This is inexcusable. I spent 20+ years as a Test Engineer at a company that supplies space-qualified components whose failure would be catastrophic. There is no substitute for good workmanship.
I've not heard this report on any other of the major Space related channels, where did you get this information (please give links or sources). Thanks.
Placing orange hot radiation cooled RCS thrusters inside an insulated box? Geez, even a 5 year old could see the problem. How did perfection obsessed NASA let such a foolish and obviously undertested design fly on a man-rated vehicle? Come on NASA, failure is not an option!
The difference between SpaceX and Boeing/NASA is that Elon Musk attention to detail and build to fail attitude gives the reassurances of strength and reliability. When you build something and then make it fail so you can move onto the next problem that’s the right kind of innovation Now the difference with Boeing is Boeing builds stuff but they don’t build it to fail they build what it says on the blueprint not looking for the failures just assuming that the engineers are right Again, going back to SpaceX everyone is an engineer and they check double check triple check and quadruple check everything that they build and they make changes immediately. That’s the difference in building rockets in your backyard for a fraction of the cost versus the money suckers off of NASA in the US government. 🤷🏻♂️ people it’s only common sense. A third grader could figure this out Starlighter it’s out priced and it’s a failure.
No, it means they met the requirements. Look up the comments from NASA astronauts that went to Boing and Space X during the design phase. Boing engineers were arrogant and indifferent to the astronauts input, Space X engineers listened and and interacted with them. Boing is in a very bad way right now, it will be interesting to see if they can come back.
The whole starliner concept needs scrubbed cause if Elon Musk hadn't been in the rocket business Boeing would have likely sent the astronauts home in a gamble which there is no gambling with anything space. So landing on ground instead of the water which obviously was a Boeing engineers idea is supposed to be a better deal I'm guessing, I imagine that idea was implemented to empress the upper management instead of an all out safety move for a better system overall, not . . . Just by seeing this take place tells me Boeing is trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of using some of what Nasa has done with success, why not let's see if we can hit the ground at speed and rough up or even kill an astronaut or two. The starliner needs scrubbed with the CEO on down though the upper management replaced before Nasa throws any more billions of my hard earned cash at Boeing. It's my guess and I'm assuming this now but I bet I'm more close than not, a large portion of the monies got swipped off the top of what Nasa awarded Boeing for the project right into the pockets of some of the upper management. This sending people into outerspace is a crap shoot Boeing, it's supposed to be a well engineered thought out event . . .
@@SpaceCuriosity2 I didn't know Space X have billions in civil aviation contracts and billions in defence portfolios? I thought they just had a little rocket called Falcon and a continuous failure of a rocket called Starship.🤔🤣 nar they are not on the same level!
@@LeonAust SpaceX is valued over twice as much as Boeing. While Boeing has a large revenue, they have had constant losses for the last 5 years. And yet, they are not growing at all.
@@anthonypelchat All eggs in one basket it's called the Falcon, if Starship fails Space x will go down with it! Boeing has the infrastructure to win the big defence contracts, weapons, civil. Space X is hollow if Falcon gets a competitor and it will.
Be real, no one was 'wrong' and the spacecraft did get back to earth without crashing into it like an asteroid. It did not suffer a catastrophic failure and could have got the astronauts back alive. Does it have problems, Yes, and they got a very expensive education on what design changes need to be made. That is their problem with hindsight being 20/20 which of course makes it easy to shill for Space X here as this video does with your AI narrated BS.
nice video! Subscribed ;)
Thank you❤️
Some of its problems are so elementary it suggests that Boeing did not adequately test Starliner.
Maybe they understimate the problems in the design phase
Exceeding the thermal limits of seals: gives me "Challenger" flashbacks.
This is inexcusable.
I spent 20+ years as a Test Engineer at a company that supplies space-qualified components whose failure would be catastrophic.
There is no substitute for good workmanship.
I've not heard this report on any other of the major Space related channels, where did you get this information (please give links or sources). Thanks.
Anyone else notice the CAPCOM logos in the control room scenes? 3:37
No! Boeing did not make the decision, they were forced to! The decision was released by Nasa conference
Placing orange hot radiation cooled RCS thrusters inside an insulated box? Geez, even a 5 year old could see the problem. How did perfection obsessed NASA let such a foolish and obviously undertested design fly on a man-rated vehicle? Come on NASA, failure is not an option!
The difference between SpaceX and Boeing/NASA is that Elon Musk attention to detail and build to fail attitude gives the reassurances of strength and reliability.
When you build something and then make it fail so you can move onto the next problem that’s the right kind of innovation
Now the difference with Boeing is Boeing builds stuff but they don’t build it to fail they build what it says on the blueprint not looking for the failures just assuming that the engineers are right
Again, going back to SpaceX everyone is an engineer and they check double check triple check and quadruple check everything that they build and they make changes immediately. That’s the difference in building rockets in your backyard for a fraction of the cost versus the money suckers off of NASA in the US government.
🤷🏻♂️ people it’s only common sense. A third grader could figure this out Starlighter it’s out priced and it’s a failure.
I absolutely agree👍🏼. Failing is the first step of innovation,and Elon Musk understand that very well
Someday people will go to the moon. Oh wait! That already happened a half century ago.
I was inclined to think they would have had a window failure.. haha, surprised that it wasn't an issue.
"Space-X met all licensing requirements?" Is that code for "grease the palms" of the FAA?
No, it means they met the requirements. Look up the comments from NASA astronauts that went to Boing and Space X during the design phase. Boing engineers were arrogant and indifferent to the astronauts input, Space X engineers listened and and interacted with them.
Boing is in a very bad way right now, it will be interesting to see if they can come back.
The whole starliner concept needs scrubbed cause if Elon Musk hadn't been in the rocket business Boeing would have likely sent the astronauts home in a gamble which there is no gambling with anything space. So landing on ground instead of the water which obviously was a Boeing engineers idea is supposed to be a better deal I'm guessing, I imagine that idea was implemented to empress the upper management instead of an all out safety move for a better system overall, not . . . Just by seeing this take place tells me Boeing is trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of using some of what Nasa has done with success, why not let's see if we can hit the ground at speed and rough up or even kill an astronaut or two.
The starliner needs scrubbed with the CEO on down though the upper management replaced before Nasa throws any more billions of my hard earned cash at Boeing.
It's my guess and I'm assuming this now but I bet I'm more close than not, a large portion of the monies got swipped off the top of what Nasa awarded Boeing for the project right into the pockets of some of the upper management.
This sending people into outerspace is a crap shoot Boeing, it's supposed to be a well engineered thought out event . . .
👍🏼👍🏼
❤️
"Boeing made the decission"... really?
"NASA's decission not to carry astronauts".... aha.
Take care
Spacex >> boeing
Nahh, same level
I Agree👍🏼
@@SpaceCuriosity2 I didn't know Space X have billions in civil aviation contracts and billions in defence portfolios?
I thought they just had a little rocket called Falcon and a continuous failure of a rocket called Starship.🤔🤣 nar they are not on the same level!
@@LeonAust SpaceX is valued over twice as much as Boeing. While Boeing has a large revenue, they have had constant losses for the last 5 years. And yet, they are not growing at all.
@@anthonypelchat All eggs in one basket it's called the Falcon, if Starship fails Space x will go down with it!
Boeing has the infrastructure to win the big defence contracts, weapons, civil.
Space X is hollow if Falcon gets a competitor and it will.
AI channel are now taking over - sadly
Be real, no one was 'wrong' and the spacecraft did get back to earth without crashing into it like an asteroid. It did not suffer a catastrophic failure and could have got the astronauts back alive. Does it have problems, Yes, and they got a very expensive education on what design changes need to be made. That is their problem with hindsight being 20/20 which of course makes it easy to shill for Space X here as this video does with your AI narrated BS.