What Happens if Starliner Completely Fails and Boeing is No Longer a CC Provider

[Asteroza]

So, with recent mainstream articles on Starliner openly suggesting Boeing is going to consider pulling out of manned spaceflight as a business, is the possibility of Boeing actually not being a CC provider higher now?

[Spiceman]

The trouble is that NASA can't incentivize Boeing by giving them additional money to solve their problems. Because THAT would effectively turn a FFP contract into a sorta-kinda cost-plus contract, where the contractor offloads all its cost overruns on the customer.
In essence, NASA would be "rewarding" Boeing for screwing up.

Providing additional money to Boeing to fix Starliner would also undoubtly lead to SpaceX dragging NASA to court, eventually leading to NASA having to financially compensate SpaceX as well.

The signal to everyone "that NASA won't stand beside them when they are struggling" was given not recently, but back in 2014 already, when NASA awarded FIRM FIXED PRICE contracts for CCP. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells understood back then already that any cost overrun, not matter the reason, would be picked up by the contractor, not NASA. So, if NASA lets Boeing falter on Starliner, it's not NASA's responsibility. Boeing should have been smart enough to properly understand what Firm Fixed Price means. The fact that they screwed up on that AS WELL, is solely on Boeing, not NASA; the original RFP was clear enough on what Milestones-Based Firm Fixed Price means exactly.

Starliner miseries certainly validate COTS 2006 genius breakthrough, retroactively - hail fixed-price, screw cost-plus.
Makes an interesting contrast with the same Boeing' SLS obscene cost-plus contracts. Imagine if the fixed price rule was enforced on SLS. You could hear the screams as far as Pluto.

As for Kistler: blame George French and Chuck Lauer. With COTS they had a golden opportunity to finish the first K-1 TSTO vehicle, 75% complete since 2000 and the dot-com bust, also the satphone constellation craze going belly up.
Still, they manage to screw the pooch. With perfect hindsight, they were a money black hole. Always short of money, whatever resources and contracts they got.
At least their demise was Orbital's delight, which Cygnus is stil flying cargo to the ISS to this day.

[Jim]

. So, there was a "said" but mostly BS reason and an "unsaid" real reason for two companies to supply commercial space access. We all know the "said" reasons�redundancy as backup and the bootstrapping of commercial space activity; both nice to have. The unsaid reason was: Can someone, anyone besides the Russians, please...PLEASE fly our astronauts to the ISS because we are desperate. We will pick two potential providers to improve the odds that one will succeed.

Wrong,  there is never was a such a reason

[Twark_Main]

. So, there was a "said" but mostly BS reason and an "unsaid" real reason for two companies to supply commercial space access. We all know the "said" reasons—redundancy as backup and the bootstrapping of commercial space activity; both nice to have. The unsaid reason was: Can someone, anyone besides the Russians, please...PLEASE fly our astronauts to the ISS because we are desperate. We will pick two potential providers to improve the odds that one will succeed.

Wrong,  there is never was a such a reason

Sorry, but the idea that NASA is (was) just fine and peachy letting Russia control their astronauts' access to space doesn't pass the smell test.

Of course they're not going to say that out loud, but to suggest that there "isn't and never was" such a consideration is just laughable.

[Michel Van]

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end


Source: X

[Twark_Main]

Can we finally delete the "if" from the headline here?    Mods??

Boeing is already trying to dump the entire Starliner program on some poor unsuspecting sap lucky buyer, so there can be little doubt they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid any more (money losing) flights. NASA bet big on Boeing. and they lost big time.

Surely we can all agree it's time to put the final nail in Starliner's coffin.

[Eric Hedman]

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end


Source: X

I don't know why anyone would want either Starliner or the ISS operations group.  Neither have a long term future.

[Asteroza]

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end


Source: X

I don't know why anyone would want either Starliner or the ISS operations group.  Neither have a long term future.

If Axiom is scavenging modules from ISS, there will be a need for legacy module support though...

[AmigaClone]

If Axiom is scavenging modules from ISS, there will be a need for legacy module support though...

The only component of the ISS that might become part of the Axion Station is the Canada Arm

[jstrotha0975]

I thought one of the experiment modules was going to be a part of the Axiom station.