Author Topic: Starliner longevity  (Read 8458 times)

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Starliner longevity
« on: 07/04/2022 12:21 pm »
Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread
In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.
(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?
A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.
And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13459
  • UK
  • Liked: 3734
  • Likes Given: 220
Starliner longevity
« Reply #1 on: 07/04/2022 02:35 pm »
Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread
In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.
(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?
A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.
And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2022 02:39 pm by Star One »

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2521
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #2 on: 07/04/2022 02:50 pm »
Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread
In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.
(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?
A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.
And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using Dragon.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2022 02:52 pm by M.E.T. »

Offline [email protected]

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #3 on: 07/04/2022 02:56 pm »
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.
Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan
« Last Edit: 07/04/2022 02:57 pm by [email protected] »
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

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #4 on: 07/04/2022 04:10 pm »

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.
Your opinion is just as valid as mine. I just responded when you asked me to.  Starliner would have been overwhelmingly superior if it CFT had flown in 2017 as originally expected, and more viable if delivered in 2020 when Crew Dragon Demo-2 flew. If F9 re-usability had not worked out or if Crew Dragon had slipped as badly as Starliner, Starliner might be dominant. But we are where we are. I also feel that the "anybody but SpaceX" companies may not remain viable or may be forced to change their position. OneWeb was originally in this category, but reality intruded.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #5 on: 07/04/2022 04:14 pm »
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.
Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan
"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
  • Liked: 1088
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #6 on: 07/04/2022 04:39 pm »
Starliner’s future beyond operational 6 flights is undetermined at this time

My prediction:

It will not fly more than those 7 flights, with the possible exception for a govt contract to be a second provider

Boeing will price flights very high; it isn’t interested in anything like a loss leader strategy.  No will pay those prices in a free market

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #7 on: 07/04/2022 05:17 pm »

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using Dragon.
My opinions: Orbital Reef may eventually be an actual venture some day. It is apparently currently a partnership between Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corporation. I have the same degree of confidence in Orbital Reef as I do in other Blue Origin endeavors and schedules. Separately, SNC intends to build a crewed spacecraft to compete with Starliner and Crew Dragon (and crewed Starship), with Orbital Reef as its major non-ISS destination. Given all this, I don't see Orbital Reef plans as strong support for new Starliner missions.

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 1152
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #8 on: 07/04/2022 06:08 pm »
Starliner might live on past the 6 ISS operational flights. If someone like Axiom takeover ownership to refitted and upgraded the two Starliner in service for more economic operations. Low probability of that happening. Unless that someone is Bezos looking for an interim crewed LEO  vehicle to put on the top of the New Glenn.



Online Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #9 on: 07/05/2022 02:00 am »
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.
Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan
"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.
Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #10 on: 07/05/2022 02:34 am »
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.
Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan
"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.
Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.
Vulcan may or may not fly before Starship. What I said was that Starliner may not get qualified on Vulcan before crewed Starship is available. Big difference. Basically, my guess is that Boeing will not try to qualify Starliner on Vulcan before about 2027, if at all, because they will need to spend their own money and a Starliner launch is expensive. 2027 is the year for the Starliner-5 launch.

SpaceX won't need to tweak anything to comply with the PEA/mitigated FONSI. SpaceX wrote the PEA, including the required mitigations: they were not added after the fact by the FAA. But SpaceX does need to do a bunch of work before their first flight, so Vulcan may fly first. We will see. As of now, Starship is trying for July-August, SLS is trying for August-September, and Vulcan is trying for December/January. But the time from Vulcan first launch to Vulcan first operational launch is likely to be short, while Starship will likely need multiple test launches before a true operational launch.

Online Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #11 on: 07/05/2022 03:58 am »
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.
Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan
"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.
Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.
As of now, Starship is trying for July-August, SLS is trying for August-September, and Vulcan is trying for December/January. But the time from Vulcan first launch to Vulcan first operational launch is likely to be short, while Starship will likely need multiple test launches before a true operational launch.
The timing of the first SLS launch is irrelevant to the timing of the first Vulcan and Starship launches because the Orion is the only spacecraft that can be carried aboard the SLS.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13459
  • UK
  • Liked: 3734
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #12 on: 07/05/2022 09:33 am »

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.
Your opinion is just as valid as mine. I just responded when you asked me to.  Starliner would have been overwhelmingly superior if it CFT had flown in 2017 as originally expected, and more viable if delivered in 2020 when Crew Dragon Demo-2 flew. If F9 re-usability had not worked out or if Crew Dragon had slipped as badly as Starliner, Starliner might be dominant. But we are where we are. I also feel that the "anybody but SpaceX" companies may not remain viable or may be forced to change their position. OneWeb was originally in this category, but reality intruded.
Bezos is sufficiently wealthy and motivated I suspect to maintain a stance of anyone but Space X if he so wishes. Also his company is hardly in the same position as One Web.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13459
  • UK
  • Liked: 3734
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #13 on: 07/05/2022 09:37 am »
Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread
In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.
(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?
A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.
And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.
I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using 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.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #14 on: 07/05/2022 06:01 pm »
Bezos is sufficiently wealthy and motivated I suspect to maintain a stance of anyone but Space X if he so wishes. Also his company is hardly in the same position as One Web.
This is true. OneWeb has actually launched operational satellites and has actual customers.
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.
Yep. The product that is first to market tends to command the loyalty of early adopters and develop an operational history, and the only way to displace it is to provide a markedly superior product or a cheaper product.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
  • USA
  • Liked: 1209
  • Likes Given: 1758
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #15 on: 07/05/2022 07:34 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.

Online r8ix

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #16 on: 07/05/2022 09:34 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.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #17 on: 07/05/2022 09:39 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.
"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

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Florida
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #18 on: 07/05/2022 09:45 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.

ISS reboost is another.

Offline Kiwi53

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Starliner longevity
« Reply #19 on: 07/05/2022 10:09 pm »
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.

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.

Online r8ix

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 71
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: 2365
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 542
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: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
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.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2521
  • Likes Given: 393
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: 1459
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 553
  • 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: 132
  • USA
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 51
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: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
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 »

Online Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 73
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: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
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.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Liked: 2521
  • Likes Given: 393
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: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
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.

Offline 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: 6381
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 56
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: 3139
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2441
  • Likes Given: 944
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: 285
  • Arizona
  • Liked: 213
  • 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.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
  • USA
  • Liked: 1209
  • Likes Given: 1758
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
1