Starliner on Vulcan

[Ike17055]

Have any renderings of this combo been produced? Can we assume this configuration would involve no SRBs? Given the past discussion of adding a segment to the crew access tower once Vulcan comes on line, are we correct to assume the new combo will be taller than original configuration on AV.

[arachnitect]

Have any renderings of this combo been produced? Can we assume this configuration would involve no SRBs? Given the past discussion of adding a segment to the crew access tower once Vulcan comes on line, are we correct to assume the new combo will be taller than original configuration on AV.

@JRSFN Vulcan Centaur would require a 422 configure. A Vulcan ACES would need a Vulcan 40X (baseline ACES)

I've seen a render of this configuration. I'll see if I can find it here on NSF.
edit: Here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35754.msg1361695#msg1361695

As for CAT, AR-1 powered Vulcan would require a lift. BE-4 powered Vulcan-Centaur might not. I'm guessing (?) Vulcan-ACES will require changes.

I believe there's a non-trivial possibility that CST-100 will never fly on Vulcan, especially Vulcan-ACES.

Vulcan cancellation, delays, and/or parallel Atlas V operations could keep CST-100 on Atlas until ISS retirement.

Vulcan-ACES will come online around 2023/2024 when ISS retirement may be imminent. Will there really be a market for LEO transportation services then?

[baldusi]

I understand that Vulcan/Centaur interstage and ACES wide body are designed so that the payload plane is kept constante between versions.

Sent from my Classic using Tapatalk

[Vahe231991]

Even though this thread is six years old, a SpaceNews report now says that certifying the soon-to-be-launched Vulcan rocket for crewed launches is a long way off, meaning that currently planned Starliner launches are only being launched from the Atlas V.

[Kaputnik]

This thread is a bit of a time warp!
Who could have predicted that Starliner would be delayed this much, and that extending Atlas-V production would become politically impossible, leading to potentially just a handful of Starliner-Atlas flights?
And of course ACES is sadly not happening any more.

[whitelancer64]

Even though this thread is six years old, a SpaceNews report now says that certifying the soon-to-be-launched Vulcan rocket for crewed launches is a long way off, meaning that currently planned Starliner launches are only being launched from the Atlas V.

This is partly why I think there's a better than even chance that Starliner might switch to New Glenn as an LV rather than Vulcan.

[Jim]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

[lrk]

And of course ACES is sadly not happening any more.

Many of the ACES changes (wide tanks, RL-10 upgrades, H2/O2 RCS, lower boiloff insulation, etc.) have been brought forward into Centaur V.  As I understand it, propellant transfer and unlimited duration via an internal combustion engine for power generation are the main components of ACES that are on hold, but these could potentially be done in the future if there was demand.

[lrk]

Can we assume this configuration would involve no SRBs?

It seems with what we know now about the payload of Vulcan and CST-100 mass that at least 2 SRBs will be needed.  I wonder if more than 2 would actually be required, if a sub-optimal trajectory is needed to avoid abort black zones like with Atlas. 

[Robotbeat]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.

[DanClemmensen]

Even though this thread is six years old, a SpaceNews report now says that certifying the soon-to-be-launched Vulcan rocket for crewed launches is a long way off, meaning that currently planned Starliner launches are only being launched from the Atlas V.

There are 7 remaining Starliner flights: CFT and Starliners 1 through 6, and there are exactly 7 of the remaining 23 Atlas V allocated for them. With CFT this year and one Starliner per year starting in 2023, Starliner 6 will fly in 2028. If Boeing wants to compete for the last few CCP flights or if they want to fly non-CCP flights, then will need to qualify on Vulcan. Otherwise not.  Boeing might decide to retire Starliner since it is designed with the expensive single-use SM. It competes against the somewhat cheaper Crew Dragon now and the potentially cheaper Dream Chaser and Starship by 2028.

[edzieba]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.

It would just mean the cost of human-rating Vulcan would be part of any new contract.
Either you pay the cost of human-rating Vulcan now for a prospective future contract (that may never appear), or you pay the cost of human rating Vulcan when that contract is won (and ideally have that cost paid for under that contract).

[Robotbeat]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.

It would just mean the cost of human-rating Vulcan would be part of any new contract.
Either you pay the cost of human-rating Vulcan now for a prospective future contract (that may never appear), or you pay the cost of human rating Vulcan when that contract is won (and ideally have that cost paid for under that contract).

So again, you’re reinforcing my point: Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.
Because not only will you have to include that in the bid, but there will also be the uncertainty of not yet having crew-rated it and the time lag of needing to first get it crew rated.

[yg1968]

Per Steve Stich (see below), the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) will have a certification mechanism and as part of that Starliner could be certified on Vulcan, if the CLD provider chooses that transportation system.

At 44-45 minutes of the video below (it's funny how the best questions are often at the end of a press conference), Steve Stich made an interesting comment about certification of commercial crew transportation systems for the purposes of Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD), he said that they are working with the CLD program on different models as to how to certify these vehicles for CLD purposes, he added that it is up to the CLD providers what transportation systems that they propose:

Yesterday's press conference:

[yg1968]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

On that issue, there was a commercial crew transportation services RFI (see the thread linked below) but it's not clear to me if that will go forward.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55039.msg2348652#msg2348652

[edzieba]

there is no need to rush manrating since there are 6 Atlas vehicles and that should last a couple of years without new contracts.  Different story if there are new contracts.

Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.

It would just mean the cost of human-rating Vulcan would be part of any new contract.
Either you pay the cost of human-rating Vulcan now for a prospective future contract (that may never appear), or you pay the cost of human rating Vulcan when that contract is won (and ideally have that cost paid for under that contract).

So again, you’re reinforcing my point: Seems like there’s less chance of more contracts if Vulcan isn’t already crew-rated.
Because not only will you have to include that in the bid, but there will also be the uncertainty of not yet having crew-rated it and the time lag of needing to first get it crew rated.

Neither launch vehicles launching crew vehicles at the moment were human-rated before the contracts were awarded. It's not an impediment unless there is such a glaring issue with the proposal that it would never be awarded a contract in the first place.

There's also the issue that 'human-rating' (for NASA astronauts, not applicable to private astronauts as they fly at their own risk) is not something a launch vehicle provider can do in isolation. It's a process where NASA review whole stack (launch vehicle and crew vehicle) systems and architecture as well as proposed CONOPS. That's part and parcel of a contract for launching NASA crew, but trying to do speculatively is likely not even an option.

[Vahe231991]

Even though this thread is six years old, a SpaceNews report now says that certifying the soon-to-be-launched Vulcan rocket for crewed launches is a long way off, meaning that currently planned Starliner launches are only being launched from the Atlas V.

There are 7 remaining Starliner flights: CFT and Starliners 1 through 6, and there are exactly 7 of the remaining 23 Atlas V allocated for them. With CFT this year and one Starliner per year starting in 2023, Starliner 6 will fly in 2028. If Boeing wants to compete for the last few CCP flights or if they want to fly non-CCP flights, then will need to qualify on Vulcan. Otherwise not.  Boeing might decide to retire Starliner since it is designed with the expensive single-use SM. It competes against the somewhat cheaper Crew Dragon now and the potentially cheaper Dream Chaser and Starship by 2028.

That's right. Also bear in mind that of the 16 remaining non-Starliner flights involving the Atlas V, nine will be launched as part of Project Kuiper, and the last military launch aboard the Atlas V will take place later this year. Time will tell if Boeing will terminate the Starliner program after Starliners 1 through 6 are flown.

[baldusi]

Between the contracted Dragon Crew-9 and Starliner Crew-6, they have enough flights to cover up to 2026 taking turns each. I'm assuming Starliner Crew-1 flies on November 2023. So, if Starliner would cover the November flights on 2027 and 2028, they would need to order an additional 2 Dragons. Or they could do a complete RFQ for two flights with preference for a dissimilar system... which would mean Dragon. So I'm estimating that Starliner will keep flying until ISS is retired on 2028, and unless it's clear that they will get an additional 3/4 flights, Boeing will probably not manrate Starliner/Vulcan.
Unless, they get a contract for the follow up LEO private stations and they get the best quote from Vulcan. This is important because Orbital Reef is assumed to use Starliner+DreamChaser, and they probably will want dissimilar LV, too. Since Cargo DreamChaser will already be integrated to Vulcan, it would not be ridiculous to expect Starliner to be launched by New Glenn. And if they can get that done by 2026, then they might bid those extra flights on Starliner/New Glenn. It could also happen that since Crewed DreamChaser and New Glenn are the two with highest schedule risk, Orbital Reef would contract Starliner on Vulcan for initial operations and leave Crewed DreamChaser on New Glenn. In that case, Boeing might have a chance of bidding on those extra flights.
Or it could probably happen that ISS is extended to 2030, the Axiom and Orbital Reef stations are delayed to 2031 and thus NASA does an RFQ and Starliner goes with Vulcan for lack of any available choice.
You have to remember that if Vulcan can get 15 flight by 2026, man rating will be easier and cheaper due to the flight history. At least for DoD/NASA NPD 8610.7D, they had 3, 6 and 14 successful flights certification paths for Category certificate on the Launch Vehicle. 

[TrevorMonty]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[greybeardengineer]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

[deadman1204]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

If they were following purely business reasons, falcon 9 wouldn't have been black balled from anything amazon/blue origin touches.

[greybeardengineer]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

If they were following purely business reasons, falcon 9 wouldn't have been black balled from anything amazon/blue origin touches.

It is one thing to spend more of your own money to accomplish something to thumb your nose at a competitor/personal rival. It is quite another to restrict the options/flexibility and force prospective clients to spend more of their own money because of your personal vendetta and expect them to do expensive long term business with you.

[TrevorMonty]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

If they were following purely business reasons, falcon 9 wouldn't have been black balled from anything amazon/blue origin touches.

Orbital reef will support Dragon, just not their preferred crew vehicle for obvious reasons.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[DanClemmensen]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

If they were following purely business reasons, falcon 9 wouldn't have been black balled from anything amazon/blue origin touches.

Orbital reef will support Dragon, just not their preferred crew vehicle for obvious reasons.

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

[baldusi]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.

I don't think that it is optional if you want to host NASA's business. Besides, you don't have the US Gvnt open wallet for a private space station. Having a stand down on your LV means no revenue. And that is a huge cost to a private company. If depending solely on Soyuz taught anything to the ISS, was that they shouldn't. And remember that ISS was also serviced by HTV/H2, ATV/Ariane 5, and later Dragon/F9 and Cygnus/Antares/Atlas V. If you only depend on a single LV, and you have a long stand down, you might lose a whole year of revenue, have to decrew and probably depower most systems. Very, very expensive.

[yg1968]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

It's not a requirement but NASA strongly encourages it per it's RFI:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2366179#msg2366179

[deadman1204]

Dissimilar LVs isn't critical for private stations, its nice have.


Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

If the business model for the private station is leasing or renting space to commercial clients then being spacecraft agnostic will be a crucial requirement. If you deny them the use of the most popular and cost effective means of moving cargo and people up and down to try to support a corporately linked favorite solution then it will be a very hard sell.

If they were following purely business reasons, falcon 9 wouldn't have been black balled from anything amazon/blue origin touches.

Orbital reef will support Dragon, just not their preferred crew vehicle for obvious reasons.

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

[DanClemmensen]

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

OK, I'll just go up on a one-week excursion on Starship and not bother with the station. 

[deadman1204]

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

OK, I'll just go up on a one-week excursion on Starship and not bother with the station. 

Something I've heard about starship that makes me wonder - can it dock with everything? Starship is gonna be huge. The stresses on the structure of what it docks with will be larger than that of a smaller craft. So for example, if starship weighs as much as the gateway - maybe it cannot dock. Because the docking system and its structural supports were not designed for something so massive.

[DanClemmensen]

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

OK, I'll just go up on a one-week excursion on Starship and not bother with the station. 

Something I've heard about starship that makes me wonder - can it dock with everything? Starship is gonna be huge. The stresses on the structure of what it docks with will be larger than that of a smaller craft. So for example, if starship weighs as much as the gateway - maybe it cannot dock. Because the docking system and its structural supports were not designed for something so massive.

If Starship cannot directly dock to a station (ISS, Gateway, or other), then a crew taxi craft can be used instead. The taxi can remain with the station. It has thrusters and can undock from the station, traverse 100 meters to the ship, and dock to the ship. In the case of a resupply mission, use a resupply capsule instead. the cargo starhip disgorges a cargo capsule capable of docking. The used cargo capsule undocks from the station. The fresh capsule docks to the station, and the Starship engorges the used one.

But for my tourist trip, why would I want to go to a dinky little station that cannot dock with Starship when I can stay in a nice big Starship?

[baldusi]

[...]
The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

Tourist LEO visits are charged per week. With private tourist stations we should expect a lot more private flights. Probably just a couple of permanent crew to work on the sold experiments and the rest tourists that will stay for a couple of weeks. Then some dedicated NASA bunks so they can train their corps in low-g. And a lot of demand from national agencies wanting to send their own astronauts for prestige.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Something I've heard about starship that makes me wonder - can it dock with everything? Starship is gonna be huge. The stresses on the structure of what it docks with will be larger than that of a smaller craft. So for example, if starship weighs as much as the gateway - maybe it cannot dock. Because the docking system and its structural supports were not designed for something so massive.

The Space Shuttle was about 125 t in LEO and successfully docked with Mir and ISS (with an initial mass of about 30 t). Starship has a similar dry mass (will be a bit heavier with landing propellant and payload), but I don't think there would be any problem docking to either ISS or a smaller space station.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_assembly_2a.html

[Vahe231991]

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

OK, I'll just go up on a one-week excursion on Starship and not bother with the station. 

Something I've heard about starship that makes me wonder - can it dock with everything? Starship is gonna be huge. The stresses on the structure of what it docks with will be larger than that of a smaller craft. So for example, if starship weighs as much as the gateway - maybe it cannot dock. Because the docking system and its structural supports were not designed for something so massive.

Boeing would be more than happy to end the Starliner program even if all operational manned Starliner flights are completed because each Starliner crewed flight will cost more than a Dragon 2 crewed flight, and the Dream Chaser is being earmarked for intended launches from the Vulcan.

[Eric Hedman]

The Axiom station and Orbital Reef will both be available at roughly the same time. As a space tourist, why should I fly on a more expensive spacecraft/LV (e.g., Starliner/Vulcan) instead of a less expensive one (Crew Dragon/F9) or an even less expensive Starship? If I am not allowed to use these alternatives to get to Orbital Reef, why would I go there instead of the Axion station?

Because there won't be enough space for everyone. Axiom will only fit a few people. So if you want to go, the options are wait lots of years on a list or pay much more for orbital reef.

OK, I'll just go up on a one-week excursion on Starship and not bother with the station. 

Something I've heard about starship that makes me wonder - can it dock with everything? Starship is gonna be huge. The stresses on the structure of what it docks with will be larger than that of a smaller craft. So for example, if starship weighs as much as the gateway - maybe it cannot dock. Because the docking system and its structural supports were not designed for something so massive.

Boeing would be more than happy to end the Starliner program even if all operational manned Starliner flights are completed because each Starliner crewed flight will cost more than a Dragon 2 crewed flight, and the Dream Chaser is being earmarked for intended launches from the Vulcan.

If Boeing can charge more than their costs on Starliner and get customers, it doesn't matter what Dragon 2 costs if demand is greater than what Dragon 2 can handle.  And that might be the case a few years down the road.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From the Starliner press conference a couple of weeks ago it's clear that:

1. Boeing are still actively pursuing launching Starliner on another LV post-Atlas
2. Discussions are taking place with multiple launch providers

For obvious reasons I assume Vulcan and F9 are the most likely options. But as it's likely to be at least a few years before a switch is needed, clearly other LVs like New Glenn are possible too. Also if Starship is successful in the next couple of years, not clear how long SpaceX will commit to F9, which may put Vulcan into prime position.

I still struggle with the business case for Boeing here. I don't think NASA will fund certification for a second LV, so Boeing are going to need a significant manifest to justify the investment. But I don't see where that manifest is going to come from, particularly as there isn't currently a LV deal they can sell!

It was mentioned that Boeing intends to certify Starliner for missions after PCM-6 (i.e., the Commercial LEO Destinations program). They said that they are working with NASA on this.

Nappi - we're talking with several launch providers for what to do after PCM-6 when Atlas V no longer available.

This question was at 40 minutes of the archived teleconference linked above.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1626623559517732870

[Robotbeat]

In Boeing’s defense, land recovery of a capsule should mean less refurb than sea recovery, plus I think it’s easier for Boeing to fit 5 or even 7 people in Starliner than it would be to refit Dragon to do a full 7 people. On the other side of this, Starliner needs a full new service module each flight whereas dragon recovers most of the service module type stuff. Starliner could probably extend the delta-v of its service module easier than Dragon could, ie for lunar flights.

Which is to say that in principle, Starliner is very competitive to Dragon for LEO space station crew transfer and even for cislunar crew (as, like Dragon, it uses an ablative heatshield that could, in a straightforward way, be upgraded for lunar).

I also think that even with Starship, SpaceX will not be giving flights away for free (I think people would be surprised at how much they’re hoping to charge for 12 crew LEO flights of Starship). If Boeing did a super good job of executing on Starliner from here on out, they have a decent chance of getting flights to LEO space stations and possibly a deep space (ie to Gateway) follow on of commercial crew to replace Orion.

I think Starliner can DEFINITELY be competitive with Orion.

So Starliner is potentially pretty competitive, if they execute right (which isn’t at all a guarantee, given Starliner’s history, but it’s also not impossible. It’s up to Boeing.). At least until someone makes something else to compete with Starship, which is probably at least a decade away.

[Robotbeat]

7 seats on Starliner, even if it uses F9, could be cheaper per seat than Dragon. And possibly even the price per seat SpaceX hopes to charge for 12 crew Starship LEO flights.

Note that Firefly Beta is close to the Atlas V N22’s performance (as would be the new version of Antares that is based on Beta… except for Antares’ solid upper stage which is a poor fit for a crewed launcher). Neutron is equivalent or higher. Terran-R is much higher. New Glenn is much, much higher. Vulcan could do it easily and Vulcan Heavy (which is the name of the tricore variant) should be able to push Starliner through TLI (I guesstimate Vulcan Heavy’s TLI performance at roughly 18 tonnes, since it’s GTO performance is 50,000 pounds).

[TrevorMonty]

A few years ago I listen to podcast interview with Starliner lead engineer. The question of using Starliner as Orion replacement came up.  Starliner was designed solely for LEO, modification for BLEO isn't possible.

 The changes required mean may as well start from  scratch. For start need to switch from pusher to puller LAS as extra mass in capsule would be considerable. Also allows for larger service module which isn't mass restricted.

[Robotbeat]

A few years ago I listen to podcast interview with Starliner lead engineer. The question of using Starliner as Orion replacement came up.  Starliner was designed solely for LEO, modification for BLEO isn't possible.

 …

That’s not what Boeing has been saying recently, and frankly I don’t trust the guy to have been given permission by Boeing to point out the fact that Starliner/Vulcan actually yes COULD do the job of Orion/SLS, as that would’ve put the much larger SLS/EUS contracts at risk. BLEO Starliner was only something Boeing very recently as started hinting about.

(And switch to different abort mode not required if you increase the abort engine thrust… plus other options like using an auxiliary service module that is co-launched on the Vulcan Heavy that the Starliner turns around and docks to after reaching TLI, ala Apollo CM and LM.)

[Robotbeat]

Here’s a paper by some Boeing people that discuss some of the changes needed to make a BLEO Starliner/CST-100.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364055298_Mars_2033_Human_Flyby_Mission

Case 2 is the main scenario using CST-100 (without a separate capsule). They mention that the heatshield is about 600kg for LEO but could be doubled to allow Orion-like performance (and possibly even higher performance, allowing them to delete the DSB Stage burn immediately before Earth Reentry). They mention CST-100 in several of the other scenarios, so they certainly *don’t* think a BLEO variant of CST-100 isn’t possible.

[Robotbeat]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.

[TrevorMonty]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.

That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.

[DanClemmensen]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.

[Robotbeat]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.

No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)

[DanClemmensen]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.

No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)

I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
and here is the current version:
    https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf

As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".

[Robotbeat]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.

No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)

I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
and here is the current version:
    https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf

As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".

Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!

[ZachS09]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

A minor note on nomenclature: The largest Vulcan is called "Vulcan upgrade", not "Vulcan Heavy". From Wikipedia: "The most powerful Vulcan Centaur will have a Vulcan first stage, a Centaur upper stage with RL10CX engines with a nozzle extension and six SRBs."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur
The configuration was formerly called "Vulcan Heavy", but the name was changed, presumably to reserve the name "Vulcan Heavy" for a 3-core version that was being investigated.

No, I’m using Vulcan heavy intentionally as I’m referring to the tricore version. (And “Vulcan Heavy” ALWAYS referred to the tricore version.)

I became interested in the awhile back, which is why I knew the nomenclature had changed. Here is a version of the ULA data sheet from 2020:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20200605032023/https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf
and here is the current version:
    https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/rockets/vulcancentaur.pdf

As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".

Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!

Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?

[tgr9898]

As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".

Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!

Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?

One pin by itself or three pins clustered together?

[ZachS09]

As you can see, ULA really did refer to the most capable single-stick V6 as "Vulcan Heavy".

Nope! They referred to it as “Vulcan Centaur Heavy.” And your links confirm it. You’re falsely using “Vulcan heavy” in quotes! That exact phrase is NOT mentioned (except in reference to the tricore variant)!

Can we put a “heavy” pin in this argument before it gets out of hand?

One pin by itself or three pins clustered together?

Three.

[Vahe231991]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.

That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.

With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.

[Asteroza]

It might help justify crew rating Vulcan if they can use Vulcan Heavy to do lunar missions with an up rated BLEO Starliner. So I can see them developing that at the same time.

Right now (or after Starliner has its first crewed mission and after Starship has a successful orbital flight) would be a good time for NASA to start getting industry input for a commercial crew service to Gateway/cislunar. Maybe an RFP.

That would make SLS redundant. Something ULA may well do in future with new owners whoever they are.

With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.

With the CIS Lunar Transporter in the mix now, Vulcan can just deliver Starliner to that for transport to the moon rather than doing a Starliner TLI delivery.

[Jim]

With Blue Origin having recently won a contract from NASA to become the second company to provide lunar landing services for the Artemis program, any talk of proposing to use the Vulcan Heavy to conduct lunar missions involving an uprated Starliner will be definitely out of the question if Blue Origin decides to develop a larger version of the New Glenn to carry a cargo spacecraft to haul supplies to the Gateway Lunar Station.

Unsubstantiated

[JEF_300]

Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.

An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.

[whitelancer64]

Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.

An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.

New Glenn certainly has the payload capacity, and it is likely to be cheaper than Vulcan.

Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.

[JEF_300]

Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.

Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.

[Jim]

Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.

Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.

can't say that

[TrevorMonty]

ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.

[DanClemmensen]

Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.

Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.

This thread is supposed to be about Starliner on Vulcan, not about new Glenn. It should be easier to certify Starliner on Vulcan, because the Vulcan Centaur architecture is effectively identical to Atlas V: SRBs, two stage to orbit, no faring covering Starliner. furthermore, Vulcan Centaur is supposed to fly in a month or so, so the certification process will start sooner.

Vulcan may also be used for crewed Dreamchaser, so certification costs might be shared. Based on something posted (by Jim?) some time ago about Starliner on Atlas V, the LV portion of crew certification is all about the signalling from the LV to the crewed spacecraft. Presumably the same interface will be used for Vulcan.

[whitelancer64]

ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.

Yes, Vulcan was designed with human rating in mind, per a tweet by Tory Bruno in 2019.

It doesn't have a retractable access arm, but crew access pathways have been built into Blue Origin's big launch tower at LC-36

[JEF_300]

Both Vulcan and New Glenn have been designed with human rating in mind, and both could be certified as such by NASA with probably a very similar level of difficulty / cost.

Still, New Glenn should be 'cheaper' to crew-certify, because Bezos will probably pay for it, rather than Boeing or ULA having too.

can't say that

Well seeing as I did say that...
Unless of course you mean that I can't be sure of that, which is obviously true, and the reason the word 'probably' was in the sentence.

[Asteroza]

ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.

Yes, Vulcan was designed with human rating in mind, per a tweet by Tory Bruno in 2019.

It doesn't have a retractable access arm, but crew access pathways have been built into Blue Origin's big launch tower at LC-36

Roughly when would we need to see work start on a crew access arm at the SLC-41 crew access tower if they were preparing for crew certification of Starliner for Vulcan?

Plus with Dreamchaser coming along in a similar timeframe, how will the arm work out to handle two different vehicles? Swappable tip rooms?

[Vahe231991]

ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.

Yes, Vulcan was designed with human rating in mind, per a tweet by Tory Bruno in 2019.

It doesn't have a retractable access arm, but crew access pathways have been built into Blue Origin's big launch tower at LC-36

Roughly when would we need to see work start on a crew access arm at the SLC-41 crew access tower if they were preparing for crew certification of Starliner for Vulcan?

Plus with Dreamchaser coming along in a similar timeframe, how will the arm work out to handle two different vehicles? Swappable tip rooms?

NASA can decide whether the Starliner's chequered development history will preclude it from awarding a contract to Boeing for Starliner flights aboard the Vulcan.

[DanClemmensen]

ULA has already certified Atlas for Starliner doing same for Vulcan shouldn't be hard. Be surprised if they didn't allow for it in the design. ULA also has crew access tower on the pad.

Yes, Vulcan was designed with human rating in mind, per a tweet by Tory Bruno in 2019.

It doesn't have a retractable access arm, but crew access pathways have been built into Blue Origin's big launch tower at LC-36

Roughly when would we need to see work start on a crew access arm at the SLC-41 crew access tower if they were preparing for crew certification of Starliner for Vulcan?

Plus with Dreamchaser coming along in a similar timeframe, how will the arm work out to handle two different vehicles? Swappable tip rooms?

NASA can decide whether the Starliner's chequered development history will preclude it from awarding a contract to Boeing for Starliner flights aboard the Vulcan.

NASA has contracted for six Starliner CCP missions after the CFT. That would be one per year in the years 2024-2029, which together with the already-contracted Crew Dragon CCP missions should more or less last until ISS is decommissioned. ULA has allocated seven of the remaining Atlas V LVs for Starliner. There is no indication that NASA will need any other Starliner missions. I think Boeing needs another customer to justify Starliner on Vulcan.

There are only two Starliner capsules and there is no indication that Boeing intends to build more. Refurbishment time is said to be six months. To a rough approximation, this means each CCP mission fully occupies a capsule for a year, so Boeing will not be able to sell many non-CCP missions.

[Asteroza]

There's certainly the implication here that Starliner won't be popular for commercial use until it completes it's ISS obligations out to 2029. But Dreamchaser is up before 2029 (early 2024), so Vulcan crew access tower will probably need a Dreamchaser crew access arm at least before 2024 if there is an on-pad late load need that can't be handled before pad rollout. So perhaps this year may see early crew arm work, which is a foundational component to Starliner human spaceflight certification on Vulcan.

Assuming they pencil in the spots for Starliner specific crew arm components when building it for Dreamchaser, the next item is whether SNC will shoulder most or all of the human certification work for Vulcan, in light of the timing of when a potential Dreamchaser and Starliner certification process begins. If Boeing is greedy, they will camp out until 2029 and dump the work on SNC to pay.