Why was Boeing Starliner's first crew launch attempt scrubbed? Tory Bruno explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 май 2024
- 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 
Наука
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…
@@kevinakling It's not a boeing rocket. He's the CEO of ULA who has a 100% perfect launch record. Boeing built the capsule sitting on top of it
@@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.
@@scottb9868 you tagged me but nothing in your reply was a response to what I said
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.
I loved this guy sinced watching him in smarter everyday. Very likable for a CEO. Boeing though, not so much.
Bruno looks as if he knows what he is doing.
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! 😊
@@Darkralos Ah, with Destin. Thanks, I will.
He absolutely does. I am fortunate to have met him a couple of times at the ULA facility in South Texas. Extremely intelligent and very approachable.
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.
"The best accident is the one you prevent." The best sentence is one that makes sense.
I am sure those flight rules are at the behest of NASA.
Safety first. Bravo.
Excellent summation. Glad they are following procedure and not discounting safety because of pressure to launch.
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.
Not common with SpaxeX.
Yeah they have a let’s just see what happens attitude.
@@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!
Yeah, we don't want another "go with throttles up" and some 10 cent rubber around some O-ring or valve fails.
Shuttle SRB O rings were 38 feet in circumference. I guarantee they cost a bit more than 10 cents.
Finally, someone who actually knows what is going on.
It’s a Lockheed Atlas V rocket, one of the most used and tested of all human rated rockets. There is no cause for alarm.
Its not atlas thats the problem.
@@stevefink6000 yes it is, it was the centaur second stage
BS ..... Boeing is in on this one.
😄
It is currently the second most reliable rocket in the world.
Buddy I don’t know how old you are but Lockheed and Martin Marrieta merged like a million years ago, this is a ULA Atlas V
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 valve vents gaseous oxygen ullage overpressure. It doesn't handle cryogenic oxygen.
@@stargazer7644The gas is -297. C. It literally is cryogenic gas from the boil off of the lox.
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.
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.
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.
I like the update also the man who gave it was relatable .
Can’t fault that explanation
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.
Who on Earth would voluntarily hop aboard a Boeing built spacecraft?
If it's Boeing, it's not going!
Grow up, child.
@@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.
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 ?
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.
In Tory Bruno's hands I would feel safe. ❤
Great move. No sense taking more risk with the crew.
They did the right thing! This flight has to be perfect specially with so many past issues.
More importantly, why has the launch been scrubbed again for a 3rd time and no future launch date announced?
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!”…….
This may've saved the lives of the crew.
There's no way I would fly on this turkey.
This valve anomaly was on Centaur upper stage, one of the most reliably in the industry.
but its not. It just cost millions. Its not for human flight. @@bazoo513
@@user-lp3vy1jf4x probably whistleblowers too. One day before their retirement.
The centaur and the RL-10s are only the most reliable of their kind in the entire industry 🗿
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.
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.
See you in two years, Starliner!
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!
Bruno didn't build Starliner.
@@stargazer7644 nailed it. Absolutely correct!
He's probably feeling suicidal.... People around Boing do that a lot....
Wow - compared to the NASA administrator (guy often has a word salad going) this guy is on point - for better or worse.
I have a window at home just like in a plane bug mine wasn’t installed using washing up liquid.
How many decades has the RL10 flown and this is still an occurrence
Falcon9 has over 200 flights and they still scrub once in a while. The difference is Space X don't tell you why.
It really *is* rocket science and engineering.
Yeah, it's as if rocket science is difficult or something 🤔
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.
This was not an RL10 issue
Did a hatch fall off?
detection is far better than losing astronauts for faulty design
Godspeed, Capricorn One!
It has enought lif left? So it flew before?
It had over 2000 open and closings at during fueling. These rockets are expendable, some parts wear out from extreme cold in a matter of hours.
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...
They had Boeing Technical issue the door fell off😂
Good reason.
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.
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).
If it's @boeing, we're not going.
Once AI makes these decisions, well,…
NASA: home of the golden toilet seat and the $90k hammers, no rockets but lots of shineys.
I think you're confusing NASA with the military. Come on. It really isn't that hard.
yeah, the people who brought you Voyager, just sayin
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.
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.
Boeing are killing off the real engineers for speaking out
No, you will be taking away their bread and butter TAX PAYER's paycheck.
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.
Good call.
Other space companies would have probably just ignored the anomaly and just cross their fingers.
Like NASA has been known to do previously.
@@jkjxx68 Ha. Shots fired.
That really isn't how manned spaceflight works.
@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.
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!
Scrubbing projects like whistleblowers
I wouldn't get on it
I bet those astronauts are reconsidering life real hard tonight 😄
You couldn't get on it. You don't have what it takes.
@@easternyellowjacket276 that's some pretty dumb shit to say to somebody you don't know.
@@michaell.445 Not my fault you aren't qualified to get on it.
@@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.
door seal
Boeing is just not professional. They are not as good as they think they are!
Tony is a great CEO and no weasel words but its a stupid rule you cant recycle a valve.
NASA/Boeing - No taxpayer dollar left unwasted
Atlas issue but let’s blame Boeing??
Explain, in detail, how Boeing was blamed for this.
@@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.
@@IrishDriscoll Ooops. Misread. My bad, and I totally agree.
The door was missing some nuts.🌰🥜
Bruno is a likeable guy. ULA is somewhat less likeable, but I wish them the best on this crewed launch.
listen up knot heads,its not Boeings fault its the booster from ULA
ULA is owned by boeing although i agree that this is not a boeing issue
@@w4drone720ULA is not Boing.
@@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
@@w4drone720centaur is not an SRB
If you like among us
👇( not forcing)
So, the front fell off..
😂
Taptaptaptaptapdance.
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??
Because it sucks?
Centaur is an excellent rocket. You should get into engineering. You seem to think you know so much. We'll see how far you make it.
rather keep things safe than the spacex 'no abort' starship approach.
Because an experimental flight of an uncrewed test vehicle is exactly the same as a crewed ISS ferry flight...
Well the design of starship can be change through out years, but on artemis program the sls capsule will dock on starship in space
More excuses.... We all asked why you tanking 6 hours in advance, you know!! the valves have a cycle limit!!!! simply put your crap at planning.
And "your" crap at spelling.
its a bit diff than a hot water tank valve - they arent solenoid valves
No but you don't have access to pull the little test lever like on your hot water tank so you put a solenoid on there to do so remotely.
Yes, he knows that but he's trying to explain it to non technical people.
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
Well spoken and knowledgeable of the issues. Lifing of components is a science not understood by all layman. Good job Mr. Bruno.
Weird. Boeing putting safety first. Can you imagine if he ran the commercial aircraft operations?
he doesn’t work for Boeing, he’s the CEO of United Launch Alliance, the ones who put safety first.
This was ULA, not Boeing. Boeing built the capsule, ULA built the rocket.
Because Boeing is going downhill!
Boeing has some serious problems. Oh my...
The issue wasn’t with Boeing, it was with the Centaur upper stage
@@Captain_Jebediah Of course what you state is true. The problem is most people are just too stupid to understand this.
@@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.
Weasel
If it's Boeing you ain't going.
Hire some SpaceX managers!
I know this is Atlas scrub,but this spacecraft is looking to me very unsecured and just waiting for disaster,idk about this program 🙄
thank god!
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!
Amazing how a once world leader in technical capability NASA has become a bureaucratic joke compared to the private aggressive alternative.
You realize SpaceX got a large portion of their knowledge and technical expertise from NASA right?
This is entirely a Boeing problem.
This is a safety issue and he clearly explained the rules. I prefer that philosophy. Better wait one day instead of taking a risk.
@@turtalia4537maybe but the average age of NASA employees is like 45 but spaceX hires mostly 25 year olds
The engines were designed in-house
@@turtalia4537 This is neither a Boeing or a NASA issue. This upper stage is a United Launch Alliance (ULA) rocket.
@@wally7856 ULA is owned by Boeing
"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.
They built that BILLION DOLLAR SHIT HOLE with home depot parts.
No, try *listening* to him. He is explaining what the valve does without getting technical.
It wasnt because of flight rules, it was because normalisation of deviance. A knowen issue that had exsisted for s long time and been accepted
Elon eating his lunch
The fact Space X has launched craft fueling them when it is crewed makes me think Boeing should rethink its approach.
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!!
The valve mentioned has nothing to do with Boeing
@@tylerprow6441 Your reply indicates you have no sense of humor, and do not understand sarcasm. Go back to bed.
Racists when accidents continue to happen, and the management Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas continues to be corrupt
if only they cared this much about the airliners that carry hundreds of people!
Tory is CEO of United Launch Alliance, not Boeing. Maybe they should make him CEO of Boeing.
60+ years in the business, still can't make a f'in valve that works
There is no such thing as a perfect valve
That thing's a scam, I'm glad they avoided a disaster!
Centaur is one of the most reliable and successful launch platforms in history?
"... when people are present."
You mean a manned flight.
Lots of bafflegab here.
Could also imply when there are people within the vicinity of the rocket. So no, not exclusive to a manned flight.
So many Boeing haters like to talk but I can bet good money they have all paid money to fly on a Boeing at some point in their lives. Morons lmao
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
Man - Boeing’s on a roll!!!!!! 😂
Nothing to do with Boeing.
@ Errrrr.... ULA is 50% owned by Boeing. Nothing?
Starliner should be removed from the Artemis program and scrapped.
Starliner is not a part of the Artemis program. Orion is the crew capsule for Artemis.
@@kenhavens9559 Whatever, it needs to be scrapped. Too many issues, too much money. Time to cut losses.
NASA (taxpayers) have paid Boeing over $4.2 billion to create this thing and fly it at least 6 times at a cost. We should get something out of it.
@@rosswarren436 What I do not want to get out of it is a repeat of the Challenger and the Columbia. Time to cut losses and move on.
@@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.
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?
Yes, seriously. They don't instrument valve "flutters". Why would you? It isn't intended to flutter.
@@stargazer7644 agreed, but the state of the fuel because of it should be.
@@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.
Bad Valve, Bad Design, Bad Analytics, Bad Oversight, Bad Excuses, Bad Boeing! Funny to know that Boeing started this endeavor at the same time SpaceX did, and Boeing received over double the money in grants for it! WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME!!!!!
The valve mentioned has nothing to do with Boeing. It's part of Centaur
Lmao Boeing has lost all credibility with their killing of whistleblowers
What did they think was going to happen?
SpaceX can launch 3 rockets in one day. Boeing can't even launch 1 rocket in 3 years.
Boeing doesn’t lunch rockets.
ULA Is Boeing at least half of it@
You're wrong and right
@stuffstumper6378 this is pot on ! I agree with you 🎯
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....
Buzz Lightyear....not going anywhere.
ULA's systems at fault here.
Umm, thanks?
Its hard to believe they human rated balloon tanks for this flight. yikes,
Jesus Christ. Balloon tanks have been used since the late 50s
Your can of Coke or Pepsi or beer is a balloon tank so it's not like we don't use them everyday.
@@wally7856 Cans of Coke do not collapse if you let the pressure out of them.
@@stargazer7644 They do if you put some weight on them like when cases at the store are stacked 20 high.
@@wally7856 And if I smash one under my foot it'll crush. What does that have to do with anything? Do you build things with filled coke cans?