Deaths in Space and Orbital Rescue

Lessons from Salyut 1 to Starliner: The Danger of Ignoring Risks
We start off with a lesson in basic rocket science with an in depth analysis of the Proton rocket system, that launched the first probes to the Moon, Venus, and Mars, and the only three humans to die in space. Then we review where we are with Starliner, and how the problem is not the helium leaks or the thruster failures per se. But the continued cascade of failures that makes us ask the question... Will the next failure kill the crew? Or even endanger the entire International Space Station? In a worst case scenario, could we rescue the crew of a small station like the Tiangong? Much less the nine people on the ISS right now? How long does it take to get something into orbit? And what's so important about orbital inclination? Join us for this and more, at the Terran Space Academy.
Extra Credit:
Credit SpaceX, ESA, ULA, Boeing, NASA, NBC, CBS, Hazegrayart
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshi...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching, and stay safe!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ neutronstarsys
This video contains samples of other video content used under the fair use doctrine. The material is included for purposes such as commentary, criticism, and educational analysis. We believe our use of this content adds significant value through new expression and meaning, and does not negatively impact the market value of the original works. If you have any concerns, please contact us at [e-mail]

[@thentil]

How starliner was approved to carry astronauts needs to be investigated

[@terranspaceacademy]

We think so too...

[@reapergnome666]

@@terranspaceacademycongressional spending would be my speculation. It seems nasa safety has double standards when congressmen need to keep their constituents and donors happy 😢 (purely my personal opinion)

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'm sure they have rented many Senators...

[@zmblion]

I agree they haven't had one successful launch yet. I think uncrewed missions should have continued. There is absolutely no way they would have let SpaceX continue with so many failures. If SpaceX has one leak, one shute not open or one thruster go out they would be grounded indefinitely yet Boeing it's all good. They wouldn't have even let them dock when they found the other issues that occurred in space. It's just amazing they let this go on. It's like NASA is begging to lose more crew

[@wyattnoise]

Approved by the same body that approved Dragon so STFU.

[@tazerface8659]

Boeing: "Omg there's nothing we can do to save these astronauts!" Technician:"Well how about Crew Dragon?" Boeing: "Simply nothing we can do. How unfortunate..." Technician: "WTF why aren't my brakes worki..."

[@frankmcgowan9457]

An excellent argument in favor of manual transmissions... 😉

[@louiscypher4186]

​@@frankmcgowan9457 Boeing: dude you don't look so well I think you might have heart attack next Tuesday.

[@hamsterSNAKE]

😂

[@DesertNurse2297]

This craft was not even checked once. They need to bring it home uncrewed. No reason to chance people's life on that wreck.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Boeing: "Nah, we'll just say they unalived themselves..."

[@baahcusegamer4530]

"Deaths in Space and Orbital Rescue" Let's hope there isn't need for a sequel to this vid anytime soon.

[@icare7151]

With decades of manufacturing, quality, testing and forensic failure analysis engineering experience, I 1000% agree, crew return on SpaceX, StarLiner return autonomously. Risk too great for reasons stated and other reasons not stated.

[@RTD1947]

NASA used the same mentality as they did with Challenger!

[@4rrxw794]

Nevertheless, I think it is time to become more curious and point out who exactly made what decision. Facts are usually quite informative.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Exactly

[@geographicaloddity2]

I was so wrong. Several years ago, I thought Musk would have the safety issues and Boeing with their experience would have the better ship. Boeing is not the organization it once was.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I did too... I thought it very unlikely SpaceX could compete.

[@robnobert]

People are remarkably & especially bad at estimating the competency of people they don't like, even more so when they have new ideas the established players were too scared to try. Hell I catch myself doing the same thing with Blue Origin... assuming they'll be a disaster because I don't like their business practices, I don't like Bezos, etc etc... and I think they have an impractical design. But despite all my rational reasons for doubting BO I must remember all the people who said Musk would fail....for I could easily be them and just not know it yet, while I assume I'm being rational just because I think I'm smart. People do the same thing in healthcare. And politics x10 😐

[@robnobert]

The key to not being suckered into a bad prediction... is to recognize your prediction probably isn't as rational as you think, that you're almost certainly missing key information for various reasons beyond mere ignorance, and that if you think it's the other side who's bought the groupthink... you might be right... but if you were wrong you wouldn't know it. And wisdom is recognizing you could be one of them and probably have been, and probably even ARE the groupthink in some area you think you're not... because that's what it means to be human. And you are a human. Probably.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

Boeing thanks to management has delivered a hybrid of a pinto and a cimmaron. I won't explain to the under 50 group those references.

[@rogerrinkavage]

I get onebof those! Haha

[@gravelydon7072]

I would say it would be closer to a Pinto and a Yugo.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

@gravelydon7072 no Yugoslavia was great compared to a cimmeron.

[@RickTheClipper]

Apart from the fact that Boeing is involved, I remember the Challenger. Engineers warned about the low temperatures, NASA thought it was a minor problem and we know how it ended For now, use DOOMLINER as a transporter, and after 5 error-free flights, consider it a lifeboat, but that's it

[@louiscypher4186]

Don't forget Columbia. They knew it was damaged at take off, they could have aborted. NASA instead choose to continue the mission so they could "assess the damage" in orbit.

[@RickTheClipper]

@@louiscypher4186 As far as I remember, it was a different story. The wing got hit during launch. Columbia reached orbital velocity in minutes. Then it was too late. No rescue shuttle. oxygen for some days. They had no alternative. they had to land, The point here is, NASA KNEW that isolation foam tended to fly away from the tank

[@terranspaceacademy]

they did indeed.

[@nwcaymans]

Outstanding program. Please keep eep up the great work.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much! Lovely place to be by the way :-)

[@U_Geek]

The idea of putting the hsr on ship instead of booster and using as legs sounds good at first, however I'm nut sure if it is doable. It has to survive reentry which means it needs heatshielding, which would either complex to only cover the actual metal but would need to cover the inside also since plasma could get in there, or it would need to holid on one side reducing mass flow. Even if you did add heat shielding it wouldn't survive hotstaging. Ship needs deployable legs for landing anywhere but the tower.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a point... retractable?

[@SanctuaryLife]

Love your work, using the Super Draco's to make the inclination change was gold.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@IZ41X]

Thought provoking lesson Doc. I hope that our future together overrides political divisiveness.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I do too my friend!

[@ghost307]

It hasn't trumped politics for the past 250 yeats.

[@kenhelmers2603]

LOL "Telling China how to do things wrong..." Cracked UP!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you Ken! If the Chinese steal the Starliner designs they'll never get to the Moon safely :-)

[@tanagra2]

This is a great video. I said this before. Ask any engineer this question. The uncrewed mission was a complete failure, shall we launch again but this time put two astronauts in it?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Isn't it true? Who would think that was a good idea?

[@65gtotrips]

Does the ISS have multiple docking ports incase of a docking problem ?

[@louiscypher4186]

Yes the ISS has x8 docking ports. Currently x6 are occupied. x3 are occupied by cargo ships, which I believe are equipped with through port functions allowing other ships to dock with them. (Think of it like a double adaptor)

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's right...

[@mr.ackermann807]

A little off topic, for the chop stick catch or mechazilla, instead of doing a full stage test is it possible to test the booster catch with it only partially filled to simulate return burn and try to catch it then? It would seem to save them fuel, but for the upper stage it would most likely need to launch from another stand for a simulated landing catch too. Do let me know if this sounds stupid as it was a quick thought I had.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. Let it come down with the designated velocity and mass and see what happens. If that fails the other option is off the table.

[@darkguardian1314]

The elephant in the room...and I've been saying this for years. Why doesn't the US (International) Space Industries standardize their hardware so SpaceX gear can work on Boeing etc. Everything is a one-off proprietary special design. We have it for other industries like computers, electronics, military, and shipping cargo, etc using ISO standards. Standardization brings down costs of not reinventing the wheel and makes things safer for everyone. Another idea is to require all manned US spacecraft have a spare seat for emergencies. There should be a move by NASA to always have a rescue spacecraft on standby which can be rotated out for missions to keep things fresh. There are glaring issues with ISS and we shouldn't just live with "you ride down with what you rode up in." If the Russian or American side is cut off like the Mir accident, what then.

[@louiscypher4186]

Because companies like Boeing have relied on exclusive contracts for decades. If everything is standardised that means more competition.

[@darkguardian1314]

@@louiscypher4186 It's just a big scam to get money from the government like the $10,000 hammers. Defense and space have been scamming the US taxpayers for decades. Even the gatekeepers that are supposed to watch for this are bribed and given exec jobs after they leave their government jobs. Why have Mission Control in Houston when it could easily be at the launch site in Florida...politics. Disgusted...

[@terranspaceacademy]

I think they will when rescues become an issue.

[@6612770]

Forgive me, but at 21:32 I can't get past the RHS craft looking like some demented space-clown vehicle!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Jugalos in Spaaaace!!!!!

[@john_hind]

Don't SpaceX Draco and SuperDraco thrusters both use the same hypergolic fuel? If so, surely they use the same supply, or at least have cross-feeds for redundancy? If so, the Crew Dragon would not be fuel limited on delta-V available from the Draco thrusters. It has always puzzled me why SpaceX does not make use of the launch abort propellant in the nominal flight profile, either for boosting the ISS or maybe just to reduce re-entry velocity to lessen heat stress on the capsule. It would surely be safer to burn this propellant than to reenter and land with it still in the tank?

[@alt5494]

What would be the thruster requirement to safely execute a space jump from the ISS? Would certainly require a advanced suit & high speed drogue chute. Having a option for complete ship failure would be valuable.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I get about 250m/s deltaV which 15kg of solid propellant with an Isp of 250 if the astronaut and suit had a combined mass of 150kg.

[@wally7856]

@@terranspaceacademy How many G's would that put on the astronaut on that burn?

[@alt5494]

@@terranspaceacademy Wouldn't a orbital jump require at least 1000 m/s reduction to lower atmospheric heating, & reduce drop time to 6,000m to inside a theoretical oxygen reserve? Although 250 m/s would make playing frogger with starlink satellites rather less terrifying;⁠)

[@ghost307]

Check out Project MOOSE from the 1960s.

[@alt5494]

@@ghost307 Moose is a interesting concept, but has a breathtaking number of unrecoverable failure points. The ideal would be decelerating to under 2000m/s by thruster or solar sail. A single sided solar sail that doubled as a massive drogue/glide parachute is a possibility.

[@TheWadetube]

I feel that space planes must return. Not the giant size of the original shuttle but at least double the size of the dream chaser. Put extra fuel on board. Extra fuel could be put inside the crew compartment and corridors by means of a silicone lined nylon or kevlar fuel bag. This would be used up first to save fuel in the main tanks. It would be like having a booster but on the inside of the ship. It would be in the way during launch, but everyone will be in their seat during launch. The bag will collapse like a raisin and can be folded up into a small compartment and then the crew will have room to move around and unload cargo. I use this same method for the Millenium Falcon design to be able to reach orbit, by having thousands of gallons occupying the inside of the ship, it will be used first, collapse like empty sleeping bags and then rolled up to free up space inside the Falcon. This principle could be used in any space plane to have duel use of interior space, first for fuel and then for work and movement. Plus the bags can be custom shaped and fitted to a given compartment. Good luck.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Britain had a nice one planned... As did Germany.

[@TheWadetube]

@@terranspaceacademy Yes, the Avalon or something. I think it's hard to close off the air duct around the compressors for rocket combustion. My designs incorporate a separate engine, stolen off of the SR71 to reach high altitude and mach 3 and then hit the rocket engines for the final kick into space. What is the altitude of the booster when it separates? A good jet engine is at least 6 times more fuel efficient than a rocket engine. The space plane will plow through the atmosphere on re-entry protecting those jet engines above the wings until the plane levels out around mach 3 again and have a little jet fuel left over to get home on.

[@whiplash8011]

Let’s get it done. God, darn it no more excuses.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We Agree!!

[@ericalbers3923]

when MBA's run a engineering company, deaths are going to occur. They need to get engineers promoted to all positions on the board of directors and ceo.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed... You must have a big red button to stop things before people get hurt.

[@raymathews1474]

Boeing's rep isnt worth human lives. bring it back under remote control, the astros can hitch a ride later.

[@timothynechville8326]

Wowoow woo. Does anyone else agree with me that it is far more efficient to take off from 17,000 ft above sea level than 10 or 200? It is 16,000+ ft closer way less fuel and smarter.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I like it

[@timothynechville8326]

@@terranspaceacademy got money? I have skills and experience.

[@ThatOpalGuy]

Do nothing, the capsule is FINE>

[@jamskinner]

And what if they die. Then what?

[@louiscypher4186]

​@@jamskinner They'll rename two high schools.

[@terranspaceacademy]

As long as you drive and I'm by the door. :-)

[@65gtotrips]

I think he got some of the years and months wrong ?

[@terranspaceacademy]

Probably...

[@context_eidolon_music]

Shoulda used more layers of carbon fiber.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Can always use a couple more layers ;-)

[@pointnemo369]

Something like a human rated X-37B as a life boat.

[@thomasboese3793]

Dream Chaser! It will go for its first, uncrewed flight later this year.

[@RickL_was_here]

Boeing needs to direct ALL their focus and energy on building reliable airplanes, enough of this. Dragon isn't ready to make a trip is it? It's like a 5 month turn around so not sure where it's at and if they can even do it.

[@louiscypher4186]

The Next dragon launch is scheduled for 2 months from now. So it should be close or even ready now. Additionally they don't need to send a dragon as there's one already docked along with a Soyuz. They just need a resupply with space suits or adaptors that fit Soyuz or Dragon.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I agree. At one time they had the bandwidth... They clearly do not today.

[@viarnay]

Chinese SS looks modern, tidy and....empty, too empty I think...

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's their virtual duplicate... The real one has some good pics but they are sensitive.

[@DragonLN]

We can be anti Boeing without being pro musk.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. I'm pro space but not anti-Earth

[@MyKharli]

lol we don`t rescue people needing food and water and shelter on earth so rescuing people in space is bonkers .

[@terranspaceacademy]

So they should all die? I would disagree with the conclusion but not with the premise. If we send someone into space, we have an obligation to protect them.

[@wyattnoise]

@wyattnoise 0 seconds ago Mustang asking the right questions... How is a rocket "fully and rapidly reusable" if the hit staging ring (which weight like 9 tons) is dumped every time? You SpaceX leg humpers are so funny.

[@wyattnoise]

"Hot stage"

[@thomasboese3793]

Design changes with the needs of the craft. It was first built without hot staging, and testing (real-world testing) gave birth to a better design for a better flight. The 'current' block of the booster/starship is far, far from being useful in anyway but TESTING! Don't worry, by the time Block-3 flies the craft will look different. Meantime Boeing built one (1) version of the Starliner several times and each one has had the same problems. (Lack of learning in many people's minds.) It's a Ford Pinto all over again. (The Pinto looked nice and had major problems which were never fixed over the years it was built. Other than branding it Bobcat for Mercury, no changes were made. (Well, one, the cost went up and the Bobcat had a bit better seats.)

[@jamskinner]

They won’t dump it every time. It’s temporary.

[@charliejohnston1978]

Many of these highly technical problems can not easily be fixed due to poorly qualified female quota-engineers, that do not have the aptitude and focus necessary to solve super complex issues in any complicated program. In 1970, NASA was forced by the US government to start hiring female quota engineers, managers and technicians. This lead to confusion, mistakes, high risks and bad judgments. This compensate level deficiency eventually caused the shut down of the Apollo program, and Apollo 17 was the last craft to visit the moon via that program..

[@terranspaceacademy]

That is a very sexist and misogynistic thing to say Charlie. So males can be trained properly but females can't. No one was forced to hire a poor anything. Just give qualified candidates a chance instead of excluding them entirely as we did in the past. The bad judgment was NASA's original refusal to hire qualified women in the first place.

[@gelf1907]

"I mean if we just give Boeing another 4.5 billion they can get StarLiner right. Then we need to give them 10-20 billion to get a working rocket out of ULA. Just as long as evil Musk does not help us, that is what we will do" Secret NASA executive meeting this morning.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. After all... He's a narcissistic billionaire! Very rare among billionaires I'm sure :-)

[@wyattnoise]

Why is it that the pathetic, divorced losers who always crawl to Elon Musk's defense always look like thumbs with teeth?

[@Shadare]

I'm all for a 2nd option, but it didn't have to be boeing... The dreamchaser was cheaper, further along in development, and would give us the ability to land astronauts at any commercial runway in the world.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

​@@Shadare Agreed but, I'm pretty sure that Boeing was seen as the reliable option and SpaceX was seen as the gamble with Dreamchaser being seen as too unconventional to be seriously considered.

[@Shadare]

@frankmcgowan9457 that's definitely how they were all seen, and I think the GAO should investigate whether that was purely just ineptitude or willful ignorance rising to fraud. Because anyone who was paying attention could have told them differently.

[@mustang607]

You definitely can't play the same stupid games in space that we play down here on Earth.

[@tobEwobEmusic]

But they sure seem to be...

[@frankmcgowan9457]

Why not? Playing stupid games on Earth frequently gets people just as dead as Playing stupid games in space does. Granted, it is far easier to die in space; just don't play stupid games.

[@jimb4090]

If Im not mistaken, the SRB is not an end burning grain but has a vacant core thus rendering dropping segments very difficult

[@mustang607]

If SpaceX attached a hot staging ring to the bottom of starship, so they could carry it to space, how would it survive re-entering Earth's atmosphere enough to land on it?

[@mr.ackermann807]

If it's possible to have the original landing legs upgraded to be more durable, heat tiles or coating, and a locking port for the booster to hold onto. The tiles would really only need to be for the hot staging and, when separated, could swing up into the skirt for the rest.

[@darkguardian1314]

It seems like a case of "Go Fever"... ( It refers to the overall attitude of being in a rush or hurry to complete a project or task, often overlooking potential problems or mistakes.) Regarding Boeing, their reputation was earned by the last generation. Few if any of those employees are still with the company and their culture seems to have deteriorated to a rubberstamp get it past the inspector's attitude. I've worked a number of years as a QA/QC inspector and test technician and production is always pushing to ship something and limiting the time for quality to do proper checks. Many times we find issues with PCB that Production knew about but wanted to ship it anyway. When the customer's incoming QC returns it, Production can easily blame the inspectors for not finding it with the limited time available.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a very good point. QA/QC may be boring but they are vital.

[@maq6144]

Very good article. You said it would take around 2 months to schedule a falcon 9 rescue attempt, but in 2023 there were 91 falcon 9 launches. So the launch cadence is considerably higher, say one every 5 days. If spacex had a dedicated crew dragon capsule in reserve for rescue missions, there could be a protocol in place to comandeer the next available falcon 9 and send it up empty to wherever it was needed. That might give us an emergency response time of about a week.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It's the Crew Dragon that would take a while to prep. But I bet if challenged SpaceX could get it up in a week.

[@ForOurGood]

I think it is looking more and more as a done deal, given the delays we are seeing, they won't be returning on Starliner.. Maybe they are just going through the process to try to put a good face on it (not really possible..) I think given everything we have seen so far, I would be horrified if they returned the astronauts on Starliner, regardless of if it was successful or not... Thanks for the video.

[@louiscypher4186]

NASA knew Columbia had been damaged during take off and they could have aborted. They instead chose to wait for the team to get to space to assess the damage, because "they weren't sure how serious it was" Anyone with a lick of commonsense can see that contradicts valuing human lives. Mark my words they will send these astronauts back on Starliner regardless of the risk. Their lives are not a priority, NASA just wants data that includes manned re-entry data.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'm amazed they are still trying...

[@ForOurGood]

@@terranspaceacademy I liked your "de-orbit the ISS" statement in the latest video. It just might be like that!

[@BFDT-4]

Learn what can be learned from the Starliner and then dump it into the Pacific somewhere.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I'd say take it apart and see what went wrong...

[@wesleyashley99]

I don't think hot staging supports can stay with the starship. Hot staging structure has to protect the top of the booster by deflecting the exhaust at startup of the second stage. This requires more mass than would be sensible to take to orbit. Also the deflecting of exhaust can't happen more than a brief moment during stage separation. Some missions will need legs until catch towers can be built on other planets but the majority of starship flights will need to avoid taking that mass along.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Retractable?

[@linasvelavicius330]

One of the many aspects that I've come to appreciate about your presentations is you bring up relevant and on point issues that no other space KZbin's (that I follow) discuss. Great job!!!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you so much!

[@DH-sw6vg]

NASA: Ummm... Elon? Can you spin up a Crew Dragon to rescue the Starliner crew? Elon: Of course I can! We're gonna rename it Crüber Dragon. (Heh, heh, heh)

[@terranspaceacademy]

:-)

[@YellowRambler]

Maybe from now on all ship or capsule should prove themselves by running cargo missions first, and then if continuously successful advance to transporting humans!

[@terranspaceacademy]

It seems like common sense I would think.

[@rogerrussell9544]

Send Calhoun to the ISS and have HIM ride it down to earth! He needs to face the results of his own policies.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Agreed.

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

No: SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) is *_NOT_* technologically feasible right now.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Actually... RDEs make it feasible and we have those now... So does air breathing horizontal launch and landing.

[@occhamite]

Alexei Leonov says in "Two Sides Of The Moon", the book he coauthored with Dave Scott, that the Soyuz 11 crew could easily have been saved. Leonov says he was bumped from the mission by management because he was supposedly "too valuable to risk", and that he did his best to teach the new crew the ropes of the ship, but they were not fully familiar with it, and could have saved themselves if they had been fully trained. Supposedly, if nothing else, a finger could have been placed over the hole through which the cabin atmosphere was leaking, if the men had known what to do.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Could they have gotten to it? It's under a seat and there's not a lot of room to maneuver.

[@occhamite]

​@@terranspaceacademy According to Leonov, they could have. Even the embittered wives of the dead crew were appreciative of Alexei, and as one might imagine, profoundly comdemning of the people responsible for the running of the mission.

[@douginorlando6260]

Boeing and NASA are gonna force the Starliner astronauts to play Russian roulette by ordering them to return inside the Starliner

[@douginorlando6260]

Only whistle blowers have a more dangerous job at Boeing

[@terranspaceacademy]

sadly true...

[@Atharva-u8j]

love the new intro it was time

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you...

[@nolsp7240]

So if they decide to return the astronauts using starliner and the crew land safely, will Starliner be crew-certified?

[@louiscypher4186]

Yeap

[@terranspaceacademy]

Not in my book. They need at least one flight with no mishaps I would think.

[@LM-ek2hb]

I believe the earliest a Dragon capsule could be man-rated available is Oct 2024?

[@ghost307]

Dragon is already regularly flying astronauts to and from the ISS.

[@LM-ek2hb]

@@ghost307 Well, not exactly regularly. Plus my point was that there currently is not a single Dragon capsule to fly that is equipped for human flight and not just cargo. The next one to be ready for human flight isn't scheduled to be ready until October. At best they could probably rush it to...Early September?

[@icare7151]

SpaceX has great abilities and absolutely can have Dragon available immediately.

[@LM-ek2hb]

@@icare7151 nope

[@Hurricane1668]

This is true. 2 spacecraft are outfitted for Axiom missions. The earliest a NASA 4 seat capsule can be ready is this fall. SpaceX flight suits need to be manufactured

[@clytle374]

I've wondered if Nasa, or maybe just SpaceX alone, is moving in the background to ready a Dragon launch for rescue. Even if you are on the "Musk is bad" side of argument, it would be self serving to rescue the Starliner crew. There was also a recent dip in Falcon launches, which anecdotally could be from a reprioritizing of manufacturing. The chances of losing both of your return vehicles and not losing the crew seems highly unlikely.

[@terranspaceacademy]

They won't have to... Just send up some suits on the next cargo run. Then send them back in the Crew Dragon with the others. Plenty of room.

[@forcivilizaton5021]

I heard recently that SpaceX is approved with decommissioning the ISS, but with the way things are with Boeing I’m not too sure of that anymore…

[@terranspaceacademy]

Agree to disagree my friend. Something breaks with robots no one dies. Get the infrastructure and systems up and running.

[@johnryan2193]

It seems that BOEING has an internal saboteur, no company with Boeings expertise should be suffering so many failures .

[@terranspaceacademy]

Sadly John, I think it's an inside job.

[@stormsfromcalifornia4379]

i hope it son't be as ass columbia diaster..the thhe woorse thing to do for nasa is not do nothing.im sure there doing all they can if worse comes to worse crrew stays on iss and crew dragon capsule will attempt a rescue i hope it dont come to that

[@terranspaceacademy]

We can have a repeat of that for sure.

[@DesertNurse2297]

Thank you for the unfiltered information. Keep up the great work.

[@terranspaceacademy]

You are most welcome and thank you.

[@wc7604]

Boeing is waiting for the Dragon/Falcon accident.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It might be awhile... Simple, umcomplicated, and strong. Tractor vs Ferrari...

[@patrickriley6212]

I’m still not understanding why Starliner was chosen before Dream Chaser, which appears to be a direct descendant of the HL 20 craft, let’s throw money into Sierra Space if we are going to throw it around! We can then quickly get a crewed version. It would be awesome to see and have a vehicle that could take off from a runway and fly to space…but this concept has been around for a while and has never gotten off the ground…is it really just a matter of money? The Chinese don’t appear to want to participate in cooperative missions with the US.

[@louiscypher4186]

If Sierra Space wants in on the government gravy train they need to start working with the military. Look up all the space companies that get government funding, all military contractors. Even SpaceX took on DoD transport missions.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Politics I think... No other reason. Dream Chaser is the perfect lifeboat.

[@hyeung1]

16:10 "ISS to Tiangong Rescue Scenario"? Seriously? The other way around is a lot more likely these days.

[@jamskinner]

Based on what? China vast history of running a space station? Everyone knows China just copies and produces most of its tech.

[@terranspaceacademy]

True but I get yelled at either way...

[@danieldmg]

Very interesting.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you Daniel.

[@ronwatkins5775]

Bringing back astronauts on Dragon they will need some sort of adapter for the suit life support.

[@louiscypher4186]

Just bring them spare suits. It doesn't need to be comfortable just bring the biggest suits they have.

[@terranspaceacademy]

The Dragon would go up with them. We need generic "rescue suits" anyway. Not everything can be bespoke.

[@dukenukem001]

reason is never reasonable !!

[@terranspaceacademy]

But what's the reason for reason never being reasonable :-)

[@steve5090406]

I've been saying now for at least a year that the StarShip should have the hot staging ring permanently attached to its base, as an emergency landing stand. Also that the falcon capsule could use the draco thrusters available for the emergency launch escape system could be used for something else as double duty, even landing and takeoff from moon.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Great minds Steve! :-)

[@nicolamastascusa8173]

14:15 Just a point on pronunciation. 'Shenzhou' is pronounced, 'Shen-Joe', like the current US President. That is all. Great vids mate.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you!

[@TheCNYMike]

Starliner has 70 hours worth of helium aboard, 10 times what would be needed for the trip home. All but one of the malfunctioning RCS thrusters is back online. Using Dragon for a rescue faces logistical and practical challenges making it very risky and complicated. Most likely they will return home on Starliner.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It's not the helium. It's the number of problems that keep cropping up. Last time the service module separation software was flawed... Is it good now? Won't know till they come home I guess.

[@randycurtiss6147]

At first I thought maybe this guy does his homework. Then he starts talking about Starship and catching the starship with the tower. And I was like okay maybe this is a really old video. This video is 2 days old as I'm writing this. The Starship was never intended to be caught by the chopsticks on the tower and the only time it will ever touch Starship is when it's stacking it. Starship has Landing legs . All of the Starships have Landing legs from the very beginning.

[@rogerphelps9939]

You are very out of dae. The standard starship saves on weight by not having landing legs.

[@fabmanly1070]

Soooooooooooooo wrong, go away and do some homework.

[@randycurtiss6147]

@@rogerphelps9939 At the moment, all Starships have 6 landing legs located on the inside of the skirt. For transport, launch, and flight, they are folded up 180° inwards. Cut and pasted from spacex website. Took 2 seconds to find. You may want to update your Google skills. They have been on every starship since prototype testing began. You can see them.

[@terranspaceacademy]

They have been talking about catching it on the tower... Recently. But maybe it was never a serious consideration. My point is that I want the landing legs to be the hot staging ring.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's not saving weight/mass... Make the legs the staging ring.