Quote from: JGSAeroSpaceN on 10/02/2024 02:20 pmThe point is that there is nothing in the short to medium term that indicates that SpaceX could become a threat or cause a problem for the Commercial Crew Program. Currently, many former NASA employees work at SpaceX, and this can represent a safety net for the Agency itself. In any case, I might be talking nonsense, but I believe I'm right in thinking that the Starliner is no longer necessary for redundancy.The majority of SpaceX's shares are controlled by a single individual who is also the company's chief technology officer and chief visionary. This represents a single point of failure. This is an objective fact and is independent of whether you love him, hate him, or are somewhere in between. Like any other single point of failure in your supply chain, you should evaluate backup strategies.No, Starliner is not a viable backup strategy for CCP. NASA is stuck with Crew Dragon on F9 for the foreseeable future.
The point is that there is nothing in the short to medium term that indicates that SpaceX could become a threat or cause a problem for the Commercial Crew Program. Currently, many former NASA employees work at SpaceX, and this can represent a safety net for the Agency itself. In any case, I might be talking nonsense, but I believe I'm right in thinking that the Starliner is no longer necessary for redundancy.
From the Bergers's article on Axiom financial issues referencing Forbes story:Quote from: Eric BergerThe publication reveals that Axiom is due to pay $670 million to SpaceX for four Crew Dragon missions, each of which includes a launch and ride for four astronauts to and from the station encompassing a one- to two-week period. This equates to $167.5 million per launch, or $41.9 million per seat.
The publication reveals that Axiom is due to pay $670 million to SpaceX for four Crew Dragon missions, each of which includes a launch and ride for four astronauts to and from the station encompassing a one- to two-week period. This equates to $167.5 million per launch, or $41.9 million per seat.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 10/02/2024 03:16 pmQuote from: JGSAeroSpaceN on 10/02/2024 02:20 pmThe point is that there is nothing in the short to medium term that indicates that SpaceX could become a threat or cause a problem for the Commercial Crew Program. Currently, many former NASA employees work at SpaceX, and this can represent a safety net for the Agency itself. In any case, I might be talking nonsense, but I believe I'm right in thinking that the Starliner is no longer necessary for redundancy.The majority of SpaceX's shares are controlled by a single individual who is also the company's chief technology officer and chief visionary. This represents a single point of failure. This is an objective fact and is independent of whether you love him, hate him, or are somewhere in between. Like any other single point of failure in your supply chain, you should evaluate backup strategies.No, Starliner is not a viable backup strategy for CCP. NASA is stuck with Crew Dragon on F9 for the foreseeable future. Elon might be a single point of failure for realizing future plans, but F9/Dragon does not need Elon anymore.
I fervently hope that you are correct, but do you know what is going to happen to SpaceX if Elon is suddenly struck by a meteor? I don't, and NASA may not be privy to that information either. Some person or legal entity will suddenly inherit control of SpaceX.
Quote from: ugordan on 10/01/2024 10:12 amQuote from: JGSAeroSpaceN on 09/30/2024 06:29 pmI think we're past the point of having two providers because of redundancy. SpaceX has a fleet of spacecraft, rockets and now operates manned flights from two platforms. The redundancy in this case is SpaceX providing to NASA/Boeing. 3 separate F9 anomalies just this year could be a counterpoint to your argument.Ironically, the continued effort to certify Starliner in the name of dissimilar redundancy has been far more disruptive than the three F9 anomalies. NASA should have terminated Starliner no later than 2022.Dissimilar redundancy has proven spectacularly successful at the program level. If NASA had funded only one CCP vendor, it almost certainly would have been Boeing. But after Crew Dragon flew its fourth operational mission, the cost for continuing Starliner was too high and the benefit was too low.
Quote from: JGSAeroSpaceN on 09/30/2024 06:29 pmI think we're past the point of having two providers because of redundancy. SpaceX has a fleet of spacecraft, rockets and now operates manned flights from two platforms. The redundancy in this case is SpaceX providing to NASA/Boeing. 3 separate F9 anomalies just this year could be a counterpoint to your argument.
I think we're past the point of having two providers because of redundancy. SpaceX has a fleet of spacecraft, rockets and now operates manned flights from two platforms. The redundancy in this case is SpaceX providing to NASA/Boeing.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/02/2024 05:16 pmQuote from: sstli2 on 10/02/2024 01:20 pmRedundancy covers multiple fronts. You are all focusing on technological, operational, and geographical redundancy. There's also organizational redundancy. Entity risk. Roscosmos was a reliable, dependable partner to NASA until non-technological considerations changed that. Private companies are no different; they may make decisions inconsistent with NASA's goals for human spaceflight.There's no end to this. What if NASA itself turns evil? Shall we have two space agencies? What if the president decides to play into the hands of the Ruskies?You can't eliminate risk, but you can certainly guarantee failure by trying too hard to eliminate it.I'm going to ignore the irrelevant hyperbolic rhetoricals.You cannot eliminate risk. You can eliminate your concentration of risk.See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/diversification.asp
Quote from: sstli2 on 10/02/2024 01:20 pmRedundancy covers multiple fronts. You are all focusing on technological, operational, and geographical redundancy. There's also organizational redundancy. Entity risk. Roscosmos was a reliable, dependable partner to NASA until non-technological considerations changed that. Private companies are no different; they may make decisions inconsistent with NASA's goals for human spaceflight.There's no end to this. What if NASA itself turns evil? Shall we have two space agencies? What if the president decides to play into the hands of the Ruskies?You can't eliminate risk, but you can certainly guarantee failure by trying too hard to eliminate it.
Redundancy covers multiple fronts. You are all focusing on technological, operational, and geographical redundancy. There's also organizational redundancy. Entity risk. Roscosmos was a reliable, dependable partner to NASA until non-technological considerations changed that. Private companies are no different; they may make decisions inconsistent with NASA's goals for human spaceflight.
NASA Updates 2025 Commercial Crew PlanNASA and its industry partners Boeing and SpaceX continue planning next year’s missions to the International Space Station for the agency’s Commercial Crew Program. While significant work remains to prepare for these flights, the agency expects a busy year of in-orbit activities and is planning windows of opportunity for mission teams to target, pending operational readiness and station traffic.Crew-10NASA’s SpaceX Crew-10 mission is targeting no earlier than February 2025. The mission will carry NASA astronauts Anne McClain, commander, and Nichole Ayers, pilot, along with mission specialists JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) astronaut Takuya Onishi and Roscosmos cosmonaut Kirill Peskov to the space station to conduct scientific investigations and technology demonstrations. This mission will be the second spaceflight for McClain and Onishi, and the first for Ayers and Peskov.Crew-9, which arrived at the space station on Sept. 29, carrying NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Roscosmos cosmonaut Aleksandr Grubonov, will return to Earth with NASA astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore accompanying Hague and Gorbunov, following a short handover with Crew-10.Crew-11NASA’s SpaceX Crew-11 will be the second crew rotation flight of 2025 and is targeted for no earlier than July to benefit the space station needs, including accommodating resupply flights and other operations aboard the orbiting laboratory. NASA will announce the four-person crew at a later date.Next Starliner FlightThe timing and configuration of Starliner’s next flight will be determined once a better understanding of Boeing’s path to system certification is established. This determination will include considerations for incorporating Crew Flight Test lessons learned, approvals of final certification products, and operational readiness.Meanwhile, NASA is keeping options on the table for how best to achieve system certification, including windows of opportunity for a potential Starliner flight in 2025.NASA will provide more information when available.For more on NASA’s Commercial Crew Program missions to the orbiting laboratory follow the commercial crew blog and the program’s social media accounts via @commercial_crew on X and commercial crew on Facebook.Author Elyna Niles-CarnesPosted on October 15, 2024Categories Commercial Crew, Commercial Crew Program, International Space Station, Kennedy Space Center, NASA, NASA AstronautsTags anne McClain, Boeing Starliner, NASA's SpaceX Crew-10, NASA's SpaceX Crew-11, NASA's SpaceX Crew-9, Nichole Ayers
Quote from: page 6 of the presentation posted aboveAcquisition Strategy UpdatesThe following updates to the strategy are being implemented to address NASA identified concerns:❖ Initially, NASA will provide transportation for all missions associated with NASA services (Crew and Cargo) - NASA will provide transportation for an initial set of missions, by contracting directly with transportation providers, and transition to CLD end-to-end service (including transportation) overtime (TBD)❖ CLD providers may propose an evolutionary approach with the following additional assumptions: - Minimum Initial Operating Capability (Min IOC) required by December 2029 (Details of Min IOC still in work) - Short-term presence including crew tended of 2 NASA crew for 1-3 months would be acceptable. - Full capability required by December 2031 • Includes 2 NASA crew continuously in LEO for 6 month missions • Additional shorter or longer missions may also be of NASA interest❖ CLD providers will develop, own and operate their destinations, with NASA support as requested through RSAAs or GTAs. NASA looking to offer more support/services than previously planned: - Open action to finalize list of services/equipment to be offered - Includes potentially offering versus requiring (TBC) NASA provided Exploration subsystemshttps://sam.gov/opp/453bdeb3cd1e4c6f9da74d62f33070ea/view
Acquisition Strategy UpdatesThe following updates to the strategy are being implemented to address NASA identified concerns:❖ Initially, NASA will provide transportation for all missions associated with NASA services (Crew and Cargo) - NASA will provide transportation for an initial set of missions, by contracting directly with transportation providers, and transition to CLD end-to-end service (including transportation) overtime (TBD)❖ CLD providers may propose an evolutionary approach with the following additional assumptions: - Minimum Initial Operating Capability (Min IOC) required by December 2029 (Details of Min IOC still in work) - Short-term presence including crew tended of 2 NASA crew for 1-3 months would be acceptable. - Full capability required by December 2031 • Includes 2 NASA crew continuously in LEO for 6 month missions • Additional shorter or longer missions may also be of NASA interest❖ CLD providers will develop, own and operate their destinations, with NASA support as requested through RSAAs or GTAs. NASA looking to offer more support/services than previously planned: - Open action to finalize list of services/equipment to be offered - Includes potentially offering versus requiring (TBC) NASA provided Exploration subsystems
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2024/10/15/nasa-updates-2025-commercial-crew-plan/QuoteNASA Updates 2025 Commercial Crew Plan[...] SpaceX Crew-10 mission is targeting no earlier than February 2025. [...] SpaceX Crew-11 will be the second crew rotation flight of 2025 and is targeted for no earlier than July [...] The timing and configuration of Starliner’s next flight will be determined once a better understanding of Boeing’s path to system certification is established. This determination will include considerations for incorporating Crew Flight Test lessons learned, approvals of final certification products, and operational readiness.Meanwhile, NASA is keeping options on the table for how best to achieve system certification, including windows of opportunity for a potential Starliner flight in 2025.
NASA Updates 2025 Commercial Crew Plan[...] SpaceX Crew-10 mission is targeting no earlier than February 2025. [...] SpaceX Crew-11 will be the second crew rotation flight of 2025 and is targeted for no earlier than July [...] The timing and configuration of Starliner’s next flight will be determined once a better understanding of Boeing’s path to system certification is established. This determination will include considerations for incorporating Crew Flight Test lessons learned, approvals of final certification products, and operational readiness.Meanwhile, NASA is keeping options on the table for how best to achieve system certification, including windows of opportunity for a potential Starliner flight in 2025.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/15/2024 06:33 pmhttps://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2024/10/15/nasa-updates-2025-commercial-crew-plan/QuoteNASA Updates 2025 Commercial Crew Plan[...] SpaceX Crew-10 mission is targeting no earlier than February 2025. [...] SpaceX Crew-11 will be the second crew rotation flight of 2025 and is targeted for no earlier than July [...] The timing and configuration of Starliner’s next flight will be determined once a better understanding of Boeing’s path to system certification is established. This determination will include considerations for incorporating Crew Flight Test lessons learned, approvals of final certification products, and operational readiness.Meanwhile, NASA is keeping options on the table for how best to achieve system certification, including windows of opportunity for a potential Starliner flight in 2025.I'm having trouble interpreting the buzz-speak about Starliner. There will be two crew rotation missions in 2025, both using Dragon. So ipso facto there will be now crew rotation flight on Starliner in 2025. So are the opportunities mentioned for Starliner in 2025 a repeat CFT or a cargo mission? Would it be the Commercial Crew Program that sponsored those?
According to Eric Berger, there was also some discussions of having an uncrewed cargo Starliner mission in 2025. https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/nearly-two-months-after-starliners-return-boeing-remains-mum-on-its-future/
NASA's Steve Stich discusses Starliner status a bit in the Crew 9 post-landing briefing.Quote from: sdsds on 03/18/2025 11:04 pmOn the phone Marcia Dunn (AP) asks several questions, including about decision on vehicle for crew 12. Stich: Looking at options for flying Starliner uncrewed. "We have a little time to make that decision."Next question also re: Starliner.Boeing all the way up to new CEO Kelly are committed to Starliner. They realize they have an important vehicle. Changes needed for thrusters.Bloomberg reporter: who would pay for an uncrewed Starliner; would it then require another CFT?Stich: we need another crew capable vehicle. Trying to do it under what we call the post-certification phase of the contract.Stich on Boeing: we need one flight before a regular crew rotation flight.
On the phone Marcia Dunn (AP) asks several questions, including about decision on vehicle for crew 12. Stich: Looking at options for flying Starliner uncrewed. "We have a little time to make that decision."Next question also re: Starliner.Boeing all the way up to new CEO Kelly are committed to Starliner. They realize they have an important vehicle. Changes needed for thrusters.Bloomberg reporter: who would pay for an uncrewed Starliner; would it then require another CFT?Stich: we need another crew capable vehicle. Trying to do it under what we call the post-certification phase of the contract.Stich on Boeing: we need one flight before a regular crew rotation flight.
It seems highly likely that the crew rotation mission after Crew-11 will be Crew-12. (As Starliner needs one more mission before a crew rotation flight and that mission was recently announced to be NET late 2025.) IIRC SpaceX is only contracted up to Crew-14. So if, as NASA intends, Dragon and Starliner crew rotation missions alternate from next year, Crew-14 would be around Q1 2028.So to get to current ISS retirement date of 2030 requires Boeing to fly 4 consecutive crew missions. I also suspect without Dragon redundancy in that period, as Elon seems keen to terminate Dragon and focus exclusively on Starship (the likely motive for him saying ISS should end in 2027).NASA could buy a couple more Dragon missions, but not sure if SpaceX (Elon) will be willing to sell? Although having invested in a 5th crew Dragon capsule, SpaceX gets a better ROI with more flights. (I know, sunk cost fallacy.)It’s going to be interesting to see how the end of the commercial crew program pans out.P.S. Even more interesting if Boeing gives up on Starliner.
Quote from: sdsds on 03/19/2025 12:22 amNASA's Steve Stich discusses Starliner status a bit in the Crew 9 post-landing briefing.Quote from: sdsds on 03/18/2025 11:04 pmBloomberg reporter: who would pay for an uncrewed Starliner; would it then require another CFT?Stich: we need another crew capable vehicle. Trying to do it under what we call the post-certification phase of the contract.Stich on Boeing: we need one flight before a regular crew rotation flight.youtu.be/XJVKM90SdKs
NASA's Steve Stich discusses Starliner status a bit in the Crew 9 post-landing briefing.Quote from: sdsds on 03/18/2025 11:04 pmBloomberg reporter: who would pay for an uncrewed Starliner; would it then require another CFT?Stich: we need another crew capable vehicle. Trying to do it under what we call the post-certification phase of the contract.Stich on Boeing: we need one flight before a regular crew rotation flight.youtu.be/XJVKM90SdKs
Bloomberg reporter: who would pay for an uncrewed Starliner; would it then require another CFT?Stich: we need another crew capable vehicle. Trying to do it under what we call the post-certification phase of the contract.Stich on Boeing: we need one flight before a regular crew rotation flight.
Dissimilar redundancy isn’t just a side effect. It’s the reason that two providers were picked. It’s worth a lot to NASA.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2025 09:21 pmDissimilar redundancy [is] worth a lot to NASA.[...] NASA has never had dissimilar redundancy in the entire 63-year history of NASA crewed spaceflight
Dissimilar redundancy [is] worth a lot to NASA.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/20/2025 09:43 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/20/2025 09:21 pmDissimilar redundancy [is] worth a lot to NASA.[...] NASA has never had dissimilar redundancy in the entire 63-year history of NASA crewed spaceflightBoth of these can be true at the same time.The ISS program believed STS and Soyuz were providing dissimilar redundancy. Until they weren't. That was a major embarrassment; one they wouldn't want to repeat. If they felt burned by an external dependency on Russia for one leg of redundancy, maybe that motivates a desire to avoid an external dependency on their (currently sole) commercial provider.
