-
#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.