Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[DanClemmensen]

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?

The Kuiper-on-Atlas deal looks from the outside like a going-out-of-business sale. ULA sold Kuiper all remaining unallocated Atlas Vs, probably at a bulk discount to get rid of them. In a rational world Kuiper would accept Vulcans in lieu of Atlas V if they get the same or better per-launch price (somehow adjusted for number of satellites per launch). This assumes Vulcans will be available in quantity when Kuiper needs them.

Shifting the Kuipers to F9 would make more sense if all the players were being rational.

[Kiwi53]

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?

The Kuiper-on-Atlas deal looks from the outside like a going-out-of-business sale. ULA sold Kuiper all remaining unallocated Atlas Vs, probably at a bulk discount to get rid of them. In a rational world Kuiper would accept Vulcans in lieu of Atlas V if they get the same or better per-launch price (somehow adjusted for number of satellites per launch). This assumes Vulcans will be available in quantity when Kuiper needs them.

Shifting the Kuipers to F9 would make more sense if all the players were being rational.

Kuiper, even with all the contracted launches already announced, will be very tight on getting enough satellites launched in time to meet their ITU/FCC commitments. There's no way they could agree to swap an Atlas launch for a later ride on a different launcher, they need to get those birds flying a.s.a.p.

[Robotbeat]

Starship and Dragon/F9 count as dissimilar redundancy...

By the time 2030 rolls around, I expect we'll have Vulcan, New Glenn, and one at least of Terran-R, Neutron, or Firefly Beta/Antares. One of them will probably have a decent launch rate. In a nice position to be crew-rated.

[DanClemmensen]

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?

The Kuiper-on-Atlas deal looks from the outside like a going-out-of-business sale. ULA sold Kuiper all remaining unallocated Atlas Vs, probably at a bulk discount to get rid of them. In a rational world Kuiper would accept Vulcans in lieu of Atlas V if they get the same or better per-launch price (somehow adjusted for number of satellites per launch). This assumes Vulcans will be available in quantity when Kuiper needs them.

Shifting the Kuipers to F9 would make more sense if all the players were being rational.

Kuiper, even with all the contracted launches already announced, will be very tight on getting enough satellites launched in time to meet their ITU/FCC commitments. There's no way they could agree to swap an Atlas launch for a later ride on a different launcher, they need to get those birds flying a.s.a.p.

If they really truly need them a.s.a.p, they will launch on F9.

If they want to launch on Atlas and Vulcan, then they need Atlas immediately but can shift to Vulcan when it is available. If you think Atlas is essential, then you must think that ULA can launch those nine Atlas Vs before Vulcan will be in volume production, or you think ULA will not be able to produce Vulcan as fast as they can launch Vulcan. That seems very pessimistic.  All of this assumes that Kuiper is not rate-limited by satellite production. Kuiper has not even launched prototypes yet and they have not announced when they intend to start deploying the constellation. Unless there is a major delay in Vulcan priduction, it's hard to see the later Atlas Vs as a constraint.

[Asteroza]

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?

The Kuiper-on-Atlas deal looks from the outside like a going-out-of-business sale. ULA sold Kuiper all remaining unallocated Atlas Vs, probably at a bulk discount to get rid of them. In a rational world Kuiper would accept Vulcans in lieu of Atlas V if they get the same or better per-launch price (somehow adjusted for number of satellites per launch). This assumes Vulcans will be available in quantity when Kuiper needs them.

Shifting the Kuipers to F9 would make more sense if all the players were being rational.

Kuiper, even with all the contracted launches already announced, will be very tight on getting enough satellites launched in time to meet their ITU/FCC commitments. There's no way they could agree to swap an Atlas launch for a later ride on a different launcher, they need to get those birds flying a.s.a.p.

If they really truly need them a.s.a.p, they will launch on F9.

If they want to launch on Atlas and Vulcan, then they need Atlas immediately but can shift to Vulcan when it is available. If you think Atlas is essential, then you must think that ULA can launch those nine Atlas Vs before Vulcan will be in volume production, or you think ULA will not be able to produce Vulcan as fast as they can launch Vulcan. That seems very pessimistic.  All of this assumes that Kuiper is not rate-limited by satellite production. Kuiper has not even launched prototypes yet and they have not announced when they intend to start deploying the constellation. Unless there is a major delay in Vulcan priduction, it's hard to see the later Atlas Vs as a constraint.

That's the problem though. If the first Vulcan goes pop, the stand down will push Kuiper into a corner in terms of deployment deadline, thus they have zero leeway to slide an Atlas over for Starliner, while that also pushes Vulcan certification for human spaceflight even farther out. Kuiper was the only realistic customer that could slide over an Atlas at all even assuming things were going well due to their launcher agnostic nature, unless there is some very aggressive horse trading amongst the remaining Atlas customers (extremely unlikely). In this scenario Kuiper may well be forced to fly on F9 regardless due to the deployment deadline, barring a New Glenn rampup miracle, but that does nothing for Starliner. Boeing in that case would have to look long and hard at waiting for Vulcan after the stand down, or going F9 which has some recert work of it's own in that case. Boeing could look at that situation and decide to drop Starliner totally at that point, rather than pay for both F9 recert and Vulcan certification, since they certainly wouldn't afraid to give up at a rather convenient contractual juncture.

[DanClemmensen]

That's the problem though. If the first Vulcan goes pop, the stand down will push Kuiper into a corner in terms of deployment deadline, thus they have zero leeway to slide an Atlas over for Starliner, while that also pushes Vulcan certification for human spaceflight even farther out. Kuiper was the only realistic customer that could slide over an Atlas at all even assuming things were going well due to their launcher agnostic nature, unless there is some very aggressive horse trading amongst the remaining Atlas customers (extremely unlikely). In this scenario Kuiper may well be forced to fly on F9 regardless due to the deployment deadline, barring a New Glenn rampup miracle, but that does nothing for Starliner. Boeing in that case would have to look long and hard at waiting for Vulcan after the stand down, or going F9 which has some recert work of it's own in that case. Boeing could look at that situation and decide to drop Starliner totally at that point, rather than pay for both F9 recert and Vulcan certification, since they certainly wouldn't afraid to give up at a rather convenient contractual juncture.

There are no other Atlas V customers with whom to negotiate. The last non-Starliner, non-Kuiper Atlas V launch will occur in March 2023.

[DanClemmensen]

According to NASA's internal schedule, Scott Tingle will now serve as commander of Starliner-1, the first operational mission to ISS. Mike Fincke will be pilot. A third crewmember is TBD. Could fly as early as August 2023 if demo mission goes well in early 2023.

Are CCP missions getting shorter? The currently-contracted Crew-Dragon and Starliner mission suffice until we get a last mission in 2030 at a rate of 2 per year. They won't stretch out that long if the average mission length drops to 5 months.

I thought they were supposed to be about six months. To maintain that average length, the second 2022 launch should have been in November, and the second 2023 launch should be in November. But we now see Oct 2022 and Aug 2023.

Crew-1 15 Nov 2020
Crew-2 23 Apr 2021
Crew-3 11 Nov 2021
Crew-4 27 Apr 2022
Crew-5 03 Oct 2022 (planned)
Crew-6 ?? Feb 2023 (planned)
Starliner-1 ?? Aug 2023 (planned?)

[TrevorMonty]

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?

SNC are targeting 2026 for crew Dreamchaser which means they will be in a position to compete for 2028-2030 missions. Boeing may not even win more contracts. Lot depends on if NASA is willing to gamble on DC being ready in time. NASA can always rely on Dragon to makeup for any delays.

[deadman1204]

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?

SNC are targeting 2026 for crew Dreamchaser which means they will be in a position to compete for 2028-2030 missions. Boeing may not even win more contracts. Lot depends on if NASA is willing to gamble on DC being ready in time. NASA can always rely on Dragon to makeup for any delays.

Didn't Nasa already award spaceX will the rest of the crewed flights through 2030? How could SNC compete?

[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?

SNC are targeting 2026 for crew Dreamchaser which means they will be in a position to compete for 2028-2030 missions. Boeing may not even win more contracts. Lot depends on if NASA is willing to gamble on DC being ready in time. NASA can always rely on Dragon to makeup for any delays.

Didn't Nasa already award spaceX will the rest of the crewed flights through 2030? How could SNC compete?

If I recall correctly, the Crew Dragon extension is IDIQ (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity) for "up to" sufficient flights to get to Crew-14, which when added to six Starliners would bring it to 20 CCP operational flights starting with Cerw-1.  Note the "up to". Presumably NASA could substitute one or more DC flights. Note also that stretching all the way to November 2030 requires an average mission time of six months+overlap. The first 4 missions have not quite done that, so adding one or two DC missions might be worthwhile anyway.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

SpaceX was not required by the RFP to make it part of their bid. They did bid it, and it's possible that NASA would have declined to award the contract without it: outsiders will never know, but looking back, SpaceX was a sort of new company and F9 was a new LV at the time, and SpaceX may have chosen to add the test to increase the chance of getting the award, and then it became a contract requirement. So you are both correct. Please quit arguing this point, especially on this thread.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

SpaceX was not required by the RFP to make it part of their bid. They did bid it, and it's possible that NASA would have declined to award the contract without it: outsiders will never know, but looking back, SpaceX was a sort of new company and F9 was a new LV at the time, and SpaceX may have chosen to add the test to increase the chance of getting the award, and then it became a contract requirement. So you are both correct. Please quit arguing this point, especially on this thread.

Why would NASA have declined the bid without it?  Boeing bid without an in-flight abort test and was accepted.

[DanClemmensen]

Why would NASA have declined the bid without it?  Boeing bid without an in-flight abort test and was accepted.

Responding at
     https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.0
Moderator, please move this off-topic stuff to that thread.

[DanClemmensen]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

SpaceX was not required by the RFP to make it part of their bid. They did bid it, and it's possible that NASA would have declined to award the contract without it: outsiders will never know, but looking back, SpaceX was a sort of new company and F9 was a new LV at the time, and SpaceX may have chosen to add the test to increase the chance of getting the award, and then it became a contract requirement. So you are both correct. Please quit arguing this point, especially on this thread.

Why would NASA have declined the bid without it?  Boeing bid without an in-flight abort test and was accepted.

At the time, Boeing was the established front-runner, with a well-known track record, and intended to launch on the most reliable launch vehicle then in existence. Boeing had no need to bid an in-flight abort test, so they did not.

We do not know why SpaceX chose to bid the in-flight abort test, and it does not matter for this argument you guys are having.
   The RFP did not require it.
   SpaceX chose to bid it.
   NASA awarded the contract that included the in-flight abort test.
   Therefore the resulting contract did require it.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

SpaceX was not required by the RFP to make it part of their bid. They did bid it, and it's possible that NASA would have declined to award the contract without it: outsiders will never know, but looking back, SpaceX was a sort of new company and F9 was a new LV at the time, and SpaceX may have chosen to add the test to increase the chance of getting the award, and then it became a contract requirement. So you are both correct. Please quit arguing this point, especially on this thread.

Why would NASA have declined the bid without it?  Boeing bid without an in-flight abort test and was accepted.

At the time, Boeing was the established front-runner, with a well-known track record, and intended to launch on the most reliable launch vehicle then in existence. Boeing had no need to bid an in-flight abort test, so they did not.

We do not know why SpaceX chose to bid the in-flight abort test, and it does not matter for this argument you guys are having.
   The RFP did not require it.
   SpaceX chose to bid it.
   NASA awarded the contract that included the in-flight abort test.
   Therefore the resulting contract did require it.

SpaceX didn't "need" to bid an in-flight abort test either.

The RFP required the contractors to perform computer modeling to ensure that the vehicle could perform an abort at any point during its launch trajectory, and it required testing of the launch abort hardware to validate the modeling. It did not specify what that testing should be, it was left up to the contractor to decide.

Boeing chose to bid ground testing and a pad-abort test.  SpaceX chose to bid ground testing, a pad abort test, and an in-flight abort test.

Supposedly, when SpaceX found out that Boeing wasn't doing an in-flight abort test, they tried to get out of doing one, but NASA said, nope, it's in your contract so you have to do it.

[darkenfast]

*snip*

the in-flight abort they performed for Comercial Crew wasn't a requirement either.

This myth is still alive?

Yes, it was a requirement.  SpaceX bid an in-flight abort test for CCiCap, NASA accepted it, so SpaceX was required to do it.  It wasn't optional, it was part of their contract, one of their paid milestones.

SpaceX was not required by the RFP to make it part of their bid. They did bid it, and it's possible that NASA would have declined to award the contract without it: outsiders will never know, but looking back, SpaceX was a sort of new company and F9 was a new LV at the time, and SpaceX may have chosen to add the test to increase the chance of getting the award, and then it became a contract requirement. So you are both correct. Please quit arguing this point, especially on this thread.

Why would NASA have declined the bid without it?  Boeing bid without an in-flight abort test and was accepted.

At the time, Boeing was the established front-runner, with a well-known track record, and intended to launch on the most reliable launch vehicle then in existence. Boeing had no need to bid an in-flight abort test, so they did not.

We do not know why SpaceX chose to bid the in-flight abort test, and it does not matter for this argument you guys are having.
   The RFP did not require it.
   SpaceX chose to bid it.
   NASA awarded the contract that included the in-flight abort test.
   Therefore the resulting contract did require it.

SpaceX didn't "need" to bid an in-flight abort test either.

The RFP required the contractors to perform computer modeling to ensure that the vehicle could perform an abort at any point during its launch trajectory, and it required testing of the launch abort hardware to validate the modeling. It did not specify what that testing should be, it was left up to the contractor to decide.

Boeing chose to bid ground testing and a pad-abort test.  SpaceX chose to bid ground testing, a pad abort test, and an in-flight abort test.

Supposedly, when SpaceX found out that Boeing wasn't doing an in-flight abort test, they tried to get out of doing one, but NASA said, nope, it's in your contract so you have to do it.

Does anyone have a source for that "Supposedly ... SpaceX tried to get out of ..."? This is the first time I've heard this.

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

Supposedly, when SpaceX found out that Boeing wasn't doing an in-flight abort test, they tried to get out of doing one, but NASA said, nope, it's in your contract so you have to do it.

Does anyone have a source for that "Supposedly ... SpaceX tried to get out of ..."? This is the first time I've heard this.

AFAIK there is no source to back this up. Only rumors that SpaceX quietly approached NASA about that and it was shot down.

[Coastal Ron]

*snip*

Supposedly, when SpaceX found out that Boeing wasn't doing an in-flight abort test, they tried to get out of doing one, but NASA said, nope, it's in your contract so you have to do it.

Does anyone have a source for that "Supposedly ... SpaceX tried to get out of ..."? This is the first time I've heard this.

AFAIK there is no source to back this up. Only rumors that SpaceX quietly approached NASA about that and it was shot down.

It is not a sin to ask a question, and if the launch abort was being paid for by SpaceX, then even more reason why it would not be unusual to ask to not do something if they see that the other competitor is not doing it. But wasn't the launch abort a paid milestone? Because if it was, why would SpaceX want to avoid it?

[whitelancer64]

*snip*

Supposedly, when SpaceX found out that Boeing wasn't doing an in-flight abort test, they tried to get out of doing one, but NASA said, nope, it's in your contract so you have to do it.

Does anyone have a source for that "Supposedly ... SpaceX tried to get out of ..."? This is the first time I've heard this.

AFAIK there is no source to back this up. Only rumors that SpaceX quietly approached NASA about that and it was shot down.

It is not a sin to ask a question, and if the launch abort was being paid for by SpaceX, then even more reason why it would not be unusual to ask to not do something if they see that the other competitor is not doing it. But wasn't the launch abort a paid milestone? Because if it was, why would SpaceX want to avoid it?

Yeah, usually it doesn't hurt to ask. If you can avoid doing a complicated and expensive task, why not.

Because Boeing wasn't doing one.

As Boeing has amply shown, you have to spend your own money to complete the milestone before you get paid for it. Sometimes a lot of money, especially if things don't go well. Maybe more than the milestone pays out.