Author Topic: Starliner longevity  (Read 6374 times)

Offline r8ix

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 235
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #20 on: 07/05/2022 10:47 pm »
Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.
Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

A 5th seat, for one thing.

Both vessels claim 7 seats on their respective web pages, but neither is currently scheduled to carry more than 4, as near as I can tell.

ISS reboost is another.

This is a definite value-add for NASA, though it a) hasn't been demonstrated yet, and b) Elon (*grain of salt) kind of offered to add that capability since the late unpleasantness in Ukraine. It is not, however, of any value to private non-ISS potential customers.

For some purchasers, "It's not SpaceX" is a sufficient added-value statement.
That might be for policy reasons (e.g. NASA wants a second source) or for more personal motivation.

That is a definite possibility, and very difficult to put a number on.

So we've got some possible value here, and the question then becomes: "Is it enough".

I don't know the answer to that.

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2294
  • Liked: 1481
  • Likes Given: 513
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #21 on: 07/05/2022 10:56 pm »
ISS reboost is another.
But NASA has finished buying all the Commercial Crew missions through the end of the ISS program in 2030. If Boeing is going to win any new business for Starliner, it has to be for Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) in the 2030s, or perhaps free-flyer missions until those stations are deployed.

Boeing's value proposition for Starliner might ultimately be their willingness to continue operating Starliner for as long as the CLD stations are operating, while SpaceX tells CLD providers that their stations will have to accommodate a transition from Crew Dragon to Starship at some point in the 2030s.

One thing that Starship has in common with Shuttle is that LEO station crew rotation is not among its most practical use-cases. It doesn't have enough orbital endurance to double as a lifeboat for a long-duration crew. Shuttle couldn't do any ISS crew rotation without a complementary Soyuz manifest, and Starship creates a similar market niche for a much more basic reentry vehicle with storable liquid propulsion. If SpaceX feels they have better things to do beyond earth orbit in the 2030s, Starliner could fill that niche.

Starliner could be the 2020s crew capsule supporting 2020s vintage space stations in the 2040s. It depends on Dragon's longevity, really.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #22 on: 07/05/2022 11:07 pm »
Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.
Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

A 5th seat, for one thing.

Both vessels claim 7 seats on their respective web pages, but neither is currently scheduled to carry more than 4, as near as I can tell.

ISS reboost is another.

This is a definite value-add for NASA, though it a) hasn't been demonstrated yet, and b) Elon (*grain of salt) kind of offered to add that capability since the late unpleasantness in Ukraine. It is not, however, of any value to private non-ISS potential customers.

For some purchasers, "It's not SpaceX" is a sufficient added-value statement.
That might be for policy reasons (e.g. NASA wants a second source) or for more personal motivation.

That is a definite possibility, and very difficult to put a number on.

So we've got some possible value here, and the question then becomes: "Is it enough".

I don't know the answer to that.

Both were designed for 7 seats. The Dragon interior had to be reworked to use 4 seats with a variable recline angle, in order to reduce g force impact loads on the crew during splashdown. Dragon is no longer capable of holding more than 4 seats without a major interior redeisgn.

The seats on Starliner are fixed in place. Starliner swapped out two seats for cargo / freezer space. The 5th seat is optional, but there is still space for it in the cabin layout, and has offered that 5th seat as an option to NASA or it could be used as an ISS tourist seat.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • California
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #23 on: 07/06/2022 12:23 am »
ISS reboost is another.
But NASA has finished buying all the Commercial Crew missions through the end of the ISS program in 2030. If Boeing is going to win any new business for Starliner, it has to be for Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) in the 2030s, or perhaps free-flyer missions until those stations are deployed.

Boeing's value proposition for Starliner might ultimately be their willingness to continue operating Starliner for as long as the CLD stations are operating, while SpaceX tells CLD providers that their stations will have to accommodate a transition from Crew Dragon to Starship at some point in the 2030s.

One thing that Starship has in common with Shuttle is that LEO station crew rotation is not among its most practical use-cases. It doesn't have enough orbital endurance to double as a lifeboat for a long-duration crew. Shuttle couldn't do any ISS crew rotation without a complementary Soyuz manifest, and Starship creates a similar market niche for a much more basic reentry vehicle with storable liquid propulsion. If SpaceX feels they have better things to do beyond earth orbit in the 2030s, Starliner could fill that niche.

Starliner could be the 2020s crew capsule supporting 2020s vintage space stations in the 2040s. It depends on Dragon's longevity, really.
It should be straightforward for a cargo Starship to deliver unoccupied "crew taxis" to a CLD and bring them back to earth for servicing. A "crew taxi is just a simplified Crew Dragon, and in normal use it will not EDL by itself. When a crewed Starship arrives at the CLD, the taxi shuttles crew back and forth between the Starship and the CLD. The taxi can serve as a lifeboat and EDL in an emergency. Much cheaper: the taxi has enough endurance to keep the crew alive for (say) two weeks, and a crewed Starship is on standby to fetch the crew.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1897
  • Liked: 2361
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2022 01:14 am »
So who does the “anyone but SpaceX” motivation apply to in the context of crewed space flight?

NASA requiring redundancy? Well, after 2030 NASA no longer requires LEO crew transport at all, given ISS wil no longer exist. So not them.

Private space tourists? I don’t think random millionaires wanting to go to a space hotel give two hoots about propping up a competitive space industry by paying tens of millions extra to fly on Starliner instead of Crew Dragon. They just want to get to the space hotel. So not them either.

So who does that leave, in the context of LEO crew transport?
« Last Edit: 07/06/2022 01:16 am by M.E.T. »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 537
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #25 on: 07/06/2022 01:51 am »
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?

Offline [email protected]

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #26 on: 07/06/2022 02:35 am »
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?
It's not cost less, and it's because Starliner has a lot more expendable parts than Dragon
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Offline Exastro

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • USA
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #27 on: 07/06/2022 03:08 am »

It should be straightforward for a cargo Starship to deliver unoccupied "crew taxis" to a CLD and bring them back to earth for servicing. A "crew taxi is just a simplified Crew Dragon, and in normal use it will not EDL by itself. When a crewed Starship arrives at the CLD, the taxi shuttles crew back and forth between the Starship and the CLD. The taxi can serve as a lifeboat and EDL in an emergency. Much cheaper: the taxi has enough endurance to keep the crew alive for (say) two weeks, and a crewed Starship is on standby to fetch the crew.


How about a Starliner derivative with increased dV and ECLSS, used to shuttle between co-orbital stations (e.g., space hotel, microgravity manufacturing site, and propellant depot)?  If each of these has an emergency shelter then the shuttles wouldn't have to have EDL capability, which would allow their OML to be optimized for lower mass/volume.  Basing the vehicle on Starliner might be more cost-effective than starting from scratch.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • California
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #28 on: 07/06/2022 03:09 am »
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?
What does this even mean? They are not comparable. You need to compare Starliner-on-Atlas V with Crew Dragon-on-F9.
F9 is a partly reusable launch vehicle. It's less expensive than Atlas or Vulcan, which are expendable.
Starliner Crew Dragon is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft. It is less expensive than Starliner because Starliner expends its expensive service module.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2022 04:04 am by DanClemmensen »

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #29 on: 07/06/2022 03:54 am »
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?
What does this even mean? They are not comparable. You need to compare Starliner-on-Atlas V with Crew Dragon-on-F9.
F9 is a partly reusable launch vehicle. It's less expensive than Atlas or Vulcan, which are expendable.
Starliner is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft. It is less expensive than Starliner because Starliner expends its expensive service module.
Since it's already mentioned in this thread that the Crew Dragon is less expensive to operate due it to being partially reusable, you mistakenly stated "Starliner is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft" instead of "Crew Dragon is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft".

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • California
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #30 on: 07/06/2022 04:03 am »
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?
What does this even mean? They are not comparable. You need to compare Starliner-on-Atlas V with Crew Dragon-on-F9.
F9 is a partly reusable launch vehicle. It's less expensive than Atlas or Vulcan, which are expendable.
Starliner Crew Dragon is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft. It is less expensive than Starliner because Starliner expends its expensive service module.
Since it's already mentioned in this thread that the Crew Dragon is less expensive to operate due it to being partially reusable, you mistakenly stated "Starliner is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft" instead of "Crew Dragon is a partially reusable crewed spacecraft".
You are right, I did not say what is meant to say. Corrected.
Both Starliner and Crew Dragon are partially reusable crewed spacecraft.

Offline Timber Micka

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #31 on: 07/06/2022 11:30 pm »
NASA requiring redundancy? Well, after 2030 NASA no longer requires LEO crew transport at all, given ISS wil no longer exist. So not them.

Sorry but that statement is wrong. NASA will continue to send crews to LEO after 2030 under the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program. (to Blue Origin's Orbital Reef, NanoRack's Starlab Space Station and the Axiom Station)

Offline M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1897
  • Liked: 2361
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #32 on: 07/06/2022 11:41 pm »
NASA requiring redundancy? Well, after 2030 NASA no longer requires LEO crew transport at all, given ISS wil no longer exist. So not them.

Sorry but that statement is wrong. NASA will continue to send crews to LEO after 2030 under the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program. (to Blue Origin's Orbital Reef, NanoRack's Starlab Space Station and the Axiom Station)

I stand corrected on that point. In that case, I can potentially see NASA dishing out extra money to keep a more expensive second operator afloat. I say “potentially”, because I’m not clear on how invested NASA will be in ensuring redundancy of access to space stations they are not directly responsible for themselves.

In any event, should Dreamchaser also enter the equation, then I think it will come down to which of the two is the cheapest second provider.
« Last Edit: 07/06/2022 11:43 pm by M.E.T. »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • California
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #33 on: 07/07/2022 04:00 pm »

ISS reboost is another.
But Starliner has not yet demonstrated this, and Crew and Cargo Dragons might able to do it also, assuming someone pays for it. The Dragons are a better choice because they do more missions per year.  Cygnus-on-F9 would also be much cheaper for this. Cygnus has already demonstrated reboost. Apparently, the berthing port used by Cygnus is better situated for reboost than the docking ports used by Starliner and Dragon.

Online TrevorMonty

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #34 on: 07/07/2022 07:30 pm »

ISS reboost is another.
But Starliner has not yet demonstrated this, and Crew and Cargo Dragons might able to do it also, assuming someone pays for it. The Dragons are a better choice because they do more missions per year.  Cygnus-on-F9 would also be much cheaper for this. Cygnus has already demonstrated reboost. Apparently, the berthing port used by Cygnus is better situated for reboost than the docking ports used by Starliner and Dragon.
This subject has been covered plenty of times, Dragon's Draco thrusters positions and small size don't make it ideal for job.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2022 01:42 am by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6373
  • Liked: 459
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #35 on: 07/08/2022 12:18 am »

ISS reboost is another.
But Starliner has not yet demonstrated this, and Crew and Cargo Dragons might able to do it also, assuming someone pays for it. The Dragons are a better choice because they do more missions per year.  Cygnus-on-F9 would also be much cheaper for this. Cygnus has already demonstrated reboost. Apparently, the berthing port used by Cygnus is better situated for reboost than the docking ports used by Starliner and Dragon.
This subject has been covered plenty of times, Dragon's Draco thrusters positions and small size don't make it ideal for job.

The former, yes. The latter, no. Small size is *not* a disadvantage for ISS reboost thrusters (ask any ISS loads & dynamics engineer). The space shuttle did ISS reboost for years with smaller thrusters than Dragon.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • California
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 619
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #36 on: 07/08/2022 03:39 am »

ISS reboost is another.
But Starliner has not yet demonstrated this, and Crew and Cargo Dragons might able to do it also, assuming someone pays for it. The Dragons are a better choice because they do more missions per year.  Cygnus-on-F9 would also be much cheaper for this. Cygnus has already demonstrated reboost. Apparently, the berthing port used by Cygnus is better situated for reboost than the docking ports used by Starliner and Dragon.
This subject has been covered plenty of times, Dragon's Draco thrusters positions and small size don't make it ideal for job.

The former, yes. The latter, no. Small size is *not* a disadvantage for ISS reboost thrusters (ask any ISS loads & dynamics engineer). The space shuttle did ISS reboost for years with smaller thrusters than Dragon.
For the purposes of this thread, ISS reboost is relevant only if NASA would decide to add additional Starliner flights to ISS because of this capability.

Can a Starliner CCP mission perform reboost in addition to the other CCP requirements on the saem mission? (crew support, small cargo, six-month loiter, lifeboat)? If so, they already have six or seven reboost opportunities. If not, they would need additional Starliner missions for reboost. But those missions aren't on the CCP contract, so presumably NASA will go out for competitive bids. Cygnus-on-F9 would probably win.

My personal guess: Starliner will not win additional flights to perform ISS reboost.

Offline AstroWare

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Arizona
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #37 on: 07/11/2022 02:25 pm »



ISS reboost is another.
But Starliner has not yet demonstrated this, and Crew and Cargo Dragons might able to do it also, assuming someone pays for it. The Dragons are a better choice because they do more missions per year.  Cygnus-on-F9 would also be much cheaper for this. Cygnus has already demonstrated reboost. Apparently, the berthing port used by Cygnus is better situated for reboost than the docking ports used by Starliner and Dragon.
This subject has been covered plenty of times, Dragon's Draco thrusters positions and small size don't make it ideal for job.

The former, yes. The latter, no. Small size is *not* a disadvantage for ISS reboost thrusters (ask any ISS loads & dynamics engineer). The space shuttle did ISS reboost for years with smaller thrusters than Dragon.
For the purposes of this thread, ISS reboost is relevant only if NASA would decide to add additional Starliner flights to ISS because of this capability.

Can a Starliner CCP mission perform reboost in addition to the other CCP requirements on the saem mission? (crew support, small cargo, six-month loiter, lifeboat)? If so, they already have six or seven reboost opportunities. If not, they would need additional Starliner missions for reboost. But those missions aren't on the CCP contract, so presumably NASA will go out for competitive bids. Cygnus-on-F9 would probably win.

My personal guess: Starliner will not win additional flights to perform ISS reboost.


From the Aerojet webpage:
https://www.rocket.com/space/human-exploration/cst-100-starliner

Service Module Reaction Control System Engines: Aerojet Rocketdyne’s Reaction Control System (RCS) engines on the Starliner service module each generate 100 pounds of thrust and will be used for on-orbit maneuvering and Space Station reboost. They would also provide attitude control in the event of a high-altitude abort. There will be 28 reaction control system engines on each Starliner service module.

Specifically mentions space station reboost.

Online deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • USA
  • Liked: 902
  • Likes Given: 1234
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #38 on: 07/15/2022 07:15 pm »
NASA requiring redundancy? Well, after 2030 NASA no longer requires LEO crew transport at all, given ISS wil no longer exist. So not them.

Sorry but that statement is wrong. NASA will continue to send crews to LEO after 2030 under the Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program. (to Blue Origin's Orbital Reef, NanoRack's Starlab Space Station and the Axiom Station)
This assumes the stations come to exist. I seriously doubt they will all be built, because they won't all get significant government funding. Heck, will congress seriously fund ANY of it before like 2029?

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0