A Closer Look At Starliner's Return To Earth

[@raynubisradar6948]

The 2 Boeing representatives, first saying they will attend the post landing conference, and then last minute not showing up, just plainly explains how chicken sh!t Boeing is. They could not even face the music of a press conference and answer tough questions from the press. What a disgrace.

[@hawkdsl]

In the old days maybe... but in this era of memes and uber biased media, silence might be the correct move.

[@stevenr8606]

WRONG‼️ They are chicken 💩. ⬅️ PERIOD​@@hawkdsl

[@lexmarks567]

@@geocam2 Boeing can't even keep the doors from falling off there airplanes and have had whistleblowers murdered. Why should we trust them.

[@gguerra375]

The tough questions should be for Nasa, after a brilliant performance for Starliner. All 27 thrusters worked perfectly like Boeing told them. The Boeing Reps were just going to say We told you so!!

[@desk-kun]

@@gguerra375what about the mono propellent thruster that didn’t work tho?

[@nucleargravy7148]

Boeing "can i continuously have cost overruns, produce shoddy products, and still be your friend and kickback source?" Nasa "sure"

[@stevenr8606]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Follow the money, smells of corruption in the government and Boeing

[@TheMoneypresident]

Fixed price contract genius.

[@uzlonewolf]

@@TheMoneypresident And yet Being has already swindled an extra $287.2 million out of NASA on top of that so-called "fixed" price.

[@Dyson_Cyberdynesystems]

You know. It doesn't really matter if they do. Engineers, Technicians and Support staff get paid who in turn pay a ton of income tax and feed their local communities and economies.. It's not the worst thing the government can spend money on like for instance funding some other sovereign country's war. Or welfare programs that generate little to no tax.

[@Jace-yt2zm]

Boeing’s Starliner performance to date makes it sounds like this once-great company is a startup in the space business. Incredible!

[@hawkdsl]

It's still amazing it's gotten to that.

[@iblard]

In space travel business the startups make rockets explode spectacularly.

[@RS-ls7mm]

The mass exodus of senior engineers and employees due to Boeing's hostility to old people didn't help. Very little knowledge was passed on.

[@FerociousPancake888]

McDonnell-Douglas merger killed Boeing long ago

[@leohorishny9561]

No question true, BUT, as ling as it’s been since the Apollo program, or the Shuttle program, a large percentage of staff IS brand new to space engineering construction; which makes me wonder why the need to scrap Apollo engineering, and not utilize, and build proven technology THEN work on “improvements” and new concepts? Especially given how few experienced rocket engineers are still around.🫤

[@PCMcGee1]

Imagine being paid millions of dollars to run a program for Boeing, and when it comes time to be accountable for your program, you instead hide in a corner.

[@FERGX12]

Thousands of millions

[@Skye-Was-Taken]

Ya mean billions?

[@watchout5508]

If there's no consequences then who cares, I guess...

[@itjustlookslikethis]

Boeing reps did the right thing. Let NASA tell the world there was nothing wrong with the Starliner.

[@gilbert1975nf]

Failure in the doghouse is concern, but a failure in the crew module? Man, that's just terrible.

[@brentboswell1294]

At least they have the thruster to analyze 😂

[@peter65zzfdfh]

I mean it landed fine and had backups for anything that wasn’t perfect. NASA just doesn’t tolerate less than perfection when crew are involved. As it should be.

[@gilbert1975nf]

@@brentboswell1294 yes but its seems to me (correct me if I wrong - which I almost certain) that the rate of failure are higher them Crew Dragon Demo 2.

[@lordgarion514]

@peter65zzfdfh Actually no, it did not have backups for anything that wasn't perfect. It had backed up thrusters. But there was also a glitch in the navigation system, and there was no backup for that, they just got lucky and it started working again.......

[@i-love-space390]

Somehow Aerojet-Rocketdyne has forgotten how to make VALVES.

[@g0ast]

Boeing: "All these issues with our 737 Max and 777X aren't a big deal, it's not rocket science" NASA: "Um..."

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

777X: I’m not much of an issue….. the 737 is…. Starliner: help….

[@MyKharli]

Elon musk on hyperloop actually said its not rocket science , who worries you most ?

[@Starjumper2821]

@@MyKharli Hyperloop was basically a scam to shut down the California high-speed rail and SpaceX actually employs a lot of very competent engineers without Elon really able to mess up too much.

[@homandbackyard008]

I suspect MH370 disappearance maybe , and is a cause to look into.

[@larrybremer4930]

NASA tells Boeing sales: We want you to build us a crewed spaceship to take astronauts to the ISS. Boeing Sales tells it's engineers: NASA wants us to build a crude spaceship to take astronauts to the ISS.

[@spaceskipster4412]

😂

[@nataliescott2261]

Hire someone else to bring them home

[@DoctorMysterio15]

​@@nataliescott2261they should have contacted Uber.

[@chilzone966]

Boeing, when will you plan to save your legacy if not your reputation?

[@hawkdsl]

They got a new guy to fix it, so they are trying.

[@goldgamercommenting2990]

@@hawkdsl For me it’s not just the people The real issue is the service module…. It’s almost the same issues that plagued the service modules on Apollo…. it’s even more noticeable on Apollo 13. I mean it’s a fix…. Right now people are looking at SpaceX and not on everyone else in the space industry…. Which is kinda unfair…

[@rtqii]

@@hawkdsl All the old guys are like "NO"

[@ronakknikam]

​@@goldgamercommenting2990leadership affects everything in every industry having a new CEO is definitely good thing for them he can make sure everything meets the certification and inspection criterias unlike with previous guy

[@hawkdsl]

@@rtqii Ortburg picks the people that get to stay, and how the operation works. Doesn't matter what the other old guys say.

[@lanzer22]

Yup, another thruster malfunction during re-entry. They made the right decision to not put anyone side that experimental craft.

[@operator8014]

Boeing, "they're just people, we'll find some more, what's the big deal?"

[@zotechgaming1095]

Imagine if it experience a full failure. I dont think Nasa could ever trust them again. Not that they should even now.

[@billrudersdorf4187]

And the nav system went off for a bit, too. That sounds at least as serious as thrusters. Also, note that the thruster which failed to perform on reentry was a different type - a simpler one-propellant (ignited by a catalyst screen). No mixing of two components. Caused by a valve that didn’t work - at all! So, Boeing has problems with both types of thrusters and the nav system. SNAFU deluxe!

[@RobertoMaurizzi]

They disabled the safety limits for thruster temperature, if I understood correctly. That's how they got the reentry burn to work. Then the rest happened 🤦‍♂️

[@lanzer22]

@@operator8014 that quote was highly inaccurate. They were referring to the 2 whistle blowers that were assassinated. :)

[@michaelreid2329]

Here's an idea for Boeing. How about you do some cargo runs and wait until all these issues are resolved BEFORE you put people in a "test" environment. I cannot believe that only now you are looking at materials that are compatible with a hyperbolic fuel.

[@notgreg123]

Boeing was rejected for Commercial Resupply Phase 2 due to delays and cost overruns. They can't just simply fly missions to the ISS with whatever they want, NASA is in charge

[@TheBooban]

@@notgreg123what are you are saying. NASA forced them to fly humans before it was ready? Both Boeing and NASA have responsibility in this and both should have refused to fly humans since no flight so far have ever been problem free and thrusters problem was even a known issue.

[@notgreg123]

@@TheBooban that is not at all what I said

[@TheBooban]

@@notgreg123 maybe you meant something else, but that’s the implications of what you wrote.

[@notgreg123]

@@TheBooban I meant that Boeing can't do resupply missions to practice without that NASA contract despite the capsule technically having the ability to do so

[@RossM3838]

Boeing is in no position to gloat. It’s nice that it returned in tact but the serious problems continued.

[@michaelthomas7898]

Minor problems at best. Not landing in the right area or burning up would be a serious problem.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

​@@michaelthomas7898 Perhaps the return flight only involved minor problems, but taking the whole flight into account Starliner clearly failed on a number of issues with multiple RCS thrusters not working plus the helium leaks. Problems serious enough that NASA did not want to risk the crew returning.

[@quesopasso]

Love how they're gloating about potentially life threatening issues being no big deal. I'm glad NASA has current staff that value safety above all else. If this was 2003 the crew would have flown back and problems overlooked until there was a tragedy. At least this way these issues can be repaired and sorted and Starliner can be more reliable. Boeing should be thanking NASA.

[@RossM3838]

@@quesopasso the Apollo one fire is an example of the tragedy that that kind of corner cutting can cause.

[@michaelthomas7898]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Seems I missed the news did it get to the space station? No, it wasn't a great first attempt, but it did the job and they learned more.

[@adammcgregor-d3y]

A few issues? How about Mission Failure?

[@GeoCalifornian]

Make a note: An “issue” is a PROBLEM. A “hiccup” is a PROBLEM. /Politically-corrupt language is a way to hide PROBLEMS.

[@kennethkho7165]

​@@GeoCalifornian they are always political

[@Michael-it6gb]

Well, the austronatus were never in any danger. Had it been a complete mission failure, they would have died for sure.

[@Quakeboy02]

@@Michael-it6gb Would YOU want to drive a car that had all these problems and unknowns? I certainly wouldn't.

[@Michael-it6gb]

@@Quakeboy02 This was a Flight test. I'm not a test pilot.

[@peterwmdavis]

Thanks for quoting Steve Stitch explaining the new problems. In Q&A he also said that for both the crew module thruster and guidance system failures, they were down to the last redundant backup. Multiple safety-critical incidents is…not good.

[@markfisher7962]

"Interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse: "May you live in Interesting times..." 7:29

[@peterfireflylund]

Not actually Chinese.

[@JNJNRobin1337]

​@@peterfireflylundwhere is it from?

[@saleplains]

really rooting for Boeing but an unanticipated failure of a completely unrelated thruster design is unsettling to say the least

[@catsupchutney]

As Scott Galloway said, when a company suffers from a extremely damaging public relations crisis (that is caused by genuine failings), the best response is OVER compensate. It's not to deny the problem exists or play it down. After Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, Boeing should have found replacements for all department chiefs from other aerospace companies that were respected as world class safety and quality leaders. This should have been a clean house event.

[@plainText384]

All the failures in the crew module are a lot less concerning in my mind. They completed a safe pinpoint landing, and all the systems that experienced issues on the capsule (one of the thrusters and the navigation systems) are intact and ready for inspection. I am confident that they will be able to take apart, inspect, test, and find the root cause of failure over the course of the coming year.

[@flybywire5866]

Boeing has decades of experience building spacecraft. They should be a sure bet.

[@flybywire5866]

@@plainText384 How much of this landing was sheer luck? I think it is impossible to have so many failures during the flight and none showed up during the testing before. This doesnt add up.

[@itjustlookslikethis]

I can't wait to hear NASA backpedaling when they find out there's nothing wrong with the Starliner.

[@Hoopaball]

Ghostliner is haunted. At 3:08 was a zombieliner falling, unmanned, with twin navigation system failures, wtf?

[@geezer652]

Boeing is probably NOT the problem. Nobody seems to remember, Boeing fell apart when McDonald-Douglas stuck their wick in!!

[@The-KP]

I appreciate how dispassionate and unbiased @TheSpaceBucket is about all space programs.

[@andrewb2475]

That's because it's an AI Bot and not a human!

[@AllanBrogdon]

As an aircraft technician,I have heard guys talk about Boeing. One said on being laid off, they passed new people rolling their boxes in while they were rolling theirs out.

[@socalvideo1]

Yep. I've seen that happen.

[@cube2fox]

There are speculations that the issues at Boeing were caused by DEI hiring. Is this a plausible hypothesis?

[@rednammoc]

@@cube2fox No, the issues started well before "DEI" was ever a thing. There are speculations that all these DEI comments are being amplified by a co-ordinated political campaign. Is this a plausible hypothesis?

[@Marveryn]

@@rednammoc It depend on a few factors. Are the people they are hiring more and less qualify then the people they are replacing. Dei means that they are hiring on factors that dont mean competence but they check the right boxes. In the case of boeing it could also mean firing you older exp employees in favor of younger graduates that lack the life experiences to be aware of issue not cover in school. Which is common when lack enough old hands to teach up the younger hands. Not working for boeing i cant see either of those thing happen. I can see the thruster issues seem to plague the craft from beginning from software. the valve getting stuck open during testing. In fact i don think i head them having any successful flight where everything was green with the valve. there always seem to be one or two that go unfunctionally. Giving how many thrusters this craft have am not surprise, but when it comes to spacecraft you have to be certain that at some point you will get that green flight otherwise it not space worthy and it is a deathtrap waiting to happen.

[@christophermontoya6178]

Refurbishment more like a complete rebuild

[@phillyphakename1255]

There has never been a reusable space vehicle. Every single launch system requires extensive rebuilds.

[@Shrouded_reaper]

@@phillyphakename1255 Falcon 9 booster turnaround is currently just over 20 days and most of that is waiting for production to spit out a new second stage. I would hardly call that "extensive rebuild". Anyway I look forward to your cope reply and will revisit this comment in a year or two when starship and stoke space are turning around upper stage vehicles in a day or two.

[@phillyphakename1255]

@@Shrouded_reaper you know that they put separately refurbed engines on the F9, right? They ship 'em off to Texas to get rebuilt, and fly different ones from off the shelf. Could a truly reusable vehicle come around? Possibly. Has anyone done it yet? No.

[@christophermontoya6178]

@@phillyphakename1255 No kidding Captain Obvious ….

[@phillyphakename1255]

@@christophermontoya6178 yeah, Mr Reaper proves that my original comment wasn't Captain Obvious.

[@KenNeumeister]

Thank you for the update. Each issue that came up involves technology that by now should be very mature so that even one problem would be remarkable, yet they had numerous different problems.

[@banne8834]

Yes, these are 'small details.' However, as most high performance athletes, CEOs, and highly trained musicians know - it's always in the details. Excellence doesn't come from doing things 'mostly well.' It comes from getting every detail correct so that you don't end up with a set of cascading failures. To do space...you MUST be excellent. Boeing can't currently do that. If I was NASA I would cut their contract.

[@rickk.20]

NASA gives Boeing a "Participation Trophy" and Boeing thinks it won. Pitiful.

[@rockpadstudios]

I didn't know there were some failures on reentry. Boeing "we sell chances"

[@dudermcdudeface3674]

They gotta wear the bunny suits to avoid being contaminated with Fail.

[@billswallow1804]

In their case, Boeing execs should be forced to wear Playboy Bunny suits.

[@TheTitaniumSkull]

Good that it made it back, but the fact they have been over budget and delayed at times coupled with their plane factory having issues I seriously doubt they have a leg to stand on with the public being unsure of Boeing, nasa taking past issues into account have to show themselves as being more safety orientated than the past. Boeing has a very long road ahead of them to regain tax payers trust and customers trust.

[@dutchflats]

How could the RCS be this problematic, we've been using similar systems for two thirds of a century have we not?

[@jshepard152]

Great question for Aerojet Rocketdyne.

[@eyeco2]

Boeing need to get this sorted, but just a point of note, the service module which was having the helium leaks was made by Harris / Rocketdyne. As were the thrusters causing the trouble on Starliner. But as the system integrator the buck stops with Boeing.

[@GeoFry3]

It's like finding a strange bag full of dog poop. Don't study it. Just chuck it into the trash.

[@jolttsp]

When NASA said "crewed flight", Boeing heard "crude flight"

[@peterwmdavis]

5:25 *deadbands. If you let the vehicle’s orientation float around a bit (wide deadbands) rather than keeping it pointed in a precise direction, it could need fewer thruster firings and/or let them cool off in between.

[@parrotraiser6541]

When Boeing were developing the B-29, they ran into enough problems (including a lost prototype when fuel vapours blew off a wing leading edge), that they tried to cancel the contract. The AAF told them "we've already ordered 1400+. Build them." Boeing did.

[@aeromtb2468]

that war time.

[@rearspeaker6364]

whole different ball of wax then.

[@johnpalmer5131]

Little known fact; more B29 aircrew died from mechanical mishaps than hostile action😢

[@GH-oi2jf]

@@johnpalmer5131- By the time the B-29 entered service, Japan's air defenses had been considerably reduced, and the B-29 flew higher than older bombers. The B-17 could fly higher than a B-29, but usually flew lower because it was unpressurized.

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

Remember the B-29 was a very advanced aircraft, and many of it's problems were also associated with it's engines and other parts supplied to Boeing from other companies. No aircraft close to it's size had pressurized crew quarters or automated gunnery for instance. It was a wildly radical aircraft.

[@leokimvideo]

What I don't understand 5 decades ago this sort of mission was a walk in the park, but now it seems almost impossible to pull off. What Happened?

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

Culture change at Boeing, when they merged with McDonald Douglas. It became investor focused / management lead versus the engineering Lead.

[@brumleytown1882]

For some things, perhaps, capitalism sucks.

[@exo_2171]

The standards for crewed flights got higher. Same reason why going to the moon seems more complex alongside the fact that NASA wants to go to stay and establish a base and not just visit for a few days/hours.

[@EPeltzer]

Space was never a walk in the park what are you talking about? Does nobody remember Apollo 1, Apollo 13 and oh yeah Columbia? Apollo 11 even came within a hair of failure on the very moon landing. Those missions experience scores of little failures that would probably cause mission scrub today. They went ahead on hunches and fortunately most of their hunches were correct. Then there are the numerous uncrewed failures like the Hubble lens cock up. It's not a space race anymore so timelines stretch, and NASA itself has also become far more slow, careful and conservative to avoid that kind of risk at all cost. Literally, at all cost.

[@robinwoodbury2563]

@@EPeltzer Exceedingly well put, Sir! Channels like this seem to attract lots of know-it-all arm-chair-rocket-scientists who don't truly believe or understand the axiom "space is hard". You're comment concisely chronicles some of the foibles and failures, some costing lives. There were many successes where we later learned, through more candid revelations, that it wasn't just about quality, ingenuity, bravery and skill, but many times we just plain lucked-out.

[@jolttsp]

Everything went literally perfectly except one thing, and one other thing, and one other thing and one other thing but really, bullseye landing, great work all around. Literally can't ask for better, unless a company with competent processes wants to do it.

[@RichardShelton]

Another clear, concise report. Thank you.

[@oatlord]

Whhhaaa the Boeing execs just didn't show up? Wonder what the real story is as to why they didn't show up.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

Afraid of questions...

[@operator8014]

Cowardice.

[@matttorres1581]

They didn't show up because the Boeing vehicle they were driving used Boeing thrusters.

[@dissaid]

Thanks man!

[@alanmcmillan6969]

Not sending the astronauts back to home, was shown to be the best idea. Time Boeing gave up on space.

[@paranaenselol]

Omg i just returned home and you posted a video!

[@marks7502]

Starliner returned to Earth

[@lanemedcalf9506]

Pretty good report on Starliner! Better than just about anything else I have seen so far on KZbin!

[@nickfaraone3823]

Excellent Update!

[@The1983333]

I agreed with BOEING since the 1 month after being docked after testing many times and they said "we are safe and so confident to be able to bring back 2 astronauts without any problems" ...

[@gregknipe8772]

Thank you. Great format. Stock clips always need renewal…

[@Atomwaffen-y3s]

2 of Boeing's Product Development Engineers are alive today. Unlike the 346 Boeing Product Development Engineers who died on the 737MAX. Because if you ride a Boeing product YOU are the Product Development Engineer!

[@jimh4375]

It is quite clear that there is a prevailing attitude of, "don't worry about it, there is a backup system" throughout Starliner's entire team. (perhaps Boeing in general) I hope the new CEO can fix this but it doesn't look good.

[@johnmcguigan7218]

I was watching the Presidential debate while watching this with closed captioning. Around the halfway mark, the words were about launching "a crude capsule," which got my attention. When I played it back with sound, it was about an eventual "crewed capsule." Looks like closed captioning got it right.

[@Supernaut2000]

I hope they sent a flat deck trailer to pick it up and drop it off at the local landfill.

[@michaelwhitmore7160]

good idea for Boeing to save money to do that

[@ValuedTeamMember]

Thank you for the video! Boeing not attending (again) speaks volumes. I wonder if and when Boeing StarLiner project people change jobs they will include StarLiner on their resumes...

[@i-love-space390]

NASA would be stupid to ditch the Starliner completely after all the investment. Like fighter jets, it takes time to make them reliable. And Sierra Space is 5-7 YEARS away from a MANNED version of Dream Chaser. Look at all the delays they had with their cargo version. I would expect a lot more on a manned vehicle. The SpaceX fanboys somehow forget all the problems SpaceX had in finally getting manned Dragon 2 operational. NASA has much higher reliability requirements for manned vehicles. NASA needs redundancy in manned spaceflight. However, if Sierra Space expedites their manned Dream Chaser and gets it certified for flight in record time, Boeing is going to have a real serious competitor. It will remain to be seen how that future comes out for both companies.

[@FeHu939]

In the middle of the Desert and they put out traffic cones! How DUMB is that.

[@SC-ym5zu]

I love the part where the Starliner team is saying "Let's try this and see if it fixes the problem!". Are they engineers, or just a bunch of trained apes randomly doing stuff?!?

[@harryaudia6]

All I can say is.............Thank god for Space X.

[@marvinmarcos8424]

Space x is way ahead of the game… before this crew program space x has dragon 1 which is a re-supply vehicle they figure it ou already how to get to space station with the exception od docking autonomostly and returning back to earht which at that time the only resupply vehicle that can return back to earth. And by this time they have the experience of launching with the addition of docking autonomost and re-entry and landing without any major problems.

[@rtqii]

This was a brilliant save. The self-destruct mechanism timer was counting down in space... "ping" "ping" "ping" - They knew it was just a matter of time, so they undocked, fired the reentry thrusters, and made a good landing. Once on the ground they rushed the spacecraft, got the hatch open, and shut the timer off with just 007 seconds left. It was a close run thing.

[@JarretXu]

Sounds like you are describing the plot of Moonraker🤣

[@rileychurch1821]

Finally glad to see a space channel that doesn´t do spacex propaganda, very refreshing

[@hawkdsl]

The fandom channels can still have good info, you just have to take the rest with a grain of salt.

[@ellis2888]

Me too i was getting exhausted by these people with the SpaceX rescue shit

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

Hear, hear!

[@mkocel]

@@ellis2888 uh yeah but they are, so....

[@rileychurch1821]

@@ellis2888 fr fr

[@TheChrisDaly]

The next Starliner mission should be restricted to a crew-less re-supply flight. Only IF that flight is completely flawlessly should further crewed missions be considered ...

[@TurryBoeing]

Any test flight (remember that this was a test flight) will have some issues. However, before Starliner 1, I think they should do another test flight with all these things reviewed, but in a different format, something like Apollo 7 or STS-1, where they really tested the spacecraft systems, in the case of Apollo 7 during the lenght of a full mission where you can schedule a lots of tests and also verify that the spacecraft can endure. STS-1 was only three flight days (launch, orbit ops, landing). You can also do a rendezvous on a mission like Apollo 7.

[@Lost-In-Blank]

Time to pull the plug on this turkey. It was the right decision to return without risking the crews life, Starliner had already had so many failure in this test flight that the flight was an overall failure. IF Starliner were to continue, good judgement requires a repeat of this test with a minimal crew to verify that the many changes made to fix its issues have not created new problems. Excellent judgement would require even more caution, using Starliner for a few pure cargo missions before risking any crewed test flights.

[@Duvstep910]

hard to believe this is the company that made the 747 and 777; two of the most successful airliners

[@jshepard152]

That was in the 1960s and 1990s. The country has experienced a general loss of competence since then. We no longer promote based on merit, but on goals and slogans.

[@SM-cg2dc]

By the time they fix it, NASA will de orbit the station…. Oh, SpaceX is doing that too…. I don’t see Boeing making a lot of money from this….

[@itowmyhome797]

How about not spacing in different segments of the spacecraft coming down one with three parachutes then with two parachutes, or do you just use Stock footage and make it up as you go along?

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

You're not making sense.

[@moontravellerjul]

i think what people are missing about boeing's situation of incompetence is that nasa (and politicians, presumably) really want to maintain redundancy for crewed spaceflight capability.

[@tonbopro]

the thumbnail looks beautiful

[@uuzd4s]

From what I'm understanding, this is the second time Boeing has Not made scheduled public hearings w/ NASA since NASA decided that StarLiner should return to Earth unmanned. It seems that Boeing may not be happy w/ NASA's decision to fly Suni & Butch back on a Crew Dragon ! ? ! 🤨

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Hearing?

[@bio-techlarry9602]

Now we know there are even problems with the capsule nav and thrusters as well. Wow. No wonder the engineers didn't want any passengers on the way home.

[@mkocel]

I WANT MY TAX DOLLARS BACK!!! BOEING IS A TAXPAYER WELFARE QUEEN!!!!

[@roncatdog]

NASA has billed Boeing a hefty 1.6 BILLION dollars for the cost 'so far'. They are good stewards of our tax dollars.

[@jshepard152]

@@roncatdog No they certainly are not! Look at the SLS launch tower debacle for proof of that, as well as SLS itself. The Starliner fixed price contract is a NASA outlier. They still waste billions like it's nothing.

[@lerk.]

Not even the monoprop thrusters work reliably, lmaooo

[@grantgrow]

Yes, there is a problem with Boeing. Every exploration since ancient times always had it dangers. From 2 people paddling a canoe, to people in a sailing ship, to people going to the Arctic and Antarctic. Going to space is also dangerous. You have to admire the brave people that do this.

[@DarioushAryan]

great... bravoo

[@jefferi78]

boeing should be at the press conference and answer all the uncomfortable question about their mission failure. if this happen to spaceX, they will lost their contract. to have nasa official to reaffirm boo..eing still want to work with them is really an insult to the organization and its legacy. nasa suppose to cancel the contract and give boeing money to sierra space. let boeing focus on the airplane before return making rockets.

[@AmbientMorality]

No they wouldn't? I don't know why people make up scenarios to get mad about. NASA isn't going to slander their contractors publicly because that looks bad on all parties involved and is horrible for building trust (which means it's then harder to do oversight in the future).

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

@@AmbientMorality The bigger the fool, the more prone they are to making things up as they try and pretend to be smarter than they actually are. Yes, it's cringe and transparent but they don't seem to be able to help themselves.

[@rickcortese2023]

The number of failures and the nature of them is unnerving. You'd think things like thruster over heating would have been noticed somewhere in test firings or in a previous unmaned flight. Oxidized valves and leaky seals? They didn't have a clue before they launched a maned mission? Really! These are bonehead tests that should have been done on the ground! You can't pressurize a helium tank to check for leaks before you bolt it on a spacecraft? The stupidity and failure of their test procedures is beyond appalling!

[@Canoga_Knuckles]

At least they got that door thingy worked out.

[@ronwatkins5775]

Boeing needs to cut losses. If they continue to fix and fly they are going to continue loosing money.

[@ianoffer9132]

Where is the FAA now? SpaceX has a booster fall over, on landing, and the FAA jumps all over them. Boeing has a human space flight failure, and FAA says nothing? What the heck is going on?

[@AmbientMorality]

The Falcon 9 booster landing failure clearly counted as a mishap due to loss of launch vehicle, and Falcon 9 operates under a commercial license. Starliner doesn't even operate with a commercial reentry license (it's only used on NASA contracts), so the FAA has no authority.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

It's clear you have NO idea what the FAA does. What is going on is that you don't bother informing yourself. Stupid and lazy go hand in hand.

[@Famous-Potatoes]

Boeing makes its decision to employ an engineer based on how well they perform playing Kerbal, version 1.0

[@jebediahkerman8245]

That hiring process would actually be an improvement compared to just hiring whoever is the most diverse

[@SeeLasSee]

Boeing has bowed out.

[@bigianh]

Much as everyone wants to Pile on Boeing it should be pointed out most of the problems are in the Service Module which was built by Aerojet Rocketdyne (L3 Harris) I don't get why Boeing are taking all the stick for this.

[@tma2001]

because as others have pointed out, this was a thermal design cockup by Boeing as SI operating the thrusters out of spec of their thermal profile which it took Boeing 2 months to figure out AFTER the launch! As Doug Hurley revealed after visiting Boeing and SpaceX and chatting with their respective engineering teams, he told NASA management he wasn't flying on Starliner. He found the Boeing culture completely disengaged and unreceptive to collaborating with the astronauts on how to improve the design. Says it all really ...

[@jshepard152]

True. But Boeing manages the project. So Aerojet Rocketdyne's mistake is still Boeing's mistake.

[@europhile2658]

Did they say where the Helium was leaking to? Into the crew cabin perhaps?

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

I thought the leak was in the service module.

[@Rationality2day]

If I were an astronaut, I’d have a lot of reservations about getting on the upcoming launch.

[@wrxsti1987]

LOVE YOUR VIDEOS! ONLY SPACE JUST LIKE RAWWWWW

[@LinKongDa]

Considering the cost of the project. The hardware probably been inspected at least 15 times before and after installation. Now the software. Probably only 2 persons ever went through the codes. Not to say the codes are wrong. 1 question Who is checking the calibration parameters numbers for the thrusters? Especially the PID numbers for each thruster. It is very easy to unknowingly switch the P with the D. Outside the Calibration facilities. NOBODY will know if the numbers have been switched until it is too late. Honestly. if THIS is the case. the problem will end up Unresolved. Because admitting this is beyond embarrassing.

[@benjaminv.5662]

The shuttle was a better option, imagine if they upgraded the systems. This rocket Idea needs to be shelved, the shuttle rarely failed only two total losses. The changes need to return to what worked.

[@fraginz]

Something is really very very wrong happening inside boeing. It just has a never-ending quality issues that affects everything boeing, from commercial jets to now a spacecraft. I wonder if we would see another problems come out on the new F-15 and/or other defense projects.

[@christopherfriedberg6597]

Still no data released on the interior environment and atmosphere inside the module. Did it get "sniffed" for any contaminates that would have deen detrimental to the crew ?

[@AmbientMorality]

I expect it was fine. Stich said the sublimator performed well (because it was using a bit more water than expected on ascent) and Starliner has never had significant life support system issues, so there's no reason to expect a problem.

[@ArmstrongandTumbler]

And yet, the FAA won't ground Boeing's crafts, but ground SpaceX's every single time!

[@PetesGuide]

Which crew module thruster failed to fire?

[@TheOneAndOnlyRalph]

Boeing has turned into Corvair - Unsafe at Any Speed - Death Traps!!!

[@montanausa329]

Why didn’t they leave it attached and rent it out as a bnb?😊

[@zemlidrakona2915]

Just replace "crewed" with "crude" .... crude mission, crude landing and so forth.

[@israelitenet]

Mr. Spock, thanks for narrating.

[@MaxSterling01]

Boeing owes the taxpayers 4.5 billion dollars.

[@AmbientMorality]

NASA hasn't paid them that. It's paid for milestones completed and they haven't completed everything related to this contract or even close. Also, they have actually completed milestones so they do get some of the money.

[@roncatdog]

I read today that NASA has already send them a bill for 1.6 billion. I don't believe it will be the last one.

[@Doomsdaybandit]

Are those the green scorpions?

[@memberHD]

Starliner needs to be scrapped? ISS is being scrapped, which will make starliner pointless anyway

[@briangman3]

Simpler engineering helps, seems like they used lots of modules from different suppliers. This would work if it was flight tested a lot but that can’t happen do to cost of flights. Their design philosophy is to blame!

[@rcbronco7830]

I cant believe boeing has those problems. Is 1960's tech better tech than today?

[@fredmapes8414]

If this was Space X, they would be out. Too much Congaree push to drop Boing.

[@dnxtbillgates]

Maybe Boeing will swap out the RCS thrusters for ones that are actually engineered for their job

[@crandonborth]

Thank god for Elon and SpaceX

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Remove Boeing from all We The People’s contracts.

[@homandbackyard008]

Musk would definitely like that. Best is get that company sold and Boeing has no involvement.

[@garystrankman3841]

Why is Boeing hiding from the press conferences??