In my view the second most likely outcome (after Boeing completing the six contracted flights and then stopping as @clongton expects) is that Boeing's accountants will persuade the Board that they are throwing good money after bad and they should just quit the Starliner program, without fulfilling their contact for six flights
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start. An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
Cross-posting:Quote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:40 pmDo you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start. An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
Quote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:45 pmCross-posting:Quote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:40 pmDo you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start. An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/25/2023 07:47 pmQuote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:45 pmCross-posting:Quote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:40 pmDo you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start. An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2023 11:10 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 05/25/2023 07:47 pmQuote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:45 pmCross-posting:Quote from: JEF_300 on 05/25/2023 05:40 pmDo you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start. An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
Is that a requirement, i.e. written into a contract? Or even a planning document?...
NASA has no plans to downselect the number of partners in response to lower-than-requested funding levels. As experience has shown with cargo, NASA’s plan to establish a redundant crew transportation capability is critically important for robust, safe ISS operations. ...NASA continues to have a need for two unique crew capabilities to ensure dissimilar redundancy, ...
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2023 11:10 pmIf the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
Quote from: rpapo on 05/26/2023 11:06 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 05/25/2023 11:10 pmIf the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.You don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy".
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/26/2023 04:04 pmYou don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy". Actually, it came up yesterday: [tweet about launch pad availability]
You don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy".
Crew Dragon has been operating without redundancy (except Soyuz) for three years. The Shuttle operated without redundancy (except Soyuz) for 30 years.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/26/2023 04:22 pmCrew Dragon has been operating without redundancy (except Soyuz) for three years. The Shuttle operated without redundancy (except Soyuz) for 30 years.Yes, Shuttle did operate without redundancy. There were also 2 multi-year periods where Shuttle was grounded, and the US had no way to launch crew into space because of it. Which is exactly the sort of thing that NASA wants to avoid by having redundant providers.
I agree with the desire to have two (2) American crew transportation systems, but we DO already have redundancy. Like it or not (I don't), but Soyuz IS the redundant provider at this time.
I know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/
Quote from: Star One on 05/28/2023 07:59 amI know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
Quote from: Vettedrmr on 05/28/2023 11:34 amQuote from: Star One on 05/28/2023 07:59 amI know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.ASAP is not part of GAO. It is part of NASA. https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/