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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moderator:
Thread locked 🔒 while much off-topic-ness is sorted.