Soyuz is currently only a 'backup' in terms of the seat-sharing agreement. That keeps a minimum single-US-astronaut presence on the ISS, but one of the major benefits of Commercial Crew was allowing more astronauts on the ISS, above those needed just to keep the lights on, allowing for a dramatically increased science output. Flying any more than that agreed single-seat-per-Soyuz means convincing Russia to either give up seats of their own astronauts (unlikely politically), or flying additional Soyuz missions (logistically unlikely).
Quote from: edzieba on 06/06/2023 11:03 amSoyuz is currently only a 'backup' in terms of the seat-sharing agreement. That keeps a minimum single-US-astronaut presence on the ISS, but one of the major benefits of Commercial Crew was allowing more astronauts on the ISS, above those needed just to keep the lights on, allowing for a dramatically increased science output. Flying any more than that agreed single-seat-per-Soyuz means convincing Russia to either give up seats of their own astronauts (unlikely politically), or flying additional Soyuz missions (logistically unlikely).NASA needs to fly approximately 15 more CCP missions to the ISS before it is decommissioned. Starliner will not be available until two (or more) have been flown, so Starliner will provide backup for at most 13 missions. Is the value of backup for these 13 missions worth the cost of continuing the Starliner program? The probability that backup is needed and the value of backup both decrease over time as more Crew Dragon missions are flown.Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
*snip*Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 01:27 pm*snip*Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 06/06/2023 03:21 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 01:27 pm*snip*Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 04:04 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 06/06/2023 03:21 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 01:27 pm*snip*Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one."The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 06/06/2023 04:38 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 04:04 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 06/06/2023 03:21 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/06/2023 01:27 pm*snip*Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one."The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/ So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
Quote167.Over time, the trapped fittings problem became well known within the space industry, as demonstrated by a 2008 communication to the ISS where NASA referred to the FFTD-1 as the “dreaded FFTD.” Exhibit 48.For Starliner Wilson alleges, they have designed a gearbox which was then :Quote221.The Gearbox Boeing contacted the Wilsons to manufacture a Gearbox for opening and closingthe nose cone of CST-100 Starliner.224.On information and belief, Wilson’s name as manufacturer of the Gearbox waserased by Boeing and another name was substituted in Wilson’s place.
167.Over time, the trapped fittings problem became well known within the space industry, as demonstrated by a 2008 communication to the ISS where NASA referred to the FFTD-1 as the “dreaded FFTD.” Exhibit 48.
221.The Gearbox Boeing contacted the Wilsons to manufacture a Gearbox for opening and closingthe nose cone of CST-100 Starliner.224.On information and belief, Wilson’s name as manufacturer of the Gearbox waserased by Boeing and another name was substituted in Wilson’s place.
Quote from: Hamish.Student on 06/10/2023 07:00 amSo to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?The situation with Crew Dragon is more problematic, and the two are related. There are four active Crew Dragon capsules and possibly one in the pipeline. Crew Dragon is nominally rated for five flights, so a total of 20 or 25 flights, but they have already flown eleven and they will need to fly two or maybe three more before Starliner-1, and nominally one a year for perhaps six more years thereafter. That's 19 flights before counting the five already-manifested non-CCP flights. If Starliner cannot do its six CCP flights, there are not really enough Crew Dragon flights to pick up the slack. But all this assumes full six-month missions, and to date the CCP missions average only about 170 days.I speculate that the 5-mission limit for Crew Dragon versus 10 missions for Starliner is based on the basic design differences. The Crew Dragon capsule is much more complicated because its trunk is much simpler than Starliner's SM. Therefore Starliner replaces a lot of complicated stuff for each flight, while Crew Dragon reuses this stuff.
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/13/2023 08:30 pmQuote from: Hamish.Student on 06/10/2023 07:00 amSo to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?The situation with Crew Dragon is more problematic, and the two are related. There are four active Crew Dragon capsules and possibly one in the pipeline. Crew Dragon is nominally rated for five flights, so a total of 20 or 25 flights, but they have already flown eleven and they will need to fly two or maybe three more before Starliner-1, and nominally one a year for perhaps six more years thereafter. That's 19 flights before counting the five already-manifested non-CCP flights. If Starliner cannot do its six CCP flights, there are not really enough Crew Dragon flights to pick up the slack. But all this assumes full six-month missions, and to date the CCP missions average only about 170 days.I speculate that the 5-mission limit for Crew Dragon versus 10 missions for Starliner is based on the basic design differences. The Crew Dragon capsule is much more complicated because its trunk is much simpler than Starliner's SM. Therefore Starliner replaces a lot of complicated stuff for each flight, while Crew Dragon reuses this stuff.Emphasis mine.1. A fifth Crew Dragon is being constructed as we speak. Not because it is needed to serve the CCP contract, but because SpaceX sees a booming private-spaceflight market coming.2. Crew Dragon is already in the process of being certified for at least 10 flights each. Initial certification for 5 flights had nothing to do with the spacecraft's complexity, but everything with it landing in salt water. But the combined experience from Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 (both Crew and Cargo variants) has shown that flying Dragon 2 for more than 5 flights per vehicle (both cargo and crew variants) is not a problem.But I digress.
Note - During the podcast (at 13m16s), Eric says there is a 1 in 4 chance of Boeing pulling the plug on the Starliner program in the future. Of course that is only Eric's opinion.
https://spacenews.com/boeing-ceo-says-company-still-committed-to-starliner/QuoteBoeing CEO says company still committed to StarlinerJeff FoustJune 20, 2023WASHINGTON — The chief executive of Boeing says his company is still committed to the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle despite the latest problems that have further delayed the program.In an interview on the “Check 6” podcast by Aviation Week published June 16, Dave Calhoun said that Boeing was not “shutting the door” on Starliner after the company postponed the first crewed flight of the vehicle that had been scheduled for late July.
Boeing CEO says company still committed to StarlinerJeff FoustJune 20, 2023WASHINGTON — The chief executive of Boeing says his company is still committed to the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle despite the latest problems that have further delayed the program.In an interview on the “Check 6” podcast by Aviation Week published June 16, Dave Calhoun said that Boeing was not “shutting the door” on Starliner after the company postponed the first crewed flight of the vehicle that had been scheduled for late July.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/20/2023 09:56 amhttps://spacenews.com/boeing-ceo-says-company-still-committed-to-starliner/QuoteBoeing CEO says company still committed to StarlinerJeff FoustJune 20, 2023WASHINGTON — The chief executive of Boeing says his company is still committed to the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle despite the latest problems that have further delayed the program.In an interview on the “Check 6” podcast by Aviation Week published June 16, Dave Calhoun said that Boeing was not “shutting the door” on Starliner after the company postponed the first crewed flight of the vehicle that had been scheduled for late July.I think Mandy Rice-Davies's famous quote applies here.
Well he would, wouldn't he?
We’re now 6 weeks on from the announcement of the latest Starliner issues & delay and still no schedule update. So I’m assuming no chance now of flying this year.I thought I saw 2 or 3 weeks ago, in an unrelated NASA press briefing, a remark about an update in a few weeks? Can’t find it now.
..."no news."