New Starliner Dangers

[@heinzie5]

Flying on Starliner sounds about as risky as being a Boeing whistle blower.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Just depression right when someone finally starts listening to you I'm sure.

[@toledomarcos70]

@@terranspaceacademy Starliner the equivant of Boeing 737 Super Max when are the executives gong to answer for these fowl ups?

[@billmullins6833]

Truer words ... Although I would have worded it differently. Flying on starliner is about as safe as being a Boeing whistle blower. (Or running afoul of the Clintons - can you spell "arkancide", boys and girls?)

[@billmullins6833]

@toledomarcos70, approximately 2 years after the highest Islamic officials in both Mecca and Medina come out of the closet as born-again Evangelical Christians.

[@doougle]

To adapt an old saying, the best time to cancel Starliner was 10 years ago, the second best time to cancel it is today. 😜

[@billmullins6833]

Sorry, but there is NO FEKKING WAY the bureaucrats at NASA are going to admit they screwed up with Starliner. I don't believe tjey would abandon Starliner EVEN IF it caused the death of 2 (or more) astronauts. Bureaucrats never admit they screwed up! PERIOD!!

[@Sunset4Semaphores]

I remember seeing this monstrosity being build at Michoud... along with SLS stage 1. I have no idea how star liner wasn't canned then, or canned a few years ago, or canned now. Would you trust anything built in new orleans? The last major building project there literally collapsed during construction killing lots of people. Let's hope the star liner doesn't kill anyone before it is discontinued.

[@johncorstens499]

If anything happens to the returning astranauts both NASA and Boeing need to be charged with murder. Both are complicit. This heap of shit was designed to steal money from the American people. Boeing can't even make a safe passenger plane anymore

[@YellowRambler]

I agree with you about starliner returning to earth with out astronauts, the capsule should be filled with trash then return starliner to earth, The trash would act as a mass simulator for the missing astronauts. It would also be wise to check with M$ that there’s no major software updates planned during re-entry.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's an excellent idea on all levels. Safety with a Statement. I like that.

[@BaldGeek83]

Relying on MS updates is especially hazardous and prone to failure.

[@maq6144]

I agree. Let's hope engineers prevail over politicians

[@capicolaspicy]

I agree with TSA - the smartest move is to send the Starliner home empty, if it survives we can research it to death to improve whatever is allowing the leaks to happen. If it does not make it, at least we have not killed any more space explorers!!!

[@twotone3471]

No, what's leaking separates before re-entry. So we'll never know what's up unless they take it apart in a spacewalk. And that's fairly unlikely. IMHO what happened is Boeing over-estimated the lifespan of their components. We knew if Starliner didn't launch soon, Boeing would have to tear into Starliner to replace items that would fail due to age. If Boeing had overestimated how long such components could remain leak proof, it would go a long ways to explaining how this happened. Boeing launched with leaking components due to age.

[@NormReitzel]

as an engineer who routinely works with helium manifolds, let me strate that in my case, 95% of helium leaks occurred because some techniciam (oftem grad student (PhD candidate)) put swagelok fittings in place with the ferrule lock ring installed backwards. They (the fittings) are not intuitive and if the lock ring is either left out or installed backwards, the joint Will Leak, period. Granted, post-docs should know better, but I personally guarantee they do not.

[@glenn4412]

True

[@larrydugan1441]

Now that is an interesting observation.

[@EmbersX]

Sad

[@Chainsaw-ASMR]

Can confirm that I did something similar with swagelok fittings as an undergrad. Thankfully I was only setting up an instrument and NOT working on a human rated spacecraft. 😅

[@michaelreid2329]

Sounds like abit of printing us required on both the fitting and the nut, or some other means to identify which side goes where.

[@Garth_Bowen]

Thank you for really filling out the potential liabilities of the Helium leaks. Very dangerous and insidious. We have to remember that there are senior people, at very high levels, who can and will distort the data on such circumstances if it means saving money. I think that you are pushing for a very sane solution in allowing the capsule to float free, drift away and use another means for the two crew member's return.

[@shanent5793]

Another reason to use helium is that the higher speed of sound raises the resonant frequency of pneumatic systems, making them less likely to oscillate

[@bohenriksson2330]

Wow I tell ya, you really DO learn something new every day 😂! Thank You!

[@marvinjensen2205]

Excellent video and presentation. I absolutely agree that the Starliner should be sent back to Earth without crew members on board.

[@woodlanditguy2951]

Don't risk it. I believe your assessment is correct. Dragon is a tested and proven system. They should return home on the Dragon 2 capsule.

[@theOrionsarms]

The one with the cracks in the door? If NASA believe that the flawed dragon is fine, and the flawed Starliner is also good, who you are to choose the one that is "safer", you should be more modest in your evaluation, I don't know whitch is safer, but I know that both use toxic and corrosive hipergolics propellants(so no surprise that both have problems with valves too ) , if I want to asset something that is inherently safer I would say something that doesn't use those things, like Dreamchaser that use hydrogen peroxide and RP1, peroxide is kinda unstable and a irritating substance, but RP1 is only a form of kerosene, so both are better.

[@user-zz8vn9qm5o]

@@theOrionsarms Space X has 4 dragon crew capsules : Capsule C206 “Endeavour” , Capsule C207 “Resilience” , Capsule C210 “Endurance” and Capsule C212 “Freedom” and the cracks in the door??? are you sure ? first time hearing this.

[@BaldGeek83]

@@theOrionsarms "The crack is estimated to be 0.02 square inches, and a crack would have to be more than twice that size to be enough to prevent the launch. ... *This is one of multiple redundant seals in this area.* It’s kind of a top coating over the pressure seal, which is then over the main seal for the hatch,” explained Sarah Walker, director, Dragon Mission Management, SpaceX. “This material expands under heating so we expect that actually a defect of this size would self-heal during the launch process.” Trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill?

[@theOrionsarms]

@@BaldGeek83 what is the point of your answer? That the dragon was considered safe by NASA? That is what I said too, when they would evaluate Starliner (after the end of this flight)you can send me their assessment and both can agree that it is a pertinent analysis (or not),who knows what would be in it.

[@matthewwiemken7293]

@@theOrionsarms That dragon capsule flew 5 missions. If the door seal needs to be replaced, that sounds better than leaky valves:)

[@darkguardian1314]

The loss of Columbia was especially heartbreaking having watched their remembrance of Challenger a few days before the accident. I was able to view Columbia passing over horizon at sunset in San Diego. Watching the Starship’s flap falling apart makes you keenly aware to not lean anything to chance and HOPE it’ll all work. As Neil deGrasse Tyson said on his podcast, “If your sentence contains the word "Hope" then you've confessed no control over the outcome you're hoping for.”

[@terranspaceacademy]

Indeed. I was out jogging and saw what looked like a meteor shower over East Texas. I went inside and turned on the news and heard that Houston had lost contact with the orbiter... I knew immediately they wouldn't be getting it back.

[@fluffywarhampster]

The possibility of a copv failure is the most concerning. An explosion in space not only risks destroying starliner but also sending shrapnel through the iss and potentially killing more than just the crew of starliner. Risking the lives of astronauts and a space station that we no longer have the means to rebuild is just plain stupid.

[@PlanetEarth3141]

An exact preface to the very likely situation and what's to come. Politicians and government bureaucracy. Plus undereducated citizens.

[@IanValentine147]

Well said. I don't think you can be too careful. As a pilot, once u start a flight u want to finish it. It's called 'get-there-itis', it's always a good call to get on the ground safe when things start deteriorating.

[@pointnemo369]

Terran Space Academy is by far head and shoulders above the pack of other KZbin space channels.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

Because he has actual knowledge. He is not parroting others, more knowledgeable people.

[@mvot966]

Dragon and DreamChaser could be the long- sought commercial backup team. No need to push our luck on Starliner.

[@huffpappy]

It is sad to see what Boeing has become since it's merger with McDonald Douglas. Profits over safety and reliability is a losing strategy for an aerospace company. They better get their act together before it's too late.

[@robertsunde7973]

I concur. Before the launch I said that they should hold off and do the repair, because you don't know what you don't know. It's a test flight, you want it to be as near perfect as possible so variables can be quickly isolated and addressed.

[@MichalCilekAI]

I definitely agree with you. NASA should allow the Starliner to land autonomously to avoid risking human lives.

[@locutusofzork4630]

Starliner is about four years behind Dragon in development. NASA or Congress doesn't want to drop their relationship with Boeing. It makes sense for them to want an alternative to Dragon, but Boeing is too far behind. Maybe they should look at Dream Chaser or wait. Falcon is unlike any other space ship we had, because of its high reusability and reliability. I feel we can wait for the next generation ship to be developed. We can always ask the Russians if there is an emergency that Dragon can't manage....which I can't see any. The problem with waiting is everyone is far behind SpaceX with their new ships as well. It seems like we are seeing the beginnings of a shift towards them, just like from Blockbuster to Netflix.

[@howelljaynes1292]

The Dragon was developed with a 2.6 billon dollar contract, Starliner with a 4.2 billion dollar contract. Pretty big difference in value for the dollar.

[@aowen2471]

You're assuming the Russians have capacity when it needed.

[@BaldGeek83]

Dream Chaser is a wonderful alternative to Boeing's Starliner, and even the Dragon Capsule. Musk should add hardware to make Falcon 9 able to take Dream Chaser to the ISS.

[@theOrionsarms]

@@howelljaynes1292 right, also the crew dragon is a improved version of the cargo dragon that was developed with NASA money,if you add that isn't such a big difference.

[@TheCNYMike]

If we don't need Starliner because we have Dragon, we don't need Dream Chaser either. The only advantage Dream Chaser has is it's not Boeing. Which means the argument is BS.

[@EstorilEm]

I agree with your conclusion, but the explosion risk and COPV failure concern seems really random. As far as we know, aren’t we talking about relatively small o-rings (I think they said they were like the diameter of a marker or pen?) Being such a tiny molecule, leaks past o-rings and such (while not normal or good) aren’t a huge stretch. How did we go from that to an explosion risk though? If you want to make the case for abandoning Starliner, I’d just go the route of project management, poor risk-mitigation, an overly-complicated design (especially relative to its weight/performance), and obviously, major cost issues and concerns - particularly so when you draw out the cost over the planned number of launches versus just using Dragon. I think Crew Dragon is something like $140 million cheaper for 4 seats PER LAUNCH! Plus you can’t put a price on safety, especially when attached to the ISS for prolonged periods of time. Crew Dragon is well understood, and I don’t expect any surprises from that vehicle - the Cargo Dragon program helped with that immensely as well. Very mature design. Starliner is the exact opposite. So extrapolate those cost numbers a bit - Boeing is contracted for six missions. Figure four seats per launch (typical profile, and for comparison-sake.) ~$140m savings per launch x6 = ~$840m dollars NASA could save if they just stuck with SpaceX! This isn’t really NASAs fault though, saying “Boeing is costing NASA $840m by consistently screwing up everything relating to Starliner as a program” is probably more accurate. And screw the ISS re-boost capability, just let the damn Russians do it. 🤦‍♂️ Hell, SpaceX could probably modify the trunk of a Cargo Dragon with fuel / Draco thrusters and have the entire thing operational before we get a chance to have Starliner even attempt a re-boost. Plus given the thruster issues, a re-boost maneuver seems increasingly risky. Boeing will get it right, but at this point they’re playing with fire; the risk factor has increased exponentially with this mission, and we need to know if NASA was made aware of everything or not - because the later is CLASSIC Boeing. NASA isn’t supposed to operate this way anymore post-shuttle-program, but my gut feeling is that Boeing has a lot to do with these decisions at this point, given the very public nature of a plagued Starliner program.

[@rocistone6570]

Thank you so much for a video with some intelligent and scientific content on this subject! This is the sort of information which ought to be freely available to the public! This is an example of the level of information NASA ought to be using these problems to the public as well! Kudos and Bravo!

[@occhamite]

There is also the case of the Saturn SIV-B test stand explosion, where a flight article blew up during a J2 engine test, owing to a helium pressure vessel failure. It was later determined that the wrong filler material was used to weld the two hollow metal hemispheres which comprised the tank, so that they literally came apart, into two halves at the weld line, right in the middle of the test, perhaps due to the temperature and vibration issues which arose during actual operation of the stage. Disquietingly similar to the scenarios you laid out for Starliner at the ISS.

[@JeffWusch]

Dragon is a proven system. I agree, let starliner come back by itself, and send Dragon to go get them as needed

[@gorgonbert]

We don’t have any information, so we cannot know… all we can do is speculate that they wouldn’t delay the return of Starliner twice if everything was honky dory…

[@rocistone6570]

The point here is that we SHOULD have information. The key question here is "Who stands to gain by presenting these issues to the public in the same manner as pablum is set before a baby in a highchair? The NASA Press Corps is largely filled with people who, while well-meaning and serious, have to "dumb down" what they report for an audience with a sixth-grade reading level most of the time. The argument can and should be made that this is the only place where space is available for so much-needed technological space. :)

[@gorgonbert]

@@rocistone6570 fully agree... there's definitely something going on... NASA wouldn't delay the departure twice without reason... and all they tell us is "oh we just want to play with our new toy a little bit longer" ... yeah, right! Any work done on the ISS is planned weeks, if not months ahead and they are telling us that they just came up with some tests out of the blue and need more time. According to their communications the helium leak isn't the reason for the delay... so what is it then?

[@TheCNYMike]

Well, what we do know from the latest article on Spacenews is that the leaks give Starliner 70 hours of flight time, but the trip back to Earth takes seven. Sounds like more than enough to spare. If they have their press conference on Tuesday and DON'T say the crew will be returning on Dragon, what will accuse NASA of then?

[@jamesgibson3582]

Speculation and public piling on. If it was unsafe neither NASA or Being would risk it. The press conference said they had 10x the helium required. Learning why those are leaking will make for upgraded failure analysis everywhere. Ectending the stay could be for the exact reasons stated, housekeeping on the ISS the crew is scheduled in 5 mimute blocks all day, every day. Two experienced ISS veterans can do a lot on that while condu ting additional starliner procedires. Not everything is a conspiracy.

[@TheCNYMike]

@@jamesgibson3582 Exactly.

[@rickfucci4512]

Flying starliner is to ignore the environment at Boeing that is causing an institutional incompetency.

[@georgemartinez-vi5yi]

Having learnt of these possible complications, I'm with you, Starliner should be returned empty & the crew returned later.

[@mattnewell649]

I agree with your assessment, they definitely shouldn't risk more lives, and NASA has other options. NASA and Boeing have great Engineer's, but are ran by bureaucrats that have lost there way in the science of advanced space travel! They need to revamp their though process! Recycle, Recycle, Recycle is the only way to go! I wish someone would be able to get this through their thick skulls!!

[@larrydugan1441]

I have always hated plumbing but I have never seen a massive rupture that didn't start with a small warning leak.

[@DrT1250]

That was an eye-opening video. Thank you for posting. There's no reason to risk lives in this situation.

[@terranspaceacademy]

We agree and thank you

[@icare7151]

18% of thrusters have malfunctioned, which are clearly design, quality and/or installation defects.

[@mENTALdRIFTER]

"They shot at us!" "Ah, yes, the standard galactic greeting."

[@gravityawsome]

Bruh, it's not like the starliner is any cheaper to launch. Just stick with Spacex and other new start-ups.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Twice as expensive in fact...

[@barneyklingenberg4078]

90 million vs 65 million bucks for a seat. Then the other advantage space X is all American. Atlas V uses Russian made engines.(which are very good I must admit) But relying on Russian tech is exactly what we wanted to solve with these new vehicles.

[@BaldGeek83]

@@barneyklingenberg4078 While the RD-180 is an excellent engine, the latest versions of the Merlin D1 is equally as good, and versions 1 & 2 of Raptor are better than the RD-180. Raptor 3 promises to be the best engine with the highest ISP for its size than any other engine ever built.

[@snakevenom4954]

@@BaldGeek83 Raptor 1 was not better than an RD-180. Merlin and Raptor 2's are, however. Merlin has the best thrust to weight ratio of any rocket engine and is one of the cheapest engines to manufacture. Raptor is the magnum opus of all rocket engines. It just needs more fine tuning is all. Which will certainly come in time

[@tonyrome5584]

If I were one of the Starliner astronauts I would refuse to return to earth in it. I have dealt with helium leaks and using helium leak detection equipment to test other pressure vessels. My engineering judgement says: do not risk the crew further AND get that ship off the ISS ASAP. If the Starliner makes it back in one piece then engineers can learn what went wrong and how to fix it. However, my gut sense says that there are too many glitches continuing to surface, indicating poor overall QAQC exacerbating a marginal, overly compromised, design. This was the same assessment that I made regarding the Shuttle years before the first disaster.

[@robertst-laurent6452]

Your presentation expresses what the whole planet would wish to be a reference leading to a difficult and controversial decision to let go the Starliner float away from the ISS and without any passengers on board let it burn on a controlled re-entry. I watched all of your presentations about the Starliner and I consider that you present a guiding light of the most important factors to be considered in this extremely difficult decision that has to be made in the coming hours. Let the thing go and burn, this spacecraft is not safe and every extra second it is attached to the ISS puts the crew at a very high of dying due to the high probability of a catastrophic explosion of the Starliner leading to the total destruction of the International Space Station. Your presentations are soooo well documented. You possess an exceptional talent at conceiving, assembling/creating pure jewels.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It's the only safe thing to do at this point Robert.

[@reapergnome666]

If we lose any astronauts on this, high level people at NASA should see serious jail time. It’s hard to admit, but nasa who seems to have a high standard for safety with Others, has a low standard when congressional spending is involved.

[@woodlanditguy2951]

Agreed... This thing is massively over budget, it was bid almost 2x over SpaceX to begin with, it is 5 years over due and still lacks the ability to safely transport astronauts or safety function around the ISS. All the while NASA gave the 3rd degree to Dream chaser which could have easily been functional by now if NASA had chosen it over Starliner almost a decade ago.

[@MrGchiasson]

NASA is worried about Public Relations and congressional funds.. Any bad missions look bad for NASA...and could cut the it funds & support. Also...NASA seems to have a huge ego and want to keep it on top. They have an image to protect. So..waste $billions to protect a bad program instead of admitting your mistake and using the money more wisely.

[@jameswilson5165]

Bull poop. If NASA had high standards, two shuttles would not have been destroyed.

[@LuciFeric137]

For Columbia and Challenger too

[@charlesmaurer6214]

@@woodlanditguy2951 Correction 7 years overdue and SpaceX already did makeup flights Boeing was paid for and failed to deliver. Also way over SpaceX's cost for the same jobs as you mentioned and Boeing is using leftover rockets that are less than a dozen of for four craft they are being paid to build that means at most the Boeing craft will make 3 flights each on average before being rendered useless even to try to use. Also they cut back to two on the crew when the first attempt to launch and per contract was for 3 instead. This suggest they already were scaling the mission back for some reason, like knowing they may lose some fuel or air and wanted extra margins because of issues on the ground that IMHO should have grounded that craft.

[@OldBillOverHill]

Better safe than sorry. Unfortunately, as has been said already, this is a management problem more than an engineering problem. When I criticized the Quality Assurance testing I found myself being questioned as to my qualifications and having to defend myself. The individual self identified as a NASA engineer and was very defensive. I stand by my statement that there appears to be issues around Quality Assurance with this vehicle. I agree the best approach is to sent this craft back autonomously. Sending a Dragon capsule with two people would allow room for the test pilots to return on it. Thank you for your follow up.

[@TheChrisDaly]

I agree with you, there is no reason to risk the crew, 'if' Starliner survives an autonomous return, the matter can be reviewed. A 'crew certified' Dragon capsule can be sent up on the next re-supply mission and the Starliner crew can ride home safely on it ... There is no shame in doing this; don't let 'Boeing's ego' put another crew at risk because they are too proud to admit it might be faulty ...

[@scottthomas3792]

Starliner is starting to remind me of the ship on " Salvage One"....I agree with you, if it's leaking that much, don't risk four human beings. Would you drive a car with multiple brake system leaks? Better safe than sorry.

[@darelvanderhoof6176]

Sounds like your thoughts should be considered. At least they put people on notice that they better not repeat past mistakes.

[@LoSGatoS-pe9hk]

Good point and great video! Thank you Captain for raising this safety awareness.❤

[@wadetyler2429]

Safety vs pride and reputation. We all hope they arrive at the correct decision.

[@samsleeman479]

HMMMM?? I think Boeing used up all the luck issued to this flight to get to the ISS and docked safely. If I were the crew I wouldn't trust that ship to get me back home. Wait for another ride.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's what I think. When the fates whisper listen. When they shout run.

[@RicardoRamalhorr]

Well explained. Thanks 👍🏼😊❤🎉🎉🎉

[@OliverGrumitt]

There should have been another uncrewed flight of Starliner before putting astronauts on board. Flying Starliner with a known fault that has not been dealt with satisfactorily is really criminal and just the sort of thinking that led to the Shuttle disasters.

[@LandNfan]

Cancel Starliner? Nah, we’re talking Boeing and NASA and the fix is in.

[@patrickdurham8393]

No way I'd ride that trashcan back to earth.

[@toledomarcos70]

Correction Death Ship

[@randyhuffman9370]

They should have never let the starliner dock to the ISS after discovering the additional leaks. It puts all the station members at risk. At this point, I agree with your plan.. Live to fly another day!!!

[@Bloodwhiner]

The Apollo 1 fire was caused by a fault capsule design. Following it, the capsule was essentially redesigned and rebuilt to be a much better and safer spacecraft. Bring Starliner back unmanned and determine what the problem is - then reevaluate the whole design of the system and fix it.

[@mariusgrobler]

Good, technical explanation.

[@patrickriley6212]

Starliner needs to come back without the astronauts. It needs to land so it can be analyzed. It then should be canceled and the Dream Chaser program needs to be put on a fast track so we have a backup to the Dragon 😎

[@Codysdab]

Never underestimate the danger of hubris and arrogance.

[@billmullins6833]

Never underestimate the mendacity of government bureaucrats! OR the pettiness!

[@lucifersatoshi]

Totally agree. Send up a dragon with a crew of 2. A catastrophic failure would probably cancel Artemis.

[@ThaFamilyGuy]

it really scares me. thanks for the enlightenment

[@westphaliaphilosopher1900]

Excellent video!

[@Wiggiwan]

I'm new to the channel and I reallly liked your description of the problem and your recomendation to just release the capsule and send SpaceX to the rescue. In your scenerio, the only thing that would happen is Boing would get a little more egg in the face, but at least no astronaughts were placed at risk!

[@dww527]

Simple observation. Starliner has been delayed so long for so many reasons and years, one would think many critical systems, helium capsules, valves, seals, et cetera would have been replaced. Do you know if this was in fact done, or are many original parts still onboard ?

[@menotyou1234]

How close to death were the Apollo astronauts..? Obviously, #1 and #13 are self-explanatory.

[@tech45]

SpaceX seems like the only choice:)

[@larrydugan1441]

Interesting assessment. Thank you. Why after all these years is it difficult to design a reliable helium system when proven designs already exist?

[@rickbii63]

It's obvious that this craft is not ready for taking people to space. If were going to throw more money at this thing we better test it with out people on board.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

"Did the humans reply to our greeting?" "They dismissed it as space junk" "Wow. Rude"

[@Irishhayleysandiego]

If the hatch opened from inside the starliner how can it be let drift away if nobody onboard to close hatch

[@mikenicholas7132]

Curious, had a thought ..if coming back from the moon is too hard on tiles could a rendezvous with an ion drive sun/battery powered intercept/docking tug step be added to slow it down to low orbit velocity. Where is Kerbal when I need it.🤔

[@lenger1234]

Is there more than one tank and manifold feeding into each RCS?

[@gregedmand9939]

This is what comes from underfunding "side projects". The time between design, build and deployment gets so long, that failure potential grows exponentially. Especially in systems that require seals and are in a state of stressed construction.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

Big issue is the He is for control jets, if it leaks they are loosing the ability to control the craft. This may be worse as the leak itself can act as an uncontrolled jet pushing them off course. Further if the leak goes into the cabin it can alter the air mix causing other problems. Btw the X15 had such control jets for transitional flight beyond the Earth's air envelope. When engine stalls do to lack of air and the control surfaces lacked the air to affect the steering of the X15 this jets allowed the pilot to maintain control and those jets are described to compare to a spray can of paint.

[@nolsp7240]

So if they go through with the return and the astronauts land safely, will Starliner get the certification inspite of the leaks?

[@nwcaymans]

I agree w your assessment. The embarrassment to Boeing has already occurred with the identification of multiple leaks. Bringing the crew safely back on Starliner does not erase that embarrassment. Playing it safe and bringing the crew back on Dragon is the right thing to do. Losing the crew would be a tragedy that Boeing, and perhaps NASA, would not recover from.

[@TheCNYMike]

The latest story about Starliner on Spacenews says that the helium leaks give Starliner 70 hours of flight time, and it will take seven hours for the crew to return to Earth. That's why there is still no talk of the crew returning to Earth in anything but Starliner.

[@robyn051]

While that’s true this is a dynamic situation that can change very quickly and in a day it could theoretically spring more leaks and have significantly less flight hours left

[@TheCNYMike]

@@robyn051 The key word is "theoretically." They are not going to completely abord the return on "theoretically." And the engineers at NASA and Boeing know the systems better than anyone on KZbin.

[@toledomarcos70]

@@TheCNYMike You Hope they do

[@TheCNYMike]

@@toledomarcos70 Let's see, who's more likely to know Starliner better, the engineers actually working on it or KZbinrs who are starting heavily biased in favor of SpaceX? I'll go with the engineers.

[@dagtheaviator]

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. -Theodore Roosevelt

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Maximus Aviation has just posted a video on ‘fake’ Chinese Titanium sold to Airbus and Boeing. Oh crap…

[@geraldfichtner]

it sounds like your idea to drift and do a remote re-entry makes perfect sense and if it is recovered fine it would appear to have better redundancy than thought acceptable then great no harm no fowl. I would not cancel the craft yet but like block 1 Apollo it may need a total re design and be quite safe. the whole idea of these hyperbolic fuels seems quite dangerous and something we should have moved on from generations ago it tends to have unintended consequences like when it was vented overboard during apollo causing the parachutes to burn and collapse on Apollo 15 and when it leaked in the M-E 163 comet it killed several German pilots and burnt more

[@jaysmith4293]

Excellent work and sound logic. I agree with you. I comment before about using argon instead of helium. I was well educated by a better educated person on the reason why argon isn't used an I appreciate that. Still ( I am stubborn) argon is heavier, safety is worth the cost. Technology could possibly solve the other issues. Maybe it could solve some of the issues of leaks maybe it would not.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Thank you very much Jay. Argon would be a lot easier to keep in the bottle and lines that's for sure. And it's cheap.

[@garlandgarrett6332]

I totally agree, ditch the star liner autonomously and unmanned. Dragon the ferry up new suits and. Bring astronauts home safely

[@ForOurGood]

So I can be a little thick at times, but I still am not sure I can understand the risk of explosion. As far as I understand, it seems unlikely that the COPV's themselves are leaking, and if they were, a slow leak of helium into space, even inside the fairing, is not going to lead to an explosion right? Anyway, anything is possible, but given what we know, that seems very unlikely. What seems more likely, is fundamental issues with the helium plumbing, but again, explosion does not seem on the table. What is a real concern however, would be the loss of enough RCS or OMS capability, during the flight home, rendering the craft stranded or worse yet, uncontrolled re-entry. Honestly, given what we have seen so far, I don't see how they could reasonably rule that out, and for me, that is enough to say that they should not return on that craft. If they did, this would be NASA taking the same stupid risk as with frozen o-rings, or observed ice impact on the leading edge. In both cases it was "we have no way to judge for sure, even though we know it could be a problem, so let's continue with the flight anyway!". If they do this stupid mistake for a 3rd time, I don't think anyone will ever forgive them, and they will never be trusted again.

[@richardmiller4388]

Responsible, comprehensive analysis. Allowing the Starliner to (attempt) return to earth without astronauts aboard is the only sensible thing to do. The astronauts can return on Dragon. If Starliner manages a safe return, a comprehensive analysis can be completed in a no-risk scenario.

[@warp00009]

Thank you for this excellent analysis! I agree with your logical conclusions, that Starliner should immediately leave the ISS and return unmanned to Earth if it is able. I hope NASA and Boeing can cut through their unfolding public relations disaster and do what's safest for everyone!

[@jonathanr2830]

How many uninstalled bolts is within Boeing's specified tolerance?

[@SesionesCarpeDiem]

Could it be the defective titanium that appeared on the news? (Boeing new scandal)

[@geraldfichtner]

for now they are in the perfect spot to be stranded is space, I think that's why Nasa and Boeing sent just two people on the flight knowing they could send a ship with one rescue astronaut and two open seats to go get them

[@thelovertunisia]

I would argue that they should scrap that shit.

[@lancelane217]

Agreed. In my opinion Starliner should be scrapped as Boeing is not the company it used to be.

[@justabloke7299]

I think we are confounding 'a leak' with 'a damaged helium tank'. They are not the same thing, and could also not be related. The fact that there are 5 leaks (supposedly) suggest the problem is not with the tank but with some connectors somewhere. I don't think that spells disaster, only that you might run out of helium, and they have plenty.

[@daveoatway6126]

Incredible the NASA has to ask the space station if they can put a mask on while the suit is being put on. Don't they have engineers who know the processes, or can experiment like they did with A 13? It appears the engineers are superseded by bean counters.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

Relax. It's just part of the drill.

[@billmullins6833]

When you were listing the astronauts killed in service you left out Gemini astronauts Charles Bassett and Elliot See who died in a T-38 crash in 1966.

[@RoBear-xo6zw]

I particularly like the Whitehouse PR event with Suni and Butch…

[@Lost-In-Blank]

It is both a waste of money funding Boeing's participation in the space program and an unjustified risk to human life.

[@robyn051]

If it’s Boeing, I ain’t going!

[@gmcusa001]

Time to put starliner in the museum.

[@JoLo6696]

I wrote multiple times: this thing is a widow maker.

[@larrybryant4827]

Its interesting that this " COPV lead" refers to "buckling of the aluminum liner". She should review her basic engineering text on the definition of buckling, which is a compressive mechanism. These tanks are under pressurized tensile loading when they fail, therefore not a buckling mechanism as defined in engineering. SpaceX often tried to assert this idea about buckling of these tanks. They do not understand the problem even though many have tried to explain this to them. There is a folding of the hot soft aluminum as it tries to expand through the COPV lining on one end. Thermal expansion Delta L = alpha* Tank Length*deltaT This elaborate explanation of an explosion under the COPV appears to be made up. The fact of the matter is that they spent millions on test tanks and meetings when the whole problem could have been solved with a careful free body diagram and a hand calculation.

[@pc-pitstopltd.5915]

I agree.. not worth the risk..

[@3dprintmiami]

Unfortunately we know they won't do that.

[@itubeutubewealltube1]

cool.. a composite pressurized tank... they should use those for submarines... oh, wait a second.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

It's always a pleasure to watch the Saturn V launch.

[@YellowRambler]

I’ve seen that same rerun of Saturn V for over half a century now, it was great at first but after more than a thousand time I had enough of the reruns, that why StarShip is so refreshing to see for a change.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

@@YellowRambler I am much younger so I'm not tired of the Saturn V launch yet. It feels great being able to watch Starship create its legacy on live feed.

[@timwhalen1288]

Totally Agree

[@zmblion]

NASA should have never let Boeing do manned flights they havent had one flawless launch yet

[@RichardDeHove]

Let's take the most optimistic scenario possible: Starliner returns safely with its crew. Would this mission then be deemed a "success" and Starliner officially become operational?

[@carlbrown5150]

Ditch Starliner it was a waste of resources "Too Expensive".!!🤨

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

My idea is detach the module from the ISS and deorbit it without the crew to see if they would or wouldnt survive re-entry ! Then send a spacex crew dragon to rescue the astronauts !

[@occhamite]

I agree with you: the "Boeing has done great things in the past" argument doesn't hold water. In everything it does, Boeing seems to stumble constantly making avoidable mistakes, and a taking "safe", visonless approach. The things that made Boeing great were forward, visionary thinking, and intelligent risk-taking; the 707, 727 , 747 being prime examples, where Boeing was willing to "bet the ranch" on . Since the absroption of McDonnell -Douglas, and its management culture, the empasis has been too much on issues such as "return on shareholder equity"; the boldness that made Boeing great has been suppressed, the 777X's limited use of composites being a prime example: "return on shareholder equity" invested in the old-technology aluminum fuselage taking priority over producing a lighter, more innovative airliner with greater fuel efficiency. So with the Starliner. we have an Apollo-like ship, developed with a 60's Moon Race approach, minus the urgency..........and Crewed Dragon runs rings around an "updated CSM" Starliner, as far as placing more people in orbit sooner, cheaper, and now safer to boot.