Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[yg1968]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

There is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. Discussions with NASA technical experts were held reviewing industry capabilities as to their readiness to provide crew rotation services to the 1SS. The NASA technical experts determined there were no other domestic commercial companies that have made enough significant progress in the DDTE of an integrated crewed system capable of docking to the ISS within NASA’s needed schedule. The Agency’s assessment of the responses from the Request for Information (RFI, issued on October 20, 2021, and the Notice of Intent (NOI) issued on June 1, 2022, substantiated this conclusion.

[yg1968]

SpaceX will receive $1.4B for the 5 post-certification missions and potentially an extra $150M for special studies.

As a result of the above and other rationale described in section 5 below, in order to meet its crew rotation needs and obligations to international partners, NASA has a need at this time to acquire five additional PCMs (i.e., PCMs 10—14) from SpaceX to ensure uninterrupted crew access to the ISS. The current FFP PCM contract prices were competitively awarded and/or negotiated, and determined to be fair and reasonable. The total estimated value of this action to award five additional PCMs to SpaceX is approximately $1.4B. The estimated period of performance of this action is from September 2023 through December 2030.

In addition, the Contract’s CLIN 003 Special Studies Services IDIQ maximum potential total value is $150 million, [... ] CLIN 003 services may include performing technical, cost, schedule and risk assessments for potential new or changes to existing requirements, as identified by the Government, for their impact on the Contractor’s design, schedule and cost/price as it relates to CCtCap or life cycle activities. These services may also include performing additional analyses, modeling, and/or tests of hardware or software to provide further confidence and understanding of robustness of design and advance planning, and feasibility or trade studies for development or certification activities.

[mn]

NASA seems pessimistic about the certification of Starliner (says that it may not happen in 2023 because of various issues).

I don't think you are reading that correctly.

NASA is noting that it is POSSIBLE that it will not be certified in 2023. NASA is not saying anything about the likelihood of that happening. (Based on recent public briefings it seems they are quite confident that it will be approved - unless there's something they are not telling us.)

For purposes of this justification they are noting what is possible.

[yg1968]

NASA says that these 5 post certification missions should take it to the end of life of the ISS in 2030 (according to my calculation the last SpaceX post-certification mission would be in mid-2030).

Awarding five additional PCMS PCMS 10-14) to SpaceX and increasing the CLlN 003 Special Studies lDIQ maximum [...] will fulfill the Agency's needs to ensure the continued availability of safe, reliable transportation to the ISS for both planned crew rotations and emergency rescue services until the planned end of service life of the 1SS in 2030.

[yg1968]

NASA seems pessimistic about the certification of Starliner (says that it may not happen in 2023 because of various issues).

I don't think you are reading that correctly.

NASA is noting that it is POSSIBLE that it will not be certified in 2023. NASA is not saying anything about the likelihood of that happening. (Based on recent public briefings it seems they are quite confident that it will be approved - unless there's something they are not telling us.)

For purposes of this justification they are noting what is possible.

Yes, part of that is an editorial comment on my part but I just find that the entire sentence sounded a little pessimistic but I did note in my parenthesis that it was a possibility (as you said).

[AnalogMan]

Here is an OCR'd version of the JOFOC to make it easier to cut and paste text for discussion (if only it could see through the redactions!!)

[woods170]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

[edzieba]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

In 2019, Boeing received an additional $297m for Starliner to address a 'perceived gap' in capability due to development delays and to ensure Boeing remained as a supplier. Whilst this additional awarding was not repeated for OFT-2, if Boeing were determined to continue flying Starliner it would not be an untenable lobbying position to request additional funding for certification on a new vehicles, framed as being 'forced' to do so due to the government imposing a ban on Russian-sourced engines after Boeing's selection of Atlas V as the launch vehicle.
Remember that lobbying positions do not necessarily need to make sense to be effective (see: BO's HLS protests, and the subsequent Cantwell Amendment and Appendix N).

[ulm_atms]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

In 2019, Boeing received an additional $297m for Starliner to address a 'perceived gap' in capability due to development delays and to ensure Boeing remained as a supplier. Whilst this additional awarding was not repeated for OFT-2, if Boeing were determined to continue flying Starliner it would not be an untenable lobbying position to request additional funding for certification on a new vehicles, framed as being 'forced' to do so due to the government imposing a ban on Russian-sourced engines after Boeing's selection of Atlas V as the launch vehicle.
Remember that lobbying positions do not necessarily need to make sense to be effective (see: BO's HLS protests, and the subsequent Cantwell Amendment and Appendix N).

Except if they did that, I'm 100% sure SpaceX would file a lawsuit and I would agree 100% with them at that point.  What is the fracking point of a FFP contract if you then turn it around and treat it like a cost plus contract because you can't seem to get your house in order and keep screwing up?  SpaceX is keeping up with their end of the contract but Boeing keeps getting more money the more then mess up?  Something has to give here....it's FIXED price for crying out loud...FIXED!!!

Sorry for the rant everyone.  I just want to see both parties being treated equally...like they are suppose to.  This "lobbying" to keep funneling more money to Boeing for every screw up is getting old....very old....because it completely defeats the purpose of a FFP in the first place.

And for asking for more $$$ to certify a new launcher for Starliner?  Boeing knew of the RD-180 twilight when they bid...they knew the risks...but they did it anyways.  So yea, IMO, Boeing should be 100% on the hook if they wanted to certify a new launch vehicle under this contract.

I do 100% agree with woods170 though.  Boeing wants out of this FFP contract as fast as possible and I would bet they never will bid on another FFP contract again.  Boeing has lost the ability to budget with all of these cost plus contracts over the years...that's for sure(who doesn't like guaranteed profit no matter how bad of a job you do?).  I firmly believe that Boeing only bid on commercial crew because they thought they would be the only one at the end....which they sure lobbied for.  Thank goodness that didn't happen or NASA would be in an extreme pickle right now.

TLDR:  Boeing...get your house in order and stop expecting profit regardless of how you do your job...geez....

[woods170]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

In 2019, Boeing received an additional $297m for Starliner to address a 'perceived gap' in capability due to development delays and to ensure Boeing remained as a supplier. Whilst this additional awarding was not repeated for OFT-2, if Boeing were determined to continue flying Starliner it would not be an untenable lobbying position to request additional funding for certification on a new vehicles, framed as being 'forced' to do so due to the government imposing a ban on Russian-sourced engines after Boeing's selection of Atlas V as the launch vehicle.
Remember that lobbying positions do not necessarily need to make sense to be effective (see: BO's HLS protests, and the subsequent Cantwell Amendment and Appendix N).

Emphasis mine.

Three things that undermine your argument:
1. The ban on Russian engines only applied to national security launches. Starliner launches are obviously not national security launches. Therefore, Boeing easily could have asked ULA to produce several more Atlas V vehicles in hopes of selling additional PCM missions to NASA. However Boeing declined to do so. The current limitation on available Atlas V vehicles for Starliner, is therefore completely of Boeing's own doing.

2. As you said: Boeing tried to wrestle additional money from NASA a second time after OFT. NASA told them in no uncertain terms that a firm fixed price contract is exactly that: firm fixed price. Ever since that moment Boeing has been forced to fund additional spending for Starliner out of its own pockets. So, No, Boeing will not try again to wrestle additional money from NASA. Getting the lid slammed into their noses just once, was enough for Boeing Space to learn that lesson.

3. The CCtCAP contract is for delivering a service. If Boeing wants to sell additional PCMs to NASA, it has - under CCtCAP contract stipulations - to offer the complete service, which requires a spacecraft AND a launcher. The responsibility for providing both these items lies with Boeing, not with NASA. Getting another launcher ready, for any additional mission after PCM-6, is therefore the responsibility of Boeing, not NASA. In other words: getting such another launcher human-rated is not NASA's problem, it is Boeing's problem. And that includes how Boeing intends to fund the required human-rating effort. Boeing won't be able to get that money from NASA, by raising the price tag of PCM missions. That is because the price level of PCM mssions was established when the CCtCAP contracts were awarded. And those price levels, set in 2014, apply to the entirety of the ID/IQ CCtCAP contract. And please note: the recently awarded additional PCM for SpaceX were all awarded within the scope of the CCtCAP contract and all showed no marked increase from the price tag of the original six PCMs. Any additional PCMs for Boeing will also fall within the scope of the existing ID/IQ CCtCAP contract. In other words: Boeing won't be able to renegotiate the price tag of any additional PCMs.

Summarizing: the amount of leveraging that you suggest Boeing might have does not actually exist. And the only one to blame for that is Boeing itself. Not just because of the soap opera that was OFT-1, but also because Boeing lacked a long-term vision (and associated long-term planning) for Starliner.

[woods170]

I do 100% agree with woods170 though.  Boeing wants out of this FFP contract as fast as possible and I would bet they never will bid on another FFP contract again.  Boeing has lost the ability to budget with all of these cost plus contracts over the years...that's for sure(who doesn't like guaranteed profit no matter how bad of a job you do?).  I firmly believe that Boeing only bid on commercial crew because they thought they would be the only one at the end....which they sure lobbied for.  Thank goodness that didn't happen or NASA would be in an extreme pickle right now.

TLDR:  Boeing...get your house in order and stop expecting profit regardless of how you do your job...geez....

Emphasis mine.

That is exactly what Boeing hoped to accomplish. They stepped into CCP in hopes that their lobbying power in US Congress would be able to force an early downselect to just one provider, which naturally would be Boeing. The FFP would than rapidly "evolve" in a defacto Cost Plus Contract due to the fact that NASA would be stuck with just one provider, which would give Boeing huge leveraging power to force more money out of NASA, despite the contract being FFP. Because: no Bucks, no Buck Rogers (or in this case: no astronauts flown to the ISS on a USA vehicle).

Fortunately however, CCP was protected by a few well-placed people (both in US Congress and in top NASA management) who managed to prevent this from happening. Also: CCP got a little help from a geopolitical event in preventing the down-select to one provider: the Russians invaded the Crimea in 2014. The resulting political fall-out helped a lot in keeping two providers. For Boeing Space however the invasion of the Crimea became a very bad event: any hopes of turning their FFP contract into a defacto Cost Plus affair vanished, which meant that they would actually start to lose money on the contract. And the effects of the political fall-out on availability of Atlas V would eventually also bite Boeing in the rear end.

[edzieba]

You've both missed my point entirely: the actual facts do not matter, only what Boeing could successfully lobby.
Boeing have already managed to swing a near $300m additional payment over-and-above a FFP contract, for underperforming (and without a SpaceX lawsuit). SLS continues to exist and the exploration Upper Stage continues to be funded - both demonstrations that actual need, 'fairness', or other matters normal people may think are of primary concern are not necessarily impediments to receiving funding if you lobby well enough.

[woods170]

You've both missed my point entirely: the actual facts do not matter, only what Boeing could successfully lobby.
Boeing have already managed to swing a near $300m additional payment over-and-above a FFP contract, for underperforming (and without a SpaceX lawsuit). SLS continues to exist and the exploration Upper Stage continues to be funded - both demonstrations that actual need, 'fairness', or other matters normal people may think are of primary concern are not necessarily impediments to receiving funding if you lobby well enough.

Respectfully, but you missed the point. SLS and EUS do not require any lobbying from Boeing: they are pet projects from US Congress. They will get funded anyway, regardless of any Boeing lobby.

The one thing that DID require lobbying from Boeing was CCP. And out of 3 times that Boeing tried to change things they were successful only once. And that one time resulted in such a massive spanking of NASA management and Boeing management (by both OIG and GAO - repeatedly) that NASA never again succumbed to Boeing's lobbying pressure - with regards to not just CCP. Boeing for example lobbied hard for US Congress to force NASA to force contractors to fly their HLS solutions exclusively on SLS. That lobby failed big time. And it also back-fired on Boeing, courtesy of Loverro's incompetence: Boeing got thrown out of the HLS competition early. Supposedly because their proposed solution did not meet NASA requirements. But the consensus under some analysts is that the throw-out was in fact punishment for Boeing, for trying to force the use of SLS on the other HLS competitors (by which way Boeing would have gained an unfair advantage for its own HLS solution).

[yg1968]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

I think that Boeing is interested in certifying Starliner for the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Bear in mind that Starliner is part of the plans for Orbital Reef which is supposed to be ready for 2028. Boeing said that they would announce the new LV for Starliner at the beginning of 2023. This new LV will require a new certification of their commercial crew transportation system which will be done through the Commercial LEO Destinations program.

[ulm_atms]

You've both missed my point entirely: the actual facts do not matter, only what Boeing could successfully lobby.
Boeing have already managed to swing a near $300m additional payment over-and-above a FFP contract, for underperforming (and without a SpaceX lawsuit). SLS continues to exist and the exploration Upper Stage continues to be funded - both demonstrations that actual need, 'fairness', or other matters normal people may think are of primary concern are not necessarily impediments to receiving funding if you lobby well enough.

Oh, I did get your point but SLS has no bearing on this discussion what so ever.  My point is that SpaceX probably would, and should, throw a lawsuit at NASA at this point if they lobby/offer more money to Boeing for Starliner.  There would be two sets of rules at that point for the same contract which is both flat wrong and probably not fully on the up and up.  I would love to know VSECOTSPE's point of view on this.

What Boeing has seemed to forget is that a business calculates risk and then decides if it's worth it.  They did and they lost money which they are not use to at all because they are use to getting bailed out of every mess up.  Now if it was outside reasons out of their control, sure, I can see some help.  But every single one of Boeing's issues with Starliner is 100% Boeing created.  Incompetence should be punished...not rewarded.  They were the "experienced" ones remember? 

[DanClemmensen]

Three things that undermine your argument:
1. The ban on Russian engines only applied to national security launches. Starliner launches are obviously not national security launches. Therefore, Boeing easily could have asked ULA to produce several more Atlas V vehicles in hopes of selling additional PCM missions to NASA. However Boeing declined to do so. The current limitation on available Atlas V vehicles for Boeing's current CCP obligations, is therefore completely of Boeing's own doing.

Boeing decided to buy only enough Atlas V launches from ULA to cover CCP (OFT-2, CFT, Starliner 1 through 6). The decision was apparently made prior to April 2021, because that was the date when ULA announced the sale of the 9 remaining unallocated Atlas V LVs to Kuiper. If Boeing had any desire to launch on more than 7 (eight at that time) Atlases, ULA would not have sold as many Kuiper launches. Boeing could have reserved some or all of those 9 Atlas Vs. The Kuiper/Atlas V deal was clearly part of a complex negotiation involving the fact that Vulcan was slipping, and Kuiper would have been just as happy to launch on Vulcan if it were available on time.

Even today, Boeing, ULA, and Kuiper could negotiate a deal to allow for up to 9 more Starliner missions.

It's clear that Boeing and ULA are not wholly separate entities. The relationship between Kuiper (Amazon) and BO is murkier, so we can only speculate as to exactly why Kuiper agreed to buy Atlas V launches because BO's BE-4 engines were not available to ULA on time.

[ulm_atms]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

I think that Boeing is interested in certifying Starliner for the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Bear in mind that Starliner is part of the plans for Orbital Reef which is supposed to be ready for 2028. Boeing said that they would announce the new LV for Starliner at the beginning of 2023. This new LV will require a new certification of their commercial crew transportation system which will be done through the Commercial LEO Destinations program.

If they are going to certify another LV for Starliner for Orbital Reef that needs to be ready for 2028...then why don't they go ahead and do it now so they could of gotten more ISS flights?  This info makes the lack of additional Starliner flights to ISS even stranger to me if they plan on certifying another LV anyways.  Am I missing a detail here that helps make more sense of this?

[DanClemmensen]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

I think that Boeing is interested in certifying Starliner for the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Bear in mind that Starliner is part of the plans for Orbital Reef which is supposed to be ready for 2028. Boeing said that they would announce the new LV for Starliner at the beginning of 2023. This new LV will require a new certification of their commercial crew transportation system which will be done through the Commercial LEO Destinations program.

If they are going to certify another LV for Starliner for Orbital Reef that needs to be ready for 2028...then why don't they go ahead and do it now so they could of gotten more ISS flights?  This info makes the lack of additional Starliner flights to ISS even stranger to me if they plan on certifying another LV anyways.  Am I missing a detail here that helps make more sense of this?

Because the LV they wish to certify is not yet ready for certification. The only currently active LV that meets their technical criteria is F9, and F9 does not meet the NASA criterion for a being independent of the other CCP vendor's solution.

[Nomadd]

 I'm not sure how Kuiper is coming along or how the ULA launch contract is worded, but is there no chance Amazon could give up a few Atlases with a little incentive?

[yg1968]

No other companies could provide post-certification missions until 2029 according to NASA (its estimate seems to be based on the information that NASA received from the October 20th 2021 RFI and comments to the notice of intent).

As detailed in section 10 of this document, there is no other company capable of supporting these crew rotation services during the needed timeframe. The Boeing CTS technical challenges and uncertainties, combined with NASA’s assessment that no other company will be capable of providing PCMs prior to 2029, presents possible unacceptable gaps in crew rotation services to the ISS.

This all but confirms that Boeing is not interested in flying Starliner for NASA beyond the six originally awarded PCMs.

And I can understand that. Boeing is already set to lose a lot of money on their current CCtCAP contract. And under the applying CCtCAP contract terms, Boeing is not in a position to significantly raise the price tag of additional PCMs.
Which means that additional PCMs will continue to cost Boeing money, instead of playing even or make a bit of profit.

And than there is the issue of having to human-rate another launcher beyond PCM-6. Which Boeing will have to pay for from its own pockets due to the Firm Fixed Price nature and associated contract terms applying to CCtCAP. They perhaps would be willing to do so within the scope of a follow-on CLD contract (providing crew transport to perhaps the SNC or Blue orbital crewed platforms), but not for CCP it seems.

I think that Boeing is interested in certifying Starliner for the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Bear in mind that Starliner is part of the plans for Orbital Reef which is supposed to be ready for 2028. Boeing said that they would announce the new LV for Starliner at the beginning of 2023. This new LV will require a new certification of their commercial crew transportation system which will be done through the Commercial LEO Destinations program.

If they are going to certify another LV for Starliner for Orbital Reef that needs to be ready for 2028...then why don't they go ahead and do it now so they could of gotten more ISS flights?  This info makes the lack of additional Starliner flights to ISS even stranger to me if they plan on certifying another LV anyways.  Am I missing a detail here that helps make more sense of this?

The certification requirements for the Commercial Destinations Program have yet to be issued (for now only a RFI has been issued). Certification of a new commercial crew transportation system cost money, I am not sure that Boeing will be doing that unless it is being paid by NASA to do so.