Quote from: r8ix on 07/05/2022 09:34 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/05/2022 07:34 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/05/2022 09:37 amPrice 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.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/05/2022 07:34 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/05/2022 09:37 amPrice 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.
Quote from: Star One on 07/05/2022 09:37 amPrice 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.
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.
ISS reboost is another.
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.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/05/2022 09:39 pmQuote from: r8ix on 07/05/2022 09:34 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/05/2022 07:34 pmQuote from: Star One on 07/05/2022 09:37 amPrice 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.Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.Quote from: Kiwi53 on 07/05/2022 10:09 pmFor 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.
Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.
If Starliner costs less to use than an F9, why would the tickets be more expensive on a Starliner?
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.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 07/06/2022 01:51 amIf 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/06/2022 03:09 amQuote from: Kansan52 on 07/06/2022 01:51 amIf 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".
Quote from: Kansan52 on 07/06/2022 01:51 amIf 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.
NASA requiring redundancy? Well, after 2030 NASA no longer requires LEO crew transport at all, given ISS wil no longer exist. So not them.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 07/06/2022 01:14 amNASA 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)
Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/07/2022 04:00 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/07/2022 07:30 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/07/2022 04:00 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.
Quote from: Jorge on 07/08/2022 12:18 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 07/07/2022 07:30 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/07/2022 04:00 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 07/05/2022 09:45 pmISS 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.
One top NASA official called Boeing’s inability to get its CST-100 Starliner capsule into regular use an “existential” challenge.
But asked whether Boeing plans to continue with the program long-term, he suggested that was in doubt. “It’s a great question. And I wish I had the answer to it right now,” he [John Shannon] said.The concern, he said, is that the private market for space travel is uncertain and plans for commercial space stations that would provide a need for regular launches have yet to materialize, even though NASA has started to invest in those and Boeing is a partner with Blue Origin and Sierra Space on one.“They’re just not at a level of maturity where I can write them into any kind of a business case and say that yeah, this is something that’s going to kind of get us over the hump,” he said.