Can We Trust the Boeing Starliner or Even Orion to Carry Astronauts to Orbit or the Moon?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Starliner is about to carry astronauts into orbit, after multiple failures on both of its previous missions. Is this safe or are we courting disaster? And the Orion's successful return from lunar orbit was not without problems. Did Artemis 1 prove that the Orion's new heat shield is faulty? This is a critical time in the space industry, and loss of life would be a tragedy not just for the individual and their family, but for the entire nation. Are these capsules safe to fly?
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshi...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys
Credits
ESA
ULA
NASA
Boeing
SpaceX
Blue Origin
Lockheed Martin
Space News Now 
Наука
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Boeing's reputation has gone so far down hill that it would be hard to expect them to produce a reliable trashcan.
Boeing trash can: lid falls off...
A sad state of affairs...
You couldn't pay me to fly on it. If it ends up killing the astronauts the governmwnt should stop all contract work with them
Correction Boeing bought out Mcdonald Douglas for thier military buisness. I know a bunch of old guys who worked at Douglas which then became Boeing and they said the exact opposite, that when Boeing took over the safety culture disappeared and quality took a nose dive. Workers would have to inspect their own work and training was cut way back.
The management at Boeing basically had no respect for the engineering teams at MD-80 Long Beach, MacDac HBeach, and Rockwell Int Downey. Instead of building a knowledge base that passed generations of engineering insight from the steely eyed missile men of Rockwell and MacDac, they basically got rid of those engineers and had no pipeline of Gen X and Millenials to replace. There was no passing of blueprints, designs or concepts to the next generation. For this reason, Terran Space Academy's work is really important.
You are right that it was Boeing buying McD that it all changed but what happened in the transition is a fog of changes that we can only speculate. Both were good companies and now it does not look like either one of them survived.
I find that inconsistent with Boeing's previously outstanding record...
Rockets, rockets and rocket engines. Maybe the next video can be about astronomy and the supernatural. Let me explain, " spiritbox talking ". Yes, people claim, they can talk to people from the great cosmic beyond. These spiritbox boxes make a static hissing echo sound similar to old tv sets, when tuned to anolog channels that have no station programming, remember ?. Hissing static sound then your hear a blip sound. Just like a spiritbox. I think these shaman use AI algorithms to add words, to the spiritbox box blip sounds. And sometimes, these so called shaman talk in scientific terminology. The question is, are these boxes real. I think dr Harold Sonny White can put a stamp of science on these shaman, or maybe its real, maybe they do talk to the dead from the great cosmic beyond. Or ? Or ? , Maybe its inter-dimensonal beings from other worlds, who are trying to communicate with us ? The truth is out there 😎
I'm not familiar with any reproducible evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural so I leave that to others.
Ultimately, Sierra Nevada will prove NASA wrong and Dreamchaser will prevail, both in cargo and human rated version.
I think so too!
If orion really does end up meeting starship in Leo as rumours recently indicated, even if its only once, and even if its only for testing... we end up with a architecture that doesn't really need Orion or SLS anymore.
What? Why? The video clearly explains that SpaceX and other companies do not manufacture or even propose to offer a reentry craft which can survive the extreme temperatures that Orion can, on return from the moon. SpaceX is a LEO only proposition.
so true Elon has all
Starship is far far away from the Moon. 2030s, if ever. There again, the same probably applies to Artemis as a whole.
At the moment Starship is the piece of the Architecture that has the largest delay and worse performance.
I think we'll still need Orion. I don't see Starship safely surviving a lunar return for a long time.
I will wait for the bus this round
Take a good book :-)
Boeing is not running with their A team.
Everyone on Boeing's A Team has quit for other jobs where management actually listens to them.
In many of these companies, the A Team is in Legal or Accounting, not Engineering and Design. That's because that's where the funding goes, and also where we're pushed young talent.
Running with their DEI team
Not for a long time...
I fear for the astronauts on the starliner, maybe a good day for Anal Glacoma: Cant see bringing my @$$ in to work.
I'm worried too... I hope the have a Dragon ready to rescue them in orbit.
That was great.
Well space x lunar lander is beyond stupid and is unlikely to ever be a reality .
It could be done better...
Not sure why people are confused about your title...? Great job, made sense and alot of information. Ty
Thank you!
Yeah, I’ll pass. I’m not climbing on that thing.
Don't blame you at all! :-)
Didn’t Boeing buy McDonnel,/Douglas? I think they did but I could be wrong.
The Board Of Directors foolishly decided to replace a lot of Boeing management withe MD managers. The corporate culture changed focus from engineering to finance.
The current disaster known as Boeing is the result.
Boeing management replaced and caused retirement of MacDac Long Beach/Huntington Beach and Rockwell Downey/El Segundo/Seal Beach people. Seal Beach Boeing is still around but the other four plants are long gone. Don't blame MacDac.
Good point, probably industry wide and just coincided with the buy out.
I dunno if he has a team but if you are indie then i salute to the efforts and animations on the video even with a tam this is remarkable better than everyday astronaut
Thank you so much!
I hope Sierra Space gets the DC-200 operational, it seems to me like a much more safe and reliable way to carry crew to the ISS than the Boeing Starliner. I guess we'll learn more when the DC-100 launches (hopefully soon)
Great video, as always!
Thank you! I thought so too.
dont rub it in
project orion be better
I like Orion... From the Moon that is :-)
Putting all your money on a one horse race, is asking for trouble!
So NASA wanting more than one Reusable Launch and Re-Entery Crew Passenger Space Vehicle (RLRE-CPSV) system, from more than one Manufacturer too.
As well as NASA wanting more than one First Stag Reusable and Recoveryable Launch Rocket (FSR-RLR) systems, as well as more than one Second Stag Reusable and Recoveryable Launch Rocket (SSR-RLR) systems.
Maybe if neccessary NASA having more than one Expendable Third Stag Launch Rocket (ETSLR) systems too, all from different manufacturers too.
As well as separate Autonomous Reusable Launch and Re-Entry Transport Space Vehicle (ARLR-ETSV) system, with its own large internal hangar, as well as its own remote-operated manipulator arms plus opening and closing Hangar doors too.
To transport and launch and deploy satellites in orbit, or carryout autonomous repairs or replace damaged devices and equipment, or install modifications and upgrades in orbit too.
Or if necessary carryout Orbital Recovery Operations (ORO's) of satellites, in Low to Medium or even High Orbits too!
Or to transport cargo and supplies, from earth to a Space Station in earth orbit, then return with other cargo back to to earth too.
Or transport cargo to an orbital Space Station, which is in orbit around the Moon too. Then return to earth again, with other cargo, that has been shuttled up from the Moon surface too.
All of this makes common sense and is good practice, for NASA wanting to have multiple options.
Space X maybe the only Reusable Launch and Re-Entry Crew Space Vehicle (RLRE-CSV) system, in operations but it is only useable in Low to Medium Earth Orbits (LMEO's).
As well as carry limited crew and passengers capacity, plus very limited cargo carrying capacity to and from orbit too!
Which has to be increased, for building any future Moon surface base, or setting up first any Moon Orbital Space Station too.
The same goes for any future Mars Exploration Flight, with setting up a Mars Orbital Space Station first, then building a Mars surface base afterwards too!
In either case of setting up a Moon or Mars surface long term or permanent bases, NASA will need a Reusable Orbit to Surface and back to Orbit Cargo Transfer Vehicle (ROSO-CTPV) system, with its own pilots or unmanned remotely operated "ROSO-CTPV" too!
Agreed my friend. That's why other companies need a chance. Sierra Space etc.
I honestly wouldn’t want to trust Boeing to fly me to the next city much less the moon or Mars. But of course, what are the options? Not many. And hard to claim that SpaceX has worked the bugs out of its own systems yet. Time will tell.
That's a very good point. If they had hoped to get anything done by the 2020s they should have been throwing these things up every few months...
I correct you because I care ...
chord, cable or hose
"umbical" uhm-bil-ik-al: a hose, cord or cable connecting a supply of gas, liquid or electric power from one vehicle to another, sim;ar to a fetus to its mother's bodt
Their terminology... Not mine :-) I got yelled at for pronouncing it the medical way last time.
Launching to the moon takes about the same Delta V as launching to mars because mars has aerobraking available to save on delta V budget. When you are coming back to earth the trip from mars is going to be about 10-15% faster.
Also, Dragon had heat shield problems when it first started launching, it's not like that is some new unheard of cockup. The problems that hit the heatshield were not along the seams between blocks. Since the blocks are made of the same stuff as the apollo heat shield just going back to the monolithic construction wouldn't be likely to fix the problem. The reentry profile for this launch is different, it does a skip along the atmosphere first and that may be changing the behavior of the surface. If that is the case then it is a problem that's unlikely to penetrate deeply and cause problems.
The problem may be the difference between thousands of vertical cells and just a few big blocks... The former is inherently stronger. Yes. Coming back from Mars is a little faster. Yes. Dragon had heat shield issues which the fully rectified BEFORE putting people on them. The skip may indeed be the source of the problem. Perhaps heating, cooling, and reheating has some effect.
I have Zero faith in Boeing. Not for Space travel, nor for regular flight. I look for none Boeing flights when I fly. Sad state that the company has found itself in. This is what happens when bean counters are in charge.
I agree. Airbus all the way right now.
this is a super duper pooper scooper boring video
Back to the endless video games for you then!!
Thank you so much Joe. We are going for the annual Ennui awards and appreciate the support.
Why are we spending taxpayer money on a Boeing machine that has lots of failures and costs hundreds of millions of dollars more? SpaceX has been doing the job for 4 years already and much cheaper.
Agreed... do better or don't get paid we think.
While I did watch the whole video, and it was interesting, the title is horridly misleading. This is unacceptable and damages your reputation.
Why? It's exactly what we talked about.
Not SpaceX. Their idea is a Pygmalion effect idea, meaning they don't have anything yet, but make it more popular making more money. But where is the product? I say so, as Musk was telling about Spaceship in space in 2024. Or even the first fly to the Moon. Changing design as just more cony nose, won't make it fly. As we can see, there's bigger problem.
I thought I saw a very big product head to space just a month or so ago... And the booster landings still warm my heart.
You do know that Boeing received more than twice the amount for the crew program. Since then Spacex has put how many manned missions into the air. Boeing still collects money to try and get the space version of a 737 max off the pad with a crew. I would guess Boeing has kept the crew from watching the news otherwise they wouldn’t go. Lol….i wonder if that bucket has TCAS, or some space version of it.
Stry… dude, I thought the starship stack taking off last month was kind of cool. Spacex did that as well as launch a bunch of rockets with satellites successfully, as well as getting another crew into orbit. I would assume that you are an employee associated with the Boeing debacle. If you are a Boeing employee please make sure the plug doors are bolted in properly, and advise the astronauts not to sit in a window seat. I think the explosive decompression following a door out of the bucket might be kinda bad.
Orion has already been to the moon and back on its first launch. Starship explodes every time it launches.
That's true... But not relevant to the safety concerns of Orion. It does not comfort me if my plane crashes to know that some other type crashed more...
I have to believe the crew flying on Starliner know the risks and the systems better than we do .. that being said it seems, from our perspective that this craft is a disaster waiting to happen and it would give those against space more leverage to lobby against Nasa ... obviously the lives are NOT worth the risk without some more proof of concept .. another un-crewed flight seems like a wiser move to me .. but I guess they know better than I
Indeed. I don't doubt their bravery. I just want to make sure the ship is worthy of their dedication.
SLS and Orion is simply RETARDED. They should have designed it with enough propellant for LLO. And, even if they goofed back then, the fix should never be some stupid space station around teh moon and a shit ton of launches to make that happen. The solution should be to redesign Orion with a bigger service module with more propellant or just give it a bigger upper stage so it won;t matter how much propellant Orion has. SpaceX would have done both and flown both approaches 5 times with 5 evolutions in a year. NASA can't do that in a decade with 20 times the money. But, they can talk complete nonsense about a lunar orb it station and 5 non-existent spacecrafts and to make it happen. NASA should be DISBANDED.
If you focus only on criticizing NASA as if it controls every budget and project then you are lost in the weeds. NASA is of course dependent on Congress for its funding and the direction of the project is it takes on.
Your criticism is also misguided because you act like the SLS and Orion is all that NASA does while forgetting the rovers, deep space probes, space telescopes and earth sensing satellites that NASA also does.
And while you complain about the SLS and Orion tell me who else in the world has sent a human capable rocket to the moon and back on a mostly nominal flight?? It's all about perspective.
Right? How hard can it be to make a better service module?
A thicker Crew Dragon heat shield would probably do the job. Instead of spending $4B and going to the Moon, just launch a mockup of Crew Dragon with the thicker heat shield using Falcon 9 and put it in an elliptical Earth orbit and then fire a kickstage to bring the re-entry velocity to 25,000 mph. They could launch one a week until they proved out the heat shield. They could probably have it working in 6 months. This is what Apollo 4 and 6 did (both unmanned)
You could do a straight up / straight back down or use a Falcon Heavy to send it around the Moon. :-)
@@terranspaceacademy They have to enter the atmosphere at a very precise shallow angle. That's why Apollo 4 and 6 went into a high elliptical orbit then did a burn to get the speed up to 25,000 mph. Doing a loop around the Moon would do the trick too 🙂
I'm sorry, but Orion and Boeing SUCKS
Sadly they are clearly overpriced and underdeveloped.
Stats speak for themselves...
They do indeed.
The moon is all that matters in space development over the next century. Earth is a jewel of good fortune, featuring an environment and composition which allowed our evolution to take place over a billion years without facing a complete extinction event. However, it's not been a perfect scenario, such that Earth life became weak and unable to withstand extreme crisis. Survival on Earth has been just difficult enough to spur constant adaptions and improvements, like a proving ground for the prototype of the DNA based lifeform. Now, as we venture out into space, we are presented with a nearby moon which is just close enough to be a convenient target for colonization, yet difficult enough to reach that the process of doing so will give humanity the tools to go much further. Reaching Titan or other objects in the solar system for mining or other benefits would be prohibitively expensive from Earth. However, reaching them from launch sites within the negligible gravity well of the moon would allow for a massive payload of fuel, equipment, and possibly hundreds of people. No matter what it takes, we need to colonize the moon.
I think humans social progress is still at chimpanzee stage and nowhere near mature enough for space exploration , nor are we remotely equipped to survive outside where we are now and we cannot even look after what we have got . However no harm in dreaming .
We can do it.
Thank you for all the hard work in making these excellent videos.
You are most welcome!
Boeing seems to have lost the ability to build airplanes let alone space vehicles
Isn't that sad? They get contracts through political connections and end up doing nothing of worth.
You can TRUST NASA to SPEND THE MOST MONEY for the LONGEST TIME while going NOWHERE.
The SLS/Orion went to the moon and back in the first human capable vehicle that went to the moon in 50 years. That was 18 months ago. Who else has gone or will soon go to the moon even if with an automated human capable vehicle like Orion?? Even Space X won't be ready with starship for at least a couple of years!
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 LOL... yeah... after 22 years and 23 billion dollars？ You could have sent Battlestar Galactica to the moon already if you spent that on payloads and Falcon 9 launches.
It didn't use to be that way...
Look all you gotta do is slow down that simple find a way to make it work slow down
But it's been half a century...
Please dont start to be clickbaity ugh
HOW! WHERE! We discussed exactly what the title says. I don't get it.
While I agree with your sentiments Professor, I think the video title is overly sensationalist/click-baity.
Please, don't go down this route. Over the years I have seen this happen with other channels. They tend to alienate their core audience, who really want learn more about a channel's chosen topic, and are replaced with people there for the sensational headline and much less interest in the nuanced and technical aspect of the subject.
I know no one asked for my opinion but I hate to see yet another channel go down this route.
Have a great rest lf your weekend Professor! I always enjoy the content.
RUclips unfortunately works in such a way that click bait is essential.
@@dmurray2978 I disagree. I see other channels that are focused on teaching and learning do just fine without it. Unfortunately covering aerospace and moreso the equations behind the engineering make this channel a niche inside of a niche. People like rockets (probably the space aspect more) for sure but not a lot of those people want to actually do the math that the Professor walks us through.
Thank you for your feedback. I wasn't even trying in the slightest to be make it click-baity... It is exactly what we discussed. How did you perceive it?
NASA will never make it to Mars with a crew within the next 25 years if not more!
Neither will anyone else, IMHO. Even the hyper-optimist Musk in his latest talk at Starbase acknowledged that currently we're still in the business of building the "horse" (i.e. transportation system), whereas the "cart" (i.e. a smorgasbord of all the other advanced tech required to construct and sustain a colony on Mars, not to mention keep a crew alive and well on its journey there and back) will come later.
Well, we should have the "horse" v.1 figured out by 2030 or so. Then we'll spend the next 10-30 years building up and learning from the Moon colony/ies and commercial space station(s) - similar to how it went with the ISS, except on a significantly grander scale. Then in the 2040's or 2050's we might finally, maybe, start seriously building up toward an initial Mars outpost.
That is all assuming the whole world won't be set back multiple decades by the sheer destruction wrought by World War III that China is likely to unleash in the next few years by attacking Taiwan, and/or the Russia/China/Iran/North Korea axis might foment by continuing to attack Ukraine and Israel (and by proxy, the rest of Europe and America).
I think China will in 20. Whether they will be alone or guided down by a base beacon depends on the rest of the world.
I also believe starliner is NOT safe.
Sadly... It would be nice to give SpaceX a reason to keep innovating.
They should drop Boeing
We think so too...
10:25 "short term stock gains became more important than safety"
Your brief description of Boeing's decline is right on point, if anyone is interested in the greater details of Boeing's decline I recommend the documentary;
DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing
ruclips.net/video/vt-IJkUbAxY/видео.html
It could be the epitaph for American competitiveness. We went from the world's standard to the world's warning.
Best to you Joseph and Chi!!! Kevin
Good to see you Kevin!
I am surprised that from a design standpoint the orion heat shield would be manufactured on a budget in contrast with the apollo capsule's approach, especially considering the overall cost and philosophy of the SLS. single use solutions building upon existing technology should've been the name of that game since day one, instead of pie in the sky RL10 half arsed re-use research
the people that made Boeing great moved to projects not yet cannibalized by the accounting department ;)
You would think but everyone wants to fund what has been done before... Until you get "National Security" involved.
I miss Bridenstine!
He was awesome! Best in decades.
I wouldn't go anywhere near Starliner or Orion. .... beaurocracies, do they ever do things right?
Do you have an alternative to the current government run bureaucratic system? People complain about the current government system, but can't offer a realistic alternative.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Good point! Honestly, I think we're stuck where the federal government is concerned.
I find it very strange that the feds are adding 1 Trillion dollars to the national debt every ~ 100 days and no one seems to be concerned. I would say in answer to your query, that I think we're very lucky to have one Elon Musk among us...there's no Bravo Sierra there.
Best regards, Kevin Hambsch
I am not sure, but there was something called Apollo or Pollo Program that allegedly got some white dudes to the Moon. Could be wrong of course.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096I suspect the alternative is a corporate-run bureaucratic system - because if you really want the best, most elaborate, most impenetrable and intractable bureaucracy that maximizes all the negatives while minimizing any positives, you can only get that through competition in the private space. Witness, for example, the multiple bureaucratic layers and parasitic money-siphoning networks in our current "health care" system - designed by, for, and of private companies, by private company lobbyists and wholly owned Congresscritters...
@@Spherical_Cow I am definitely for a transition to universal health care or single payer. The US is just about the only country in the world with this greedy system.
Answer: No.
Agreed.
I don't trust Starship getting to the Moon, or anywhere else beside Low Earth Orbit.
This because the refueling in orbit is still unproven; but what gives me the shivers is the number of launches necessary to refuel the orbiting Starship.
Initially SpaceX said six launches were enough. Then, I heard maybe ten were required. Then, I saw a video of Destin (SmarterEveryDay) giving a lecture at NASA, and there transpired that the launches required were fifteen, and the people there just avoided talking about it.
Fifteen launches must go ahead without an hiccup, without aborted launches, without failed launches. And if a couple of Starship Tankers happens to fail en-route to orbit, SpaceX must have a number of spares ready for launch. And if the experimental ship-to-ship fuel ducts fail to mate, because of debris or thermal deformations, without some astronauts ready to go on an EVA, the Starship launch mission from Earth orbit is cancelled.
I don't want to sound like a Cassandra, I'm all for Space Exploration at 100%, but I have the feeling that Elon Musk has over promised, and NASA bought it whole. In detail, SpaceX glossed over the logistics of refueling in orbit, and NASA didn't enquire.
I hope that my doubts are out of place, and orbit refueling will prove to be a cakewalk...
To be fair. I don't think anyone really knows. SpaceX is constantly updating Starship, it's basically in it's epoch phase. Raptor 3 is slated to come out that won't require heat shields and have much higher thrust (meaning more mass to LEO). Along with the booster and ship being stretched to hold more fuel and cargo.
Starship should be placed in orbit and then crewed by Dragon... There should be a third stage to go on to the Moon and land I think but I'm still looking at the options.
Having your space crew lunar module the same as your living quarters is a stupid idea. Every time they want to leave the Moon, they have to blast that huge spacecraft, that's a lot of mass. Spacex should have went with a small crew lunar module and have the starship just be the cargo ship.
@@rickace132 We agree. Detachable nose cone is the way to go I think.
so... how many terran space academy fans would pick the next starship over the next orion/starliner launch? 😂
That's a false choice, because I think most would actually pick some extra uncrewed flights, instead - just to fully shake out all the bugs, before actually putting people onboard.
@@Spherical_Cow you'll be fine. elon is literally a genius. did you watch the 4/20 launch?
@@zotfotpiq the 4/20 launch didn't even pretend to be the final hardware design that would actually fly humans the next time around. Something a LOT of people (you included) seem to completely miss... despite it being copiously disclosed and declared up-front, by SpaceX themselves.
@@Spherical_Cow well heck man, i get confused sometimes. people say crazy stuff on the internet, you know?
so has starship even landed on mars yet!?
@@zotfotpiq No, and neither has NASA landed on the Moon (in this century) yet. Multi-year delays are standard operating procedure in aerospace, and Elon Time is a whole special thing unto itself. That said, Starship is progressing quite nicely. Feel free to let your snark blind you to that fact; but reality will eventually come around and smack you upside the head anyway - as it tends to do.
I wouldn't get on it.
As if that was ever a possibility right?!
I would but I've jumped out of perfectly good airplanes :-)
It's Dreamchaser that should get the funding. One thing is for sure: in the first ten Starliner flights the allowed crew must only consist of robots, which if they burn up in the atmosphere, no one will mourn.
I wonder if people should ever board the Starcoffin of their own free will🤔That's what happens when engineering board is replaced with the greedy board🤷♂
Dreamchaser development is controlled by a *_corporate_* Board Of Directors *_every bit_* as much as Starship is.
What makes Sierra Space morally superior to SpaceX?
You can't get back from the Moon or deep space with crews with Dream Chaser. Need Orion!
But I LIKE robots!
@goldenpacificmedia
Why not? How is Orion's shielding impossible to duplicate on other vehicles?
@@terranspaceacademy
Sure, you like robots... SkyNet likes you, too...
I trust Boeing more than space x
I don't my friend. Boeing has all the resources to do a perfect job and still fail. SpaceX has much fewer resources and creates what no one else has ever attempted. My money is still on Elon.
Ra… dude, would you honestly fly on a 737 max aircraft. I love Boeing but now… hell no. Boeing is falling apart.
@@terranspaceacademy Boeing and NASA did the last moon landing
@@briananderson4032 and magas are too
we need some occasional math , been here since the get go.
I shall oblige next lesson! There's always room for math!
Nothind kills innovation as thoroughly as labeling its design as "proprietary": it removes completion to better the work. It is a legalism which tries to protect profits rather than progress or safety.
"proprietary" mostly just means "unpatented trade secret". Patenting something makes it public, but unavailable to competition for the next 15 years (except for China, which doesn't respect patents). Not patenting something, keeps it a company secret but risks leakage through corporate or state espionage, cyber attack, or reverse engineering within a time frame much shorter than 15 years. Which path to choose, is up to each respective corporation.
Patenting something makes it publicly available and our adversaries can copy it...
@@terranspaceacademy Once an inventor or his designated representative patents an idea or creation, no one may copy it without the patent holder's permission . Yes the patent description becomes a public document, available to anyone, but the idea or design remains the patent holder's possession for between 17 and 99 years. No "adversary" may legally copy it during that time without the owners permission. If they do the owner may sue for infringement. Even in Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea, Syria, Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, or Democratic Republic of the Congo where there is no guarantee of a fair hearing. Exceptions are military or ITAR technology. Starship, Starliner and Orion are covered by ITAR and patents, However patent enforcement is by the holder under civil law not the government.
Have you ever done a geoengineering video for Mars? It would be a great topic.
That's an interesting idea. Let me see what I can find on it.
Starliner is a flying coffin.!!🤨
We agree.
Misleading title.
Justify your opinion
cope
I don't see it... How?
Dragon had a lot of similar problems in earlier years and continues to have issues today, yet nobody doubts it is safe to fly.
Regarding Starliner, NASA ASAP which in recent years had raised concerns with Starliner recently said they are more than satisfied with the due diligence from NASA and Boeing regarding crew safety and working out previous issues.
Regarding the heat shield on Orion, it is not expected to be a showstopper.
The heat shield for Artemis 2 is already long installed on the spacecraft and replacing it would be a huge schedule hit, measured in years.
NASA has said the root cause investigation is nearly closed and they don't expect any hardware changes will be needed at least for Artemis 2 and 3.
The heat shield itself on Artemis 1 worked very well with a lot of ablator margin available.
What happened wasn't that it ablated more, more so that the ablation patterns were different than pre flight models expected.
The heat shield did not have cracking or anything of the sort, I don't think anyone from NASA has said that.
What we have been told so far is that the ablation wear patterns were not as predicted, and that they saw more uneven ablation in some areas than pre flight models expected.
They want to figure out why, and then update their models to make sure they can predict the heat shield behaviour better in the future.
From what we've heard so far, what was seen on Artemis 1 was NOT an issue for crew safety.
I do think it's funny that people would rather fly on a theorized crew Dreamchaser, and somehow are certain it would be safer than actual real world vehicles.
The grass is always greener on the other side I guess.
That's because of all the uncrewed cargo mission before they stuck people on it. Work out the problems before you risk people's lives... We are looking at two Starliner failed flights and one Orion and now we are sticking people on them.
A Boeing employee are we…
I am also curious to see what SpaceX is going to do with Crew Dragons heat shields for any lunar crew return missions?
The Crew Dragon won't be used for lunar trips, but only for going to the ISS and back. Starship is intended to return astronauts from the moon, but that is down the road a ways as they first must rendezvous with Orion to transport astronauts to the lunar surface with Artemis 3. That won't happen until 2026 at the earliest.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096per current plans, Starship will only be returning humans from the Moon's surface to NRHO. From there, Orion will pick them up and return them to Earth. HLS Ship won't have enough propellant left for a return from NRHO to LEO or MEO, nor will it be capable of reentry or landing on Earth.
@@Spherical_Cow On what basis do you say the HLS vehicle won't have enough fuel to return? The HLS vehicle will be fully refueled before leaving Earth's orbit and then most of the fuel used will be for landing on the moon and take off.
You may be right, but I need to hear your reasoning.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 NASA has published the Artemis III mission architecture; the HLS Starship is destined for single use and then to be discarded afterwards.
You can also just compare the total delta-V achievable by a fully loaded Ship. During launch to LEO (approximately 9.4 km/s target velocity), the Booster supplies about 1.7 km/s before stage separation, so Ship provides the remaining 7.7 km/s. At the end of its launch to LEO, the Ship has spent all of its propellant. So let's take that 7.7 km/s as Ship's total delta-V capability (ignoring any losses to cryopropellant boil-off in a long-duration mission), on full tanks.
Now let's sum up the delta-V requirement of going from LEO to NRHO, from NRHO to lunar surface, then back to NRHO and back to LEO. NASA says LEO to NRHO is ~3.7 km/s. NRHO to lunar surface, according to NASA, is ~2.7 km/s. Adding those up, we get 6.4 km/s one-way. Meaning, a roundtrip would require 12.8 km/s. And that's not even accounting for any boil-off losses...
In fact, the current performance of Ship isn't even enough for Artemis III as-defined, since it would require 3.7 + 2.7 + 2.7 = 9.1 km/s capability from Ship, plus extra margin for boil-off and safety margin reserves, so lets spitball that as 10.5-11 km/s. The current Ship prototype would need to raise its performance by nearly 50% just to complete the no-reuse Artemis III mission scenario - with no hope whatsoever, of ever making it back from NRHO to LEO for refilling.
It would need to be redesigned... It's capable of orbital return only. Only Orion is capable of a lunar return.
What's the deal with comments saying the title is "click bait"? He spends most of the video describing the on-going design concerns and operational impact of those issues. Maybe these folks claiming "click bait" do not get it?
I don’t get it either
Still trying to figure that out... The Starship is in the picture but everyone else is covering it. Not too much education there.
TBH After the current head of NASA Bill Nelson said they weren't going to the far side of the moon because it was dark, and we'd never seen it. Well, I question if NASA is even fit for purpose now.
I still can't believe he really said that. We have crooks and con artists as leaders.
He could been referring to the time the landings are predicted.
@@RogerM88 no, he wasn't. I'd link the video but YT would just remove it.
I hope he meant radio dark... I hate to think he doesn't know how the Moon works.
@@terranspaceacademy it was pretty scary testimony. Honestly it reminded me of the whole Bill O'Reily "we don't know how the tides work" thing.
NASA: hey we got a new capsule! Seats 4! Woohoo! Only took us 60 years! And we're trusting boy genius to build our lander!
And what NASA has done is STILL ahead of every other country and rocket company in the world!! Perspective is what matters!!
Good point.
No other options right now...
I can only hope that the plug door is bolted in properly. I certainly wouldn’t want a window seat in that thing… lol. Great content.
True! Boeing would call it the astronaut ejection system I'm sure...
Thank you for all your efforts! Stay safe!
You are most welcome! You too!
Great analysis thanks 👍
You are most welcome!
Hey Doc, thx so much for corroborating my fear concerning the starliner and orion capsules and of course stating it more astute and eloquently than I ever could. Remember the scene in T2 when Sara Conner is rapping on the fence of the playground just before LA gets nuked? Yes, the analogy is a bit overkill here, but it’s how I feel. DAMNIT, astronauts should pay with their lives due to NASA’s lust for cost+ contracts to boeing and lackheed martin.
Now that I know space can be done better, I sit and ponder what SpaceX could have done in lieu Artemis and starliner. i.e. human rated Falcon Heavy and DragonXL for Artemis and Starship would be multiple years ahead of now. I even contend humans would be back on the moon by now.
My disdain for legacy is at an all time high and if NASA is unwilling to cancel starliner prior to human loss, i will campaign for their ruination. Except for JPL of course.
I always think of the Thiokol engineers seeing, "t's too cold, don't launch." and the NASA managers saying, "We can't disappoint the politicians. Launch anyway."
It's so hard to love Orion and the Artemis program. We keep betting the future on fundamentally flawed spacecraft that are based on horribly inefficient 50 year old designs. Sls and Orion would have been great 15 years ago but the project is finally coming to fruition in such a dated manor that it's hard to support.
It is heartbreaking.
Elon Time vs ULA & and blue origin time.
Elon Musk tends to be optimistic about time to when a product becomes available and may be 1 or 2 years late.
ULA finaly launched in 2024, the delay is 10 lyears so far.
Jeff Bezos blue origin was founded in 2000 it has been 24 years so far no launch.
So so why is no one talking about ULA or Blue origin time and?
Scientia Habet Non Domus,
(Knowledge Has No Home)
antiguajohn
Yeah Knowledge has no home, especially in your brain. The fact that you think Elon tends to be optimistic and is maybe 1 or 2 years late only shows your lack of information about his claims and delivery overall or your idol worshipping ignorance of his shortcomings. Either you have such a short term memory that you do not remember his claims and promises that were made over the last decade in multiple industries and delivering basically none. The fraud from solar city to FSD to Boring Company tunnels, Tesla roadster, Starship cargo versions on Mars by 2022, the Tesla Semi convoy promises and the list goes on. Maybe make a list of his stock pumping promises and claims and crosscheck them with what is delivered and ask yourself if what you said about him holds any value. Oh I forgot the hyperloop test track they made which basically delivered nothing and was scrapped at the starbase facility.
We all do. Just no one notices us :-)
Boeing's reputation is as poor as NASA's. There's not enough money in the world to put me in that capsule!
And nobody's asking you either! 😅😂
Sad isn't it?
Great topic for this lesson. Orion has a crucial role to play in Artemis. Agreed on the heat shield, though we figured this out in the Apollo era. Thanks Doc
You are most welcome and thanks for your feedback.
Right On Great Video
Thank you!
I think that one of Boeing's problems arise from its diversity-inclusion-equity policies, in which a form of "social justice" is prioritized above merit/competence. There's a sarcastic spoof-ad showing two overweight, bushy-haired black women, one holding a wrench, both wearing airplane mechanic dress, and having the caption: "planes and shit." Despite the sarcasm, there might be a valid point here.
You might recall an open letter by someone calling herself La'an Noonien-Singh (after a Star Trek character) on why she resigned from Boeing after being wrongly accused of racism and sabotage. She had gone to her management in order to report an act of data-sabotage by her recently hired black supervisor, but the executives to whom she reported were among those enamored with DIE policies. They dubbed her with the guilt for the sabotage she reported, and they praised to the skies one of the black workers who did not have (despite initial appearances to the contrary) the educational background required for doing his share of the work.
Boeing fired three top-notch aerodynamicist engineers in order to keep two incompetent black workers - one of them a middle manager and a data saboteur, the other an incompetent hireling with (almost) empty educational credentials.
Could you investigate this further and reveal what you find in a future video?
Total nonsense post. Stop listening to Donald Trump or Twitter incels for aerospace news. Boeing has a clear record to explain their ongoing failures, it has been elaborately explained by industry insiders and Boeing employees, and it has everything to do with maximizing profit by minimizing quality and taking shortcuts. Blaming the decades-long demise of an industry leading juggernaut on the hiring of black employees *shock!* *the horror!* is about the smoothest a brain could be.
"For us, we define an inclusive and diverse workplace as the following:
Inclusive: Every voice needs to be valued and heard in an inclusive workplace. We surround ourselves with people from diverse backgrounds to learn from each other’s knowledge and experiences, and to foster open-based collaboration.
Diverse: For us, diversity speaks to both the visible factors that describe an individual in terms of gender, age and race; as well as the invisible factors such as background, personality, experience, ethnicity and sexual orientation.
There is no question that an inclusive and diverse workforce drives innovation. It also makes us stronger as a team. Today, our workforce unites people from 140 nations, and more than 20 languages are spoken across our sites worldwide.
Aerospace is historically a male-dominated industry. We are committed to changing that. We welcome people from all backgrounds and strive to increase representation from traditionally underrepresented groups."
Is this the dreaded DEI philosophy of inclusive diversity which has killed poor Boeing??? Oh, no. This is from AIRBUS, the current leader in commercial aviation. This is why ignorance and racism always go hand-in-hand with stupidity. Black and brown employees destroyed Boeing, but caused massive success and a legacy of quality at Airbus? Stick to truth social. Terran Space Academy isn't going to make a video about right wing racist conspiracy theories, for you ask that is so ridiculous😂😂
Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is not only invalid but racist. If you see a black pilot or mechanic you can be sure they were twice as good as anyone else to even get a chance. There are tons of well qualified military men and women of color who never get those nice civilian offers when they leave service.
@@terranspaceacademy We certainly disagree on how good a black pilot (or airplane mechanic) had to be in order to get his or her job. You believe that he/she must have better skills than a white person because of racism. To the contrary, I believe that such black employees are held to a lesser standard because Affirmative Action and/or DEI policies. They aren't "twice as good." They might not even be half as good.
There is a distribution of ability for any skill in each race. Any race can produce a competent engineer or a skilled surgeon. But they probably won't produce them in equal proportions relative to their population sizes. What AA/DEI is all about is forcing the hiring ratios to be commensurate with the demographic ratios, and in order to achieve that, the standards are LOWERED for certain races.
Not raised.
I think that's what is behind much of the rise in delays and cost over-runs and mishaps in the aerospace industry these days. I think that wokeness has become such a religion in America that its taboos on looking for the truth in the right places will result in a lot of looking for the cause of problems in the wrong places, in misidentifications of the causes, and as a result the problems will continue on and on and on...
@@Jenab7 The entire concept of "race" is scientifically stupid. There is more genetic variation in sub-Saharan Africa than the entire rest of the world combined. They could just as well say the rest of us are inbred. The argument that different ethnic groups have different innate intellectual skills is also dis-proven over and over, but never let it be said that those who consider themselves members of the "master race" are amenable to reason. The opposite of woke is brain dead. Try being in the middle with evidence based science. You'll give up your racism.
@@terranspaceacademy There is indeed a great deal of variation among the human groups in Africa; so much so that it would make sense to recognize several dark-skinned races, rather than one only.
Race is subspecies, not species. You don't need differences so wide as those of species in order to engage reasonably in racial categorization. And there are many differences to be found; it isn't skin color only. There are differences in dentition and of skull shape, and of body proportions that are sufficient to enable someone with anthropological experience to tell which race a long-dead skeleton, or jawbone, the deceased person belonged to.
There are differences in hormone secretions. There are differences in nutritional requirements. And there are, also, measurable differences in brain size and in average intelligence. If you think that all mental differences are the result of environmental factors, then you ought to have a look at the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies.
These differences, and others, are sufficient to make racial categorization reasonable. It isn't "stupid." When you said that the amount of racial variation among African groups dwarfs that of the rest of the world, and concluded therefrom that race doesn't exist, you're metaphorically looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope.
White people are, arguably, a single race, as the variation among European ethnic groups has a typical Fst genetic distance of about 0.005. African groups differ with each other much more than that, and they also differ with European groups typically by a genetic distance of 0.1 to 0.2, twenty to forty times more than the typical intra-European variation.
I hope that my disagreement with you on this subject has not provoked you to anger. Some people are ideologically committed to the politically correct, but factually wrong, idea that race does not exist. It does.
You're rather good when the subject under consideration is how to make a rocket fly into orbit, or which change-of-velocity vector will set you on the proper transfer orbit. On that subject, you appreciate that reality doesn't care about your feelings. But on the subject of race, of racial differences, and the social importance thereof, you don't seem to have quite the same commitment to objectivity.
I don't think that I've insinuated that the white race is (or ought to be) the "master race." I don't want my race to enslave any other race. (There might be a group in the world somewhere that does have that aim, but it isn't any group of white gentiles.)
However, consider that the white race might be, in some ways, more able to achieve important goals, as compared with some of the other races. After all, the generation of electricity on an industrial scale was our doing. We are the first race to land people on the moon and to visit every planet of the solar system robotically. We are the only race with five probes in interstellar space, three of which are still working.
Now, certain groups of Asians - who are the other highly intelligent race of our species - are making strides in catching up with us, but they still have a long way to go.
But no group of blacks, certainly no group of African blacks, has ever so much as launched anything into orbit. It has never happened. Although some African countries have legal ownership of Earth orbiting satellites, they didn't do the launching themselves. The African press has, over the years, tried to insinuate the false idea to their readers that black Africans have launched satellites, but that is a politically motivated deception.
There have been launches from African soil, but it wasn't the Africans doing it. For example, the Luigi-Broglio spaceport in Kenya is a project of the Italian government, carried out on land leased from the government of Kenya for 30 million shillings per year.
A similar thing is true of certain launches to orbit from Algeria, except in that case it was the French (not the Algerians) who were carrying out the launching.
Evidence does support the idea that the races are physically different and are differently abled. Some abilities may be more important to the creating and functioning of technically advanced societies (which alone can carry out rocketry and the exploration of space) than other abilities are. Ergo, some races are just better at doing civilization than other races are.
Do we really need Astronauts to Orbit? Why not
Robots instead? 3 or more yrs the Bots might be
better than Human.
You are greatly overestimating how fast robots are developing. This is real life after all not a movie. And humans will always be needed to do in space what robots won't be able to for probably decades. And besides there are a lot of people who want to go to space because for them it's one of the great adventures of a lifetime.
I never understood why some people are so critical of human space flight when the reasons are considered.
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 😅😅😅
@@QuiLe-qw5jb I know, I should have been a comedian?!
That would have been a great option for the Moon decades ago but we don't have time to bring them up to speed. The competition is not waiting.
Great video as always!
Thank you Johnny!
Dreamchaser has yet to fly to space and reenter for the first time ever. It would be a miracle if it did so with absolutely no surprises or malfunctions manifested in the process. Glitches are normal on a maiden flight, especially to space and back - because space is hard.
The key is to fly early and often (sans crew, of course), steadily derisking and demystifying the actual flight regime(s). Many casual observers rip on SpaceX's frequently exploding Starship prototypes, but through those hands-on failures SpaceX is shortcutting what would otherwise be years upon years of additional elaborate simulations and ground tests that still can't and don't fully represent actual flight conditions, to a point where major technical surprises are still possible during a much-delayed maiden flight - just like what happened with Orion, leading to further multi-year delays, spiraling costs, and ongoing apprehension about any remaining, lurking, unaddressed failure modes.
Maybe so, but in the end Spacex will also have spent years and years developing Starship. Because space is hard. There is no magic bullet.
Good point but we need more competition... Not enabling failure. When Boeing took $700M for a spaceplane and made nothing that would have been the end for me.
Can’t understand this - so much poverty in the world and all this money spent on space crap. Ridiculous
If you are not aware for every $1 spent on space and space related technologies, we see a return of $7.50 here in the ground through related/spin-off technologies.
While it may seem like we spend a lot of money on space, in the grand scheme of things, that money is really a drop in the bucket. NASA only receives .3% of the US Budget.
I do agree that we need to be doing more to help people but I would argue that spending money on space does help people in need on Earth. We spend a lot of money on other things that don't directly help people in need.
I am not sure if anything I can say will change your mind but a quick search on the search-engine of your choice will glean more insight for you.
Have a great rest of your weekend!
Far more is spent on weapons that utterly ensure your destruction. Get your priorities in order.
@@JohnnyWednesday I could not agree more! The military loses more money that it can't account for in a year than NASA receives for its entire budget.
I would prefer to explore space rather than finance armed conflict around the world. NASA receives less than 0.5% of Americas budget and returns that tenfold to the economy. We can hardly not afford to advance science at these prices.
Space is why we can feed everyone right now.
Nope. Only the Starship variant Moonship can take us there once it has proven it can fly after the testing phase is over.
Lunar return will really stress that ship...
@@terranspaceacademy So far the tests have been above expectation as far as the Ship goes. Before building the Lunar Starship variant, the Starship/Super Heavy will need to be a proven vehicle like Falcon 9