Boeing’s Starliner Recovers And Makes Bullseye Landing

Click any button for sharing!

Starliner’s OFT mission got off to a bad start, with the spacecraft getting confused and almost failing to get into orbit, but the spaceraft reached a stable orbit and was able to perform tests for 2 days before safely returning to Earth and landing at White Sands missile range in New Mexico.

  1. Adam Sieracki

    Conceptually, I like the airbag landing. 🎈🎈🎈🎈

  2. Louis B

    Almost to one million! Early congratulations. Merry Christmas and have a great 2020. Thanks for the hard work.

  3. G Car

    Ayyy Scott I thought the same thing about calypso as you 😎 we are cool

  4. Freegaming 1003

    132 like here

  5. Willem van de Beek

    Merry Christmas, Scott and company! :)

  6. Yevgeniy Biteykin

    I NEED that shirt!

  7. Lev Lehn

    The mistake could be prevented by a simulation. They are mad (or stupid) not to use simulations. Not that they get too little money from NASA…

  8. Randy Nelson

    GTFO button, that, mentioning my old GF as a witch …love it. That and “explody” things….

  9. 1Energine1

    Thanks everyday expert!

  10. Chris Hayes

    1 million subs face reveal incoming

  11. Dino Schachten

    Seeing how “reluctant” they were to provide live coverage makes me realise how beautifully open and courageous SpaceX are about letting the whole world watch as they test and occasionally fail spectacularly. :)

  12. SteverRob

    737 Max = Strike ONE
    Starliner = Strike TWO
    SLS Core Stage =
    We’re going to find out soon.
    I really hope they don’t screw this up too.

  13. Phil Stevenson

    another great video scott :) just one issue for me though, since the starliner re-entered from only 250km rather than the 400km or so of the ISS, is the whole heat shielding system really validated on this flight ?

  14. A ReliableSource

    Scott, thanks for asking questions that I really never consider, and then providing a possible explanation. It helps to suppress “conspiracy theories”. Keep up the good work.

  15. Jorge Martí Pérez

    “thousands of things have to go right for the vessel to work, but only one thing has to go wrong for the mission to be a dissaster”
    I can’t temember Who said It sry

  16. Edmond Belliveau

    12:00 KSP Mindset — Tory plays KSP, c o n f i r m e d.

  17. Busta Rogers

    This is why everyone loves SpaceX , it’s like we’re apart of their team and they share basically everything with us that they can. I love their honesty and their genius , I’m a proud SpaceX fanboi lol!!!.

  18. James Salsman

    So, yeah, deorbit burn happened. :D

  19. andrew smith

    im suprised it didnt explode on impact like thier planes do!

  20. Bob Berceli

    Scott, Great clip as Always! NASA’s link is 2+ hrs, and I need nap. Best of the holidays to you. Bob

  21. subwarpspeed

    You used the old into, which I like more :-)

  22. Mark Keogh

    “Fly safe(r than Boeing)!”

  23. ExtraRaven

    Hey Scott, have you seen NASA’s new video on their plan for going to the moon? I like your shirt btw, I should keep that in mind.

  24. Bad Informeiyon

    As usual, everything you say makes sense. Thanks.

  25. Max Silver

    Scott, thank you for this video at Christmas eve. And Merry Christmas to you from Russia!

  26. MCRN ORB1T4L

    Hey sir, hope we get a “Manley” ship next year ! I love your work, keep it up !

  27. AKing1

    Could keeping the boosters attached also help with aerodynamic stability, them aciting kinda like fins?

  28. John Smith

    So what lack of propellant precluded the ISS visit, RCS or main? And during which event was so much propellant used up due to the tight deadbands and super precise maneuvering, was this during the autonomous ‘wrong clock’ burn, or the manually initiated one by ground control later?

  29. Theodore Ackerson

    Exciting times in aerospace! I can’t wait to see a single stage vehicle with the Skylon engines.

  30. Marc Abelha

    3:55 I know nothing about aerospace stuff, but this sounds stupid, coming from Boeing make it squared!

  31. Gary Hall

    Good thing it stuck the landing…cause it MISSED the target… ;)

  32. TheStarzzguitar

    “Starliner” is way too nice a name for this craft. It should be “Toasted Plug”.

  33. bazoo513

    Amazingly well informed and objective, as always, Scott!

  34. mycroft1905

    Since when is a capsule a ‘liner’? Weasel word!

  35. The_Wilsonator

    and Dragon is back in the lead again :P i assume

  36. Reiter Gaming

    Great update Scotty :)

  37. SlowFox

    I swear this scenario is straight out of ksp lol.

  38. Vaska Zayats

    Great video. Could you please make a new video about what happens when you accidentally put wrong fuel in a rocket engine.( Like putting liquid hydrogen in F1 engine or something)

  39. Smertyuk

    I talked about this in different places before and i want to reiterate my thoughts here.
    The ship’s software missed an important step and went into weird some mode where in overcorrected until it was manually stopped, but not before it killed available delta v. Why the hell it is about as smart as an old washing machine?! There are logs, star tracking, sensors, inertial guidance and many other things it could have used to perform better and yet it did what it did. And then, i really have no words for this, as if there were not enough 737 references already, all the guys in the suits talk about how humans on board could have been the final redundancy.
    This and the abort test where the chute didn’t deploy just screams about a massive systemic problem with safety culture in the company. Somebody designed those systems in a way that has no room for error, somebody made them, tested them, certified them and signed all the paperwork and this stuff comes up during testing by sheer luck. My only hope is that everyone near that thing would be lucky enough not to get hurt, because i’m pretty sure nobody would make them redo all the certification from scratch.

  40. CartoonrBOY

    That viewscreen looks about as fluid as my KSP 🤔

  41. Vassilios Pupkios

    This is what happens when you’re losing your practical experience.

  42. Democritus86

    After doing some “research” (edit for the quotes) i have concluded that the “conspiracy theorists” are right,Boeing is getting way better treatment in the certification of Starliner
    if anything a max Q abort test should be mandatory.

  43. Brett Thomassen

    When the video doesn’t load fast enough

  44. Max gamer 20

    This is exactly like ksp for some odd reason.

  45. Evan Fox

    Thank you for answering the SRB question!

  46. MercuriusORG

    2:33 Boeing edit? ;)

  47. Slice of Bread

    they could also slap a load of seperatrons on the boosters.
    and while they are at it, add some more boosters…

  48. John E

    I flown down one of those runways during the time I was in MedEvac support for the military.

  49. Bradley Weingartner

    1:21 Not if their target is the ISS…

  50. James bradley

    By FAR my favorite channel of any media delivery system.

  51. Dethmeister

    3:24 Why did they put Aunt Jemima in the capsule?

  52. phiutubeful

    This is literally the real-life equivalent of screwing up your staging in KSP

  53. Roland Imhof

    Are these Zip-Ties at 2:51 Space approved? 😂

  54. revenevan11

    Cool! I’ve been waiting for your coverage of the return part of this mission, thanks!

  55. Jason Creech

    Checking each day for your update on this. We can now breath. Thanks for explaining things to us.

  56. Ficon

    Congratulations to Boeing for landing on the correct planet.

  57. Ian Golsby

    12:12 just clip some sepatrons inside the top of the booster

  58. Pandicle

    i can’t believe there was people who wanted to see a vessel who had a computer bug attempt an automatic dock to the ISS.. And why Starliner don’t do an inflight abort test?!

  59. Nowhereman10

    The mission was set for 8 days, not two weeks.

  60. htomerif

    This is a pet peeve of mine as I used to work on thermal imaging devices for the . Why do people insist on inverted color schemes for thermal imaging? I mean if you’re looking at a thermal image of a tank column or a , you’re specifically looking for heat. It kind of makes it look more like a normal daylight picture, yes, but it makes it harder for the operator to accurately tell the uh.. “high velocity no-trespassing signs” exactly what they should be tracking.

  61. ElbowDeepInAHorse

    If Boeing ended their press videos with “fly safe,” they would never get another craft off the ground on account of their massive brass clackers.

  62. Daniel Carroll

    Did they outsource the programming for Starliner as well?

  63. Sean McDonough

    1:24 – Putting a reentry vehicle on a bullseye is much _much_ easier when the vehicle doesn’t have to soft-land (and slow down to a couple of meters per second while trailing a bunch of huge draggy bags and get blown all over the place like a feather in the wind) and can stay hypersonic right on down to the surface (or just above it).

  64. BikeHelmet

    Sounds like a highly successful mission, all things considered. I only have one thought as a programmer – holy crap – unit test stuff would you!?
    I think I’m in the more cautious fly-it-again camp. You don’t know what you don’t know until you discover you didn’t know it. Loss of life would set this program back at least a year – I would rather see a 1-2 month delay and another uncrewed launch. It’s impossible to say if there’s any more gotchas in their code. The individual instruments apparently performed admirably, but if it’s not tied together properly and unit tested…. (Unit test = proper simulation or functions that drive real data into the code and check the results. Great for detecting unexpected bugs like this.)

  65. Pete Kuhns

    Email: “Scott Manley just uploaded a video”
    YoursTruly (rhetorically): “What could Scott possibly add that I haven’t inferred from watching live”

    YT (resigned): “wow didn’t know about that. Interesting”

  66. Trevin

    Great analysis, likely for Boeing to transport lives regardless of this missions missed goals. I’d check further into the delayed release of the booster theory. Definitely plausible but fundamental design would provide “safe” separation…I would think.
    Love your reports!

  67. Shiro Akaishi

    It’s easier to hit a target when you define where that target is while your dart is in flight.

  68. Jack Boot

    “Wouldn’t have been a problem if there were crew aboard”
    Simple solution then: Put crew aboard the next one… ( if you can find anyone brave enough).

  69. Devinci Aerospace

    Almost a million for Scott! Yes!

  70. Charles-A Rovira

    LOL! With the help of the *Earth’s* gravity, *Starliner* manages to hit the *inevitable* _broad side of a barn._ (I just can’t take them seriously at all.)

  71. Doodling Astronaut

    I would have loved to see the Dual Centaur upper stage

  72. Damien Drouart

    Reaching orbit with RCS only is 100% Kerbal.
    The famous “I still can make it” moment we all knows.

  73. plasmaburndeath

    Ty Scott for your continuous work bringing us unique point of view of science news and brilliantly worded videos.

  74. Sean McDonough

    3:58 – So it _wasn’t_ because the CMOS battery died and the spacecraft thought it was New Year’s Day 1980?

  75. Kumquat Lord

    I’ve heard that the crew would have been able to correct the issue had they been on board, does that sound plausible?

  76. Timebomb42

    “We can fix this, we can do simulations, therefore we should just fix it all in simulations…”
    I feel like there’s a roughly MAX sized hole in that argument, saying that Boeing’s software testing and simulation may not be putting out the best work, and a physical test is in order.

  77. M K

    So basically “Check Your Staging!”

  78. Roy

    Speaking as a Dog Groomer these things can happen, one minute everything’s going smoothly and the next you’re spinning around in circles loosing all your fluid !

  79. coolguyjoe99

    I’m heading to FL in 5 weeks, Hoping to attend the Solar Probe night launch on Feb 5

  80. Sean McDonough

    10:28 – Kinda difficult to put the crew in danger when the mission _has no crew._

  81. Sean McDonough

    1:08 – Left, right, up, down, spinning ’round, trying to communicate…

  82. bazoo513

    “Boeing knows how to put (slightly more pointy) payloads to the target” :o)
    And without parachutes!

  83. Ursa_minor 1234

    “Check yo staging”
    Scott is taking subtle shots

  84. jim sbarglia

    This is great news according to the clock the starliner used to return it returned before it left

  85. panda44r

    “,..’cuz yeah, that’s the kinda thing that would ruin your mission.”
    S.M. is SO eloquent,..SO,…aww forgetaboutit :oP

  86. John Cheresna

    Hope you hit a million subscribers soon.

  87. Dan W

    Scott, the real problem is what the little problem reveals about the whole programming of the Starliner’s computer. So, the wrong timer was copied, or initialized; fine. But the program should not ONLY look at time and base its behaviour on the reading of a single timer. Such dumb programming is shameful. The program should compare its state representation to make sure it agrees with external conditions and parameters ALL THE TIME. So, the timer is wrong and we think it is time to do fine attitude control. Well, before we proceed with that, and/or while we proceed with that, we check that we are, in fact, close to the ISS; and we verify that our fuel is down to half, given that we have completed the orbit insertion burn. Etceteras. We check assumptions. Standard practice in software. If this checking of external facts does not agree with our timer and timeline, then something is wrong, and we’d better notify ground control, and ask ground control for instruction on how to proceed. I would never write firmware even for controlling a stupid light-bulb that is so pathetically dumb as to base a major decision on the value of a single timer. And I don’t know many programmers that would look at code like that and not blow the whistle. Stupid programming like that puts in question the entire system and calls for a complete review involving a more trustworthy third party.
    Plus the fact that the problem was not seen during testing. That says that Boeing does not have a competent reliability department.
    Plus the fact that all the redundancies that I’m sure exist in the system were defeated by design, by using a non-redundant protocol for setting the timer.
    So I would not even consider for a second putting people aboard this craft until the software has been completely reviewed by a more competent party. Otherwise, think about what would happen if you have crew aboard, and the craft is slowly approaching the ISS for docking; then a cosmic ray corrupts the memory of that computer, and it thinks it should be doing an orbit insertion burn, turns on the engines full blast towards the ISS … Stupid programming that doesn’t check its assumptions should not be allowed in mission critical systems.
    EDIT: Note how the problem with the 737MAX MCAS software had a lot to do with them relying on a single wind-speed sensor to make the decision whether to take control away from the pilot? Lo and behold: Same thing with Starliner’s software; relying on a single timer to decide what part of the program should be executing. There is some very powerful retard on the loose at Boeing… Thank god that Muilenburg lying snake got kicked out, finally; but I’m sure he wasn’t the only problem.

  88. dvdschaub

    There’s never enough time to do things right, but always enough time to do things over (after someone gets killed).

  89. 935Demon

    Is it weird that I like his “beatbox” intros better? 😂 they do grow on you

  90. Владимир Кузнецов Vovacat17

    Is GTFO an official term for emergency escape?

  91. ThatOneGuy

    Who else has been waiting for Scott’s video on this?

  92. timothyp873

    To be honest, Boeing’s Star Liner mission failure would only be as bad as the 737 max debacle if it crashed and burned on landing. Still doesn’t look good, but it’s not catastrophic.

  93. WinterHell

    There’s an important aspect to this not getting stressed enough. Namely, that this is further evidence of systemic, company-wide quality control issues at Boeing. They forgot to insert a pin into a parachute assembly and nobody noticed. The QA guys then took photos of it and still nobody noticed. Then it failed to deploy and they called it a success. Now, Starliner software grabs the wrong code, preventing it from achieving the central mission goal and they again call it a success. It’s not just one thing. It’s a recurring pattern of insufficient testing, abysmal quality control, and wishful thinking that should be very worrying to everyone.
    Putting a positive spin on things is one thing. It’s natural, and everyone does it. But Boeing seems to have taken it further than that and I don’t think they realize how bad they look. The central goal of Starliner (and the whole point of commercial crew) is to get astronauts in & out of the space station. If you don’t dock with the ISS, what’s the point of anything else? To so casually gloss over this and talk about “85-90% mission success” and pat themselves on the back makes them look really bad.
    During one of their press conferences, the Boeing guy said “we tested the docking system, so we know it works.” THAT’S NOT HOW TESTING WORKS! You pushed the docking gear out into EMPTY SPACE. That’s like saying you simulated something on the computer, therefore you KNOW it works in the real world. It’s like pressing the brake pedal while parked and saying the braking system works fine, or extending the landing gear while the plane is still being manufactured and therefore you know the landing will be perfect.

  94. Todd Telford

    With regards to the horrible and amateur broadcasting of this mission…I always remember, back in the shuttle era, even if we didnt have live images for broadcast, we always had a direct link view of the images on the control centre screens. This was totally ignored in ascent and decent. All we got both ways were shots looking back at the control desks and operators with very few cuts to the projection screens…and even then they were wide cuts of the screens like Scott Manley had to zoom in on to get any scents of what was happening. At least we would have had a better idea of where the craft was rather than listening to very amateurish commentary broken up with huge pauses that made the commentators sound like they didnt have a lot of an idea of what was happening. Seemed like poor research a training on what was going to happen…. the broadcasting has gone back to the distant past IMO…even Apollo was slicker than this!!

  95. Daniel Stensnes

    Hmm, well. I might be a bit harsh here, but here it goes: The fact that something got through testing even while reading the wrong timer, suggests to me that the code has not been properly tested. On a general basis, I’d say that is a bad sign, and very much so if human lives might somehow be lost

  96. George Chambers III

    Scott Manley needs a Check Yo Timing shirt for us to buy.

  97. annoloki

    Whatever problems Boeing might have had with flying things, nobody doubted their ability to get those things back to the ground

  98. Steven Edwards

    When a major CEOs fired he’s never fired. He is ‘corporately restructured’.
    I am sure all his parachutes worked.

  99. Hesham Beltagy

    “Boeing builds ICBMs, so they know how to put their payloads close to their target” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

  100. master shooter64

    Recovery of vessel from orbit
    +10 science

Comments are closed.