Not if you can convince your customer it isn't your fault. That's pretty easy if your customer is stupid. So, Boeing's customer is.......the US Government......yup, the taxpayers are on the hook for this one.
it IS their fault. Everybody knew about Starliner's problems while it was still on the ground, yet NASA gave the green light knowing there was still problems. Isn't the point of oldspace methodology getting virtually everything right before launch? even SpaceX isn't above fixing problems that pop up during testing.
Be sure to also check out Eric Berger's articles on Ars Technica for solid information, and don't hesitate to dive into their comment threads. They have a *lot* of very knowledgeable people in there.
Three things 1. Boeing not doing all necessary software tests 2. Ruling critical tests as not relevant 3. Boeing being 'cost sensitive' Reminds me of the MCAS saga with the 737 Max. The industry really really want the starliner to work, i just hope Boeing dont mess this
They didn't even install the Auto return software after getting it certified with the first test. They forgot to tell them they didn't install it as they didn't ask again. Completely legit on behalf of Boeings part. NASA didn't ask.
Helium leak, thruster failure, software not certified for full automation, three strikes. In my mind that multiplies the potential risk to an unacceptable level. Probably okay is not okay. Send it back without crew. Install the back seat in the next Dragon mission and bring them all back together. That is what the optional extra seats are for. Cut funding for Starliner to zero. Give all of that budget to Sierra instead. Get Dream Chaser rated for manned missions. Boeing blew it. Time for contingencies not just for this mission but for future missions as well.
"Get Dream Chaser rated for manned missions" I gather that, due to delays with Dream Chaser, it missed earlier opportunities for test flight atop Vulcan Centaur, and while I read it is a Kennedy ready to go, there are no available launches with that rocket, till 2025. I further believe that the DC currently under test is for resupply, and not even intended as a crewed capsule. So, Yes, it would be great to see this impressive machine a/ flying and b/ carrying people, but that is some way off at this point.
They already cut the Starliner funding. That was the point the of the fixed priced contract. Boeing only receives money for carrying cargo and people up (and down hopefully) to the ISS, not for Starliner development. If Boeing is late, they have to pay out of pocket all extra expenses. Which they are already doing for years. I think the next mission should be unmanned to prove that they have solved the issues. If they are unable to do a fully working mission, then Boeing will cancel Starliner because of the unsustainable costs for them.
The fact that they have not been able to identify a root cause for the thruster failures far more serious. All of Boeing's claims about the testing they've done in the last few weeks on ground-based thrusters adds up to zero value if they don't know the root cause.
In fairness, that's cherry-picking. But there's plenty of things to criticize Boeing about. The management went to crap during the merger with Lockheed, and has only gone further downhill since.
"Boeing being very cost sensitive because that's what Boeing does" That's a super nice way to put it Scott. There's a very fine line between being politically correct and protecting incompetence.
Remember what he's said about code for unmanned moon landers having issues? Interesting contrast compared to how he talks about Boeing's manned mission.
I interpreted that as a serious criticism from Scott, just not one he wanted to dwell on or make a big deal out of. Most people would agree that not testing something on a system that people are trusting with their life just because it was too costly is an absolutely indefensible and despicable thing to do, no elaboration needed really. And it should also be clear that it is not just a one-off oversight on Boeing's part, it's something they have done repeatedly, and even when it has resulted in actual loss of life they've largely got away with it. Hence the "because that's what Boeing does". I do strongly share your sentiment that people in general have historically given Boeing way too much leniency though, maybe this is starting to change that.
ok, I checked because I heard the starliner was dubbed Calypso by Butch.. My memory is correct. Calypso is imprisoned by the Greek gods on an island and she holds a hero hostage for 7 years.. This seems like a fitting name in a way I am sure Butch had not hoped for.
I love to believe that Scoot's family doesn t mind him making a youtube video during holydays, not because its work and he has to but because the man just love talking about space and what's happening there, so he has to. :) Thx Scott. Have a good holydays man.
The worst case isn't burning up in re-entry. The worst case is the thrusters failing after they leave ISS stranding them in orbit. There would be no way to rescue them and they would be marrooned in orbit. The world would watch them slowly die. Could you imagine???
Yep, an orbital mausoleum is the last thing NASA or Boeing want. No matter what, Congress is likely going to be having hearings about this boondoggle with NASA and Boeing even if the astronauts eventually return safely on Starliner without further incident, but obviously if the crew died on return due to further failures of any kind, that is going to get a lot more scrutiny regardless of who prevails in the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing just dump their space program as their new CEO has enough on his plate trying to rebuild their commercial aviation division and preserve their military division. They have already taken a bath on Starliner and there is a good chance that fixing what is broken with Starliner is such a major redesign on Boeing's dime that it is just cheaper to pay the penalties to cancel the contract with NASA and maybe get out of the space business entirely.
@@bbeen40 AFAIK the International Docking Adapter on the ISS is hermaphroditic kinda like the Anderson Connectors used to connect batteries. I’m not sure if two Dragons can dock to each other, but I’m sure there’ll figure something out in a couple of days
This mission was supposed to test if the Starliner was ready to use for service. That question was answered on the pad when the thrusters started leaking, but NASA and Boeing refused to accept them.
it was answered multiple times with a resounding NO but they kept ignoring it. Maybe when it blows up in reentry, minecrafting the astronauts they will get the message
@@marcogenovesi8570they didn’t „keep ignoring it“, they kept fixing problems. What is your logic here? That as soon as a few problems emerge, nasa and boeing just write off the whole project? The mission goal wasn’t to _test_ whether starliner is airworthy, it’s to _make_ starliner airworthy.
Ian not sure how to tell you this, when two criminals are questioned together by police they don't tell on each other in front of each other. There is a term used when you tell on your accomplice. Snitches get stiches is the consequence of that behavior. This concept can be applied to all aspects of life when two or more entities want to gain everything without due care given and short cuts taken.
In my opinion, NASA, needs to take a hard look at themselves about pushing spacecraft ahead of reason. They can't risk tragically losing another crew. Perhaps cut their losses and cancel Starliner. Lives mean more than bilions $ wasted.
At least now I understand why Boeing - in spite of Starliner being YEARS behind Dragon - and having all that extra time to witness just how sleek and modern SpaceX's IVA suits are - still sent Butch and Suni into space in those rickety, embarrassingly unflattering outfits with the floppy, unsupported helmets; that left Butch needing to spend HOURS on the pad (both (3?) times) with his hand over his eyes to block the glare of Starliner's lighting which was apparently preventing him from viewing his displays. They just ... don't ... give ... a ...
@@Top_Weeb What don't you like? The color scheme? The apparent comfort? The easy one-piece life support and data connector on the thigh? The zippered, removable (but still attached so they don't float away) gloves? The convenient cargo pocket on the other thigh to store and protect their tablets? The sleek helmet with its high-visibility and easy-open visor (very similar to the one I comfortably wear most of the day, every day (absent all the vacuum-tight seals, life support, and communications features)? The lack of a clunky medal hoop around their waists, necks, hips and shoulders?
I am beginning to understand NASA's dilemma here: It is much safer for all nine astronauts currently in the ISS if Butch and Suni are in Starliner during separation because they will be able to respond to thruster failure more intelligently than the best software (and lets face it, this is unlikely to be the best software). On the other hand, this puts Butch and Suni in greater danger later in the mission if thruster failures prevent successful reentry. I think the software changes they are talking about for automatic undocking will be incorporating additional contingencies for thruster failures which have only been worked out during the last few weeks. NASA is being cagy about this because it raises questions about the safety of the automated undocking in 2022.
- Place all ISS astronauts in the other available capsules - Use the Canada-arm to remove Starliner as far as possible - Return astronauts to ISS - Change ISS orbit Would something like this be an option? Firing the Starliner thrusters with or without astronauts onboard doesn't sound safe in either case. Not for those onboard the Starliner nor for those still on the ISS..
@@LunnarisLP Absolutely. But you've still got this Strainer hooked up the ISS and I think it's wise to remove it as safely as possible. Hopefully even without using those Starliner thrusters.. :P
@@trashmail8Thats what i was thinking too. If the arm can reach it, surely they could use it to give it some momentum and let it drift plenty far away hefore turnig any thrusters on.
Software problems also arose early in the Apollo era. Margaret Hamilton discovered a potential problem with the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) when her daughter, who often accompanied her to work, was playing in a simulator. Her daughter accidentally selected a prelaunch program (P01) during a flight, something astronauts would normally never do. This incident led Hamilton to alert her superiors and advocate for more robust error handling mechanisms. Although her warnings were initially ignored, it turned out that this very error had been made by James Lovell during the Apollo 8 mission.
Thanks for the account! I think this shows that kids are better at testing flight software than Boeing. And of course the Apollo engineers were reinventing computer science. One might excuse their oversight, and one should applaud their willingness (eventually) to plan for the unexpected. Boeing couldn't even deal with a plastic bag blowing across the nose of a MAX.
It's so typical. Boeing has always had a mentality that when human lives are at stake there is a human pilot so he/she can heroically save the day by taking over from the autopilot or other automation when problems arise. For this mission they thought automated launch and landing software would never be needed so they skipped that part and now that decision is biting them hard in the butt.
I would like to think that the NASA heads will continue to hold out unless and until the margin of safety reaches acceptable levels, but Boeing has a lot of pressure to bring, and clearly doesn't care about two more lives.
@@FutureSystem738 Originally, there was no way to rescue the crew of Apollo 13. If they'd tried to save the crew of Columbia and failed, I think people been OK with that. What people are upset about is that NASA management robbed everyone of the chance to even _try_ at a rescue/repair. Giving up without even trying really rubs people the wrong way.
I think your guess of a 1% risk is way lower than reality. Multiple failures occurred already and still aren't understood and can't be fully understood with the vehicle on orbit
Mallory probably made it, but it doesn't count. Same with the first Mars missions. Suicide missions to Mars don't count. The first person to Mars AND BACK is the winner.
It's the equivalent of a team going up K2 and having to be rescued not because they failed but because all of their equipment broke under normal use on the way up.
With helicopters we say "Every landing you can walk away from, is a successful landing." No-one has ever reported an aircraft been left stuck in the air.
Just sit right back, and you'll hear a tale. A tale of a fateful trip. That started from this tropic port, in space' most delayed ship. (In space' most delayed ship.)
@@phillipzx3754 LOL this is hilarious. I looked up the lyrics and matched up what we have so far and added my verse: Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, A tale of a fateful trip. That started from this tropic port In space' most delayed ship. The mate was a Navy test pilot, The skipper brave and sure. Two passengers launched on that day For an eight day tour, (an eight day tour.) The thrusters started getting stuck, the helium gave no thrust. But just as they dreamed of getting back, Boeing said "No luck," (NASA said "Aw ####.") Someone else do the next verse lol
Stirling is so cool. So much less crowded than Edinburgh. I tell people that if they want to see a specific thing at Edinburgh Castle, go there, but if they just want to see an amazing castle and really get to learn about it, go to Stirling.
I used to like driving past Stirling at night on the motorway. The castle literally looks like a "castle in the sky" floating above the horizon. Not so impressive in the day time, it's just there sat on a hill.
Starliner Crew: “We have a little problem. Can you use the Space Tug to tow us over to the maintenance hanger?” NASA: “Umm… well, that module for repairing things was never actually sent up to the ISS. In fact, it’s more of a concept than actual hardware.” Starliner Crew: “Oh? Then I guess we’ll have to borrow the Space Tug. We were told it’s also designed to be a backup re-entry vehicle.” NASA: “Umm…. now about that tug. Yes, designed for multiple uses, including the one you mentioned. But actually built? Well….not so much.”
If only Boeing had send up Boeing executives and management instead of astronauts. Then we would have an expandable crew up there that could be kicked off the ISS without any negative consequences.
@@ChatGPT1111 The Pinto at least required a certain set of circumstances to be a hazard to the occupants. Everything Boeing is a hazard from the moment it leaves the ground...possibly before and we just don't know about that yet.
They took a material move to space flight from commercial airliners. Code is code, right? The trick is to keep the drivers in the dark. Saves on wasted training $$. The automated undock Must be tested while in Crewed configuration. A physically/ mentally compromised crew dealing with multiple emergency issues would benefit from a functioning “auto land” system, including undock. I can imagine a scenario where compromised crew would need a totally automated return. We paid for it. We want it. Configure the software, train your ground crew!
Thanks for this!! Lots of other guys have kicked up so much dust on this. But (maybe you already commented?) you are my go to guy so I waited to hear anything definitive (an the definitive hesitations are not on you) finally.
What I love the most about this is how the astronauts themselves have NO say in that. Imagine your employer send you to an 8 days working project in another country then after delays and more delays tells you to stay there for 8 months instead of 8 days and you are not allowed to complaint about it.
In other words, it's like being in the military. When I was deployed to Iraq in 2003, they didn't tell us how long we would be gone -- it turned out to be 10 months.
This is somewhat common in the merchant marine, too. In a recent case, the captain was wise enough to be "unavailable" when a court order came so the second officer was stuck on the ship as the legal guardian for 4 years.
"What I love the most about this is how the astronauts themselves have NO say in that. Imagine your employer send you to an 8 days working project in another country then after delays and more delays tells you to stay there for 8 months instead of 8 days and you are not allowed to complaint about it." The astronauts were asked by the administrator if they wanted to stay longer and they said yes. So...
How the hell do they find out about these issues now? It's so unprofessional to send up human beings in that thing without testing everything and they have had over a decade.
"So unporfessional to send up humans in that thing without testing everything and they had over a decade..." Well its boeing. Its not like it stopped them before... (**cough* MAX...)
I'm convinced now that a publicly listed company is the best guarantee of mediocrity - do just enough, and make sure those profits trend up! SpaceX and BO are safe as long as they are in private hands
1 in 270 is an unacceptably high chance of trouble. For example would you take a therapeutic drug that has a one in 270 chance of giving you lethal side effects?
If I ever get anxious about things not going as planned from now on, I’ll just think to myself “hey at least I’m not unexpectedly stuck in space for 8 months.”
This guy really is the best and such a good presenter even when he is out of his 'office'. I am also pleased to see that he is wearing his Scottish summer thermal layers!!
Yesterday's press conference didn't answer ANY questions. Only raised more. Meanwhile, one of the ISS ports is unusable because it is occupied by the Boeing "brick".
This is not true, as anyone can see for themselves, because recordings are available. Yes, some things are still unclear at the moment, but it was also explained very precisely where the problems are, what considerations are currently being made and what the possible consequences could be. Space is hard and problems are normal. Especially during test flights in an environment whose conditions cannot all be simulated on earth.
@@SebSN-y3fwhich is why you test multiple times ensuring everything works correctly. Space is indeed hard so is the ground if things continue to fail on this vessel.
The testing of the software is another negligence issue with Boeing being really bad at software development. I'm a software developer and a basic concept is that when developing a feature you must put in automated regression testing to verify that the feature will continue to work as the software continues to change. The fact that this isn't part of the Boeing SDL is the same level of negligence as the 737 Max debacle.
Not to mention that they left off or erased the software that made the autonomous landing possible on the previous demonstration flight. How could that even happen?
@@chrisantoniou4366 as Scott Manly explains in the video, and also as explained in the NASA press conference, they probably didn't remove any existing code, they just use different configurations (what NASA calls "mission load parameters") for manned vs. unmanned flight , which is also not smart - there should be a button in the cockpit (god knows they have so many buttons) that says "people on board" and if it's off then you run the unmanned workflow. But they apparently do not test the software with anything other than the configuration for the next flight.
@@guss77But why would it take a month to change the parameters from unmanned to manned? That seems a bit ridiculous of an amount of time to just tell the spacecraft, "Hey there, you do not have any riders now!" Maybe they could just add in those seat sensors in cars for the passenger seat that lets the air bags know if they need to inflate or not. Those work in less than a month, matter in fact, almost instantly. Sorry, but I just feel we have an internal problem at Boeing. The thrusters and software have been a problem ever since the first unmanned flight, and both problems remain. The craft should not of been launched since until these problems were fixed. Yet it has launched twice since.
@@ronfullerton3162 the time is not for the changing process - I guess this is pretty quick. It takes time to do QA on the change because they weren't testing it for 2 years. This is my complaint above.
@@guss77 Good heavens! Shouldn't that of already been done? Oh well. Thank you so much for your response. I was just amazed at that amount of time needed. Never thought that much "rethink" time was needed.
These are very experienced test pilots and astronauts. I'm pretty sure they'll also enjoy being in space for longer and being part of such an exciting story. They are used to stay calm and to see things in a positive manner.
That anecdote about Ken Bowersox being on orbit during the Columbia disaster and coming home in a Soyuz which itself had issues is... idk sobering? And sort of oddly reassuring. That sounds like THE best guy to have on the job.
It sounds like karcher sidewalk pressure water cleaner 😅
2 месяца назад+14
Is there an issue with Starliner "expiring" in space? How long can it reasonably stay before its return chances are seriously impacted by the time spent up there?
From early July: "We talked about a 45-day limit, limited by the crew module batteries on Starliner, and we're in the process of updating that limit," Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, told reporters during the Friday teleconference. "We've been looking at those batteries and their performance on orbit. They're getting recharged by station, and that risk hasn't really changed. So the risk for the next 45 days is essentially the same as the first 45 days," he said. So, I guess the reliability of the batteries may be questionable after an extended stay.
2 месяца назад
@@andrewdavie386 I'm thinking more about mechanical issues, heat shield, etc.
in theory no because it has a heat shield and a shape and weight distribution that orients it the right way. In practice you probably can do that because boeing screwed up something else
You could dump it somewhere in the ocean, but if that thing can actually burn up entirely throughout reentry, that'd be pretty weird, even if it went down nose-first. After all, the heatshield should be able to deal with reentry, even if the rest of the capsule breaks apart and burns up. All that said, it'd be a terrible thing to do, even if it was possible. Would make Starline look worse than it already does... So, maybe they can just have it come down uncrewed to check if it does its job.
It boggles my mind that they are still discussing using Starliner when it has been plagued with failures and should have launched in the previous decade. I would not feel safe re-entering in that thing.
no one wants SpaceX to have a monopoly for various reasons, for one dissimilar redundancy is a thing - Starliner needs to be safe in the first place but it would be a bad idea to scrap it just because of bad public perception - also by ending this program you would throw away a lot of experience that the team gained in part thanks to dealing with all of those issues
The problem is that Boeing has been fighting the same problems from the very first unmanned launch, software and thrusters. And it has never been fixed. Yet other companies have been able to fix identical problems. It is a Boeing problem, and they do not seem interested in fixing it. We do need a s cond plan, one is near ready at the moment, and just needs some help getting a ride to space. It is about time to switch your support to Sierra Space, who has come a long ways without government help on their craft since being passed over.@@lordmartinak
Well the problems with this began years ago, but obviously Boeing has much more important business issues than fixing Starliner or fiddling with Artemis. I would not be surprised to see their new CEO bite the bullet and kill their space division despite the penalties, because that company needs to focus management on its main divisions, commercial and military aviation, and space is just an expensive distraction.
It was also stated in a CNN article that if the crew does return on Starliner, they will not be manually flying it at all "The findings also prompted Boeing and NASA to abandon plans to allow the astronauts to manually fly the Starliner spacecraft on the way home, as they did briefly during the trip to the ISS. “Some of the manual maneuvering put some extra stress on the thrusters,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial crew program manager." That seems even more concerning in terms of how well Boeing designed and tested their systems.
I know some NASA guys who have worked mission control for the ISS. They have stated that some of those Russian Module and Oxygen related issues were worse and brought them way closer to scrubbing the entire ISS than the news or general public really even know. I honestly suspect this could be a similar thing.
As a SCUBA diver we replaced all dynamic seals annually whether we used them or not. How long have these seals been in service and how long did they just sit about. Seals actually fail faster if they are unused because they develop a memory and become less flexible. I would bet this comes down to Starliner sitting around for years and Boing only counting hours of flight.
Yes! Beijing is still in the software development stage and is light years away from developing SOPs for regular operations and overall system maintenance.
Sounds like you want the crew in Starliner so it can get far away from the ISS and have a crew dragon right next to it as a return vehicle and also to nudge Starliner into a better orbit. Then you can test the EVA suits, boarding crew dragon in space and also capsule billiards.
I was being inundated with hysterical videos from other RUclipsrs. I said to myself, “I’ll wait for Scott’s video.” Thank you for being clear and non-hysterical.
Yeah, there are a lot of fanboy channels out there of various companies that remind me of anti-fans hating on a rival K-pop group more than being journalists. Their information may be correct, but the delivery is so obviously biased that you hesitate to take it as fact until a less biased source confirms it.
It's crazy they are saying it can't come back by itself when just last week they were saying the thrusters work better if operated under automation and that's how they would do the return. They don't seem to know what they are doing.
Likely we are only getting a small part of the whole story and those speaking for Boeing or NASA on or off the record may not even know the full picture, so you get contradictory statements. The on record spokespeople probably aren't authorized to say the whole truth as it is probably much worse than they are letting on, or as spokespeople they are "need to know" and they don't need to know yet what some lead and senior engineers may know.
But the astronauts themselves have been working on the program for years, just like Bob and Doug did. IIRC, Suni Williams was working on Dragon and then got moved to Boeing. I wonder why.
Hmmmm.... When the Starliner spacecraft was launched, it carried a major mission to expand humanity's understanding of the universe. However, an unexpected twist of fate means that the astronaut crew is now trapped in space, facing challenges far greater than they imagined. This situation raises profound moral and technical questions about human responsibility towards these explorers 🥇🇮🇩🥰😘🥰😘🥰😘
Weird that this actually makes the departure impossible now. I thought it was deemed totally safe for them to return on Starliner just a few weeks ago (they just needed to check what the exact problem was so they can fix it for the next flight)
I suspect there is considerable information we are not privy to between NASA and Boeing because neither wants to fall on their sword over this debacle yet. If it goes on long enough, Congress will likely start to get involved and some middle managers or administrators will be found for sacrifice and some of the truth will actually come out over what a clusterfuck this was and how NASA's and Boeing's long-term co-dependent relationship enabled this. I suspect we will find that NASA is back to its old Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo habits of acceptable risk, and failed to account for how Boeing's safety culture has degraded over the last two decades in exchange for shareholder value.
"They were test pilots." Yeah, but when you are a test pilot, you are not spam in a can like a Star liner "pilot." Thanks for the continuing reports, Scott. Great work. If you pass through Orkney say "hi from Oregon" for me. Cheers!
I'm sure Microsoft could arrange for you to pay a fee plus travel tax. But I'm certain that Boeing could econmise enough (Regardless of cost) to ensure you didn't actually do many miles, or kilometres.
9:40 Ultimately, Boeing is responsible for the design. This blaming your subs is typical corporate-america BS. Boeing needs to just man-up and take responsibility. So sick of their nonsense anymore. Somebody at Boeing/Nasa needs to grow a pair and just let Butch & Sunny ride this thing home. There's ALWAYS gonna be risk in anything you do.
Is like valves are a recurring problem. This makes me wonder if they are testing these things in their true environment, in a vacuum, in zero gravity, with thermal gradients (because of dissimilar materials). If this was a valve on earth I would take a wrench and hit it. Maybe that is what these valves need. A solenoid to give it a bang if they seem stuck, or some secondary system to open or close it.
Its a shitshow up there. Boeing is the owner of a de rated capsule. Dragon to the rescue. With lots of spare extra seats. They will end up unbolting extra seats and storing them on ISS (or outside)
Probably not, they need the docking port for actually useful craft. Worst case, the Starliner is sent back unmanned and a Dragon is send in a 4 seater configuration to return the crew.
If you go out of house, it is very important to keep communication going between the parties, and keep a constant watch on progress and development. Somehow in this scenario, the end product wasn't up to snuff, and Boeing didn't seem to care.
Why can't they send Crew 9 up as scheduled, but in Dragon that has seating for 6 or 7. It was designed for 7 astronauts. Crew 8 can return WITH Butch & Suni in the Crew 9 Dragon. The Crew 9 can return at the end of their missin in the unmodified Crew 8 Dragon. Nobody needs to be "bumped" unless, the ISS cannot handle it. I do not believe that 2 humans should be put at risk when there is a safe, viable alternative. Butch and Suni should not return in an unproven vessel that has so many issues that should have been weeded out before a crewed test. Scot, I really like your channel and your presentation of the facts. Keep it up! PLEASE!
@@CristianCiotti WDYM? They did, they now clearly know no-one's gonna do jack shit about their incompetence (and worse), so they can safely do the same shit again.
Hey Scott. I REALLY appreciate this video and the research you put into it beforehand. Enjoy yiur holiday. I hope to visit Scotland and it's castles some day.
Very clever from Scott, making sure he's back in Scotland when criticising Boeing.
I hope he'll fly back on an Airbus.
I hope he's flying on airbus and NOT a Boeing disaster.
I don't think he is really in Scotland, I see trees in the video.
?????????
Lots and lots and lots of trees in Scotland.... looking out on some hundreds from my window.
@sporg just a wee joke about the highlands laddie. No offense meant. I do understand that there are actually trees in Scotland.
The thing about being a prime contractor is if your subcontractors mess up, it's still your fault.
Not if you can convince your customer it isn't your fault.
That's pretty easy if your customer is stupid. So, Boeing's customer is.......the US Government......yup, the taxpayers are on the hook for this one.
it IS their fault. Everybody knew about Starliner's problems while it was still on the ground, yet NASA gave the green light knowing there was still problems.
Isn't the point of oldspace methodology getting virtually everything right before launch? even SpaceX isn't above fixing problems that pop up during testing.
@@PromptCriticalJelloare they stupid or just hand in glove? Thats the real thing u need to worry about
@@PromptCriticalJello Taxpayers will always be on the hook when the government can't afford to see their main contractor go out of business.
@@hiteshadhikari the problem really is how government contracts work. It's a friggin mess and needs to be fixed but never will be.
With SO many clickbait articles about Starliner, it is SO nice to have Scott Manly to provide real updates. Thank you!
Totally. I've been waiting for Scott to chime in on the recent developments. Glad he took a break from his vacation to address this. It's appreciated.
Yeah, I've been ignoring all the clickbait videos with AI read scripts. Fell for them a few times early on but won't watch any others again.
That's why he's _the manley._
Be sure to also check out Eric Berger's articles on Ars Technica for solid information, and don't hesitate to dive into their comment threads. They have a *lot* of very knowledgeable people in there.
He is the king of click bait, what are you on about, look at the title.
What have you done with your life? Is that why your wife cheated on you?
I miss the “Manley on vacation” video intro where you’re holding a toy rocket and humming the normal video intro music lol
He has to behave in a more dignified manner when he's at the Manley Estate.
Hahaha😂
Starliner -> Scrubliner -> Stayliner -> Stuckliner
Starlater
Trashliner.
Should add Starliner -> Scrubliner -> Stayliner -> Stuckliner ≠ Studliner. 🤣
Starliar.
Starcoffin
Three things
1. Boeing not doing all necessary software tests
2. Ruling critical tests as not relevant
3. Boeing being 'cost sensitive'
Reminds me of the MCAS saga with the 737 Max.
The industry really really want the starliner to work, i just hope Boeing dont mess this
plus they certified it for a booster that's end of life.
They didn't even install the Auto return software after getting it certified with the first test. They forgot to tell them they didn't install it as they didn't ask again. Completely legit on behalf of Boeings part. NASA didn't ask.
They already have... BIG time!
I just have no idea what goes on in the heads of the suits when they dream up these nightmares.
Being woke with all their DEI hires isn't helping either.
Helium leak, thruster failure, software not certified for full automation, three strikes. In my mind that multiplies the potential risk to an unacceptable level. Probably okay is not okay. Send it back without crew. Install the back seat in the next Dragon mission and bring them all back together. That is what the optional extra seats are for. Cut funding for Starliner to zero. Give all of that budget to Sierra instead. Get Dream Chaser rated for manned missions. Boeing blew it. Time for contingencies not just for this mission but for future missions as well.
@stupidburp yes, crewed dragon has proven itself
"Get Dream Chaser rated for manned missions"
I gather that, due to delays with Dream Chaser, it missed earlier opportunities for test flight atop Vulcan Centaur, and while I read it is a Kennedy ready to go, there are no available launches with that rocket, till 2025. I further believe that the DC currently under test is for resupply, and not even intended as a crewed capsule. So, Yes, it would be great to see this impressive machine a/ flying and b/ carrying people, but that is some way off at this point.
Only issue here is getting the Boeing heap away from the ISS safely. Crewed or not, that thing is now a boat anchor uselessly using a docking port.
They already cut the Starliner funding. That was the point the of the fixed priced contract.
Boeing only receives money for carrying cargo and people up (and down hopefully) to the ISS, not for Starliner development.
If Boeing is late, they have to pay out of pocket all extra expenses. Which they are already doing for years.
I think the next mission should be unmanned to prove that they have solved the issues.
If they are unable to do a fully working mission, then Boeing will cancel Starliner because of the unsustainable costs for them.
The fact that they have not been able to identify a root cause for the thruster failures far more serious. All of Boeing's claims about the testing they've done in the last few weeks on ground-based thrusters adds up to zero value if they don't know the root cause.
I love the phrase “buy boosters from Amazon”. 😂 I’m wondering what the “people who bought boosters also bought….” Section would say haha 😂
They also bought life insurance.
...life insurance, deodorant, Kerbal Space Program...
Rocket fuel and oxidizer
You are now aware that one can purchase 55 gallon drums of anal lubricant on Amazon.
@@nkronert you mean they’re not included?!? Typical Amazon basics eh 😁
Voyager 1 and 2: Soldiering on since the 1970ies
The Mars Rovers: Absolutely exceeding all the expectations
Starliner: Still up there
On the bright side, when it does come down, if it does, they'll be able to study the effects of long-term exposure to outer space on the thing.
@@ryelor123How many years do you want it to stay up there?
Starliner is trying to catch up with voyagers
In fairness, that's cherry-picking.
But there's plenty of things to criticize Boeing about. The management went to crap during the merger with Lockheed, and has only gone further downhill since.
it went to crap when McDonnell Douglas merged with
Boeing and MCD started running all the engineering of Boeing Commercial and Aerospace
"Boeing being very cost sensitive because that's what Boeing does"
That's a super nice way to put it Scott. There's a very fine line between being politically correct and protecting incompetence.
Remember what he's said about code for unmanned moon landers having issues? Interesting contrast compared to how he talks about Boeing's manned mission.
Oh! You meant fully CREWED return.
We heard cully CRUDE return.
I interpreted that as a serious criticism from Scott, just not one he wanted to dwell on or make a big deal out of. Most people would agree that not testing something on a system that people are trusting with their life just because it was too costly is an absolutely indefensible and despicable thing to do, no elaboration needed really.
And it should also be clear that it is not just a one-off oversight on Boeing's part, it's something they have done repeatedly, and even when it has resulted in actual loss of life they've largely got away with it. Hence the "because that's what Boeing does".
I do strongly share your sentiment that people in general have historically given Boeing way too much leniency though, maybe this is starting to change that.
ok, I checked because I heard the starliner was dubbed Calypso by Butch.. My memory is correct. Calypso is imprisoned by the Greek gods on an island and she holds a hero hostage for 7 years.. This seems like a fitting name in a way I am sure Butch had not hoped for.
not a just a Hero but Odysseus - Calypso's story is from the Odyssey
also the name of a bond villain boat, as i remember
Calypso was also the name of a Sears Kenmore washing machine. It did not sell very well, may have been one reason for the demise of Sears.
@@SuperDarkstorn Then perhaps SpaceX should rename its Crew 9 Dragon capsule to Odysseus. Just to rub Boeing's nose in it.
And Jacques Cousteau's boat. John Denver wrote a great song about it.
It's just one thing after another with Boeing. Space is hard, but they're supposed to be professionals.
Especially compared to the alternatives and for how long every respective organisation has been doing this for
Funny how Execs and Shareholders are sinking Boeing and no one is doing anything to improve the situation!
Apparently aircraft are also hard.
They even received more money than SpaceX for this "experience" and launch assurance..
Even Kerbals wouldn't fly Boeing.
Entire video in one take and no editing. No autocue. Impressive.
Scott, you're a true youtube pro now!
He’s clearly reading🤦🏻♂️
I love to believe that Scoot's family doesn t mind him making a youtube video during holydays, not because its work and he has to but because the man just love talking about space and what's happening there, so he has to. :)
Thx Scott. Have a good holydays man.
The worst case isn't burning up in re-entry. The worst case is the thrusters failing after they leave ISS stranding them in orbit. There would be no way to rescue them and they would be marrooned in orbit. The world would watch them slowly die. Could you imagine???
And here am I, boycotting the 737 max and looking dubiously at Triple sevens..... !
Yep, an orbital mausoleum is the last thing NASA or Boeing want. No matter what, Congress is likely going to be having hearings about this boondoggle with NASA and Boeing even if the astronauts eventually return safely on Starliner without further incident, but obviously if the crew died on return due to further failures of any kind, that is going to get a lot more scrutiny regardless of who prevails in the election. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing just dump their space program as their new CEO has enough on his plate trying to rebuild their commercial aviation division and preserve their military division. They have already taken a bath on Starliner and there is a good chance that fixing what is broken with Starliner is such a major redesign on Boeing's dime that it is just cheaper to pay the penalties to cancel the contract with NASA and maybe get out of the space business entirely.
Starliner can last 60 hours by itself. There's a falcon 9 launch every other day so there's plenty of time to launch a Dragon and dock to it
@@NavinF I don't think it's possible for two vehicles to dock with each other like that. The universal docking adapter isn't designed to do that.
@@bbeen40 AFAIK the International Docking Adapter on the ISS is hermaphroditic kinda like the Anderson Connectors used to connect batteries. I’m not sure if two Dragons can dock to each other, but I’m sure there’ll figure something out in a couple of days
I laughed at the name "Stayliner" in the 1st video, but damn that got serious.
Stuckliner
Starmodule
Like all Boeings, it's a Mayfly, but then again...
While it was on ground it stayed on ground, and now people barely sent it in to space and now it's staying there. Such a shame for Boeing.
@@vovanikotin "Fuckedliner"
This mission was supposed to test if the Starliner was ready to use for service. That question was answered on the pad when the thrusters started leaking, but NASA and Boeing refused to accept them.
it was answered multiple times with a resounding NO but they kept ignoring it. Maybe when it blows up in reentry, minecrafting the astronauts they will get the message
Helium leaks happen all the time. Dragon itself had it in CFT2
@@marcogenovesi8570they didn’t „keep ignoring it“, they kept fixing problems. What is your logic here? That as soon as a few problems emerge, nasa and boeing just write off the whole project? The mission goal wasn’t to _test_ whether starliner is airworthy, it’s to _make_ starliner airworthy.
Ian not sure how to tell you this, when two criminals are questioned together by police they don't tell on each other in front of each other. There is a term used when you tell on your accomplice. Snitches get stiches is the consequence of that behavior. This concept can be applied to all aspects of life when two or more entities want to gain everything without due care given and short cuts taken.
In my opinion, NASA, needs to take a hard look at themselves about pushing spacecraft ahead of reason. They can't risk tragically losing another crew. Perhaps cut their losses and cancel Starliner. Lives mean more than bilions $ wasted.
::singing:: a three hour tour, a three hour tour...
🎼🎶His mate was a mighty salin’ man, the Skipper brave and sure . . . 🎵🎶🏝️
I've got the opening narration to Buck Rogers in the 25th Century running through my head.
"Ground control to Major Tom"...
Ah someone had the same song in their head
wouldent be surprised if they opened a cabinet inside starliner and gilligan tumbles out.
At least now I understand why Boeing - in spite of Starliner being YEARS behind Dragon - and having all that extra time to witness just how sleek and modern SpaceX's IVA suits are - still sent Butch and Suni into space in those rickety, embarrassingly unflattering outfits with the floppy, unsupported helmets; that left Butch needing to spend HOURS on the pad (both (3?) times) with his hand over his eyes to block the glare of Starliner's lighting which was apparently preventing him from viewing his displays.
They just ... don't ... give ... a ...
a wistleblower silenced due to a sadly preventable suicide
I've always hated the look of SpaceX's suits. They look like cheap cartoon knockoffs.
@@Top_Weeb What don't you like? The color scheme? The apparent comfort? The easy one-piece life support and data connector on the thigh? The zippered, removable (but still attached so they don't float away) gloves? The convenient cargo pocket on the other thigh to store and protect their tablets? The sleek helmet with its high-visibility and easy-open visor (very similar to the one I comfortably wear most of the day, every day (absent all the vacuum-tight seals, life support, and communications features)? The lack of a clunky medal hoop around their waists, necks, hips and shoulders?
Boing/star liner received 4.2billion $ from NASA after they won the Mars project. NASA only gave SpaceX 2billion$. Who won the space race.. SpaceX 😏
Never were the words "Fly Safe" more appropriate!
Ah, but rules of grammar require it to be "Fly safely" (adverb modifying the verb).
I am beginning to understand NASA's dilemma here: It is much safer for all nine astronauts currently in the ISS if Butch and Suni are in Starliner during separation because they will be able to respond to thruster failure more intelligently than the best software (and lets face it, this is unlikely to be the best software). On the other hand, this puts Butch and Suni in greater danger later in the mission if thruster failures prevent successful reentry. I think the software changes they are talking about for automatic undocking will be incorporating additional contingencies for thruster failures which have only been worked out during the last few weeks. NASA is being cagy about this because it raises questions about the safety of the automated undocking in 2022.
- Place all ISS astronauts in the other available capsules
- Use the Canada-arm to remove Starliner as far as possible
- Return astronauts to ISS
- Change ISS orbit
Would something like this be an option?
Firing the Starliner thrusters with or without astronauts onboard doesn't sound safe in either case. Not for those onboard the Starliner nor for those still on the ISS..
I mean it is really saver for everyone if they simply use the crew dragon instead to be honest.
@@LunnarisLP Absolutely. But you've still got this Strainer hooked up the ISS and I think it's wise to remove it as safely as possible. Hopefully even without using those Starliner thrusters.. :P
@@trashmail8Thats what i was thinking too. If the arm can reach it, surely they could use it to give it some momentum and let it drift plenty far away hefore turnig any thrusters on.
Common misconception, starliner can do a automatic docking/undocking. But with the thruster failure it can no longer do those items
Software problems also arose early in the Apollo era. Margaret Hamilton discovered a potential problem with the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) when her daughter, who often accompanied her to work, was playing in a simulator. Her daughter accidentally selected a prelaunch program (P01) during a flight, something astronauts would normally never do. This incident led Hamilton to alert her superiors and advocate for more robust error handling mechanisms.
Although her warnings were initially ignored, it turned out that this very error had been made by James Lovell during the Apollo 8 mission.
Wow, the Apollo program was saved by the Wicked Witch of the West! Who'd a thunk it!
@@chrisantoniou4366 Different Margaret Hamilton.
@@ghost307 Well sure, but it's funnier this way
@@stephen1r2 True...especially considering Suni's protruding chin.
Thanks for the account! I think this shows that kids are better at testing flight software than Boeing. And of course the Apollo engineers were reinventing computer science. One might excuse their oversight, and one should applaud their willingness (eventually) to plan for the unexpected. Boeing couldn't even deal with a plastic bag blowing across the nose of a MAX.
It's so typical. Boeing has always had a mentality that when human lives are at stake there is a human pilot so he/she can heroically save the day by taking over from the autopilot or other automation when problems arise. For this mission they thought automated launch and landing software would never be needed so they skipped that part and now that decision is biting them hard in the butt.
The "just fly it back, it'll be fine" attitude is what went on with the Columbia shuttle reentry disaster. NASA cannot make that mistake again.
I would like to think that the NASA heads will continue to hold out unless and until the margin of safety reaches acceptable levels, but Boeing has a lot of pressure to bring, and clearly doesn't care about two more lives.
NASA had no choice with the Shuttle. There was no possible way to rescue them.
@@FutureSystem738 Originally, there was no way to rescue the crew of Apollo 13. If they'd tried to save the crew of Columbia and failed, I think people been OK with that. What people are upset about is that NASA management robbed everyone of the chance to even _try_ at a rescue/repair. Giving up without even trying really rubs people the wrong way.
Probably half the population alive now doesn't remember the Colombia disaster which means NASA is free to make the same mistake again.
@@LostLargeCats"We live in the United States of Amnesia." -Gore Vidal
Respect for the people who stocked the space station with enough supplies to support unexpected guests.
Guess who’s coming to -dinner- .
Sorry, guess who’s coming to STAY indefinitely …
@@FutureSystem738😂
I think your guess of a 1% risk is way lower than reality. Multiple failures occurred already and still aren't understood and can't be fully understood with the vehicle on orbit
Didn’t the last test mission have a failure in reentry as well? (Or a possible failure that was caught)
He's been downplaying this situation from the start.
1546: The moon is made of cheese.
2024: Boeing's software is made of cheese.
The mice ate the cheese
Come on, cheese would run better in any hardware available 😂
Arrrr Arrr Arr, don't quit your day job.
Swiss cheese to be exact! 😂🤣
@@ChatGPT1111 I don't take advice from sea lions.
In mountain climbing we say, "it wasn't a successful climb if you don't make it back home afterwards."
Mallory probably made it, but it doesn't count. Same with the first Mars missions. Suicide missions to Mars don't count. The first person to Mars AND BACK is the winner.
@@davidcooke8005when looking for numbers, much more people traveled from Europe to American than the other way. Yet we call that a success
It's the equivalent of a team going up K2 and having to be rescued not because they failed but because all of their equipment broke under normal use on the way up.
With helicopters we say "Every landing you can walk away from, is a successful landing."
No-one has ever reported an aircraft been left stuck in the air.
@@toweri_li Well, there have been airplanes which flew away after the crew bailed out.
Thanks Scott. I hope you are enjoying your trip/vacation!
Thank you for your continued passion during your vacation. I hope you have a really enjoyable time!
Just sit right back, and you'll hear a tale. A tale of a fateful trip. That started from this tropic port, in space' most delayed ship. (In space' most delayed ship.)
Actually genius😅😅
Do you suppose this could be developed into a successful TV series?
The thrusters started getting stuck, the helium provided no thrust.
But just as they dreamed of getting back, NASA said "No luck."
Next? 🤣
@@phillipzx3754 LOL this is hilarious. I looked up the lyrics and matched up what we have so far and added my verse:
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
A tale of a fateful trip.
That started from this tropic port
In space' most delayed ship.
The mate was a Navy test pilot,
The skipper brave and sure.
Two passengers launched on that day
For an eight day tour, (an eight day tour.)
The thrusters started getting stuck,
the helium gave no thrust.
But just as they dreamed of getting back,
Boeing said "No luck," (NASA said "Aw ####.")
Someone else do the next verse lol
A mess of Boeing proportions! 😢
You must admit, however, that the company has been very consistent.
@@alexanderSydneyOz at least they're not killing anyone at the moment.
@@alexanderSydneyOz jea they started bad and got worse, but just a bit... lul
also no lul because rip max victims :c
Just wait, they will destroy the most expensive structure ever built..
Stirling is so cool. So much less crowded than Edinburgh. I tell people that if they want to see a specific thing at Edinburgh Castle, go there, but if they just want to see an amazing castle and really get to learn about it, go to Stirling.
Alas, no Runrig to perform to sell-out shows there any more.
I used to like driving past Stirling at night on the motorway. The castle literally looks like a "castle in the sky" floating above the horizon.
Not so impressive in the day time, it's just there sat on a hill.
Parking is a nightmare there. I agree, though, a better castle to visit. I personally prefer going to Culross
I read all of these comments in an Edinburgh accent, hope you don’t mind
@@TastySlowCooker my accent is more Glasgow, but I don't mind, its fine
Starliner Crew: “We have a little problem. Can you use the Space Tug to tow us over to the maintenance hanger?”
NASA: “Umm… well, that module for repairing things was never actually sent up to the ISS. In fact, it’s more of a concept than actual hardware.”
Starliner Crew: “Oh? Then I guess we’ll have to borrow the Space Tug. We were told it’s also designed to be a backup re-entry vehicle.”
NASA: “Umm…. now about that tug. Yes, designed for multiple uses, including the one you mentioned. But actually built? Well….not so much.”
Thank you, I give you a 👍up for spending time with us during your summer vacation.
The overtime on this failure must be astronomical.
What about the mileage allowance? ;)
All paid for by NASA and not borne by Boeing
How did Boeing still not learn that cheaping out might be worse in the long term?
they knew this once, but now the bean counters have taken over...
Because nobody at Boeing has gone to jail.
@@skierpage Bingo
I think they figured it but the inertia of the bad decision is pretty hard to stop.
It's America cheating out is normal
Liners carry passengers on routine schedules. This is getting embarrassing for the client, let alone Boeing.
boeing wasn't content with being incompetent on the ground, they're reaching out for the stars, via low orbit.
You have done an excellent job of providing the details of the issue - thank you!
If only Boeing had send up Boeing executives and management instead of astronauts. Then we would have an expandable crew up there that could be kicked off the ISS without any negative consequences.
I believe you meant expendable crew.
Dang, you really hate those guys? I understand they’ve made some bad decisions but I wouldn’t wish death upon em.
@@Tiberius-vs9wc Not wishing death, but merely they assure us the capsule is safe so they should be the ones that take it home.
They’re useful as ballast I think. If you could get them to spin quickly enough, I suspect they could be a useful gyroscope.
@@Ranchhand323 but wouldn't they actually expand as internal blood and body pressure expand in a vacuum?
Everyone: you can't put a price on a human life
Boeing: yes, we can. It's $3.25
Only jail time will change Boeing's attitude.
Well in all fairness, they beat the Ford Pinto @ $50
@@ChatGPT1111 The Pinto at least required a certain set of circumstances to be a hazard to the occupants. Everything Boeing is a hazard from the moment it leaves the ground...possibly before and we just don't know about that yet.
Ford and the Pinto. Why fix the gas tank when it's cheaper to pay the survivors?
@@EntropyExists at least one did not have to wear a couple of undies for 8 months in the Pinto and can't drive to the laundromat
Team MCAS have done it again
They took a material move to space flight from commercial airliners. Code is code, right?
The trick is to keep the drivers in the dark. Saves on wasted training $$.
The automated undock
Must be tested while in Crewed configuration.
A physically/ mentally compromised crew dealing with multiple emergency issues would benefit from a functioning “auto land” system, including undock.
I can imagine a scenario where compromised crew would need a totally automated return.
We paid for it. We want it. Configure the software, train your ground crew!
I skip past the fluff and the mainstream meeja and go STRAIGHT for the Manley update; good work fella - thanks for your insight.
Thanks for this!! Lots of other guys have kicked up so much dust on this. But (maybe you already commented?) you are my go to guy so I waited to hear anything definitive (an the definitive hesitations are not on you) finally.
What I love the most about this is how the astronauts themselves have NO say in that. Imagine your employer send you to an 8 days working project in another country then after delays and more delays tells you to stay there for 8 months instead of 8 days and you are not allowed to complaint about it.
It’s in the contract and they know exactly what they are getting into. Besides, how would their complaints help fix the problem at this point?
In other words, it's like being in the military. When I was deployed to Iraq in 2003, they didn't tell us how long we would be gone -- it turned out to be 10 months.
This is somewhat common in the merchant marine, too. In a recent case, the captain was wise enough to be "unavailable" when a court order came so the second officer was stuck on the ship as the legal guardian for 4 years.
On the positive side,those 2 astronauts are getting a lot more time in micro-gravity :)
"What I love the most about this is how the astronauts themselves have NO say in that. Imagine your employer send you to an 8 days working project in another country then after delays and more delays tells you to stay there for 8 months instead of 8 days and you are not allowed to complaint about it."
The astronauts were asked by the administrator if they wanted to stay longer and they said yes. So...
How the hell do they find out about these issues now? It's so unprofessional to send up human beings in that thing without testing everything and they have had over a decade.
Corruption and incompetence. They know they'll get the contracts no matter what, so they aren't motivated to try too hard.
@@andrasbiro3007diversity is their #1 goal!
"So unporfessional to send up humans in that thing without testing everything and they had over a decade..."
Well its boeing. Its not like it stopped them before... (**cough* MAX...)
I'm convinced now that a publicly listed company is the best guarantee of mediocrity - do just enough, and make sure those profits trend up! SpaceX and BO are safe as long as they are in private hands
@@lolbots
Not necessarily. It depends more on the leadership. It's a risk, but manageable.
At the moment you mentioned about the election, I realized that there is 0 chance astronauts will return in starliner. Its politically too risky.
and ignore the feather in the cap when you could have easily returned them safely.
🎯exactly
@@jamesheald567normalcy bias much? 🙄
At the very least they won't return in starliner or any vehicle until after the election. Don't give Elon a bump because that gives Trump a bump
1 in 270 is an unacceptably high chance of trouble. For example would you take a therapeutic drug that has a one in 270 chance of giving you lethal side effects?
If I ever get anxious about things not going as planned from now on, I’ll just think to myself “hey at least I’m not unexpectedly stuck in space for 8 months.”
This guy really is the best and such a good presenter even when he is out of his 'office'. I am also pleased to see that he is wearing his Scottish summer thermal layers!!
Yesterday's press conference didn't answer ANY questions. Only raised more. Meanwhile, one of the ISS ports is unusable because it is occupied by the Boeing "brick".
‘Boeing “brick”’ love it…
And the Boeing brick has to be gone by the time the next crew dragon launches because it needs that port to dock
@@Alucard-gt1zf The next crew Dragon has now been delayed for a month because of the Boeing Brick. 😂✌
This is not true, as anyone can see for themselves, because recordings are available. Yes, some things are still unclear at the moment, but it was also explained very precisely where the problems are, what considerations are currently being made and what the possible consequences could be.
Space is hard and problems are normal. Especially during test flights in an environment whose conditions cannot all be simulated on earth.
@@SebSN-y3fwhich is why you test multiple times ensuring everything works correctly. Space is indeed hard so is the ground if things continue to fail on this vessel.
The testing of the software is another negligence issue with Boeing being really bad at software development. I'm a software developer and a basic concept is that when developing a feature you must put in automated regression testing to verify that the feature will continue to work as the software continues to change. The fact that this isn't part of the Boeing SDL is the same level of negligence as the 737 Max debacle.
Not to mention that they left off or erased the software that made the autonomous landing possible on the previous demonstration flight. How could that even happen?
@@chrisantoniou4366 as Scott Manly explains in the video, and also as explained in the NASA press conference, they probably didn't remove any existing code, they just use different configurations (what NASA calls "mission load parameters") for manned vs. unmanned flight
, which is also not smart - there should be a button in the cockpit (god knows they have so many buttons) that says "people on board" and if it's off then you run the unmanned workflow. But they apparently do not test the software with anything other than the configuration for the next flight.
@@guss77But why would it take a month to change the parameters from unmanned to manned? That seems a bit ridiculous of an amount of time to just tell the spacecraft, "Hey there, you do not have any riders now!" Maybe they could just add in those seat sensors in cars for the passenger seat that lets the air bags know if they need to inflate or not. Those work in less than a month, matter in fact, almost instantly. Sorry, but I just feel we have an internal problem at Boeing. The thrusters and software have been a problem ever since the first unmanned flight, and both problems remain. The craft should not of been launched since until these problems were fixed. Yet it has launched twice since.
@@ronfullerton3162 the time is not for the changing process - I guess this is pretty quick. It takes time to do QA on the change because they weren't testing it for 2 years. This is my complaint above.
@@guss77 Good heavens! Shouldn't that of already been done? Oh well. Thank you so much for your response. I was just amazed at that amount of time needed. Never thought that much "rethink" time was needed.
The longest week of their lives!
These are very experienced test pilots and astronauts. I'm pretty sure they'll also enjoy being in space for longer and being part of such an exciting story. They are used to stay calm and to see things in a positive manner.
@@SebSN-y3fundoubtedly- as Scott said - will add to their flight hours!
That anecdote about Ken Bowersox being on orbit during the Columbia disaster and coming home in a Soyuz which itself had issues is... idk sobering? And sort of oddly reassuring. That sounds like THE best guy to have on the job.
Scott, love your content! Hope you are having a fantastic holiday. As always, thank you for the space update and information.
If it's Boeing, I ain't going!
I got an original joke too. Why did the chicken cross the road?
@@ChatGPT1111because Boeing made cars?
Big ups to the guy in the background using an electric leaf blower. You are the real MVP.
So that's what the sound was! To this Kansan and weather nerd, it sounded like some kind of tornado siren off in the distance.
@@AndrewBeals that seems unlikely in Scotland!
@@dork187 it's a visceral reaction unless you know it's coming.
I wish the landscapers could use that here in the states!
It sounds like karcher sidewalk pressure water cleaner 😅
Is there an issue with Starliner "expiring" in space? How long can it reasonably stay before its return chances are seriously impacted by the time spent up there?
From early July: "We talked about a 45-day limit, limited by the crew module batteries on Starliner, and we're in the process of updating that limit," Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, told reporters during the Friday teleconference.
"We've been looking at those batteries and their performance on orbit. They're getting recharged by station, and that risk hasn't really changed. So the risk for the next 45 days is essentially the same as the first 45 days," he said.
So, I guess the reliability of the batteries may be questionable after an extended stay.
@@andrewdavie386 I'm thinking more about mechanical issues, heat shield, etc.
Thank you for interrupting your holiday for this update!!
Saw Sterling Castle when we went to Scotland. Loved the iron staples in the capstones along the walls.
Can the Starliner be filled with (additional) trash and dumped into the atmosphere for a burn-up without debris reaching the surface?
It already seems to be full of trash...
no It cant undock by itself
Good point, I added an “additional” to the original question.
in theory no because it has a heat shield and a shape and weight distribution that orients it the right way. In practice you probably can do that because boeing screwed up something else
You could dump it somewhere in the ocean, but if that thing can actually burn up entirely throughout reentry, that'd be pretty weird, even if it went down nose-first. After all, the heatshield should be able to deal with reentry, even if the rest of the capsule breaks apart and burns up.
All that said, it'd be a terrible thing to do, even if it was possible. Would make Starline look worse than it already does...
So, maybe they can just have it come down uncrewed to check if it does its job.
It boggles my mind that they are still discussing using Starliner when it has been plagued with failures and should have launched in the previous decade. I would not feel safe re-entering in that thing.
You should stay at home today. You know, it’s not safe outside. I have a feeling you may have an accident today. Stay safe.
no one wants SpaceX to have a monopoly for various reasons, for one dissimilar redundancy is a thing - Starliner needs to be safe in the first place but it would be a bad idea to scrap it just because of bad public perception - also by ending this program you would throw away a lot of experience that the team gained in part thanks to dealing with all of those issues
Sunk cost fallacy
The problem is that Boeing has been fighting the same problems from the very first unmanned launch, software and thrusters. And it has never been fixed. Yet other companies have been able to fix identical problems. It is a Boeing problem, and they do not seem interested in fixing it. We do need a s cond plan, one is near ready at the moment, and just needs some help getting a ride to space. It is about time to switch your support to Sierra Space, who has come a long ways without government help on their craft since being passed over.@@lordmartinak
Wouldn't catch me getting on that scrap heap. Not because I'm a coward, but because I'm not stupid.
This just sounds like Boeing is no longer capable of managing a human rated space vehicle because they simply do not want to be bothered...
Well the problems with this began years ago, but obviously Boeing has much more important business issues than fixing Starliner or fiddling with Artemis. I would not be surprised to see their new CEO bite the bullet and kill their space division despite the penalties, because that company needs to focus management on its main divisions, commercial and military aviation, and space is just an expensive distraction.
Boeing is no longer capable of managing an exercise wheel in a hamster cage.
It was also stated in a CNN article that if the crew does return on Starliner, they will not be manually flying it at all "The findings also prompted Boeing and NASA to abandon plans to allow the astronauts to manually fly the Starliner spacecraft on the way home, as they did briefly during the trip to the ISS. “Some of the manual maneuvering put some extra stress on the thrusters,” said Steve Stich, NASA’s Commercial crew program manager." That seems even more concerning in terms of how well Boeing designed and tested their systems.
I know some NASA guys who have worked mission control for the ISS. They have stated that some of those Russian Module and Oxygen related issues were worse and brought them way closer to scrubbing the entire ISS than the news or general public really even know.
I honestly suspect this could be a similar thing.
without musk they would still have to ride on russian rockets.
Finally been waiting for a Scott Manley video on this.
This capsule needs to be named the Minnow after this
The ISS port brick. 🧱 Which is hopefully not the Hindenburg. 🔥
It's crapsule
As a SCUBA diver we replaced all dynamic seals annually whether we used them or not. How long have these seals been in service and how long did they just sit about. Seals actually fail faster if they are unused because they develop a memory and become less flexible. I would bet this comes down to Starliner sitting around for years and Boing only counting hours of flight.
Yes! Beijing is still in the software development stage and is light years away from developing SOPs for regular operations and overall system maintenance.
Sounds like you want the crew in Starliner so it can get far away from the ISS and have a crew dragon right next to it as a return vehicle and also to nudge Starliner into a better orbit.
Then you can test the EVA suits, boarding crew dragon in space and also capsule billiards.
Thanks for doing what you do. Enjoy your break. Love Scotland!
I was being inundated with hysterical videos from other RUclipsrs. I said to myself, “I’ll wait for Scott’s video.” Thank you for being clear and non-hysterical.
Yeah, there are a lot of fanboy channels out there of various companies that remind me of anti-fans hating on a rival K-pop group more than being journalists. Their information may be correct, but the delivery is so obviously biased that you hesitate to take it as fact until a less biased source confirms it.
It's crazy they are saying it can't come back by itself when just last week they were saying the thrusters work better if operated under automation and that's how they would do the return. They don't seem to know what they are doing.
Likely we are only getting a small part of the whole story and those speaking for Boeing or NASA on or off the record may not even know the full picture, so you get contradictory statements. The on record spokespeople probably aren't authorized to say the whole truth as it is probably much worse than they are letting on, or as spokespeople they are "need to know" and they don't need to know yet what some lead and senior engineers may know.
CYA
If I would be one of the astronauts I would refuse returning with Starliner. Definitely doesn't feel like a reliable vehicle
they even waved the roadside assistance package
If the alternative is a ride home on Soyuz it could be a dilemma.
@@stupidburpWould definitely be an awkward phone call arranging that ride home.
But the astronauts themselves have been working on the program for years, just like Bob and Doug did. IIRC, Suni Williams was working on Dragon and then got moved to Boeing. I wonder why.
Space is hard and problems are normal. Especially during test flights in an environment whose conditions cannot all be simulated on earth.
Hmmmm.... When the Starliner spacecraft was launched, it carried a major mission to expand humanity's understanding of the universe. However, an unexpected twist of fate means that the astronaut crew is now trapped in space, facing challenges far greater than they imagined. This situation raises profound moral and technical questions about human responsibility towards these explorers 🥇🇮🇩🥰😘🥰😘🥰😘
Great info, Scott!! Thank you
Crew safety has to be paramount.
12:36 wasn't expecting a Vsauce ending
Call ...... International Rescue.😊
Thunderbirds Are Go!
The Chinese? They're not allowed to dock at the ISS 😝
@@Steven-vo4ee you must be very young..... Thunderbirds are go
@@spacedriver24 On the contrary, I'm old, facetious to boot.
So, the Russians then ;)
I think it's about time someone called Matt Lowne!
Weird that this actually makes the departure impossible now. I thought it was deemed totally safe for them to return on Starliner just a few weeks ago (they just needed to check what the exact problem was so they can fix it for the next flight)
I suspect there is considerable information we are not privy to between NASA and Boeing because neither wants to fall on their sword over this debacle yet. If it goes on long enough, Congress will likely start to get involved and some middle managers or administrators will be found for sacrifice and some of the truth will actually come out over what a clusterfuck this was and how NASA's and Boeing's long-term co-dependent relationship enabled this. I suspect we will find that NASA is back to its old Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo habits of acceptable risk, and failed to account for how Boeing's safety culture has degraded over the last two decades in exchange for shareholder value.
"They were test pilots." Yeah, but when you are a test pilot, you are not spam in a can like a Star liner "pilot." Thanks for the continuing reports, Scott. Great work. If you pass through Orkney say "hi from Oregon" for me. Cheers!
As someone who lived in Scotland as a wee lad, I particularly enjoyed this informative update.
Logging flight hours for a stationary orbit is kinda like me trying to argue bonus miles for sitting on Earth as it moves through space.
get into orbit and we'll see about getting you your credit
I'm sure Microsoft could arrange for you to pay a fee plus travel tax. But I'm certain that Boeing could econmise enough (Regardless of cost) to ensure you didn't actually do many miles, or kilometres.
9:40 Ultimately, Boeing is responsible for the design. This blaming your subs is typical corporate-america BS. Boeing needs to just man-up and take responsibility. So sick of their nonsense anymore. Somebody at Boeing/Nasa needs to grow a pair and just let Butch & Sunny ride this thing home. There's ALWAYS gonna be risk in anything you do.
Is like valves are a recurring problem. This makes me wonder if they are testing these things in their true environment, in a vacuum, in zero gravity, with thermal gradients (because of dissimilar materials). If this was a valve on earth I would take a wrench and hit it. Maybe that is what these valves need. A solenoid to give it a bang if they seem stuck, or some secondary system to open or close it.
Thanks Scott!
I love your videos Scott.
You tell us about these missions which is not getting any media coverage.
Its a shitshow up there. Boeing is the owner of a de rated capsule. Dragon to the rescue. With lots of spare extra seats. They will end up unbolting extra seats and storing them on ISS (or outside)
Whe the ISS deorbits will the starliner still be attached?
Probably not, they need the docking port for actually useful craft. Worst case, the Starliner is sent back unmanned and a Dragon is send in a 4 seater configuration to return the crew.
I guess the difference between spacex and boeing is that spacex does everything in house. Software and hatdware.
Not everything ofc., but a lot more than Boeing
Boeing is also known to emphasize diversity hiring, which SpaceX doesn't do.
@cube2fox that has zero to do with the issue.
If you go out of house, it is very important to keep communication going between the parties, and keep a constant watch on progress and development. Somehow in this scenario, the end product wasn't up to snuff, and Boeing didn't seem to care.
@@ThatOpalGuy We don't know that.
Why can't they send Crew 9 up as scheduled, but in Dragon that has seating for 6 or 7. It was designed for 7 astronauts. Crew 8 can return WITH Butch & Suni in the Crew 9 Dragon. The Crew 9 can return at the end of their missin in the unmodified Crew 8 Dragon. Nobody needs to be "bumped" unless, the ISS cannot handle it. I do not believe that 2 humans should be put at risk when there is a safe, viable alternative. Butch and Suni should not return in an unproven vessel that has so many issues that should have been weeded out before a crewed test. Scot, I really like your channel and your presentation of the facts. Keep it up! PLEASE!
Ehink of the repercussions if they lose those 2 astronauts IF...
As ever Scott, I appreciate your level head and fact based reporting an analysis.
The longer Starliner remains attached to the ISS, the smaller the chance that it will ever be capable of completing a safe crewed return to earth
The question now is how was that spaceship allowed to fly, with all those untested parts?
Politics, and good old corruption.
@@vogonjelc What a shame
True. Whatever happened to "safety first"?
@@KougaJ7 It seems they didn’t learned from the 737 experience.
@@CristianCiotti WDYM? They did, they now clearly know no-one's gonna do jack shit about their incompetence (and worse), so they can safely do the same shit again.
“Strandliner”..
Hey Scott. I REALLY appreciate this video and the research you put into it beforehand. Enjoy yiur holiday. I hope to visit Scotland and it's castles some day.
Thought you were going to pull punches on this one but found you were clear and fair on the situation. Great work and fly safe o7
If they send up a Dragon to pick up the astronauts, they better make sure there are no Boeing snipers anywhere near the launch pad.
Yusuf Dikeç is safely home in Türkiye.
"Fly safe"
Boeing: Nah, that ain't me.
Again, let's all say it together "if it's a Boeing, I'm not going".
Scott is so good at really explaining all of the details for us that follow space. This is truly an event that will define Boeings future in space
Stirling castle. Loved it as I love your work