Elon Musk revealed NASA Hiding A Shocking Secret about Boeing Starliner Return!

How will NASA plan to bring Boeing's troubled Starliner home? Finally, after weeks of debate, NASA has revealed the details on how to bring this big white elephant back, instead of turning it into space junk. Find out everything in today's TechMap episode. But before we begin, let's subscribe to the channel to stay up to date with the latest space news. The name of the Boeing Starliner Calypso reminds us of a nymph from Greek mythology, named Calypso. She lived on the island of Ogygia, where she detained Odysseus for seven years against his will. She promised Odysseus immortality if he would stay with her, but Odysseus preferred to return home. Eventually, after the intervention of the other gods, Calypso was forced to let Odysseus go. This story could be modified a little bit to accommodate the current context. The troubled Boeing Starliner nymph detained two NASA astronauts, Butch and Suni, for more than two months against their will to stay around eight days. She promised two astronauts an indefinite life in space if they agreed to be stuck with her, but Wilmore and William preferred to return home. The reason Boeing can be so arrogant is because they have a powerful god protecting them, named NASA. In reality, during those over two months, despite the public outrage, the U.S. space agency still found all ways to protect its preferred contractor, saying that Starliner didn't have any trouble with its return capability, and the option to order a rescue mission was just a rumor. When the Starliner's problem was getting worse and the media pressure was increasing, NASA ultimately acknowledged that based on the core value, commitment to safety, Boeing Starliner would make an uncrewed return and let the alternative spacecraft, SpaceX Dragon, bring the astronaut home. This announcement is made by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson through a live news conference on Saturday, August 24, 2024, as well as his tweet on the same day. Spaceflight is risky, even at its safest and most routine. A test flight, by nature, is neither safe nor routine. Our decision to keep Butch and Suni aboard the space station and bring Starliner home uncrewed is the result of our commitment to safety, our core value. Consequently, Wilmore and Williams will continue their work formally as part of the Expedition 71-72 Crew through February 2025. They will fly home aboard a Dragon spacecraft, with two other crew members assigned to the agency's SpaceX Crew-9 mission. Starliner is expected to depart from the space station and make a safe, controlled, autonomous re-entry and landing in early September. The CFT's crew will stay up there for eight months in total, and this sparked a lot of concerns for their health status, as living in space for a long time. NASA immediately gave the response to those concerns. Both Butch and Suni have completed long-duration stays aboard the space station on previous missions. A typical stay aboard the station is about six months, and our NASA astronauts have remained on the station for longer-duration missions of about one year. However, keep in mind that unexpectedly extending the time staying on the ISS, such as in this case, is not what NASA expects in the Starliner future missions. Following Starliner's return, the agency will review all mission-related data to inform what additional actions are required to meet NASA's certification requirements. They said, oh my god, it would be unformidable if NASA still maintains its contract with Boeing, and more surprisingly, they still plan to order the crewed trips on this dangerous vehicle, despite the unacceptable problems on the spacecraft. Compared to two other vehicles, NASA's Space Shuttle and SpaceX Dragon, Starliner's achievement is humiliating. The Shuttle spacecraft made the record with 135 flights from 1981 to 2011, including two fatal disasters. SpaceX Crew Dragon has experienced a dozen crewed missions to space in four short years, and 53 astronauts safely launched and recovered. Only disasters were in the testing phases. Meanwhile, Boeing has had only one flight and one disaster, despite being awarded the NASA contract at the same time as Dragon. NASA's current decision might come from NASA's strong confidence in the manager role of the new CEO of Boeing, Kelly Ortberg. Bill Nelson expressed full confidence, stating he is 100 percent certain that Starliner will launch crews to the ISS again. Not only Nelson but also Steve Stitch, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, also shares the same optimistic view. Starliner is a very capable spacecraft, and ultimately this comes down to needing a higher level of certainty to perform a crewed return, he said. Additionally, from the beginning, NASA always insists on the necessity of two suppliers to make redundancy for the Commercial Crew Program. This partly explains why the incompetent Boeing has been here so far. And of course, it's not the main drive. In 2019, NASA Inspector General detected several issues related to NASA's Commercial Crew Program, one of which was the nearly $300 million that NASA paid Boeing. It is more than originally planned in its Commercial Crew Contract because of agency concerns that the company might drop out of the program. More notably, after getting an additional $300 million in December 2019, Starliner failed an uncrewed orbital flight test to dock to the ISS, leading to the second attempt three years later. As far as I know, until now, Boeing has no intention of refunding that money. In the OFT-2 mission launched on May 19, 2022, the Calypso spacecraft struggled to dock to the ISS due to the failure of its thruster system. It's unclear why, although two years have passed, Boeing hasn't managed to handle thoroughly the thruster problems leading to the stuck issue on the 2024 launch. Not that enough can't help but mention the undocking software on Starliner. Due to the shift from unmanned to manned mission, the unautonomous undocking software was added, which requires the collaboration with crew on board to safely undock the vehicle. This, though, leads to an ironic situation, meaning that Starliner can't undock by itself unless its software is upgraded to autonomous mode. The bottom line here is NASA's ambiguity about this change, and they just aware of it recently. So the question arises, is it true that NASA did not know about this at the outset of the crew flight test? Perhaps they had some doubts about the software issue, but they guessed that the chance of failure was very small, primarily due to the firm belief in the Boeing contractor, or they were simply too hands-off in watching its troubled giant aerospace industry. It's so weird that for another contractor, SpaceX, NASA tends to be strict. NASA imposes stringent safety requirements on all commercial crewed flights, including those operated by SpaceX. For instance, the agency mandates that the risk of loss of crew must not exceed one in 270 flights for missions to the International Space Station, ISS. This reflects a commitment to ensuring that commercial spaceflight is as safe as possible. So, do we have any reasonable explanation for this? Boeing was inherently considered the aristocracy of the aerospace industry. With 100 years of spaceflight history and its mark on the dawn of human exploration, the company easily got the support of many politicians in parliament to enter any NASA significant programs. In the early days of NASA's commercial crew program, Boeing actively lobbied to secure its position as a key provider of crew transportation services. According to Eric Berger's forthcoming book, Re-Entry, from the start, Boeing clearly showed its ambition to be the sole crewed spacecraft provider. Boeing had a solution, telling NASA it needed the entire commercial crew budget to succeed. Because a lot of decision makers believed that only Boeing could safely fly astronauts, the company's gambit very nearly worked. After a cascade of pro-Boeing opinions swept around the table, a building an unbreakable wave of consensus, NASA's human exploration lead Gerstenmaier took a month to decide, eventually asking for more budget to support two competing efforts. Ultimately, the new entrant SpaceX won the contract, even though it just received half of the funding as Boeing. Given the presence of SpaceX, Boeing expressed concerns about the competitive landscape, particularly regarding SpaceX's rapid progress. The company sought to ensure that it remained a viable option for NASA, advocating for its experience and established track record in aerospace. Boeing's arrogance was also demonstrated in its attitude in listening to the astronauts' response. When the SpaceX engineers could be corralled, they were eager to hear feedback from the NASA astronauts, excited to work with them, and attentive to their suggestions. By contrast, Boeing engineers seemed indifferent to hearing from the four commercial crew astronauts. There was an arrogance with them that you certainly didn't see at SpaceX. Boeing also underperformed. Not only were its engineers overconfident, but the company's management also was not putting skin in the game. Astronaut Hurley did not see any urgency from Boeing's teams. Rather, they appeared to be working part-time on Starliner. It was all about managing dollars and cents from Boeing's perspective, Hurley said. During the summer of 2018 as Boeing worked toward a pad abort test in White Sands, New Mexico, Boeing never flew an in-flight abort test. A significant problem occurred due to a propellant leak. Ultimately, this would delay the company's pad abort test by more than a year. But at the time, Boeing neglected to tell the commercial crew astronauts about the issue. There is the fact that Boeing Starliner's problem is getting worse than ever, but NASA is trying to cover up and downplay everything. However, what if SpaceX and Boeing were in the opposite position, meaning SpaceX Dragon was in trouble and Boeing Starliner would have come to the rescue? Will the U.S. Space Agency do the same? Elon Musk recently exposed once again what NASA lied to us about the Starliner trouble and the favoritism the U.S. Space Agency shows to its favored contractor. NASA has grabbed the headlines for a while due to its poor management capability under its commercial crew program. Given that they have let an incompetent contractor, Boeing, milk the budget drain, and even now its Starliner spacecraft has been stuck indefinitely in space. Meanwhile, a much more competent supplier, SpaceX got the unfair at the beginning, but then its Dragon spacecraft reached the monopoly in ferrying NASA astronauts to the ISS. NASA has now come up with the idea of ordering a rescue mission aboard Dragon to bring Butch and Suni, two NASA astronauts carried by Boeing Starliner in June. During the crewed test flight, the Starliner and its crew were originally scheduled to stay on the ISS for only eight days, but technical problems including helium leaks and thruster problems have now extended the stay to more than two months. Worse still, a newly discovered glitch involving the undocking software added fuel to the fire, given that Starliner cannot undock autonomously without the crew's coordination. Therefore, if NASA wants to let Starliner return to Earth without a crew, there is a very high chance that the ship will lose control and collide with the ISS. Additionally, if ordering a rescue mission on SpaceX Dragon, the astronauts have to wait until February 2025. Clearly, staying so long in space is actually not good for their health. However, it is definitely not safe to let the Starliner carry people. While NASA officials and their decision-maker, Bill Nelson, are having a headache weighing the possibilities. Recently, there has been an topic spreading on social media saying, if the companies involved were in the reverse position, SpaceX in trouble with Boeing coming to the rescue, this would be the leading news story every day. This topic immediately caught Elon Musk's attention and he replied true as a way of showing his agreement. This makes sense. If roles were reversed, it would be a global tragedy because Dragon in particular and SpaceX in general have an extremely large impact on the aerospace industry. Elon Musk's SpaceX is well known for its strict standards of safety and quality. More importantly, it plays an important role in the development of commercial space travel. Any scandal related to the safety of SpaceX's vehicles will seriously erode the belief of SpaceX's partners such as NASA and even the public. Boeing and its supporters will loudly criticize Elon Musk and his dream of Mars colonization. They will use this as an excuse to stop the commercialization of space and try to take rocketry back to the 20th century when the old farts were at the top of the game. This would be a significant setback for the United States' position in the space race, especially as our biggest competitor China gradually moves forward. On the bright side though, assuming Dragon had trouble like Boeing, I bet the astronauts in this case would have been treated better, meaning they would have been able to return home to their sooner. NASA was trying to protect its most favored contractor, Boeing, so it kept quiet about the Starliner's troubles for a long time and kept astronauts in space longer. The cover-up and tolerance of the agency affect the whole ISS. If it were SpaceX, NASA would have been transparent from the start, and they and SpaceX would have quickly come up with a solution, thus reducing the damage significantly. This is truly a big difference between a competent company that prioritizes quality and safety and one that focuses solely on profits. It could be argued that the U.S. space agency's favoritism towards Boeing was the main culprit behind SpaceX's injustice in the early days of NASA's commercial crew program. NASA's administrator Bill Nelson said, when there was the beginning of the space cargo and crew programs, the two serious bidders were SpaceX and Boeing, and everybody poo-pooed SpaceX and said, oh, Boeing is a legacy company. In an article for Forbes in 2011, aerospace and defense writer Lauren Thompson voiced concerns about NASA becoming overly dependent on the still-young SpaceX and also wrote that Musk's enthusiasm is infectious and inspiring. But SpaceX's performance to date doesn't measure up to the rhetoric. There was also doubt within NASA. Former NASA astronaut turned SpaceX engineer Garrett Reisman in 2020 said that there was a perception of SpaceX along the lines of, they're cowboys, they're dangerous, they're going to kill somebody. It was no coincidence that Boeing enjoyed an unfair advantage at that time. Boeing was once a company of engineer, by engineers, for engineers. We see its heritage in space back to the earliest days of the U.S. venturing into space. Its fingerprints appear on major aspects of Apollo and the International Space Station, for example. The company's large influence in the aerospace industry makes it easy for Boeing to win important NASA contracts. But now it has become a corporation of speculators, by speculators, for speculators. Thanks to the merger with McDonnell Douglas nearly 30 years ago, Boeing's leadership has transformed from high-quality and loyal engineers to finance guys. And even the current Boeing CEO, Dave Calhoun, has a degree in accounting. McDonnell Douglas management proudly proclaimed they transformed a mere engineering firm into a viable Fortune 500 corporation. What we see today is the result of this transformation. Elon Musk has accused Boeing of securing government contracts due to its armies of lobbyists, implying that Boeing relies on political influence rather than technical merits. He also explained why Boeing ended up so badly. The CEO of an aircraft company should know how to design aircraft, not spreadsheets. Of course, it's not the first time he mentioned to cause of the failure of a Titan. On May 7th, after Boeing's first launch attempt was canceled, Elon chided Boeing on X for employing too many non-technical managers. A technical manager generally oversees the development, implementation, and maintenance of technological company systems and processes, including troubleshooting any potential issues. Non-technical managers, on the other hand, tend to be focused on broader aspects of a company like strategic planning, communication, and decision-making. In addition, in 2022, Musk opined about non-technical managers. I strongly believe that all managers in a technical area must be technically excellent. Managers in software must write great software, or it's like being a cavalry captain who can't ride a horse. Elon Musk has applied this principle in building SpaceX's foundation. Everything started from him. When the rocket concept started to grow in his mind, he learned a lot about the fundamentals of rocket design and astrodynamics from reading books. The strong background in physics and engineering benefited him a lot to understand the principles of rocketry. Through the interview between Elon Musk and the YouTuber Everyday Astronaut, his knowledge of Starship and spaceflight has incredibly impressed the viewers. In hindsight, we don't know what we're doing, and what have they done? Oh, exactly. That's easy to be an armchair rocket engineer. Exactly. SpaceX's board of directors, although come from many different fields, also have working experience with Tesla Motors, PayPal, computer services company Netscape, and impulse space propulsion. Elon Musk, while working with them, also learned a lot to perfect his knowledge. This is the core weapon driving SpaceX to become dominant in spaceflight currently. Despite surpassing Boeing and becoming the leading company in the space industry, SpaceX has sometimes fallen victim to the failures of its competitors. The most notable case is the delayed return of the Starliner due to a software issue that directly impacted the More notably, with the recent move by Boeing's subsidiary, ULA, some suspect that Boeing is playing tricks on its rival. On July 10, while Starliner was stuck in space, ULA challenged SpaceX's effort to launch the Starship rocket in Florida. Indeed, they submitted a 22-page document to the FAA accusing SpaceX of producing their own environmental impact statement for their extravagantly named Starbase at Boca Chica in Texas from where they have been testing Starships so far. This follows Blue Origin's three-page letter to the FAA in which they ask for a cap to be put into place on the number of launches and landings, reducing the 44 planned launches to an unspecified amount that has a minimal impact on the local environment, locally operating personnel, and the local community. ULA's opposition to SpaceX is also evident in the company's upcoming merger with Blue Origin, space's arch-rival. And that just about wraps it up for today's episode. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you next time!