Elon Musk Finally Exposed What NASA LIED about Starliner Trouble!

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. 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. 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 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 interesting 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 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 families 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 US 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 US 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 7, 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. 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 schedule of the Dragon Crew 9 spacecraft. More notably, with the recent move by Boeing's subsidiary, ULA, some suspect that Boeing is playing tricks on its rival. On July 10th, 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.