. Nice to know how your tax dollars are being spent.
I couldn't get past the first few sentences without getting images of a space liner with the doors flying off and random bolts joining the space trash encircling Earth.
We had an old wooden roller coaster at the Nashville fairgrounds call the starliner. He would occasionally toss people off into the woods but it was still more reliable than this thing by Boeing
Each time SpaceX successfully puts things into space, it turns a tidy profit. They need to be freely able to do this as often as they can afford to do so, so that they can do it even more often.
Sounds like the intro to the 80's movie Gung Ho, except with the aerospace industry.
Boeing received $7 Billion. They are 7 years behind schedule. They still can't get it up !
If it's Boeing, I'm not going.
Awesome!!
Gonna have to borrow this one.
Every word true.
When the Capsule is bigger than the rocket it sets on it will reminds me of a bobble head doll.
This panel should follow NASASpaceflight, they are certainly fans of SpaceX and many of them have similar concerns about Starliner but they are fair enough to all involved and well informed in a great level of detail. When they addressed the Atlas scrub they discussed how hard of a problem it is to make valves at cryogenic propellant temperatures work reliably. It's not just a simple problem your plumber can fix.
@ 7:55 Stale thinking vs Innovation .......When the recent :Launch" of Starliner and the scrubbing of that manned flight ... the scrubbing was pre planned
Just think of the bad PR of a launch failure......... Elon demands innovation
It isn't that they are totally incompetent, it is that they have developed a culture where it is more important to not fail than it is to succeed.
More like SpaceX vs {Unmentionable} because I wouldn't be caught dead talking about {Unmentionable} right now.
The Boeing engineers they use to have are long gone or retired The new ones are trying to learn from copying the old equipment.
NASA turning off comments on all their YT videos is all I need to know.
I like the Star Trek toys this guy has in his room. They add gravitas.
now two lousy companies
Anyone playing a game of Boeing roulette today?
Yea, what do they say, markets have room for two, maybe three dominant players. Boeing was a huge conglomerate of companies after all the aerospace companies merged. Then the competitor became Airbus in EU, lets be fair yet another conglomerate there. The shakeup was overdue. The next real problem is that we need the same kind of shakeup for the military suppliers, and it does not look likely.
The purpose of Starliner is to line Boeing's pockets.
To in turn line campaign funds pockets . . . .
Starliner looks like Apollo v1.3
Please the merger was only 27 years ago 🙄 LOL 🤣
Jerry Pournell, the science fiction writer who organized President Reagan's working group behind the SDI (strategic defense initiative ) and Newt Gingrich's advisor on technology who role at NASA was 'operational research' remarked within a podcast > Triangulation episode 90 and 95 With Leo Laporte; NASA was managed by the military after Sputnik and Cuban Missile Crisis - It was imperative to gain an upper hand in space. To note, It was Richard Nixon and Carter which destroyed NASA, Carter 'saving' the space shuttle ( explained by Jerry Pournell) Provided a 'soft' landing for Apollo engineers - was never intended to become a long term solution for spaceflight.
Boeing isn't a capitalist enterprise subject to domestic competition, they are crony-capitalist corporate union with the American Government, similar to state corporate empires found in mainland China. However, China promotes industrialization without the hurdles of FAA and OSHA regulations, labor unions and climate restrictions which are self-imposed within the West.
In 1997, Boeing was bought by McDonnell Douglas, and currently, Vanguard and Blackrock are big investors in the company.
Nothing to do with them. It’s the finance guys running the company.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 Those ARE the finance guys running the company!!!
@@daveassanowicz186 Nope. I know half of the top guys. That’s internet conspiracy theories. And they didn’t put out a hit on the whistle blower either. We are declining because we lost our passion at the top.
@@jamesdellaneve9005 and Epstein killed himself
It's nice to want competition to rise up to the challenge but aside from Dream Chaser, there isn't any other serious companion spacecraft in the works.
So, like it or not and you three obviously don't, Starliner is the companion for Dragon to provide redundancy to the I.S.S. Orion being intended for lunar and deep space missions would be a waste to use for I.S.S.
Yes, I do say companion rather than competitor because Dragon and Starliner are meant to work alongside each other, not one in place of the other.
For my money, I don't trust human lives to touch screens and I approve of Starliner's use of physical controls/switches to allow the astronauts to pilot and troubleshoot problems rather than just be passengers in a Johnny Cab™ hoping the computer does everything right.
wheres DD harriman when you need him?
How anyone can look at how NASA is operating and possibly think they are a reasonable program for funding, simply escapes me. How ANYone in government can possibly imagine they have the right/authority to tell someone else whether or not they "get to" explore space, also escapes me; only I sort of understand that last bit. If there's money/power/control to be had, government WILL try to stick its collective fingers in the pie.
It's not about the achievement, it's about the Corporate Bureaucracy.
I hope Boeing and NASA succeed, because the 2nd thing you have to do is succeed at a cost. SpaceX has to do everything profitability. Competition is good.
Perhaps, Blue Origin may come up with a very viable option. It's good to have competition.
Spacesuits, for example, Boeing's dramatically improved upon them. But SpaceX's spacesuits are easier to get into and out of.
But by the time Blue Origin launches their their rocket and is viable option, SpaceX will be off to Mars.
Respectfully, the FAA is far more responsible for stalling SpaceX's development pace and adventurism. NASA has no regulatory control over SpaceX's own programs and flights, only some control over the purchased flights which the agency has paid for directly. NASA has been shifting towards being a customer of flights and delivery services, which I think is the direction you are actually advocating for.
Thank you I been screaming this for passed 5 years but yah thanks. Also not to be mean about age but I tired of people olderr then my dead grandparents running things
i knew nasa was done for when i 1st say nasas tv channel. who else can take something as magical and wondrous as space travel and......make it as boring as watching paint dry. turns out clouds look pretty much the same no matter which side your viewing them from.
Not another taxpayer penny to Boeing.
When NASA was in the Apollo heyday, they had five projects going for every project they wanted to complete. They dumped money into the Apollo system like crazy. They simply selected the one that worked the best.
They don't have that kind of money anymore. And even if they did, who would want to spend that kind of money. It was a space race, between the Soviets and the USA. That's what motivated our early efforts.
Musk is motivated, because he wants to get to Mars. Not because he wants to make a pile of cash. That's why his efforts are so fruitful at the moment.
NASA: Identity hires sending 1980's tech into space on a 2050's budget.
This is what happens when you stop promoting a culture of excellence and you lose respect for your own country.
Bill, I knew you were going to make this video. Been waiting
I'd be a lot more impressed by SpaceX's fancy suit if there was any indication they'd tested it.
WHY are they still even trying with Starliner? Sunk-cost fallacy?
Laundering money.
The biggest problem in the space and aerospace industries is the fact that they have adopted the so called "systems analysis" technique, invented by the RAND corporation in the 1950's. This has replaced traditional design engineering with a formal managerial-style decision-making process, generating massive amounts of unnecessary paperwork and team meetings, an authoritarian team structure with conflicts of interest, and frankly it is a pseudoscience. It costs a lot more to develop, and the end product is a bad design. SA decomposes system designs into spreadsheets and PowerPoint slides for easy managing by incompetent people. Only the pseudoscientists that worship systems analysis are promoted in their oppressive hierarchical teams, by their manager friends, all others who practice real science in the team are discredited and slandered, often retaliated against. These days university courses teach "systems engineering", that is a fully ingrained manager in disguise, similar to an MBA. They don't know how any particular type of system works. The high-tech industry did not adopt it, so they perform orders of magnitude better, with cheaper and better products. SpaceX probably resisted it, but I'm not sure they fully avoided it.
Was seeing that there's a problem with the Artemis heat shield. Apparent it burned more than anticipated, lost chunks or badly pitted and some mounting bolts melted. All to the point that had it been manned, the crew would not have survived.
Like Bill, I grew up thinking NASA was the cats meow, however after Apollo ended, they seem to have gotten lost. Sure they had the Shuttle, but that was always a dead end. That and apparently no program allowing senior engineers to pass on experiential knowledge to the incomming (new) engineers.
Maybe the contract should have gone to space x; I'm thinking the fourth launch of "starship" won't be as much as an abject failure as the first three have been.
I don't think any of the Starship launches have been abject failures. At least not in the sense of "failure of a completed project". All three have been test-beds for specific goals. And every one of them achieved those specific main goals.
Now did they all blow up or burn up in the atmosphere? Yes. Yes they did. But notice that they never failed the same way TWICE. And that's the REAL goal - find out what fails. Fix it so it doesn't fail like that. Try again. Eventually you run out of ways to fail. Only THEN do you put an actual crew in the thing.
Meanwhile Boing... oof. I got bad feelings about that ship. The worst part is the lack of flight testing. I would be more comfortable with the thing if I knew they had "Tested to destruction" the way SpaceX has. But they didn't. And I hope the first time there's a major failure that there's nobody actually aboard the thing...
Boeing, Boeing, gone.
The Boeing spacesuit looks janky as hell. It looks like a Halloween "astronaut" costume from a discount dollar store, or a 5th grader's science project. In fact, EVERYTHING about Starliner looks janky, busted, beat up, ghetto. Their "astrovan" looks like a truck delivering cases of beer to corner store bodegas.
Big downvote here. Absolutely disappointing commentary from you, Bill. You left out critical history and details that provides context here.
The Boeing Starliner is part of the very same program Commercial Crew (CC) as the one that allowed SpaceX to produce the Dragon 2 capsule, and spiritually, it is a successor to the wildly successful Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program and Commercial Resupply Services programs (CRS) that created the original cargo Dragon and Orbital ATK (now Northrop Grumman) Cygnus spacecraft.
In fact, without NASA's CRS contract, SpaceX would've gone bankrupt in the early 2000s. Even Elon Musk has admitted this over and over in interviews. It was a massive Hail Mary gamble on NASA's part to award SpaceX the CRS contract for $1.6 billion at time when SpaceX was failing one Falcon 1 launch after another.
We were never very dependent on Boeing for crew access to ISS, the CC structured around dissimilar redundancy: should one provider be unable to launch, the other takes their place. I would've rather had Blue Origin or Sierra Nevada/Sierra Space's proposals get the green light instead, but it is what it is.
On top of that, this is a fixed price contract, and Boeing has lost money for failing to deliver. The problems with OST-1 and having to refly that mission back in 2022 cost Boeing up to half a billion. No taxpayer money was spent.
And quit harassing Starship development.
I think Napoleon chastised the animals who doubted the windmill project too. (Animal Farm)
I went to see the ULA launch and was disappointed as usual. If the problem was an O2 venting valve that had a history of malfunctioning on other craft and could be "fixed" by resetting - the question is: WHY WASN"T THE PART REDESIGNED, and not depend on resetting? The crewed launch changed their protocol - ok - the that valve malfunction should have been anticipated. It really should have been fixed for the un-crewed versions as well. Was it poor QC, or management pressure not to spend what it takes to have a safe craft.
We're going to put a base on the moon and a human colony on Mars. Yeah, right, we can't even get Biodome done right.
C'mon, Steve, LGBTQ Interpretive Dance in Pakistan IS infrastructure.
SpaceX and Dragon (soon Starship) NEEDS competition. I think even Elon would agree. Starliner is NOT it ... Dreamchaser - eh, maybe ... New Glenn??? nobody seems to know anything about it. Agree with you 100% -- unshackle the innovators and let them go.
Space X - Stanley Kubrick's "2001"
Boeing - Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space"
🤣
Boeing is a paint by numbers version of SpaceX.
SpaceX is where Boeing was 50 years ago-'steely eyed missile men'
SpaceX is a triumph of superb leadership (Elon and especially Gwynne Shotwell), a culture of innovation and risk taking, and a highly efficient level of vertical integration. Boeing and NASA, by contrast, probably have more employees in their combined HR departments than the entire headcount of SpaceX.
We should move government into space and then see if they can support themselves.
nasa has as much to do with boeings failure as it does with spcex's success. Private contractors have always manufactured designs created for nasa. I don't see why you equate success for dragon only to spacex. The Nassa has admitted they road spacex on every part of their design but did not try to supervise boeing because boeing is suposed to know what it is doing. Your hatred for government has scewed your rehtoric and stunted your logic.
Note valve problems are common in liquid fueled rockets. Boeing buys them from subcontractors, when subcontractor components fail spaceX shifts to in house. Many of boeing's problems are software related. Musk started out as a software designer from age 11. Few MBA's know anything about software. As far as starliner vs crew dragon, SpaceX had a head start with the Cargo Dragon, which was designed with a view to manned capabilities. Boeing is right to drop future manned space efforts, they no longer have what it takes. We will see how Blue or the remains of ULA do. The Indians and Chinese are the only competition for SpaceX anymore as they are both willing to learn. Europe seems to have lost it's edge for medium or heavy lift.
Without artificial gravity(not the rotational kind) and faster than light travel space exploration is best left to robotic AIs.
Not so much Boeing in this case as it is Blue Origin issues.
as far as I'm concerned, the broadcast of Starliner might be a snuff film so I'm not watching it. Thank god for SpaceX and Elon, who knows where we'd be without him, he's single handedly propping our space industry up, and now SpaceX is a 6 bil revenue telecoms company somehow, despite all the naysayers. Praying for the crew of Starliner that nothing goes wrong.
Boeing was acquired by McDonnell Douglas years ago, that was it's downfall and when the corporate culture changed.
What about Musk building commercial aircraft? I`d love to see those airliners.
He was asked about being the 1st for electric airliners. He basically said that he’s got his hands full but guaranteed that they won’t be built by Boeing or Airbus.
three letter answer DEI.
You scrambled the letters . . .
DI-VERSE AIIIRLINES! It will take you all the way to the crash site! DIIIIIVEERRRRSSSSE AIIIIRLIIINES (rainbow and glitter!, and a cleft palate dark woman spilling a drink on you, racist!)
They're both fake. No one has ever gone into "orbit". Let it go.
Flat Earth much? Or just trolling? 🤣