Boeing was once a great company. As an aerospace engineer during the 1980s/90s, we did a lot of work with Rocketdyne and Boeing on various contracts. For us, Boeing was actually a bit of a PITA because their standards were so high. Then came the merger with MD. Although retaining the name of Boeing, the new entity reflected all the managerial and quality problems with McDonnell Douglas, including moving the headquarters to their Saint Louis location. I used to say "If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going"
A lot of great American companies(GM, GE, Dell, HP, IBM, etc) are going down in the same way. Hiring and keeping a lot of lazy and incompetent engineers who are only good at slide-deck and presentation. A two-week task takes 4 months or 6 months and no one considers it as poor performance. Many incompetent managers will keep those terrible engineers around to fortify their positition. They don't want to hire a good engineer who can replace their positions in near future. Sadly, I saw this situation in many big companies. That's why Elon Musk fired a lot of engineers at Twitter.
@@openwrtguru247You forget Intel. Boeing and Intel, once the leaders in the most technologically advanced and sophisticated manufacturing, have both faded.
@@openwrtguru247 Perhaps it could be because at so many companies all that matters is getting the most money in shareholder pockets as fast as possible by abusing employees and giving customers the worst, most expensive product or service they're willing to tolerate.
@@openwrtguru247 Unioms ensure that the best and worst workers and engineers are paid exactly the same. That's the definition of Communism, and it destroys companies.
I took a LOT of offense when the one guy claimed that Starliner has performed "exceptionally". It has performed SUB-optimally since the very beginning of the program. "Exceptional" performance would have been a successful launch, station docking and release, and safe return without ANY issues. "Nominal" performance would have been a safe launch, docking and release, and safe return with only minor, non-mission jeopardizing issues. This ship was NOT able to safely complete any part of this mission. It did launch, yes, but not safely and not without mission jeopardizing issues (which are also the same issues that caused the other stages to be "failures"). There should be a large number of firings going on at BOTH Boeing and NASA of the individuals who had the decision making authority to launch that unsafe ship with a crew aboard. It is plainly obvious that sufficient testing was not performed to ensure that the ship was capable of safe delivery of crew to the station and return them home alive. I'm talking about MANAGERS and ADMINSTRATORS, not the peons at the bottom who are the usual scapegoats/victims when screwups like this occur.
Losing the crew would have been harsh. Holding the individuals responsible for the decision to launch them on that (faulty) ship to account is reasonable.
I think the decision was based more on CYA than safety. If safety was truly their main criteria they could have made their decision weeks ago. Or, even better, not approve a launch with known critical failures on a ship with a history of poor testing and hidden failures. I heard a lot of typical politician platitudes - "crew safety first", "quality company", "thorough testing", etc - that flies in the face of reality. The most egregious was Nelson's lies and attempt to rewrite history - especially his unrelenting effort to kill the commercial space program and fixed cost contracts.
yeah. we want our $4.2 billion refunded. we didn't order an outdated ship from the 70's made to look new that has done nothing but fail over and over again. give us our money back.
The US government wouldn't have the stones to ask Boeing for their money back. Boeing would cry poor that paying anything back would send them bankrupt after the public failures of the MAX and now the problems the 777-8/9 engine mounts
Boeing is the kind of company you end up with sooner or later when you prioritize share price over everything else. Too many suits and ties, not enough lab coats and pocket protectors.
And too many sub contractors- vertical integration / building in-house and continuous development is why spacex is so successful. The thruster designers from Aerojet are probably dead, and the designs are probably stuck in a storage locker somewhere that nobody can find.
@@URnickel_MY2centshow long is dei a thing and when did Boeing design/produce all the the aircrafts that failed... Dei is bad, I agree but randomly attributing every failure to Dei is beyond path*tic...
@@URnickel_MY2cents Do you have hard data to support this claim? I already know you don't, because 'DEI' is a complete non-issue. People of color, gay, straight, male, female, religious, non-religious, etc. all have the same human potential, and there is actually hard data to back that up. Our differences (read: diversity) are strengths, not weaknesses.
@@corbindallasmultipass that' stupid and not even the problem. ending federal funding would also kill spacex and a lot of others. without nasa there's no infra to build for. just stop granting these obvious bribed contracts for the military industrial complex which always get scrubbed. these only exist to move money, that's why towards the end there's zero interest to push them through. that's why they don't get pulled 5 years ago when it was obvious the project is decades behind the industry. they need to waste the money first or MIC doesn't achieve its goal.
They had thruster shutdowns on the previous flight too, but thought a software update would fix the problem. Using software to fix issues with the control-system hardware. Now where have I heard _that_ before? 🤔
"They have worked so hard on it" means NOTHING. What actually matters is the QUALITY of said work. you can work on something for a million hours and it will still suck if you did a bad job.
U can even do a good job, but if no one wants what u did for whatever reason.. it still not worth anything (which is important in work sharing societies, where individuals voluntarily exchange product with each other).
@@davidholubetz177 Feelings can piss of when their shoddy work endangers (and actually costs) lives. PS. I know you were being sarcastic but I still needed to say that :)
I feel bad for the Boeing engineers who were trying to correct this problem. Management has no idea how to fix it so I know they just spent their time finding more ways to yell at or otherwise punish the engineers trying to solve it. Then they probably brought in other managers from other departments to yell more at the engineers. They weren't able to solve the problem but I'm sure upper management will get nice Christmas bonuses for their efforts.
To top everything, no doubt they bean-counted every possible thing that the engineer wanted to design into the Starliner and turned it into what is now attached to the space station!
I like how at 13:19 Nelson perked up and nodded at Sawyer's question. You could almost hear the thoughts, "Ah, someone who's interested in the solutions rather than the drama."
Yeah, it was over an hour into the press conference that we finally got some really good details. There was some good stuff earlier, but Steve Stich really got roiling with some technical answers late in the press conference.
In 2008, I quit Boeing as level 4 structural engineer after two years of working there. I’d say the culture is horrible; I told many people that down the same path, Boeing would fail one day.
Been at Boeing for a year and a half this September. Already planning my exit. This company is a joke. There is absolutely no structure and management has no clue how to lead. It's insanity here.
@@threebox11 I haven't seen the CI program come across our department, yet. We are going through changes at the moment, which has been an absolute headache when you pair it with poor leadership and management. It's like watching chickens run around with their heads chopped off. I knew it was a sign when the most tenured person on my team has 3-4 years under their belt. The turnover rate is high and management/leadership does not care about getting to the root issue. They have a mindset of "forget them, we'll get another shmuck."
Very sad ... it was such an iconic brand and company with its 747 by sure a marvel in aviation, and still one of the most beautiful aircrafts. Yet, concurrence with Airbus became tough, and it was (and maybe still is) a gigantic battle to control the market of airplane production for the big airlines. I felt ashamed as European to see how many billions had been pumped by politicians in Europe to win this battle. I think the tax payer costed it more than 10 billion EUR to finance the A380, a project of monstrosity which finally didn't survive by lack of market interests. All these muscle games, the fight between Europe and USA to control this big business is not healthy. It also educated the greedyness of top paid managers, who too often come from other branches, lack the identity with the products, and just misuse their position for climbing the career ladder. A tendency we have seen already since the early 90s.
Why? It was saying, it is a cost fixed contract. Please don't let us overlook: space travel is very demanding and problems are unfortunately not uncommon. And that it would of course be a great advantage to have other options in addition to Dragon due to redundancy. In all the discussions, it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked and how the device could definitely go into operation after further adjustments. It is now easy to condemn Starliner and Boeing. But there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It needs caution, of course, but also reasonableness and a sense of proportion.
Considering they can't even build planes whose tires don't fall off... it's not exactly a stretch that we shouldn't trust any space craft they've built
Boeing didn't get the NASA contract. That was SpaceX. Certain people went whining to their representative, and got another, even bigger, chunk of money just for Boeing.
@@SebSN-y3f " it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked" . . . I don't think anyone is overlooking that, but most are keenly aware that it is the multitude of things that have NOT worked in the Starliner program that has culminated with this disaster of a mission. The many things that work are only important when the mission is completed with the safe return of the crew. Starliner is not now, nor has it ever been to this point, a vehicle capable of doing that, and from the looks of things as they stand, combined with Boeing's abysmal safety performance lately as a company (indicating a SERIOUS cultural problem at the management levels) and even worse complete history with Starliner itself, it may not be capable of a safe crewed mission for quite a while, years possibly.
Are we allow to use the word "stranded" now? This delay in the return of those astronauts was not "due to an abundance of caution and safety", it is only "due to an abundance of incompetence by Boeing's engineers."
I would've loved to see Starliner be successful. We need some sort of alternative in case something happens with Dragon or Falcon 9, and Starliner could've been a nice alternative or at least buffer to our capabilities. Shame.
Why do you buy into this fallacy of "alternative in case something happens"? At what point does something become reliable enough that you don't need an alternative backup? Do you think all Fords should be parked if one of them has a failure? Even the 737 Max wasn't grounded after a crash that killed over 300 people. The Falcon has a record of over 300 consecutive flawless flights and the Dragon over 30. Even if SpaceX had a failure, what would be the safer choice for the next flight: Starliner (with a history of zero successes and continual discovery of hidden flaws and poor testing) or Dragon (with a long history of flawless flights, recognized for high quality builds and a proven culture of safety first scrubbing launches at the slightest abnormality - even when it is their own dime. BTW, The "competition is needed to keep cots down" argument doesn't work very well when the "competition" is twice the price for half the quality.
Even ''if something happens'' don't you think it will be way quicker that SpaceX corrects the problem than expecting Boeing to do something ? Something did happen with a 2nd stage failure recently with falcon 9 and everything is back to normal in a couple of days...
I'm glad that NASA is entirely responsible for the final decision. Imagine if it was just up to Boeing to do their own private investigation to determine whether it was safe and NASA would just listen to whatever Boeing decided. I have a feeling Boeing would have had Butch and Suni return on Starliner if it was up to them.
I suppose we have to look at it in the perspective of Boeing being one of many companies that builds airliners, which have in fact crashed for one reason or another in the past, killing sometimes hundreds of average everyday people in one fell swoop. Lot's of news coverage in the first days which goes away, and then there's an investigation by the FAA. Meanwhile, other airliners are literally flying in and out of the airport/crash area even as the crash site is still smoldering and will continue to do so as life goes on. Butch and Sunni are only two people, and they are test pilots to boot. I am not diminishing the importance of their lives at all, but like it or not, people risk their lives every time they fly on a flying machine.
With the usual cost overruns of 400% that would mean Boeing has to put a another 20 billion in it by themselves. With their current rate of success that would kill the whole charade they've become.
The problem is that at this point money for Starliner development comes out of an already floundering Boeing's pocket. So, would you trust Boeing not to cut EVEN MORE corners in the program while they are in financial distress? It would take a helluva lot of test flights before I'd trust a product out of that culture.
I have zero confidence in Boeing's processes right now. There is an alternative to bringing the crew back on the capsule and NASA took it. That says (to me) that NASA feels the same way. Even if it's just out of an abundance of caution. They may never fly another Starliner.
NASA's made the right call: this is the entire point of dissimilar redundancy. There's no reason to gamble Butch and Suni's lives on a new thermal simulation. Thankfully they made it all the way uphill safely, worst case Starliner makes it home safely on its own and NASA looks like they were overly cautious. Considering Boeing's current overall situation the political fallout for NASA in that situation would be minimal. Best case this deciscion just saved Butch and Suni's lives if Starliner's thrusters give out during the deorbit burn and it loses attitude control and burns up on reentry. Honestly just amazed it took them this long to come to this conclusion.
What do you mean "overly cautious"? The capsule was practically falling apart on the way up, I don't think there'd be anything to be overly cautious about if the crew came back to earth on SL, best case scenario is nothing else happens and everyone lands safely, but even if that were to happen, the fact that things went wrong on the way up is a massive cause for concern. Ideally things SHOULDN'T be going wrong during the whole trip, or at least nothing that would jeopardize the safety of the crew and functionality of the craft.
I agree. Bring the astronauts down safely, bring Starliner down and see what happens. If it fails on the way down NASA will get medals for showing caution. SpaceX did this 8 years ago, without problems and has only had 1 problem sense... To my knowledge.
Yeah, the decision to use Dragon should have been made as soon as they lost faith in the thrusters, which was probably within a few days of docking. Maybe it actually was? All the testing to nail-down the problem is fine....but they could have announced the change of return vehicle much sooner and still continued testing. The way they handled it created unnecessary drama.
@@toadelevator If they could model the thrusters confidently I think they could have made a different choice, but it sounds like a big part of their decision was that there were still too many unknowns after a lot of ground testing and other work.
Once Dreamchaser has done their cargo flights (and worked out all the kinks), their crew variants should be relatively error free and successful. This is the production route Boeing should have taken.
@@chrischeshire6528 I like Dreamchaser too. Very, very much. But please don't let us overlook: The more possible options, the better. And don't forget that space travel is very demanding and problems are unfortunately not uncommon. Plus that it would of course be a great advantage to have other options in addition to Dragon due to redundancy soon, but a human rating for Dreamchaser takes realistically a lot of time. In all the discussions, it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked on Starliner and how the device could definitely go into operation after further adjustments. It is now easy to condemn Starliner and Boeing. But there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It needs caution, of course, but also reasonableness and a sense of proportion.
Between the airliner safety/quality scandal, the breathtaking price surge and quality issues with SLS and its upper stage, and now this Starliner capsule SNAFU, Boeing has quite a bit of explaining to do. It's long past due that NASA, Congress and the President take the situation more seriously. NASA's Office of Inspector General recently blew the whistle on Boeing and SLS.
You missed one the new airforce tankers where Boeing thought that a 4x6 black & white screen was good enough for the guy flying the refuelling probe !! WTF
The Starliner abandonment by NASA was no surprise. Boeing quality control has collapsed under the weight of pointy haired & empty suited Boeing management. The issue now is the Boeing SLS. Can it be trusted for the Artemis moon missions? The NASA IG report on the Boeing workforce at the Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans, Louisiana is scary. Boeing workers and inspectors leaving behind FOD inside fuel tanks for DCMA quality inspectors to find is heart attack serious.
Sawyer may be flat out right now but still gets in the limelight 🤩 Go Sawyer you are a credit to NSF & future space nerds. Feel a Flex coming to the 🔥trench 😻❤
The only problem for them could be physical conditioning. I would think they would have really been working on having maximum muscle mass before the flight, had they known they'd be up there until 2025. As it is, they were only prepared for 8 days. Hopefully a whole lot of hours on the bike will prevent too much atrophy.
@@riparianlife97701I was very surprised they launched with a known defect. Rocketry is a tricky business as is. It’s on thing to launch an R&D test article with a known unresolved problem but with a crewed vehicle it should be an automatic shutdown until it fully resolved!
You have to admire how nasa can talk so much and for so long without actually saying anything. Here is a possible translation: we cannot risk bringing the astronauts back in this faulty craft as it may be fatal. We have therefore asked space x to bring them back safely next year. Until then, they are stranded on the space station. We have no other means to get then back safely ourselves before then.
To be fair: the very first sentence of the press conference was what decision had been made. I expected 20-30 minutes of chatter before the actual announcement, so I was pleasantly surprised by that.
This was what i have believed would happen since the liftoff. And frankly i believe that nasa engineers has know that this was what needed to happen but that management wanted to hope that Starliner can be fixed. What scares me is the way Näsa leadership spoke during the Conference. To me i now sounds like egen management has löst hope in Starliner. Frankly im starting to think that this was Starliners last Crewed flight. And maybe even its last flight period. Leta hope im wrong cause we need more solutions not fewer
The crew KNEW they were launching in a spacecraft that had thruster issues...but they went anyhow. Returning the Starliner autonomously without issues would make the decision to bail and use Crew Dragon look bad. Now...if Starliner screwed up badly and would have killed the crew....well....then at least you could say you made the right decision. But heads MUST roll over this fiasco. What oversight allowed them to get SO far behind and make such a vehicle while SpaceX got less than HALF the money yet delivered an exceptional vehicle in the Dragon's.
When Dragon changed from propulsive landing to parachutes and splashdown they made a lot of changes to the seats, shock absorption, and the angles the astronauts sit at. With all those changes they gave up plans for the 3 seats underneath.
@@BabyMakR As philb5593 mentioned above, but I'll add this: During liftoff and re-entry, the seats are rotated up to the best attitude to allow the crew to cope with the heavy G-forces. But when Dragon hits the water, it is at a slight angle for various reasons, and that angle is a slight head down for the crew. NASA was concerned that after a long time in microgravity this could be a problem for the astronauts. Hence the two-position seats. This also has the advantage that Dragon is the easiest spacecraft to get in and out of ever (perhaps the old Gemini capsule came close). Hope this helps!
Boeing as a whole needs to go through a complete restructuring of the company Aka draining the swamp , the problem is I don’t think can afford to do so without going bankrupt unfortunately, maybe they won’t go bankrupt but there Valuation will be seriously downsized I really hope things improve for them
I think this is pretty much a non-issue. Boeing would have the astronauts measurements. It would be rather trivial for SpaceX to take those measurements and turn them into suits for Butch and Suni.
Yes, they will send up SpaceX suits. Actually from the press conference it sounded like they already had an extra suit on station that Butch and Suni tried on, and Crew-9 will bring up another.
I think the history books will class their dilemma as a stranding. An 8 day trip? Their life boat has sprung several leaks so have to wait for the next crewed mission in early 2025. In the meantime if there is an emergency on the ISS they will need to use Starliner for rescue. Having said all that I don’t believe the Starliner crew are in any danger now that NASA has made the decision to bring them home on Dragon. But to say the Starliner crew are not stranded is probably not what their families and friends are thinking.
Ideally yes. I heard some speculation that they could come back suitless. But I think the most recent news is that one suit is up there already and one will be on the dragon flight
@@TheMusicHeals.kjhjhhg Yes I watched the briefing but they said nothing about what suits they would be using. I know they COULD have compatible connections but I have heard nothing about if that is so.
I am impressed with NFS youtube video. The level of detail, the comprehensive content and up to date focused information regarding this Starliner mission.
Dragon does not have the capability to carry 7 astronauts anymore. That capability was abandoned years ago when NASA and SpaceX changed up the seats, the angles that the astronauts sit at for launch, reentry, and splashdown, and the shock absorption in the seats. All those changes meant SpaceX had to give up the 3 seats underneath. I assume with some serious redesign work to the seating they could carry 7, but that would take a bunch of engineering, it’s not just a configuration change.
I have pretty high doubts that politics has *nothing* to do with NASA's decisions- it would be very difficult to eliminate at least subconscious biases from the decision making process, and that it is an election year has to be somewhere in the back of the mind. I would argue this is doubly true as we have seen over time that the top NASA position is essentially inherently a political one i.e. their job is to present NASA in the best political light possible to both parties to secure NASA's funding and missions
It just erks me to all get-out when ABC on line headlines read: “NASA says Boeing’s Starliner astronauts must return to Earth on a different spacecraft” And a short time later, the story cannot be found anywhere on their web front page
Because NASA or Roscomos limits a crew around 3-4 astronauts, the current setting in Crew Dragon only supports 4. They didn't do any trainings and rehearsal for 6/7 seats(It's very very important) or hardware.
Boeing was once a great company. As an aerospace engineer during the 1980s/90s, we did a lot of work with Rocketdyne and Boeing on various contracts. For us, Boeing was actually a bit of a PITA because their standards were so high. Then came the merger with MD. Although retaining the name of Boeing, the new entity reflected all the managerial and quality problems with McDonnell Douglas, including moving the headquarters to their Saint Louis location. I used to say "If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going"
That's like saying the Celtics were a great basketball team. None of those people still work there.
A lot of great American companies(GM, GE, Dell, HP, IBM, etc) are going down in the same way. Hiring and keeping a lot of lazy and incompetent engineers who are only good at slide-deck and presentation. A two-week task takes 4 months or 6 months and no one considers it as poor performance.
Many incompetent managers will keep those terrible engineers around to fortify their positition. They don't want to hire a good engineer who can replace their positions in near future.
Sadly, I saw this situation in many big companies. That's why Elon Musk fired a lot of engineers at Twitter.
@@openwrtguru247You forget Intel. Boeing and Intel, once the leaders in the most technologically advanced and sophisticated manufacturing, have both faded.
@@openwrtguru247 Perhaps it could be because at so many companies all that matters is getting the most money in shareholder pockets as fast as possible by abusing employees and giving customers the worst, most expensive product or service they're willing to tolerate.
@@openwrtguru247 Unioms ensure that the best and worst workers and engineers are paid exactly the same. That's the definition of Communism, and it destroys companies.
I took a LOT of offense when the one guy claimed that Starliner has performed "exceptionally". It has performed SUB-optimally since the very beginning of the program. "Exceptional" performance would have been a successful launch, station docking and release, and safe return without ANY issues. "Nominal" performance would have been a safe launch, docking and release, and safe return with only minor, non-mission jeopardizing issues. This ship was NOT able to safely complete any part of this mission. It did launch, yes, but not safely and not without mission jeopardizing issues (which are also the same issues that caused the other stages to be "failures").
There should be a large number of firings going on at BOTH Boeing and NASA of the individuals who had the decision making authority to launch that unsafe ship with a crew aboard. It is plainly obvious that sufficient testing was not performed to ensure that the ship was capable of safe delivery of crew to the station and return them home alive. I'm talking about MANAGERS and ADMINSTRATORS, not the peons at the bottom who are the usual scapegoats/victims when screwups like this occur.
Yep probably right, harsh but true
Losing the crew would have been harsh. Holding the individuals responsible for the decision to launch them on that (faulty) ship to account is reasonable.
Exceptionally is the term for dragon. Because that ship HAS perfoemed pretty much flawlessly every time it's flown crew.
exceptionally bad lmao
I would like to see how they will fire their relatives and friends who were involved in this Boeing failure.
I'm just glad NASA made the decision based on safety instead of image.
Safety. They should have one before the launch and not when they screwed up. Lol
@@Gman979 It doesn't help that many NASA folks work for SpaceX or have worked for SpaceX.
I think the decision was based more on CYA than safety. If safety was truly their main criteria they could have made their decision weeks ago. Or, even better, not approve a launch with known critical failures on a ship with a history of poor testing and hidden failures. I heard a lot of typical politician platitudes - "crew safety first", "quality company", "thorough testing", etc - that flies in the face of reality. The most egregious was Nelson's lies and attempt to rewrite history - especially his unrelenting effort to kill the commercial space program and fixed cost contracts.
Are you implying this decision was corrupt?
I guess after leaning toward Boeing for so long Nasa couldn't take more egg on their face... but they finally made the right decision
There is NO WAY Starliner should be certified without at least another test flight!
Yeah. At least one.
@@Ron4885When? 4 more years from now?
Should just be cancelled entirely.
@@deimosian agreed
@@deimosian Yes, but no offence, that is a boring ass comment now, its been said a million times and did nothing.
This video is one of the most accurate and non-hyperbolic ones covering the Crew Flight Test. Thanks for the video.
Glad you think so! -kmr
I agree. Some great curated reporting from a knowledgeable journalist. Thank you.
I disagree
yeah. we want our $4.2 billion refunded. we didn't order an outdated ship from the 70's made to look new that has done nothing but fail over and over again. give us our money back.
The US government wouldn't have the stones to ask Boeing for their money back. Boeing would cry poor that paying anything back would send them bankrupt after the public failures of the MAX and now the problems the 777-8/9 engine mounts
@@rjswasif he's a citizen of the United States, than yes, by proxy
@@darkdraconis Exactly. At the very least, give the money back to NASA so they can spend it on something that benefits the taxpayers.
@@rjswas you dont seem very smart lol
@@rjswas wtf are you talking about lmao
Boeing is the kind of company you end up with sooner or later when you prioritize share price over everything else.
Too many suits and ties, not enough lab coats and pocket protectors.
And too many sub contractors- vertical integration / building in-house and continuous development is why spacex is so successful. The thruster designers from Aerojet are probably dead, and the designs are probably stuck in a storage locker somewhere that nobody can find.
@@URnickel_MY2centshow long is dei a thing and when did Boeing design/produce all the the aircrafts that failed...
Dei is bad, I agree but randomly attributing every failure to Dei is beyond path*tic...
@@URnickel_MY2cents Do you have hard data to support this claim? I already know you don't, because 'DEI' is a complete non-issue. People of color, gay, straight, male, female, religious, non-religious, etc. all have the same human potential, and there is actually hard data to back that up. Our differences (read: diversity) are strengths, not weaknesses.
@@URnickel_MY2cents @darkdraconis If you really think that DEI is the problem, then you don't understand anything. Go troll elsewhere.
@@darkdraconis
Good enough !!! So, why do they now suck ???
Finally. NASA looking at data and not doing the politically expedient thing!
5 years after the plug should've been pulled. why do they always do this.
Defund starliner completely!!! End all federal funding immediately
@@corbindallasmultipass that' stupid and not even the problem. ending federal funding would also kill spacex and a lot of others. without nasa there's no infra to build for.
just stop granting these obvious bribed contracts for the military industrial complex which always get scrubbed. these only exist to move money, that's why towards the end there's zero interest to push them through. that's why they don't get pulled 5 years ago when it was obvious the project is decades behind the industry. they need to waste the money first or MIC doesn't achieve its goal.
U sure bro?
@@babstra55 NOOOOO. The plug should never be pulled. That just gives money back to Boeing.
Just when you think Boeing has hit rock bottom.
The 777-9X being canceled would be rock bottom.
Wait for it…
Yes, but this time you'd actually want them to hit rock bottom, but Boeing can't even get that right.
Now I am learning its not Boeing, but parts subcontracted to Harris. The blames needs to spread out to all the incompetent leadership.
Go spacex!!! Go crew dragon!!!
They had thruster shutdowns on the previous flight too, but thought a software update would fix the problem.
Using software to fix issues with the control-system hardware. Now where have I heard _that_ before? 🤔
"They have worked so hard on it" means NOTHING. What actually matters is the QUALITY of said work. you can work on something for a million hours and it will still suck if you did a bad job.
U can even do a good job, but if no one wants what u did for whatever reason.. it still not worth anything (which is important in work sharing societies, where individuals voluntarily exchange product with each other).
but they should get an award for trying - we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings
@@davidholubetz177 Feelings can piss of when their shoddy work endangers (and actually costs) lives.
PS. I know you were being sarcastic but I still needed to say that :)
@@davidholubetz177 😂
I feel bad for the Boeing engineers who were trying to correct this problem. Management has no idea how to fix it so I know they just spent their time finding more ways to yell at or otherwise punish the engineers trying to solve it. Then they probably brought in other managers from other departments to yell more at the engineers. They weren't able to solve the problem but I'm sure upper management will get nice Christmas bonuses for their efforts.
To top everything, no doubt they bean-counted every possible thing that the engineer wanted to design into the Starliner and turned it into what is now attached to the space station!
And when they do the internal investigation into the failure, they’ll blame some lvl 1 engineer
I like how at 13:19 Nelson perked up and nodded at Sawyer's question. You could almost hear the thoughts, "Ah, someone who's interested in the solutions rather than the drama."
Yeah, it was over an hour into the press conference that we finally got some really good details. There was some good stuff earlier, but Steve Stich really got roiling with some technical answers late in the press conference.
The drama IS the news story.
From "Loss of thrust" to "Loss of trust"
nicely put
Warcraft 1:25 @@davidholubetz177
How t download warcraft
In 2008, I quit Boeing as level 4 structural engineer after two years of working there. I’d say the culture is horrible; I told many people that down the same path, Boeing would fail one day.
Been at Boeing for a year and a half this September. Already planning my exit. This company is a joke. There is absolutely no structure and management has no clue how to lead. It's insanity here.
@@PLP0321 have they recently started a program called continuous improvement like my place of work? it's like a power grab scheme
@@threebox11 I haven't seen the CI program come across our department, yet. We are going through changes at the moment, which has been an absolute headache when you pair it with poor leadership and management. It's like watching chickens run around with their heads chopped off. I knew it was a sign when the most tenured person on my team has 3-4 years under their belt. The turnover rate is high and management/leadership does not care about getting to the root issue. They have a mindset of "forget them, we'll get another shmuck."
Very sad ... it was such an iconic brand and company with its 747 by sure a marvel in aviation, and still one of the most beautiful aircrafts. Yet, concurrence with Airbus became tough, and it was (and maybe still is) a gigantic battle to control the market of airplane production for the big airlines. I felt ashamed as European to see how many billions had been pumped by politicians in Europe to win this battle. I think the tax payer costed it more than 10 billion EUR to finance the A380, a project of monstrosity which finally didn't survive by lack of market interests. All these muscle games, the fight between Europe and USA to control this big business is not healthy. It also educated the greedyness of top paid managers, who too often come from other branches, lack the identity with the products, and just misuse their position for climbing the career ladder. A tendency we have seen already since the early 90s.
i say there are a ton of big companies like that !! (microsoft?)
Thank you Ryan and all at NSF for a very comprehensive unbiased video.
Wow. But this is not a surprise. It has taken too long to decide. I wish them patience and a safe ride back.
Dear god isn't it about time that NASA stopped pouring vast sums down the Boeing money sink?
Why? It was saying, it is a cost fixed contract. Please don't let us overlook:
space travel is very demanding and problems are unfortunately not uncommon. And that it would of course be a great advantage to have other options in addition to Dragon due to redundancy.
In all the discussions, it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked and how the device could definitely go into operation after further adjustments. It is now easy to condemn Starliner and Boeing. But there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It needs caution, of course, but also reasonableness and a sense of proportion.
Considering they can't even build planes whose tires don't fall off... it's not exactly a stretch that we shouldn't trust any space craft they've built
Boeing didn't get the NASA contract.
That was SpaceX.
Certain people went whining to their representative, and got another, even bigger, chunk of money just for Boeing.
@@SebSN-y3f " it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked" . . . I don't think anyone is overlooking that, but most are keenly aware that it is the multitude of things that have NOT worked in the Starliner program that has culminated with this disaster of a mission. The many things that work are only important when the mission is completed with the safe return of the crew. Starliner is not now, nor has it ever been to this point, a vehicle capable of doing that, and from the looks of things as they stand, combined with Boeing's abysmal safety performance lately as a company (indicating a SERIOUS cultural problem at the management levels) and even worse complete history with Starliner itself, it may not be capable of a safe crewed mission for quite a while, years possibly.
If we had given the same money to Sierra instead, we would have a human rated space plane in addition to the working capsule from SpaceX.
If I hired a contractor to build me a garage, and they ran into problem and I had to spend my time to correct, I’d want a refund period!
Are we allow to use the word "stranded" now?
This delay in the return of those astronauts was not "due to an abundance of caution and safety", it is only "due to an abundance of incompetence by Boeing's engineers."
NSF Team thank you for covering this without all the hyperbole. Nice report.
"look for something low profile and small to send back in Starliner, like Boeing's reputation." ~Scott Manley
And to think, Boeing made every effort to make this a sole source contract and push out Space X
Mark Nappi should have been at the press conference to apologize, answer questions, and publicly resign.
I would've loved to see Starliner be successful.
We need some sort of alternative in case something happens with Dragon or Falcon 9, and Starliner could've been a nice alternative or at least buffer to our capabilities.
Shame.
Why do you buy into this fallacy of "alternative in case something happens"? At what point does something become reliable enough that you don't need an alternative backup?
Do you think all Fords should be parked if one of them has a failure? Even the 737 Max wasn't grounded after a crash that killed over 300 people. The Falcon has a record of over 300 consecutive flawless flights and the Dragon over 30. Even if SpaceX had a failure, what would be the safer choice for the next flight: Starliner (with a history of zero successes and continual discovery of hidden flaws and poor testing) or Dragon (with a long history of flawless flights, recognized for high quality builds and a proven culture of safety first scrubbing launches at the slightest abnormality - even when it is their own dime.
BTW, The "competition is needed to keep cots down" argument doesn't work very well when the "competition" is twice the price for half the quality.
Luckily we have the inverse.
Even ''if something happens'' don't you think it will be way quicker that SpaceX corrects the problem than expecting Boeing to do something ? Something did happen with a 2nd stage failure recently with falcon 9 and everything is back to normal in a couple of days...
I'm glad that NASA is entirely responsible for the final decision. Imagine if it was just up to Boeing to do their own private investigation to determine whether it was safe and NASA would just listen to whatever Boeing decided. I have a feeling Boeing would have had Butch and Suni return on Starliner if it was up to them.
I suppose we have to look at it in the perspective of Boeing being one of many companies that builds airliners, which have in fact crashed for one reason or another in the past, killing sometimes hundreds of average everyday people in one fell swoop. Lot's of news coverage in the first days which goes away, and then there's an investigation by the FAA. Meanwhile, other airliners are literally flying in and out of the airport/crash area even as the crash site is still smoldering and will continue to do so as life goes on. Butch and Sunni are only two people, and they are test pilots to boot. I am not diminishing the importance of their lives at all, but like it or not, people risk their lives every time they fly on a flying machine.
Possibly the best video by NSF of the year. Great job!!
Thank you for this brilliant piece of reporting, thorough and clear at the same time. Thank you all @Nasaspaceflight
Starliner should absolutely NOT be cancelled. No way should Boeing be rewarded for incompetence. They have a contract, they should be held to it.
What's the fine for not completing the contract? 🤔
Does nasa get the $5 billion back?
@@GeekyBrian96
Nope. Not if nasa is the one that cancels it.
With the usual cost overruns of 400% that would mean Boeing has to put a another 20 billion in it by themselves.
With their current rate of success that would kill the whole charade they've become.
The problem is that at this point money for Starliner development comes out of an already floundering Boeing's pocket. So, would you trust Boeing not to cut EVEN MORE corners in the program while they are in financial distress? It would take a helluva lot of test flights before I'd trust a product out of that culture.
@@toadelevator Boeing is digging its own grave, I wonder if the government will save them again or just finally end it.
Love Ryan's narration. Have already started looking forward to your weekly updates!
I have zero confidence in Boeing's processes right now. There is an alternative to bringing the crew back on the capsule and NASA took it. That says (to me) that NASA feels the same way. Even if it's just out of an abundance of caution. They may never fly another Starliner.
How much overtime are they paying the two astronauts?
knowing how cheap Boeing is, probably none 😂
Those are NASA astronauts not Boeing's so NASA will be the one paying them @@PNWSurvivor
@@PNWSurvivorouch
They're famously-poorly paid, since there are thousands of people begging for the opportunity.
🔥
That intro was bad ass
The thing with SpaceX is that the door plugs don't fly off mid-flight.
they will next thursday though, but in a planned, controlled fashion. go polaris dawn!
@@reardenbentley9622 No, opening a door is not the same as it detaching and flying off!
Or flying off while being transported on the ground BEFORE a flight!
u r so clever!!
@@GntlTch wow really? i had no idea
I like the sequenced form of content they used in this video. It's easy to follow, and provides enough details that it stays interesting. Well done...
Excellent presentation and content (Alex and Ryan). Respectful and concise with GREAT context.
Boeing can't even keep a door on a plane, they need to get out of space!!!!!!
Fly it again! Excitement guaranteed
NASA's made the right call: this is the entire point of dissimilar redundancy. There's no reason to gamble Butch and Suni's lives on a new thermal simulation. Thankfully they made it all the way uphill safely, worst case Starliner makes it home safely on its own and NASA looks like they were overly cautious. Considering Boeing's current overall situation the political fallout for NASA in that situation would be minimal. Best case this deciscion just saved Butch and Suni's lives if Starliner's thrusters give out during the deorbit burn and it loses attitude control and burns up on reentry. Honestly just amazed it took them this long to come to this conclusion.
What do you mean "overly cautious"?
The capsule was practically falling apart on the way up, I don't think there'd be anything to be overly cautious about if the crew came back to earth on SL, best case scenario is nothing else happens and everyone lands safely, but even if that were to happen, the fact that things went wrong on the way up is a massive cause for concern.
Ideally things SHOULDN'T be going wrong during the whole trip, or at least nothing that would jeopardize the safety of the crew and functionality of the craft.
I agree. Bring the astronauts down safely, bring Starliner down and see what happens. If it fails on the way down NASA will get medals for showing caution. SpaceX did this 8 years ago, without problems and has only had 1 problem sense... To my knowledge.
Yeah, the decision to use Dragon should have been made as soon as they lost faith in the thrusters, which was probably within a few days of docking. Maybe it actually was? All the testing to nail-down the problem is fine....but they could have announced the change of return vehicle much sooner and still continued testing. The way they handled it created unnecessary drama.
@@toadelevator If they could model the thrusters confidently I think they could have made a different choice, but it sounds like a big part of their decision was that there were still too many unknowns after a lot of ground testing and other work.
A great informative video. Really well delivered
I think the problem is that NASA cannot determine about how dangerous it is.
Awesome reporting
Awesome video Ryan, Great writing Alex, Thank you NSF!
Dreamchaser is ready to go up and scheduled to do so soon. Crew rating is indeed a ways off. But who knows how long starliner will take now.
They're making a completely separate vehicle for crew
Honestly just stick with Dragon and once it’s approved, Dream Chaser.. or whatever vehicle sierra decides to make. No need for StuckLiner.
Once Dreamchaser has done their cargo flights (and worked out all the kinks), their crew variants should be relatively error free and successful.
This is the production route Boeing should have taken.
Agree, I almost would say to scrap Starliner , almost. I would like to see DreamChaser fly tomorrow and dock with supplies.
@@chrischeshire6528 I like Dreamchaser too. Very, very much. But please don't let us overlook: The more possible options, the better.
And don't forget that space travel is very demanding and problems are unfortunately not uncommon. Plus that it would of course be a great advantage to have other options in addition to Dragon due to redundancy soon, but a human rating for Dreamchaser takes realistically a lot of time.
In all the discussions, it is unfortunately easy to overlook how much has worked on Starliner and how the device could definitely go into operation after further adjustments. It is now easy to condemn Starliner and Boeing. But there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It needs caution, of course, but also reasonableness and a sense of proportion.
Great job to the NSF team for putting this piece together.
Good job Ryan.
Great job explaining, NSF. A really good job!
I am interested to see the Boeing Starliner return to earth.
Thanks for this update Ryan and NSF team.
the fact they keep finding more problems with it the more time that passes is disturbing
The only way that they will stop finding problems with Starliner is to stop looking.
Superb coverage and context, nice one Ryan and NSF.
Boeing's reputation going down in a ball of flames...
...during reentry.
Love you all at NSF, always covering all the important Space News. You are my go to!
Between the airliner safety/quality scandal, the breathtaking price surge and quality issues with SLS and its upper stage, and now this Starliner capsule SNAFU, Boeing has quite a bit of explaining to do. It's long past due that NASA, Congress and the President take the situation more seriously. NASA's Office of Inspector General recently blew the whistle on Boeing and SLS.
You missed one the new airforce tankers where Boeing thought that a 4x6 black & white screen was good enough for the guy flying the refuelling probe !! WTF
Wow, what a week!
The Starliner abandonment by NASA was no surprise. Boeing quality control has collapsed under the weight of pointy haired & empty suited Boeing management. The issue now is the Boeing SLS. Can it be trusted for the Artemis moon missions? The NASA IG report on the Boeing workforce at the Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans, Louisiana is scary. Boeing workers and inspectors leaving behind FOD inside fuel tanks for DCMA quality inspectors to find is heart attack serious.
Have some levity. If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going!!!
That IG report was bad, honestly a decently interesting read if you understand government documents.
Oh yeah, I forgot about the Artemis thing.
Damn you for reminding me. X3
Sawyer may be flat out right now but still gets in the limelight 🤩 Go Sawyer you are a credit to NSF & future space nerds. Feel a Flex coming to the 🔥trench 😻❤
Ryan your professional presentation is top notch. Very well explained, will share with all my friends!
Thanks Ryan and Alejandro. Good writing and delivery!
You guys covered all angles in this one. Jam packed, informative and scooped anyone else. Nice work NSF. Thanks for keeping us all informed. 🙌
I remember seeing Suni Williams before on the ISS. I guess Butch Wilmore isn't a rookie either. So I hope the best for them.
The only problem for them could be physical conditioning. I would think they would have really been working on having maximum muscle mass before the flight, had they known they'd be up there until 2025. As it is, they were only prepared for 8 days. Hopefully a whole lot of hours on the bike will prevent too much atrophy.
Now shes like sandra bullock in the gravity movie
Boeing said they were confindent that their vehicles were safe before those 2 planes went down, nobody will beleieve them anymore
End federal funding to Boeing immediately!!!!!
And get a refund
Great Job Sir 👍
Go Team NSF !🤓
I knew it was a huge mistake to launch that thing...
Turned out the leaking helium on the pad was a good indicator of a design flaw.
@@riparianlife97701 Butch and Sundance Marooned on Boeing Island!
There were a lot of issues at post-launch stage but Boeing and lobby force made it through. No surprise. It became a disaster
@@riparianlife97701I was very surprised they launched with a known defect. Rocketry is a tricky business as is. It’s on thing to launch an R&D test article with a known unresolved problem but with a crewed vehicle it should be an automatic shutdown until it fully resolved!
@@mikegardner107 EXACTLY!!!
Ryan is the best!
You have to admire how nasa can talk so much and for so long without actually saying anything. Here is a possible translation: we cannot risk bringing the astronauts back in this faulty craft as it may be fatal. We have therefore asked space x to bring them back safely next year. Until then, they are stranded on the space station. We have no other means to get then back safely ourselves before then.
You will NEVER get a government job with that, “Tell the truth and make it simple” attitude markgoddard!
Oh my God. You used the "S" word! How are you not censored!? 😅
To be fair: the very first sentence of the press conference was what decision had been made. I expected 20-30 minutes of chatter before the actual announcement, so I was pleasantly surprised by that.
Wow..just wow..
Boeing caved to bean counters and put engineers in the back seat. Shame.
Awesome video with all the facts!
1:26 he didn’t even say dragon ,
just crew nine
Brilliant summary. Thank you.
This was what i have believed would happen since the liftoff.
And frankly i believe that nasa engineers has know that this was what needed to happen but that management wanted to hope that Starliner can be fixed.
What scares me is the way Näsa leadership spoke during the Conference.
To me i now sounds like egen management has löst hope in Starliner.
Frankly im starting to think that this was Starliners last Crewed flight.
And maybe even its last flight period.
Leta hope im wrong cause we need more solutions not fewer
Great turnaround time on this video.
Another 5-6 months in space…. I wouldn’t complain!
Your muscle mass would Probably...
Longer low gravity stay: ,bigger
Muscle mass loss...
The crew KNEW they were launching in a spacecraft that had thruster issues...but they went anyhow. Returning the Starliner autonomously without issues would make the decision to bail and use Crew Dragon look bad. Now...if Starliner screwed up badly and would have killed the crew....well....then at least you could say you made the right decision. But heads MUST roll over this fiasco. What oversight allowed them to get SO far behind and make such a vehicle while SpaceX got less than HALF the money yet delivered an exceptional vehicle in the Dragon's.
I assume the reason they're not just adding 2 extra seats to Falcon is that it's not that simple, but why isn't it that simple?
Because crew Dragon is only certified to carry four crew and no more.
We might get a 7 version after this mess lol
When Dragon changed from propulsive landing to parachutes and splashdown they made a lot of changes to the seats, shock absorption, and the angles the astronauts sit at. With all those changes they gave up plans for the 3 seats underneath.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 I thought it was certified for 7 but NASA contracted it for 4.
@@BabyMakR As philb5593 mentioned above, but I'll add this: During liftoff and re-entry, the seats are rotated up to the best attitude to allow the crew to cope with the heavy G-forces. But when Dragon hits the water, it is at a slight angle for various reasons, and that angle is a slight head down for the crew. NASA was concerned that after a long time in microgravity this could be a problem for the astronauts. Hence the two-position seats. This also has the advantage that Dragon is the easiest spacecraft to get in and out of ever (perhaps the old Gemini capsule came close). Hope this helps!
Starting at about 07:35 in this video:
I ALWAYS love seeing that footage of Suni's EXCITED RETURN to the ISS...👍😊
I like this intro
Don't forget the issues with the Air Force's KC-46 Pegasus tanker program from Boeing. So... yeah. There's that as well. Thanks for sharing!
Boeing as a whole needs to go through a complete restructuring of the company Aka draining the swamp , the problem is I don’t think can afford to do so without going bankrupt unfortunately, maybe they won’t go bankrupt but there Valuation will be seriously downsized I really hope things improve for them
Thanks for this comprehensive update.
Helium atoms: Fly! Be free!
It's glad to hear that the crew can return home safely
How will SpaceX deal with incompatible flight suits? Ship up compatable ones, or modify the seats to match their existing flight suits?
I think this is pretty much a non-issue. Boeing would have the astronauts measurements. It would be rather trivial for SpaceX to take those measurements and turn them into suits for Butch and Suni.
Yes, they will send up SpaceX suits.
Actually from the press conference it sounded like they already had an extra suit on station that Butch and Suni tried on, and Crew-9 will bring up another.
Great report. Thanks for the details.
I think the history books will class their dilemma as a stranding.
An 8 day trip?
Their life boat has sprung several leaks so have to wait for the next crewed mission in early 2025.
In the meantime if there is an emergency on the ISS they will need to use Starliner for rescue.
Having said all that I don’t believe the Starliner crew are in any danger now that NASA has made the decision to bring them home on Dragon. But to say the Starliner crew are not stranded is probably not what their families and friends are thinking.
Their lifeboat was alright but their safety gear wouldn’t fit it. The main boat had the issues. Suits should all have common interfaces …
Excellent report. Well done.
@ NASASpaceFlight Will they need SpaceX Suits in order to come back in Dragon?
They did already announce that one change to the Crew 9 manifest will be Dragon-compatible spacesuits for the astronauts.
i taker it you didnt even watch the briefing.
Ideally yes. I heard some speculation that they could come back suitless. But I think the most recent news is that one suit is up there already and one will be on the dragon flight
@@TheMusicHeals.kjhjhhg Yes I watched the briefing but they said nothing about what suits they would be using. I know they COULD have compatible connections but I have heard nothing about if that is so.
I am impressed with NFS youtube video. The level of detail, the comprehensive content and up to date focused information regarding this Starliner mission.
why doesn't spacex still have all 4 members of crew 9 go up and just add 2 seats into dragon since dragon is capable of carrying 7
Then it will be traffic at iss
Crew Dragon is only certified to carry four crew and no more.
Dragon does not have the capability to carry 7 astronauts anymore. That capability was abandoned years ago when NASA and SpaceX changed up the seats, the angles that the astronauts sit at for launch, reentry, and splashdown, and the shock absorption in the seats. All those changes meant SpaceX had to give up the 3 seats underneath.
I assume with some serious redesign work to the seating they could carry 7, but that would take a bunch of engineering, it’s not just a configuration change.
Whatever happens next for Starliner, excitement is guaranteed
Starliner should NEVER fly again
I'm so very glad to hear that the health of the astronaut always come first. ❤
I have pretty high doubts that politics has *nothing* to do with NASA's decisions- it would be very difficult to eliminate at least subconscious biases from the decision making process, and that it is an election year has to be somewhere in the back of the mind. I would argue this is doubly true as we have seen over time that the top NASA position is essentially inherently a political one i.e. their job is to present NASA in the best political light possible to both parties to secure NASA's funding and missions
What you describe is applicable regardless of election year or lack thereof.
I'd say the government (nasa) chose Boeing specifically to get away from SpaceX because they don't like musks politics.
It just erks me to all get-out when ABC on line headlines read: “NASA says Boeing’s Starliner astronauts must return to Earth on a different spacecraft”
And a short time later, the story cannot be found anywhere on their web front page
I wonder how much does Boeing spend on advertising , notably for news programming? This Week With George Stephanopolous doesn’t pay for itself!
Boeing, the space side-kick to the real space companies...
Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams joining Crew 9 from 2025, HERE WE SMILE
Wasn’t Dragon originally designed for 6 or 7 seats??
Key word there "originally" because of the lack of space so the additional seats weren't necessary
Because NASA or Roscomos limits a crew around 3-4 astronauts, the current setting in Crew Dragon only supports 4.
They didn't do any trainings and rehearsal for 6/7 seats(It's very very important) or hardware.
Crew rated for four. The bureaucratic rating process is a nightmare. 😢
That got changed up because of redesigning the seats to splashdown instead of propulsive landing.
Great content, kudos...😎