Parachute Fails To Deploy During Boeing's Starliner Abort Test.

A critically important test of the escape system used by Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft showed that the abort system would work and would save the crew if they needed to escape from a rocket on the pad. However 1 of 3 parachutes failed, which is acceptable and within the design margins, but having this happen in a test will likely lead to a lot more post flight analysis to ensure this isn't the result of an issue that needs to be addressed.

[@Dino-qq2wx]

"Fly acceptably safe"

[@hrissan]

Dino 😎

[@Thalanna]

Part of why I'm a bit afraid of the commercial space-age :p NASA: Unless everything is tested 100% fine 50 times, we won't launch. (and it still led to deaths btw) Any for-profit company: Well there's only a 33% chance everyone will die, it's all fine o/

[@Torjus_]

@@Thalanna If anything, NASA has a super high standard. There is a reason not a single capsule is on schedule, the safety precautions are very strict.

[@michaelbuckers]

@@Thalanna And even with these odds, for-profit companies are making mad dosh - people don't care if it's 100% safe, they just want launch stuff into space.

[@thepropaganda1066]

@@Thalanna nothing is a 100% well only death but if you can go to space why not

[@ICANanimations]

The Camera work is so shaky you would think they just spotted a Flying Saucer.

[@jur4x]

Wasn't there a trend for shaky cam in movie industry recently?

[@ICANanimations]

@@jur4x you mean like Cloverfield?

[@jur4x]

@@ICANanimations Oh, that's just perfect example.

[@TheTeufelhunden68]

@@ICANanimations Well, when your carrying a camera while running from horrifying space critters, I would expect the image to be a touch shaky.

[@EnderMalcolm]

They did spot a flying saucer. It was the plummeting service module and the heatshield.

[@Hevlikn]

That panning shot is great. "Hey look our crew capsule landed safely, please ignore the big red toxic cloud off your right side"

[@tdubveedub]

... as you drive blithely down the freeway (cars and trucks in the background).

[@markb8416]

​@@tdubveedub No wonder Boeing wanted to do the test in secret. Only after NASA called them out did they agree to make the test public and made sure that the footage was barely watchable. At least Elon saw problems early on with parachutes and made the executive decision to go fix it no matter the cost. Not sure this is a similar situation with Boeing but you have to think chute not deploying, breaking off or burning through the cords might related to what SpaceX is trying to fix.

[@KuraIthys]

Considering Boeing's recent track record with airliner design faults, I'm questioning their trustworthiness in terms of making absolutely sure their safety systems work as intended...

[@thethirdman225]

Don't worry: not to be outdone, SpaceX uses the same stuff.

[@mrkeogh]

"Please remain in your seats until the toxic cloud has dispersed..."

[@NJP695]

So even Boeing sometimes puts the parachutes in the wrong stage just like all other KSP players. How hilarious

[@andromenia1]

Its probably Bill's fault... it is always Bill.

[@FQP-7024]

@@andromenia1...DAMN YOU BIIIILL

[@nathanaelvetters2684]

At least the chutes didn't deploy when the thrusters turned on, making it flip all over the place and go nowhere.

[@jkenny1]

@@nathanaelvetters2684 which is basically every staging issue

[@adamantium1983]

Check Yo Staging!

[@WilliamWhitneyChristmasMD]

“Failure is not an option. It comes standard with every product!” - Boeing

[@cmdraftbrn]

it comes pre-installed for your inconvenience

[@1320crusier]

"No safe option." ;)

[@billgiosis]

Laughs in Airbus/SpaceX

[@FQP-7024]

If Boeing would keep to that word they would have made the Boeing 2707

[@gregbrockway4452]

Boeing is the sound that their aircraft make when landing.

[@DanielTsosie]

66% of the time, it works every time.

[@ChrisPage68]

"Don't be sad - cuz two out of three ain't bad." - Dr Meat Loaf

[@enerzise3161]

That's the motto of the Diversity Camera Crew.

[@FQP-7024]

2 out of 3 is not acceptable we need everything to be perfect because if our rockets and command pods fail even 1 little light we need to fix it ASAP or else Naša won't use it.

[@DeviantDeveloper]

wow that smells like indian food in a used diaper...

[@mrwilson.1]

It's made with bits of real parachute, so you know it's good

[@Shadow__133]

“Parachute didnt fail, it just didn’t deploy”. Ah, ok then all is well 😂.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

To be fair though, there's a difference. A parachute that FAILS means it's being deployed but doesn't do any aerobraking due to it failing to open up. If it didn't deploy at all though, then that means it didn't do anything whatsoever, therefore could obviously not fail..

[@Thumbsupurbum]

@@captainoblivious_yt Try splitting that hair with a future occupant of this vehicle.

[@captainoblivious_yt]

@@Thumbsupurbum It's not splitting hairs.. It's an important distinction and to not see it as such would be an oversimplification.

[@KrustyKlown]

Boeing should lie and say it was an intentional demonstration of the capsule landing on only 2 parachutes.

[@Tenkai917]

The parachute itself did not fail, but it did fail to deploy. As Captain Oblivious points out, it is important to pinpoint the precise nature of the failure in order to prevent this from happening again.

[@Forest_Fifer]

Scott - "1st US spacecraft designed to land on land" Space shuttle - "am I dead to you?"

[@gg5115]

Yes. Yes you are.

[@alt8791]

Scott: *yes*

[@grishfish]

Too funny. Good catch.

[@kunjukunjunil1481]

"Space capsule " probably.

[@chuckymcnubbin1518]

Glad I read the comments first. Was going to say the same thing... 😁 😜 😂 😂 😂 😂

[@Gremriel]

That camera work was beyond terrible. Also props for being able to say the chemical composition of the fuel without twisting your tongue :)

[@petlahk4119]

It happens when you're a rocket nerd who can't stop spouting off about Ignition! to everyone. (Me. I should really finish that book....)

[@hectors03]

@@petlahk4119 I need to finish it too! you are not alone! great book though

[@jonreeves3374]

That orange hydrazine cloud makes the hazmat technician in me bristle.

[@jordanrodrigues8265]

The orange is nitrogen tetroxide, hydrazine is colorless. There's probably not too much hydrazine leaking - you can tell by the distinct lack of a towering inferno. There's a great old NASA safety video about the two if you're curious. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJnEaneviJKDhqM

[@R3dp055um]

Seriously! That shit is *not* good.

[@rangelo7281]

It makes me want to check wind direction and that my running shoes work. But yeah I get it.

[@thermophile2106]

I wonder how difficult it would be to prevent that. Using all the fuel up would help, or maybe using a thruster after separation.

[@mrkeogh]

And there's a highway downrange of it...

[@fppro1679]

"...we fail in test so we don't fail in flight."- Neil Armstrong

[@KrustyKlown]

Dick Scobee used to say the same thing

[@DrJump3r]

Tell that Apollo 1

[@fppro1679]

@@DrJump3r they understood this better than anyone. The information from that failure came at a horriffic price, but it was priceless information.

[@gregsteele806]

@@DrJump3r or 13, since 1 was destroyed in a test.

[@KrustyKlown]

@@gregsteele806 ???? the Apollo 1 tragedy was a test failure.. Apollo 13 was an in flight failure

[@dbaider9467]

"It's not Rocket Science, it's Parachute Science..." Scott Manley 2019

[@colekelly4701]

If you watch Bridensteins interview with Everyday Astronauts about Aerospikes, Bridenstein touches on the improvements to parachute science. huge ones

[@BrianBell4073]

I run a rocket club for kids....rockets are easy. It is just a bit of maths. Parachute Science is far more complicated.

[@colekelly4701]

@@BrianBell4073 As someone builing a hybrid rocket, the science sucks either way lol

[@BrianBell4073]

@@colekelly4701 We have never suffered a destructive launch. We've left a few divots in runways though when the Parachute Science didn't do what it was supposed to.

[@yes_head]

Scott, you're such a true space nerd: "We need that footage (of a Falcon 9 gloriously disintegrating!)"

[@christopherstube9473]

My suspicion is that maybe Spacex will somehow manage to land the booster to befuddle Jeff Bezos

[@graxx478]

“We didn’t have a stalling failure, because our system prevented the planes from stalling.”

[@Matt_10203]

".... by crashing the plane"

[@PaulV3D]

Head of Boeing, Dennis: 180! Darts opponent: No Dennis you need 3 bullseyes for 180 not 2! Dennis: …

[@Ralph2]

Wry :)

[@byrnemeister2008]

Paul V3D You don’t need any bullseyes for 180!!! You need treble 20’s!!!!!

[@Wayoutthere]

RBMK reactors don't explode comrade...

[@xxZerosumxx]

We engineers on the ground feel two parachutes should be safe enough for the crew in the air.

[@rationalmartian]

Ha ha ha. Yeah. Kinda a shade easier to glibly state. When it isn't your arse in the hot seat. Should ask them if THEY are ready to go in another similar test, with them in it. Talk is cheap.

[@charleslambert3368]

It's the PR people on the ground saying that.

[@BrokenLifeCycle]

@Smarticus Funny thing about SpaceX is that they went so rigorous beyond NASA's already strict requirements that NASA had to reevaluate their own safety standards. They pushed SpaceX so hard that NASA started to feel inadequate and incompetent from the results.

[@doktordinkelyt7636]

SHOULD

[@donjones4719]

@@BrokenLifeCycle Was wondering about this. After Boeing had their first problems with parachutes (a while ago), NASA was scrutinizing what went wrong. Seems NASA discovered there were more ways for things to go wrong then they'd ever thought, and that's why they expanded the testing program for both companies. To me that was the likely scenario. Makes rational why NASA paid Boeing extra for extra tests, if they changed the parameters. But at the end of the day, SpaceX is ahead.

[@bjarnes.4423]

I'd love it, if you made an episode of "things KSP doesn't teach" on Parachutes

[@kylehughes1741]

Silt ^

[@Doc_OLDGUY_Savage]

Boeing - "acceptable result" Boeing - '737 Max is airworthy' NASA - hmmmm

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

"Would you like a flashing LED warning you in case our fancy flight computer malfunctions again and tries to kill everyone on board? That'll be 86000 dollars."

[@jessiejanson1528]

Also Boeing - "We dont need to do QC work, clean anything, inspect military cargo planes we just built or verify their arnt tools loose inside the walls of those cargo planes" Military - "We no longer want your cargo planes, let us know when you take them apart, rebuild and QC them". Boeing - "We dont need to QC our teams work on the capsule" Hopefully NASA - "We dont need your contract, its canceled and you owe us 3 billion dollars"

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

@Truth NASA ain't the only guys to have killed astronauts. Well technically yes since only American and European space travelers are called astronauts. Russians are cosmonauts, Chinese are Tychonauts etc... First part is that languages word for space and second part is greek for traveler. But yes plenty of cosmonauts have unfortunately died. The only people to have died in space where cosmonauts. And early Sojuz capsule had a faulty valve and it opened the cabin to vacuum before reentry. That was the time when they removed to suits to cram an additional crew member inside. They redesigned it so three cosmonauts in suits would fit after that. That's why you wear a pressure suit inside the spacecraft.

[@user-lv7ph7hs7l]

​@TruthNo your backpedaling. Either case you're wrong. The Space Shuttle killed a bunch of astronauts. Not NASA. And it was the only vehicle flying. It's not like they had 3 ways to get to orbit and each killed someone. There was the Shuttle and that was. Did it have a launch abort system? Nope so if something happens you got a problem. And it held an unprecedented amount of crew, so only two tragedies end up in many lives lost. Anyway your previous comment shows you don't know what you're talking about so why am I wasting my time with you...

[@PaulV3D]

Scott Manley: I'm Scott Manley, fly safe! Boeing: Meh not too safe, 2 parachutes should do it.

[@Hevlikn]

In fairness, the reason there are 3 parachutes is primarily redundancy. IIRC impact will be survivable even if just the one is used

[@trezapoioiuy]

Yes, but it's not redundant anymore if 3 don't consistently open. I guess more tests will be needed to change that ratio.

[@digiacomtech5589]

@@trezapoioiuy ... That's the point Hevlikin was trying to make! As long at there are a MINIMUM number (e.g. 2 or 1) of consistently opening chutes things are actually OK, within specification. Keep in mind they don't just do one test ... they do several, as many as possible, and then crunch all of the numbers, get probabilities for success & failure of every part of the system. After all of that is done they either passed or failed to meet the minimum requirements as set forth by NASA.

[@zoltankurti]

@@digiacomtech5589 are you also saying that 2/3 success rate is fine for a parachute system? If one failed this easily, the other two can also fail. The system must be redesigned.

[@digiacomtech5589]

@@zoltankurti ... How can you tell ANYTHING, derive any statistics, from only one test? Especially without any post test analysis. Where they lucky that only 2 came out? Is 2 vs. 3 a trend? Perhaps they were extremely UN-lucky that one failed. Perhaps is was some other system failure? A packing failure, a connector failure, an installation failure, a pre-flight inspection failure? How can you possibly justify saying "one failed this easily" by watching a single test? Who can say at this point without further investigation and analysis whether this is a trend or a fluke. Bottom line is you can't draw any conclusions from just one test without any post test analysis. But please do please tell us you have ALL of the pertinent detailed information and post test analysis at your disposal to base your assumptions on. All I am saying is without the actual NASA requirements and post test analysis it's only speculation as to whether this is a PASS or a FAIL. For all we know the requirement might be for only one to reliably/repeatedly deploy and any additional parachutes are merely beneficial. Perhaps the test actually included a single parachute failure in order to test landing impact metrics? Surely in a perfect world we would only require what is actually needed and nothing more. However, we don't live in a perfect world and that is why redundancy is built into life support equipment systems. That is, one may be all that is needed to land safely, but two is better, and three better still. We can calculate the odds that only one, two, or three will fail given further testing. The only question is if those calculates failure rates meet acceptable flight safety parameters/limit IAW the established NASA systems requirements.

[@Windspeace]

Failure is acceptable when it happens during testing. Edit: ty for comments, I removed my first impression on the smoke since it was premature on my part

[@Graviton1066]

In actual flight the service module will burn up in the atmosphere ...

[@Jehty_]

@@Graviton1066 but not in an abort. A real launch abort should look exactly like the test.

[@anushervontabarov8568]

@@Jehty_ except Starliner would land on water in real abort conditions where there would be no problems with hypergolic cloud

[@AmbientMorality]

@Smarticus Oh hi! It doesn't have to land on land, and they've done testing of water landing and recovery procedures for Starliner. It'll go into the water like Crew Dragon. It does make refurbishment significantly more difficult as far as I'm aware, which is why the nominal scenario is landing on land.

[@Jehty_]

@@anushervontabarov8568 why wouldn't there be a problem with hypergolic if they land in the water? It doesn't really make a difference if something hits water really fast or the ground, or does it?

[@Nowhereman10]

Scott, what you should've said is that this is the first U.S. crew capsule spacecraft designed to for touchdown on land. The first to be designed to land on land is the Space Shuttle. Which it did dozens of times. The second item is that the service module in an actual pad abort would be dropped at sea where it would break up and sink on impact with the water.

[@Bolt99K]

Someone needs to hire a new PR guy for boeing, they did not handle that failure even close to correctly. Explain in detail what went wrong, or what could’ve gone wrong and then explain what you’re going to do to fix it. Saying everything is okay when its clearly not okay just makes your company seem disingenuous and shady. Not the look you want if you’re pursuing massive government contracts.

[@hrissan]

Bolt if they even wanted, they would not have reliable information this early. Getting to root cause may take months of investigation...

[@Bolt99K]

Grigory Buteyko Thats why i also said “what could’ve gone wrong”

[@helicopterdriver]

Fortunately for Boeing not much competition left except for SpaceX at this point. Elon is a rocket surgeon, Boeing... not so much. Boeing has millions to spend on lobbying for more guvment billion dollar handouts though.

[@donjones4719]

Sounded like a good plan. After all, Boeing has so much public trust. Never before have they seemed disingenuous and shady. ;-)

[@AmbientMorality]

@@Bolt99K There's no good reason for Boeing to speculate on what might have gone wrong. They'll have engineers figuring that out and then they can release preliminary conclusions once some actual thought has been put to it. Otherwise it'd just be Boeing talking about every single thing on the fault tree because nothing had been eliminated yet

[@JohnMGibby]

Can't believe NASA (National Acceptable Safety Association), will be happy w/ the proximity of the SM landing to the crew capsule. Just using my rudimentary tools, I estimate they landed within 100 yards of each other, probably closer to 75, depending on how much further away the SM is from the camera compared to the capsule. It appears to me the capsule landed closer to the camera. Taking off from the Cape, yes, they would land in water. But with dynamic winds & ocean currents, there is no guarantee they would stay 100 yards away from each other, or that the wind might not be blowing towards the capsule. Doesn't look acceptable at all. I wonder if the failed deployment of the third parachute would have changed the landing spot of the capsule--closer or farther from the SM. I'm John Gibby. Fly Acceptably Safe.

[@MrMattumbo]

Yeah given the precautions they take with the X37B even after it's been in space 2 years and landed intact, I don't think this is acceptable, the whole touchdown area is coated in hypergolics including the outside of the capsule. Those poor astronauts would be stuck there a while until the hazmat team can gear up, get there, and clean things off.

[@BabyMakR]

Yeh. It won't matter if the whole area is covered in DNT, cos in an emergency abort, it's not like you're going to want to get out of the capsule in a hurry or anything.

[@LisaBowers]

To me, the astronauts didn't look too thrilled during the interview following the "acceptable" test.

[@Coasterlocity]

Haha I noticed that too. When he said I hope we never have to use this, his tone sounded like he really hopes they never actually have to use it given the results of the test.

[@petlahk4119]

@@Coasterlocity - "I hope to never be in a high-speed crash in a reliant robin if, god forbid, I ever find myself driving a reliant robin."

[@Coasterlocity]

@@petlahk4119 hehehe, can't blame ya there. That's kinda how I feel about a Ford Pinto in a high speed rear end collision.

[@Thermalions]

@@Coasterlocity Don't worry, you wouldn't be feeling things for very long in such a scenario.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

@@petlahk4119 this reminds me of that legendary top gear episode

[@agentk3984]

Me and my dad loved this space stuff. He died when i was 14, if i could bring him back to life for one day, i would show him spacex videos all day long.

[@BRUXXUS]

I'm sorry you lost your dad. Sounds like you guys had a really good time being into space and rocket stuff. 🙂

[@PristineTX]

"Yeah, that poor skydiver had to be scraped off the ground with a spatula, but boy, his parachute was packed BEAUTIFULLY..."

[@eliaspuolakka290]

Spacex capsule explodes: "This is just an anomaly" Boeing parashute fails to deploy: "It din't fail it just didn't deploy"

[@LaserGuidedLoogie]

When "failure is not an option."

[@AWZool]

To SpaceX's excuse, all RUDs are called "Anomaly".

[@BodhiPolitic]

@@AWZool Operational anomalies are mishaps. Crewed mishaps are are accidents. (If I got the NASA jargon right.)

[@DLWELD]

Boeing capsule explodes - "it didn't fail, it just dissassembled."

[@rvllctt871]

It failed to deploy?!

[@firefly4f4]

A few things I noticed: 1) The actual "abort" seemed to be about three seconds after T-0. That might have been planned & expected, but the delay did make me tilt my head a bit. 2) That hypergolic cloud was nasty looking. I know they expected some unburned fuel to remain, but I think they expected it to burn after the service module detached. Given how close it appeared to be to the crew capsule, I'd not be wanting to approach that any time soon. 3) The missing parachute, obviously. Given how strict NASA appears to have been with SpaceX's tests, this also makes me cock my head a bit. Of course, what really matters is if the engines performed well enough to get the crew away, and if the landing would have been "soft" enough to avoid any major injuries. I guess we'll wait and see.

[@johnwilson3668]

I noticed the delay in the countdown .If this happened in an abort situation they would have been toast

[@tma2001]

yeah, I thought for a moment it had burst into flames and was about to do a RUD - it was hard to tell with the shaky out-of-focus cam at the time. Maybe Boeing have a leaky valve problem as well, as the plume sure didn't match the preview animation.

[@gemizu4874]

rocket has cleared the tower... I mean water tower has cleared the.. uhh guys why is the WATER TOWER FLYING!?

[@RoadkillbunnyUK]

Isuzu Slider congratulations, I truly and literally laughed out load 😂

[@GrouchyHaggis]

:'D

[@theuncalledfor]

Ever since Starhopper, flying water towers have become really trendy.

[@skeetsmcgrew3282]

I was going to say the top of a silo, but that's probably because I live in farm country. Either way, doesn't look like something that should fly lol

[@pluto8404]

Maybe thats why aliens always go to farmers fields. They think we have a vast fleet of space ships, but are actually just grain silos.

[@patrickbartosz599]

MCAS spreading to other products it seems. First US Spacecraft to "land on land"... was the space shuttle a seaplane?

[@klazyy641]

My thought exactly---I wondered if the spokes-personages really were that ignorant or just too young to remember reality.

[@WideW0lf]

Or the X-37 a the other week?

[@jeffjames3111]

They probably meant capsule. But, yeah, also a failure.

[@profwaldone]

Im now just picturing a space shuttle with adorable little skees under it and im totaly down for this consept.

[@casenumber]

It's right there in the name, a space plane....

[@chrismusix5669]

Scott looking for any reason to say "Monomethylhydrazine/Dinitrogen tetroxide", every chance he can get!

[@adamkendall997]

Now don't be sad, Cause 2 out of 3 ain't bad. ~ Meat Loaf

[@mrechonet]

What would be amazing is if the Falcon 9 flipped around, and did a landing.

[@SpandexMovie1]

Error task failed successfully

[@johndododoe1411]

Nah, they chose to spectacularly detonate the Falcon 9 in that abort test. They also did hundreds of somewhat public parachute landing tests before the abort test.

[@EdmundGerber]

That possible hypergolic cloud is a hell of a mess to have next to your recovery effort. What a joke.

[@thomasackerman5399]

You do know that in an actual abort the service module lands in the ocean, not on land and so breaks apart and sinks quickly, right?

[@johncrowerdoe5527]

@@thomasackerman5399 Only if launched from KSC. As a surface lander this could launch from other sites like Vandenberg or White Sands.

[@pluto8404]

@@thomasackerman5399 its the whales problem after that.

[@chemicalBR0]

I love how Scott always says "I am not an expert" then proceeds to school the experts :)

[@GalileoAV]

I can't tell how much of this is just me being from a Lockheed family, but honestly screw Boeing. Both their civilian aviation and aerospace work just doesn't match up with their competitors. That's not to say they're all bad, just that I'm far more excited for news from other companies and agencies.

[@R3dp055um]

We were Convair - General Dynamics, but yeah. Agreed.

[@Christopher28fair]

I'm a cameraman and I think that was excellent camera work; if the subject isn't willing to stand still through the photoshoot, he can't expect perfect results.

[@Pintuuuxo]

Thank you Scott for making me laugh with that water tower comparison. These crewed missions are taking too long. The Webb telescope too. :-(

[@OortCloud]

Oh boy do I have news for you now

[@StreuB1]

Looks like they stripped a pilot chute......which is EXTREMELY odd. The pilot chute pulls the deployment bag off of the reefed main. There is not a lot of effort to do this so this is quite a strange failure. You strip drogues or mains, not pilots. Also, the cloud of NTO is very close to the capsule and is very large. Once the capsule touches down, it should be on ambient ventilation which means that NTO could be pulled into the capsule.

[@AndyOO6]

I was thinking the same thing, this was not quite as bad as the first dragon 2 test but right up there with the word Anomalys.

[@Pete292323]

"Acceptable result" I bet they designed the 737 MAX 8 with the same philosophy.

[@sebblesssing]

😂😂

[@quasarsavage]

Lol!

[@noeliapedrozo6465]

MCAS* and dont r/woosh me i know its a joke

[@Thumbsupurbum]

"Our planes didn't crash, they just failed to stay in the air."

[@FB0102]

close enough

[@priyonjoni]

This is acceptable for Boeing since the parachutes offered more redundancy than the MCAS system on their 737 MAX.

[@RedPuma90]

Real flights are propably done from florida, so the hypergolic stuff would land in the ocean. Also, the capsule would land in the ocean, so the two parachute thing isn't a real issue for the abort, but more for the real landing after a nominal mission.

[@denmaroca2584]

The capsule is planned to land in the ocean, but it's also planned to deploy three parachutes!

[@stephenyork7318]

I worked at a parachute loft for a couple of years where I got my rigger ticket. They did more than just sport parachuting and military gear and also did some work for ASRI. It’s surprising how difficult high speed recovery systems are to build. Seems simple but nuh.

[@Damien.D]

"Failure is not an option. It's a mandatory feature we design in everything we build, and you paid for it" (c)(tm) Boeing.

[@Mr2winners]

Failure is always an option. - Mythbusters-

[@djcfrompt]

The red color is probably NO2, which undergoes thermal equilibrium with N2O4. When the temperature is increased, NO2 is favored. So an N2O4 release in the desert could be expected to result in a big red cloud like that. That is to say, it's likely not smoke, but a fuel release.

[@oven88]

I think their problem is that they haven't outsourced enough of their jobs. Just look how well they're doing with the 737 max

[@MrMattumbo]

@@snarkylive It's not unstable, with a few hours of sim time any 737 pilot could fly it without MCAS no problem. MCAS was changed late in the design to make the plane mimic the handling characteristics of the normal 737 so they could retain the same type-certificate rating (the FAA has criteria for what is an acceptable deviation from the handling characteristics of a plane to be considered the same type). There was nothing wrong with the MAX other than Boeing needing it to be rushed and retain the same type-rating (airlines wanted the plane specifically to avoid retraining their pilots, which is expensive). Hell MCAS itself would have been fine had they not made the ungodly stupid decision of programing it to only take readings from one sensor (there are two attitude sensors), instead of crosschecking the values and either having a program to identify and discard errant values or simply to disengage the system and alert the pilots when there is a certain margin of disagreement between the readings. I've seen people on KZbin who make drones and model rockets with better software than what Boeing rushed into the MAX, that's the real issue here.

[@allangibson8494]

@@snarkylive The 737Max was TOO stable - it wouldn't drop it's nose to recover from a stall. The 737NG series are suffering from cracks in the wing attachment structure at about 25000 cycles (about 10% of the aircraft of this age have a major crack). (This part is supposed to be rated for 90,000 cycles and is not replaceable). The exact same structure is present in the 737Max but none of them have the same number of cycles yet. And then you get to the 787....

[@jeffharper4509]

MrMattumbo youre right, the 737max is not UNstable, but it is LESS stable than the 800 model. One of the “different handling chatacteristics” mcas was trying to help pilots avoid was that the 737 max can stall more easily on ascent, especially with 737 pilots who arent used to it. This fundamentally wouldnt exist if boeing didnt say hey lets slap these huge engines on at a different point and fuck up the moment balance! Absolutely shit idea from the start. They shouldnt have messed with the subtleties of a good airplane design and expect software to fix it. Yes, their software was terrible, and yes if they had paid for training no one wouldve died and we probably wouldnt be talking aboht it. but IMO its just a bad idea in the first place to make that kind of a design change to save some money.

[@allangibson8494]

@@jeffharper4509 The big engines shifted the centre of drag at high angles of attack forward. Fitting a bigger horizontal tail or strakes (like a LearJet) would have fixed it aerodynamically but chucking an electronic patch was "faster" and "cheaper".

[@helicopterdriver]

@@jeffharper4509 Makes you wonder if they couldn't have just made the landing gear longer to clear the ground with the new engines. Would'nt change the flight characteristics or weight and balance much, if any. Airbus has longer gear for the same engines on similar aircraft.

[@rconger24]

Hi Scott. I spent about four months in Ayrshire back in 1981. I love hearing you talk. Cheers.

[@catfish552]

I'll be honest, after reading that title, I'd kinda hoped that it smashed right into the ground with no chutes at all.

[@CountArtha]

It sure looked like the capsule landed uncomfortably close to the broken-up service module and its lethal cloud of N2O4. 😬

[@imagineaworld]

Hahaha the shot of the water tank was awsome xD

[@dougw3531]

+1

[@jeronimo1338]

I like how the power line there in the middle of the test field fits in.

[@2drx4]

Love the current trend of water tower rockets. It's a type of retro I can support.

[@backwoodsjunkie08]

Pretty soon people are just gonna start strapping boosters onto water towers

[@digiacomtech5589]

Again, if a system requires two parachutes in order to land safely ... then you design a system that has three or more parachutes so that if any one fails, you still have two parachutes out and operational. Same as in sport skydiving, you are required to carry TWO parachutes just in case the main one fails you have a second chance. Just saying ;)

[@GunnarLof]

Yes, but in your skydiving-example, the main parachute still failed! So it can not be thought of as axeptable. A reserve should always be a reserve...

[@j.michaelantoniewiczii5309]

Silver Lining: The now have Real World, in situ, data for loss of *A* parachute during landing for the Starliner.

[@petlahk4119]

Can't wait for the sequel, loss of 3! /s Everyone is pointing out how this combined with Max is making boeing look really bad. I agree with them. I woudln't want to be on a boeing anything these days, especially not as an astronaut.

[@rwhitenz]

Boeing specialize in making lawn darts, the 737max is highly succrssful at this but the capsual failed this critical lawn dart test so must be redesigned

[@LittleWapiti]

SpaceX is doing a lot of parachute development work right now after parachute failures and has offered the new design to all FREE to improve safety

[@b8702131]

Boeing's spin: "The orange smoke is not a problem, it's a feature to make it easier to see where they landed."

[@tma2001]

yeah, in the Apollo days at splashdown a dye marker was used for the recovery crew. But this plume was never part of the preview animation, so maybe they've got a leaky valve issue as well.

[@Whitpusmc]

I like the high production value of the intro! Money well spent! I enjoy the channel. Keep up the good work.

[@nebulanebula7499]

İ thought it was gonna Boing

[@rationalmartian]

I thought it was gonna Boeing. LOLOL. Yeah. OK. I'll get my coat. TAXI...

[@nebulanebula7499]

@@rationalmartian another Martian,hello brother

[@TylerDurden-bb8lw]

It was supposed to, but 1 out of 3 of the airbags also failed!

[@MushookieMan]

A bounce is bad, it means higher impulse. Them engineers know what they're doing.

[@TylerDurden-bb8lw]

@@MushookieMan But how could they be "Boeing" engineers if it doesn't bounce ?

[@ArchaeopteryxGaming]

2 years back i spoke with a student from the local University, which was the Head of a Group of students building rockets and they said, that the formulas for deploying Chutes from rockets are quite old and not reliable. The wanted to continue work on exact that problem, because they had 2 failed parachutes before their big flight with a rocket for the german DLR

[@darktemp_de]

5:43 Then, will it be a RSD? Rapid Scheduled Disassembly!

[@thewestwinger3855]

Not an exploding capsule. Cry more

[@BattleDroid-sd4rp]

RUSD rapid unscheduled disassembly

[@vbscript2]

@@BattleDroid-sd4rp He's talking about a launch abort test. So, it would, in fact, be scheduled rapid disassembly of the booster.

[@Wirmish]

_"Absolutely Perfect 2-parachutes drop test!"_ - NASA _"Now SpaceX, test your 4-parachutes setup 25 more times."_ - NASA

[@sliceofbread2611]

5:52 Scott contemplating for a split second if he should say "expectacular"

[@pentagramprime1585]

M.I.B. may as well have been a documentary. "Congratulations, you're everything we've come to expect from years of government testing."

[@Cydonius1]

So will NASA force them to do like 100 consecutive successful tests before certifying them like they are treating SpaceX?

[@tma2001]

Btw the Apollo splashdown wiki says: "Another risk is the parachute deflates and the astronauts are to deal with one less parachute like Apollo 15. The later Apollo parachutes were able to slow down enough and land safely with only 2 parachutes."

[@MikeHoltackers]

Maybe it should've been called the Starliner Max. :p

[@craigw.scribner6490]

The Apollo Command Module was designed to safely land (on water--not solid ground!) if only two of the three main parachutes deployed. This actually happened on Apollo 15, when one of the three main chutes did not fully deploy, but got stuck in a partially reefed configuration. Evidently--and I'm only guessing here--the Starliner was designed with a similar system, where, to quote Meatloaf, "two out of three ain't bad."

[@Dankalank]

Great shirt, Scott! I've been collecting Outer Wilds stuff :D My enamel pin is one of my prized possessions!

[@theallknowingorbitalteapot1010]

True bravery is riding on something Boeing made which performed "acceptably" during testing

[@zelkuta]

Boeing: Parachute failure is acceptable Also Boeing when making the 737 Max: This is acceptable Seems to be a pattern.

[@philmccracken6134]

It's the next trend, when you have very low standards you're never disappointed.

[@Bert2368]

Holy God, that cloud of Nitrogen tetroxide would scare the bejesus out of me- I like my lungs intact, thank you!

[@chuckfirman3249]

BOING!!! I'll say this: I think @SpaceXCentric needs to comment on the chutes...;)

[@knightmarex13]

there certainly was a lot of the orange smoke, nitrogen tetroxide, in footage. At one point it even appeared that the hole capsule was bathed in it. I am sure that has to complicate recovery in some form. IE fans or SCAPE suits

[@bigjohn697791]

The only reason for releasing poor footage quality i can think of is so that it cannot be analysed in rigorous detail ie IMINT etc..

[@Knowledgetrak47]

One other small point, (and it may have been video delay) but there was at least a 2 second delay between the "zero" count down and the ignition of the engines. In s a situation where there is a RUD ... seconds count. If there was a delay when they hit the button I wonder if that was acceptable also? We don't see that in SPACEX launches. ;o)

[@rhamph]

Announcers are frequently off a bit on rocket launches. Syncing them up for us isn't a priority. I wouldn't read anything into this.

[@24680kong]

At least it went better than SpaceX's launch abort test! This is why you test.

[@thethirdman225]

Yup! LOL!!

[@jaybee9269]

This (2 of 3 parachutes) actually happened on one of the Apollo Lunar flights, though I couldn’t tell you which one. I remember this bit of a presentation though: “We are anticipating a hard impact. We weren’t disappointed!”

[@rebsredone450]

Looks like the automated tracking system on the cinetheodolite had a hard time tracking the capsule because of all the debris flying around.

[@agsystems8220]

As soon as you said "the service module drops off" I thought "arent' they already heading straight down, and going to end up in a cloud of hypergolics?". Good to know my instincts are on point, not so good that their abort scenario involves dropping hypergolic tanks from altitude onto the recovery site on purpose... Could be the first rocket in history to get a hold because there is not enough wind for their aborts to be safe. Most worrying thing though is that it appears to be on fire when the parachutes deploy. Fire does not mix well with parachutes. Could be the cause of the failure, and that would take a lot of work to fix. Given the possibility of parachutes burning and you falling to your death, plus the possibility of you getting poisoned even if you get to the ground safely, the Shuttle abort to Launch site scenario actually looks ok. Even if the 3rd parachute had opened this test would raise eyebrows.

[@bpl128]

I think this thing would be launched mostly in Florida... so pad aborts would most likely result in landing over sea. Likewise, Service Module would just sink into the sea and poisoned all the marine life rather than the crew... or the rescue crew.

[@TraditionalAnglican]

A G Systems - 3rd parachute successfully deploying would mean the lines pulling it out hadn’t been cut by the fire, which would mean all the Hypergolics had been burned on the way up...

[@Tom5TomEntertainment]

"Wasn't an RUD so it's fine." - Boeing

[@Ralph2]

Don't you just hate it when you fly off into space and when you get there, there's nowhere to park? Me too. And as you say Scott, WE NEED that footage!!

[@daviddowling9830]

That has to be the worst video since the inception of cameras,note to NASA,don’t use potatoes to video anymore.

[@Zoomer30]

That orange cloud of death around the capsule is a bit of a worry.

[@w0ttheh3ll]

boy, that's one big cloud of toxic smoke. not too good if some wind were to blow that into the direction of the landed capsule.

[@AmbientMorality]

​@@cosmonautbilly9570 Ah, because of all the schools between Space Launch Complex 41 and the ocean.

[@idpromnut]

I don't know why I never noticed the Gunstar in the background, that's awesome! :D

[@StelzCat]

>newspace companies: "Proton rockets are too dangerous because of hypergolic fuel in them" >also newspace: puts hypergolic fuel in manned spacecraft final stage

[@amperzand9162]

I mean this is Boeing, not exactly newspace. But small upper stages/service modules with storable hypergolics are really useful, and not nearly as dangerous as having hundreds of tons of the materials in massive booster stages.

[@observingtheq8810]

Speaking of... Isn't Proton retiring sometime in the next five years partially because hydrazine is becoming essentially banned as rocket fuel worldwide?

[@vaska00762]

Doesn't Soyuz have hypergolic fuels loaded on board its service module? Heck, didn't the Space Shuttle have all its hypergolic fuels attached to the orbiter and have to be checked by those guys in hazmat suits with their own air supply before they opened the crew hatch?

[@bluemountain4181]

Since when is Boeing newspace?

[@StelzCat]

@@amperzand9162 probably not as dangerous if you do everything right, but Proton is unmanned and therefore not going to have anyone near it if it's going to crash. To compare, Soviet project Zarya in the 80s was planned to be with more conventional kerosene, because they couldn't afford a danger to crew. Anyway, IMO getting rid of that rescue tower was a design mistake, they should have kept it to separate the capsule from the fuel more reliably. And I'm not even going to comment on Dragon capsule.

[@w9gb]

Good test of performing a safe landing with only 2 parachutes deploying ....

[@andie_pants]

5:46 The best part is that it's 100% plausible that Elon will watch this video and make sure it happens. :-D

[@bridgecross]

Parachutes are indeed hard. This makes the development of parachutes for Mars landers even more impressive.

[@Hfil66]

These are the same people who thought MCAS was acceptably safe.

[@myfavoritemartian1]

The camera person was careful to follow the service module down instead of following the capsule thereby avoiding showing the third parachute failure to deploy. Then Boeing immediately started spinning the test result by denying it was a failure. "It just didn't deploy". That might be acceptable in a court of law but in the engineering world, that is a failure to meet the expected result of the test. I am with Scott, I want to watch an in-flight break up of a rocket more than the actual abort test. If todays Boeing were called upon to build the Saturn 5 first stage, We could start enrolling 5 year olds in the Astronaut training program as anyone older would die of old age before the booster was ready....

[@ChrisCebelenski]

"We need that footage!" because reasons. and explosions.

[@Wayoutthere]

'splosions

[@Teesixhundred]

Nice to see you have some power now Scott, had visions of watching this video with you talking by candlelight!!

[@Clark-Mills]

Damn! Wish the in flight abort was TODAY, 5th November (in NZ)! :)

[@tonyelsom6382]

REALLY looking forward to that Crew Dragon flight abort test indeed..

[@_aullik]

I don't think that the hydrazine problem will be as bad when the service module falls into the ocean. They also talked about this in the podcast.

[@Odysseuss.]

I don't think so

[@_aullik]

​@@Odysseuss. what do you mean you don't think so? If the service module falls into water it will sink. So even if the tanks rupture they will only leak underwater. Hydrazine is miscible and NTO (the red gas) will react with water to HNO3 which will also mix with the rest of the water. So for a landing in the Ocean there simply wont be any red smoke.

[@zakelwe]

Yep, they did say it would be present today but not when used in anger.

[@denmaroca2584]

It may not fall into the ocean. Yes, it's planned to do so but it's also planned to deploy three parachutes!

[@_aullik]

@@denmaroca2584 Dafuq is this supposed to mean. The deployment system failed. Their trajectory was fine. Boeing builds rockets and airplanes. They know how to follow a directory. What is with this senseless hate?

[@babyUFO.]

EXCELLENT REVIEW, one GOLD Star for Scott, EA is evidently on Ambien or something.

[@m0r73n]

Boeing allready have massive PR problems and they released that's statement. :')

[@nitestryker7]

If you skip passed the problems, the test was a total success!

[@fancyghost7358]

The way of progress is not smooth, this is still a win for science, during tests we can see what can go wrong and fix it (this is partially what tests are for anyways) before we find out the hard way. 😉

[@frankderks1150]

This is not science, merely engineering.

[@pansepot1490]

That’s right but “tests” with a lot of press coverage are meant to show the progress a builder has achieved (ie they ought to be successful). The actual testing is supposed to have already been done.

[@Singurarity88]

​@@pansepot1490 not only that, parachutes on capsules is nothing new. We have them since over 50 Years and normally that should work now flawlessly

[@fancyghost7358]

@@frankderks1150 Engeneering: "The creative application of scientific principles to develop structures, machines, apparatus or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination." So this is derived from science, and thus a part of science. And by the way, the comprehension of problems that might emerge during spaceflight helps discover and develop all things related to spaceflight, and almost all the things related to spaceflight are science related. (I used the word science in a wider context here).

[@allangibson8494]

@@Singurarity88 Try over seventy years since the first capsule re-entered....

[@headcrab4090]

I know this is different, but New Shepard capsule has nice working parachutes and that last burn before landing the capsule.