NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2

[soltasto]

The RFI for the NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services has been posted:

https://sam.gov/opp/3ae9296c494a4e3698c7fbc01865b764/view

After years of development, commercial human space transportation systems have achieved or are nearing operational readiness.  NASA recognizes the significant advancement of the commercial spaceflight industry and requests information on the availability of existing NASA certified capabilities, estimated timelines on the availability of future capabilities to be certified by NASA, and whether commercial services are available for crewed space transportation services delivering NASA and International Partner astronauts to and returning them from the ISS.  Responses to this RFI will be used to inform NASA’s planning for an acquisition approach for Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services.

NASA anticipates continued ongoing operations of the ISS beyond 2024.  To provide for these needs and contingencies, NASA has determined a need to acquire additional Post-Certification Missions to meet its obligations to assure crewed access to the International Space Station.

NASA is considering acquisition of Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services from one or more U.S. providers through commercial services contracts. Depending on mission requirements, NASA may purchase single seats, multiple seats within one mission, or seats for an entire mission.  NASA is seeking pertinent information from industry which may be used to formulate one or more solicitations related to the Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services effort.

[Comga]

...one or more U.S. providers ..

One aspect of particular interest is whether NASA awards more flights to Boeing before Starliner is certified,  before CFT-1 flies, or even before OFT-2 flies.
That will say a lot about the level of Boeing's "pull" at this point, particularly compared to the last time Boeing CC program got extra money for their fixed price contract.

It would make some sense to award SpaceX as many additional crew flights as they have flown, such as 4 if awarded next summer, to keep the backlog for both suppliers equal.
Or they could contract for as many Dragon flights as they can while bidding is competitive.

PS  A more descriptive thread title might be something like "Commercial Crew: RFI for Round 2"
There are many existing threads on just CCSTS.

[gongora]

We'll see what the RFP ends up saying.  For the RFI they mention systems that could be certified by 2027 (I guess that's for the situation of the ISS being extended to 2030).  Realistically they will need to give SpaceX additional missions.  I would guess they try to do something more like the cargo program where it's IDIQ instead of a fixed number of flights so that they pick SpaceX and Boeing to provide flights as needed.  Whether they can add a new provider might depend on whether they can get funding to pay for development of another system.

[joek]

We'll see what the RFP ends up saying.  For the RFI they mention systems that could be certified by 2027 (I guess that's for the situation of the ISS being extended to 2030).  Realistically they will need to give SpaceX additional missions.  I would guess they try to do something more like the cargo program where it's IDIQ instead of a fixed number of flights so that they pick SpaceX and Boeing to provide flights as needed.  Whether they can add a new provider might depend on whether they can get funding to pay for development of another system.

CCtCap post-certification missions are IDIQ, with minimum of 6 missions. IDIQ contracts require minimum and and maximum order quantities. We know the minimum (6), which believe has been exercised for both Boeing and SpaceX. Additional flights would require extension to existing contract. That is very different than on-ramp for additional providers.

[yg1968]

We'll see what the RFP ends up saying.  For the RFI they mention systems that could be certified by 2027 (I guess that's for the situation of the ISS being extended to 2030).  Realistically they will need to give SpaceX additional missions.  I would guess they try to do something more like the cargo program where it's IDIQ instead of a fixed number of flights so that they pick SpaceX and Boeing to provide flights as needed.  Whether they can add a new provider might depend on whether they can get funding to pay for development of another system.

CCtCap post-certification missions are IDIQ, with minimum of 6 missions. IDIQ contracts require minimum and and maximum order quantities. We know the minimum (6), which believe has been exercised for both Boeing and SpaceX. Additional flights would require extension to existing contract. That is very different than on-ramp for additional providers.

This RFI confirms my belief that CCtCap cannot be extended to more than 6 post certification missions for each provider, per the terms of the CCtCap RFP (see the quote at the bottom of this post).

NASA decided instead to have a new solicitation (the Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services) in order to get new post-certification missions past the twelve that NASA already has with SpaceX and Boeing.

Interestingly, this contract offers the possibility of adding new commercial crew providers (Dream Chaser and Blue Origin) but only if they can be certified by 2027. It seems that NASA is even open to paying some funding for development/certification for these new entrants. Of course, existing providers (Boeing and SpaceX) would not receive funding for development of their spacecraft and would be expected to be ready before 2027. 

Information about the maturity of crew transportation systems that are still under design and/or development.  Specifically, identify: the level of maturity of the crew transportation system (e.g., how much testing has been performed, what type of testing remains, etc.); the remaining activities planned to complete the system to be compliant with NASA requirements; and, generally, the resources required to mature the system so that a NASA certification could be accomplished no later than 2027. Details on whether Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services can be considered “commercial services,” as defined by FAR Part 2.

     

“NASA has a need for additional crew rotation flights to the space station beyond the twelve missions the agency has awarded Boeing and SpaceX under the current contracts,” said Phil McAlister, director of the commercial spaceflight division at NASA Headquarters. “Commercial crew transportation services are going to be needed into the foreseeable future, and we want to maintain competition, provide assured access to space on U.S. human launch systems and continue to enable a low-Earth orbit economy.”

With the continued advancement on U.S. human spaceflight, NASA is soliciting information on the availability of existing agency certified crew systems and estimated timelines on the availability of future systems capable of accomplishing certification no later than 2027.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-requests-information-for-american-crew-transportation-to-space-station

The maximum potential number of Post Certification Missions which may be ordered under this contract is six (6).

[butters]

Isn't Axiom going to be selecting the NASA-certified transportation provider for half or more of crewed missions to the ISS? So the providers for Round 2 are bidding for a predetermined number of NASA missions and the eligibility to compete for Axiom missions. Catering to Axiom's preferences may be essential for any new entrant to justify the investment.

This is going to be a very interesting transition period as the ISS lives out its final years mated to its commercial replacement. I trust that Mike Suffredini will not want to make this any more awkward than it has to be, but Axiom is the biggest stakeholder in having more transportation providers and less of a pronounced price differential between providers in the next round. NASA has what they need both operationally and politically with their current pair of providers. A third provider that costs Starliner money doesn't really do much for Axiom, and that might affect how prospective bidders approach this solicitation.

[yg1968]

Isn't Axiom going to be selecting the NASA-certified transportation provider for half or more of crewed missions to the ISS? So the providers for Round 2 are bidding for a predetermined number of NASA missions and the eligibility to compete for Axiom missions. Catering to Axiom's preferences may be essential for any new entrant to justify the investment.

This is going to be a very interesting transition period as the ISS lives out its final years mated to its commercial replacement. I trust that Mike Suffredini will not want to make this any more awkward than it has to be, but Axiom is the biggest stakeholder in having more transportation providers and less of a pronounced price differential between providers in the next round. NASA has what they need both operationally and politically with their current pair of providers. A third provider that costs Starliner money doesn't really do much for Axiom, and that might affect how prospective bidders approach this solicitation.

For the time being the Axiom module would be attached to the ISS, so NASA would probably use its own transportation arrangements to the ISS.

For free-flying commercial LEO habitats, the habitat provider would choose the transportation system but it would have to be a NASA certified system in order to transport NASA astronauts.

[docmordrid]

Isn't Axiom going to be selecting the NASA-certified transportation provider for half or more of crewed missions to the ISS?
>

Axiom AX 1-4 are already manifested on Crew Dragon.

[gongora]

Axiom is hiring vehicles for their own use, not on behalf of NASA.

CCtCap post-certification missions are IDIQ, with minimum of 6 missions. IDIQ contracts require minimum and and maximum order quantities. We know the minimum (6), which believe has been exercised for both Boeing and SpaceX. Additional flights would require extension to existing contract. That is very different than on-ramp for additional providers.

CCtCap is maximum 6 missions, not minimum.  The cargo contracts have maximum dollar value, not number of missions.

[russianhalo117]

Axiom is hiring vehicles for their own use, not on behalf of NASA.

CCtCap post-certification missions are IDIQ, with minimum of 6 missions. IDIQ contracts require minimum and and maximum order quantities. We know the minimum (6), which believe has been exercised for both Boeing and SpaceX. Additional flights would require extension to existing contract. That is very different than on-ramp for additional providers.

CCtCap is maximum 6 missions, not minimum.  The cargo contracts have maximum dollar value, not number of missions.

Like CRS a follow on programme phase RFP/RFI would be the most likely plan forward.

[Cherokee43v6]

NASA recognizes the significant advancement of the commercial spaceflight industry and requests information on the availability of existing NASA certified capabilities, estimated timelines on the availability of future capabilities to be certified by NASA, and whether commercial services are available for crewed space transportation services delivering NASA and International Partner astronauts to and returning them from the ISS.

The bolded part above is what interests me about this.  Currently I can think of only two that are actively in the running with a possible third.

1) Dreamchaser Crew
2) Starship

with the third being the Blue Origin 'biconic' design from the early commercial crew development stages.

Can anyone think of any others that might be considered 'near term' options?

[yg1968]

Axiom is hiring vehicles for their own use, not on behalf of NASA.

CCtCap post-certification missions are IDIQ, with minimum of 6 missions. IDIQ contracts require minimum and and maximum order quantities. We know the minimum (6), which believe has been exercised for both Boeing and SpaceX. Additional flights would require extension to existing contract. That is very different than on-ramp for additional providers.

CCtCap is maximum 6 missions, not minimum.  The cargo contracts have maximum dollar value, not number of missions.

Like CRS a follow on programme phase RFP/RFI would be the most likely plan forward.

That's what this RFI is about. It's the next phase and it's not an extension of CCtCap. 

I have attached the RFI to this post.

[yg1968]

NASA recognizes the significant advancement of the commercial spaceflight industry and requests information on the availability of existing NASA certified capabilities, estimated timelines on the availability of future capabilities to be certified by NASA, and whether commercial services are available for crewed space transportation services delivering NASA and International Partner astronauts to and returning them from the ISS.

The bolded part above is what interests me about this.  Currently I can think of only two that are actively in the running with a possible third.

1) Dreamchaser Crew
2) Starship

with the third being the Blue Origin 'biconic' design from the early commercial crew development stages.

Can anyone think of any others that might be considered 'near term' options?

You have already mentioned it but Blue Origin was working on a biconic capsule for CCDev2. LC-36 is human rated.

[ThomasGadd]

Will SpaceX be allowed to bid F9/Dragon as a backup until Starship certified? 

[kevinof]

Sure. And I've said before, Dragon isn't going away anytime soon. Expect to see it around into the late 20s and maybe beyond. I've no doubt it's the current front runner for any new contract (it was/is cheaper and it's been flying with NASA).

Will SpaceX be allowed to bid F9/Dragon as a backup until Starship certified?

[su27k]

Will SpaceX be allowed to bid F9/Dragon as a backup until Starship certified?

If there's no development dollars, there's no point to propose Starship right now, they can ask NASA to add Starship to the contract later, after it's ready, using the IDIQ On-Ramp clause.

[yg1968]

Will SpaceX be allowed to bid F9/Dragon as a backup until Starship certified?

If there's no development dollars, there's no point to propose Starship right now, they can ask NASA to add Starship to the contract later, after it's ready, using the IDIQ On-Ramp clause.

The on-ramp clause is for new entrants, SpaceX wouldn't be a new entrant. This contract only covers transportation to the ISS (see the quote below) and I don't think that NASA needs that many new missions until the end of ISS in 2030. However, getting Starship certified might be a good idea for the commercial LEO habitats, so it might be a good idea for SpaceX to propose both crew Dragon and Starship for this contract.

As stated above, NASA is considering also putting some development funding in this phase (CCSTS) for new spacecrafts but they have to be ready by 2027.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is hereby soliciting information from potential sources for Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services to and from the International Space Station.

[yg1968]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

[abaddon]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

[yg1968]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if a third spacecraft is added. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, it wouldn't be a huge risks for NASA to add a provider. I guess that it depends on how much money SNC, Blue or SpaceX with Starship would ask NASA for certifying their systems.

[kevinof]

SNC doesn't have a crew capable spacecraft - it's only cargo and I suspect adding in the systems to make it so and pass muster with NASA would be a lot of $$$. Far as I know NASA is not proposing to fund any new development - all they want is to buy rides on certified vehicles.

So you think SNC is going to cover the cost of development of their vehicle to NASA's standards?

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if a third spacecraft is added. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, it wouldn't be a huge risks for NASA to add a provider. I guess that it depends on how much money SNC, Blue or SpaceX with Starship would ask NASA for certifying their systems.

[abaddon]

SNC doesn't have a crew capable spacecraft - it's only cargo

SNC doesn't actually have a cargo capable spacecraft (yet).

I suspect adding in the systems to make it so and pass muster with NASA would be a lot of $$$

Absolutely, this is hard and expensive.  There's no reason to think SNC could magically do this cheaper than SpaceX and Boeing.

Far as I know NASA is not proposing to fund any new development

Based on what @yg1968 has said it seems like NASA is considering offering development funds.  I am extremely skeptical that the kind of development funds (and schedule) that would be required to develop a third certified crew provider are going to be on the table, not even close.  Which is why I think we will see more Dragon and Starliner in the next contract, and nothing else, because any funds LESS than what are necessary won't result in an available-by date of 2027.

[soltasto]

From this RFI it seems pretty clear that development isn't intended for this round. The only paragraph mentioning what NASA would purchase/fund is this one:

NASA is considering acquisition of Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services from one or more U.S. providers through commercial services contracts. Depending on mission requirements, NASA may purchase single seats, multiple seats within one mission, or seats for an entire mission.  NASA is seeking pertinent information from industry which may be used to formulate one or more solicitations related to the Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services effort.

While they are not explicitly prohibiting funding for development (so that companies may still propose that) what they really want are seats towards the ISS.

IMO what could happen is Boeing or another company proposing the purchase of Soyuz seats and the re-selling of them to NASA (Like it has already happened) as a backup measure.

What may also happen is Axiom selling seats from their missions. I don't really see the use case but NASA may like having the capability available.

[Kiwi53]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

Why would Boeing bid Starliner when this gets to RFP stage?
There are no more Atlas-V launchers so they'd have to crew-qualify Vulcan, and since they're not a new entrant NASA wouldn't be funding this
Their Service Module is expendable so makes their cost base inevitably much larger than SpaceX's
There must be a perceived risk that NASA would disqualify their bid on grounds of demonstrated management weaknesses under the existing contract: this would be reputationally devastating
They could easily come third in the competition evaluation and get no launches

Maybe Boeing would come to a point of recognising they'd be throwing good money after bad.

[yg1968]

From this RFI it seems pretty clear that development isn't intended for this round.

NASA is asking what kind of resources the companies would need in order to certify their spacecrafts by 2027 which makes me believe that NASA is considering funding certification activities.

Information about the maturity of crew transportation systems that are still under design and/or development.  Specifically, identify: the level of maturity of the crew transportation system (e.g., how much testing has been performed, what type of testing remains, etc.); the remaining activities planned to complete the system to be compliant with NASA requirements; and, generally, the resources required to mature the system so that a NASA certification could be accomplished no later than 2027. Details on whether Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services can be considered “commercial services,” as defined by FAR Part 2.

 

[yg1968]

SNC doesn't have a crew capable spacecraft - it's only cargo

SNC doesn't actually have a cargo capable spacecraft (yet).

I suspect adding in the systems to make it so and pass muster with NASA would be a lot of $$$

Absolutely, this is hard and expensive.  There's no reason to think SNC could magically do this cheaper than SpaceX and Boeing.

Far as I know NASA is not proposing to fund any new development

Based on what @yg1968 has said it seems like NASA is considering offering development funds.  I am extremely skeptical that the kind of development funds (and schedule) that would be required to develop a third certified crew provider are going to be on the table, not even close.  Which is why I think we will see more Dragon and Starliner in the next contract, and nothing else, because any funds LESS than what are necessary won't result in an available-by date of 2027.

In hindsight, I should have used the word funding for certification activities, instead of funding the development of the spacecraft.

[abaddon]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

Why would Boeing bid Starliner when this gets to RFP stage?

NASA wants redundancy.  Congress wants Boeing.  They will be awarded flights, sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

[yg1968]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

Why would Boeing bid Starliner when this gets to RFP stage?
There are no more Atlas-V launchers so they'd have to crew-qualify Vulcan, and since they're not a new entrant NASA wouldn't be funding this
Their Service Module is expendable so makes their cost base inevitably much larger than SpaceX's
There must be a perceived risk that NASA would disqualify their bid on grounds of demonstrated management weaknesses under the existing contract: this would be reputationally devastating
They could easily come third in the competition evaluation and get no launches

Maybe Boeing would come to a point of recognising they'd be throwing good money after bad.

They don't need to be a new entrant. Funding for certification would likely be available to a commercial space system as a whole including the LV.

[yg1968]

NASA starts process to acquire more commercial crew missions:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-starts-process-to-acquire-more-commercial-crew-missions/

[Comga]

The maximum potential number of Post Certification Missions which may be ordered under this contract is six (6).

Way back I wondered if NASA was looking to add to the SpaceX contract the number of missions that they have flown by the time that Boeing gets Starliner certified.
That way they would both have six under contract and be able to alternate, keeping the desired “disparate redundancy“ active.
This limit of six is compatible with that.

[Comga]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

On the other hand, they could use this as a way of giving more money to Boeing, or picking up the tab for crew rating Vulcan.
If the latter was paired with some money to SNC it could be portrayed as “spacecraft non-specific”.
This seems very likely.

However, giving money to Blue is possible, but would be surprising and disappointing.  Rewarding failure and subsidizing the world’s (second) richest man who is blocking them with a sore-loser lawsuit.

[AU1.52]

Also the wording of the RFP - "one or more" gives NASA the option of picking only one partner; unlikely but possible. SpaceX.

[king1999]

NASA wants redundancy.  Congress wants Boeing.  They will be awarded flights, sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Boeing's existing 6 flights can be the redundancy NASA needed for the next 5 years. Besides, no more Atlas V available for more Starliner flights. They need to certify Vulcan or Falcon 9 for Starliner.

[ThomasGadd]

NASA wants redundancy.  Congress wants Boeing.  They will be awarded flights, sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Boeing's existing 6 flights can be the redundancy NASA needed for the next 5 years. Besides, no more Atlas V available for more Starliner flights. They need to certify Vulcan or Falcon 9 for Starliner.

NASA want's to alternate between providers for redundancy. 
Once Starliner is flying NASA wants Dragon to continue. 
There are hooks in the contacts to do this. 
NASA already said they are looking at it. 
I wonder how much SpaceX will charge it's future flights? 

[soltasto]

I kinda expect this contract to work out like CLPS is working right now.

Choose as many companies as possible that fit within the budget (might as well be just SpaceX and Boeing) and then order missions as needed (unlike the first round where both SpaceX and Boeing were guaranteed a minimum and a maximum amount of missions).

[ThomasGadd]

I kinda expect this contract to work out like CLPS is working right now.

Choose as many companies as possible that fit within the budget (might as well be just SpaceX and Boeing) and then order missions as needed (unlike the first round where both SpaceX and Boeing were guaranteed a minimum and a maximum amount of missions).

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services. 

[jketch]

I kinda expect this contract to work out like CLPS is working right now.

Choose as many companies as possible that fit within the budget (might as well be just SpaceX and Boeing) and then order missions as needed (unlike the first round where both SpaceX and Boeing were guaranteed a minimum and a maximum amount of missions).

The problem is that, compared to unmanned landers, crewed capsules require a lot of development and certification work. Even SpaceX got $1.3 billion for development and certification alone for Dragon 2. That's not going to be workable unless multiple missions are guaranteed.

[soltasto]

I kinda expect this contract to work out like CLPS is working right now.

Choose as many companies as possible that fit within the budget (might as well be just SpaceX and Boeing) and then order missions as needed (unlike the first round where both SpaceX and Boeing were guaranteed a minimum and a maximum amount of missions).

The problem is that, compared to unmanned landers, crewed capsules require a lot of development and certification work. Even SpaceX got $1.3 billion for development and certification alone for Dragon 2. That's not going to be workable unless multiple missions are guaranteed.

The problem is that NASA doesn't know what they will actually need in 2027, and a new entrant might begin operational missions in that timeframe. Committing to X missions that may happen in 7 or 8 years from now doesn't look optimal to me.
There could be like 2 guaranteed development missions(like for SpaceX and Boeing) so that at the end of the development contract all the development expenses are payed and only then flights should be awarded on an as-needed basis.

[joek]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

[joek]

The problem is that NASA doesn't know what they will actually need in 2027, and a new entrant might begin operational missions in that timeframe. Committing to X missions that may happen in 7 or 8 years from now doesn't look optimal to me.
There could be like 2 guaranteed development missions(like for SpaceX and Boeing) so that at the end of the development contract all the development expenses are payed and only then flights should be awarded on an as-needed basis.

Unless something drastic changes with the ISS, NASA should have a very good idea of what they will need. In nay case, if the CCtCap contract model is followed, the operational missions (post-DDTE or PCM's) are not actually authorized until certain milestones are reached. Also, there were no guaranteed development missions under CCtCap; those were requirements to reach certification prior to operational flights. The two "guaranteed" missions are operational; but again, not guaranteed unless Boeing and SpaceX completed certification.

[yg1968]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

[yg1968]

The problem is that NASA doesn't know what they will actually need in 2027, and a new entrant might begin operational missions in that timeframe. Committing to X missions that may happen in 7 or 8 years from now doesn't look optimal to me.
There could be like 2 guaranteed development missions(like for SpaceX and Boeing) so that at the end of the development contract all the development expenses are payed and only then flights should be awarded on an as-needed basis.

Unless something drastic changes with the ISS, NASA should have a very good idea of what they will need. In nay case, if the CCtCap contract model is followed, the operational missions (post-DDTE or PCM's) are not actually authorized until certain milestones are reached. Also, there were no guaranteed development missions under CCtCap; those were requirements to reach certification prior to operational flights. The two "guaranteed" missions are operational; but again, not guaranteed unless Boeing and SpaceX completed certification.

Under CCtCap, you had to have one crewed demo flight before being certified. The uncrewed demo flight wasn't mandatory but strongly encouraged.

[ThomasGadd]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while? 

[NaN]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while?

Most likely they will give both providers new awards at the same time, and SpaceX will simply get more new missions to balance them out. Then they switch to alternating missions as soon as Starliner is operational, meaning Boeing will continue flying out the initial contract while SpaceX starts flying the round 2. So, there is no need to treat the "extra" Dragon missions as a special case.
Similar things happened in cargo, where providers had different mission counts and switched from CRS-1 to CRS-2 at different times. It is not an issue.
I think that's what you were asking. Also, I don't think a 6 month cadence would be a "strain", though non-overlapping missions let you apply lessons learned to the very next mission so it is preferable for an immature vehicle.

[ThomasGadd]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while?

Most likely they will give both providers new awards at the same time, and SpaceX will simply get more new missions to balance them out. Then they switch to alternating missions as soon as Starliner is operational, meaning Boeing will continue flying out the initial contract while SpaceX starts flying the round 2. So, there is no need to treat the "extra" Dragon missions as a special case.
Similar things happened in cargo, where providers had different mission counts and switched from CRS-1 to CRS-2 at different times. It is not an issue.
I think that's what you were asking. Also, I don't think a 6 month cadence would be a "strain", though non-overlapping missions let you apply lessons learned to the very next mission so it is preferable for an immature vehicle.

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now. 
Even if the next Starliner flight goes perfectly is possible a Crewed Starliner a year from now? 
The Crewed Commercial is designed to fly two alternating providers every six months. 
NASA needs to continue flying Crew Dragon until Starliner is complete. 

Also this round 2 is many years before any award. 

[abaddon]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

[ThomasGadd]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

[litton4]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

[deadman1204]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

[ThomasGadd]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

This is exactly what I meant I mistyped.  I mean't Starliner missions. 
NASA wants to fly two providers alternating every six months, just the reasons you just said, proficiency and redundancy. 

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

[yg1968]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

Steve Jurczyk said as much a few months ago. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant but it makes more sense now that we know more about CCSTS.

[ThomasGadd]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

Steve Jurczyk said as much a few months ago. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant but it makes more sense now that we know more about CCSTS.

Right I saw the same briefing.   Like most things NASA and SpaceX we will have to be patient and wait...

[lrk]

The recent announcement of Blue Origin's Orbital Reef space station, using Starliner for crew transport, seems to imply that Boeing is committed to continuing to fly Starliner missions after flying out their Atlas boosters.  So I fully expect Boeing to bid for additional NASA missions. 

The question is who will be funding the human-rating of Vulcan - Blue Origin?  Or will Blue want to launch Starliner on New Glen? 

[litton4]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

[ThomasGadd]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

I've been assuming that NASA has language in the existing contracts to handle adding missions in case one both providers have issues along the way. 
The existing situation is an extreme edge case of  that foresight on NASA's part.

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

As I have said previously, the RFP for CCtCap provides for a maximum of 6 post-certification missions. My understanding is that the contracts have to follow the RFP, so I don't think that CCtCap can be extended past the SpaceX Crew 6 missions. Some have challenged me on that but I stand by what I previously said about this. To me the fact that NASA is releasing this RFI shows that either NASA cannot extend the CCtCap contracts because of the language in the RFP or it doesn't want to do so. Even if NASA could extend CCtCap, I don't think that it should, I would prefer that they proceed with CCSTS instead.

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

I've been assuming that NASA has language in the existing contracts to handle adding missions in case one both providers have issues along the way. 
The existing situation is an extreme edge case of  that foresight on NASA's part.

The issue isn't the contract since contracts can be modified if both parties agree to the changes. The issue is with the CCtCap RFP which provides for a maximum of 6 post certification missions. In terms of foresight, I think that NASA had the foresight to cap CCtCap at 6 post-certification missions. A new contract allows new entrants and it also allows NASA to get better prices. In the case of CRS2, it allowed NASA to ask for more capable spacecrafts. CCtCap was always meant to have a phase after it (in 2015, they called the next round, the commercial crew transportation services, they have only slightly changed the name of the round by adding the word "space").

[ThomasGadd]

I've been thinking about who will be the future Commercial Crew  under this program?
Falcon/Dragon will continue.
Atlas/Starliner will continue but they are out Atlas after this batch is   done.  Has Boeing said they are going to Starliner on Vulcan when it's ready?
The BE-4 has been delayed, both New Glenn and Vulcan will use the BE-4.
As flight engines start to  come available the production rate will be slow ad d the new engines that will have to be corrected causing more delays,

New Glenn and Vulcan will have a lot of successful flights to complete before being trusted with any valuable cargo.

Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.

[kevinof]

I presume you mean Cygnus. It has no LAS so big job to develop and test one plus the booster would also have to be crew rated and probably have to fly without a fairing. Don't see it ever being turned into a crew vehicle and maybe cheaper to start from scratch.

...
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.

[abaddon]

I presume you mean Cygnus. It has no LAS so big job to develop and test one plus the booster would also have to be crew rated and probably have to fly without a fairing. Don't see it ever being turned into a crew vehicle and maybe cheaper to start from scratch.

...
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.

I think he meant Antares, as an alternative LV.  That's a stretch.  But it's way less of a stretch than Cygnus, which destructively burns up on re-entry and would in no way shape or form be the basis of a crewed vehicle.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
<snip>

The Antares booster core could be consider for human spaceflight. However the Castor solid upper stage that Orbital Science choose initially make that impossible. The same solid upper stage seems to have curtail any customers from considering the Antares for their payload, IMO. Northrop Grumman need a non solid upper stage to enticed new customers.

[TrevorMonty]

<snip>
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
<snip>

The Antares booster core could be consider for human spaceflight. However the Castor solid upper stage that Orbital Science choose initially make that impossible. The same solid upper stage seems to have curtail any customers from considering the Antares for their payload, IMO. Northrop Grumman need a non solid upper stage to enticed new customers.

Adding liquid US is high risk as it will mean competiting directly with F9 and Vulcan for commercial and civil missions. By time a new US is flying the likes of Beta, Neutron and Terran R will also be competiting for same missions.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Comga]

The recent announcement of Blue Origin's Orbital Reef space station, using Starliner for crew transport, seems to imply that Boeing is committed to continuing to fly Starliner missions after flying out their Atlas boosters.  So I fully expect Boeing to bid for additional NASA missions. 

The question is who will be funding the human-rating of Vulcan - Blue Origin?  Or will Blue want to launch Starliner on New Glen? 

No it doesn’t
It’s just part of an aspirational PowerPoint.
Your question is absolutely key: who will pay?

Posters here have gone around and around a point made in my early post.
If, before it’s critically needed for planning Crew 8, (or for Crew 7 if Starliner is still not certified when it needs to be planned,) NASA orders additional flights from SpaceX, of the same number that will have been flown, then they could keep relying exclusively on SpaceX until such time as Starliner IS certified. After that they can alternate until the ISS is decommissioned (or a third provider gets certified thru some other arrangement.)

Boeing’s performance to date is certainly NOT bedazzaling NASA into giving up their quest for “disparate redundancy” in crew transport providers.

It’s hard to imagine NASA telling SpaceX to store their Crew Dragons for years while Boeing “catches up”.

So it seems likely that NASA would find a way to keep any certified transport in rotation as long as they are needed, and this could be that way.

[yg1968]

If, before it’s critically needed for planning Crew 8, (or for Crew 7 if Starliner is still not certified when it needs to be planned,) NASA orders additional flights from SpaceX, of the same number that will have been flown, then they could keep relying exclusively on SpaceX until such time as Starliner IS certified. After that they can alternate until the ISS is decommissioned (or a third provider gets certified thru some other arrangement.)

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.  The advantage of being certified without any post-certification missions is that you would be eligible to transport crew to a CLD habitat. But like others have said, things will become clearer once the RFP comes out.

[abaddon]

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.

The post-certification missions are the guarantee of payout that makes the investment to create and certify the vehicle worthwhile.  Even with development funded we're not talking about a profitable enterprise without that.  Nobody is going to self-fund the massive amount of money to create and certify a crewed transport vehicle without it, based on a speculative market that may or may not emerge, and will be already crowded with two certified providers.

[yg1968]

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.

The post-certification missions are the guarantee of payout that makes the investment to create and certify the vehicle worthwhile.  Even with development funded we're not talking about a profitable enterprise without that.  Nobody is going to self-fund the massive amount of money to create and certify a crewed transport vehicle without it, based on a speculative market that may or may not emerge, and will be already crowded with two certified providers.

We will see what the RFP says but it seems that NASA is considering funding certification activities. It is possible that a crewed demo flight and perhaps an option for an uncrewed demo flight would be part of these certification activities. The more that a provider asks for certification activities, the less likely it is that it will be chosen for CCSTS.

NASA has to ensure that certification doesn't cost a fortune. Perhaps, all certification activities should be possible through an uncrewed and a crewed demo flight.

My hope is that Blue Origin and Sierra Space (Dream Chaser) will team up to make a CCSTS bid.

I am guessing that Boeing will stay with ULA (Vulcan).

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

[yg1968]

At 23 minutes of the video below, Michael Sheetz asked about NASA's plans for commercial crew after SpaceX's Crew 6. Steve Stich talked about the fact that NASA had started the process with the CCSTS RFI but didn't say much more about it other than NASA's waiting for responses on November 19th. Surprisingly enough, he said that NASA is committed to flying commercial crew with SpaceX and Boeing until 2030 (technically, they are not guaranteed to win; even though it is incredibly likely).

His answer confirms (once more) what I suspected that CCtCap will not be extended and that NASA will instead proceed with CCSTS. 

[Robotical]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

[DanClemmensen]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

I'm an outsider, so I don't know how this works. I think Starship has about the same crew abort capabilities as Shuttle did, and Shuttle flew 135 times. Has something changed?

[Rebel44]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

I'm an outsider, so I don't know how this works. I think Starship has about the same crew abort capabilities as Shuttle did, and Shuttle flew 135 times. Has something changed?

Yes, what has changed is that Shuttle-level of safety is no longer considered sufficient for crewed launches.

[Cherokee43v6]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

NASA Human Flight Certification is only applicable to launch systems that fly NASA astronauts on them on NASA missions.

For any flights not involving NASA personnel, the ability to carry crew is governed by FAA rules... Some of which are very minimal at this time due to legislation put in place in the early 2000s to promote commercial space development.

Yes, if SpaceX bids Starship, it will have to go through NASA Human Flight certification.  But if SpaceX chooses not to bid it, but instead fly it separately, then it has a much lower legal bar for carrying people.

If they do choose to bid Starship, I would say that the lack of a crew escape system, while a negative, is not necessarily a deal-breaker.  The onus would be on SpaceX to prove that Starship is as safe, or safer, than the current required minimums without it.  Though, as we have seen in their development methods so far, they much prefer to do that sort of thing by the 'fly, learn, fix, fly, learn, fix, fly, learn, improve' method over the 'review my library of congress sized pile of paperwork' method.

I would also argue that the size might be considered an advantage.  Particularly when you consider the number of proposed stations involving inflatable modules and 'wet lab' proposals.  Starship provides the ability to fly up with both the crew and most, if not all, of the necessary equipment with which to fit out an inflatable or 'wet lab' without having to have multiple separate deliveries of equipment and also, in the case of the 'wet lab' proposals, providing a facility from which to do the work until the converted booster stage is capable of supporting a crew.  As Starship is comparable in size and mass to the Space Shuttle Orbiter, the size discrepancy is an already solved issue.

[dchenevert]

I have this factoid stuck in my head, from the late 70's:

"Shuttle should be xxx safer than the status quo. LOC 1:1000 (or maybe 1:1000's)"

I have no idea where (or, to be honest, 'if') I read this.

Does anyone else remember this?

[Alvian@IDN]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47778.msg2306762#msg2306762

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

[clongton]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is - in effect - the crewed spacecraft on top of the Super Heavy booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle                - no abort system at all.
... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship            - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

[clongton]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.

Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.

Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one even considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is, in effect, the crewed spacecraft on top of the booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle - no abort system
... Atlas-V/Starliner - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

[mn]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is - in effect - the crewed spacecraft on top of the Super Heavy booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle                - no abort system at all.
... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship            - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

In terms of potential risk ISTM that Starship has essentially the same propulsion system and hence the same risk potential as the booster. a LAS helps because it is a system designed specifically for that purpose, does nothing else, and is therefore hopefully extremely simple and reliable should you ever need it and being a completely separate system, can be expected to be still functional even when other things are having a bad day.

Also: Even after flying numerous times it doesn't necessarily negate the need for a LAS. (just ask the passengers on Soyuz MS-10)

Edit: fix typo

[lykos]

Reacts the Starship"abort system" quickly enough to bring the ship into safety, even when the Booster explodes?

[abaddon]

a LAS helps because it is a system designed specifically for that purpose, does nothing else, and is therefore hopefully extremely simple and reliable should you ever need it and being a completely separate system, can be expected to be still functional even when other things are having a bad day.

Counterpoint: LAS systems are exercised only during development and one time (twice for Dragon) in a live test.  After that point they're never tested again.  Starship engines are tested routinely and tested before flight specifically.  Starship will also have engine redundancy.  It will have many flights before a human is put onboard and likely thousands of hours of flight time on the engines and other systems.

Starship will probably be able to fly away from the booster in some regimes, but certainly not all e.g. on the launch pad.  Certification of Starship for human flight will be closer to a jumbo jet than current systems.

I don't really think SpaceX is going to propose Starship for CCSTS2, as all of this is too far in the future for that to make sense, but I guess until we see the receipts we won't know for sure.

[DanClemmensen]

I don't really think SpaceX is going to propose Starship for CCSTS2, as all of this is too far in the future for that to make sense, but I guess until we see the receipts we won't know for sure.

SpaceX can continue to fly Dragon 2 and make a profit, but they would like to shift to Starship as part of retiring Dragon and F9. The recovery and refurbishment costs of F9 and especially Dragon are high, and that's a whole lot of infrastructure and employees that do not contribute to their self-perceived main mission.

My totally uninformed and uneducated guess: they will bid both. NASA wants multiple CCSTS options anyway. One enormous advantage of Starship to NASA: a single Starship flight replaces two Dragon flights, one Crew Dragon and one Cargo Dragon. And of course a docked Starship  doubles the pressurized volume of the ISS and much more than doubles the usable living space for the crew.

[Robotical]

I had meant to say "SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches this decade". Anyway, the lack of NASA certification will make it difficult for SpaceX to find customers willing to use Starship for crew which in turn means less external funding to develop that aspect of Starship. The other side is receiving NASA's seal of approval would help considerably with potential liability suits. Despite common wisdom, liability waivers don't release companies from any and all liability under all circumstances and what they do cover tends to vary depending on state law, judicial interpretation, the wording of the liability waiver and what's being claimed. While Texas would undoubtedly be quite favorable to SpaceX's side in such a case, they'll likely want to take it slow to avoid opening themselves to charges of gross negligence.
It's not impossible for them to launch crewed Starships this decade, just difficult.

[Steven Pietrobon]

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
.... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

All of these can perform an abort after tower separation (or ejection seats can't be used for Gemini) by using either the re-entry motors (for Mercury and Gemini) or the service module engine. The same option is also available for Vostok, Soyuz, Shenzhou, China's Next Generation Crewed Spaceship and Gaganyaan. As Starship is integrated with the second stage, any problem that involves the second stage losing its integrity during powered flight is a LOC event. That is not the case for the above systems, where the crew can perform an abort and have a chance of surviving.

[Zed_Noir]

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
.... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

All of these can perform an abort after tower separation (or ejection seats can't be used for Gemini) by using either the re-entry motors (for Mercury and Gemini) or the service module engine. The same option is also available for Vostok, Soyuz, Shenzhou, China's Next Generation Crewed Spaceship and Gaganyaan. As Starship is integrated with the second stage, any problem that involves the second stage losing its integrity during powered flight is a LOC event. That is not the case for the above systems, where the crew can perform an abort and have a chance of surviving.

The chances of surviving an abort  after the escape tower is jettisoned with the NASA spacecrafts on @Clongton's list seems unclear to me. Don't recall if there were any actual tests to abort with NASA crewed spacecrafts equipped with escape tower using onboard propulsion systems after jettisoning the tower.


Kind of moot with the Orion since it had to outrun the SRBs or components of them along with the fireball with the R-4D thrusters that have a low thrust rating.

[clongton]

All of these can perform an abort after tower separation (or ejection seats can't be used for Gemini) by using either the re-entry motors (for Mercury and Gemini) or the service module engine. The same option is also available for Vostok, Soyuz, Shenzhou, China's Next Generation Crewed Spaceship and Gaganyaan.

I acknowledge the point you are making Steven, but as far as I know, NASA itself considers such "aborts" as a likely LOC event. I can't speak to the Russian or Chinese spacecraft but I assume they would have similar conclusions because the spacecraft systems are similar.

As Starship is integrated with the second stage, any problem that involves the second stage losing its integrity during powered flight is a LOC event.

If you re-read my post you will notice that I specifically stated that it was to escape a failing booster (1st stage). I stand by that statement. As for the Starship loosing it's integrity, yes that would likely be a LOC event, but I put that into the same class as all the other "aborts" that use their upper stage engines to attempt to escape after their abort towers have been jettisoned.  ALL of them are likely LOC events. The exception to all of those is Dragon. It has the ability to escape a failing upper stage. It is the ONLY spacecraft capable of doing that.

Spaceflight is, and always will be, dangerous. EVERY crewed launch is a potential LOC event; every single one. At some point one just has to acknowledge that they have done everything they know how to do to mitigate as many risks as possible, bite the bullet, get on the rocket and fly. Every time you get on an airline flight you take exactly the same risk. The only reason there isn't a parachute under every seat along with a life jacket is because of the thousands of successful flights without incident, and yet people do still die from airplane malfunctions. So the solution in spaceflight is to amass a similar number of successful flights, which SpaceX is bound and determined to do. They are only just beginning, so I would advise patience while the numbers accumulate. A hundred years from now spaceflight will be just as common as airline flights today and very few people will think much about the dangers, just like they don't today when boarding an airplane.

[mkent]

NASA designs:

... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

What on Earth are you talking about?  Starliner can abort all the way to orbit.  If it reaches orbit without using its abort engines, it can use the fuel to reboost ISS, among other things.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship            - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Starship has no abort system.  If Starship fails, the astronauts die.

[Jim]

. Don't recall if there were any actual tests to abort with NASA crewed spacecrafts equipped with escape tower using onboard propulsion systems after jettisoning the tower.

Not really needed

[Jim]

All of these can perform an abort after tower separation (or ejection seats can't be used for Gemini) by using either the re-entry motors (for Mercury and Gemini) or the service module engine. The same option is also available for Vostok, Soyuz, Shenzhou, China's Next Generation Crewed Spaceship and Gaganyaan.

I acknowledge the point you are making Steven, but as far as I know, NASA itself considers such "aborts" as a likely LOC event. I can't speak to the Russian or Chinese spacecraft but I assume they would have similar conclusions because the spacecraft systems are similar.

Not true, using either the re-entry motors (for Mercury and Gemini) or the Apollo service module engine were viable and planned aborts by NASA.  For Gemini, this was the preferred method over ejection seats when it is viable

[Vultur]

Isn't Dear Moon still a thing? If so, Starship will fly humans well before the end of the decade.

Once ocean platforms (Phobos/Deimos and eventual successors) are operating launch rates should go up a lot, building confidence rapidly.

[RonM]

If there's a problem with crewed Starship it's the landing.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Kind of moot with the Orion since it had to outrun the SRBs or components of them along with the fireball with the R-4D thrusters that have a low thrust rating.

Orion would abort at high acceleration using its LAS tower if there was a problem during the SRB burn.

I acknowledge the point you are making Steven, but as far as I know, NASA itself considers such "aborts" as a likely LOC event. I can't speak to the Russian or Chinese spacecraft but I assume they would have similar conclusions because the spacecraft systems are similar.

Do you have a reference for that? ESA shows the ESM being used in an abort after LAS jettison, but doesn't give any LOC numbers. Also, this abort mode was successfully used by Soyuz 18a on 5 April 1975 when the second stage failed to separate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_abort_modes

If you re-read my post you will notice that I specifically stated that it was to escape a failing booster (1st stage).

Lets look at the numbers.

Starship Second Stage Mass = 120 t dry, 1200 t propellant, 150 t payload = 1470 t
Thrust Vacuum = 3*(200*355/330+220)*g = 12,802 kN
Thrust Sea Level = 3*(200+220)*g - 3*π*2.4²*101.325/4= 10,981 kN

Acceleration Vacuum = 12,802/1470 = 8.7 m/s² = 0.89g
Acceleration Sea Level = 10,981/1470 = 7.5 m/s² = 0.76g

As Starship acceleration is less than 1g from the time of liftoff, for the early portion of flight, Starship can not be used to save the crew in case the first stage fails, as it has insufficient thrust.

[Cherokee43v6]

Kind of moot with the Orion since it had to outrun the SRBs or components of them along with the fireball with the R-4D thrusters that have a low thrust rating.

Orion would abort at high acceleration using its LAS tower if there was a problem during the SRB burn.

I acknowledge the point you are making Steven, but as far as I know, NASA itself considers such "aborts" as a likely LOC event. I can't speak to the Russian or Chinese spacecraft but I assume they would have similar conclusions because the spacecraft systems are similar.

Do you have a reference for that? ESA shows the ESM being used in an abort after LAS jettison, but doesn't give any LOC numbers. Also, this abort mode was successfully used by Soyuz 18a on 5 April 1975 when the second stage failed to separate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_abort_modes

If you re-read my post you will notice that I specifically stated that it was to escape a failing booster (1st stage).

Lets look at the numbers.

Starship Second Stage Mass = 120 t dry, 1200 t propellant, 150 t payload = 1470 t
Thrust Vacuum = 3*(200*355/330+220)*g = 12,802 kN
Thrust Sea Level = 3*(200+220)*g - 3*π*2.4²*101.325/4= 10,981 kN

Acceleration Vacuum = 12,802/1470 = 8.7 m/s² = 0.89g
Acceleration Sea Level = 10,981/1470 = 7.5 m/s² = 0.76g

As Starship acceleration is less than 1g from the time of liftoff, for the early portion of flight, Starship can not be used to save the crew in case the first stage fails, as it has insufficient thrust.

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

In this case, it is unlikely they would be fired solo, thus there is a combined 1.65g of thrust.  However, considering most abort systems seem to go around 5 to 6 g from what I have read I do question if it would be sufficient to escape a fireball from the booster stage.

I do, however, strongly agree with the poster several posts up that states that the highest risk portion for Starship is the landing.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Kind of moot with the Orion since it had to outrun the SRBs or components of them along with the fireball with the R-4D thrusters that have a low thrust rating.

Orion would abort at high acceleration using its LAS tower if there was a problem during the SRB burn.

I acknowledge the point you are making Steven, but as far as I know, NASA itself considers such "aborts" as a likely LOC event. I can't speak to the Russian or Chinese spacecraft but I assume they would have similar conclusions because the spacecraft systems are similar.

Do you have a reference for that? ESA shows the ESM being used in an abort after LAS jettison, but doesn't give any LOC numbers. Also, this abort mode was successfully used by Soyuz 18a on 5 April 1975 when the second stage failed to separate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_abort_modes

If you re-read my post you will notice that I specifically stated that it was to escape a failing booster (1st stage).

Lets look at the numbers.

Starship Second Stage Mass = 120 t dry, 1200 t propellant, 150 t payload = 1470 t
Thrust Vacuum = 3*(200*355/330+220)*g = 12,802 kN
Thrust Sea Level = 3*(200+220)*g - 3*π*2.4²*101.325/4= 10,981 kN

Acceleration Vacuum = 12,802/1470 = 8.7 m/s² = 0.89g
Acceleration Sea Level = 10,981/1470 = 7.5 m/s² = 0.76g

As Starship acceleration is less than 1g from the time of liftoff, for the early portion of flight, Starship can not be used to save the crew in case the first stage fails, as it has insufficient thrust.

Right off the pad, it's going to be tough..
Once you're a ways in the air, you just have to keep it in the air long enough for T-W to go positive before you impact. You will already have some time with ballistic trajectory and even at 0.76-0.89g that extends that trajectory and flight time significantly.
You could also start dumping LOX/Methane overboard rapidly on abort.. to get your T-W positive more quickly.  Correct?
Be an interesting Kerbal run.

Also, engines are run likely at least 5-10% below max pressure for longevity/reusability? On Abort I'm sure they could throttle to well over 100% in attempt to save the crew.

[RonM]

I do, however, strongly agree with the poster several posts up that states that the highest risk portion for Starship is the landing.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad. SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy. So, the only option would be to ditch Starship in the ocean and that's not going to be easy to do and keep the crew alive.

Same problem exists after reentry.

Only option without a Starship redesign is to fly it enough times to show it's reliable. Easier said than done, but SpaceX's rapid test and development makes it at least a possibility.

[DanClemmensen]

I do, however, strongly agree with the poster several posts up that states that the highest risk portion for Starship is the landing.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad. SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy. So, the only option would be to ditch Starship in the ocean and that's not going to be easy to do and keep the crew alive.

Same problem exists after reentry.

It's a scary thought, but I'm not sure it's that hard to keep the crew alive, assuming the SS makes a "soft" vertical water landing and then flops over. This is not like ditching an airplane. Unless there is hull breach, SS should float just fine. I really would not want to stay in a floating SS for hours, but I would probably survive. It probably floats in a tail-down attitude but not completely vertical. I hope we get to see an example next year.

[Jim]

SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy.

no, it doesn't

[abaddon]

Before this turns into Yet Another Starship Thread, perhaps we should wait and see if SpaceX even bids Starship...

[Hauerg]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

I'm an outsider, so I don't know how this works. I think Starship has about the same crew abort capabilities as Shuttle did, and Shuttle flew 135 times. Has something changed?

Yes. 14 astronauts died @STS-flights.

[rcoppola]

0% chance SpaceX offers Starship imo. I'm more interested in how Boeing will position a Round 2 bid before even being operational for the Round 1 contract. Hoping DC-Crew could sneak into this...

Maybe Starship for Round 3 if ISS goes to 2030. But I doubt it. It would be like driving a Mack Truck to pick up some half & half at the corner market.

[RonM]

SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy.

no, it doesn't

Wrong, you haven't been paying attention.

[DanClemmensen]

0% chance SpaceX offers Starship imo. I'm more interested in how Boeing will position a Round 2 bid before even being operational for the Round 1 contract. Hoping DC-Crew could sneak into this...

Maybe Starship for Round 3 if ISS goes to 2030. But I doubt it. It would be like driving a Mack Truck to pick up some half & half at the corner market.

It's ten times cheaper to drive the Mack Truck than it is to drive the horse-drawn buggy. Not only is the diesel fuel cheaper than oats, keeping a horse between trips is an expensive proposition.

[Cherokee43v6]

SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy.

no, it doesn't

Wrong, you haven't been paying attention.

Actually, for manned flights, I'm siding with Jim.  After-all, there will not be a catch tower on the Moon or Mars.  So landing legs will be a given for manned Starships.

But I also agree that it is too soon to be putting forward Starship for this RFI.  They will need to build up a significant, successful flight history flying cargo to establish the safety parameters, since they prefer the iterative method to the documentary method of development.

[RonM]

SpaceX wants to land Starship at the pad just like Super Heavy.

no, it doesn't

Wrong, you haven't been paying attention.

Actually, for manned flights, I'm siding with Jim.  After-all, there will not be a catch tower on the Moon or Mars.  So landing legs will be a given for manned Starships.

But I also agree that it is too soon to be putting forward Starship for this RFI.  They will need to build up a significant, successful flight history flying cargo to establish the safety parameters, since they prefer the iterative method to the documentary method of development.

That's why I brought it up. Landing cargo Starship like Super Heavy might be okay, but no way is that going to pass for this RFI.

[Steven Pietrobon]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

[woods170]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Basically no different from a jetliner losing its engines while crossing the Atlantic and ending up in the drink with 200+ dead.

Think that is unrealistic? Unfortunately it is not. But it is accepted, because passenger jetliners in general have become highly reliable.
Crewed spacecraft will eventually go the same way IMO. There is no practical way to have launch abort systems on a reusable system that carries dozens, or even hundreds, of people on board. The obvious solution is to make the transportation system as reliable as possible.
Current Starship is just a very early step into that direction.

As such I don't think SpaceX will offer Starship for this RFI. It is complete overkill. And SpaceX knows that Starship in current form is still a long way from the required reliability figures to do without a LAS.

[su27k]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Note Musk mused multiple times whether to add more engines to Starship, at one time specifically in answer to the launch escape TWR question.

As for abort landing, I'm not convinced emergency landing in the ocean will end up in explosion, we have seen multiple times Falcon 9 booster survives water landing intact. Also if necessary emergency landing pads in other part of the world can be arranged, after all that's how Shuttle and Dream Chaser abort is supposed to work.

[yg1968]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Basically no different from a jetliner losing its engines while crossing the Atlantic and ending up in the drink with 200+ dead.

Think that is unrealistic? Unfortunately it is not. But it is accepted, because passenger jetliners in general have become highly reliable.
Crewed spacecraft will eventually go the same way IMO. There is no practical way to have launch abort systems on a reusable system that carries dozens, or even hundreds, of people on board. The obvious solution is to make the transportation system as reliable as possible.
Current Starship is just a very early step into that direction.

As such I don't think SpaceX will offer Starship for this RFI. It is complete overkill. And SpaceX knows that Starship in current form is still a long way from the required reliability figures to do without a LAS.

The issue isn't so much this RFI which deals with transportation to the ISS, the issue is that if you are not certified, you [NASA] can't use that system for Commercial LEO destinations either.

P.S. Edit: added NASA for the reasons explained in the post below.

[woods170]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Basically no different from a jetliner losing its engines while crossing the Atlantic and ending up in the drink with 200+ dead.

Think that is unrealistic? Unfortunately it is not. But it is accepted, because passenger jetliners in general have become highly reliable.
Crewed spacecraft will eventually go the same way IMO. There is no practical way to have launch abort systems on a reusable system that carries dozens, or even hundreds, of people on board. The obvious solution is to make the transportation system as reliable as possible.
Current Starship is just a very early step into that direction.

As such I don't think SpaceX will offer Starship for this RFI. It is complete overkill. And SpaceX knows that Starship in current form is still a long way from the required reliability figures to do without a LAS.

The issue isn't so much this RFI which deals with transportation to the ISS, the issue is that if you are not certified, you can't use that system for Commercial LEO destinations either.

No, that is not the complete interpretation.
When not certified, the system cannot be used for NASA missions to Commercial LEO destinations.
However, that does not preclude other, non-NASA, parties from using Starship to fly to Commercial LEO destinations.

It is silly to assume that NASA is going to be the only tennant of Commercial LEO destinations.

[yg1968]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Basically no different from a jetliner losing its engines while crossing the Atlantic and ending up in the drink with 200+ dead.

Think that is unrealistic? Unfortunately it is not. But it is accepted, because passenger jetliners in general have become highly reliable.
Crewed spacecraft will eventually go the same way IMO. There is no practical way to have launch abort systems on a reusable system that carries dozens, or even hundreds, of people on board. The obvious solution is to make the transportation system as reliable as possible.
Current Starship is just a very early step into that direction.

As such I don't think SpaceX will offer Starship for this RFI. It is complete overkill. And SpaceX knows that Starship in current form is still a long way from the required reliability figures to do without a LAS.

The issue isn't so much this RFI which deals with transportation to the ISS, the issue is that if you are not certified, you can't use that system for Commercial LEO destinations either.

No, that is not the complete interpretation.
When not certified, the system cannot be used for NASA missions to Commercial LEO destinations.
However, that does not preclude other, non-NASA, parties from using Starship to fly to Commercial LEO destinations.

It is silly to assume that NASA is going to be the only tennant of Commercial LEO destinations.

I should have been clearer. I meant that NASA will not allow you to transport NASA astronauts to commercial LEO destinations.

2 missions of 2 astronauts per year may not sound like a huge opportunity but it is a commercial opportunity!

[DanClemmensen]

I am assuming that both of these figures are for the specific engines in question (RVacs and Sea level Raptors).

The acceleration values I gave are for all six engines firing, where I am assuming that flow separation is not a problem for the vacuum engines when operating in the atmosphere.

The abort modes being discussed are not realistic if Starship can't get back to the launch pad.

With a full load of propellant, Starship would should have no problem returning to the pad for a late first stage abort. During the second stage burn, an abort back to the pad will not be possible and Starship could end up in the drink, tip over and explode.

Basically no different from a jetliner losing its engines while crossing the Atlantic and ending up in the drink with 200+ dead.

Think that is unrealistic? Unfortunately it is not. But it is accepted, because passenger jetliners in general have become highly reliable.
Crewed spacecraft will eventually go the same way IMO. There is no practical way to have launch abort systems on a reusable system that carries dozens, or even hundreds, of people on board. The obvious solution is to make the transportation system as reliable as possible.
Current Starship is just a very early step into that direction.

As such I don't think SpaceX will offer Starship for this RFI. It is complete overkill. And SpaceX knows that Starship in current form is still a long way from the required reliability figures to do without a LAS.

A Starship emergency water landing is different than an airliner ditching. A starship will land vertically at zero velocity, and a Starship is completely sealed, so it will float. We will find out how well it floats if the initial "soft" ocean landing off Hawaii is successful.

[yg1968]

The deadline for responding to the RFI was yesterday. Presumably, NASA will come out with a RFP in the next few weeks.

[deadman1204]

In case it wasn't obvious, I really like what NASA is trying to do with this next round. I really like that NASA is encouraging certification of new systems. Phil McAlister has been doing an excellent job.

I don't think it's bad or anything, but it's not going to matter, we'll just see Dragon and Starliner selected again.  I do think it is good to reinforce the process/expectation for the future, though.

I wouldn't be surprised if a third spacecraft is added. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, it wouldn't be a huge risks for NASA to add a provider. I guess that it depends on how much money SNC, Blue or SpaceX with Starship would ask NASA for certifying their systems.

Adding a third means hundreds of millions of dollars from the NASA budget. I would be a little surprised if NASA does support a third option.

[yg1968]

NASA to Secure Additional Commercial Crew Transportation:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2021/12/03/nasa-to-secure-additional-commercial-crew-transportation/

NASA intends to issue a sole source modification to SpaceX to acquire up to three additional crew flights to the International Space Station as part of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract.

NASA Kennedy Space Center intends to issue a sole source modification to SpaceX under the authority of FAR 6.302-1 to acquire up to three Post Certification Missions (PCMs) under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract NNK14MA74C in order to enable NASA to meet its mission requirements to maintain crew onboard the International Space Station (ISS) and to meet obligations under agreements with its International Partners. [...]

Award of up to three additional PCMs to SpaceX with the first launch beginning as early as 2023 is necessary to meet this objective. [...]

Due to technical issues and the resulting delays experienced by Boeing, it is expected that SpaceX will launch its last PCM in March 2023. Awarding up to three additional PCMs to SpaceX will enable NASA to have redundant and back-up capabilities for each PCM [...].

https://sam.gov/opp/c4e1243132fa417bb40829eaf10fe509/view

The sole-source authority under FAR is the following:
https://www.acquisition.gov/far/6.302-1

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1466895689770807299

[yg1968]

Concerning CCSTS, NASA has this to say about it:

FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: An RFI was posted on October 20, 2021, requesting information from industry to help NASA formulate an acquisition approach for the procurement of additional PCMs. Responses to the October 20, 2021, RFI will be used to inform NASA’s planning for an acquisition approach.

https://sam.gov/opp/c4e1243132fa417bb40829eaf10fe509/view

Presumably, this means that CCSTS isn't dead.

[yg1968]

It seems that NASA still plans to go ahead with CCSTS, 3 additional Crew Dragon would bring it to 2026 (one new crew Dragon in 2024, one in 2025 and one in 2026), the new systems under CCSTS are supposed to be ready for 2027. NASA has mentioned in press conferences that it still intends to alternate between SpaceX and Boeing, once Boeing is ready.

[DanClemmensen]

It seems that NASA still plans to go ahead with CCSTS, 3 additional Crew Dragon would bring it to 2026 (one crew Dragon in 2024, one in 2025 and one in 2026), the new systems are supposed to be ready for 2027.

Maybe. The announcement says "beginning as early as 2023". It all depends on when Starliner can begin doing one mission per year. If Starliner slips even further or is abandoned, These three new Crew Dragon missions only get you another 18 months, and NASA will need to buy some more. There are four Crew Dragon capsules and another one under construction. Six missions have been flown. If they can fly five times each, then nineteen missions remain. That's enough for the six remaining missions of the nine contracted to NASA plus an additional thirteen for more CCP flights and for non-CCP flights. Even without Starliner, this should suffice until Starship becomes crew certified.

[yg1968]

It seems that NASA still plans to go ahead with CCSTS, 3 additional Crew Dragon would bring it to 2026 (one crew Dragon in 2024, one in 2025 and one in 2026), the new systems are supposed to be ready for 2027.

Maybe. The announcement says "beginning as early as 2023". It all depends on when Starliner can begin doing one mission per year. If Starliner slips even further or is abandoned, These three new Crew Dragon missions only get you another 18 months, and NASA will need to buy some more. There are four Crew Dragon capsules and another one under construction. Six missions have been flown. If they can fly five times each, then nineteen missions remain. That's enough for the six remaining missions of the nine contracted to NASA plus an additional thirteen for more CCP flights and for non-CCP flights. Even without Starliner, this should suffice until Starship becomes crew certified.

Yes, I agree. That is why I think that NASA will press on with CCSTS as quickly as possible for the post-certification missions after these three new ones.

[Robotical]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

[DanClemmensen]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

The number five stuck in my head from something I read two months ago or so, but my memory isn't very good. Unless the number five is too high, it really doesn't matter. A Starship mission will be cheaper because of the Crew Dragon refurbishment costs, so Crew Dragon will retire except for any missions that are already contracted. And of course I couldn't possibly make any mistakes whatsoever with these predictions. 

[yg1968]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

The number five stuck in my head from something I read two months ago or so, but my memory isn't very good. Unless the number five is too high, it really doesn't matter. A Starship mission will be cheaper because of the Crew Dragon refurbishment costs, so Crew Dragon will retire except for any missions that are already contracted. And of course I couldn't possibly make any mistakes whatsoever with these predictions. 

Yes, 5 was mentioned during a recent press conference.

[Rebel44]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

IIRC, 5 is current certification - not a hard limit.

[DanClemmensen]

Is there any reason for a hard cap of five flights each, or do they just need to be recertified?

The number five stuck in my head from something I read two months ago or so, but my memory isn't very good. Unless the number five is too high, it really doesn't matter. A Starship mission will be cheaper because of the Crew Dragon refurbishment costs, so Crew Dragon will retire except for any missions that are already contracted. And of course I couldn't possibly make any mistakes whatsoever with these predictions. 

Yes, 5 was mentioned during a recent press conference.

I also recall a comment (by SpaceX?) that if they refurbish after 5, they will convert the capsule to Cargo Dragon. But the same argument applies for Cargo Dragon even more. They have 2 active and one under construction, so at least fifteen flights of which they have used three. At three flights per year, the twelve remaining flights will run out in late 2025, but by then they should have a cargo version of Starship that will be much cheaper to operate and which can carry far, far more cargo if NASA qualifies Starship for ISS docking. Furthermore once Starship is crew qualified and ISS-qualified, one Starship flight will handle both crew and cargo at the same time. Taken together, this would call for a grand total of two Starship flights to ISS per year to cover all Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo. Cost to SpaceX is the opportunity cost of about 400 days per year for the SSs docked at ISS. The number of years is in question due to ISS retirement (maybe four years starting in 2026) but the same logistics apply for other space stations. Given the low number of ISS flights, is it even worth it for SpaceX? NASA might need to pay a bunch to get their attention.

[yg1968]

Concerning CCSTS, another piece of the puzzle is that it is possible that this round will also cover missions to the commercial LEO destinations. See below for more on this.

McAlister said (at 15-16 minutes of the briefing) that the providers combined contribution is over 60% (so NASA's contribution is less than 40%). He said at 16-17 minutes that both Axiom and the other providers announced today are part of commercial LEO destinations' efforts. Axiom's award is the Commercial Destinations-ISS (or CDISS); the awards of today are the Commercial Destinations Free Flyer (CDFF).

Angela Hart said that NASA wants at least one provider for the next phase (the services phase).

NG said that its initial capability is for 4 astronauts but that it could be extended to 8 astronauts if the market is there.

At 50-51 minutes, McAlister said that for Phase 1, NASA assumed that the Commercial LEO destination providers would be responsible for transportation of crew and cargo but that they haven't decided if that is what they will do for Phase 2 of the program (Phase 2 is the services phase). But he added that either way, NASA will require the transportation of crew to be a certified system and therefore the commercial crew program has a long life ahead of them. He added that by the time that these free flyers are ready, maybe there will be new certified systems (in addition to the ones from Boeing and SpaceX).

At 52 minutes, Nanoracks and NG said that they haven't yet decided who will be their crew transportation partners, they have talked to both companies but no decision has been made.

At 59 minutes, Robin Givens said that every agency agreed to extend the ISS to 2030 in September but that they have to go through their respective governments to approve it for it to be official. They are kind of waiting for the US to go first (i.e., getting approval). Starting to talk to the international partners as to how it's going to work for the commercial LEO destinations habitats. The companies said that they are talking to the space agencies but that the specifics will depend on how NASA wants to do it.

Concerning what was said at that press conference, it got me thinking that NASA might be considering if it shouldn't bring its own commercial crew system (byoccs...) to the commercial habitats. The advantage of doing that is that it ensures that SpaceX doesn't become the only commercial crew provider.

A second thing is that NASA said previously that it needs 2 astronauts full-time in LEO for these commercial habitats. If each stay on the commercial habitats is for a period of 6 months that means 4 astronauts per year. Presumably that means two commercial crew flights per year (as it is now). The other two non-NASA astronauts on these commercial crew missions could be internationals.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1483814626429218827

https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1483814479892779008

[yg1968]

See slide 5 of this presentation:

• CCP is pursuing acquisition of up to three (3) additional PCMs from SpaceX in the near-term to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station through 2024
• CCP is evaluating options to competitively purchase additional PCMs required for ISS crew rotation through 2030

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_status_to_nac_january_2022_draft_rev_4_2022-01-18_23.12.18_1.pdf

[yg1968]

The Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the 3 extra crew Dragon missions (which is attached to the post linked below) mentions in several places the October 20th 2021 RFI on Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services (CCSTS):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2348645#msg2348645

I am encouraged that NASA will still push forward with the CCSTS RFI efforts. NASA stated the following concerning the RFI:

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – A statement of actions, if any, the Agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

NASA will continue to examine the market in the future for alternative solutions or new sources before executing any subsequent acquisitions for the same requirements. NASA will take into consideration information received in response to the [October 20th CCSTS] RFI when developing an acquisition strategy for any procurement of additional Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services.

[yg1968]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

https://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1532067026147364865

See also this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373563#msg2373563

[DanClemmensen]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

[Robotbeat]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

Because ISS will be gone after Starliner-6? Starliner CFT probably 2023 timeframe (if everything goes well), then one crewed Starliner mission per year means the last will occur in 2029. ISS will last *optimistically* until 2028 or sometime in 2030.

NASA needs to procure flights now. Starliner has still not completed certification and is so delayed that now even with the original awarded flights, at the typical one flight per year per provider, ISS will be done before another Starliner will need to be ordered. And it'd make no sense to award the second mission per year also to Starliner, as that'd mean no backup.

SpaceX is the only other crew provider besides Starliner, so they'd have to be chosen. Not only that, but they're also the only one already certified.

...which doesn't mean Starliner won't get another mission ever. There's Orbital Reef, plus Gateway/Artemis, if NASA wants to retire Orion and go with commercial providers for later missions.

[Mark K]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

[Robotbeat]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

I mean, it's going to be pretty old by the time Starliner-6 flies, sometime in 2029 or so. ISS is currently *tentatively* extended to 2030, at least in principle and assuming relations with Russia don't get even worse.

ISS has a limited lifespan. The constant thermal cycling fatigues the metal, and the station structure has already shown signs of problems. The first module went up in 1998. 32 years is quite a long run for a space station. More than 3 times as long as Mir.

[yg1968]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

Does this mean that NASA will not use Starliner for any flights after the Starliner-6? If so, why make such a decision now?

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373573#msg2373573

[yg1968]

Just a thought, - is this decision NASA foretelling the end of ISS fairly soon after the end of the standard missions?
NASA doesn't think there will be a whole lot of flights after the contracts are fulfilled?
Any Commercial Station or similar would be under a new program, I would guess.

The ISS is extended until 2030. There is supposed to be an overlap between ISS and the Commercial LEO Destinations between 2028 and 2030. The Commercial LEO Destinations providers will decide which companies will transport cargo and crew to their habitats (but they must use a certified system). NASA is encouraging companies to have redundant crew transportation systems.

[JayWee]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

[Robotbeat]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

Will it? Let’s not count our chickens before they’re hatched for Vulcan. It has no flight history at the moment. It’ll also likely take years to integrate abort systems into Vulcan and ensure the weird aerodynamics that required an aero skirt and other mods to the Starliner/Atlas stack won’t be needed.

I think Atlas V is still the best choice in 2029 unless they need several flights.

[DanClemmensen]

According to my estimates, NASA now has enough missions to last until June 30th 2030. Unless, they are extra Atlas Vs, I don't think that there will be a Boeing-7 mission. I don't think that NASA will certify Vulcan for the last remaining mission in December 2030 (assuming that the extension of ISS is until the end of 2030). 

Hmm, launching Atlas V in 2029 will be fun. Would make much more sense to switch it to Vulcan tbh.

Will it? Let’s not count our chickens before they’re hatched for Vulcan. It has no flight history at the moment. It’ll also likely take years to integrate abort systems into Vulcan and ensure the weird aerodynamics that required an aero skirt and other mods to the Starliner/Atlas stack won’t be needed.

I think Atlas V is still the best choice in 2029 unless they need several flights.

ULA has 23 remaining Atlas Vs and no way to build more. All 23 are already allocated to specific customer flights: seven for Starliner, nine for Kuiper, and seven "other". All of the "others" will be launched before Q2 2023. Thus, if Starliner needs more flights after Starliner-6 in 2028, they must get them from Kuiper. But most or all of the Kuiper flights will have flown by then.

[Robotbeat]

I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 won’t fly until 2029.

[DanClemmensen]

I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 won’t fly until 2029.

Note: This clueless external analysis may not match reality. A ULA person may wish to comment.
Whatever. If Starliner-1 flies in  Q4 2023, then Starliner-6 will fly in Q4 2028. A half-year slip won't change things much. The very last Atlas V will either be Starliner-6 or Kuiper-9 and will fly in 2028 or 2029, and there will be three or fewer Atlas V missions per year in the last years, so maintaining Atlas V support infrastructure and expertise will be expensive.

[Robotbeat]

Starliner CFT probably won’t fly until well into 2023, and then Starliner 1 will fly in 2024, etc. That seems both likely due to how long such things usually take and also how you would operate to spread out the remaining Starliner launches through the end of ISS, enabling full backup as long as possible without needing to do a new launch vehicle right at the end. So again, I suspect Starliner 6 won’t fly until 2029.

[DanClemmensen]

Starliner CFT probably won’t fly until well into 2023, and then Starliner 1 will fly in 2024, etc. That seems both likely due to how long such things usually take and also how you would operate to spread out the remaining Starliner launches through the end of ISS, enabling full backup as long as possible without needing to do a new launch vehicle right at the end. So again, I suspect Starliner 6 won’t fly until 2029.

If CFT flies before about April 2023, I guess NASA could assign Starliner-1 to the November 2023 flight. There is no particular need for a 1-year gap between CFT and Starliner-1. Boeing has two Starliner capsules. The only constraint would be based on crew assignments: I assume the Starliner crew and the Crew Dragon crew would really like to know which crew is going to fly, and if NASA ever flies a Russian again, the Russians won't fly on Starliner until it has a longer flight history.

[Asteroza]

I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 won’t fly until 2029.

Candidate for the NSF beer bet tracker?

[david1971]

...which doesn't mean Starliner won't get another mission ever. There's Orbital Reef, plus Gateway/Artemis, if NASA wants to retire Orion and go with commercial providers for later missions.

If Starliner doesn't get additional flights, then most likely by the time Starliner flies its first crew Dragon 2 will have already flown more people to orbit than Starliner will over the course of its lifetime. 

[M.E.T.]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

[DanClemmensen]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

[M.E.T.]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

[yg1968]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

[Robotbeat]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser .

[yg1968]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

[deadman1204]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

[Tomness]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.

[Robotbeat]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.

Yup, and NASA *is* paying for cargo Dream Chaser.

[DanClemmensen]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.

[Robotbeat]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.

NASA wouldn’t have gotten backup capability then. Relations with Russia haven’t exactly improved, so this isn’t nothing.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA wouldn’t have gotten backup capability then. Relations with Russia haven’t exactly improved, so this isn’t nothing.

NASA still does not have backup capability, but your point is valid. NASA had no capability at all from 2011 until 2020. In 2018 when the hustle occurred, Starliner was seen as the main line and Crew Dragon was the backup capability at the project level. Fortunately, the backup worked. I'm just resentful that Boeing hustled NASA instead of designing a more cost-effective system.

[M.E.T.]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.

Total program cost is a lesson to be learned - don’t use that contractor again for future projects when there are more efficient competitors available. Track record is important.

[M.E.T.]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

[yg1968]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. I expect the cost of Starliner to go down, especially if the cost of the LV goes down.

It's possible that Axiom will use crewed Dragon and another provider but they have yet to confirm that. I am not sure about NG and Nanoracks (the other CLD providers).

[yg1968]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

NASA would pay for a number of 6-month missions to the Orbital Reef station (transportation included). Blue would then pay SNC for crewed Dream Chaser services. Presumably certification of crewed Dream Chaser would occur after the first crewed mission to the Orbital Reef station. Having said that, this assumes that NASA selects Orbital Reef in the services phase of CLD (my guess is that NASA will select two CLD providers in the services phase).

[TrevorMonty]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

That $90m is NASA price for 4 seats. Commercial prices is likely to be lot lower , plus there is 5th seat on Starliner. I've seen layouts for 9, which could seat price to $40m or less.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk

[deadman1204]

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.

Yup, and NASA *is* paying for cargo Dream Chaser.

Which is a different vehicle. A crewed dream chaser doesn't just have a few decals and some chairs in it. It'll need to be quite different to be crew rated.

That’s a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.

Still is the problem that its 10s if not hundreds of millions of dollars that Sierra Space needs to come up with.

[yg1968]

Still is the problem that its 10s if not hundreds of millions of dollars that Sierra Space needs to come up with.

Sierra Space has already raised funding for crewed DC (but I am not sure if that's all of the required funding):
https://spacenews.com/sierra-space-raises-1-4-billion/

[ulm_atms]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

https://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1532067026147364865

See also this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373563#msg2373563

See article:  https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/nasa-just-bought-all-the-seats-needed-for-space-station-crews-into-2030/

[Robotbeat]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. …

Yes, it is. Dragon and Starliner use the same docking port. Some of the partners may not like it, but some of them might be just fine with it. A space station you can’t use because transport is too expensive is useless. So it’s at least theoretically an option.

[yg1968]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. …

Yes, it is. Dragon and Starliner use the same docking port. Some of the partners may not like it, but some of them might be just fine with it. A space station you can’t use because transport is too expensive is useless. So it’s at least theoretically an option.

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

[MGoDuPage]

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

I'm not so sure about that.

In a recent podcast episode of "Main Engine Cut Off", Senior VP Brent Sherwood of Blue Origin was talking about Orbital Reef & went on at length about how they were designing Orbital Reef to be an "open system" service architecture.

 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/216

In other words, Orbital Reef plans to have the **capability** to be a "one stop shop" full service firm if clients want them to do everything from soup to nuts including designing/building their own modules from scratch, providing ongoing operational support, providing transportation to/from the station, etc. But that they aren't going to require clients to bunde the products/services. Instead, they're apparently going to allow clients to select services from Orbital Reef ala carte & therefore allow clients to act as their own general contractors (as long as everything meets basic design paramaters for safety & integration reasons).

Now, it's possible my memory is off or I somehow misunderstood his point. Or perhaps he simply misspoke. But if not, then from the sound of it, Orbital Reef's current intention seems to be to allow all clients access to Orbital Reef in whatever way the clients wish to use, so long as it meets a few technical specifications.

By which I took to mean things like, "must use compatible docking ports", as opposed to, "cannot be called 'Dragon'."

That said, it's important to distinguish between "Blue Origin" which very much could refuse to use SpaceX services/hardware  vs. "Orbital Reef" which --although BO is a major partner-- is technically a different entity, with serveral additional non-B.O. partners involved in the project.

[baldusi]

There's the pesky "some integration, validation and certifications charges may apply" thing...

[yg1968]

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

I'm not so sure about that.

In a recent podcast episode of "Main Engine Cut Off", Senior VP Brent Sherwood of Blue Origin was talking about Orbital Reef & went on at length about how they were designing Orbital Reef to be an "open system" service architecture.

 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/216

In other words, Orbital Reef plans to have the **capability** to be a "one stop shop" full service firm if clients want them to do everything from soup to nuts including designing/building their own modules from scratch, providing ongoing operational support, providing transportation to/from the station, etc. But that they aren't going to require clients to bunde the products/services. Instead, they're apparently going to allow clients to select services from Orbital Reef ala carte & therefore allow clients to act as their own general contractors (as long as everything meets basic design paramaters for safety & integration reasons).

Now, it's possible my memory is off or I somehow misunderstood his point. Or perhaps he simply misspoke. But if not, then from the sound of it, Orbital Reef's current intention seems to be to allow all clients access to Orbital Reef in whatever way the clients wish to use, so long as it meets a few technical specifications.

By which I took to mean things like, "must use compatible docking ports", as opposed to, "cannot be called 'Dragon'."

That said, it's important to distinguish between "Blue Origin" which very much could refuse to use SpaceX services/hardware  vs. "Orbital Reef" which --although BO is a major partner-- is technically a different entity, with serveral additional non-B.O. partners involved in the project.

For the Commercial LEO Destinations, NASA is asking for a services where transportation of cargo and crew is included, so NASA wouldn't decide which transportation system is used, Blue would.

In terms of Orbital Reef being a separate entity from Blue, as far as I know Blue is the main contractor, the other companies are subcontractors. The bid for the Commercial LEO Destinations was by Blue Origin, LLC per the selection statement. It wasn't a joint venture that made the bid.