Should Starliner be given another chance?

[Skye]

Personally I think maybe another uncrewed test, but if anything larger than insignificant goes wrong Starliner should be cancelled, and Boeing has to give the money back to taxpayers, NASA, investors, etc. And a decent fraction goes to Sierra for DC-1 & 200

[Jim]

and Boeing has to give the money back to taxpayers, NASA, investors, etc.

No.  Boeing got paid for work performed. 

[DanClemmensen]

Personally I think maybe another uncrewed test, but if anything larger than insignificant goes wrong Starliner should be cancelled, and Boeing has to give the money back to taxpayers, NASA, investors, etc. And a decedent fraction goes to Sierra for DC-1 & 200

I cannot think of a contract mechanism for your approach, but maybe there is one.

I prefer to let Boeing have as many chances as they wish to pay for under the existing CCtCap contract. Under that contract, they have not yet been certified to fly with crew. They will get the last development milestone payment when they successfully complete a crewed flight test (CFT), which they must pay for.  The problem is that NASA, does not appear willing to allow them to fly a CFT until they fly an uncrewed mission, Which by any reasonable interpretation of CCtCap Boeing would need to pay for. By any reasonable non-bizarro-world interpretation, NASA has in effect rescinded their OFT acceptance, but not requiring Boeing to refund that milestone payment.

But NASA knows that Boeing would abandon Starliner if they must pay for two more test flights or even one more test flight. Since NASA clings to the belief that dissimilar redundancy is highly valuable and that Starliner will provide it, NASA has apparently found some highly dubious justification to use CCtCap operational money to pay for an uncrewed test flight by pretending it is an operational flight. This is an interpretation of CCtCap that bends the contract language far past its breaking point.

[KilroySmith]

Yes, I think it should be given another chance.  Billions have been spent on Starliner's development, and with a few fixes it appears to be ready to be a solid workhorse for LEO transport.

Should NASA pay for giving Starliner another chance?  I'm not onboard with that.  If there were future plans that included a need for small crew transport to earth orbit, then I think there's a strong argument to be made that having multiple vendors of that capability would be beneficial for NASA.  Currently, however, the only horizon for Starliner is six flights to the ISS, and it's not clear at all to me that there's a benefit to NASA any more to have multiple vendors able to complete that mission. It won't be cheaper than contracting with SpaceX for the missions, and it won't be less work for NASA to monitor two different programs than one. 

Starliner in the future is a crew capsule with no booster, and with no apparent interest from its owner to spend the money to resolve that issue.  It's pretty clear to me that, even if the booster issue is resolved, it will never be a cheaper path to LEO than competitors, and will never be a more reliable or more flexible path, and doesn't have any technical advantages over competitors, so where is the economic or technical argument for spending the dollars to fix its issues and fit it to Vulcan or New Glenn or Falcon?

Even if it gets qualified and starts flying missions, I'm afraid that after the ISS is deorbited, Starliner is gonna get put on a shelf waiting for putative future missions.  When those missions finally crystallize, it'll be obsolete.

[freddo411]

DanClemmensen reply #2 sums it up very well.

Boeing needs to deliver on *both* a safe, working spacecraft *AND* a cost that is sustainable under the original (very generous) contract terms.

Having fidelity to the original terms and philosophy of commercial crew is *much* more important than having a second crew capsule.   NASA needs to reward and shape the behavior of its suppliers.   THIS IS THE WAY.

[aperh1988]

Personally I think maybe another uncrewed test

They already had a successful OFT-2. The doghouse issues only became apparent under crew control so it’s pointless to test doghouse mods, whatever those will be, in an uncrewed configuration. I guess they could add some fake crew inputs through the control software to simulate human control. Is that the type of complication you want to add a this point? All up or nothing!

[DanClemmensen]

Boeing needs to deliver on *both* a safe, working spacecraft *AND* a cost that is sustainable under the original (very generous) contract terms.

The Starliner CCtCap was awarded in 2014, with prices renegotiated upward in 2016. I don't know the details, but I'm unaware of any provision for inflation. The 2016 prices were for delivery of up to six operational missions starting in 2018. If NASA is paying those 2016 prices using 2026 dollars, they will get a ~25% discount, so those missions might be competitive with replacement Crew Dragon starting with Crew-15. However, NASA's weird  deal to pay for a (worthless) uncrewed mission reduced the number of crewed flights to five, while still paying for six, in effect raising the price per crewed flight by 20%.

[pilottim]

There is no "should". It doesn't matter what this thread/forum thinks and Stich already made his intentions clear. If NASA wants another cargo option with emergency crew return capability as a political offramp, then that is what they're going to get. No one is being cheated out here.

[DanClemmensen]

There is no "should". It doesn't matter what this thread/forum thinks and Stich already made his intentions clear. If NASA wants another cargo option with emergency crew return capability as a political offramp, then that is what they're going to get. No one is being cheated out here.

I'm a US taxpayer. I'm being "cheated out". NASA will be forced to pay for an additional real CCP mission, probably Crew-15,  to make up for the uncrewed Starliner mission. This is in addition to money still being wasted within NASA to support the Starliner program.

[Jim]

There is no "should". It doesn't matter what this thread/forum thinks and Stich already made his intentions clear. If NASA wants another cargo option with emergency crew return capability as a political offramp, then that is what they're going to get. No one is being cheated out here.

I'm a US taxpayer. I'm being "cheated out". NASA will be forced to pay for an additional real CCP mission, probably Crew-15,  to make up for the uncrewed Starliner mission. This is in addition to money still being wasted within NASA to support the Starliner program.

Meh.  not really worth the effort to complain about

[DanClemmensen]

There is no "should". It doesn't matter what this thread/forum thinks and Stich already made his intentions clear. If NASA wants another cargo option with emergency crew return capability as a political offramp, then that is what they're going to get. No one is being cheated out here.

I'm a US taxpayer. I'm being "cheated out". NASA will be forced to pay for an additional real CCP mission, probably Crew-15,  to make up for the uncrewed Starliner mission. This is in addition to money still being wasted within NASA to support the Starliner program.

Meh.  not really worth the effort to complain about

Yeah, small in comparison to SLS, Orion, or the US defense budget. But DOGE is bragging about $420 million in "savings" based on terminating tiny NASA consulting contracts and NASA RIFs. Remaining Starliner is a lot bigger than that.

[spacenut]

No, ISS may be decommissioned by 2027 or 28 anyway.  It would only be for what 4-6 flights.  No necessary at this time.  SpaceX can pick up slack and maybe decommission ISS by 2026.  Money saved can go immediately to the Artemis station. 

[lightleviathan]

Starliner should be given another chance if Boeing is up to it. Pay for OFT-3 or CFT-2 (if NASA is willing to put up astronauts again) and then fly up more missions until ISS retirement. Boeing can use the rest of the contract to fly to the Axiom station or whichever station NASA chooses after ISS. I honestly see no reasons why, if Boeing, of course is willing to fix the spacecraft.

This probably won't happen though, because Boeing won't do anything extra that they aren't being paid for and NASA should end their contract and just fly on Dragon. There's only 5 years left on the ISS anyway. Hell, maybe they can even fly on Gaganyaan in a few years for that dissimilar redundancy that NASA craves so badly (won't happen for obvious reasons though)

[pilottim]

I don't know what games of telephone happened on this forum and frankly it doesn't matter. The "uncrewed" cargo flight that may or may not happen and may or may not take up a contracted flight slot has not been decided on yet. This is separate from the cargo only Starliner config Stich mentioned during the press conference that is offered as a political off ramp to SpaceX so SpaceX does not cancel Starliner, ie you can have a monopoly on crewed access but NASA needs to keep a backup crewed option they can activate if something happens to Dragon. Stich is playing chess to keep the program impartial as much as possible and people here are getting mad they are being "cheated out". Why? Boeing doesn't even have a say in this, discussion on Starliner next step is purely between NASA and SpaceX stakeholders. This forum places a lot of trust in Dragon that NASA have a lot of reasons not to.

[SoftwareDude]

I believe that NASA will give Starliner another chance. Whether or not Starliner deserves another chance is not the only consideration. The US allowed its defense and aeronautics manufacturing base to deteriorate to the extent that it is having trouble competing with China. The current administration is trying to rebuild its strategic manufacturing base through programs like Starliner, NGAD, B-21, etc. The loss of Starliner could lead to the collapse of Boeing's ability to build any spacecraft in the future.

[Vultur]

This is separate from the cargo only Starliner config Stich mentioned during the press conference that is offered as a political off ramp to SpaceX so SpaceX does not cancel Starliner, ie you can have a monopoly on crewed access but NASA needs to keep a backup crewed option they can activate if something happens to Dragon. Stich is playing chess to keep the program impartial as much as possible and people here are getting mad they are being "cheated out". Why? Boeing doesn't even have a say in this, discussion on Starliner next step is purely between NASA and SpaceX stakeholders.

Starliner is owned by Boeing, not SpaceX. SpaceX can't cancel Starliner.

[Jim]

The loss of Starliner could lead to the collapse of Boeing's ability to build any spacecraft in the future.

That would be wrong.  Boeing has many spacecraft in production and flying.

[pilottim]

Starliner is owned by Boeing, not SpaceX. SpaceX can't cancel Starliner.

Take a look at what company the new NASA leadership is coming from. SpaceX already cancelled a bunch of NASA contracts. Please understand why Stich is doing this political maneuver and it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Boeing deserved it or not. The fate of Starliner is going to be decided by SpaceX and if Dragon have an accident this could end extremely badly for the commercial crew program and US space access as a whole. Stich's offramp would still look bad for Boeing but will keep an option open for NASA in case something happens to Dragon and can be reactivated in 4 years. High level program decisions are not made with any consideration on whether or not certain people on this forum feel justified or not, but to ensure programs reach their goals. IMO I do not think Stich will be successful in pulling this chess move, but he is not giving Starliner a pass by offering this offramp.

[jimvela]

Take a look at what company the new NASA leadership is coming from.

Do you mean Jared Taylor Isaacman, co-founder of Draken International?

SpaceX already cancelled a bunch of NASA contracts.

Which NASA contract numbers, specifically, has SpaceX cancelled?

Please understand

You begging folks to share your misunderstandings will not make it so.

[woods170]

This is separate from the cargo only Starliner config Stich mentioned during the press conference that is offered as a political off ramp to SpaceX so SpaceX does not cancel Starliner, ie you can have a monopoly on crewed access but NASA needs to keep a backup crewed option they can activate if something happens to Dragon. Stich is playing chess to keep the program impartial as much as possible and people here are getting mad they are being "cheated out". Why? Boeing doesn't even have a say in this, discussion on Starliner next step is purely between NASA and SpaceX stakeholders.

Starliner is owned by Boeing, not SpaceX. SpaceX can't cancel Starliner.

What's more: even NASA can't cancel Starliner. Only the owner (Boeing) can cancel Starliner.