Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6

[LaunchedIn68]

The noble dream of 2 dissimilar paths to ISS crew rotation was a good idea, but that was a very long time ago and only 1 of the 2 chosen paths have panned out - Dragon/Falcon. Starliner/Atlas has been a dismal failure; no fault to Atlas.

I wonder, in an alternate timeline point of view, what things would look like at this point if the situations were reversed - Starliner reliably flying crew to the ISS and Dragon struggling.  In my cynical mind, SpaceX would have been kicked to the curb by now.

It almost happened for real before any of the vehicles even flew.  I remember Charlie Bolden getting beat over the head by the Senators....."Downselect.....Downselect....Downselect....(eg Boeing)" but he held strong and said we need TWO for redundancy.  I'm glad he did!

I remember when the announcement was made....who was the Senator who said "I'm glad Boeing was chosen"?  It was a woman.

[Comga]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1993092300210122921

Can someone who knows explain what Roulette means by “25% of program progress”.
(I have my own guess and am not looking for another however logical.)

[cpushack]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1993092300210122921

Can someone who knows explain what Roulette means by “25% of program progress”.
(I have my own guess and am not looking for another however logical.)

25% of the milestones met in the contract, those first 25% of the milestones though are the most expensive (development/build/test of the capsule) so thats to be expected. 

[woods170]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1993092300210122921

Hmmm... another Joey Roulette story that contains about 50% facts and 50% assumptions and opinions.

What Joey is missing is that the original CCtCAP contract had a 50-50 split in value: half the contract value was for final development of the crew transportation service, as well as flying an uncrewed and a crewed testflight in support of certification.

This applied to both CCtCAP contracts: Boeing was to receive a total of $2.1B for the development & certification portion of its CCtCAP contract, divided over a whole bunch of milestones. Nearly all of that has been paid to Boeing, for the very simple reason that Boeing has met almost all of the certification milestones, except for returning to Earth with the crew onboard.
The reason that total payments to Boeing are approximately $200M bigger than the payments for development & certification, lies in the fact that Boeing has already met some preparatory milestones for the operational crew flights. And each of those milestones also come with payouts.

Joey is wrong when he states that Boeing is at only 25% progress. The development & certification phase of the CCtCAP contract is actually the hard part of the contract. Boeing found that out the hard way. Dev & cert is actually about two-thirds of all the work that needs to be completed.

For comparison:
The original CCtCAP contract for SpaceX held a total value of $2.6B. Half of that ($1.3B) was assigned to milestones for development & certification of the Crew Dragon vehicle. Flying the six operational crew rotation missions, which were part of the original CCtCAP contract, earned SpaceX the other $1.3B.
In 2021 and again in 2022 the CCtCAP contract for SpaceX was modified. The part containing the operational crew rotation missions was expanded from six to nine in 2021, and then to 14 in 2022. The exact amount of money involved in these contract expansions is not entirely clear, but is is believed that it sent the total value of the SpaceX CCtCAP contract north of $5B.

[DanClemmensen]

https://x.com/joroulette/status/1993092300210122921

Hmmm... another Joey Roulette story that contains about 50% facts and 50% assumptions and opinions.

What Joey is missing is that the original CCtCAP contract had a 50-50 split in value: half the contract value was for final development of the crew transportation service, as well as flying an uncrewed and a crewed testflight in support of certification.

This applied to both CCtCAP contracts: Boeing was to receive a total of $2.1B for the development & certification portion of its CCtCAP contract, divided over a whole bunch of milestones. Nearly all of that has been paid to Boeing, for the very simple reason that Boeing has met almost all of the certification milestones, except for returning to Earth with the crew onboard.
The reason that total payments to Boeing are approximately $200M bigger than the payments for development & certification, lies in the fact that Boeing has already met some preparatory milestones for the operational crew flights. And each of those milestones also come with payouts.

Joey is wrong when he states that Boeing is at only 25% progress. The development & certification phase of the CCtCAP contract is actually the hard part of the contract. Boeing found that out the hard way. Dev & cert is actually about two-thirds of all the work that needs to be completed.

The original CCtCAP contract for SpaceX held a total value of $2.6B. Half of that ($1.3B) was assigned to milestones for development & certification of the Crew Dragon vehicle. Flying the six operational crew rotation missions, which were part of the original CCtCAP contract, earned SpaceX the other $1.3B.

Thanks for this analysis. I have never been able to extract this info from the government contract site because I don't know how to navigate it.

So: Boeing was to get $2.1B for all development milestones through successful CFT conclusion, and somehow they have received more than this even though they have not completed all of CFT. In a perfect world they would have received another $2.1B for six CCP flights, or about $350 M per flight.   But now, the contract has been renegotiated, and we don't really have a lot of detail. Joey seems to think that basically NASA has agreed to pay for the equivalent of about four CCP flights instead of six, a reduction of (crudely) $700 M. But we now know or think we know that NASA intends to pay for the next Starliner flight even though it is uncrewed. NASA is only getting one worthless cargo mission plus 3 actual CCP missions for their money.

Is this roughly correct? Do you have a better insight into the actual payments and milestones going forward?

By contrast, by your reckoning SpaceX got $1.3B for six CCP flights, or $210 M each. After two extensions, the SpaceX contract total is now $4.93B for development plus 14 flights, which I guess is (4.93-2.1)/14 or $202M each.

[Jim]

NASA is only getting one worthless cargo mission

unsubstantiated and uninformed statement 

[DanClemmensen]

NASA is only getting one worthless cargo mission

unsubstantiated and uninformed statement

I should have said "in my opinion worthless". It is not however substantiated or uninformed. NASA announced that they were getting that cargo mission, so it's "substantiated".  It's also "informed", at least to the extend that I have read all of NASA's announcements on the subject.

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math. You apparently disagree. What do you see as the worth of this mission?

[sdsds]

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math.

Oh gosh.

𝐜 = cost if NASA cannot get crew to ISS (choose any value > 0)
𝐩 = probability SpaceX/F9/D2 can meet the need (choose any value < 100%)
𝐪 = probability certified Starliner could be pressed into service to meet the need (choose any value > 0%)

𝐯 = 𝐜 × 𝐪 × (1 - 𝐩)

How can 𝐯 be negative?

[Jim]

NASA is only getting one worthless cargo mission

unsubstantiated and uninformed statement

I should have said "in my opinion worthless". It is not however substantiated or uninformed. NASA announced that they were getting that cargo mission, so it's "substantiated".  It's also "informed", at least to the extend that I have read all of NASA's announcements on the subject.

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math. You apparently disagree. What do you see as the worth of this mission?

Again
unsubstantiated and uninformed statement

[DanClemmensen]

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math.

Oh gosh.

𝐜 = cost if NASA cannot get crew to ISS (choose any value > 0)
𝐩 = probability SpaceX/F9/D2 can meet the need (choose any value < 100%)
𝐪 = probability certified Starliner could be pressed into service to meet the need (choose any value > 0%)

𝐯 = 𝐜 × 𝐪 × (1 - 𝐩)

How can 𝐯 be negative?

Your equation is incomplete, but I understand your intent. If we replace it with a more valid equation it still ignores the cost to NASA caused by the disruptions to the orderly schedule of CCP and CRS missions, plus the program costs within NASA for Starliner oversight. It also neglects the actual payments to Boeing, which are very large and exceed the "v" you are attempting to calculate: thus a negative result.

You are arguing for the ongoing value of the Starliner program and implicitly assuming that the uncrewed mission is needed to keep the program going. I was more narrowly complaining about the value of the uncrewed mission itself, valued as a cargo mission.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA is only getting one worthless cargo mission

unsubstantiated and uninformed statement

I should have said "in my opinion worthless". It is not however substantiated or uninformed. NASA announced that they were getting that cargo mission, so it's "substantiated".  It's also "informed", at least to the extend that I have read all of NASA's announcements on the subject.

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math. You apparently disagree. What do you see as the worth of this mission?

Again
unsubstantiated and uninformed statement

Again: What is the value of this mission to NASA, in your opinion?

[yg1968]

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math. You apparently disagree. What do you see as the worth of this mission?

I can't answer for Jim but I think that the value for NASA is having another uncrewed test for Starliner and, as a result of the renegotiated contract, NASA now has reduced its obligations to purchase 2 Starliner missions which is seen as a good thing as it seems unlikely that NASA will need more than the remaining 4 missions until the ISS is deorbited in 2030.

[DanClemmensen]

I believe that using a Starliner CCP flight as a cargo mission has negative worth to NASA, based on some simple math. You apparently disagree. What do you see as the worth of this mission?

I can't answer for Jim but I think that the value for NASA is having another uncrewed test for Starliner and, as a result of the renegotiated contract, NASA now has reduced its obligations to purchase 2 Starliner missions which is seen as a good thing as it seems unlikely that NASA will need more than the remaining 4 missions until the ISS is deorbited in 2030.

It seems that you feel that supporting Starliner is worth it. Basically, NASA will pay Boeing even though they failed to achieve the milestones they agreed to in their firm fixed price contract. NASA clearly is unwilling to certify the CFT, and is even unwilling to fly crew without another uncrewed test. We are essentially to paying for and flying another OFT. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the original Fixed-price contract, Boeing would be required to pay for a successful CFT, and since NASA has apparently refused to allow a crewed flight, they would be required to pay for "OFT-3".

Meanwhile the value of the Starliner program as an alternative is decreasing as the years go by. The realistic alternative to a Dragon is now another Dragon.

Not sure where "four missions" comes from. I thought a total of 20 operational CCP missions were needed, and SpaceX is contracted for missions through Crew-14. Starliner would contribute another three. We have heard that mission times might be extended to 8 months (3 every two years). Is this now a formal plan?

[yg1968]

Not sure where "four missions" comes from. I thought a total of 20 operational CCP missions were needed, and SpaceX is contracted for missions through Crew-14. Starliner would contribute another three. We have heard that mission times might be extended to 8 months (3 every two years). Is this now a formal plan?

Sorry, I didn't do the math. Perhaps that more than 4 are needed but NASA can exercise options if necessary for additionnal Starliner (or could sole-source other Dargon missions if necessary). I think that NASA's plan is to alternate between Dragon and Starliner missions as soon as Starliner is operational.

[DanClemmensen]

Not sure where "four missions" comes from. I thought a total of 20 operational CCP missions were needed, and SpaceX is contracted for missions through Crew-14. Starliner would contribute another three. We have heard that mission times might be extended to 8 months (3 every two years). Is this now a formal plan?

Sorry, I didn't do the math. Perhaps that more than 4 are needed but NASA can exercise options if necessary for additionnal Starliner (or could sole-source other Dargon missions if necessary). I think that NASA's plan is to alternate between Dragon and Starliner missions as soon as Starliner is operational.

If they intend to alternate and continue to do six-month missions, they will need four more Dragons starting with Crew-12, and four Starliners starting with Starliner-2, to get to the end of 2029. I'm unsure of the exact termination schedule, so I'm vague about the years 2030 and 2031.

If they shift to 8-month missions, they have 12*4 months of missions, so 12*4/8= 6 missions for 2026-2029, three each for Dragon and Starliner, plus whatever they need after 2029.  Minor problem: they will need to certify Dragon and Starliner for 8-month missions: call it 250 days to account for overlap and contingencies. NASA authorized Crew-8 to extend past 210 to up to 240 and it ended up at 235.

[sdsds]

Your equation is incomplete

Feel free to show your own math. But first, what cost would you assess to NASA (the USA) if it is unable to maintain crew rotation on ISS? What if that were $1T?

[Jim]

Your equation is incomplete, but I understand your intent. If we replace it with a more valid equation it still ignores the cost to NASA caused by the disruptions to the orderly schedule of CCP and CRS missions, plus the program costs within NASA for Starliner oversight.

wrong again

[DanClemmensen]

Your equation is incomplete

Feel free to show your own math. But first, what cost would you assess to NASA (the USA) if it is unable to maintain crew rotation on ISS? What if that were $1T?

I assess the value to NASA of the remaining 5 years of the ISS at about $10 billion, and that is mostly prestige, not science or engineering. The cost to NASA is the loss of that value. The prestige loss of a one-year hiatus is smaller, maybe $1 billion. We had a ten-year hiatus from 2010 until 2020.

I assess the probability that Dragon will be grounded before ISS deorbit as 0.01.  I base this on the existing flight history of F9 and Dragon 2.
I assess the probability Dragon would remain grounded for more than one year to be 0.001. NASA would maintain ISS using Soyuz seats.

I guesstimate the total remaining cost of the Starliner program to NASA to be at least $2.1 Billion. This is only a rough estimate because NASA has not provided the actual number. If Starliner is successful, this will displace about $600 million of Crew dragon cost.

I assess the probability of complete success of the remaining Starliner at 75%. I base this on an optimistic guess that they will do better than they have done so far. Emotionally, if it flies at all, I really hope it is completely successful, but OFT-1 failed, OTF-2 attempt#1 was scrubbed and delayed for over a year, and we all know what happened with CFT.

For my assessments and using your formula the value to NASA is $10 Billion * 0.75 * 0.01 = $75 Million., before you subtract the cost of Starliner.

[SoftwareDude]

At this point, supporting Starliner probably has more to do with keeping NASA's manufacturing base intact than with actually being a backup spacecraft.

[DanClemmensen]

At this point, supporting Starliner probably has more to do with keeping NASA's manufacturing base intact than with actually being a backup spacecraft.

NASA does not have a manufacturing base, does it? Do yo mean funneling money to Boeing, L3Harris, and ULA, so they can provide more fine products like Starliner?