Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[DanClemmensen]

Surely NASA will have to award SpaceX a further contract extension for additional crewed flight(s)?

I think the only way that Boeing could complete 6 operational crewed missions by the end of 2030 is to fly 2 in a year and I don’t think that’ll happen.

Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. This means they can almost certainly fly two missions back-to-back, but they probably cannot fly three.

The current contracts for Starliner (six missions) and Crew Dragon (six more starting with Crew-9) cover the remaining CCP missions to ISS through the Spring mission in 2030, which is the projected last mission to ISS. Any missed Starliner missions that cannot be made up later will need to be replaced with Crew Dragon missions under a new contract extension, and if NASA needs a Fall mission in 2030, they will need a contract extension for it, also.

[mn]

My conspiracy bias leads me to assume that while there was a meeting — just as described in the media briefing — ending with unanimous consensus within NASA leadership, there were prior agreements made covertly among the power brokers. Just a theory: Boeing presented "We're prepared to conduct either crewed or uncrewed return" in exchange for a covert agreement that this offer would mean a successful uncrewed return puts them on a path to fly the next Starliner as a 4-crew rotation mission. That would be after the thruster over-heating issue is addressed to everyone's satisfaction of course.

This also explains the emphasis at the media briefing on this being a NASA decision. No good faith interpretation of the contract would include the idea that NASA, at its whim, could refuse to put its astronauts on the return leg and thereby put Boeing in violation of its contract obligations. I recognize that's twisted thinking, but contract lawyers are famous for that.

If we want to be really sinister, the behind the scenes agreement was that the people who allowed SpaceX entry to the exclusive club will be demoted so that Boeing never has this problem (=competition) again. That I just one of the many options for solving the 'problem' and it's not beyond some people in power to pursue that path. Whether or not those people are the ones pulling the strings today I have no idea.

[deltaV]

Jonathan Goff argues in a blog post that NASA should cancel the Starliner contract and fund someone else to develop a replacement: https://selenianboondocks.com/2024/08/starliner-reponendum-est-boeings-troubled-capsule-needs-to-be-replaced/. According to his blog bio he is "Product Strategy Lead for the space station startup Gravitics", so he likely has a conflict of interest, but people with conflicts of interest can still make interesting arguments. He's apparently planning to post two more blog posts on this subject soon. (He didn't discuss who might develop the replacement but I guess the winner of the new procurement would most likely be either Sierra Space's DreamChaser or a Blue Origin vehicle.)

It seems to me that cancellation would be OK so NASA should hold Boeing to the contract even if they threaten to cancel. The only flexibility I would give Boeing is if another test flight is required and it delivers useful cargo NASA could pay Boeing the market price for delivering that cargo. I'm not yet convinced that NASA should proactively cancel, partly because I don't know how the contract handles termination by Boeing, termination by NASA for cause, and termination by NASA for convenience of the government.

[Coastal Ron]

Jonathan Goff argues in a blog post that NASA should cancel the Starliner contract and fund someone else to develop a replacement: https://selenianboondocks.com/2024/08/starliner-reponendum-est-boeings-troubled-capsule-needs-to-be-replaced/. According to his blog bio he is "Product Strategy Lead for the space station startup Gravitics", so he likely has a conflict of interest, but people with conflicts of interest can still make interesting arguments. He's apparently planning to post two more blog posts on this subject soon. (He didn't discuss who might develop the replacement but I guess the winner of the new procurement would most likely be either Sierra Space's DreamChaser or a Blue Origin vehicle.)

I enjoy Jonathan's perspectives, and of the three options available to NASA (keep Boeing, replace Boeing, rely only on SpaceX), his suggestion would be one of the top two for me. I just don't know if there is enough time, and enough potential business, for a new 2nd provider to be created and certified.

It seems to me that cancellation would be OK so NASA should hold Boeing to the contract even if they threaten to cancel.

I'm no fan of Boeing management, but I hesitate to support cancelling Boeing, or allowing them to withdraw from the program. I certainly don't want to support bad corporate behavior, but I see this as a test for NASA that every future contractor for so-called "Commercial" programs will be viewing to see if NASA will do "the right thing", if a future contractor gets into trouble with their efforts.

The only flexibility I would give Boeing is if another test flight is required and it delivers useful cargo NASA could pay Boeing the market price for delivering that cargo.

I'm hoping the fix for this will be fairly straightforward, though maybe not cheap. NASA Administrator Nelson has quite a challenge before him...

[DanClemmensen]

The only flexibility I would give Boeing is if another test flight is required and it delivers useful cargo NASA could pay Boeing the market price for delivering that cargo.

I'm hoping the fix for this will be fairly straightforward, though maybe not cheap. NASA Administrator Nelson has quite a challenge before him...

No challenge at all. If Boeing achieves further CCP contract milestones, NASA will pay them. If not, NASA will not pay them, so no NASA decisions needed. The only other reasonable NASA decision would be to cancel the contract for non-performance based on the seven-year (at least) schedule slip.

Nelson will have a serious challenge if he tries to force certification of the current CFT.

Boeing has challenges, not NASA.

[DanClemmensen]

Jonathan Goff argues in a blog post that NASA should cancel the Starliner contract and fund someone else to develop a replacement: https://selenianboondocks.com/2024/08/starliner-reponendum-est-boeings-troubled-capsule-needs-to-be-replaced/. According to his blog bio he is "Product Strategy Lead for the space station startup Gravitics", so he likely has a conflict of interest, but people with conflicts of interest can still make interesting arguments. He's apparently planning to post two more blog posts on this subject soon. (He didn't discuss who might develop the replacement but I guess the winner of the new procurement would most likely be either Sierra Space's DreamChaser or a Blue Origin vehicle.)

It seems to me that cancellation would be OK so NASA should hold Boeing to the contract even if they threaten to cancel. The only flexibility I would give Boeing is if another test flight is required and it delivers useful cargo NASA could pay Boeing the market price for delivering that cargo. I'm not yet convinced that NASA should proactively cancel, partly because I don't know how the contract handles termination by Boeing, termination by NASA for cause, and termination by NASA for convenience of the government.

Goff's blog post asserts that NASA has already decided that the CFT cannot be certified,so another CFT will be needed. He cites a NASA press release about Saturday's press conference:
    https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-starliner-spacecraft-back-to-earth-without-crew/
However, neither the press release nor my recollection of the press conference actually flatly said that the CFT would not be certified. The closest thing we have is this quote from the press release:

The uncertainty and lack of expert concurrence does not meet the agency’s safety and performance requirements for human spaceflight, thus prompting NASA leadership to move the astronauts to the Crew-9 mission.

I cannot see how they could certify it after that, but it's not an explicit announcement that they will decline to certify.

[sdsds]

Read carefully how in that sentence @jongoff uses the words "yet" and "potentially."

it would not be considered certified for crew launches yet, potentially requiring a fourth test flight

[DanClemmensen]

Read carefully how in that sentence @jongoff uses the words "yet" and "potentially."

it would not be considered certified for crew launches yet, potentially requiring a fourth test flight

A more complete quote is

And that because the Starliner hasn’t met all of its test objectives, that it would not be considered certified for crew launches yet [16], potentially requiring a fourth test flight sometime in the future.

That is what I interpreted as Goff asserting that NASA would decline to certify. English is nuanced, and my interpretation may not be correct, but "would" can be interpreted as subjunctive (as you have) or descriptive, as I have. I guess we need to wait until Goff clarifies, or we can just make our own estimates and wait for NASA to tell us.

[deltaV]

I enjoy Jonathan's perspectives, and of the three options available to NASA (keep Boeing, replace Boeing, rely only on SpaceX), his suggestion would be one of the top two for me. I just don't know if there is enough time, and enough potential business, for a new 2nd provider to be created and certified.

There's probably insufficient time for a new 2nd provider to come online before the ISS is deorbited. The new 2nd provider would be for the post-ISS Commercial LEO Destinations program.

I'm not a fan of NASA spending lots of money on crewed stuff in LEO with unclear goals (NASA should focus on the Moon and/or Mars) so I would cap NASA expenditures on a new 2nd provider at ~$3B. If that's not enough money either reduce requirements until it is enough money or live with a Dragon monopoly in LEO. NASA should instead spend money on ensuring that beyond-LEO crew transport is competitive.

I'm no fan of Boeing management, but I hesitate to support cancelling Boeing, or allowing them to withdraw from the program. I certainly don't want to support bad corporate behavior, but I see this as a test for NASA that every future contractor for so-called "Commercial" programs will be viewing to see if NASA will do "the right thing", if a future contractor gets into trouble with their efforts.

It's fair and reasonable to hold Boeing accountable for the Starliner problems because the problems appear to be primarily caused directly or indirectly by Boeing's actions and inactions. Canceling Starliner could hurt Boeing but it would help another company that's more deserving of NASA's money that wins the next procurement.

[Vultur]

I'm no fan of Boeing management, but I hesitate to support cancelling Boeing, or allowing them to withdraw from the program. I certainly don't want to support bad corporate behavior, but I see this as a test for NASA that every future contractor for so-called "Commercial" programs will be viewing to see if NASA will do "the right thing", if a future contractor gets into trouble with their efforts.

Why is "companies that perform badly lose contracts" a bad precedent to set?

I understand the desire to avoid a SpaceX monopoly, but a second provider is really only valuable if it can provide somewhat comparable services.

[sdsds]

Try, "Companies that contract with NASA often lose money in the process." Is that a good thing?

It really falls on NASA to mostly enter into contracts where the contractor has a good chance to make a profit. Jonathan Goff is going to try to make the case that there's a contract like that out there somewhere with a non-Boeing, non-SpaceX commercial crew service provider. I sincerely hope he succeeds!

[DanClemmensen]

Try, "Companies that contract with NASA often lose money in the process." Is that a good thing?

It really falls on NASA to mostly enter into contracts where the contractor has a good chance to make a profit. Jonathan Goff is going to try to make the case that there's a contract like that out there somewhere with a non-Boeing, non-SpaceX commercial crew service provider. I sincerely hope he succeeds!

NASA had strong reason to believe that Boeing would make money on Starliner. Boeing asserted this starting in 2010, and again in 2014, and their bid was for about $4 Billion, against the SpaceX bid of $3 Billion.

IMO there is no hope for a new entrant starting now to put a new design into operation before 2030. Crew Dragon took ten years from the first contract to first operation. Therefore, a bidder would need to be working from an existing base, and that means either Dream Chaser or Starship.
I suppose a US company could license the Shenzhou or Soyuz  and build a US version, but they only have a crew of three and politics make them unacceptable.

[meekGee]

Try, "Companies that contract with NASA often lose money in the process." Is that a good thing?

It really falls on NASA to mostly enter into contracts where the contractor has a good chance to make a profit. Jonathan Goff is going to try to make the case that there's a contract like that out there somewhere with a non-Boeing, non-SpaceX commercial crew service provider. I sincerely hope he succeeds!

The alternative is "companies are guaranteed to make money even after 3x repeated failure at a high bid price".

FFP should be a good way to make money, but it can't be guaranteed or else it becomes a freebee money program. There's got to be a line, and Boeing is waayyy past that line.

[abaddon]

[...]their bid was for about $4 Billion, against the SpaceX bid of $3 Billion.

More specifically, $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively.

[dglow]

[...]their bid was for about $4 Billion, against the SpaceX bid of $3 Billion.

More specifically, $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively.

Further breakdown: https://payloadspace.com/starliner-by-the-numbers-payload-research/

[Coastal Ron]

I'm no fan of Boeing management, but I hesitate to support cancelling Boeing, or allowing them to withdraw from the program. I certainly don't want to support bad corporate behavior, but I see this as a test for NASA that every future contractor for so-called "Commercial" programs will be viewing to see if NASA will do "the right thing", if a future contractor gets into trouble with their efforts.

Why is "companies that perform badly lose contracts" a bad precedent to set?

We must not assume that NASA has done a wonderful job managing the Commercial Crew program, because allowing a contractor to fail after working on something for over 13 years is NOT a sign that NASA knowns how to manage these types of so-called "Commercial" development programs.

The U.S. Taxpayer is the loser in all of this, and that is on NASA, not Boeing. And NASA is going to take this same management template and apply it to the Artemis program - does that sound like a good idea?

We should realize by now that SpaceX is not the norm in government contracting, it is the exception. And SpaceX has certainly not been perfect in building out complex systems for NASA, but it has found a formula for successful product management that has, I think, allowed NASA to think that other companies will find the same success. Boeing has proven that assumption to be wrong.

Kudos to Orbital Sciences for developing the Commercial Cargo Cygnus vehicle relatively drama free (well, except for their launchers), but I'm not sure Blue Origin will have a drama-free development program for their Blue Moon lunar lander. Blue Origin has no history building crewed spacecraft, just as Boeing has no recent and relevant history building crewed spacecraft for Commercial Crew.

The concept of "Commercial" space services is rather new, and all the major government contractors are watching to see how well NASA is managing these programs, and what it does when problems arise. And if government contractors don't think that NASA manages their programs very well, then why should those same government contractors put themselves at risk of not making money on programs NASA asks them to bid on?

So yeah, NASA has to manage this situation with Boeing to A) not lose all the taxpayer money that has already been invested, and B) not end up with only one crew transportation provider, but NASA also has to ensure that the government contracting world won't get scared off the next time NASA needs new so-called "Commercial" services. Because then NASA will have to resort to Cost-Plus contracting, and we all know how poorly NASA manages those.

[DanClemmensen]

[...]their bid was for about $4 Billion, against the SpaceX bid of $3 Billion.

More specifically, $4.2 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively.

Further breakdown: https://payloadspace.com/starliner-by-the-numbers-payload-research/

Fun with numbers.  Thanks for the added precision, but there are a lot of ways to look at the numbers. Those particular numbers were for maximum payout of the contracts if all deliverables were delivered and all six operational missions were flown, and I think the Boeing number included the extra $287 million NASA agreed to add in 2016. Exact numbers are not are not needed to demonstrate that NASA had reason to believe in 2014 that Boeing could make a profit on Starliner.  I do not know how much NASA has actually paid Boeing, which is an almost entirely different subject.

Ironically, if Starliner were now declared operational, I think those six missions would be cheaper than six new Crew Dragon missions. That's because NASA agreed to Boeing's demand to guarantee six missions for a price agreed to in 2016, while the new Crew Dragon extension three would be for a new price. Extensions one (Crew-7,8,9) and two (Crew-10,11,12,13,14) more or less reflected the inflation rate and we should expect the same for another extension.

[Coastal Ron]

Try, "Companies that contract with NASA often lose money in the process." Is that a good thing?

It really falls on NASA to mostly enter into contracts where the contractor has a good chance to make a profit. Jonathan Goff is going to try to make the case that there's a contract like that out there somewhere with a non-Boeing, non-SpaceX commercial crew service provider. I sincerely hope he succeeds!

The alternative is "companies are guaranteed to make money even after 3x repeated failure at a high bid price".

FFP should be a good way to make money, but it can't be guaranteed or else it becomes a freebee money program. There's got to be a line, and Boeing is waayyy past that line.

I would advocate that the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract milestones that NASA created were insufficient to find out the true progress of what Boeing was doing.

How do you gauge how well, or not well, someone is doing on a complex program while you are still in development?

THAT is what NASA needs to figure out better. Otherwise the same situation will happen again on the Artemis program.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1828116582268055926

In light of Starliner's difficulties a lot of people have asked about Dream Chaser, the third crew contender cut back in 2014. Sierra Space plans to eventually develop a crewed version of DC. But there's plenty of work left to get the space plane in orbit next year for cargo.

Going from a cargo (which must still be demonstrated) to crew spacecraft is very hard. It took SpaceX eight years with NASA funding. I don't know where billions for crew Dream Chaser would come from. I'm also not sure there is the demand.

The primary demand for crew transport in the 2030s will be as an alternative to Dragon for private LEO stations (if they exist). I ultimately think this will be filled by India's Gaganyaan spacecraft, rather than a US vehicle.

Starliner could still fill a role in the 2030s, but I don't see how Boeing can compete on reliability and price with Dragon, nor on price with Gaganyaan. Blue Origin is also in the early stages of developing a crew vehicle for New Glenn.

Bottom line: In order of likelihood, here are the vehicles I see flying astronauts to private LEO space stations in the 2030s:

1. Crew Dragon
2. Gaganyaan
...
3. Starship
...
4. Blue Origin Crew Vehicle
5. Starliner
6. Dream Chaser

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1828119469560119620

Concur. I love crew Dream Chaser, but when they lost out on CCtCap, they let many folks involved with the crew version go. It would be a long process to get back into that drive, and they are rightly laser-focused on the Cargo Dream Chaser's debut next year.

[punder]

…but NASA also has to ensure that the government contracting world won't get scared off the next time NASA needs new so-called "Commercial" services. Because then NASA will have to resort to Cost-Plus contracting, and we all know how poorly NASA manages those.

IIRC Boeing already announced they won’t accept any more fixed-priced contracts at this scale.