SpaceX Crew Dragon vs Boeing Starliner Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 бер 2020
- Check out my new shirts: ineedmore.space/shop
The advantages and disadvantages of Crew Dragon and Starliner have been sparred over for many years. In this video, I hope to settle the up and downsides of each spacecraft, and hopefully let you all decide which one you'd want a seat on. Although, I'm beginning to think I know which one you will prefer already!
Dragon 2 is a class of reusable spacecraft developed and manufactured by U.S. aerospace manufacturer SpaceX, intended as the successor to the Dragon cargo spacecraft. The spacecraft launches atop a Falcon 9 Block 5 rocket and returns via ocean splashdown. When compared to Dragon, Crew Dragon has larger windows, new flight computers and avionics, redesigned solar arrays, and a modified outer mold line.
The spacecraft has two planned variants - Crew Dragon, a human-rated capsule capable of carrying up to seven astronauts, and Cargo Dragon, an updated replacement for the original Dragon. Crew Dragon is equipped with an integrated launch escape system in a set of four side-mounted thruster pods with two SuperDraco engines each.
The Boeing Starliner (CST-100 - Crew Space Transportation-100) is a crew capsule manufactured by Boeing as its participation in NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. Its primary purpose is to transport crew to the International Space Station (ISS) and to private space stations such as the proposed Bigelow Aerospace Commercial Space Station.
The capsule has a diameter of 4.56 m, which is slightly larger than the Apollo command module and smaller than the Orion capsule. The Boeing Starliner holds a crew of up to seven people and is being designed to be able to remain in-orbit for up to seven months with the reusability of up to ten missions. It is designed to be compatible with four launch vehicles: Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Vulcan.
Host & Producer: TJ Cooney / tj_cooney
Writer and Researcher: Ishan Patil: / _ishanspatil
Editor: Jenny Cho
Leave future episode ideas in the comments below! - Наука та технологія
Thanks for watching! I have more episodes in this series here: ua-cam.com/video/G3KNmQ_IysU/v-deo.html
the true is that boeing is milking nasa because is more profitable and Spacex does not play that game because they actually wanna do something in space and a greedy milking nasa corporation should be dissmissed as SPACEX is the future and boeing does not put his own money into the project ( or space projects ) like ELON MUSK ( the greatest man alive )
I wholeheartedly recommend you watching this link, Excellent video and well researched, such a pleasure to watch. Well done 'I Need More Space'
@@kosminuskosminus6668 😂...
Good one.
@@favesongslist I just did, and came back here to say I wholeheartedly agree.
I hereby summon the Algorithm! ⚡
I bet on spacex, BOEING stays in the game, that's for sure...+ Dream Chaser
Well boys, I think we found out who won today.
But we knew that from the beginning 😜
Lol and facts
I think Orion May launch before Starliner next year to a trip around the moon
Yep. Good for SpaceX! I like both designs but don’t have faith that Boeing will produce the safest, most economical vehicle. They also seem to have political baggage that Elon Musk doesn’t seem to engage in. Beautiful launch today!
Let’s me honest anything that Elon musk does will always win
Who’s watching after the dragon crewed launch?
Me
me too!
Yep
me
Me
10 years ago: people reviewing cars
Now: people reviwing spaceships :DD
I just ran across your article and have subscribed. As an old fart who worked on the Apollo for 5+ years (and received a Silver Snoopy Award from the Astronauts Office in 1969), I found your video informative and easy to follow. It's great to see that genuine interest in our space programs is alive and well.
Thank you for your worked on one of the greatest endeavors in history, you and your colleagues made history, thank you.
Trust me, interest is one thing space programs don't have to worry about.
You worked in the Apollo program! You, and the thousands of other workers, have my greatest respect. The innovations created during the 60s and 70s had me glued to the TV and what printed material I couls get in those days. From the disaster of Apollo 1 to the amazing flight of Apollo 8 during Christmas '68 and that photo of Earthrise, incredible. I didn't see the Moon landing because I was in a field on Bodmin Moor. But the papers were full of it and I have since bathed in the video on several versions. The Apollo programs greatest moment. All the Moon landings, staying up all night to wait for news of a successful burn from the back of the Moon. That was a great ride. Sky Lab and Apollo/ Soyuz rounded it off. None of it could have been done without the amazing Saturn 5 rocket. Since then manned flight has been restricted to LEO and although the Shuttle was an amazing craft it isn't Apollo or what Apollo achieved. We are only now coming into a new period of manned flight to keep us space nerds happy. Sir, you worked with heroes.
Sadly Boeing & Software shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence in this day and age...
You don't think outsourced software at 9 bucks an hour will work?
cgirl111 He’s referring to MCAS on the 737 MAX
@@davidszczepan5855 whooooshh
Hmm. From this day forward, for ever and ever, Amen!
Let he has always written perfect code cast the first stone. Boeing space is a different division. However, QA 1 million lines of code. OUCH! As to outsourcing development you really have to make very tight specifications and very tight testing on its delivery. Often forgotten in the 9 bucks and hour that cgirl111 mentioned. Who can forget the first moon landing nearly being aborted because of software exception during the landing. Or the loss of the new Ariane V on its maiden voyage due to trying to use recycled software. I also have vague memory of a similar failure of a conversion error between metric and imperial measurement on a Mars mission causing its failure. Even review 1 million lines will not find all the bugs. In the end it will be just a little crossed fingers. Just how much crossing and praying will be down to how much testing. More is better but in the end you have to let the baby go.
Let me think... Do I prefer the inferior more expensive product of a company that has slowed down the advance of space tech because their cosy complacent position in the space industry for decades? Or do I like the company who does not spend half it's budget on lobbyists trying to influence politics to keep said cosy complacent position in tact, but instead actually innovates at a rapid rate at a much much lower cost?
Guess which one I prefer.
Space X
@@supremecoder2526 Bingo!
The genius of the Nasa approach is to sign contracts with companies that follow polar opposite approaches. Boeing is in a battle for its own survival. SpaceX is a battle for the survival of humanity. That's why Boeing has to pay lobbyists and advertisers. SpaceX doesn't, it attracts support just by existing. And Musk's style.
The new Russian rocket called Quasar Express!
Musk is a satanist!Dragon a snake's head..?!
And China is just waiting for the best one's to copy.
China can't even copy Soyuz properly.
LMAO .China is Smart
Its theoretically impossible for them to replicate it. SpaceX has changed their design in every iteration. Is never the same, in a way they keep making it better until it explodes then go back to just before it blew up and make it hyper secure. That way they learn from every single test and put it to use. Boing is just doing theoretical builds that are never tested hence why they take longer to make and when they fail it take longer for them to have a successful try when SpaceX is doing it every 4 to 7 months so china won't be able to copy the design unless they LITERALLY steal the desing .
Lol
@@davidmope6324 well NASA has forced a design freeze on the falcon block 5 and dragon capsule. Because every change they make they have to recertify it for human flight. So they'll stay the same for a few years now.
I like how you gloss over the Starliner's abysmal cargo capacity at 16:06
The figures are startling.
Speaking of abysmal cargo capacity - did you know Lockheed's Orion capsule can bring back LESS kgs of moon rocks than Apollo 17? Only 100 kg, instead of 110.
Left one is cargo+crew, right one is only cargo
@@donjones4719 The amount of consumables Orion carries is staggering compared to Apollo, and the 10% difference in return cargo capacity is a direct result of the additional capability needed to carry double the crew and support them for voyages lasting weeks instead of days.
Also frankly we don't need to carry back more moon rocks. We already have plenty.
But but but but but Boeing Starliner is more maneuverable and can push ISS to higher orbits with it more jets....Boeing has develop a better space fighter....put some guns...but not for people for over six feet something for a US military restriction.
The difference is simple.
Dragon works.
Starliner doesn't work.
No, dragon got lucky that everything went well, and you shouldn't be harsh for problems being found on a TEST flight, whose entire purpose was to simulate a crew launch and find any problems
@@aaronjacobs3980 What I said is 100% factually correct. As to why things turned out that way they did is another discussion for another day.
@@jcf20010 well docking to the iss was a secondary mission, neither of the companies had to dock to the iss, it just that both chose to try and attempt it. Which is why NASA was going to let Boeing fly humans on the next starliner flight before Boeing announced that it would refly the OFT mission (which strangely NASA didn't ask for which makes me partially believe it was done by Boeing to look good and show that they're taking safety seriously)
@@aaronjacobs3980 HA... HA... That's a funny interpretation of the events. Starliner wasn't even able get to vicinity of the ISS let alone dock with it.
@@jcf20010 well no, it could of gotten to the iss at the expense of not being able to get back to earth afterwards. And my point was that Boeing planned to get to the iss, which it could of done without the onboard Mission Elapsed Time anomaly, an issue that these test flights are set up to find before humans fly on the system
At this point I think Starship will fly to orbit before Starliner goes to ISS.
No.
Im also extremely excited by Starship but, no. Its too ambitious, Id give it a few years (2-3)
@@antaresmc4407 Eli Parker just joking..
@@sreerajr6470 I know, but I wanted to give my opinion. Mabe should have put an emoji :D
@@sreerajr6470 they aren't, there are people that stupid
@AntaresMC well, r/woooooosh.
00:01:46 "The Rise of Starliner a new error in human spaceflight."
That’s blue origin
You forgot the second Boeing software glitch. The one dealing with the starliner almost slamming back into service module after separation.
Thanks! It’s really hard to cover every detail. This video took a month to make. I hope you enjoyed everything else
I Need More Space I appreciate the work. It is sad Boeing missed this software glitch. I hope they spend more time fixing it so astronauts do not have a problem. Too bad about the year delay. However, Spacex should be ready for human demo one in May or June.
@@INeedMoreSpace Especially since Boeing is still very secretive.
Considering the resent failure of the Starliner do to Boeings laziness when testing, I wouldn't step foot on it.. Go Space X. They did better with less money.
I was a child of the Apollo years and very disappointed for 30 years after despite the Space Shuttle. Low earth orbit wasn't what we were promissed.....and I'm still waiting for my flying car!
If its taken 10 years + to develop a capsule to go the LEO and back in 2020 (and still not there yet), do you really believe they went to the moon 6 times 50+ years ago?
There is one flying in space
Mike Amor yes because back then they had an actual good amount of funding now the military hogs most of the countries money
Tesla and Starman
Flying cars have been a thing since 1917. And a couple of different ones have even been certified for flight.
Flying cars are easy. A flying car that's not a stupid idea is nearly impossible.
If the gas tank holds more than 5 gallons it's listed as a full on plane. Which means anyone flying it needs an actual pilots license, and an airport.
I prefer SpaceX's whole ethos
Don't love the cult of Elon but Starliner has numerous problems.
Except they do not hire older workers, a proven fact. Just look at any of their broadcasts, hardly more than a couple of middle aged employees. I have applied more than a dozen times and I have given up.
@@Joesolo13 What the hell is Elon cult got to do with Getting US astronauts launched in to orbit from US soil with US built hardware ???
I like Nissan Primera for all times 😘
Yea me too elon is doing a great job in revolutionizing the way we do space travel and i believe that if everyone supported space x then then everything would be further along
Crew Dragon NEEDS to win this, and afterwards, the thruster landings should be recommissioned with parachute emergency backup option.
Dragon already won. They successfully sent humans to space, docked with ISS, and the booster's landing went perfectly. Nobody cares about Boeing
@@porchmonkey5774 i mean at least they make a pretty good attack helicopter
The SuperDracos are designed to be their own redundant back-up. They have to, because if the system failed at the point of landing burn it would be much too low, going much too fast, for any parachute deployment, including ballistic deployment.
weight, weight is important. I suspect a retro rocket landing method weighs a good deal more than a parachute method. to have both systems on board, one as a back up will increase weight even more.
the parachute is a tried and proven method over half a century or manned flight in space.
@@dave8599 The retro rocket landing method weighs a good deal more - but Dragon already carries that weight; the SuperDracos also function as the abort system. As originally designed, if Dragon needed to abort the SDs would be used to go up and away, and 2 minimal parachutes would bring it down. Since chutes are now the only landing system, the whole system is much larger and complex with all the redundancies. Including that the chutes have to deploy at high altitude and speed.
I really like your presentations, very clear and easy to understand. I'm 70 and have watched the US manned space program from it's infancy. Even back then, I thought that privatization would be a better system than one central government agency sprinkled with lots of military pilots. And, betting the farm on the Space Shuttle was shear lunacy. Good luck to both companies, I can't wait to see America launch it's astronauts again!
Privatization works better to supply an existing market (sending people/supplies to ISS, launching satellites for buyers). Government does the stuff that has no profit motive (i.e. launching a probe to the edge of the Solar System)
No business would pour billions in a scheme that has not been proven before (space flight). Privatization works at the final stages of developing a certain technology after the government research carries it that far.
I’m also 70 for a few more days. Privatization of space transportation development is about to only thing that the Obama administration supported that I’m happy with. He however, could have funded the development many times over just with not so shovel ready money. See get the Government out of the way and good things happen. NASA is still in the way with dirty hands. In hindsight if NASA had enforced the rules and regulations they force on SpaceX and the rest we would have never gotten to the moon. They were so short sighted we supported a failed system for 20+ years at enormous costs of lives and treasure rather than development of something new. Soon SpaceX will leave NASA behind here on Earth literally.
Well guys ... I am 75. I can remember all the problems with the start of space flight. It was a VERY exciting time. Problem was technology. It just was not there and everything had to invented from scratch. I give those engineers a lot of credit as they had nearly nothing to build on. It took lots of guts to sit on top of those rockets. Yes, Obama was a space promotion failure (I am a Democrat ) and the other party was not going to back him.
@@mikecabral1579 70 minus 8 and counting here. Funny you should say "get the gov out of the way and good things happen...", without out Gov we would still be in 1950's rocket hobbyist territory. Who else would have propelled us to the stage we now enjoy? No GPS, no smart phones, ...etc etc technologies spun off Gov funded and directed endeavors. And do you think SpaceX would be launching tomorrow if it weren't for Gov funded and scrutinized leadership? And do you really think SpaceX started from scratch, from stone age technology or did they learn everything they could from all the years of Gov projects. SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of all those that preceded them. NASA has been the national direction doing the best they could with budget cuts and changes in presidential leadership and direction and despite all that, if you wanted to get gov out of the way, start 70 years ago and just watch private enterprise completely miss the jump to space...we'd all still have one of those AT&T black phones with rotary dials, in each house...in 2020...and we'd all be smoking Pall Malls with mentholated filters....for that better taste!
Starliner fails at simple tasks(like telling time and flying without having a spaz attack) . Dragon is getting ready to fly people. End of line.
And Starliner costs more per seat than buying seats from the Russians! What a boondoggle! There seem to be cultural issues at Boeing that show up across their aircraft and their space programs. Dinosaurs!
Such simplistic adversarial rhetoric. No doubt Starliner had a major issue with the clock. No getting around that. But the rest of the systems worked great. And, unlike Crew Dragon, Starliner landed on land.
I want both companies to succeed. I just don't understand this, quite frankly, immature fanboyism happening with commercial space.
yeah uh at least it doesn't spontaneously combust into flames?
Yeah. Dragon was also very good at ...exploding.
Dragon was also good at autonomously entering orbit, rendezvous with ISS, docking with ISS, departing ISS, reentering Earth’s atmosphere - none of which Starliner has achieved to date. Getting it to stable orbit required reprogramming. While doing that recovery work, Boeing found out Starliner wouldn’t have reentered safely due to risk of colliding with the service module on the way down.
As far as exploding on the pad goes, Starliner has that one under its belt too thanks to leaking hypergolic valves. It’s just nobody leaked that video. SpaceX has tested Crew Dragon hundreds of times, and has shown that their testing regime is more robust than Boeing’s.
No contest - Dragon is way ahead of Starliner which will fill the role as backup system if it ever gets off the ground. I think NASA is right going with two launch providers. Pity Boeing was chosen as one of them though. I think its glory days are well and truly over. Enjoyed the comparison of specs between both capsules. Good video.
great video! no bs, no bias, no politics, just straightforward info. keep it up!
Primary difference - one is operational and functioning within expectations, and one isn't.
Alien Soup To be fair to Boeing, I would argue what happened with Starliner is them performing within the expectations that were set after the 737 Max. It just so happens that everyone now expects them to fuck up.
@@Borodalf On the other hand, when it was learned that Boeing got paid 60% more for Starliner, Boeing justified it by saying they had vast experience in space, and this plus their more rigorous, informed testing saved NASA a lot of effort. Indeed, NASA had to spend much more of their time with SpaceX, providing knowledge based on experience and making sure that SpaceX's testing was sufficiently rigorous. But then when Boeing actually failed to dock (or even reach) the ISS (while SpaceX succeeded), NASA took a long, hard look at what Boeing had been doing concerning testing, and determined that they royally screwed up long before the failed mission. That's not based on anyone's biased expectation of Boeing screwing up because of the 737-MAX. It turned out that their supposedly rigorous testing that NASA pretty much left to them was wholly inadequate, and now NASA have to spend more of their own time to make sure that Boeing know what they're doing.
The difference is that this was done from the start with SpaceX, and now has to be done at a much later time with Boeing, despite their claims of superior testing based on their much greater experience with space. NASA gladly paid a 60% premium for Boeing to be the "safe" option between the two, and believed that Boeing already knew what they were doing and wouldn't screw up. Well, Boeing didn't know what they were doing, according to NASA's investigation, and as a result, they did screw up, and late. This cost NASA a bunch of money, time, and trouble for nothing, and cost Boeing the race to be the first commercial crew provider, in addition to all of the embarrassment and loss of prestige. Boeing need to stop leaning on their name and believing their own hype, and just get the job done right like they used to.
rbrtck You’re preaching to the choir. I was just making a joke about how much they suck.
@@rbrtck I gave it a like cuz of the long ass paragraph.
Yes Operational and explodes on the ground lol at least the crew will have a chance to make it there alive I guess 😂
The difference is one of them is 60% more expensive than the other, and would have most likely killed the crew if they had been on it, due to crappy testing.
But they told us the extra money was justified because of how good the testing was.......
@Scott Baber
And I can't help but notice it wasn't the Russian stuff that was bad.
Boeing is just using the project as a money siphon to steal more taxpayer dollars. How many times have companies had government contracts where they keep saying "I need more money" while making absolutely no progress.
the extra expense per launch is probably due to the increased capability. Dragon is not capable of reboosting the station. Overall Dragon cost more to develop. Your claim is the first thing I look for to determine how uninformed someone is.
@Scott Baber the use of the RD-180 was mandated by Congress under the Clinton administration as a bail out of sorts for Russia that was suffering economically at the time. It was that or risk rocket engine and nuclear materials going someplace like North Korea or Iran.
@@divedevil985
The testing is literally why Boeing said the extra expense was justified.
Who's here after watching the Crew Dragon launch today?
Me Me Me
@@WheelsRCool me too
I
Me
Me but took so long for them to actually get into the space station
Scrolling true these comments right now be like:
2 months
5 minutes
2 months
2 months
5 minutes
2 months
Edit: ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
Dragon will reach the ISS before the starliner imo.
hanspoulsen I waswondering, what are they waiting for? But seeing the capsule explode....they seem to have a way to go. Still think SpaceX is going to be first. A huge step for SpeceX.
@@cf6282 why do y'all keep spouting that...
The capsule that failed way outside of flight parameters was studied, the one part that could lead to an issue fixed and the capsule that will.launch a crew is literally sitting at the cape, right now, waiting on the final nasa sign off.
Dragon has docked with the ISS many times over the past 3 years. Starliner, well..... zero.
@@Thunderbyrd. Yes, but Dragon and Crew Dragon aren't the same thing. Were you trying to snarkily make that same point?
C F no shit! You obviously don't follow SpaceX. Their crew mission is in May... Starliner has to complete safety committee... So probably another year because the failures they had were due to human error and the inability to actually double check because it would've took an extra few hours
Man... Boeing is struggling right now with its Starliner and 737max
And the KC-46A and SLS.
737Max is doomed.
They specifically seem to suck at software development, testing, and deployment (MCAS anyone?). Space X clearly has taken software expertise seriously to amazing results. Boeing, not so much.
it's just about all their large programs.
Starliner Max. 😂😂
This is probably the best SpaceX v Boeing summary (I’ve watched most of them !)
Parachutes are so 1970's...
So why prevent Elon from developing something that will eventually have to happen.
A powered landing on hard soil, no more battleships and frogmen from the last century.
Finance the guy and let's get space age for real.
He wanted, but nasa wasnt very convinced that it was safe so they had to drop the idea
Your guy, already over budget four times minimum... Parachute because of physics of the planet earth, not because you watched star wars too much!
@@aviedrai It is not a point who is smarter, but there are some physics around us, and 60 years of Russians launches experience enough to understand, that there are no changes in the last 60 years in the planetary physics condition. Even more, the challenges in space exploration is our physical body, weight and gravity power... something like that. The gravity is a challenge! And what about all those promises he made and at which budget? What do you say about it?
@Jack Benton Don't be a complete COCK.
Try to understand the comment before commenting yourself in the comment section.
It reads like you could be somewhere in the spectrum, if so, go in peace.
Short answer: Parachutes don't explode.
Starliner will never be more than a backup in case Dragon fails somehow. Per seat, Soyuz: $80 million per seat, Starliner: $90 million per seat. Crew Dragon $50 million.
Dragon is not capable of reboosting the station. You are wrong.
For now Soyuz haz only one advantage, it get the astronauts to the ISS and brings them back safely. The other two...offer better seats...
divedevil985 But Starship can, it could launch the mass equivalent to ISS in 4 launches!
@@MrSvetlin09, the operative words are "for now". Soyuz is tech from the 1960s and the Russians have nothing new in development. Russia will keep the Soyuz flying for reasons national prestige and security, but I can't see anything able to compete with Falcon 9 + Crew Dragon, once it starts flying regularly. If Super Heavy + Starship ever start flying, SpaceX will probably be able to offer flights to the ISS (or whatever follows) for $10 million per seat, which will be so cheap that I don't think even the lobbying power of Boeing + ULA will be able to save the Starliner.
@@divedevil985 Roosterdiver relax
Nice presentation overall. Comprehensive and entertaining.
A bit apples-to-oranges at the 16:09 graphics overlay where you compare Dragon's CARGO: 6000 kg (including crew) to Starliner's CARGO: 163 kg (plus crew).
You had just spoke maybe only 3 or 4 crew, but 163 kg won't make up for 7.
Say we assume 7 crew @ 100 kg each + 163 kg cargo. Dragon has 700% more CARGO capacity?
I think because of the pressurized module with the solar panels on the outside. Starliner doesn't have anything like that.
I actually have a framed piece of Dragon 2 Demo-1. After the "energetic disassembly", pieces were given out to the Dragon 2 project teams. It's just a 1x1 inch square of beta cloth, but it's got some charring on it and was in space!
Looks like that flag’s coming back soon.
looks like the flag is back at the moment
Yeah not to be a SpaceX fanboy. But Boeing's craft is pretty terrible for how much extra money their getting and how unsafe it seems to be
I remeber for awhile only Boeing was gonna get the contract
Dragon 2 exploded while testing. They both have their problems.
They just didn't want any loss from mistakes and chosen the easy way but failed
@@EFRollercoaster spacex learnt from it. We rarely get to see any updates from boeing
@@nazreenhelmi6952 That must be because SpaceX is more present on social media than Boeing and love to feel their fanboys.
"and docked the ship on my very first try" Did better at docking the Starliner with the ISS than boeing themselves did so far lol.
Actually the vehicle and payload itself had a mishap at least on one occasion during testing, maybe not during testing, although they were perhaps more thorough in terms of testing and the way they tested, because Boeing certainly doesn’t slack off when it comes to procedural testing.
Great un-biased look at both systems! Thanks.
The first rule of government spending: Why buy one when you can buy 2 for twice the price.
what a good quote from contact!
Wait...what?
The Japanese vessel is called Kounotori. I made the effort to actually remember the name because it's so unknown. It's main advantage is that it's the only resupply ship that can carry shuttle experiment bays
Good point about the risks of welding. Starship SN1's failure over the weekend was the result of a failed weld.
They will continue destroy prototypes for months to come
But, relevance? I don't recall any spacecraft having serious problems due to poor welds of the aluminum structure. And any welding done by SpaceX in their many Cargo Dragons has shown no problems. SN1 was welding steel, using developmental welding choices.
@@donjones4719 Simple explanation, when NASA uses welds in a spacecraft of their own design their only interest is the quality of the craft. Meanwhile over at Boeing they have to split their priorities between safety and profit margins. See 737 Max's engineering team comments before the plane went to market. It's clear that the only thing Boeing gives a flying fuck about is money. (Pun intended)
I’m so proud of SpaceX. It’s exciting to see change and new technology. I think this will be a memorable moment in history where technology jumps to a new level. I remember when Apple came out with a touch screen phone and how revolutionary that was. But with everything new and different, people are concerned. I remember people thinking the touch screen would never catch on in a phone because it would be difficult to text. Look where we are now. Awesome work SpaceX! Keep it up!
16:09 that comparison (where the cargo weight is shown for boeing's one) is too fast... that's a massive difference! GO SpaceX!
If I could buy a flight into Space onboard New Shepard, Dragon, Starliner or Orion I'd choose Starship.
So you don't want to go to space lol?
@AntiangelRaphael i'd say waaaaay more time.
Starship and dragon are two different vehicles btw.
@@chadleach6009 that's the point
@@falafeldurum2095 pretty optimistic to be honest but good luck
Kinda wish they did Dream Chaser and Dragon, Ik Dream Chaser is still flying NASA cargo and 3rd party crewed missions but it would’ve been cool. I wonder if they can still have a crew visit the station. Probably when the Axiom segment is completed since the point of it is commercial access
We need crewed spaceplanes again...
@@_mikolaj_ Can't wait for Dream Chaser to fly crews
This is a fantasticly well made and informative video! Thank you!
Excellent summary, very interesting and informative. I think you've pretty much captured it and did a good job of leaving out any biases you may have.
>lol which do you prefer
> 100%Dragon 2
>0%Starliner
xD
🙃
1h later some Boeoing employers vote
91%/8% ;)
Personally I don’t understand why people hate Boeing’s Starliner so much. Can someone please explain?
@@andrewparker318
I dislike it because its much more expensive (both development and launch cost) and it doesn't offer any superiur service.
@@andrewparker318 while I am not sure about technical specs that may factor, I would put my money on spacex having better more successful marketing, which has a human face in elon musk, and boeing being very much an establishment with a walled garden aesthetic
Well, what did they expect with Starliner, it's got a Boeing Autopilot.
no man.. its oke. Boeing will success. just please dont change the name to Starliner-Max. LOL
Bruh 🤣 roasted
Excellent video! You laid out all the differences in an easy to understand manner. Keep up the good work.
And Crew Dragon is the one that goes first as of this week. Bringing astronauts in Crew Dragon to the ISS tomorrow. I guess SpaceX win this race
Don't miss the shuttle. And Space X will win it all with Crew Dragon and then Starship
We saw the shuttle at the Smithsonian last year. What a monster!
The Space Shuttle is the most complex piece of engineering ever built with its about 2.500.000 moving parts. I'm not saying the Shuttle would be a better alternative to SpaceX's rockets, but it amazes me to watch videos of shuttle launches and landings. I wish I would've had the opportunity to watch one launch and land in person...
And Falcon Heavy will launch pretty rarely in the future. I was never in the USA before and I never saw a rocket launch or even landing in person, so I hope that I'll have the opportunity to see at least a FH fly with my own eyes before it will be replaced.
@@falafeldurum2095 Went to school about 30 minutes south of the Cape, and saw a bunch, the amount of power that thing had was unreal. I wish they hadn't been compromised by so many competing requirements, or had at least one that was purely transport so you could've had like 20+ ppl onboard. May have called for larger space station constructions.
true
SpaceX will "win it all?" This isn't a one winner, one loser, competition. This is people finally starting to commercialize, and thus reduce the costs associated with, low Earth orbit. I want both companies to succeed.
I was at OneWeb satellite co. when that test was going on at cape canaveral and we all thought a bomb went off. We usually only hear the roaring of engines when they test at the 45th space wing. It literally made some car alarms go off in the parking lot at Blue Origin across the street.
Great video btw man awesome content, keep it up. Subbed
Big thumbs up! Finally some indepth information instead of just company provided infomercials
I like replying to Boeing defenders while watching the stream for spaceX’s first flight to the iss
They're getting harder and harder to find.
Lol
Someone told Elon, Dragons are make believe. Elon said, here, hold my beer. Now Dragons are real, but now someone told Elon starships are scifi. Elon has someone holding his beer again, what next?
Floating cities just to make sure it becomes a reality and we stop destroying our world.
dragons burn people
nice try to show boeing as remotely capable.
there is no comparison between the two.
thank you for great overview. Best of luck for your next presentation. they are very informative for all space fans.
Well researched bub. Learned a bunch from this enjoyable watch.
@SpaceX is going to capture the flag if everything goes correctly.
the flag that didn't exist when it looked like spacex wouldn't make it? How can spacex "capture the flag" going to the Boeing built ISS?
@@divedevil985 Talking about the US Flag that is now on the IIS flown up on the very last Space Shuttle flight STS-135 (ISS assembly flight ULF7) was the 135th and final mission of the American Space Shuttle program. It used the orbiter Atlantis and hardware originally processed for the STS-335 contingency mission, which was not flown. STS-135 launched on 8 July 2011, and landed on 21 July 2011, following a one-day mission extension. The four-person crew was the smallest of any shuttle mission since STS-6 in April 1983. The mission's primary cargo was the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Raffaello and a Lightweight Multi-Purpose Carrier (LMC), which were delivered to the International Space Station (ISS). The flight of Raffaello marked the only time that Atlantis carried an MPLM. So once again SpaceX go capture the flag.
WHOA, dude this is some good content! you should have way more views!
...you should probably use tags in your videos so that it shows up in search terms
Tags are worthless on UA-cam
@@INeedMoreSpace
They're not
Incredibly instructive video! Thank you for sharing your knowle with us!
Very well done. I like your easy flow commentary and well researched topic.
Really good job!!!!
Great Show - Thanks
Really informative and engagingly presented - thank you! The different approaches (Boeing vs SpaceX) to development, testing and failure is really interesting. And I liked the Teachable moment segment at the end. Subscribed!
Good info, great presentation. Subbed!
Can't wait for the crewed crew dragon mission to iss tomorrow! Hopefully the weather is forgiving.
Dragon.. 😉
Really good job! Great clear speech and personality plus. Glad I subscribed.
It was actually very cool to find this video, a few days after SpaceX launched it's first crew Dragon. Just subscribed. You have a lot of amazing videos ahead.
Re touch controls in spaceflight:
No fan of that for any interface that has to potentially be used under vibrations.
Plus: the immediate changeability is another big minus when it comes to security. User interfaces that require the user to constantly re-assess the function of the various input elements add considerably to the workload. Nothing like muscle memory when it comes to quickly and securely enter a sequence of operation commands.
That's why the system is designed not to require any user override controls.
Basically the only controls that the crew need to use rapidly is Abort and parachute release, and those are both physical controls.
Everything else can be controlled from the ground except under the most extreme failures, so it's not like old dumb spacecraft where the pilots had to fly it.
Also remember that with all the modern servo valves and electronic pressure regulators and such, you can't manually control it without the computer functioning, so they put redundancy in and plan to avoid such failures.
We need both and many more like them
Awesome episode! Just got to see it. Great research and presentation! 🤝🏽🚀👨🏼🚀
Great craft and problem breakdowns!
I love the shuttle but darn it ruined space travel
Dammit nixon!
Shuttle offered a platform that could bring the mission specialist along with the cargo, so if there was any trouble with the cargo the specialist was right there. Imagine if there was a module launched via rocket, and it had a minor problem once in orbit. You'd need some way to rendezvous with the rocket to fix the payload. On the shuttle, the Mission Specialist would fix it right there via internal controls, guide another astronaut to fix it, or suit up and do it themselves
@@toddkes5890 That didn't help the Hubble space telescope. And shuttle did anchor manned space flight to LEO for 40+ years. It would have been wiser to have slowed shuttle development so that it could have coincided with a slowed, but continuous Sat V program. But truth of the matter is, politics - Nixon didn't want to carry forward a legacy bound to his predecessor.
The shuttle was a great idea, it just needed to be safer and cheaper. put it on top of the booster rather than on the side so stuff didn’t fall on it, get rid of the solid boosters which NASA wanted to be liquid fueled in the original plan so a shut down is possible, make the boosters reusable to reduce cost like NASA originally planned, oh and use cheaper materials like stainless steel to build... wait a min....
@@rocketology1105 Hubble was caused due to the main mirror being out of alignment, which is not an orbital fix. I'm talking something like a solar panel connector coming unscrewed, or something being stuck while extending
Agreed, the shuttle was rushed into development and set back progress decades.
Damn. What a well researched and explained video.
This was a great video! Very informative and well presented. Thank you! I'll be watching today's launch with even more awe and appreciation knowing the story behind Dragon's development. (Fingers crossed that weather holds up today in Florida 30May2020)
Associate Administrator Gerstenmaier insisted on two independent providers, otherwise, NASA would be restricted to Starliner (delayed) and Orion (unmanned test flight only, no certified manned launcher).
And current Orions cost over a billion each. This is known because Lockheed wants 900 million for the next 6.
You missed the big software glitch. When the service module separates from the main capsule, there was a confusion in commands that would have allowed them to contact and destroy each other. This necessitates the re-reading of ten million lines of code. (Awkward)
Great video. Looking forward to the SpaceX launch later today, weather permitting!
Very detailed analysis.very informative
I'm sure like many, I watched this after thr launch. Thank you for the video, a true feeling of pride overcame me while watching the whole launch. The space shuttle will always remind me of the daydreams I had growing up but technology always advances. I say Shuttle.
shane mahler very proud here as well? Have you ever been to a launch 🚀? Anywhere?
@@borisbuliak3626 all have been from the couch in front of the TV
shane mahler when the shuttle still flew I got to see lift off once. You feel the power it’s something you gotta experience once if you can
SpaceX will win this race but im really excited for Starliner too!
after Boeing's lackluster software test practices came to light with OFT I am not excited for Starliner
Same, but I'm a SpaceX fanboy, so i wanted them to win from the outset.
Same here Filip. I despise the commercial space fanboyism. I want advancements in space technology, exploration, and development. So I want all these companies to succeed.
Very good, education video. Thanks.
Excellent video! Very interesting topic.
Excellent video! I wonder how frequently crewed missions will be launching to the ISS. Realistically if SpaceX flies one or two this year, and Boeing flies one or two next year, combined with Russia’s flights, that’ll make up most of the need for crewed missions. So even though there are two providers, that cuts the demand in half (unless other purposes arise like space tourism, new stations, etc.)
Pretty sure it’s supposed to be 3 flights a year total with SpaceX’s getting the first full expedition and boring the second but idk who will get the third as that will probably be towards the end of the year
I live in Norway and im watching this on my walk home from work and a tesla just parked in front of me
And soon you'll be watching it via Starlink, you have to admire the man.
Congrats on so many views. I like your presentation style, subbed. :)
Very informative, thanks!
Overall it was a nice presentation. You appear to have many facts that you do not wish to share about Boeing. Saying the Parachute did not deploy is wrong, it did deploy but boeing forgot to install the pin that held it to the capsule. Also you mention the timer issue with the test flight but ignore the valve mapping error that had to be reprogrammed just before entering the atmosphere and also the many valve failures that occurred. Also the recent news that Boeing failed to actually do a full test of their software and are busy trying to save face.
Also you stated that the issue with the hydrazine and titanium was a known issue which I do not believe it was.
Your graphic comparing the two coveniently is up for only a fraction of a second when you show the starliners stats. The stats should compare equally, why do you show weight with crew on one and weight plus crew on the other?
I am happy there are two choices but really trying to downplay or conceal either companies success or failures does not allow me to believe this is an objective presentation.
Agreed, but actually the parachute didn't deploy, only the drogue chute deployed. Then the improperly installed (not forgotten) pin failed, so the parachute itself didn't deploy. Amusingly, Boeing claimed the main chute didn't fail, i.e. tear or collapse - because it never had a chance too! Hey guys, you either have 3 chutes open or you don't.
Thank You for the correction, there is a lot I do not know and it is difficult for me to explain the current SNAFU created by the Orbital Flight Test at Boeing. It seems we only know some additional facts due to the ASAP releasing issues downplayed by Boeing and NASA.
Crew Dragon has the advantage over Starliner because they have sent 2 people into space now.
And Crew-2 will launch before even the second uncrewed Starliner test flight so SpaceX will have sent at least 10 astronauts to space before Boeing sends anyone. Ans there was just an announcement they may not send crew until 2022. So SpaceX might get 18-26 astronauts up first... Considering only about 500 people have been to orbit in over 60 years that's not bad. About 5% of all crewed flights will have been on Dragon in it's first two years of being operational.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l Spasex is getting shit DONE when everyone else is dicking around. Just wait and see when starship starts sending people to space. Then we are talking maybe 50 to 100 people at a time.
@@saltyfox7056 Sure but it's gonna be a while before Starship launches a hundred. You need to be sure it works. Imagine if a fully loaded one explodes. They'd kill 5 times more people than have ever died in space exploration. Even if SN15 flies perfectly I think it will be at least 2024 until humans fly on Starship and a few years more until they dare to fully load it with people.
@@saltyfox7056 Maybe earlier but just look at the Crew Dragon. That ended up taking a good while longer just to really make it save.
Brilliant video TJ
At 4:04, the oxidizer is actually nitrogen tetroxide, N2O4. Thank you for the great content!
Personally, I like the classic look of Starliner.
Perhaps on the outside, but inside the Starliner looks like it was cobbled together by early spacecraft designers who were figuring it out as they went along, much like the early US and Soviet space programs. Crew Dragon looks like it was designed by people who'd studied spacecraft design for 50 years, developed a plan, and executed it with the best technology available.
@@tarmaque but...but....muh nostalgia
@@phoenixrising4573 Note that etymologically speaking "nostalgia" is a combination of the Greek roots "nostos" (to return home) and "algia" (pain.) So basically "Nostalgia" is Christmas: The pain of going home to be with your family. 😆 (Not really. The implication of the word is more akin to the pain of realizing your home is never the same when you return. The English definition of course is essentially "a longing to return to how things used to be." Kinda similar, but not. If you get my meaning.)
@@tarmaque I like the interior as well.
@@tarmaque I'm familiar with the etymological origins of the word, and it's current common usage.
It was a joke, aimed at the OP...
Sad that so many years have passed and we've gone back to splashing down small capsules in the sea. A new space plane would have been nice.
Starship is coming!
Space planes don't work as both the Buran and the Shuttle proved. They are over-engineered, expensive and unreliable. Propulsive landing works. We have seen that repeatedly from SpaceX now. Unlike space planes it is cheap and does not require complex over-engineered systems.
Although I am willing to make an exception for Skylon with its sabre engines. Most likely that will end up being super expensive and over-engineered. Still single stage to orbit on a plane would have been awesome to see. If I have to bet real money I would bet on the SpaceX solution because it is relatively simple and based on proven technology.
There was one coming and nearly finished but politics pulled the plug. You ll find it... Ludicrous politics & spaceflight
Wings only work on earth.
Propulsive landing is the future. If you can solve propulsive landing you can do it essentially everywhere with ease.
@@povelvieregg165 the buran could have worked but the soviet union collapsed. the space shuttle was bloated by so many military branches wanting it to do so many things
You should also do a video where you also compare the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser to the Starliner and and Crew Dragon
Excellent info.
Thank You
Why doesn't NASA want Dragon 2 to be usable? I.e. its controlled precision landing for re-usability instead of landing it into the sea.
Because the design for the landing legs involved extending them through hatches in the heat shield, and poking holes in the one thing keeping the spacecraft from going up in flames during re-entry is scary enough that NASA didn't want to risk it and didn't want to pay for, and wait for, the testing needed to make both propulsive landing and the landing legs crew safe.
Hopefully once Crew Dragon is an established manned vehicle that they will implement the landing gears once again
@@theguy6037 At this point, SpaceX have ditched their further plans for Dragon entirely to focus on Starship.
@@Tuxfanturnip Not landing legs specifically. Propulsive landing would have been hard to certify overall, and reduced capability (ballast sled for control, etc). They would need an additional flight test outside of CRS or CCtCAP missions to certify it (NASA wasn't going to risk one of their own missions on that) which wasn't acceptable due to additional cost
oH I miss the shuttle but I'm old and saw just aboubt every one of the with my eyes not a TV screen, even Challenger
It's now August 25, 2021 and Starliner has just been pulled off the pad and returned to the factory without making it's second attempt at an uncrewed demo flight. It seems pretty clear that Starship will make a successful orbital flight before Starliner makes it to the ISS safely. There's a pretty good chance that Starship will deliver a crew to the ISS before Starliner.
Starliner made it to the ISS ..still not Starship in orbit (0 for 1) however I do expect Starship to make it to orbit before Starliner brings astronauts to the ISS.
Good man. Try always to state the facts. That is how you will grow and get wiser. Thank you very much. We all love space and i hope we will never stop learning. So happy you are trying your best to give information to us all. Respect.