-
Application of Starliner outside of Commercial Crew?
by
FishInferno
on 03 Mar, 2016 22:25
-
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS, such as Bigelow stations and space tourism. But Dragon 2 is significantly cheaper than Starliner. How can Starliner compete in the industry after ISS is deorbited?
-
#1
by
QuantumG
on 03 Mar, 2016 22:42
-
It took me a minute there to remember that Starliner is the new silly name for CST-100. Bigelow has said since the beginning that he requires two domestic crew transport providers.. which means they'll do what NASA is doing - keep the more expensive option alive by guaranteeing them flights. How this is ever supposed to result in "competition" is beyond me.
-
#2
by
Ike17055
on 29 Mar, 2016 09:48
-
It would be hard to outdo "falcon full thrust" in the silly name department. And at least Musk got the message that calling your baby the v-2 was not a great idea...Supporting two providers is essential. There is no competition if there is only one provider. That has been the history of spaceflight to date: simple monopoly where "reliable access" was the goal, not cost competitiveness. But that is changing, by necessity. Simply swapping one monopoly (ULA) for another (Space X) makes no sense. The result would be the same. Now, with the this work aimed at creating a private crew flight industry, the next few yeas will be telling as ULA brings new capabilities on line, new providers surface, new partnerships are forged, and the industry develops. Also, We shall eventually get to see the real costs for Space X, instead of the subsidized loss leader launch prices kicked around publicly at this point. Just like in every other business, there is no "permanent" winner to be crowned, and even first-to-market is no guarantee for market winner, the race is never ending and each entity has to prove and reprove itself continually.
-
#3
by
WBY1984
on 29 Mar, 2016 10:40
-
-
#4
by
MattMason
on 29 Mar, 2016 11:57
-
As far as CST-100 destinations are concerned, I wouldn't look to Bigelow. Bigelow Aerospace is a dodgy company run by a UFO nut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_Science
Job sites that do employee submitted reviews trash the company, its micromanaging CEO, the constantly changing directives.
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htm
I think it's scary that the ISS is about to host a Bigelow module (assuming CRS-8 success). CST-100 shouldn't bank on a Bigelow station to expand its flight rate.
That's a lot of supposition without accredited substantiation and a lot of opinion.
That "dodgy" company has two prototypes still inflated and in space after a decade as well as a prototype to be used on the ISS for two years.
Bigelow may have its problems, but name-calling the owner as a "UFO nut" doesn't afford your comment any brownie points since (1) this was originally NASA technology and (2) no other company has yet to offer any options other for a continuous space presence--not even Boeing, which built several of the ISS modules.
I'm sure we can find many employees in other popular aerospace companies that have their peeves against their former employers. I don't see how this changes the companies' results.
-
#5
by
Jimmy Murdok
on 29 Mar, 2016 12:37
-
They need to believe in the product, make it cost effective and help to create a market. Like it is now, beyond ISS is useless: for LEO orbits, billionaires can use a reliable and affordable Soyuz or will use a discounted Dragon. For Bigelow hotels, if a new Atlas/Vulcan and refurbish of the spaceship is required is not gonna be sustainable.
If refurbish is cheap enough, launch on a Falcon9 can make sense.
-
#6
by
jsgirald
on 29 Mar, 2016 12:41
-
Bigelow may have its problems, but name-calling the owner as a "UFO nut" doesn't afford your comment any brownie points since (1) this was originally NASA technology and (2) no other company has yet to offer any options other for a continuous space presence--not even Boeing, which built several of the ISS modules.
While I mostly agree with you, Bigelow's recent 'expansion-layoff' strategy is not encouraging ...
-
#7
by
MattMason
on 29 Mar, 2016 13:16
-
Bigelow may have its problems, but name-calling the owner as a "UFO nut" doesn't afford your comment any brownie points since (1) this was originally NASA technology and (2) no other company has yet to offer any options other for a continuous space presence--not even Boeing, which built several of the ISS modules.
While I mostly agree with you, Bigelow's recent 'expansion-layoff' strategy is not encouraging ...
Nor do things look nice with the imminent downsizing at ULA or changes at SNC after they lost the CCP contract for the manned Dream Chaser. But for SNC, I'm sure they've hired back a few people with the CRS2 contract on the DC-C. Orbital ATK had egg on their face, too.
Employees come and go. It's critical for the business to weather the lean times and keep pushing for business without depleting or demoralizing their workforce to the point were they can't sustain existing work or bounce back when times are better.
All of this space habitat stuff seems to require a lot more perseverance than other businesses. Pioneering affordable, safe, quick-use habitats when it's clear that some are needed for future projects where no one is yet ready to commit to them is clearly a daunting waiting game.
-
#8
by
docmordrid
on 01 Apr, 2016 09:46
-
And let's not forget that Bigelow received an award under NASA's NextSTEP-1 program, and the NextSTEP-2 pre-BAA seems friendly to them and OrbitalATK (likely the Super Cygnus hab)
NextSTEP-2....
-
#9
by
The Amazing Catstronaut
on 01 Apr, 2016 13:06
-
It would be hard to outdo "falcon full thrust" in the silly name department. And at least Musk got the message that calling your baby the v-2 was not a great idea...Supporting two providers is essential. There is no competition if there is only one provider. That has been the history of spaceflight to date: simple monopoly where "reliable access" was the goal, not cost competitiveness. But that is changing, by necessity. Simply swapping one monopoly (ULA) for another (Space X) makes no sense. The result would be the same. Now, with the this work aimed at creating a private crew flight industry, the next few yeas will be telling as ULA brings new capabilities on line, new providers surface, new partnerships are forged, and the industry develops. Also, We shall eventually get to see the real costs for Space X, instead of the subsidized loss leader launch prices kicked around publicly at this point. Just like in every other business, there is no "permanent" winner to be crowned, and even first-to-market is no guarantee for market winner, the race is never ending and each entity has to prove and reprove itself continually.
How are SpaceX's current prices unreal? That doesn't make sense. Again, the bleeding money assumption is false rhetoric. SpaceX's prices are only likely to drop as their flight rate improves - they intend to earn money via boosting flight rate, not hiking costs, as has been universally established. ULA effectively aims to do the same, and everybody is cottoning on to the same plan at varying rates. It's the state of industry now.
The likelihood of a monopoly swap is minimal, and also irrelevant to this thread. There's plenty of other threads to
claw each other's eyes out measure the totally incompatible entities that are SpaceX and ULA against each other in, even if it has to be something as arbitrary as capsule moniker kewlness.
I can see a new-and-improved starliner being purposed for BEO, especially as cislunar
-wince- habitats become more likely in the spectra of possible futures. Remember CST-100 has its origins in BEO designs. Com Crew and Com Cargo are uniquely adapted to assist a mixed BEO architecture if that's the way NASA wants to throw its money (and it should. It'd be the best decision the agency has taken since the construction of ISS).
-
#10
by
rayleighscatter
on 01 Apr, 2016 21:17
-
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS
We don't all know that. I suspect the number of flights that occur with Dragon or Starliner outside CC could be counted on one hand with enough fingers leftover to eat a sandwich.
-
#11
by
Ike17055
on 02 Apr, 2016 08:18
-
Try reading the full thing. The comments were a response to the question of "how does funding two providers result in competition if one is priced higher?" Short answer was (and is): giving it all to a single provider becuase they claim to be cheaper (for now) or will deliver first simply results in just another monopoly. It is factual; the goal is creation of a situation that leads to ongoing competition. Thus, two provders needed. And the point remains valid that SpaceX prices for now are whatever Musk says they are: he answers to no shareholders -- and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation. Undercutting price as a startup strategy is nothing new. Ask Jeff Bezos.
-
#12
by
Lemurion
on 11 May, 2016 13:37
-
Try reading the full thing. The comments were a response to the question of "how does funding two providers result in competition if one is priced higher?" Short answer was (and is): giving it all to a single provider becuase they claim to be cheaper (for now) or will deliver first simply results in just another monopoly. It is factual; the goal is creation of a situation that leads to ongoing competition. Thus, two provders needed. And the point remains valid that SpaceX prices for now are whatever Musk says they are: he answers to no shareholders -- and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation. Undercutting price as a startup strategy is nothing new. Ask Jeff Bezos.
I agree completely on the two providers issue. Having a second provider instantly creates a price ceiling for anyone whose business model is predicated on undercutting the competition. It's very much in NASA's best interest to keep two providers running even if they aren't competing on price.
As for SpaceX prices, that's a stickier knot to untangle. Yes, their prices are whatever Musk says they are, but his pockets aren't as deep as Bezos' and he has other interests competing for his pocket, such as Tesla. I do think that more than a decade in, it's pretty fair to say that no matter what the actual launch costs for SpaceX may be, they're bringing in enough money one way or another to keep going even at those prices.
Also, SpaceX is employing a large enough number of cost-saving methods that their launchers should be cheaper than the competition. They use one common engine on both stages, the upper and lower stages use the same diameter tanks and same fuel mix so production uses the same tooling.
Is there a reason why cost-saving methods that work in every other industry wouldn't work for SpaceX?
-
#13
by
gregpet
on 22 May, 2016 17:43
-
...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation.
What I find funny about this comment is that on another thread there was a lot of hand wringing about SpaceX buying SolarCity bonds (per a quick Google search they were up to $165MM as of last August). For a unprofitable outfit they sure do have a lot of cash laying around...
-
#14
by
Coastal Ron
on 22 May, 2016 18:06
-
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS, such as Bigelow stations and space tourism. But Dragon 2 is significantly cheaper than Starliner. How can Starliner compete in the industry after ISS is deorbited?
Lots of talk about the demand side of the equation (i.e. customers), so I'll talk about the supply side - how much effort would it be for Boeing to keep the Starliner/CST-100 around.
We may not know how many spacecraft Boeing intends to build, but they have stated that each vehicle should be able to be reused up to ten times.
Boeing doesn't have to worry about paying for keeping a launch vehicle around, since it uses commercial launch vehicles, so the business cost of keeping the capability available is pretty much the cost of keeping the retrofit and launch operations employees around and proficient. That still is not inexpensive, especially if those employees can't be shared easily with some other internal programs (like SpaceX can do in Hawthorne).
But once the sunk cost of developing the spacecraft and perfecting their operations is paid for (mostly by NASA), it might not need a lot of customer demand to stay in operation.
Still needs some level of customer demand though. Not sure where that will come from...
-
#15
by
Ike17055
on 23 May, 2016 12:45
-
...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation.
What I find funny about this comment is that on another thread there was a lot of hand wringing about SpaceX buying SolarCity bonds (per a quick Google search they were up to $165MM as of last August). For a unprofitable outfit they sure do have a lot of cash laying around...
cash on hand and profitability are very different things. This is everyday stuff in venture financing. Look at Amazon.com and how long it had to wait to achieve a record of proven profitable quarters -- yet it had money available for acquisitions and all sorts of development. This is true in many industries, especially emerging ones or those using new business models/
-
#16
by
Patchouli
on 23 May, 2016 19:33
-
We all know that there are applications for he Commercial Crew spacecraft beyond the ISS, such as Bigelow stations and space tourism. But Dragon 2 is significantly cheaper than Starliner. How can Starliner compete in the industry after ISS is deorbited?
I can't see Starliner really being able to compete with Dragon in LEO as it needs a new SM,heat shied, and airbags for every flight.
A crewed Dream Chaser probably could have gave them a run for the money.
Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.
-
#17
by
Lar
on 23 May, 2016 20:42
-
Two providers does give competition, but if you're the higher cost provider you are long term at risk, as someone may come in and undercut you. Even if they don't undercut the low cost provider, they might drive you out. (assuming changeover costs are nil, but even if not, work the trades)... and if they DO undercut the low cost provider you're really at risk.
IMHO, YMMV
-
#18
by
gregpet
on 24 May, 2016 02:04
-
...and a lot of doubt exists that those prices will get them to a profitable situation.
What I find funny about this comment is that on another thread there was a lot of hand wringing about SpaceX buying SolarCity bonds (per a quick Google search they were up to $165MM as of last August). For a unprofitable outfit they sure do have a lot of cash laying around...
cash on hand and profitability are very different things. This is everyday stuff in venture financing. Look at Amazon.com and how long it had to wait to achieve a record of proven profitable quarters -- yet it had money available for acquisitions and all sorts of development. This is true in many industries, especially emerging ones or those using new business models/
At the risk of going way off topic...
Amazon made the conscious decision NOT to be profitable by plowing all revenue ($107B in 2015!) back in to their business (Kindle, Prime, warehouses all over the country, Amazon Cloud (AWS), etc). They could have been profitable years ago if they chose to slow down on capital expenditures (building the business). They rightly chose to keep growing at the expense of profitability (and its paying off now).
Although SpaceX's financial situation is impossible for either of us to know, my money is that they are actually generating revenue in excess of expenses (read: profitability). Why else could they afford to invest in relatively illiquid assets such as SolarCity bonds. If they were losing millions of dollars per launch, the reasonable thing would be to keep their money in the bank. I would also say that you would be hearing a lot more about capital raising (which we don't). Regardless, neither one of know their situation so lets just agree to disagree.
-
#19
by
Lar
on 24 May, 2016 02:31
-
If they were losing millions of dollars per launch, the reasonable thing would be to keep their money in the bank.
Cut away everything except this one statement. It is wrong. The reasonable thing to do with excess funds that you know you are going to have to spend at a date in the future but don't need to spend now, is put them into a safe investment with a term that matches when you need the money. Because otherwise you are giving up return. Any CFO that didn't do this would get fired by any competent board.
Really, we need to put the idea that cash is the place to be.... to rest. You can argue whether they should have invested in something not as closely connected (T-bills, short term commercial paper, etc) to another one of Elon's enterprises... but not that they should have parked it all in cash. Nope. Cash has essentially zero return (and it may actually start having a negative return in some places). Bad idea.
-
#20
by
douglas100
on 24 May, 2016 07:59
-
...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.
Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
-
#21
by
Robotbeat
on 24 May, 2016 17:25
-
...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.
Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
Or you have a detachable propulsion stage instead of embiggening the service module.
-
#22
by
brickmack
on 24 May, 2016 17:41
-
...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.
Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
They'd also need to fit solar panels or something on there, batteries aren't gonna cut it. Easiest way would probably be a separate propulsion module that can be ditched in an abort (along the lines of this
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/soyuz/soyuz_acts_fregat_1.jpg). Or use ACES? After orbital refueling it should have plenty of fuel left for lunar orbital insertion, then separate Starliner to do the rest of its mission
-
#23
by
TrevorMonty
on 24 May, 2016 23:31
-
...Now beyond LEO things start to look a little more even as the separate service module would allow them to easily add more capability without as many changes to the reentry vehicle.
Agreed, but, for example, the LAS system would have to be reworked to allow for a much heavier service module. A BEO version of Starliner would probably be substantially different from the current one.
They'd also need to fit solar panels or something on there, batteries aren't gonna cut it. Easiest way would probably be a separate propulsion module that can be ditched in an abort (along the lines of this http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/soyuz/soyuz_acts_fregat_1.jpg). Or use ACES? After orbital refueling it should have plenty of fuel left for lunar orbital insertion, then separate Starliner to do the rest of its mission
ULA actually proposed using ACES with Orion. Most of the existing service module functionality was to be provided by ACES, resulting in a small cheaper service module.
In case of existing Starliner this would work for cargo missions.
-
#24
by
VIY
on 14 Jun, 2017 23:12
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
-
#25
by
Jim
on 15 Jun, 2017 01:27
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
just because Boeing builds both has no bearing on the matter. What X-37 does is unrelated to CST-100.
-
#26
by
Eerie
on 15 Jun, 2017 12:54
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
-
#27
by
QuantumG
on 15 Jun, 2017 23:00
-
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
What if a problem is found in Dragon and there's no Atlas capacity?
-
#28
by
VIY
on 16 Jun, 2017 00:09
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
just because Boeing builds both has no bearing on the matter. What X-37 does is unrelated to CST-100.
Agreed. The connection was mostly psychological. My question was mostly if CST-100 can fly on other vehicles or is strictly designed for Atlas V? Can it be launched on F9 or is too heavy or too wide, aerodynamically unsuitable?
-
#29
by
yg1968
on 16 Jun, 2017 00:10
-
One thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?
-
#30
by
yg1968
on 16 Jun, 2017 00:13
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
just because Boeing builds both has no bearing on the matter. What X-37 does is unrelated to CST-100.
Agreed. The connection was mostly psychological. My question was mostly if CST-100 can fly on other vehicles or is strictly designed for Atlas V? Can it be launched on F9 or is too heavy or too wide, aerodynamically unsuitable?
Boeing has said a number of times that the CST-100 was launch vehicle agnostic. But to my knowledge, there is no plan to launch it on anything but an Atlas V.
-
#31
by
TrevorMonty
on 16 Jun, 2017 00:50
-
One thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?
Not according to Boeing on fiso podcast a couple years ago.
One of biggest issues is lack of DV. It is not simply job of enlarging service module as LAS isn't designed for extra mass.
-
#32
by
docmordrid
on 16 Jun, 2017 05:28
-
Now that the Boing build X37b is going to fly on F9, what are the chances for CST 100 to also try a flight on F9? Is it hardwired to Atlas V, or can use other launchers? The reason? Similar to USAF, NASA may want to have more options avaliable, especially if Vulcan is delayed or does not materialize at all.
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
John Mulholland, Boeing VP and program manager for Commercial Programs (2013)
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans>
Boeing's plan calls for the first two launches to be on an Atlas, but the company has not ruled out other launchers, including the Falcon 9 developed by CCiCAP rival Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX). “It's got to be compatible with others and we continue to have discussions with SpaceX because once the Falcon 9 has enough flights under its belt and is safe enough to fly crew, we feel we can make that business decision. We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
>
-
#33
by
Patchouli
on 16 Jun, 2017 05:40
-
One thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?
Not according to Boeing on fiso podcast a couple years ago.
One of biggest issues is lack of DV. It is not simply job of enlarging service module as LAS isn't designed for extra mass.
Probably the biggest disadvantage of a pusher type LAS though it needs a mission module for longer missions anyway so maybe that can also supply the needed delta V.
Maybe something derived from the Delta-K stage with a Cygnus module in front.
-
#34
by
woods170
on 16 Jun, 2017 06:14
-
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?
Emphasis mine.
That's the day h*ll freezes over.
Seriously, the one remaining obstacle for Atlas 5 to keep flying has just been wiped out by US Congress. Atlas 5 will continue to be around for a long time IMO, regardless of Vulcan and Falcon 9. As long as there is government business, there will be Atlas 5 capacity.
The only potentially viable reason to stick Starliner on top of a Falcon 9 is cost. But the recent Cygnus missions on Atlas 5 point to the fact that, when necessary, Atlas 5 can be cost-efficient enough.
-
#35
by
envy887
on 17 Jun, 2017 13:27
-
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?
Emphasis mine.
That's the day h*ll freezes over.
Seriously, the one remaining obstacle for Atlas 5 to keep flying has just been wiped out by US Congress. Atlas 5 will continue to be around for a long time IMO, regardless of Vulcan and Falcon 9. As long as there is government business, there will be Atlas 5 capacity.
The only potentially viable reason to stick Starliner on top of a Falcon 9 is cost. But the recent Cygnus missions on Atlas 5 point to the fact that, when necessary, Atlas 5 can be cost-efficient enough.
Atlas V is gone as soon as Congress figures out they can get at least 2 redundant launch vehicles that are certified, cheaper, and as capable. Which might be 2022, or it might be never.
-
#36
by
AncientU
on 17 Jun, 2017 17:47
-
One thing, I have been wondering about is if the CST-100 can easily be upgraded in order to be used for crewed transportation to the deep space gateway?
Don't think existing heat shield design is rated beyond LEO returns, but that of course could be one of the needed upgrades for DSG service. If Boeing wanted to do such trips, or even supply cis-Lunar 'tourist' flights, FH would be a low cost option. Vulcan ACES would be terrific if/when available. NG could be an option someday, too. Boeing should be free to launch on whatever vehicle it chooses for other markets than Commercial Crew.
-
#37
by
woods170
on 17 Jun, 2017 21:46
-
CST 100 and Dragon 2 are supposed to provide redundancy. That's why they launch on different rockets. There's no point in putting CST 100 on Falcon.
What if a problem is found in Dragon AND there's no Atlas capacity?
Emphasis mine.
That's the day h*ll freezes over.
Seriously, the one remaining obstacle for Atlas 5 to keep flying has just been wiped out by US Congress. Atlas 5 will continue to be around for a long time IMO, regardless of Vulcan and Falcon 9. As long as there is government business, there will be Atlas 5 capacity.
The only potentially viable reason to stick Starliner on top of a Falcon 9 is cost. But the recent Cygnus missions on Atlas 5 point to the fact that, when necessary, Atlas 5 can be cost-efficient enough.
Atlas V is gone as soon as Congress figures out they can get at least 2 redundant launch vehicles that are certified, cheaper, and as capable. Which might be 2022, or it might be never.
Gone soon? It will still be flying at least six years from now.
-
#38
by
TrevorMonty
on 06 Mar, 2019 14:55
-
Starliner has lot of potential for doing LEO tourism flights, this may only a be few hours orbiting earth before returning. Need to start somewhere plus it would test tourism market for space hotels.
With 10 reuses per capsule and 6 month turnaround time, Boeing only needs small fleet to support 10 missions a year. If they could sell 5-10 missions a year, mission costs would come down. Bulking buying service module components ( mainly engines) and LVs should give them significant discounts.
-
#39
by
envy887
on 12 Mar, 2019 17:39
-
Starliner has lot of potential for doing LEO tourism flights, this may only a be few hours orbiting earth before returning. Need to start somewhere plus it would test tourism market for space hotels.
With 10 reuses per capsule and 6 month turnaround time, Boeing only needs small fleet to support 10 missions a year. If they could sell 5-10 missions a year, mission costs would come down. Bulking buying service module components ( mainly engines) and LVs should give them significant discounts.
Starliner is currently costed at a 1/year flight rate and some $350 million per flight. Going to 5/year would optimistically (IMO) double the total cost, but drop the per flight cost to ~$140 million. That's a good savings.
Atlas/Vulcan on the other hand, are already costed at a 5 to 8 flight/year rate. Adding 5 flights per year is only going to net an incremental reduction, perhaps 25%. Since 401s are going for a little over $110 million per launch now, say they get down to $85 million for a launch in bulk. That implies a total cost of (140+85)/7 or about $32 million per seat assuming they sell 7 seats.
That's comparable to what tourists were paying for several days at ISS. I think they will need a little bit more than a few orbits in a capsule to book 40 seats a year. A private station stay of a few days or weeks would draw better, but at what cost?
-
#40
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Mar, 2019 07:45
-
ISS trips involved an extensive training course. Some rich tourists might be interested in giving up few weeks to train as astronaut but most couldn't spare time. I think there is market for day trips to LEO. How big Boeing or SpaceX will likely find out on next year or two.
Training may include a couple of suborbital trips in NS or SS2. I'd want to know how I'd react to zeroG before committing $30m to day in space.
-
#41
by
SWGlassPit
on 14 Mar, 2019 13:56
-
-
#42
by
Asteroza
on 20 Aug, 2021 02:22
-
ISS trips involved an extensive training course. Some rich tourists might be interested in giving up few weeks to train as astronaut but most couldn't spare time. I think there is market for day trips to LEO. How big Boeing or SpaceX will likely find out on next year or two.
Training may include a couple of suborbital trips in NS or SS2. I'd want to know how I'd react to zeroG before committing $30m to day in space.
One day trips are problematic due to weightlessness acclimatization time varying between people. Some people need 3 days. If you are vomiting all day, that kinda spoils things. Not sure how one would predict reactions based on suborbital rides or vomit comet runs.
-
#43
by
tbellman
on 20 Aug, 2021 12:38
-
One day trips are problematic due to weightlessness acclimatization time varying between people. Some people need 3 days. If you are vomiting all day, that kinda spoils things. Not sure how one would predict reactions based on suborbital rides or vomit comet runs.
Normal medicines against motion sickness are supposed to be pretty good helping against space adaptation syndrome as well. A problem with those medicines is that you tend to get drowsy, which isn't very good for someone who goes to space to work, but it should be much less of a problem for people who only go as tourists.
-
#44
by
jebbo
on 21 Aug, 2021 06:17
-
Until it can be launched on Vulcan, anything except the commercial crew ISS expeditions won't happen as they're RD-180 limited (and unlikely to buy more from Russia).
Afterwards, they *could* do orbital tourism stuff similar to Inspiration 4 and the AX1/2/3/4 flights, but it doesn't feel likely to me.
--- Tony
-
#45
by
Zed_Noir
on 21 Aug, 2021 11:35
-
<snip>
Afterwards, they *could* do orbital tourism stuff similar to Inspiration 4 and the AX1/2/3/4 flights, but it doesn't feel likely to me.
....
Starliner might be able to compete for space tourist flights if they can find a cheaper launcher. It will enhanced their probability of success if they can also get something like the Dragon nose observation hemisphere installed on the Starliner.
-
#46
by
king1999
on 21 Aug, 2021 16:37
-
<snip>
Afterwards, they *could* do orbital tourism stuff similar to Inspiration 4 and the AX1/2/3/4 flights, but it doesn't feel likely to me.
....
Starliner might be able to compete for space tourist flights if they can find a cheaper launcher. It will enhanced their probability of success if they can also get something like the Dragon nose observation hemisphere installed on the Starliner.
Assuming they can find a launcher comparable to Falcon 9, their spacecraft is still much more expensive to operate. The service module has a lot of hardware, including thrusters, for one time use only.
-
#47
by
Tomness
on 21 Aug, 2021 19:02
-
<snip>
Afterwards, they *could* do orbital tourism stuff similar to Inspiration 4 and the AX1/2/3/4 flights, but it doesn't feel likely to me.
....
Starliner might be able to compete for space tourist flights if they can find a cheaper launcher. It will enhanced their probability of success if they can also get something like the Dragon nose observation hemisphere installed on the Starliner.
Assuming they can find a launcher comparable to Falcon 9, their spacecraft is still much more expensive to operate. The service module has a lot of hardware, including thrusters, for one time use only.
But their Commercial Only Version can seat 9 people. So with Vulcan or F9 and 9passagers they could be competitive
-
#48
by
joek
on 21 Aug, 2021 19:32
-
But their Commercial Only Version can seat 9 people. So with Vulcan or F9 and 9passagers they could be competitive
?
Per Boeing, max 7, not 9.
edit: p.s. If both are max 7 pax-crew, then advantage would still go to Dragon on per-seat price, all other things equal. Of course, neither has built such a configuration as far as I know, and we don't know details of the margins-constraints for a 7-seat configuration of either (e.g. ECLSS, down-mass limits, etc.).
-
#49
by
RonM
on 21 Aug, 2021 20:58
-
But their Commercial Only Version can seat 9 people. So with Vulcan or F9 and 9passagers they could be competitive
? Per Boeing, max 7, not 9.
edit: p.s. If both are max 7 pax-crew, then advantage would still go to Dragon on per-seat price, all other things equal. Of course, neither has built such a configuration as far as I know, and we don't know details of the margins-constraints for a 7-seat configuration of either (e.g. ECLSS, down-mass limits, etc.).
Maxed out seven passenger version would not be good for tourists. Not enough room. Now if there was a commercial space station to fly to, such as Axion, then seven passengers makes sense.
-
#50
by
Tomness
on 21 Aug, 2021 21:47
-
But their Commercial Only Version can seat 9 people. So with Vulcan or F9 and 9passagers they could be competitive
? Per Boeing, max 7, not 9.
edit: p.s. If both are max 7 pax-crew, then advantage would still go to Dragon on per-seat price, all other things equal. Of course, neither has built such a configuration as far as I know, and we don't know details of the margins-constraints for a 7-seat configuration of either (e.g. ECLSS, down-mass limits, etc.).
They had a mock-up seatting they could seat 8 with a pilot elevated to the hatch.
-
#51
by
king1999
on 22 Aug, 2021 02:36
-
They had a mock-up seatting they could seat 8 with a pilot elevated to the hatch.
First time heard of this, any link/picture/reference? Max 7 was always the public info.
No mention here at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
-
#52
by
Tomness
on 22 Aug, 2021 04:31
-
-
#53
by
kdhilliard
on 22 Aug, 2021 10:22
-
-
#54
by
Lemurion
on 23 Aug, 2021 22:13
-
One thing that concerns me about Starliner for space tourism is the free flight endurance--sixty hours is not a lot of time especially when you compare it to the Inspiration 4 mission's approximately 96 hour duration that's not even using half of Crew Dragon's endurance...
-
#55
by
ncb1397
on 24 Aug, 2021 00:04
-
One thing that concerns me about Starliner for space tourism is the free flight endurance--sixty hours is not a lot of time especially when you compare it to the Inspiration 4 mission's approximately 96 hour duration that's not even using half of Crew Dragon's endurance...
If you are getting these figures from wikipedia, the sourcing for both is pretty sketchy. Dragon free flight duration links to dragonlab. CST-100 source links to a paper from 2011.
-
#56
by
docmordrid
on 24 Aug, 2021 01:06
-
-
#57
by
abaddon
on 24 Aug, 2021 01:11
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
-
#58
by
woods170
on 24 Aug, 2021 10:43
-
They had a mock-up seatting they could seat 8 with a pilot elevated to the hatch.
First time heard of this, any link/picture/reference? Max 7 was always the public info.
No mention here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner
Had the time to look it up here
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.260
That shows the 7-person version. Six on the bottom (2 rows: 1 row of 4 seats and 1 row of 2 seats) and 1 seat at the top. Total is 7.
A 9 person version of Starliner was never proposed. Every press-release from Boeing and every other PR piece always mentioned a max number of 7 persons.
-
#59
by
MaxTeranous
on 24 Aug, 2021 13:52
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
Fixed price contract so the risk is on Boeing. Retiring one would be on Boeing. Most likely ways to lose a capsule would be an issue with the capsule itself (in which case Boeing would be using their remaining one for any remaining flights or building another) or with the launch vehicle going badly wrong. In that case I would assume ULA (well, their insurers) would pony up cash to Boeing. Would still leave Boeing with the fact they’re down a capsule mind.
Depends when they lose it too. Having to retire a capsule after flight 4 compared to after OFT2 for example is a huge difference.
Slightly more onto topic, you have to assume if Boeing win some non commercial crew work, they’d build another capsule to support it.
-
#60
by
TheRadicalModerate
on 24 Aug, 2021 14:13
-
If you narrowly construe Commercial Crew as only ferrying people to and from ISS, there's another NASA role for both Starliner and D2: Ferrying people to and from LEO so they can catch their ride to NRHO. This of course isn't a thing yet, but LSS is likely to be staged out of LEO eventually, and I wouldn't be surprised if whoever wins the #2 slot for LETS will have the same capability. Then you can swap an SLS/Orion for a CCP flight and some extra tanker launches, and save your self about a billion bucks.
-
#61
by
butters
on 24 Aug, 2021 14:30
-
Does Boeing have a concept of operations for Starliner that doesn't use NASA flight control rooms?
I know they have a main engineering support center in Florida, but for CCP, the Boeing GNC team works out of the Blue Flight Control Room in Houston, and NASA is the primary mission control for Starliner in the White FCR.
For a hypothetical commercial Starliner mission, would Boeing be able to do mission control, CAPCOM, etc. from their Florida facility?
-
#62
by
woods170
on 24 Aug, 2021 14:35
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
Boeing foots the bill. Courtesy of a milestones-based firm fixed price contract.
Boeing tried to get out, from under the firm fixed price bit, at least twice so far.
- First time is when they lost a service module during a abort hotfire mishap. Some valves remained stuck open which caused the service module to be flooded by hypergolic fuel. That service module was a write-off. Boeing tried in vain to have NASA pay for part of the cost to build another service module.
- Second time is when OFT happened. Some time afterwards NASA informed Boeing that they had failed to meet an important milestone (docking to ISS). The result was that a reflight of OFT was deemed necessary. Boeing tried to get NASA to pay for that reflight. NASA said no and proceeded to lecture Boeing (again) on what "firm fixed price" means. The result was that Boeing took a $400M hit to their 2020 financial results to pay for the reflight.
Firm Fixed Price puts the financial risk where it belongs for CCP: with the contractors.
Cost Plus is appropriate only when there is undue financial risk to the contractors due to, for example, the need to develop all-new technology.
But the latter was not the case with CCP. Flying people up and down to LEO is an art mastered by the US aerospace industry over half a century ago. No "all-new" technology involved. And thus no need for Cost Plus.
-
#63
by
lrk
on 24 Aug, 2021 15:25
-
The capsule that flew the pad abort test isn't currently capable of orbital flight but IIRC it could be upgraded for orbital missions, getting them another orbital capsule for cheaper than building a new one if the demand existed.
Also if one capsule was out of commission for any reason it wouldn't be the end of the world, there is another Commercial Crew provider after all. They could continue to fly with one capsule (and SpaceX might pick up more intervening missions) until a replacement is ready.
-
#64
by
Rebel44
on 25 Aug, 2021 01:04
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
Boeing foots the bill. Courtesy of a milestones-based firm fixed price contract.
Boeing tried to get out, from under the firm fixed price bit, at least twice so far.
- First time is when they lost a service module during a abort hotfire mishap. Some valves remained stuck open which caused the service module to be flooded by hypergolic fuel. That service module was a write-off. Boeing tried in vain to have NASA pay for part of the cost to build another service module.
- Second time is when OFT happened. Some time afterwards NASA informed Boeing that they had failed to meet an important milestone (docking to ISS). The result was that a reflight of OFT was deemed necessary. Boeing tried to get NASA to pay for that reflight. NASA said no and proceeded to lecture Boeing (again) on what "firm fixed price" means. The result was that Boeing took a $400M hit to their 2020 financial results to pay for the reflight.
Firm Fixed Price puts the financial risk where it belongs for CCP: with the contractors.
Cost Plus is appropriate only when there is undue financial risk to the contractors due to, for example, the need to develop all-new technology.
But the latter was not the case with CCP. Flying people up and down to LEO is an art mastered by the US aerospace industry over half a century ago. No "all-new" technology involved. And thus no need for Cost Plus.
Plus that $~300M payment that Boeing got to "accelerate Starliner development in case SpaceX is delayed"...
-
#65
by
Lemurion
on 25 Aug, 2021 05:04
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
Boeing foots the bill. Courtesy of a milestones-based firm fixed price contract.
Boeing tried to get out, from under the firm fixed price bit, at least twice so far.
- First time is when they lost a service module during a abort hotfire mishap. Some valves remained stuck open which caused the service module to be flooded by hypergolic fuel. That service module was a write-off. Boeing tried in vain to have NASA pay for part of the cost to build another service module.
- Second time is when OFT happened. Some time afterwards NASA informed Boeing that they had failed to meet an important milestone (docking to ISS). The result was that a reflight of OFT was deemed necessary. Boeing tried to get NASA to pay for that reflight. NASA said no and proceeded to lecture Boeing (again) on what "firm fixed price" means. The result was that Boeing took a $400M hit to their 2020 financial results to pay for the reflight.
Firm Fixed Price puts the financial risk where it belongs for CCP: with the contractors.
Cost Plus is appropriate only when there is undue financial risk to the contractors due to, for example, the need to develop all-new technology.
But the latter was not the case with CCP. Flying people up and down to LEO is an art mastered by the US aerospace industry over half a century ago. No "all-new" technology involved. And thus no need for Cost Plus.
Plus that $~300M payment that Boeing got to "accelerate Starliner development in case SpaceX is delayed"...
A payment that they should probably be forced to sign over to SpaceX by this point...
-
#66
by
woods170
on 25 Aug, 2021 07:13
-
That’s always been the plan. Not sure what it says about the value of the contract that it only funds two capsules. Not sure who foots the bill if they have to retire (or god forbid) lose one of them.
Boeing foots the bill. Courtesy of a milestones-based firm fixed price contract.
Boeing tried to get out, from under the firm fixed price bit, at least twice so far.
- First time is when they lost a service module during a abort hotfire mishap. Some valves remained stuck open which caused the service module to be flooded by hypergolic fuel. That service module was a write-off. Boeing tried in vain to have NASA pay for part of the cost to build another service module.
- Second time is when OFT happened. Some time afterwards NASA informed Boeing that they had failed to meet an important milestone (docking to ISS). The result was that a reflight of OFT was deemed necessary. Boeing tried to get NASA to pay for that reflight. NASA said no and proceeded to lecture Boeing (again) on what "firm fixed price" means. The result was that Boeing took a $400M hit to their 2020 financial results to pay for the reflight.
Firm Fixed Price puts the financial risk where it belongs for CCP: with the contractors.
Cost Plus is appropriate only when there is undue financial risk to the contractors due to, for example, the need to develop all-new technology.
But the latter was not the case with CCP. Flying people up and down to LEO is an art mastered by the US aerospace industry over half a century ago. No "all-new" technology involved. And thus no need for Cost Plus.
Plus that $~300M payment that Boeing got to "accelerate Starliner development in case SpaceX is delayed"...
NASA has long since understood the foolishness of that payment and has not made that mistake again. NASA pressure on Boeing, to perform in a timely AND safe manner, is immense right now. One way to keep up the pressure is to NOT pay for Boeing's screw-ups.
-
#67
by
butters
on 25 Aug, 2021 14:02
-
Plus that $~300M payment that Boeing got to "accelerate Starliner development in case SpaceX is delayed"...
NASA has long since understood the foolishness of that payment and has not made that mistake again. NASA pressure on Boeing, to perform in a timely AND safe manner, is immense right now. One way to keep up the pressure is to NOT pay for Boeing's screw-ups.
There should be a whiteboard sign at NASA HQ boasting that it's been "2" years since they made an inappropriate payment to an underperforming contractor on a firm fixed-cost contract. It's only a matter of time before somebody has to whip out the eraser and mark it "0."
The problem for NASA is that contractors like Boeing or Lockheed don't need these contracts. They have bigger, better, juicier contracts where there's no controversy about the government paying more for late or over-budget programs. They can always walk away, like Boeing bailed on DARPA XS-1. They can always threaten to walk away, and if the government really wants to keep them in the program, they'll surely pay the ransom. The optics of Boeing bailing on Commercial Crew in the wake of Crew Dragon SuperDraco test anomaly would have been bad, so Boeing played their hand and extracted money.
The politics around NASA commercial spaceflight procurement will demand that NASA show they did everything within their power/budget to ensure "competition" (whatever that means) between multiple providers, especially if SpaceX is involved. It's quite likely that a provider will falling behind, blow past their fixed-cost budget projections, and decline to continue pursuing the milestones unless NASA makes it worth their while. By that time, it may be too late to credibly onboard a replacement contractor. NASA will have to pay up or accept a single provider, and that decision is likely to be made under political duress.
-
#68
by
Asteroza
on 27 Aug, 2021 01:57
-
-
#69
by
zubenelgenubi
on 27 Aug, 2021 02:45
-
Apparently no more orders being taken for Atlas V, so now Starliner is also gated by Vulcan?
The several Atlas V's launching
Starliner under the Commercial Crew contract have already been ordered. Any further future
Starliner launches beyond that contract would go on Vulcan anyway, multiple years in the future.
-
#70
by
Zed_Noir
on 27 Aug, 2021 15:46
-
Apparently no more orders being taken for Atlas V, so now Starliner is also gated by Vulcan?
The several Atlas V's launching Starliner under the Commercial Crew contract have already been ordered. Any further future Starliner launches beyond that contract would go on Vulcan anyway, multiple years in the future.
Not necessary. There is always the awful option (for Boeing) of riding up on the Falcon 9. It will a lot less complicated than that aerodynamic ring structure around the Centaur.
It would increase the number of customers for the Starliner due to the much reduced launch cost of a flight proven Falcon 9. Right now only NASA can afford the launch price of the Atlas V & Starliner stack IMO. Which have a higher seat price than the recent jack up Soyuz seat price.
-
#71
by
oiorionsbelt
on 28 Aug, 2021 00:42
-
Starliner at 90 million per seat compared to Dragon at 55 million and the Starliner problems to date why would anyone choose Starliner?
Starliner looks like a dead end with no application outside of commercial crew.
-
#72
by
MattMason
on 28 Aug, 2021 10:25
-
Starliner at 90 million per seat compared to Dragon at 55 million and the Starliner problems to date why would anyone choose Starliner?
Starliner looks like a dead end with no application outside of commercial crew.
Disagree.
Humans are as faithful as their options.
Right now, the ONLY US option for getting into low Earth orbit, unless you go on the Soyuz, are these two Commercial Crew spacecraft. Eventually they'll be Starship, but that's like a person reserving a seat in a limousine just to go to the other side of town.
The Commercial Crew ships will have NASA/FAA standards of safety, launch vehicles run by experienced providers, with no requirements for NASA contracts to fly, just cash.
The spacecraft, along with Dream Chaser Cargo and more, open up the secondary commercial applications in Earth orbit that were moribund without any way of getting there affordably or at all, period. Axiom Space, to take one example, can not exist without CC availability.
Commercial Crew are "space Ubers." And you want alternatives in case the other one is busy or too expensive.
What ULA can do to lower the cost of Starliner flights to be competitive is another debate. But at least the option of a human spacecraft exists at all.
-
#73
by
oiorionsbelt
on 28 Aug, 2021 20:37
-
Starliner at 90 million per seat compared to Dragon at 55 million and the Starliner problems to date why would anyone choose Starliner?
Starliner looks like a dead end with no application outside of commercial crew.
Disagree.
Humans are as faithful as their options.
Right now, the ONLY US option for getting into low Earth orbit, unless you go on the Soyuz, are these two Commercial Crew spacecraft. Eventually they'll be Starship, but that's like a person reserving a seat in a limousine just to go to the other side of town.
The Commercial Crew ships will have NASA/FAA standards of safety, launch vehicles run by experienced providers, with no requirements for NASA contracts to fly, just cash.
The spacecraft, along with Dream Chaser Cargo and more, open up the secondary commercial applications in Earth orbit that were moribund without any way of getting there affordably or at all, period. Axiom Space, to take one example, can not exist without CC availability.
Commercial Crew are "space Ubers." And you want alternatives in case the other one is busy or too expensive.
What ULA can do to lower the cost of Starliner flights to be competitive is another debate. But at least the option of a human spacecraft exists at all.
Right now Starliner is NOT an option. It's late and troubled. It will likely be an option but at what price.
-
#74
by
lrk
on 30 Aug, 2021 17:14
-
Not necessary. There is always the awful option (for Boeing) of riding up on the Falcon 9. It will a lot less complicated than that aerodynamic ring structure around the Centaur.
That aeroskirt thing wouldn't be needed on Vulcan as Centaur V is larger diameter - the only reason the skirt exists with Atlas is because the Centaur III is so much smaller diameter than the capsule. On the contrary it is possible that a skirt would be needed with the smaller-diameter Falcon 9.
But this is a relatively small point of complexity compared with the other issues involved in moving to Falcon. Not to mention using Falcon for both capsules that would fly in the face of "dissimilar redundancy". And SpaceX wants to move towards retiring Falcon in the not-too-distant future once Starship is operational, so "legacy" Falcon prices would likely go up.
-
#75
by
Zed_Noir
on 30 Aug, 2021 20:30
-
Not necessary. There is always the awful option (for Boeing) of riding up on the Falcon 9. It will a lot less complicated than that aerodynamic ring structure around the Centaur.
That aeroskirt thing wouldn't be needed on Vulcan as Centaur V is larger diameter - the only reason the skirt exists with Atlas is because the Centaur III is so much smaller diameter than the capsule. On the contrary it is possible that a skirt would be needed with the smaller-diameter Falcon 9.
<snip>.
There will be less need to fly on the Falcon 9 if the Vulcan-Centaur is available. However the lower per seat cost flying with the Falcon 9 could attracted more customers.
The Falcon 9 usually fly with the 5.2 meter payload fairing, which is much wider than the Starliner.
-
#76
by
notsostrong
on 07 Sep, 2021 16:36
-
The Falcon 9 usually fly with the 5.2 meter payload fairing, which is much wider than the Starliner.
In the (unlikely) event that Starliner launches on a Falcon 9, it would not do so within a payload fairing as it prevents use of the abort system.
-
#77
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Sep, 2021 06:35
-
The Falcon 9 usually fly with the 5.2 meter payload fairing, which is much wider than the Starliner.
In the (unlikely) event that Starliner launches on a Falcon 9, it would not do so within a payload fairing as it prevents use of the abort system.
Just to indicate that adapting the Starliner to the Falcon 9 upper stage should not be too difficult. Since said stage already uses a wider hammerhead payload fairing with no aerodynamic issues. So will likely have a fairing adapter instead of that complex segmented skirt structure and the diffusion ring needed with the Atlas V N22.
-
#78
by
deadman1204
on 13 Sep, 2021 13:16
-
There are no rockets available to launch starliner. All atlas v are spoken for, and ula has NO plans currently to human rate Vulcan. It's just not possible for starliner to be commercial (even aside from it costing 2x as much as dragon).
-
#79
by
Jim
on 13 Sep, 2021 13:24
-
There are no rockets available to launch starliner. All atlas v are spoken for, and ula has NO plans currently to human rate Vulcan. It's just not possible for starliner to be commercial (even aside from it costing 2x as much as dragon).
Not true.
-
#80
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Sep, 2021 16:21
-
There are no rockets available to launch starliner. All atlas v are spoken for, and ula has NO plans currently to human rate Vulcan. It's just not possible for starliner to be commercial (even aside from it costing 2x as much as dragon).
Not true.
ULA has specifically designed Vulcan to support Starliner and crew Dreamchaser.
Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk
-
#81
by
AU1.52
on 13 Sep, 2021 18:19
-
It will however need a new payload adapter as Starliner diameter is less than Centaur V diameter (4.65 vs 5.4 meters)
-
#82
by
Comga
on 18 Sep, 2021 17:00
-
It will however need a new payload adapter as Starliner diameter is less than Centaur V diameter (4.65 vs 5.4 meters)
Needing a new adapter goes without saying.
It would need a new one for any new rocket regardless of the diameter.
PS. That’s the least of the obstacles to uses other than Commercial Crew, the subject of this thread.
The first is getting it flying.
The second is cost.
Others can continue with the list.
-
#83
by
joek
on 18 Sep, 2021 17:31
-
Needing a new adapter goes without saying.
It would need a new one for any new rocket regardless of the diameter.
...
Agree; more existential question for Boeing: Do they have interest or fortitude to pursue commercial non-NASA missions? Not getting good vibes. OTOH, as a backup-secondary commercial provider, they may be crucial in growing the commercial market (at least in the near term). But only if they stick with it and have a reasonably competitive offer.
-
#84
by
deadman1204
on 19 Sep, 2021 13:07
-
It's basically impossible for starliner to do a commercial launch. They have a set number of atlas v rockets and nothing else. Vulcan isn't human rated.
-
#85
by
Welsh Dragon
on 19 Sep, 2021 13:34
-
-
#86
by
jebbo
on 20 Sep, 2021 06:40
-
-
#87
by
Jim
on 20 Sep, 2021 14:46
-
It's basically impossible for starliner to do a commercial launch. They have a set number of atlas v rockets and nothing else. Vulcan isn't human rated.
Wrong
-
#88
by
DreamyPickle
on 20 Sep, 2021 15:03
-
I'm not usually a fan of brief negative responses but all the claims that "Vulcan is not human rated" are getting old.
Yes: Vulcan is not currently human rated but that can change. Atlas V also lacked human rating at the start.
This is a smaller challenge compared to signing up actual customers, or even getting crew to the ISS.
-
#89
by
kevinof
on 20 Sep, 2021 15:15
-
It's basically impossible for starliner to do a commercial launch. They have a set number of atlas v rockets and nothing else. Vulcan isn't human rated.
Wrong
There are three statements in the post Jim. Which ones, in your opinion are wrong?
-
#90
by
AstroWare
on 20 Sep, 2021 15:26
-
I'm not usually a fan of brief negative responses but all the claims that "Vulcan is not human rated" are getting old.
Yes: Vulcan is not currently human rated but that can change. Atlas V also lacked human rating at the start.
This is a smaller challenge compared to signing up actual customers, or even getting crew to the ISS.
I agree with this sentiment, but I hope as soon as starliner is operational*, that Boeing makes some public efforts to plan for a post-Atlas starliner future. Be that Vulcan or another LV.
I think we all want to see Starliner succeed and the Atlas EOL cliff makes people nervous. Boeing could decide to walk away after the first batch of CCP flights. A very good indication that they are going to continue with Starliner would be to qualify another LV.
And maybe some people like myself are more nervous than others, as we don't all have the inside info that Jim or others may have.
*which should be Boeing's sole focus right now, at least publically.
-
#91
by
hektor
on 20 Sep, 2021 15:26
-
" They have a set number of atlas v rockets " is correct. The first statement (and therefore ... and nothing else) is wrong. The last statement is like... not yet.
-
#92
by
AstroWare
on 20 Sep, 2021 15:59
-
Interesting thread from Scott Manley:
https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1439816198703628292
--- Tony
Especially once Axiom modules are available, couldn't this privately funded astronaut stay the entire ~6 month crew rotation duration? I don't think NASA allows this at present, but they could permit it in the future.
This would make more sense for a privately funded astronaut-researcher as opposed to a tourist flight, but it may be a good compliment to the axiom dedicated short stay flights.
Axiom-Dragon (short stay)
(2) flights/yr
(3) passengers each
(1) professional commander
Axiom-Starliner (long stay)
(1) flight/yr
(1) passenger each
The long stay astronaut-researcher could even monitor and maintain the experiments brought with the short stay astronauts.
-
#93
by
jebbo
on 20 Sep, 2021 19:17
-
Especially once Axiom modules are available, couldn't this privately funded astronaut stay the entire ~6 month crew rotation duration? I don't think NASA allows this at present, but they could permit it in the future.
Something like this could work, but I'm expecting something more like:
- very short term, they sell the extra seats to Nasa
- once properly flying, they will do 2 crew rotation flights a year like SpaceX, with the usual week or so overlap (might mean only 3 long stay crew each for SpaceX and Boeing for a long term capacity of 9 but I'd hope for 11)
- then the additional seat can be sold for a 1 week visit, returning with the departing crew.
The critical item here is docking ports ... not sure they have quite enough (could a Prichal port be used???). If not would have to delay until the Axiom stuff is in orbit but that might align with Vulcan crew rating anyway ...
--- Tony
-
#94
by
Sam Ho
on 21 Sep, 2021 02:45
-
The critical item here is docking ports ... not sure they have quite enough (could a Prichal port be used???). If not would have to delay until the Axiom stuff is in orbit but that might align with Vulcan crew rating anyway ...
There are only two IDS ports right now, so it is not possible to do a direct handover while a Dragon is docked, as that would require three ports: two for the Starliners and one for the Dragon. Prichal has SSVP ports, as is typical for the Russian segment. I believe Axiom plans to launch one IDS docking adapter with each Hub module.
-
#95
by
AstroWare
on 21 Sep, 2021 02:53
-
Something like this could work, but I'm expecting something more like:
- very short term, they sell the extra seats to Nasa
- once properly flying, they will do 2 crew rotation flights a year like SpaceX... Snip
Short term, NASA may decide to fill the additional seat - but it could be with cargo. The fifth seat is optional.
An extra NASA Astro *costs* money, so there would need to be a reason. Letting Boeing sell the 5th seat let's NASA save money on the flight (and revenue for consumables sold to the customer).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think NASA would even be obligated to pay Boeing for use of the 5th seat, beyond mission specific items like consumables. They bought the whole flight! Boeing surely wouldn't give them a discount if they only flew 2 crew members! NASA allows Boeing to sell the seat on the flight in exchange for a discount or barter.
So if they don't need an extra Astro, I'd expect cargo to fly instead. Remember that 5th seat goes both uphill and downhill, so it takes place of NASA downmass too.
As to the second point, NASA standard rotation is 6 months. Even when both providers are operational, there will only be 2 NASA crew rotation flights total per year. They aren't suddenly going to switch to 4 rotation flights per year...
( Oh, and none of the Russian ports are compatible with American crew vehicles )
-
#96
by
AstroWare
on 21 Sep, 2021 02:57
-
The critical item here is docking ports ... not sure they have quite enough (could a Prichal port be used???). If not would have to delay until the Axiom stuff is in orbit but that might align with Vulcan crew rating anyway ...
There are only two IDS ports right now, so it is not possible to do a direct handover while a Dragon is docked, as that would require three ports: two for the Starliners and one for the Dragon. Prichal has SSVP ports, as is typical for the Russian segment. I believe Axiom plans to launch one IDS docking adapter with each Hub module.
Maybe Boeing could ask the Dragon Astronauts to take their ship out on a free-flight weekend getaway.
(Kidding, of course, but it could work...)
-
#97
by
Cherokee43v6
on 21 Sep, 2021 02:58
-
I'm curious.
One area that seems to be missing from this discussion is selling Starliners to third party operators.
After-all, Boeing is in the business of selling their commercial products (airplanes) to operators (airlines and leasing companies).
Might it make financial sense for a company like Axiom to purchase one (or more) CST-100s and then independently contract for launch services? Find their own economies of operation?
Yes, currently they are limited to the AtlasV as a launch vehicle, but they would have the incentive to explore or even fund alternative LVs for their service. (Note, in a commercial scenario, LV redundancy is not a requirement.)
-
#98
by
AstroWare
on 21 Sep, 2021 03:20
-
I'm curious.
One area that seems to be missing from this discussion is selling Starliners to third party operators.
After-all, Boeing is in the business of selling their commercial products (airplanes) to operators (airlines and leasing companies).
Might it make financial sense for a company like Axiom to purchase one (or more) CST-100s and then independently contract for launch services? Find their own economies of operation?
Yes, currently they are limited to the AtlasV as a launch vehicle, but they would have the incentive to explore or even fund alternative LVs for their service. (Note, in a commercial scenario, LV redundancy is not a requirement.)
Between the refurbishment of the capsule and construction of new service modules, likely all requiring special tooling and proprietary procedures... I think Boeing would end up doing all the work in this scenario anyways. instead of purchase, perhaps more akin to a Lease? Anyway, I'm sure you could streamline many operations over the status quo, and perhaps pull some from Boeing to your own hypothetical company. But lots of $$$ still is going to go to paying Boeing each flight.
And at that point you are kinda paying for the exclusive rights. To be profitable, you would need to keep a steady flight rate so you dont pay for downtime that could be utilized by other users ( like NASA ).
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
-
#99
by
jebbo
on 21 Sep, 2021 06:55
-
So if they don't need an extra Astro, I'd expect cargo to fly instead. Remember that 5th seat goes both uphill and downhill, so it takes place of NASA downmass too.
Sounds right.
As to the second point, NASA standard rotation is 6 months. Even when both providers are operational, there will only be 2 NASA crew rotation flights total per year. They aren't suddenly going to switch to 4 rotation flights per year...
I know it's optimistic, but I still think there's a very small chance: when they did the tour of Nauka, Oleg
talked about expansion to 8 and hinted at further expansion. They've also been doing checkouts on CASA
which would suggest this as well.
It is probably for temporary arrangements but a tiny part of me is hopeful :-)
( Oh, and none of the Russian ports are compatible with American crew vehicles )
Cheers. Was pretty sure this was the case but wasn't 100% sure. Which makes the above discussion irrelevant
until the Axiom modules ~2024 anyway.
--- Tony
-
#100
by
Jim
on 21 Sep, 2021 13:29
-
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
-
#101
by
AstroWare
on 21 Sep, 2021 14:41
-
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
Claiming knowledge of the entire future is a rather bold statement!
I think you read my whole comment, so you know I agree that at present, this is the case. I don't think Starliner or Dragon or any other capsule for that matter will ever be sold to an operating company. And correct me if I'm wrong but NASA still owned the orbiters. They didn't sell them to USA.
We can build on both the successes and failures of others.
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
IF people can learn from the failed endeavours of others, it makes future enterprises more likely to succeed.
(Sorry for the pun, I couldn't help myself!)
-
#102
by
Jorge
on 21 Sep, 2021 15:15
-
( Someday, I think the sale of spacecraft to operators will make sense, but only for fully reusable vehicles. Reusable vehicles are a product. Expendable vehicles are a service )
No, it won't. Still too much of the OEM to be involved. Even though NASA had Lockheed (then USA) "operate" the shuttle, Rockwell (Boeing) still did a lot of work and was paid a lot of money.
This doesn't affect the overall accuracy of your statement, but USA was not just Lockheed, but a 50:50 joint venture of Rockwell and Lockheed (later 50:50 Boeing:Lockheed after the Boeing acquisition of Rockwell). Rockwell's half of USA was the former RSOC/Houston, which was distinct from RI/Downey that had the shuttle sustaining contract.
-
#103
by
Lemurion
on 19 Oct, 2021 21:58
-
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
The real question with Vulcan is the timeline. With the first launch not scheduled before 2022, and the next two being Dream Chaser, that puts a first potential Vulcan flight for Starliner into 2023 at the absolute earliest even with no further Starliner delays and Boeing having the resources to do the modifications in parallel with the existing program.
-
#104
by
daedalus1
on 19 Oct, 2021 22:14
-
You might just as well ask the same question for Fireball XL5.
-
#105
by
Jim
on 19 Oct, 2021 22:17
-
This doesn't affect the overall accuracy of your statement, but USA was not just Lockheed, but a 50:50 joint venture of Rockwell and Lockheed (later 50:50 Boeing:Lockheed after the Boeing acquisition of Rockwell). Rockwell's half of USA was the former RSOC/Houston, which was distinct from RI/Downey that had the shuttle sustaining contract.
I was referring to LSOC. The rocket launching part. Most of what RSOC did would not be applicable to that.
-
#106
by
Jim
on 19 Oct, 2021 22:21
-
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
That has nothing to do with my point. The shuttle failed commercially long before the operating company model was employed. The point is that space launch is too complex for the OEM not to be involved in daily operations.
-
#107
by
AstroWare
on 19 Oct, 2021 23:06
-
The fact the shuttle failed to be a commercial success using the operating company model means that others can see what worked and what didn't.
That has nothing to do with my point. The shuttle failed commercially long before the operating company model was employed. The point is that space launch is too complex for the OEM not to be involved in daily operations.
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
(And since it's been awhile since this was discussed, I'll remind the audience that my position is not that starliner will be operated by a third party, simply that in the future reusable spacecraft very well could be)
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
-
#108
by
Jim
on 19 Oct, 2021 23:41
-
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
wrong. Weapon systems don't count. They can take lower reliability (70%) and most are solid propellant. Anyways, the OEMs built them up and placed them in the silos and designed the trajectories.
-
#109
by
AstroWare
on 20 Oct, 2021 01:50
-
I disagree. Ballistic missiles and satelite launch vehicles are of comparable complexity, and the former are not operated by their respective OEM on a daily basis.
wrong. Weapon systems don't count. They can take lower reliability (70%) and most are solid propellant. Anyways, the OEMs built them up and placed them in the silos and designed the trajectories.
Actually, I think that your points about the role of the OEM in relation to ICBMs is a perfect example of the relationship that future vehicle operators and OEMs will have.
Future OEMs will manufacture, perform initial system verification, construct GSE, and train operators. I think they may even provide operators a catalog of GNC trajectories.
-----
I appreciate the valuable contributions you make to this community but the anthills you defend are beyond my comprehension.
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Def: comparable: Logical to compare. Does not mean identical or equal. Otherwise stated more alike than not alike in a given context. Although any two objects may be compared, comparable implies that the insight of the comparison exercise is valuable to an overarching objective or discussion.
If you wish to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to oblige the discussion on another thread.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
-
#110
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2021 12:00
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
-
#111
by
AstroWare
on 20 Oct, 2021 15:03
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
-
#112
by
baldusi
on 20 Oct, 2021 15:09
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
This is a technical site, not a sophism charades site. Please study how a solid ICBM is used by the military, and how prepared by the contractor, and then see how is crewed launch. You will find the answer yourself.
-
#113
by
AstroWare
on 20 Oct, 2021 15:23
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
This is a technical site, not a sophism charades site. Please study how a solid ICBM is used by the military, and how prepared by the contractor, and then see how is crewed launch. You will find the answer yourself.
A technical discussion is exactly what I offered, in the appropriate thread.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
-
#114
by
darkenfast
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:28
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Anecdotal evidence of little consequence. If you are not interested in a real conversation on the matter, we will just agree to disagree.
Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk
Statements from a former Air Force officer, now NASA engineer whose whole career has involved rockets and their payloads is somewhat more than "anecdotal evidence of little consequence".
-
#115
by
SoftwareDude
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:34
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
-
#116
by
RonM
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:46
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
All those potential ICBM issues were resolved decades ago.
-
#117
by
Comga
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:46
-
Back to the topic of the thread?
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
The real question with Vulcan is the timeline. With the first launch not scheduled before 2022, and the next two being Dream Chaser, that puts a first potential Vulcan flight for Starliner into 2023 at the absolute earliest even with no further Starliner delays and Boeing having the resources to do the modifications in parallel with the existing program.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable)
technical issue.
It's a
financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
-
#118
by
SoftwareDude
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:53
-
Resolved: Intercontinental ballistic missiles are of comparable technical complexity to satelite launch vehicles
Untrue. No more comparable than RC airplane is to an airliner.
ICBMs are less complex than satellite launch vehicles.
ICBM "operators" just turn keys. Not really "operators". If they turn the key, the OEM has to come back and reload the silo.
ICBM's used for space launch are handled much differently.
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge compared to something that needs to survive ready to launch for a few days. A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff. A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
All those potential ICBM issues were resolved decades ago.
I don't understand your point. It doesn't reduce the amount of investment of time and engineering in the rocket. The technology may be older but the problem was very difficult to solve. These vehicles are designed to withstand EMP pulses from hydrogen bombs exploding in the atmosphere, they can withstand intense vibrations from a nuclear attack and launch within a few minutes afterward. Even the ground support equipment has to be extremely robust and yet useable my military personnel. People who doubt the sophistication of ICBMs are making a mistake.
-
#119
by
Kiwi53
on 20 Oct, 2021 20:58
-
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable) technical issue.
It's a financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
This
Boeing has said, as recently as yesterday in relation to Starliner that they
intend to complete their contractual obligations to NASA. They already have the Atlas-V launchers needed for this, but there are no other Atlas-V rides available. Boeing has made no statements that I'm aware of that indicate that they're even considering launches of Starliner outside of this Commercial Crew contract.
Starliner appears to be already an expensive vehicle relative to Crew Dragon, and adding in the cost of Vulcan crew qualification would only make this worse.
-
#120
by
SoftwareDude
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:03
-
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable) technical issue.
It's a financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
This
Boeing has said, as recently as yesterday in relation to Starliner that they intend to complete their contractual obligations to NASA. They already have the Atlas-V launchers needed for this, but there are no other Atlas-V rides available. Boeing has made no statements that I'm aware of that indicate that they're even considering launches of Starliner outside of this Commercial Crew contract.
Starliner appears to be already an expensive vehicle relative to Crew Dragon, and adding in the cost of Vulcan crew qualification would only make this worse.
Wouldn't ULA get money from NASA for human rating Vulcan or is it Boeing's investment?
-
#121
by
joek
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:25
-
Wouldn't ULA get money from NASA for human rating Vulcan or is it Boeing's investment?
Very likely. Someone will pay for it, and that someone is ultimately NASA--at least at this time, unless Boeing and ULA see a broader market and are willing to put in some $. Customer (NASA) > Boeing (provider) > ULA (provider).
-
#122
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:28
-
A system engineered to carry the destructive power to destroy a city cannot have an accident on the pad.
Yet they did. Again, weapon system reliability is not the same as space launch. The warheads had all the safety features and not the booster.
-
#123
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:32
-
Being able to just turn a key for launch is a far more difficult problem to solve than required for something that needs an engineering staff to launch. A vehicle that can stand by for years safely with a nuclear warhead attached to it is a huge engineering challenge...
Not really when solid rockets are used.
A vehicle that can be serviced by military personal is a far greater challenge than a vehicle serviced by engineering staff.
That is a fallacy. Why do you think General Dynamics was the largest contractor in the earlier 60's? They had to build and support all the Atlas sites.
-
#124
by
Comga
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:33
-
I really don't think human-rating Vulcan is an issue. The rocket was designed with that in mind so it's likely primarily a question of paperwork and the necessary flight record.
Human rating Vulcan is not a (unsolvable) technical issue.
It's a financial issue.
ULA is waiting for a customer to pay for it.
It represents a substantial "barrier to entry" for commercial (non-NASA, non-ISS) Starliner flights.
(Anyone have a basis with which to estimate to how much it would cost?)
Who is going to pay for it before the first flight?
It really looks like an insurmountable barrier for Starliner.
Unless Sierra Space needs it for a crew capable Dream Chaser.
In which case Starliner would have two competitors.
This
Boeing has said, as recently as yesterday in relation to Starliner that they intend to complete their contractual obligations to NASA. They already have the Atlas-V launchers needed for this, but there are no other Atlas-V rides available. Boeing has made no statements that I'm aware of that indicate that they're even considering launches of Starliner outside of this Commercial Crew contract.
Starliner appears to be already an expensive vehicle relative to Crew Dragon, and adding in the cost of Vulcan crew qualification would only make this worse.
Wouldn't ULA get money from NASA for human rating Vulcan or is it Boeing's investment?
There is a
thread on NASA's RFI for more Commercial Crew flights.If Boeing wants to bid on them they will have to human rate Vulcan.
But the press release says
NASA is considering acquisition of Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services from one or more U.S. providers through commercial services contracts. Depending on mission requirements, NASA may purchase single seats, multiple seats within one mission, or seats for an entire mission.
There is nothing in there about paying for human rating Vulcan.
It's prohibited if this is a commercial service procurement.
I think it's very
unlikley to come from NASA, joek.
-
#125
by
Jim
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:34
-
they can withstand intense vibrations from a nuclear attack and launch within a few minutes afterward. Even the ground support equipment has to be extremely robust and yet useable my military personnel.
The rocket and GSE are on shock absorbers and isolated from the vibrations. what they see is no different than experienced from a launch.
-
#126
by
zubenelgenubi
on 20 Oct, 2021 21:51
-
Moderator:
Thread locked 🔒 while much off-topic-ness is sorted.
