CST-100 on Falcon 9

[Ike17055]

We know that Boeing has indicated interest in the past about prospects for launching on Falcon 9. Its officials have stated numerous times that the company considers Atlas V to be its "test vehicle configuration" and have referenced planned discussions with SpaceX over possible use of Falcon 9.  However, Little has been said about this for some time. With the selection of both SpaceX and Boeing, does this prospect have more or less possibility? First things first, given that the Boeing stack now includes the double Strap-on configuration, as opposed to original plans for a single strap-on, what does this say about the weight of CST-100? Is Falcon 9 capable of lifting the Boeing capsule?  And are there other viable launcher options for Boeing that could allow it to eventually lower its launch costs via a different booster than Atlas V?

Also, There is an existing rendering floating around of the Boeing capsule on F9 original version, not the 9.1.1, and it appears to just be a rather odd bird that reminds one if the original version of Orion on the tiny Ares1, prior to rescaling the Ares to five segment. It just looks implausible in the diagrams. Has anyone seen a diagram of CST-100 (and for  pete's sake, can they give this thing a real name?) projected onto either F9.1.1 or F9 Heavy?

[TrevorMonty]

I think the CST 100 fly on Atlas until the BE4 LV is ready, which should be a lot less expensive.

[Beittil]

The only downside at the moment (with both Boeing and SpaceX having won CCtCap) is that if you put CST-100 on a Falcon 9 it means 2 grounded vehicles should something happen to a Falcon 9 launch.

[MarekCyzio]

SpaceX would have to create a "universal" tower to handle astronaut entry/exit from Dragon V2 and CST-100. Hatches are in different locations.

[guckyfan]

The only downside at the moment (with both Boeing and SpaceX having won CCtCap) is that if you put CST-100 on a Falcon 9 it means 2 grounded vehicles should something happen to a Falcon 9 launch.

They could have a Atlas V on standby for that contingency. But that may not be economical with only one flight each per year for two suppliers.

[su27k]

We know that Boeing has indicated interest in the past about prospects for launching on Falcon 9. Its officials have stated numerous times that the company considers Atlas V to be its "test vehicle configuration" and have referenced planned discussions with SpaceX over possible use of Falcon 9. 

Personally I think that's just Boeing being polite, in reality hell would freeze over before they launch CST-100 on F9.

[A_M_Swallow]

We know that Boeing has indicated interest in the past about prospects for launching on Falcon 9. Its officials have stated numerous times that the company considers Atlas V to be its "test vehicle configuration" and have referenced planned discussions with SpaceX over possible use of Falcon 9. 

Personally I think that's just Boeing being polite, in reality hell would freeze over before they launch CST-100 on F9.

That may be true but transferring to a F9 can be used as by Boeing as a threat whilst negotiating the Atlas 5 launch price with ULA.

[newpylong]

Not gonna happen, get over it.

[Zed_Noir]

Not gonna happen, get over it.

Not if the profit margin for Boeing is much higher with Falcon 9. After all this is suppose to be a fixed cost contract for crewed vehicle flights. So it doesn't matter which launcher Boeing uses, they still get same amount of money from NASA. We shall see if Boeing attempt squeeze as much profit out of the contract as possible.

[Roy_H]

Not gonna happen, get over it.

Not if the profit margin for Boeing is much higher with Falcon 9. After all this is suppose to be a fixed cost contract for crewed vehicle flights. So it doesn't matter which launcher Boeing uses, they still get same amount of money from NASA. We shall see if Boeing attempt squeeze as much profit out of the contract as possible.

NASA wants different launchers to provide back-up in case one launcher suffers an anomaly and is out of service for a while. They are willing to pay extra for that reason.

However it is perfectly reasonable for non-NASA customers to choose Boeing CST-100 over Dragon if they want and send it up on the Falcon. Or even NASA if the purpose is other than servicing the ISS.

I agree with the "Not going to happen" in terms of ISS contract.

[FinalFrontier]

It will fly on Atlas and/or delta if need be. It will never fly on Falcon 9. Ever.

I could say "oh its this thread again" considering how many times I have seen this thread re-posted in the last 9 months but I won't. Doesn't matter how many times people bring this up it will not happen. The most direct competitor to SpaceX is not going to fly on SpaceX.

[newpylong]

Not gonna happen, get over it.

Not if the profit margin for Boeing is much higher with Falcon 9. After all this is suppose to be a fixed cost contract for crewed vehicle flights. So it doesn't matter which launcher Boeing uses, they still get same amount of money from NASA. We shall see if Boeing attempt squeeze as much profit out of the contract as possible.

Commercial Crew is not like Cargo where NASA for the most part had no say in launch vehicle. Boeing would have to go through the entire process and certification path again, it would basically render the current proposal moot. NASA would not select two spacecraft on the same launch vehicle. Not gonna happen.

[RanulfC]

When did Boeing ever actually indicate "interest" in launching on an F9? As far as I can recall the F9 fell in with a statement of "The CST can be launched on a number of existing launch vehicles" and that was about it. Boeing has never discussed it with SpaceX and the only launcher that's been "spec'd" at all was/is the Atlas-V....

Randy

[Misha Vargas]

When did Boeing ever actually indicate "interest" in launching on an F9? As far as I can recall the F9 fell in with a statement of "The CST can be launched on a number of existing launch vehicles" and that was about it. Boeing has never discussed it with SpaceX and the only launcher that's been "spec'd" at all was/is the Atlas-V....

Randy

I've got an article in Aviation Week that was posted by docmordrid in the CST-100 thread a year and a chunk ago. Here.

And here's the quote in Aviation Week of Mr. John Mulholland, vice president and program manager for Commercial Programs:

It's got to be compatible with others and we continue to have discussions with SpaceX because once the Falcon 9 has enough flights under its belt and is safe enough to fly crew, we feel we can make that business decision. We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.

[Lars-J]

When did Boeing ever actually indicate "interest" in launching on an F9? As far as I can recall the F9 fell in with a statement of "The CST can be launched on a number of existing launch vehicles" and that was about it. Boeing has never discussed it with SpaceX and the only launcher that's been "spec'd" at all was/is the Atlas-V....

Randy

They did publish pictures of CST-100 attached to an F9. This was from Boeing. So this is more than "we can use any launcher".

The picture below is a composite by someone, but I believe the source images for all three configurations came from Boeing.

[llanitedave]

The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.

[Lars-J]

The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.

Right, that's pretty clear. Atlas V was their preferred option from the beginning. But they did air the possibility.

[guckyfan]

The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.

Right, that's pretty clear. Atlas V was their preferred option from the beginning. But they did air the possibility.

To be in the race they need to propose a full set of capabilities, the CST-100 and a manrated launch vehicle. That is what they offered for CCtCap and what they will fly for those missions. Once they have done so, they could well offer flights on Falcon 9, but in case Falcon 9 stands down can switch to Atlas V at increased price. Very feasible if they can assure the switch to happen within 6 months.

[LouScheffer]

We know that Boeing has indicated interest in the past about prospects for launching on Falcon 9. Its officials have stated numerous times that the company considers Atlas V to be its "test vehicle configuration" and have referenced planned discussions with SpaceX over possible use of Falcon 9. 

Personally I think that's just Boeing being polite, in reality hell would freeze over before they launch CST-100 on F9.

I think you've mistakenly assigned to a corporation the soft, squishy, and weak attribute of loyalty.  In reality, companies would gladly sell their grandmother for a 1% increase in the bottom line.  If, in some hypothetical example, SpaceX said "We are so confident that reusability will work that we'll sell you a dozen launches for $30M each", then by accepting Boeing would add an entire quarter of corporate profit to its bottom line.   Hell would freeze over so fast the devil would be lucky to avoid frostbite.

[te_atl]

It will fly on Atlas and/or delta if need be. It will never fly on Falcon 9. Ever.

I could say "oh its this thread again" considering how many times I have seen this thread re-posted in the last 9 months but I won't. Doesn't matter how many times people bring this up it will not happen. The most direct competitor to SpaceX is not going to fly on SpaceX.

You mean like Orbital (the most direct competitor to SpaceX) possibly considering flying Cygnus on SpaceX? 

[ChrisWilson68]

It will fly on Atlas and/or delta if need be. It will never fly on Falcon 9. Ever.

I could say "oh its this thread again" considering how many times I have seen this thread re-posted in the last 9 months but I won't. Doesn't matter how many times people bring this up it will not happen. The most direct competitor to SpaceX is not going to fly on SpaceX.

You're offering a lot of complaining and not a lot of evidence to back up your position.

[rcoppola]

If for whatever reason, and for an undetermined amount of time, Atlas was unable to launch CST, the next most logical option would be to use the ONLY other NASA certified launcher for crewed services. And that's the Falcon 9v1.1.

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

[oiorionsbelt]

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

[llanitedave]

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

How would it not be? Not only would there be profit involved, but the kind of triumphant PR one-upsmanship that money just can't buy.

[oiorionsbelt]

Agreed, just pointing out that it's not Boeings call if they get ride F9 v.1
.

[ChrisWilson68]

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.

How would it not be? Not only would there be profit involved, but the kind of triumphant PR one-upsmanship that money just can't buy.

Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

[guckyfan]

Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

No, we are talking about Boeing using the cheaper ride than Atlas V. That is what Boeing gave as the possible reason to fly Falcon 9.

[ChrisWilson68]

Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period.  If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all.  So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX.  I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.

No, we are talking about Boeing using the cheaper ride than Atlas V. That is what Boeing gave as the possible reason to fly Falcon 9.

You're wrong.  You could have checked the context just by clicking the link on the innermost nested quote in my post.  It's from rcoppola.  It was cut down by one of the people I was responding to.  If you had clicked on it, you could have seen the full quote:

If for whatever reason, and for an undetermined amount of time, Atlas was unable to launch CST, the next most logical option would be to use the ONLY other NASA certified launcher for crewed services. And that's the Falcon 9v1.1.

Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.

[rcoppola]

Some additional thoughts:

Could CST catch a ride on F9? Sure. Of course it's not that easy as we all know. There's a number of GSE/FSS mods etc, etc...

None of this is plug and play. SpaceX would have to know / agree to use F9 at 39A as a possible CST launch option as they modified Pad39A. They'd need to have agreements in place and funds committed / allocated from Boeing to do so. I'm just not seeing or hearing any of that being the case.

ULA is being contracted by Boeing to provide the launcher and all pad infrastructure for CST. If, as they seemed to have, committed to Atlas V, then that's the train they're going to ride throughout their contract commitments.

ULA would have committed to full (current Atlas V) operability all the way through the Atlas (VI) or whatever they call it, development/testing phase. Boeing and ULA would have a transition plan in place when moving to the new launcher which is also being designed to be cheaper, allowing Boeing to be more competitive in the long run.

IF there was an emergency and the CST needed a launcher already certified for a crewed mission, what would take longer?: Swapping it out for a Dragon2, or Modding F9 & 39A to accommodate CST?

Needless to say, I think we'd all prefer to have 2 different systems for all the obvious reasons. Now let's just see who gets there first.

**I'd be curious as to what, if anything, the selection committee thought of each proposers Pad designs. And what type of contingencies, if any, each proposer listed in the case of any Pad or launcher interruptions.

[Cherokee43v6]

Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

[RanulfC]

The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.

Right, that's pretty clear. Atlas V was their preferred option from the beginning. But they did air the possibility.

I sit corrected! Thanks

Randy

[erioladastra]

Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

[Cherokee43v6]

Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

Boeing is a publicly traded company and this is NOT a 'Black Project'.  Money spent for this purpose would have to be justified to the shareholders via the board.  Therefore, something would have been said about it.

SpaceX, being privately owned, I could more easily see being silent at a customer's request.

Again, I personally think it would be a good idea, and money well spent on Boeing's part, to set up the necessary pre-reqs, just in case.  But if they were doing that, since it would be an added layer of redundancy for their OV, why would we not hear anything about it???

[erioladastra]

Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely.  If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's.  Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet.  Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.

Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.

I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option.  Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights.  As it should be.  This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.

Boeing is a publicly traded company and this is NOT a 'Black Project'.  Money spent for this purpose would have to be justified to the shareholders via the board.  Therefore, something would have been said about it.

SpaceX, being privately owned, I could more easily see being silent at a customer's request.

Again, I personally think it would be a good idea, and money well spent on Boeing's part, to set up the necessary pre-reqs, just in case.  But if they were doing that, since it would be an added layer of redundancy for their OV, why would we not hear anything about it???

Sorry but that greatly over simplifies how these things work.  First,  there are many ways to work this.  You may chose to make sure that all designs do not preclude it.  Or you can be actively working design changes/updates as needed.  Most likely, you will do the first while your small team focuses on launching this vehicle on the Atlas V which is right down the road.  But in the end, even if this was a full effort to say do it in 3 years, the cost is a pitence in the Boeing budget - management is well aware of what is being done but it is not like anything that needs to rise to approval fromt he stock holders. 

And you would not be hearing about it because it involves complex negotiation between NASA and several (also competing) private companies.  The data is proprietary.  While we would all love to hear this info, and we are used to NASA being a leaky bucket, we just will not hear about most of the stuff.  You just will not get a lot of specifics.  Sorry.