The Truth About NASA's New Space Capsule! (Starliner)
The Truth About NASA's New Space Capsule! (Starliner)
Last Video: NASA Reveals New SpaceX & Blue Origin Moon Landing Update!
• NASA Reveals New Space...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
#Spacex #Space #Mars
Do you think NASA’s investment in the Starliner will pay off or is this a lost cause? Let us know below!
Boeing will make it work, but it will always stay second best at best for NASA. 🤔😉
I don’t believe it will pay off. I think SpaceX is LIGHTYEARS, pun intended, ahead of Boeing already. SpaceX was awarded about half of what Boeing was and already met their contractual obligations but we will see.
Boeing has been broken ever since they absorbed McDonnell-Douglass and put a bunch of the executives that ran M-D into the ground in positions of authority at Boeing. They literally ate a tumor and then it metastasized inside them.
I think that when they approved the contract with Boeing they just committed to pissing away ! There is no good evidence Boeing will ever deliver the Starliner. I know it won't happen but I wish NASA would sue Boeing to get our money back. I think the crewed version of Dreamchaser will fly before Starliner.
Absolutely not.
The problem is simply that companies like Boeing, Lockheed, etc are so invested in politics that they own all of the oversight and know that they will always have a seat at the table whenever a bid comes up and will never be blocked from consideration for failing to deliver. Over budget and behind schedule is standard operating procedure and the people who could put a stop to it won't because they'll get primaried in their next election if they do.
Thank you!!! Someone who finally sees what I see and been saying for ages!!!
Basically, they're all corrupt as hell...
My dad was an aeronautical engineer and ICBM tech for Boeing from 42 to 69. He quit in disgust because of their devious thievery of American dollars.
Baby TeSla kingDom 😍 love 🤩
The military industrial complex has been fantastic for US defence in the past, but it relies on the politicians not being corrupt. I don't mind commercial entities doing everything they can for their ahare holders, but I really hate politicians taking financial advantage at the expense of their constituents.
The best thing Starliner has done for the US, is to reaffirm that bloated old legacy corps are slow, costly, and lacking innovation. Boeing received almost double the funding as SpaceX, around $5 billion, had decades of experience building spacecraft, and yet nearly 10 years later, they've still not launched a single astronaut. We do need multiple launch systems for flexibility and assured access to space, but damn if SpaceX doesn't fly circles around absolutely everyone else in aerospace.
This is because an actual businessman that isn't interested in bureaucracy is leading the charge, to the point of actually engineering on the floor of the "shop" himself if things get backed up. This is opposed to the suits in most every other legacy corporation who would rather golf with politicians than do their damned jobs.
#1 - SpaceX already had taken several billion of taxpayer money to build Cargo Dragon 1. That gave them legacy hardware to build on, so they had a head start building Manned Dragon 2, and so they needed less money than a company starting from scratch. #2- Boeing had not built a manned spacecraft for over 30 years. All engineers from that effort have retired, and all institutional knowledge was way outdated. So the money issue is bogus. I think a more important issue is that Boeing failed to invest enough resources in the project. Also, like on their airliners, they subcontract too many systems. For instance, the Service Module issues with thruster valves are all on Rocketdyne. Software wise, Boeing is not doing too well. I agree that Boeing has dropped the ball. But Dreamliner is barely now getting ready, and it is only a cargo ship. So NASA really didn't have a better option. back in 2014.
Agree. If NASA had been doing their job correctly, in about 2022 they would have cancelled the Boeing contract and reallocated the remaining funding to Sierra Space.
In the true spirit of government programs, the Starliner (specifically designed to work with the ISS) will be ready to use 4 months before the ISS is decommissioned. Then the replacement space station will be designed to work with the Starliner. However, the new space station will be ready 5 months before the Starliner is decommissioned. Rinse and repeat.
Very funny but very true. It's not just a thing with government programs though
Wut abt the Axiom station?
@@ethanlal4517 That's definitely my favorite
Lol sure bud keep smoking that crack.
Apollo was a government program too. This is on Boeing.
I remember reading a while back that a McDonnel Douglas engineer said after the merger, that the company was now run by accountants with spreadsheets instead of engineers. He said F' this and retired.
There are a few engineers that worked on that Saturn V moon rocket. This must be frustrating to them to see incompetence like this. When a corporation has more accountants than engineers that can make things work that corporation lays off good people and blames economic downturns for their stupidity.
When you consider that the whole contract is just for the “command module” and the whole “get it into space” rocket part is ULA’s rocket and that’s all sorted, it’s a really poor effort on Boeing’s part. Meantime SpaceX designed a rocket and command module, and space suits etc. AND are in the middle of sorting the next level of spacecraft now. Good job NASA. You made such a good decision going for Boeing. 🤦♂️
Not to mention 20+ cargo missions using the same dragon capsule.
I remember how smug Boeing fanboys were.
I worked at ULA on integration of the Starliner to the Atlas V. Very early we told Boeing that dynamic pressure coming from the Starliner had crushing effects on the Centaur Upper Stage. We had launch vehicle design solutions to mitigate it, but Boeing insisted we continue with our current adapter design and they'd fix the problem on their end. They didn't. We had hardware designed, built, and tested. spent a fortune on tooling etc. They couldn't fix the problem and we had to throw out everything we'd done and start over with our launch vehicle solution we had recommended in the first place. That's that cylinder you see below the Starliner on top of the Atlas. That keeps the shock wave away from the Centaur Upper Stage. I worked at Boeing before ULA and knew people working on Starliner. I know one guy that had brought up design and production issues with management. He was kicked off the program for being a troublemaker.
NASA administrators were forced to include Boeing CST-100 as one of the 2 vehicles by Congress. NASA administrators tried to cover their butts by saying Boeing was the safest alternative - That has proven to be false…
@@jtjames79 Remember Neil dG Tyson? He is a joke
Over 50 years ago we lost 3 astronauts to a fire in the Apollo capsule, but Boeing didn't think to check the flammability of the wiring in Starliner capsule??? This is either total incompetence or an absolute clown show.
They did check. When they started building Starliner, the tape was certified. The certification was revoked, and it's a very low risk so probably would have been able to grandfather in. Except it's still not technically finished, so now they have to replace all the wiring.
Boeing IS a shit show
I worked for Boing back in the 60's, so I chose the CLOWN remark. Lol
Your both wrong they are the worst sort of clowns. incompitant corrupt clowns
@@theadventuresofbrockinthai4325 in 60s Boeing were Ok, they stole a little from European companies, a bit similar to what Lockheed and the soviets did, but now they are worse than clowns
Always been a fan of the Dream Chaser. It's amazing what companies can do if they don't have the bloat and corruption of a Boeing.
It reminds me of John's shuttle in Farscape.
@@corporealexistence9467that’s it! For so long I have looked at Dream Chaser and had a tingle of recognition and now you have connected it for me! Dream Chaser +/- FarScape!
Dream chaser is on a slow slow slow progression very similar to starliner.
LOL, New Glen? Ha ha. That's funny I expect we will be using a Star Trek like transporter before new Glen gets off the ground.
I grew up with NASA and the Space Program, and constantly admired Boeing, IBM, and the others. Just cannot believe that Boeing can no longer walk and chew gum at the same time. I sincerely wish them success because they've always delivered. But now this, and billions of of our dollars.........
IBM has faired much better
In Boeing's glory years, the company was run by engineers or at least by people who respected engineering expertise. These days Boeing is run by finance guys.
Um... which spacecraft have Boeing ever successfully created for NASA in its history?
"Always delivered"? You do recall the issues with the 737 Max, right?
Boeing was a trusted engineering driven company, now it is a bank with an Aerospace branch, bean counters rulr and this explains the 737 MAX, the capsule etc
You forgot the part where on orbit they found an error that would have caused the destruction of the ship, when it collided with it's trunk.
9:00 I'm sure you didn't mean for it, but the way you said that about Falcon 9's blowing up made it seem like they were accidental, and more common than in reality. They expended one (1) Falcon 9 for the inflight abort test, which exploded due to aerodynamics when the front of the rocket flew away. It was intentional, and only happened once for this program.
Yea. Thats a ridiculous statement. That one explosion on the ground was even Block 3. I would say that Block 5 is a much different vehicle.
I worked on the shuttle program. During its time, it was initially designed operated by Rockwell international. I also worked at Boeing, Rockwell was the better company for aerospace
Rest in peace first manned crew of Starliner, Boing does it again !
It truly is sad to see Boeing struggling the way they do with everything they build. The days of Apollo have long gone and so are they brilliant people that worked for them. Computers are great but if you don't have the right people , smart people , it isn't going to work any longer. All glitz and glamor but no show.
This video was much more interesting and informative than expected. Nice job. I love your videos!
Yikes, inflammable wiring is scary. I am old enough to remember Apollo 1.
Needs a flame to be held on it for it to catch fire.
@@BullyDropsthere is nowhere to run to in space if something goes wrong. Any issue, no matter how unlikely, can mean inescapable death. For a craft carrying humans there is zero room for error. A fire, however unlikely, means death. It has to be prevented at all costs
@@BullyDrops- The repost said the wiring could potentially create a spark which could create a flame… ATST, many of the problems plaguing Starliner are consistent with those plaguing other Boeing aircraft developed in the last 15 years.
Only under extreme circumstances could it catch fire. They are building a brick shit house to handle anything.
@@TraditionalAnglican Boeing has rolled out dozens of different types of aircraft recently.
Sierra Space has an *unmanned* Dream Chaser ready to fly. I am quite certain that, had they received the COTS contract instead of Boeing, they would have been flying crew to the ISS for quite some time now. It will be years, if ever, before they develop a manned version of Dream Chaser, although that is certainly high on their priority list. Boeing was supposed to provide Starliner as their contribution to the Orbital Reef space station, but my impression is they want to fly their six missions and get out of the space flight business all together.
Dream chaser was almost as slow as starliner
@@reaj2010sierra space is smaller company.. its understanable, but boeing?? Cmon!
isent it interesting that all the big aerospace companies have been racked with problems and bloated price tags its almost like they have been the only game in town so long they have forgotten what it like to have competition
I think Starliner will get 1 flight… to collect the final crew of the ISS before it’s decommissioned 🤣
Boeing should have to do 2 more uncrewed missions before manned
NASA's Space Shuttle was launched 135 times, 133 successfully. The first shuttle mission in the ISS program was launched on 4 Dec1998 (STS-95). That was the 93rd shuttle launch. Most of the 37 shuttle flights after STS-95 went to the ISS and, obviously, none of the first 92 shuttle flights went to that space station.
Yeah that comment about how “most” of the shuttle missions went to the ISS stood out as obviously inaccurate
Boeing Starliner: 1.507 billion USD for 390 cubic feet of total volume. It is the most expensive tiny B&B on the planet which still hasn't proven that it is up to code. An even better riot of fun is to look at Boeing's other military programs which have huge cost overruns and design/acceptance issues. The McDonnell Douglas utterly failed profits first philosophy is now so deeply entrenched in Boeing that it will never be eradicated from this company. The Starliner is the new McDonnell Douglas DC-10, aka the flying coffin as the DC-10 came to be known by the flying public.
Wasn’t it $6.2 billion? Does it matter how big or small your B&B is until you actually use it?
Thank God for Space X !
Nice job. Very informative. keep it up.
thanks! Glad you enjoyed it
Great updates! Well done!
At the rate at which the market value of SpaceX is growing it will in a couple of years overtake both Boeing and Airbus. Once its quite modest development cost of about $5B is paid off, Starship will become a "license to print money". None of the other existing or planned launch vehicles can deliver 10 tonnes to LEO for less than the current cost of Falcon 9, about $30M, never mind less than the designed launch cost of Starship, less than $5M! Oh, and while delivering that 10 tonnes to LEO Starship can for no additional cost deliver another 140 tonnes! Starship can deliver 10 tonnes to the MOON for less than any other existing or proposed launcher can deliver 10 tonnes to LEO. There is also a hypothetical possibility that Starship could deliver 150 tonnes to any spot on Earth in under an hour for less than the cost of using a 747 or even the Antonov An-225 Mriya, both of which would require 12 hours for delivery! It could certainly deliver over 100 passengers on a sub-orbital flight to a greater altitude than either BO's New Shepard or Virgin Galactic can deliver 7 passengers. Boeing has already been paid for six flights to the ISS and NASA will probably oblige them by not paying for any additional Crew Dragon flights beyond current contracts in order to exploit those FREE missions. Those 6 missions will still cost Boeing at least $1.5 billion in payments to ULA for delivery to LEO. Why should NASA continue to subsidize Boeing beyond that when each additional flight by Shitliner beyond those 6 would cost them $50M more than SpaceX charges for the same service. There is far more value to NASA subsidizing the Sierra Dreamchaser which can move cargo more efficiently. Also SpaceX does not need any more missions to the ISS because it already has a lock on cargo and personnel transport to the commercial Axiom space station which will replace ISS. What good are Boeing's crew transport contracts or NGs Cygnus cargo contracts to the ISS when there is no ISS in 7 years? Further note that the only reason the ISS is in its inefficient 51.6° inclination orbit was to permit the use of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to supply it. The Chinese Tiangong space station is at only 41.47°. The ideal inclination for US stations is the latitude of Cape Canaveral 28.5°! With any western replacement space station SpaceX will be able to deliver 100 tonnes of cargo or a dozen astronauts and 80 tonnes of cargo for less than any other proposed launcher. And since all western replacement space stations are to be privately operated, European, Canadian, and American politicians will not be able to demand that their "friends" get contracts.
None of what you said has come close to happening yet. I'll believe it when I see it. Then there's that pesky safety and reliability factor, which for commercial passengers, won't be proved for at least 100 flights.
Love your videos, I think I’ve watched 85% of them 😊
Appreciate that! We’ll keep making em if you keep watching
@@TheSpaceRaceYT Yessir, and from the comments I always see most people that watch or are subscribed, probably feel the same way 😎
The problem with Sierra Space is that they don't have a launch platform. They plan to use ULA, but tgat depends on ULA getting the engunes from Blue Origin, which seems to be an ongoing problem. Falcon9 could launch it, but it would need a new design of payload fairing, which SpaceX is reluctant to spend time and money to build. Still, I wouldnt bet against SpaceX eventually being the launch provider.
Re Allocate the remaining Atlas 5's allocated to Star Liner to Dream Chaser
Sierra Space could just design and build a fairing and provide a fully integrated Dreamchaser/PLF to SpaceX if they wanted to.
There have been rumours that SpaceX is working on a larger fairing funded by the military but no idea if that is actually true, and if it is, how far along they are with it. It would make sense to have a larger fairing on Falcon Heavy which would be able to deploy larger military payloads currently totally reliant on ULA which is having major problems.
@@schrodingerscat1863 What always bugged me is that ULA killed off the Delta IV which was 100% American made, Engines, fairings were built here.. Kept Atlas V which flew Russian engines and used a Swiss fairing.
@@mattcolver1 Yes, ULA have made some very suspect decisions in recent years. I can understand why the Delta IV was retired because it was quite expensive but they should have waited until they had their replacement for Atlas before retiring it. Now they are looking at the very real possibility of having no launch vehicle at all is Vulcan is further delayed.
I am not an engineer, but it would seem that Boeing with all their defense contracts was more interested in saving money and padding their profits than getting into the space race. Musk on the other hand is more interested in success than profits, at least in the early stages. He has risked bankruptcy more than once and came out a billionaire.
What went wrong with Boeing?...to dang big...a mountain of management above the actual worker. Same issue it's always been.
They put woke ideology and equity training over real STEM and actual technology, that's why.
If it’s Boeing, I’m not going.
and the problems go on I’ll believe it when I see it thanks for the updates David 🚀❤️👌🇬🇧👍😊
If it's Boeing, you ain't going!
Interesting. Thanks. Good comments.
Great content, thanks very much for producing it, but why the purposeless flashy graphics?
Has a flight crew member ever refused to to fly on a vehicle and what would happen if they refused to fly on boeing's capsule ?
Some astronaut already excused him self for "family reason". That was a few years ago so I don't know if he is back in.
Apollo 10
9:02 - this was done on purpose. It was a test of the in flight abort system which will case instability in the first stage when this happened due to it still seeing a lot of aerodynamics drag being that it wasn’t in space for this planned in flight abort. Rather the timing was likely the worst case time to have the abort to occur to test out the system in the most difficult point in the launch.
What is the perforated black ring for? It runs all the way around the service module.
I love space stuff
😂 Hilarious start to your monologue.
How can Blue Origin be considered "in the running" when that company has yet to launch anything past the Kármán line?
To be fair to blue, they've launched new shepherd past the Karman line many times. They've just never put anything in orbit.
@@GreenEnvyhow does your message add value to the original post?
@@lighthousesaunders7242 not sure what you mean. Jon was saying they haven't launched anything past the Karman line, but that isn't correct.
@GreenEnvy That is a laughably inane argument. Producing a glorified yo-yo is not even in the same ballpark as an orbital rocket.
@@GntlTch it's not in the same ballpark at all. I said to be fair, they've crossed the Karman line. What SpaceX does is orders of magnitude more difficult (I'm a massive SpaceX fan, have been to starbase). I don't consider blue to be in the running either. I was simply replying to the Karman line comment.
Hey Astronaut… you wanted a free trip on Starliner? Hey… hey… where are you going?
I'm boarding the Orion. Talk to you again from the Moon
@@k1productions87 I would go on a one way trip… I was born 300 years to early
~ 6:00 - Sunny Williams looks pretty skeptical here... I would, too.
Nasa always has the best cartoons... ; )
When lives are on the line being cautious is probably the right call. Boeing is big enough they can afford it. Likely they will fulfil their missions and recoup some of that cost. Owning those patents alone probably make it all worth it. Not to mention the human capital they have probably built up over this project.
NASA is still building 1980's space "capsules". SpaceX is building space ships!
the whole point of this is healthy competition, rather than a monopoly.
Thanks!
Flammable wiring covers? Am I the only one who immediately thought of Apollo 1?
4:42 it's an sfs iss 🤣🤣
If I was scheduled to fly on StarLiner I’d be pulling out !!
SpaceX must have discovered the "secret sauce" in their architecture that Boeing has yet to discover. Endless fixes and upgrades to a flawed design may lead nowhere unfortunately. They never talk about the number of engineers who have to work with forced overtime on projects like this. After so long, there's the inevitable burn out of personnel and people start looking for another employer in order to save their physical and mental health.
Nice intro!
Thanks!
Did the window fall off when being moved in Florida a year ago or so.
Given the entire ULA company is up for grabs at around 5 billion$, this POS is inexcusable. Why couldn’t simplify the Orion for LEO/ISS is beyond understanding.
Cuz.....politics
@@ChatGPT1111 I still think the House should take a microscope to Bill Nelson’s relation$hip$ with Boeing.
How much did the execs git
Compared to Orion, it is well within old space development timelines.
Finally SOMEBODY mentions the Orion, jeez. Its like, if it works, then it doesn't exist in their minds. I also noticed nobody is making videos about SLS anymore, now that it has successfully flown and performed above expectations
Did you mention that the ULA SLS booster is not reusable and very expensive each shot?
Anyone know if SpaceX has continued to pursue dry landing site landings for Dragon 1/2?
Time for heads to roll.
Will they be using it in conjunction with any of the Artemis program?
No, that is entirely on the back of Orion, which has already performed above expectations in all its test flights
I work for space x! Go space x ! Next stop mars!
very cool
I'm sorry you guys. It's been a horrible week. Wish I guys did your part and much as I contribute behind t scenes
0:51 As much as I dislike the Space Shuttle, I will acknowledge that it is quite iconic.
Unfortunately the Shuttle was a glorified freight truck
Realy I like this video so so much
I am confused. You indicated that in early in 2020 NASA identified 80 issues which needed to be corrected for Starliner to proceed. Why wasn’t the parachute attachment and flammable tape issues identified back then? Also the pad abort launch was deemed a success with only two of the three parachutes fully deployed. You indicated that that was the minimum acceptable requirement. I assume that the same yoke parachute attachment was used. Why was it deemed unsafe later on? Also I assume the same problematic tape was used for the successful docking launch. Why was this not identified years earlier? Sounds to me like NASA shares some of the blame in this fiasco.
NASA instead focused on its already operational spacecraft (the Orion MPCV), and it now operational booster (SLS). Its funny, now that SLS has flown successfully, I don't see anyone making videos about it anymore. Probably because it isn't sexy to talk about craft that are actually working. Better to complain about the ones that aren't, and blame NASA for it. I notice barely anyone blames Congress for basically forcing NASA to fund Boeing's Starliner in the first place. They lost the competition, yet still got the contract.
Is it dome worthy? or is it just another pool sub?
Boeing shouldn't get any more money and be forced to finish it with their own money or be fined $4.2billion
Aren’t they canceling the project since it is costing too much with zero results… And the starliner windows blew off the craft when it was being transported on the highway
The Falcon 9 didn't explode by an accident, it was intentionally destroyed during an in flight abort test!
He did show the video of the abort test but there was one Falcon 9 that exploded due to an error in the fuelling procedure but that is the only unintentional loss of a Falcon 9 and it happened before launch. It has been an extremely reliable rocket especially considering some of the first stages have flown 15 times now.
@@schrodingerscat1863 18 times in fact. Yes, I know about that failure. But I do not count it as it was before the crew flight program.
@@GjermundLien Wow is it up to 18 now, I know they were validating it for 20 but didn't know that was done. Those first stages are an amazing bit of engineering.
none of the boeing ship's parts are even re-usable.
the benefit of reusability is overstated, especially when it pertains to anything beyond low Earth orbit
@@k1productions87 it's the difference in cost per kg of payload. Why aren't you paying attention?
@@brookestephen I am paying attention. But I'm looking beyond Earth Orbit. And for anything out beyond, what one SLS can do will take several Falcon Heavies, plus Starship, plus several launches just to refuel the damned thing
@@k1productions87 boosters and lifting bodies *MUST* be reusable to minimize cost and relaunch windows. I know money burns a hole in a pocket!
@@brookestephen Actually, the "reusable" engines of the Space Shuttle were one of the things that drove cost up so high. "reusable" also means costly refurbishment. You don't just refuel it and launch it again, you gotta go in and give it a full servicing.
Boeing needs to give the money back and close up shop!
Pork barrel has always been a " nice little earner" for pigs snouts in the trough. Time to audit it all!
There you go.... let's see how many bureaucrats and corrupt people gets pissed off getting their behaviour exposed...... as if there'd be any consequences for the high and mighty.
1:20 international space station was first launched in 1981 not 1998
What is 4.2 "Billon" anyway? Is that more than a Zillon?
The way this was presented it seems that Blue Origin will fly sooner than Starliner.
That brings to mind the development of the 787, when alarming reports from engineers were systematically ignored. Perhaps the underlying problems in Boeing's corporate culture hadn't been resolved?
They should have developed the HL-20.
No way I’d be on that first Starliner flight. I’d probably require 3-5 safe flights before thinking about it.
Should of developed the X30 spaceplane back in the early 90's then there would of been a replacement craft by the time the space shuttle retired.
Commercial Crew was not a "space race" of any kind. NASA learned, at least, that having 1 vehicle to fly crew would be bad if it was grounded (see STS-107). Commercial Crew spacecraft are partners; NASA wanted redundancy, not superiority. Each ship can also technically fly on its counterpart launch vehicle. All other points about Boeing's ineptitude, lack of verification and integration testing are accurate.
4.2 Billion ! I hope Nasa got a receipt.
It's a Fixed-Price contract. NASA hasn't paid that much yet, since the milestones haven't been met, and Boeing has literally said they are incompetent to work under FP, and will never do so again.
To send a crew on the Starliner would be criminal
Sierra November Alpha Foxtrot Uniform
Room for dune buggy and golf clubs!
What happened to Orion ????
It sounds to me like Boeing has some serious quality control issues. Not only as shown in this video with the Starliner's numerous delays due to things they ought to have made sure worked, but also with several of their key commercial products, like the 737MAX as mentioned here... and let's not forget the Boeing 787 Dreamliner; Q/C issues due to unskilled staff assembling them, faults with their batteries, structural concerns, etc... As well, the whole thing mentioned in this video about the wiring that became flammable in a high-oxygen environment, you Boeing would think of that, as that caused the loss of Apollo 1 back in the 1960's, which led to North American Aviation and Rockwell taking a step back and re-thinking their Apollo capsules. Interestingly, North American Aviation and Rockwell both became part of Boeing!
Boeing suffers from over management and lack of communications which is a common issue amongst very large companies. They are also run by the good old boy system which means they want to keep doing things the old fashion way, which also contributes to the issue.
Hmm, do you suppose that Boeing reassigned all of their 737Max Programmers to their Starliner project?
Sierra Space announced Dream Chaser Tenacity ready for launch 3 days ago. Why does Boeing even have employees any longer?
My hope is that the Dream Chaser is going to give more competition to the SpaceX’s Dragons as SpaceX has ever wished. Sierra Space’s vision for the space flights is just much better than any Dragon can ever be. But the biggest of my hopes is to see the Tenacity on the top of Falcon Heavy. A perfect solution but so improbable, such a pity! The other issue is Boeing’s Star liner. A naive try to implement the 70ties project to the 21st century. Just a shade for the burned money.
Great video, but please make some other color choices for your graphs. The graphs at 10:33 and 10:36 were almost impossible to decipher and I’m not even color blind
When you take the cost of the SLS, all the "savings" are totally out the window.
What savings?
SLS has at least successfully flown, as well as the Orion MPCV. And at a fraction of what developing Apollo cost.
So we started out cramming people in capsules and launching them into space. Then we invented a really cool looking space ship that could fly there and back. Now, where back to little capsules again.. Where going backwards. Ide of thought by now we would of had something on the way to the starship Enterprise....
Don't forget Starship. Once that's online, all other craft are obsolete.
Starliner < Ocean Gate Sub
I put less stock in new Glenn than starliner, and I don’t put much in starliner. At least Boeing has hardware and it has flown. Dragon and Dream Chaser will be the rides of the future, along with Orion.
Boeing should have to return the money and give all the space assets to spaceX
creating monopolies is never a good thing
spaceX has so resoundingly shattered anything Boing has done that its already an effective monopoly@@Unbaguettable