Boeing Unveils America's First Space Taxi, Unlocks Possibilities for Future

[@nunyabusiness7630]

If you take into account how long SpaceX has been around compared to Boeing, SpaceX is and will continue to be leaps and bounds ahead of Boeing in the aerospace industry. Ellon and his crews are fantastic at what they do.

[@stryking12]

Competition is good, i hope Boeing and SpaceX crew transport vehicles become successful. Also calling this the first Space taxi isn't really correct seeing as how Dragon V2 was already relieved.

[@lifeonenceladus4420]

I love you Boeing! You do so much for all of us and your company makes me proud to be American. You do so much for the betterment of our society . Keep up the good work .

[@aerospacenews]

I think Elon Musk and SpaceX might take issue with the claim in the title that CST-100 is (will be) America's first space taxi (perhaps the Shuttle program team would disagree too), but I wish Boeing every success and top speed in bringing this system to life. I don't care about international politics (issues with the Russian relationship). I just want to see more, regular, routine and safe space flight from the people of planet earth. It is about time!

[@nothingtoseehere449]

Space über

[@thedarkcorrupter]

I find it interesting they unveil this craft after Space X unveiled theirs, at least with competition both companies have a product that benefits us all. Both in terms of safety and technology.

[@shotaroinagaki]

Going back to the basics, but still making it better! Good job Boeing!

[@imacanism01]

Yay!!! Let's clap for Boeing bringing space flight back 70 years!

[@Nicoder6884]

What?

[@SpaceLaunchLabs]

While I'm a fan of SpaceX, I think this competition is fantastic. Go for it Boeing! Show the world that you can still be relevant, and in the process reduce the price for access to space.

[@JesseLeeHumphry]

COULD be on someone's bucket list? Hell, it's already on mine!

[@themini_b]

This makes me happy to see one of America's biggest and most successful aerospace companies decide to take a step beyond just building things for NASA and actually join the private space industry.

[@Tangential101]

My question is this: What does this "space taxi" offer that is not provided already with SpaceX's Dragon space capsule (which is researching the capability to land on the continent instead of in the ocean) or the small spaceplane that another of your competitors offers (that lands on a runway)? How is your technology superior to that of your competitors, given the capacities that your competitors are offering?

[@bryanttillman]

Rob Speed as well as the safety of redundancy.

[@AlexFoeShizzle]

9

[@wasmic5z]

The CST-100 will land on dry land by using airbags and parachutes. So it'll be pretty much equivalent to the Dragon V2 (except that the heatshield won't be reusable on the CST-100). That is, if Boeing plans on launching their spacecraft on a reusable rocket. If not, it'll be much more expensive.

[@chadbhowell]

Alex Brown So they are behind SpaceX on progress to flight, cost and efficiency then...

[@KingKorihorMinecraft]

In fairness to Boeing, they started the development of the CST-100 about the same time as SpaceX started work on the Dragon. It is a fair question to argue competitive advantages of using a particular product (like comparing a Ford to a Dodge) but I think it is awesome that both SpaceX & Boeing are making spacecraft like these. I've been looking forward to seeing both spacecraft flying for years already. I think it is interesting that Boeing is looking strongly at reuse of this spacecraft as well, noting that its heat shield can be replaced after each flight and all of the engineering and electronics can be used on another flight. That is a good thing and the proper direction that spacecraft builders need to go if space is going to become even remotely affordable for ordinary folks to go into space.

[@MrAllrounder77]

SpaceX, is this your competition?

[@n6hpx]

still reminds me of another apollo capsule except its larger and more electronics...will it be used for the moon like the other...

[@TimothyMoore]

So, when systems crash all those multi function touch displays are rendered useless right? I hope there's multiple fail over instances running in the background.

[@Donald10022]

Then they're going to use sextant, compass and dip their fingers into the fuel tank :)

[@ScottHost]

Even it was old switches and the "system failed" it would not work

[@TimothyMoore]

Tell that to the crew of Apollo 13 nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html

[@meckhardt2112]

The space shuttle had everything go through the computer. Even when you were flying it manually, it could not fly without the computer running. They have everything important as analog switches for if the screens fail but they probably won't work in a total systems crash either.

[@DavidHager1]

They know better than to have a system that would fail easily and not have a backup. You talking about huge amount of engineers not some dumb people who decided to make a spaceship.

[@KamalRanasinghePHD]

Proud to be a part of MDS era in 1988.

[@BeatsbyDreLasVegas]

Amazing. Can't wait to see this in action!

[@georgehsiao2791]

hahaha

[@omahabullock3518]

I'd like to know what happens to the booster? Does it float around in space to eventually come back down to earth (not knowing were) Or float around with all the rest of the space junk?

[@1TW1-m5i]

It's a lovely looking spacecraft interior. It would be awesome to fly in one.

[@johnathanbryan5053]

if you have touch screen controls what happens when something goes wrong and it get broken I think they should stick with the normal buttons dials and switch I think there much more reliable

[@augustohermosa9076]

You're right, boeing has been around for 50 years. Yet Spacex, which is in its infancy, has come up with the Dragon and beats this many times over. + to spacex.

[@525Lines]

Is there a fuel savings between the space taxi/cargo flights versus the shuttle? The rocket carrying the taxi looks tiny in comparison.

[@14supersonic]

Commercial space flight is happening!

[@devwreck192]

SpaceX > Boeing

[@CookiePepper]

Don't compare.

[@Patchuchan]

Both Spacex's Dragon V2 and SNC's Dream Chaser are much more capable vehicles.

[@mosheg.8764]

Patchuchan If the CST-100 weren't demonstrably viable, then it wouldn't have been selected for CCDev2. While the Dragon v2 and the Dream Chaser are cooler, this has the advantage of multiple launch vehicles AND a reliable design. I personally think the people at NASA know what they're doing.

[@Patchuchan]

Norr Stjarna I never said the CST-100 was not viable in fact from a technical standpoint it is the least risky design but that also is partly why it's does much less for the money then Dragon v2 and Dream Chaser. Though DC is a more complex design SNC was already in the metal bending phase as the drop test article is a prototype like how Enterprise was a prototype of the Shuttle. It's much closer to the flight vehicle then it is a boiler plate mockup.

[@mosheg.8764]

All the CCDev2 vehicles are only meant for LEO. As far as I can tell, they're all equally capable; NASA just doesn't want one company to have a monopoly on private American spaceflight so they chose multiple vehicles. If you want a more capable vehicle, you'll have to find the Orion or the PPTV. And they're both government vehicles; one from NASA and one from RKA. As for the Dream Chaser, I honestly can't see much of an advantage to it being a lifting body. In fact, that probably just makes it more complex and accordingly less reliable.

[@ChrisAstro]

Exciting! Can't wait for the first launch!

[@Infidel7153]

Dusting off the Apollo program is Boeings vision for the future ?

[@arthurhamilton5222]

Yes it is. It's also their way to hog all the gov money to keep innovation out of the manned spacecraft business & keep us tied down to earth for 50 more years. If Boeing is chosen as the only provider, you can kiss CST-100 good-by after ISS is gone. They won't be able to close their business case commercially.

[@jawoody9745]

Freaking awesome! You have to wonder how our Apollo astronauts had to deal with such cramped cabins, huge instrument panels and very little windows, on computers at powers of a calculator. (Not to mention Gemini and Mercury before).

[@lbermude]

720p seriously? what is this? 2005?

[@verbalhex8001]

I know what you mean, not many 4k videos. Sad, always love watching those. So high-def.

[@gmodrules123456789]

First world problems

[@g.8269]

all i want is to experience zero g

[@AllYouCanWatchChannel]

There's a program where you pay $3000 and you get to be inside a Boeing aircraft doing different forms of gravity. Includ no zero g

[@AllYouCanWatchChannel]

+TheAllYouCan Watch Channel I mean including zero gravity

[@g.8269]

+TheAllYouCan Watch Channel yeah cause i just happend to have 3000 dollars in my pocket xD

[@doofmaczemy]

+Andrew Hernandez Ever heard of skydiving? Duhhh.

[@purpleey]

+A. Mc that's not even close to experiencing something like zero g

[@AtliTobiasson]

Go Boeing, Airbus & NASA!! :D

[@MrCommanderhunt]

Good job Boeing going from commercial jets to commercial space craft big step up in my opinion!

[@timhorton7399]

I love this...the capsule looks so cool and a way better way to get cargo to the Space Station by splitting the cargo and people up. I am very Impressed...now make it so!

[@JasonHollowayTheJason]

What a snow job! I am hearing the same promises that were given when the Space Shuttle was being sold to the public. If anyone else remembers the shuttle was supposed to open space travel to civilian tourists. Well that did not happen. Now we are being told that this new vehicle is going to open it up in the next 20 years! Sounds like we are be sold a bill of goods here.

[@01surajpatel]

WOW..... GOOD JOB BOEING AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.....................

[@ramaroodle]

I thought we were long past the "we never landed on the moon" crap. But people still believe that Elvis and Tupac are still alive. Meh!

[@angel14237s]

Did anyone else think that the first 35 seconds sounded like a nonchalant rap song?

[@vikasjsheth]

The world is round after all! We started with a capsule, and we're going back to one!

[@fractalkaleidoscope6003]

Working at Boeing would be cool. Sigh, we all can't be astronauts, yet.

[@XxTrUsTnOnE04xX]

A field trip into space that sounds amazing.

[@jsteidel0]

This reminds me of "Islands in the Sky" by Arthur C. Clarke. one of the treasures in a series published by J.C. Winston that was in my elementary school's library.

[@zeewala1883]

Awesome! - I would love to be the first to execute this project =)

[@AustralianLeprechaun]

It only takes 8 minute to go to space, it takes me longer to drive for beer!

[@williamrapp8046]

For someone who first viewed possible plan proposals for "maned" space flight in Collier's Magazine during my junior high school years, this is an astonishing leap forward to make space light possible for if not my children, certainly for my grandchildren as touring passengers. How far we have come from the Wright's flights! As I have often heard in trades people commentary, "Boeing is Going!" NICE WORK! Looks to be a winner!

[@warren010h]

God I'd love to go one day!!

[@mikeholloway6302]

just the space hose one inch in diameter makes it possible to construct city size environments in orbit.

[@pursueadventure]

It's on my bucket list already.

[@jessicamorrison7518]

When SpaceX is landing their rocket first stage in full HD, and then their Dragon V2 is doing a powered landing, then these obsolete technologies from Boeing will just look silly. SpaceX is about 5 years ahead of Boeing in technology at this point.

[@theeltea]

Full HD doesn't land or launch the spacecraft, you know.

[@Theslenderblox1]

If this is made for commercial use as if a regular schmoes like me can go into space that would be amazing.

[@ethanwmonster9075]

I love Strong Reactions From 13 year olds

[@Theslenderblox1]

Your Average videowatcher [Skeptic Commenter] What's the atmospheric structure of Saturn?

[@ethanwmonster9075]

75% hydrogen and 25% helium also it has winds of up to 1800/km at the planets equator and the farther you get into saturn the more dense it is below the troposphere of saturn things get very werid clouds are made of ammonium hydrosulphide there it is werido.

[@ethanwmonster9075]

here it is in picture form www.google.com/search?q=atmospheric+structure+of+saturn&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Eo4yVdCqEIekNsuUgZAM&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=799#imgrc=22FljJtCcNJUfM%253A%3B755xzFrg06AWEM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fzebu.uoregon.edu%252F~imamura%252F121%252Fimages%252Fsaturn_atmosphere.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fzebu.uoregon.edu%252F~imamura%252F121%252Flecture-13%252Fjupiter_atmosphere.html%3B600%3B400 sorry if its too long

[@Theslenderblox1]

Your Average videowatcher [Skeptic Commenter] So you don't know it. . . You Googled it. . . Smart.

[@MonteroJCs]

Say what you want but spaceplanes like the shuttle felt like the future and come back to use capsules feels like the past. And you call it space taxi when you could call it spaceship, which it is much cooler.

[@Kirkmaximus]

True. Boiengs capsule does feel like a step back in our space technology. Also, who in their right mind would pay for a trip in a flying (and failing) coffin? I'm glad other companies are smart enough to make roomier and more technology advanced spaceplanes.

[@impguardwarhamer]

The shuttle was only good because it didn't have to be replaced for each launch. Otherwise, it was not much better than a traditional rocket, and often less safe. A true SSTO (Single Stage To Orbit) spaceplane would obviously be much more effective, but currently no-one has built one.

[@Kirkmaximus]

+Impwarhamer you should do some research before you post. The space shuttle was the crowning achievement for mankind for multiple reasons other than being reusable. Though a "true" SSTO spaceplane does not exist as of now (the amount of thrust necessary would be too great) Virgin Galactic has been very close to achieve this and is the most advanced model to date (2014). www.virgingalactic.com/overview/spaceships/

[@impguardwarhamer]

Merc Kirkmaximus Yes I know the shuttle was useful for other things than just 'being efficient', but i was just pointing out the advantages of a more traditional rocket.

[@k1productions87]

The Space Shuttle, I'm sorry to say, failed on its promise. Its primary focus was to be a reusable craft to save on cost of building a new one each time. BUT, they didn't realize until after flying them, it cost more in manpower, equipment, and even cost to refurbish them after each flight than it would have to build a new one fresh. And even then, it was considerably less safe than the spacecraft previous. there was no launch abort capability. No escape options once the engines ignite. Hell, once the SRBs fire, you're stuck with them until they run out of fuel, or explode. Remember Challenger? There was NOTHING wrong with the spacecraft, it was the un-throttlable, uncontrollable, inescapable malfunctioning SRB rocket that spelled its demise. And lets not also forget that there were several safety features designed into the shuttle, including a seperatable crew cabin, ejection seats, inflatable escape pods, and parachutes.... and every single one of them was cut, because of budget constraints. ... MONEY taking precedent over Human lives..... You say returning to a capsule design is a step backward? I say the Space Shuttle was a step backward. And all it really was, was a giant space freight truck.

[@FutureMartian97]

SpaceX's Dragon V2 is better

[@ThePostal67]

A-Town 92501 No, BOEING has had too much of the pie already. Werner had 1/1000 of the people and money and made exactly what they use today.. It is still a sausage that blows up if every screw is not tight. One launch vehicle, when so many could be designed and built with private money. Orville and Wilbur are probably laughing at how long it takes to complete a vehicle.

[@chrishamilton885]

Fosters home for imaginary friends

[@mohamedhabib9308]

play

[@mohamedhabib9308]

playl

[@mohamedhabib9308]

playl

[@JandCanO]

Anyone have any estimates of how much money a trip on this vehicle would take?

[@ThePostal67]

Safer, yes, cheaper no. Two launch vehicles cost twice as much. Recovery of equipment might be better idea. Something other than mixing concoctions of fuel might be that GIANT step that really is needed.. Nuclear Ion propulsion comes to mind, Maglev tower for initial liftoff. Instead of tons burnt in the first two hundred feet to overcome weight and gravity pull.... I dream to much, but that is what go us there in the first place.

[@MonkeyKong21]

spacex will be operating a space taxi service before boeing. spacex's capsule can land anywhere using rockets instead of splashing down. spacex is developing rocket stages that can land themselves and be reused. spacex provides better launch service than boeing at lower cost than boeing. spacex works hard to move the aerospace industry forward while boeing would be happy just making subsonic passenger planes for the next 100 years

[@trendgil]

Trueeeee

[@arthurhamilton5222]

Boeing should just build their spacecraft & sell it off to private companies. Just like their airplanes. They should flood the market with hundreds of CST-100's. That will bring down the cost of access to space.

[@jackdets7450]

MonkeyKong But what about reliable? What if one of the thrusters on the Dragon V2 fails? New technology does not always equal good technology.

[@MonkeyKong21]

Jack Dets The thrusters are in redundant pairs, and it can probably still set down safely on land with backup parachute+some thrusters, but it would be more awkward. Another concern is probably the computer and sensors that are controlling the landing, but I think that these systems are already fairly reliable. The most recent mars rover landed automatically with retrorockets, and maybe that's part of spacex's thinking; you can't splash down or use parachutes in many places in the solar system so this technology needs to be extremely reliable at some point

[@fearghuis]

Go for it Chris - it's time you got back to the Space Station

[@hectorcaban6225]

I have question, does the capsule come to earth empty.

[@bwalko5674]

this looks really cool but it seems super complicated, but it is beyond words how neat it seems.

[@alanhahn5162]

after 20 years of commerecial use of Boeing,---its the only way/company i,d go into space with

[@danielhooglandt1620]

what does he exactly say at 2:17?

[@armadillotoe]

It would be great if America could put it's own astronauts into space again. Can you remember when we had that capability? This looks good, but I doubt it will be in the next "few years"

[@IanAtkinson555]

Boeing Unveils America's First Space Taxi, Unlocks Possibilities for Future.

[@leeryder676]

Pretty Sweet stuff. Can't wait for the future!

[@gollycondas]

Right next to the sign that says "7 Passengers", just for comic relief I want a "No Smoking" sign. Just for fun of course. KDM

[@cristinayapura7118]

BOEING

[@fedonia5610]

The reentry video was from the Orion spacecraft

[@WayneHermanRuth]

Good work Boeing. I knew both your company and our President working on something like this. I Just knew IT.

[@chancellortjarks3476]

If seven is the max capacity shouldn't the capacity be in actuality six? Just saying.

[@wasmic5z]

Why? Every spacecraft to date has flown with max crew. The Apollo had room for 3 and flew with 3. Gemini had room for 2 and flew with 2. Soyuz has room for 3 and flies with three. The Shuttle had room for 7 and flew with 7. Mercury had room for 1 and flew with 1 (duh.) And CST-100 and Dragon V2 will have room for 7 and will fly with 7.

[@andrewgoetsch1336]

The ISS is only six people now because that's all two Soyuz can handle. They need the new craft to carry seven so they can add the seventh member to the crew. They'd like to be able to evacuate everybody without having to rely on the Soyuz capsules.

[@chancellortjarks3476]

The reason why I said that is comfort. A person that pays all that money wants to be comfortable.

[@wasmic5z]

Herbert Grean If you want to use only 6 seats, you'll end up paying16 % more money for a seat. That's why they cram as many people as they can in (without compromising safety, of course).

[@DevilFrog61]

What do space stations do about all the debris in space?

[@mikeholloway6302]

On laying up an a ship the size of a small city in space; step one... make and blow up a city size ballon in orbit. then resin it in with fiberglass resin. Its all basic sailboat construction technique.

[@nunyabusiness7630]

***** there is nothing basic about any of this.

[@lozii9016]

How do u sign up ?

[@Donald10022]

I'm one of them who put this flight into his/her bucket list.

[@LewisAir1]

Awesome!

[@graysonkane3602]

Anyone else think it sounds he's rapping the first two lines at the very beginning...

[@lerox22]

so how much would it cost?

[@azorian888]

Too much

[@bohij3030]

music?

[@theragingcreeper9040]

How much would it cost to rude in this taxi?

[@theragingcreeper9040]

ride*

[@DandSCreations]

A space "capsule" you don't say? How revolutionary! lol

[@arthurhamilton5222]

Boeing reinvented the Apollo crew vehicle circa skylab. Just an updated version. This vehicle plus Atlas V is going to cost NASA at least $240 million just to launch to ISS. If Orbital Sciences Cygnus costs NASA $233.5 million/launch/mission, Boeing already figured out how much to fleece that much & more from NASA. This video mostly show cases the capabilities of the Space Shuttle. CST-100 is more claustrophobic than Dragon V2 & emphasizing blue sky lighting isn't going to change the claustrophobic feeling that the space travelers are going to feel.

[@calthmlikiseethm704]

It does make you stupid to question know facts that are based on insurmountable evidence.. Including just looking into the sky and seeing with your eyes the space station...

[@ivesphillips2994]

Thanks

[@genxlife]

I thought NASA decided to make a shuttle that combines payload and personnel because of budgetary limitations. As I understand it, Congress refused to give NASA the money they needed to build a shuttle that only carried people along with a heavy launch vehicle for things like space station components.

[@pdoylemi]

Going to space has been on my "bucket list" since 1968. Sadly, we are a short sighted species, and we did not give this type of research the priority it deserves, so that dream, that I thought was very likely to come true in the 60s, is probably not going to happen in my lifetime.

[@MatthewLuigamma032]

Amazing.

[@Pottery4Life]

7 Person Max Capacity Sticker -- Just in case there is some confusion on the launch pad.

[@dopeGhost777]

good work

[@marshallscholz8629]

This just looks like a copy of the spacex dragonv2. and although I like these instrument panels better, spacex has the better PR and outlook

[@MostafaMansoori]

Go Boeing!

[@mrrfunnyguy11]

so when can i go?

[@daveth121864]

What is this music? I love it!

[@jedlynch4820]

This video was preformed on a closed course. No actual footage of the earth was used for this video. These are professional actors. Please. don't try this at home. Thank you for your billions upon billions of mandatory donations.

[@frankynakamoto2308]

WE NEED MORE POWERFUL SATELLITES, THEY NEED TO HAVE MORE TECHNOLOGY, INCLUDING THE CAPACITY OF TELETRANSPORTING MATERIALS, I NEED ONE THAT TELETRANSPORTS ME WEAPONS TO ME, AND A SUPER ADVANCE SUIT LIKE VENOM.

[@sawyerhartman9500]

This is literally all i want in life. lol

[@calexander230]

I would love to see Earth from Space

[@jamiegodman715]

Where is the innovation in this? For the billions your being paid to produce this it should be twice as high tech cutting edge than dragon v2. But it's not even close.

[@jackdets7450]

Jamie Godman Remember though, cutting edge does not always equal reliable or good. It doesn't matter how new and cutting edge spacex is if they aren't using reliable technology. and the best way to get reliable technology is to get PROVEN technology. You don't need to innovate. you just need to do your job.

[@jamiegodman715]

Apollo was cutting edge for its time, so was the space shuttle. In fact almost every human rated spacecraft that has ever flown was cutting edge design at the time and not based on reliable technology. Apollo was a bit due to Gemini before it. I think your explanation is flawed. True the cst-100 will be reliable because it along with Orion are based off of Apollo, but DV2 will be just as reliable and inherently safer by design. Abort capability all the way to orbit, no LAS separation makes is safer and your not throwing it all away each launch. You also get dual use if you don't abort you can propulsively land. Nose cone is not ejected but reused and no fairing panels to cover mechanical solar panels. Dragons innovation will make it the safest spacecraft ever flown and have 2 different landing capabilities with 3 different landing options. No craft has ever had more than 1 way to land. How can dragon not be safer with these redundancies?

[@zainegehl5357]

Jamie Godman xrddu

[@katiathony7494]

Jamie Godman l

[@mariepierre3030]

+Jamie Godman the

[@Brainz8282]

love. love. love. this.

[@quirmple]

I want them to make an x-wing. Why? Why not? I pass by Boeing every once in a while and see the big doors cracked open. for some reason, I think of star wars.

[@MrSatyre1]

So we'll have both NASA's Orion AND Boeing's taxi? Why?

[@SuperRiley01]

amazing

[@Rokku82]

How much will it cost per passenger to orbit? SpaceX Dragon V2 is stating $20 million. Boeing?

[@ava1176]

So how much for the fare for this so called "Space Taxis"

[@Grate145A]

Cool but tech. And switches are always awsome to combo.

[@joshuaspall]

they should set up the display so its like kerbal space program with a virtual 3rd person view then even i would be able to fly it