Honestly, despite the multiple issues of the program, I’m glad they’ve successfully reached the ISS. I’ve known this program for years and years and was excited when it launched in 2019. After that failure i was sceptical . But, I’m glad they’ve done it. America now has two different US made spacecraft to reach the ISS, its a historic moment.
No we don’t. We have one successful program and one that still can’t complete the simplest of tasks without a multitude of errors. That is not success!
@@st3althyone sorry, I get that. But the crew dragon also had many testing issues, remember when one test crew dragon literally exploded on a test pad after an abort thruster test? I’m sure the Starliner will develop and the Boeing team will resolve its current issues.
@@clevergirl4457 I am excited that Starliner made it to the ISS, and it is also fighting thruster issues more than 30 months later. Boeing isn't the bright eyed bushy tailed company it was many years ago and though I'm optimistic, it's a serious cause for concern.
Failures go with the territory when designing spacecraft. They're literally the most complex and fault intolerant means of transportation that humanity has.
@@spvillano Failures during ground testing are the norm, not when you're docking with a human-crewed space station. This was also a failure of one of the essential parts of a spacecraft, its thrusters. Yet, Starliner was still allowed to dock with the ISS regardless of these issues. If they wanted to put their spacecraft alone in a precarious situation, that's one thing, but putting those astronaut’s life on the line is utter stupidity.
How long is starship taking? Going on 3 years. Funny when a SpaceX vehicle explodes it’s called iterative design but when a valve fails on the Starliner it’s a massive failure. Remarkable double standards. Btw only Starliner is able to give ISS an orbital boost.
@@rcpmac well, to be fair, in rockets, most valve failures lead to massive failures. I mean, what else can you expect when you start out with what is essentially a giant pipe bomb? ;)
@@thethirdman225 there's still a lot of work to be done. They had 30 months and billions of dollars to correct the thruster issues and they failed again. If the definition of success is, "it made it to the ISS in one piece." That's absolutely correct. It can also be argued that a car can still make it to a destination on 6 of 8 firing cylinders. That doesn't mean success, it means they got lucky.
@@egustafson That absolutely _is_ the definition. At least, after all the criticism they’ve had to take, they’re being open about what worked and what didn’t. What more can you expect? Remember, all of these things have a failure rate and they have parts counted in the hundreds of thousands so even a failure rate of 0.001 will still involve the possible failure of several parts. I’m never sure their competition tells us everything, whatever they say publicly. Just saying, “It WoRkEd FlAwLeSs(ly)”, isn’t a complete description.
@@egustafson Boeing has become the lightning rod for anyone with a beef about government-sponsored projects and nobody denies there have been difficulties. But can you really tell me that the engineers who built this thing aren’t doing their utmost to make sure it works as advertised? How do you think the engineers who built the components that failed feel, knowing that they’re being publicly shamed by salivating Musk worshippers and Boeing haters?
@@st3althyone True, but fortunately it wasn’t a mission ending failure. I hope they can figure out the problem quickly and update the SM to be more reliable in the future.
@@st3althyone in this case, that's ignorance speaking loudly. A failure that then has a redundant system assume control is not a failure, it's a successful failover and actually marked as something successful. Otherwise, you could call every spaceflight we've ever had a failure, as something glitched somewhere in every mission from Mercury & Gemini through today.
@@spvillano Redundancy is the cornerstone of the space program. Those critical systems are there to be relied on in case of an emergency in an active human-crewed mission. They're not meant to be a fallback when you're testing and certainly can't be called a success. A failure is an option during testing. It's not during human-crewed missions.
Good radiation hardening test for the spacecraft with those thunderstorms, as the more energetic storms can generate x-rays, some gamma and particle sprays. Better to find out anomalies at range from the station than to find out as docking is imminent.
Vejam como até hoje é difícil!!! Essa é a maior prova de que em 1969 a 1972 as Apolo não conseguiriam fazer isso é ainda ao redor da lua, tendo que rodar o módulo para entrarem os astronautas e depois subir da lua e aclopar em velocidade
Its actually harder because you have to launch from earth to rendezvous with the station and you have to manoeuvre, get into chaser orbits, plane changes etc. Apollo just had to detach, move forward a bit, turn 180 degrees and dock. We have been rendezvousing in LEO for years before Apollo, starting with Gemini and Agena. Soyuz also did it around the time of Apollo. Doing it from the lunar surface would also be the same. Your “proof” proves nothing.
It just looks like Apollo but haves nothing in common with Apollo. every thruster, computer, hatch, seat, oxygen system, window is different. Apollo used Fuel Cells. Starliner uses Solar Panels. Even the parachutes & heat shield is different.
Boeing/NASA, please have your commentators stop using the word "flying" when referring to areas of the earth that the capsule or ISS is orbiting over. It makes them sound as if they are still in elementary school. As you well know, there is no flying in the vacuum of space, unless you are just referring to the relative speed at which the object is traveling. "The ISS is really flying along at 17,400 M/H." If you're really trying to have your channel educate the viewers you may actually want to explain the difference between flying and orbiting, and why spacecraft are not flying overhead.
IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
@@ktjmitchell7722 IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
@@itsfrediguess7844 IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
Honestly, despite the multiple issues of the program, I’m glad they’ve successfully reached the ISS. I’ve known this program for years and years and was excited when it launched in 2019. After that failure i was sceptical . But, I’m glad they’ve done it. America now has two different US made
spacecraft to reach the ISS, its a historic moment.
No we don’t. We have one successful program and one that still can’t complete the simplest of tasks without a multitude of errors. That is not success!
@@st3althyone sorry, I get that. But the crew dragon also had many testing issues, remember when one test crew dragon literally exploded on a test pad after an abort thruster test? I’m sure the Starliner will develop and the Boeing team will resolve its current issues.
@@clevergirl4457 I am excited that Starliner made it to the ISS, and it is also fighting thruster issues more than 30 months later. Boeing isn't the bright eyed bushy tailed company it was many years ago and though I'm optimistic, it's a serious cause for concern.
Failures go with the territory when designing spacecraft. They're literally the most complex and fault intolerant means of transportation that humanity has.
@@spvillano Failures during ground testing are the norm, not when you're docking with a human-crewed space station. This was also a failure of one of the essential parts of a spacecraft, its thrusters. Yet, Starliner was still allowed to dock with the ISS regardless of these issues. If they wanted to put their spacecraft alone in a precarious situation, that's one thing, but putting those astronaut’s life on the line is utter stupidity.
Go Boeing, go SpaceX, go Nasa and God Bless American 🙏🔥
They finally managed to dock after 2 years of suffering well done boeing
I remember it taking the Apollo program around that long to just fix pogo oscillation that destroyed multiple boosters.
How long is starship taking? Going on 3 years. Funny when a SpaceX vehicle explodes it’s called iterative design but when a valve fails on the Starliner it’s a massive failure. Remarkable double standards. Btw only Starliner is able to give ISS an orbital boost.
@@rcpmac well, to be fair, in rockets, most valve failures lead to massive failures. I mean, what else can you expect when you start out with what is essentially a giant pipe bomb? ;)
Congratulations 🎉 to the team..
Well done everyone. After all the gloating and brickbats from your critics, it’s great to see a successful hard dock.
This was not a success, a failure is a failure.
@@st3althyone Of course it was. Only the most negative could see it any other way.
@@thethirdman225 there's still a lot of work to be done. They had 30 months and billions of dollars to correct the thruster issues and they failed again. If the definition of success is, "it made it to the ISS in one piece." That's absolutely correct. It can also be argued that a car can still make it to a destination on 6 of 8 firing cylinders. That doesn't mean success, it means they got lucky.
@@egustafson That absolutely _is_ the definition. At least, after all the criticism they’ve had to take, they’re being open about what worked and what didn’t. What more can you expect? Remember, all of these things have a failure rate and they have parts counted in the hundreds of thousands so even a failure rate of 0.001 will still involve the possible failure of several parts. I’m never sure their competition tells us everything, whatever they say publicly. Just saying, “It WoRkEd FlAwLeSs(ly)”, isn’t a complete description.
@@egustafson Boeing has become the lightning rod for anyone with a beef about government-sponsored projects and nobody denies there have been difficulties. But can you really tell me that the engineers who built this thing aren’t doing their utmost to make sure it works as advertised? How do you think the engineers who built the components that failed feel, knowing that they’re being publicly shamed by salivating Musk worshippers and Boeing haters?
Congratulations to all people involved in the project! 👍🧡
Wooohoooo!!!! Way to go Boeing !!! Well done!!!
I’m glad it docked. Aside from the thruster failure, it’s looking like everything is going according to plan. The major hurdle has been cleared!
A failure is a failure no matter how you slice it.
@@st3althyone True, but fortunately it wasn’t a mission ending failure. I hope they can figure out the problem quickly and update the SM to be more reliable in the future.
@@st3althyone mission objective is achieved, so it is not a failure so far
@@st3althyone in this case, that's ignorance speaking loudly.
A failure that then has a redundant system assume control is not a failure, it's a successful failover and actually marked as something successful. Otherwise, you could call every spaceflight we've ever had a failure, as something glitched somewhere in every mission from Mercury & Gemini through today.
@@spvillano Redundancy is the cornerstone of the space program. Those critical systems are there to be relied on in case of an emergency in an active human-crewed mission. They're not meant to be a fallback when you're testing and certainly can't be called a success. A failure is an option during testing. It's not during human-crewed missions.
4:58:43 Final approach
Ah thank you.
Congratulations y'all 🙏🙏🙏🙏🔥🔥🔥
CONGRATULATIONS Boeing! CONGRATULATIONS NASA! We always knew you could make it so!! ENGAGE!!!
صراحه شي يذهل العقل احترامنا لكم ❤️
Congratulations and Kudos for persisting!
"Oi BOEING AW DAH WAY AND BEYOND 2 EXPLORE AND DISCOVER NEW FRONTIERS GOD BLESS AMERICA💯🔥🔥🔥❤🇺🇲☝🐐"!!..
Word innit blud 2 da muuun
Good news!!
4:53:00 Thruster firings
Yeah Id want to see two "100% Clean" launch / land cycles before putting a Human on it.
Hope this comment isn't scrubbed for being too snarky
You're right
I think this is a good idea but the shuttle program was better now they mothballed it why capsules it is like stepping back many years
Good radiation hardening test for the spacecraft with those thunderstorms, as the more energetic storms can generate x-rays, some gamma and particle sprays. Better to find out anomalies at range from the station than to find out as docking is imminent.
Vejam como até hoje é difícil!!! Essa é a maior prova de que em 1969 a 1972 as Apolo não conseguiriam fazer isso é ainda ao redor da lua, tendo que rodar o módulo para entrarem os astronautas e depois subir da lua e aclopar em velocidade
Its actually harder because you have to launch from earth to rendezvous with the station and you have to manoeuvre, get into chaser orbits, plane changes etc. Apollo just had to detach, move forward a bit, turn 180 degrees and dock. We have been rendezvousing in LEO for years before Apollo, starting with Gemini and Agena. Soyuz also did it around the time of Apollo. Doing it from the lunar surface would also be the same. Your “proof” proves nothing.
Why is the video quality so bad?
it already looks out of date next to the Dragon
Good work, but really, so much trouble to launch which is basically a 50 year old design.
It just looks like Apollo but haves nothing in common with Apollo. every thruster, computer, hatch, seat, oxygen system, window is different. Apollo used Fuel Cells. Starliner uses Solar Panels. Even the parachutes & heat shield is different.
Noice
IF ITS BOEING I AINT DUN DIDDLY GOIN
Who is controlling starliner ....nasa or Boeing???
Who knows!
Glad it didn't explode, I guess.
Still think not using reusable boosters is a colossal waste of money.
"YO I AM GOING WID YOU BOEING NUMBER 1 AMERICAN SPACE EXPLORATION MANUFACTURER💯💙🇺🇲☝🐐🔥🔥🔥"!!..
Gutz Bo 2 da muuuuun
3 YEARS LATE
You go dock it then
@@Chrisymcmb someone else should.
Boeing/NASA, please have your commentators stop using the word "flying" when referring to areas of the earth that the capsule or ISS is orbiting over. It makes them sound as if they are still in elementary school. As you well know, there is no flying in the vacuum of space, unless you are just referring to the relative speed at which the object is traveling. "The ISS is really flying along at 17,400 M/H." If you're really trying to have your channel educate the viewers you may actually want to explain the difference between flying and orbiting, and why spacecraft are not flying overhead.
Here, here! I second this.
Baaaaah
SpaceX
. . . not needed at all!
IF ITS BOEING IM NOT GOIN
song at 5:35:07?
It’s by DJ SPACEX song name - IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
@@Kasejeb you're really unhelpful
@@itsfrediguess7844 did you find it son?
@@Kasejeb ...no?
@@itsfrediguess7844 search harder
IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
cry some more 😭
Get over yourself, such an immature comment with the repetition and caps, especially considering the success for which Starliner has today.
@@ktjmitchell7722 IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
@@itsfrediguess7844 IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING! IF ITS BOEING, IM NOT GOING!
Did you get invited to go or something?
Fake!!!
Very fake
IF ITS BOEING IM NOT GOIN
IF ITS BOEING I AINT DUN DIDDLY GOIN
Yep, the Earth is flat, even the Vitruvian Man knows that.
This one seriously looked like CGI. I'm a full believer in space but come on this one looked fishy. The launch as well.
No you aren't.
Definitely fake.
Maybe time for glasses?
IF ITS BOEING I AINT DUN DIDDLY GOIN
IF ITS BOEING I AINT DUN DIDDLY GOIN
If it’s Boeing, I’m not going!
IF ITS BOEING I AINT DUN DIDDLY GOIN