This video is sponsored by Aura. Stop leaving yourself vulnerable to data breaches. Go to sponsor https://aura.com/adastra to get a 14-day free trial and see if any of your data has been exposed
NASA’s safety culture has failed in very visible and tragic ways in the past. Now, the agency is faced with a new problem in Boeing Starliner. The spacecraft may very well be safe, but there are voices within NASA who aren’t convinced. How does the agency evaluate and quantify this kind of risk? Has the culture changed since Challenger and Columbia, or will we see more normalization of deviance? I dive into this weighty topic.
🔭 SUPPORT AD ASTRA
Patreon ➔ https://www.patreon.com/swapnakrishna
💫 FIND ME
Ad Astra Newsletter (links + images) ➔ https://www.adastraspace.com
Instagram/Threads ➔ https://instagram.com/skrishna
TikTok ➔ https://www.tiktok.com/@swapna_krishna
Twitter ➔ https://twitter.com/skrishna
Mastodon ➔ https://wandering.shop/@skrishna
Bluesky ➔ https://bsky.app/profile/swapnakrishna.com
⏱ TIMESTAMPS
00:00 – Introduction
01:55 – The safety of Commercial Crew
04:22 – Gathering information for a decision
06:10 – Assuming the worst
08:47 – Commercial Crew providers
10:06 – Columbia and “normalization of deviance”
11:46 – Has safety culture improved?
🛰️ SUBSCRIBE
For more space and STEM videos, subscribe to Ad Astra: @adastraspace
source
James T. Kirk can figure it up in a microsecond! Nobody that works in space has taken more huge risks than Admiral/Captain Kirk!😮 Kirk has years of leadership experience to fall back on to make this simple decision!😊
Thats what DEI gets you. Loser ville!
Nasa has made a decision – "but not ready to share it with American public" ??? SHAME !
Another very well researched segment
They both might stay on ISS – strayed!😂
Don't forget Apollo 1 and the access hatch and flammable material. I'm not trying to diss NASA and Boeing, you have pointed out how difficult their tasks are. I was just running some numbers using facts I have not accessed yet, but should get in the ballpark. Just estimating , discounting Russ Cosmos, there was I think 7 Mercury flights, 9 Gemini, maybe 10 Apollo, about 134 I think Shuttle flights so as this sum is only a rough guess of about 160 ÷ 3 major accidents? If I have guessed right this appears to be about 1 in around 53 ( engineering major here attempting math and memory at same time so don't believe any of it) but that actually may be a rough figure.edit…. yepper I missed it it is 363÷3 or about 1 in 121, never trust an engineers first calculations.❤
I know space is not safe and all but Boeing needs to be nationalized.
failure is not an option when it comes to these 2 astronauts, specially spacex. imo russia is the best option because they have available docking areas
On the way to the ISS, Starliner had about a 20% failure rate of the thrusters, 5 out of 28. 4 supposedly are back online. Studies show teflon inserts at the orifices are being extruded out under pressure limiting the amount of thrust necessary for correcting and or positioning of the spacecraft's orientation. What are the odds that more of the thrusters will fail when stressed for reentry, a more complex situation with extreme accuracy to maintain the proper orientation for reentry being paramount for a successful return to earth? Perhaps NASA and Boeing should consult Las Vegas odds makers for the answer.
NASA needs to change their Commercial Crew certification procedure: 10 successful un-crewed / cargo flights before any crewed verification flights.
It's the new America!! Out towers are toppling over, our space capsules are stuck in space with the Russians and we have a ex-president that has connections with Putin and says he will lock up his political opponents and he'll be a dictator from day one if he wins the 24 election and it will be the last open election, and that solders that lost their lives in wars fighting for the freedom of America are losers!
It's the new America!!
But Challenger and Columbia was due to rank carelessness.
Someone needs to grow a set , it's what Butch and Suni signed up for ….
With what I have seen, Starliner is not crew-worthy. Boeing should upload the software needed for an autonomous return, with extra telemetry (for more clues) should it not survive its return. The revealed problems are bad enough, and we know that some thruster parts have degraded under the struggle of getting to ISS. NASA already knows there is a problem that can jeopardize lives, just as they did with the damage to the space shuttle tiles that killed its crew on reentry. Crewed Starliner flight seems too risky from THIS aerospace systems engineer's perspective.
So I'm curious about the contract that the Stuckliner astronauts signed for this test. Do they have a say on which vehicle they use to return home?
Yes, space travel is risky. But it shouldn't be suicide. With both Challenger and Columbia, NASA knew there were SERIOUS problems, problems that made the risk too high to be acceptable. Yet the went ahead and ignored that risk, and 14 astronauts died. Those deaths were preventable. Now here we are again. I have done a lot of research on this, and watched a lot of videos, and I consider Starliner to be an unacceptable risk. NASA has killed 14 people by taking unacceptable risks. Have they learned nothing from their past arrogance? Are they about to kill 2 more? I certainly hope not. Crew Dragon is not safe. Like you said, spaceflight itself is not safe. It will likely be a VERY long time before spaceflight could be considered safe. BUT. In this particular situation, I consider Crew Dragon to be about ten times safer than Starliner. Both are built by private contractors. But consider Boeings history for lack of reliability. Their reputation for a lack of reliability is well known and well deserved. They can't seem to get anything right. Just look at many of the mistakes they made with Starliner. Mistakes a competent company would not have made.
If Starliner can be undocked without someone on board, then that is what should be done. If it makes it back to earth safely by itself, fine. If it doesn't, and burns up on reentry, that's fine too, as long as no one is on board. And if they choose not to use that deathtrap, they do not have to wait until February next year. SpaceX can launch a Crew Dragon in WAY less time than that, just to pick them up. Without interfering with any other missions. Yes it would cost NASA a lot of money. But given just how bad Starliner is, I consider it well worth it. And I hope NASA does as well. There is risk, and there is unnecessary risk. And Starliner is an unnecessary risk. Again, I hope and pray that NASA does not make a deadly mistake for a third time.
you newjacks forgot Challenger
NASA isn't NASA of the old days.
The issue is they are too close to their contractors even running cover stories for them like the spacewalk…that was immediately canceled.
Boeing makes their money through cost over runs and overspending.😮
As someone who's made a career in QA, I struggle to understand their decision making. We have techniques to help with this and calculate amongst other things the risk. And with what I currently know, doing the calculations top of the head, the outcome would be that they send Starliner back on autopilot. And use crew dragon to get them home.
Nah nah girl some launches that went wrong there was political pressure to go ahead which ended in tragedy
You report on important topics I see nowhere else. I'm so glad that I subscribed to your channel!
A frank discussion of why we're sending humans to space at all would be a good start… There's no scientific reason at this point. It's just propaganda value – we should maybe grow up and address global risks … maybe spend money on climate science or something?
You can't say that space is always risky and trying to kill you, and then later in the video say that if they came back in starliner they would likely be fine. Can't have it both ways
Why are all the space YouTubers saying "Starliner is probably fine"??? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You are making a giant assumption: that nothing ELSE will go wrong, that existing problems won't get worse, and that new problems won't show up.
Starliner has been the least confidence-inspiring development program I've ever witnessed. Every single test has been a complete dumpster fire. Not a single test conducted has gone smoothly, without incident. It seems highly illogical (and honestly a bit delusional) to think that the next flight of Starliner will be the ONE time it flies flawlessly, despite a demonstrated history of glitches, component failures, quality control issues, and mysterious gremlins. And whenever they pause to investigate the current problem, they discover a totally different unrelated problem also lurking beneath the surface (flammable tape, parachutes, potentially catastrophic thruster software). The logical, reasonable expectation is that the next flight will be just like all previous flights – a dumpster fire.
I mean, just look at this confidence-inspiring list of achievements:
1) Pad abort test – one of their parachutes just flew away, because the people packing the parachute assembly forgot to attach the pin that secures the parachute to the spacecraft.
2) OFT-1 – There were 3 major problems:
a) Starliner failed to even get to the ISS
b) Couldn't establish reliable communication with ground
c) Potential catastrophic failure – where service module could have crashed back into capsule after jettison – was discovered (only because of the 1st problem) & fixed at the last minute
3) OFT-2 launch attempt – corroded valves, mission aborted, OFT delayed for a year
4) OFT-2 – multiple thrusters failed during flight. Boeing & NASA called this mission a success
5) CFT – helium leak before launch, launched anyway, developed 4 more leaks on orbit, 5 thrusters failed during ISS docking sequence, 8-day mission may turn into 8-month mission.
SLS is the problem. If NASA decide that Boeing's Starliner isn't fit for purpose, then Boeing could cut its losses and pull out of SLS leaving NASA's moon program dead in the water. To be honest, SLS is a political job creation program, needlessly complicated and obscenely expensive. NASA should grow a backbone and ditch Boeing now! Competition only works if both competitors have working products – Boeing obviously does not.
👏
NASA are in a balance of risks situation now (between a rock and a hard place). A significant risk is likely undocking Starliner un-crewed since that probably puts the whole ISS at greater risk of collision. But we need to ask how NASA got into this situation. The questionable risk taking was the decision to allow Starliner to continue its approach and docking with failing thrusters. This smells very like Challenger. There ought to have been clear criteria thought out in advance for a go-no-go decision on the approach (or for Challenger, the launch). If those criteria were not met (and it is hard to think they could have been) that should have led to an abort, no questions asked. There is no time to think these issues through clearly in real time which is why you have to think through the contingencies in advance. The same logic applies to the decision to launch with a known helium leak.
You have to understand Boeing: you have to consider that they have to hold 250 8-hour meetings full of lawyers, accountants, PR-men, lobbyists, managers and maybe, but only maybe a couple of engineers (who are constantly told to shut up) They don't accomplish anything but they are very proud of the result as they have stated several times.
I imagine the same thing were to happen to SpaceX (I doubt it) Elon would have a couple of meetings with a few of his rocket nuclear surgery engineers and decide in a day.
They have slightly different philosophies.
Excellent analysis. Thank you very much.
Butch and Suni need to make the decision for NASA and refuse to return on Strarliner. Problem solved.
another great video – please can I add another production note – I suggested a while back that you incorporate a named sign off – and IMHO that really works! Now I think that you should consider an intro right after you lay out your questions as you do each time – like "question question question – so let's answer that today – this is Ad Astra" flash the logo, then jump into it. I just think it will complete the front to back packaging' of your absolutely excellent content – hope this suggestion taken as positively as it is intentioned, huge fan right here
Your assessment of THIS risk, is JUST WRONG!
Why do I say so? Well, because saying; there is risk and therefore making use of Space X's craft "also has risk" and therefore not "necessarily" safer, is just "dumb"!
This is only a question of pride!!! Pride can be the cause of the two astronaut's death!!!
There is an alternative! Simple, USE IT!!!
Not doing so, and continuing to "try" and make the Starliner work, is NOT SAFE, and IS THE BIGGEST RISK!
This isn't just about risk. I have to wonder that if the Starliner program weren't on the line, would the risk decision be easier?
(1) Starliner has already failed its current test flight. Already important changes will have to be made to the helium system and thrusters, which means the updated Starliner will need testing. (2) Redundant job creation programs are not a valid reason to risk human life. Starliner and SLS are useless job creation programs, we have superior alternatives to both, and both programs need to be cancelled. The current Starliner test flight has failed. So if it were not for the fact that Boeing removed the ability for Starliner to return to earth unmanned, Starliner would have already done that.
Boeing's military and space divisions are great examples of "fake capitalism" and "fake free enterprise". Yes they are privately owned, mostly by institutional investors such as Blackrock and Vanguard Group. But they do not operate in an free and open market. They operate in a closed market heavily influenced (specifically directed) by elected politicians, military politicians (military officers engaged in internal politics, both within the USA and foreign (for foreign sales). Boeing needs to be broken up, if anyone is willing to buy the pieces. We no longer need Boeing, there are both new and old smaller companies that are more nimble, more innovative, and better at engineering. The list of aerospace companies that have disappeared is incredibly lengthy, and Boeing needs to join that list. They are not essential, not to the USA, and in reality, not to anyone's re-election chances. Boeing is a millstone around the neck of the economy, the country, our military, and the military of our NATO allies.
15:20 Stuff does fail in space flight. Stuff fails in airliners too. But wrong-oh. This is getting more attention because of the immense number and scale of Boeing's failures. Failure after failure just on Starliner alone. This is not Russia. Any other western company would have had the plug pulled on its contract long ago. It comes across as a cheap slur to say effectively state that "all companies are this bad" and imply that "all space flight is this risky". I'm sure it was not intended that way, just sloppy wording. And sloppy wording is 'okay' on a small channel, but as your channel grows you'll need to be more careful.
Away from the Starliner topic and the need to end that project, Boeing's lengthy list of incredible problems are not isolated to its military and space divisions, for that reason Boeing needs to end. The call it end Boeing is because of wider issues. The call to end Starliner is down to Starliner.
Sorry i just don't trust anything relating to Starliner at this point. Every step of this issue has seen Boeing PR spammed in the comments of every space related channel pretending there's no risk, the issue is trivial and the delay is just a formality whilst they gather data.
You can tell it's a PR campaign because the exact same text shows up under different user names.
Boeing need to hire homer Simpson as their safety inspector
. It would be an improvement
It's whether the company making the craft have a strong safety culture, quality and not just ceo salaries or shareholder value…. If they don't, don't fly on it
My fear is that political interference might affect the risk assessment process. Boeing is one of the last big aerospace corporation in the US. Much money has been sunk in Starling and not returning tge astronauts on it might mean the end of their crew flight program, with all sorts of political repercussions.
Boeing's Corruption has been going on for more than two Decades
The Company followed a massive early retirement plan, and lost its bests Engineers
Boeing's know-how, experience, and knowledge has been lost
STARLINER had the same exact problems in 2022 and still hasn't made any progress in diagnosing the thruster problems and/or software problems!! Why hasn't NASA GROUNDED BOEING SPACE FLIGHT???
Boeing has been a government cost-plus contractor for too long. It has become bloated, inefficient, poorly managed and political. NASA needs to cancel not just Starliner, but all Boeing contracts and debar them until they demonstrate that they have competent management in place and competent staff assigned to NASA projects.