and Boeing has to give the money back to taxpayers, NASA, investors, etc.
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
Personally I think maybe another uncrewed test
Boeing needs to deliver on *both* a safe, working spacecraft *AND* a cost that is sustainable under the original (very generous) contract terms.
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.
Quote from: pilottim on 03/25/2025 06:33 amThere 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/25/2025 10:57 amQuote from: pilottim on 03/25/2025 06:33 amThere 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
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.
The loss of Starliner could lead to the collapse of Boeing's ability to build any spacecraft in the future.
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
Quote from: pilottim on 03/25/2025 06:49 pmThis 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.
Quote from: Vultur on 03/26/2025 07:37 pmQuote from: pilottim on 03/25/2025 06:49 pmThis 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.
Yes, I believe Starliner has value and should continue to be part of the Commercial Crew program. Back in the Shuttle era, there were more frequent crew rotations and these shorter stints onboard improved astronaut health, increased the diversity of skill sets and training opportunities. Having more astronauts visit the station allows for more science. Post ISS, the program of record is still to anchor a commercial LEO station which will likely have more crew rotations than recent ISS funding allowed. Starliner's principal advantage over Dragon is that the nominal crew return is on land. For commercial applications, this is much preferred as tourists will likely prefer shorter stays and return on land.
(...) Steve Stich, manager, NASAs Commercial Crew Program at the agencys Kennedy Space Center in Florida: Well continue to work through certification toward the end of this year and then go figure out where Starliner fits best in the schedule for the International Space Station and its crew and cargo missions. It is likely to be in the timeframe of late this calendar year or early next year for the next Starliner flight.Mission managers are planning for the next Starliner flight to be a crew capable post-certification mission, and NASA also has the capability of flying only cargo depending on the needs of the agency.
I personally think Starliner should be given another chance IF NASA can swing it without significant extra resources. If Boeing offers Starliner for cargo at a price similar to Cygnus and Dragon cargo, that would be a way to validate it enough for Starliner to be safe to proceed for the rest of its already-contracted crew missions.And I say all this as someone who really doesnt trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. Its still in NASA & the nations interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.NASA should be playing hard ball with Boeing. Boeing must make good on their commercial crew contract. NASA should to be just flexible enough so that Boeing cant just throw in the towel but without rewarding Boeing for not succeeding.
For the good of NASA and Boeing and the taxpayers, it's probably better to cancel the contract and pay the penalty.
And I say all this as someone who really doesnt trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. Its still in NASA & the nations interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/28/2025 01:21 pmAnd I say all this as someone who really doesnt trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. Its still in NASA & the nations interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity. It's only an option in some limited scenarios. That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.
It's fine with you, and it's fine with me, but apparently it's not fine with NASA. They seem to claim the overwhelming importance of dissimilar redundancy in every single press release about Starliner, with no legitimate reasoning or analysis. In retrospect, program-level redundancy was essential to the success of CCP, but IMO ceased to be important by about 2022, and is now actively detrimental.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 03/28/2025 03:04 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/28/2025 01:21 pmAnd I say all this as someone who really doesnt trust Boeing and who really thinks SpaceX is largely the future of the program. Its still in NASA & the nations interests to try to have redundancy in crew and cargo providers AND, if possible, sort of force Boeing to make good on the contract for crew before dipping out.Starliner doesn't and isn't planned to provide meaningful redundancy in the sense that it can't replace Dragon capacity. It's only an option in some limited scenarios. That's fine because the time where such redundancy was most needed has long passed.1) its useful for bargaining power to have more than one provider. ISS isnt the only thing in question, either.2) its important to not let Boeing off the hook so easily after winning a contract that they later ended up regretting.
Pushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'
Quote from: sdsds on 03/28/2025 05:33 pmPushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'While I'm in on the "cancel the contract" side of the argument, I agree with your logic here re: termination for cause over CFT-1 return without a crew. I think you could argue that being as late as they are could potentially be cause. But even if not, I think it might be worth terminating even if they terminate only for convenience. But only if they reinvest any savings into starting one or more other groups on developing commercial crew capabilities. Redundancy is nice, but economically viable competition for post-ISS CLD operations is so much more important. IMO, YMMV, etc.~Jon
or even Lockheed Martin with Orion (hey, stop laughing!)
Quote from: jongoff on 03/28/2025 06:06 pmQuote from: sdsds on 03/28/2025 05:33 pmPushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'While I'm in on the "cancel the contract" side of the argument, I agree with your logic here re: termination for cause over CFT-1 return without a crew. I think you could argue that being as late as they are could potentially be cause. But even if not, I think it might be worth terminating even if they terminate only for convenience. But only if they reinvest any savings into starting one or more other groups on developing commercial crew capabilities. Redundancy is nice, but economically viable competition for post-ISS CLD operations is so much more important. IMO, YMMV, etc.~JonThe cause is not the failure of CFT. It's the failure to deliver an operational system by the contractually agreed-upon date of 2017. However, everything we have heard from NASA (and the silence from Boeing) makes it clear that if NASA no longer wanted Starliner, then all they need to do is decline to certify it until after a successful CFT that Boeing needs to pay for. NASA does not actually need to do anything.
Re-assigning Starliner pilot Michael Fincke to Dragons Crew-11 crew may be a subtle hint as to Boeing's future.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/28/2025 06:44 pmQuote from: jongoff on 03/28/2025 06:06 pmQuote from: sdsds on 03/28/2025 05:33 pmPushing back a bit on the idea that NASA could cancel the Starliner contract 'for cause' with no termination penalty, CFT-1 returned without a crew at the request of NASA. Those would be good contract terms if NASA had gotten them: 'We can tell you not to fulfill your obligation so then we can cancel with no obligation to pay you.'While I'm in on the "cancel the contract" side of the argument, I agree with your logic here re: termination for cause over CFT-1 return without a crew. I think you could argue that being as late as they are could potentially be cause. But even if not, I think it might be worth terminating even if they terminate only for convenience. But only if they reinvest any savings into starting one or more other groups on developing commercial crew capabilities. Redundancy is nice, but economically viable competition for post-ISS CLD operations is so much more important. IMO, YMMV, etc.~JonThe cause is not the failure of CFT. It's the failure to deliver an operational system by the contractually agreed-upon date of 2017. However, everything we have heard from NASA (and the silence from Boeing) makes it clear that if NASA no longer wanted Starliner, then all they need to do is decline to certify it until after a successful CFT that Boeing needs to pay for. NASA does not actually need to do anything.I think everyone would be better off if the program was officially terminated -- NASA can't actually free up any remaining money to fund development of alternatives to Starliner or procure additional Dragon flights with the project not formally dead but basically pining for the fjords. I'd be fine with that being Boeing formally backing out, NASA formally terminating, or them mutually agreeing to part ways.~Jon
When looking at the on-going viability of a system, cost over-runs should be considered 'sunk' and so too should past under-performance. The assertion implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) made is that past cost over-runs and under-performance predict future cost over-runs and under-performance. That's reasonable, particularly when the approach to resolving cost and performance discrepancies can be characterized as 'whack-a-mole.'Is there evidence that new faults in Starliner are being discovered faster than known faults are being fixed?(Disclaimer: I have no horse in the race; just curious.)
In another universe very similar to this one, those astronauts are dead and the answer to this question is more obvious.
Quote from: BN on 04/10/2025 02:45 amIn another universe very similar to this one, those astronauts are dead and the answer to this question is more obvious. That universe may be very similar, but its Starliner is very different.
Quote from: sdsds on 04/10/2025 03:25 amQuote from: BN on 04/10/2025 02:45 amIn another universe very similar to this one, those astronauts are dead and the answer to this question is more obvious. That universe may be very similar, but its Starliner is very different.Why do you say that? They were lucky to get a third axis of rotation back. It could have gone either way.
They never lost 6DOF control. They did become zero-fault tolerant. Five of the six jets were re-enabled. After the test they reported verbally the sixth did also fire.At the time they didn't know what would happen if those jets were used when there were indications of overheating indeed it isn't even clear they knew overheating was the cause and the correct choice was made. It takes a lot of analysis to get any degree of certainty and there was no time for that.
And this is the part I'm sure you haven't heard. We lost the fourth thruster. Now we've lost 6DOF control. We can't maneuver forward. I still have control, supposedly, on all the other axes.
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 04/10/2025 03:55 amQuote from: sdsds on 04/10/2025 03:25 amQuote from: BN on 04/10/2025 02:45 amIn another universe very similar to this one, those astronauts are dead and the answer to this question is more obvious. That universe may be very similar, but its Starliner is very different.Why do you say that? They were lucky to get a third axis of rotation back. It could have gone either way.They never lost 6DOF control. They did become zero-fault tolerant. Five of the six jets were re-enabled. After the test they reported verbally the sixth did also fire.At the time they didn't know what would happen if those jets were used when there were indications of overheating indeed it isn't even clear they knew overheating was the cause and the correct choice was made. It takes a lot of analysis to get any degree of certainty and there was no time for that.
Emphasis mine.
If I transcribed Stich's comments correctly at one time or another Starliner disabled each of: starboard 2a2, bottom 1a3, bottom 2a3, starboard 1a1 and top 2a2, all aft-facing. Please name the thrusters which all at the same time were disabled, which in combination led to loss of 6DOF control.
I think it's more nuanced than that.We just say 6-DoF, but actually each DoF requires two directions, and thrusters are push-only. Trivially, you need 12 symmetrical thrusters.I can imagine a 9 thruster combination that gives 6-DoF control, but they need to be prepositioned correctly. Not any 9 will do. Theory says a special arrangement of 8 is also possible. But they'll be coupled of course.But, it's not clear to me how much coupled control Wilmore could handle. The F-18 comment makes it clear that it wasn't too much. Which is reasonable, especially when it's proximity ops.Also, aren't some thrusters additionally inhibited (by necessity or preference) when very close to the station?
I can imagine a 9 thruster combination that gives 6-DoF control, but they need to be prepositioned correctly. Not any 9 will do. Theory says a special arrangement of 8 is also possible. But they'll be coupled of course.But, it's not clear to me how much coupled control Wilmore could handle. The F-18 comment makes it clear that it wasn't too much. Which is reasonable, especially when it's proximity ops.
Quote from: meekGee on 04/11/2025 04:21 amI can imagine a 9 thruster combination that gives 6-DoF control, but they need to be prepositioned correctly. Not any 9 will do. Theory says a special arrangement of 8 is also possible. But they'll be coupled of course.But, it's not clear to me how much coupled control Wilmore could handle. The F-18 comment makes it clear that it wasn't too much. Which is reasonable, especially when it's proximity ops.I don't think the pilot uses separate control of the individual thrusters, so this coupling is done in software. Wilmore commented that the control became less precise as thrusters dropped out, and this would be consistent with software-mediated coupling.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 04/11/2025 11:54 amQuote from: meekGee on 04/11/2025 04:21 amI can imagine a 9 thruster combination that gives 6-DoF control, but they need to be prepositioned correctly. Not any 9 will do. Theory says a special arrangement of 8 is also possible. But they'll be coupled of course.But, it's not clear to me how much coupled control Wilmore could handle. The F-18 comment makes it clear that it wasn't too much. Which is reasonable, especially when it's proximity ops.I don't think the pilot uses separate control of the individual thrusters, so this coupling is done in software. Wilmore commented that the control became less precise as thrusters dropped out, and this would be consistent with software-mediated coupling.Software control is how others do it. Even in manual piloting, the pilot is saying "go that way", and the computer figures out the impulse needed from the various thrusters to eventually go that way.
So when Wilmore says "now we can't go forward", how do you read this?
As an outsider (but a professional SW engineer), this is a very interesting part of the design constraints. If you run the math on a commanded motion and there's no solution given the current state of the vehicle, do you do nothing, or do you do something that you know isn't quite right? In the latter case, you're relying on the more flexible programming of the meatsack to maybe resolve several different motions into a desired result. In the former, you eliminate some of that flexibility but provide consistent responses to commanded motion reducing the likelihood of bumping into something you didn't really want to bump into. This is a fascinating part of system design to me.
