Starliner longevity

[DanClemmensen]

Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread

In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.

(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?

A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.

And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

[Star One]

Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread

In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.

(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?

A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.

And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

[M.E.T.]

Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread

In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.

(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?

A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.

And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using Dragon.

[Alvian@IDN]

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan

[DanClemmensen]

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Your opinion is just as valid as mine. I just responded when you asked me to.  Starliner would have been overwhelmingly superior if it CFT had flown in 2017 as originally expected, and more viable if delivered in 2020 when Crew Dragon Demo-2 flew. If F9 re-usability had not worked out or if Crew Dragon had slipped as badly as Starliner, Starliner might be dominant. But we are where we are. I also feel that the "anybody but SpaceX" companies may not remain viable or may be forced to change their position. OneWeb was originally in this category, but reality intruded.

[DanClemmensen]

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan

"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.

[freddo411]

Starliner’s future beyond operational 6 flights is undetermined at this time

My prediction:

It will not fly more than those 7 flights, with the possible exception for a govt contract to be a second provider

Boeing will price flights very high; it isn’t interested in anything like a loss leader strategy.  No will pay those prices in a free market

[DanClemmensen]

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using Dragon.

My opinions: Orbital Reef may eventually be an actual venture some day. It is apparently currently a partnership between Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada Corporation. I have the same degree of confidence in Orbital Reef as I do in other Blue Origin endeavors and schedules. Separately, SNC intends to build a crewed spacecraft to compete with Starliner and Crew Dragon (and crewed Starship), with Orbital Reef as its major non-ISS destination. Given all this, I don't see Orbital Reef plans as strong support for new Starliner missions.

[Zed_Noir]

Starliner might live on past the 6 ISS operational flights. If someone like Axiom takeover ownership to refitted and upgraded the two Starliner in service for more economic operations. Low probability of that happening. Unless that someone is Bezos looking for an interim crewed LEO  vehicle to put on the top of the New Glenn.

[Vahe231991]

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan

"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.

Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.

[DanClemmensen]

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan

"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.

Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.

Vulcan may or may not fly before Starship. What I said was that Starliner may not get qualified on Vulcan before crewed Starship is available. Big difference. Basically, my guess is that Boeing will not try to qualify Starliner on Vulcan before about 2027, if at all, because they will need to spend their own money and a Starliner launch is expensive. 2027 is the year for the Starliner-5 launch.

SpaceX won't need to tweak anything to comply with the PEA/mitigated FONSI. SpaceX wrote the PEA, including the required mitigations: they were not added after the fact by the FAA. But SpaceX does need to do a bunch of work before their first flight, so Vulcan may fly first. We will see. As of now, Starship is trying for July-August, SLS is trying for August-September, and Vulcan is trying for December/January. But the time from Vulcan first launch to Vulcan first operational launch is likely to be short, while Starship will likely need multiple test launches before a true operational launch.

[Vahe231991]

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Not the bolded either. Some of NSF folk suggest that New Glenn will actually be the next launch vehicle to carry Starliner after Atlas V is retired, not Vulcan

"Prediction is hard, especially the future".  Since I think Vulcan may miss the window against Starship, I guess it's clear that I think New Glenn will miss even worse. But I'm just guessing.

Given that it'll take time for SpaceX to make slight adjustments to the area near the Starbase launch site for the Starship in order for the FAA to clear the last hurdle to SpaceX conducting the first launch of the Starship, the Vulcan rocket in all probability will fly before the Starship does.

As of now, Starship is trying for July-August, SLS is trying for August-September, and Vulcan is trying for December/January. But the time from Vulcan first launch to Vulcan first operational launch is likely to be short, while Starship will likely need multiple test launches before a true operational launch.

The timing of the first SLS launch is irrelevant to the timing of the first Vulcan and Starship launches because the Orion is the only spacecraft that can be carried aboard the SLS.

[Star One]

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Your opinion is just as valid as mine. I just responded when you asked me to.  Starliner would have been overwhelmingly superior if it CFT had flown in 2017 as originally expected, and more viable if delivered in 2020 when Crew Dragon Demo-2 flew. If F9 re-usability had not worked out or if Crew Dragon had slipped as badly as Starliner, Starliner might be dominant. But we are where we are. I also feel that the "anybody but SpaceX" companies may not remain viable or may be forced to change their position. OneWeb was originally in this category, but reality intruded.

Bezos is sufficiently wealthy and motivated I suspect to maintain a stance of anyone but Space X if he so wishes. Also his company is hardly in the same position as One Web.

[Star One]

Responding in a new thread, since this is Off-topic for the Atlas N22 CFT thread

In case anyone's aware, the CFT will be the first manned mission to be launched atop the Atlas V since the Faith 7 mission in May 1963. As pointed out elsewhere in this forum, since the Atlas V will launch all operational manned Starliner missions, it is intended to carry out the last manned launches involving an SLV that carries the name of a Cold War ICBM, since the Gemini missions were launched atop the Titan ICBM.

(My bold) Anyone who has concluded this must think that Starliner-6 will be the last Starliner flight, that there will never be a Starliner flight except the CFT and the six operational CCP missions. So no non-NASA flights and no flights except to ISS. This is not yet known.

Pick, pick, pick
1) Vahe probably meant that all currently contracted Starliner flights will launch atop the Atlas V.
2) While it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, it's pretty much headed that way, illustrations not withstanding.

The fundamental basis of the post is incorrect, but minimizing expectations for Starliner is what concerns you?

A lot of us, including me, think Starliner will only fly another seven times at most. That does not make it true, so I think we need to continue to make sure that its a prediction and not Boeing's stated plan.

And on what basis do you think it will only fly another seven times, show your working as they say.

I infer this from the following. It is an armchair prediction of future events, so feel free to disagree.
 --Starliner will be human-rated on Atlas V. All remaining Atlas Vs have been allocated, Seven of them are allocated to Starliner.
 --To fly more than seven flights, Starliner must be human-rated on additional launchers, and this is likely to be at least somewhat expensive. Vulcan is the only realistic alternative that I know of.
 --Starliner-on-Atlas is at least 50% more expensive than Crew Dragon on F9 and is probably more than 100% more expensive, per flight
    -- F9 is much cheaper than Vulcan
    -- The expended Crew Dragon trunk is much cheaper than the expended Starliner service module.
 --Starliner is so behind schedule that crewed Starship is likely to be available before Starliner could fly on Vulcan.

Other than the fact that Vulcan is meant to be human rated from the get go. Not everyone wishes to use Space X. We saw that with Project Kuiper where every launcher other than Space X was used. Related to this you’re assuming costumers will always choose the cheapest option in fact there maybe be a whole variety of reasons from a desire to maintain a variety of options as Space Force do with their national security launches to a desire not to give work to a commercial revival. Orbital Reef at least from its art work includes the use of other human rated vehicles and not Dragon or Starship. Long story short money is not always, and shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in these decisions. I personally believe this is important to avoid a monopoly position arising in the sector. Even if it means interfering in the market as the longer term outcome is more important than short term gains.

Orbital reef is a commercial venture. Meaning it has to make a profit. If a Starliner seat on Atlas costs a space tourist $80m, while a seat on Dragon costs the tourist $50M, I struggle to see how Orbital Reef stays operational by using Starliner. Else a competitor will put them out of business charging tourists $30M less for the same experience using Dragon.

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

[DanClemmensen]

Bezos is sufficiently wealthy and motivated I suspect to maintain a stance of anyone but Space X if he so wishes. Also his company is hardly in the same position as One Web.

This is true. OneWeb has actually launched operational satellites and has actual customers.

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

Yep. The product that is first to market tends to command the loyalty of early adopters and develop an operational history, and the only way to displace it is to provide a markedly superior product or a cheaper product.

[deadman1204]

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

[r8ix]

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

[whitelancer64]

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

A 5th seat, for one thing.

[Robert_the_Doll]

Price is not always the deciding factor of success in a market. You only have to look at the iPhone to see this. It has always been the more expensive option yet has had no issue selling or turning a profit for Apple.

Yes, but to be more expensive, you must offer something more or different. Starliner is basically the same service as crew dragon.

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

A 5th seat, for one thing.

ISS reboost is another.

[Kiwi53]

Right, it's not about price, it's about value. The question is "what value can Starliner offer that Dragon does not/can't?". If you can't answer that question, then the value equation favors Dragon.

For some purchasers, "It's not SpaceX" is a sufficient added-value statement.
That might be for policy reasons (e.g. NASA wants a second source) or for more personal motivation.