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

[Vettedrmr]

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?

Regardless of how bad a turd Starliner was/is/and is to come, NASA and the US in general are not served well by just killing off everyone that's not currently successful.  The insatiable drive to get products at a better price, or better products at the same price (or whatever combo you wish, *regardless* of what happens to the industrial base that builds those products, has really harmed the US ability to build things.  Especially the defense industry, those chicks are coming home to roost.

So, SW Dude's assertion isn't without merit.  But this is getting off into policy land, not Starliner specific.

[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.

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

Corporate socialism in the US has become incompetent due to the way Congress funds programs.

[Jim]

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.

In addition to the other numbers being off, 75% is based on bias and not intelligence

[DanClemmensen]

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.

In addition to the other numbers being off, 75% is based on bias and not intelligence

Please provide your own estimates if you don't like mine.

Please note that the 75% is the cumulative probability that all four missions succeed without Starliner getting grounded. For example, if each of the four missions have a probability of complete success of 93%, then this cumulative probability is 75%. Since we only have four prior attempts and only one of them was completely successful, I thought this was relatively generous.

[Tywin]

If the cargo mission is a success do we expect a new crew mission?

[sdsds]

I assess the value to NASA of the remaining 5 years of the ISS at about $10 billion, and that is mostly prestige

You are certainly right that the value gained from ISS is mostly prestige. President Trump has just reiterated that the US is committed to "ENSURING AMERICAN SPACE SUPERIORITY." We can't do that if we're relying on Soyuz for crew transport to LEO. I dunno, but I think the US government sees the value of ISS (if they even put it into dollar terms) as being somewhere between your $10B and my (facetious) $1T.

[DanClemmensen]

If the cargo mission is a success do we expect a new crew mission?

Yes.
   https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2025/11/24/nasa-boeing-modify-commercial-crew-contract/
Please pay attention.

[Tywin]

If the cargo mission is a success do we expect a new crew mission?

Yes.
   https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2025/11/24/nasa-boeing-modify-commercial-crew-contract/
Please pay attention.

So then this is a very important mission.

[DanClemmensen]

I assess the value to NASA of the remaining 5 years of the ISS at about $10 billion, and that is mostly prestige

You are certainly right that the value gained from ISS is mostly prestige. President Trump has just reiterated that the US is committed to "ENSURING AMERICAN SPACE SUPERIORITY." We can't do that if we're relying on Soyuz for crew transport to LEO. I dunno, but I think the US government sees the value of ISS (if they even put it into dollar terms) as being somewhere between your $10B and my (facetious) $1T.

IMO A hiatus in Dragon flights will not cause even a $10 B loss of prestige. The decade-long hiatus was almost not noticed outside the space community. The reporting (Astronauts Stranded!!!!) about the botched CFT and the botched recovery IMO caused a much more noticeable loss of prestige. If the de-orbit of ISS by USDV fails, then we will see a real loss of prestige.

May I ask why you think the value is higher than $10 billion? I'm certainly no expert on national prestige values.

[sdsds]

May I ask why you think the value is higher than $10 billion? I'm certainly no expert on national prestige values.

I'm not an expert on valuations either. There's a fun rule of thumb that says something is only worth what the second highest bidder would be willing to pay. What would China be willing to pay to have the only viable space station?

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

May I ask why you think the value is higher than $10 billion? I'm certainly no expert on national prestige values.

I'm not an expert on valuations either. There's a fun rule of thumb that says something is only worth what the second highest bidder would be willing to pay. What would China be willing to pay to have the only viable space station?

I suspect the answer to your question is at most zero.

Tiangong is of great importance for the CCP, both for prestige, and as a human spaceflight testbed. ISS not so much; we have largely learnt what we are going to learn and are now faced with the substantial costs of maintenance until safe disposal. The CCP will be more than happy to see money and expertise funnelled into programs that will have little impact on their strategic competition with the US.

[DanClemmensen]

May I ask why you think the value is higher than $10 billion? I'm certainly no expert on national prestige values.

I'm not an expert on valuations either. There's a fun rule of thumb that says something is only worth what the second highest bidder would be willing to pay. What would China be willing to pay to have the only viable space station?

I suspect the answer to your question is at most zero.

Tiangong is of great importance for the CCP, both for prestige, and as a human spaceflight testbed. ISS not so much; we have largely learnt what we are going to learn and are now faced with the substantial costs of maintenance until safe disposal. The CCP will be more than happy to see money and expertise funnelled into programs that will have little impact on their strategic competition with the US.

I used $10 B as what I thought was a very generous upper bound, to demonstrate that even with this upper bound the expected value of Starliner redundancy is very small. Recall that at one point DOGE proposed that ISS be de-orbited early, to save money.

I have an emotional fondness for ISS, basically because I would prefer to maintain and extend the record for continuous human presence in space, and especially continuous American presence in space. But I cannot justify a $2.1B expense for at most a $75 Million value based on my emotions, especially since we can use Soyuz seats if Dragon has a hiatus. We can spend that $2.1 B on something else, like a Starship CLD.

[Ike17055]

There are two issues here. The main one is the organizational failure that allowed a faulty spacecraft to get this far into lifecycle with inadequate development attention from both its producer and its governmental overseer. There are serious lessons to be learned here and we are right to discuss those with an eye toward fixing. Plus, it is also tempting to throw away the entire program to brush the stink of failure off the vehicle and its producer.

The second and more interesting issue is the future, if any, of the spacecraft, Cst-100, itself — aside from the organizational and program failure — and is it fixable or too unfixable to bother with. As best I can tell as a relative novice, the hardware issues that remain are with the thruster doghouses and potential overheating. Most other issues, especially software, seem to have received enough belated attention to now be considered “solved.” This leads back to the question of “is the vehicle salvageable as a working spacecraft?”

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

While it is tempting to conclude one should merely throw in the towel on Starliner, it appears to be a good vehicle aside from the Service module failure. One would conclude it is not fixable in conjunction with its role of servicing ISS, which is reaching end of lifecycle. Too late to be relevant.

However, Emerging launch providers, specifically Blue Origin have future aspirations that require a crew vehicle. Would any find that investing in a different service module for Starliner meets their need, as opposed to undertaking a commitment to full development of a new crew vehicle, even as an interim basis?

[DanClemmensen]

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

No. Someone needs to pay for this, it then takes some time to complete, and it needs needs two test flights to be certified. In a perfect world, this would take about three years total. To be useful in the future, they also need to pick a new launch vehicle and crew-certify it also, since only six Atlas V remain, so they will need a new stage adapter for this new launch vehicle. Unless this new launch vehicle has a reusable first stage, the launch cost will be higher than Crew Dragon on F9.

In this timeframe, it will probably compete with crewed Starship, Not Crew Dragon, and if crewed Starship ever works at all, it will be a lot cheaper than any capsule.

However, major issue for me is that Starliner's architecture is inherently expensive compared to Crew Dragon. The expended Dragon trunk is minimal and therefore relatively cheap. The expended Starliner SM is complex and expensive.

[clongton]

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

Unlikely. In addition to Dan's observations, this spacecraft is based on 50-year old technology. Soon enough it will feel antiquated. The only real innovation with the CST-100 is the inflatable landing bags. Even that is not really new, just never used for this application before.

[catdlr]

Moderator:

Just a reminder that any discussions about posts in the Update thread should be quoted and answered in this thread. I recently moved about half a dozen posts from the Updated post to this thread.

Tony

[Comga]

Safety panel says NASA should have taken Starliner incident more seriously

After concluding that NASA was overly optimistic about Starliner after the post-launch incident, Clark copies NASA’s overly optimistic statement about the autonomous landing being safe.

That landing was “successful” but not “safe”.
That specific, and at the time still not understood,  problems did not repeat was luck.  While the odds of this success were very high, it still didn’t meet the LOC requirements for crew return. 
If operational solutions to all the problems had been found and implemented, it would have been “safe” and reflights might have followed quickly, but they did not.
Any statement or implication by Boeing or NASA of “See it was safe after all” is boosterism or huckstering. 

[woods170]

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

Unlikely. In addition to Dan's observations, this spacecraft is based on 50-year old technology. Soon enough it will feel antiquated. The only real innovation with the CST-100 is the inflatable landing bags. Even that is not really new, just never used for this application before.

The other "novelty" with the CST-100 is the bolted clam shell pressure vessel. But it turned out that it was more of a liability than a feature: the bolted flange proved rather hard to properly seal, particularly in situations where one side of the crew module is warm and the other side is cold.

[Ike17055]

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

No. Someone needs to pay for this, it then takes some time to complete, and it needs needs two test flights to be certified. In a perfect world, this would take about three years total. To be useful in the future, they also need to pick a new launch vehicle and crew-certify it also, since only six Atlas V remain, so they will need a new stage adapter for this new launch vehicle. Unless this new launch vehicle has a reusable first stage, the launch cost will be higher than Crew Dragon on F9.

In this timeframe, it will probably compete with crewed Starship, Not Crew Dragon, and if crewed Starship ever works at all, it will be a lot cheaper than any capsule.

However, major issue for me is that Starliner's architecture is inherently expensive compared to Crew Dragon. The expended Dragon trunk is minimal and therefore relatively cheap. The expended Starliner SM is complex and expensive.

Wow. This and other posts demonstrate that the hate runs high and an objective answer is too much bother apparently.  On re-read you might note that I already stated that it is too late for ISS and that OTHER launch vehicle companies who need a spacecraft might find value at least until a full scale (multi-year) development program can be realized.  A redesign of the service module would seem to pale in comparison to that undertaking and expedite their path. 

…but all that was ignored in the rush to throw dirt on a premature grave of the clearly-hated spacecraft by some, such as interjection of “no more atlas Vs” and other ignored facts ensure no real discussion can happen….very disappointing.

So the question still stands as to hypotheticals.  Could any of the emerging launch companies see the possibility of securing Starliner as their ride, understanding (as I stated) that a redesign of the service module would be needed.   NEVER MIND the asserions of the superior architecture of Space X. Once again the Space X fans have to pollute the debate and discussion surrounding other providers.  The “ best” architecture they might have is the one that is available fastest. Get something flying, optimize your design / architecture later.

This is getting tiresome having to counter the groupthink of Space X fandom at every turn….

[DanClemmensen]

If I am seeing this correctly, Boeing and NASA believe they are most of the way toward solution. COULD THE VEHICLE BE FIXED WITH A REDESIGN OF THE SERVICE MODULE?

No. Someone needs to pay for this, it then takes some time to complete, and it needs needs two test flights to be certified. In a perfect world, this would take about three years total. To be useful in the future, they also need to pick a new launch vehicle and crew-certify it also, since only six Atlas V remain, so they will need a new stage adapter for this new launch vehicle. Unless this new launch vehicle has a reusable first stage, the launch cost will be higher than Crew Dragon on F9.

In this timeframe, it will probably compete with crewed Starship, Not Crew Dragon, and if crewed Starship ever works at all, it will be a lot cheaper than any capsule.

However, major issue for me is that Starliner's architecture is inherently expensive compared to Crew Dragon. The expended Dragon trunk is minimal and therefore relatively cheap. The expended Starliner SM is complex and expensive.

Wow. This and other posts demonstrate that the hate runs high and an objective answer is too much bother apparently.  On re-read you might note that I already stated that it is too late for ISS and that OTHER launch vehicle companies who need a spacecraft might find value at least until a full scale (multi-year) development program can be realized.  A redesign of the service module would seem to pale in comparison to that undertaking and expedite their path. 

…but all that was ignored in the rush to throw dirt on a premature grave of the clearly-hated spacecraft by some, such as interjection of “no more atlas Vs” and other ignored facts ensure no real discussion can happen….very disappointing.

So the question still stands as to hypotheticals.  Could any of the emerging launch companies see the possibility of securing Starliner as their ride, understanding (as I stated) that a redesign of the service module would be needed.   NEVER MIND the asserions of the superior architecture of Space X. Once again the Space X fans have to pollute the debate and discussion surrounding other providers.  The “ best” architecture they might have is the one that is available fastest. Get something flying, optimize your design / architecture later.

This is getting tiresome having to counter the groupthink of Space X fandom at every turn….

I'm sorry you saw my post as Starliner-hating. It was intended to be objective.
let me try again. I'm very interested in your objective answers to each of the following questions:
   Which statements in my post were not objective?
   How long do you think it would take until a new SM could be operational?
   In your opinion, which launch vehicle would be used?
   What do you think the per-mission cost of a Starliner mission with the new SM will be?