Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[abaddon]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

More practically speaking, Starliner will launch when Starliner can safely launch at earliest.  It might slip some based on crew schedule and alignment, true, but the timing of DM-2 and USCV-1 is not relevant in that regard, because it's not going to be ready in time for it to be relevant.

* No, I'm not suggesting that's appropriate or possible to only launch when the other provider has a problem, clearly that doesn't work.  Just pointing out that SpaceX is capable of filling the crewed need RIGHT NOW to give Boeing and NASA time to get Starliner certified without schedule pressure.

[Lars-J]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

That makes no sense. I don't... think you understand the concept of redundancy. At all. Starliner doesn't provide redundancy until it demonstrates that it works. And it has to fly to do that.

[abaddon]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

That makes no sense. I don't... think you understand the concept of redundancy. At all. Starliner doesn't provide redundancy until it demonstrates that it works. And it has to fly to do that.

Maybe it makes no sense because you deleted the asterisk I put at the bottom?  If you read that, it might make more sense to you:

No, I'm not suggesting that's appropriate or possible to only launch when the other provider has a problem, clearly that doesn't work.  Just pointing out that SpaceX is capable of filling the crewed need RIGHT NOW to give Boeing and NASA time to get Starliner certified without schedule pressure.

[lonestriker]

That makes no sense. I don't... think you understand the concept of redundancy. At all. Starliner doesn't provide redundancy until it demonstrates that it works. And it has to fly to do that.

Soyuz would like to say "hi!" in the redundancy conversation.  Of course it would be better if we had American redundancy across two providers, but at least we're (almost) at two certified crew transport providers now.

I'm sure NASA and SpaceX are already having "what if" planning scenarios now to bring forward schedules.  They mentioned some of this accelerated capability for SpaceX to build D2s quickly after the IFA and ahead of the FRR.

Starliner has the luxury now of absolutely no time pressure to get everything done and triple-checked.  Given how much scrutiny both NASA and Boeing will be under for the repeat of OFT and then the crewed test flight, I bet they will use as much time as needed.  Especially if there is a new president sitting in the Oval Office next year, there may be changes to the NASA administration.  If Jim is replaced, that will undoubtedly put the brakes on certifying Starliner.

[DigitalMan]

I’m surprised NASA made a reuse contract change with SpaceX so quickly.

Anyone have numbers?

Edit: ok it looks like no cost modification

[king1999]

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

Recent mod of contract between NASA and SpaceX showed that reuse of BOTH F9 and Crew Dragon will be allowed after USCV-2. That will enable SpaceX for higher flight rate if Boeing is not ready by then.

[woods170]

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

Recent mod of contract between NASA and SpaceX showed that reuse of BOTH F9 and Crew Dragon will be allowed after USCV-2. That will enable SpaceX for higher flight rate if Boeing is not ready by then.

Minor nit: not USCV-2, but PCM-2. As in: NASA has allowed SpaceX to reuse the booster and Crew Dragon after the second operational SpaceX CCP mission.

PCM-2 is not necessarily equal to USCV-2 because there is a small chance that USCV-2 could actually be flown by Starliner.

[woods170]

I’m surprised NASA made a reuse contract change with SpaceX so quickly.

Anyone have numbers?

Edit: ok it looks like no cost modification

No cost modification due to the fact that it is an exchange.

Originally DM-2 would last only a week. But given the dire situation with regards to the presence of US astronauts on ISS there was a pressing need to turn DM-2 into a longer mission.
In doing so NASA would have to come up with compensation for SpaceX. That could be either additional money or something else.

In this case NASA and SpaceX agreed to not provide additional money but to drop the requirement of all-new boosters and all-new Crew Dragon spacecraft for all six contracted Post-Certification Missions.

In short: SpaceX gets to fly reused F9 boosters and Crew Dragons on CCP missions in exchange for extending the DM-2 mission from one week to (up to) 119 days.


IMO a really good deal.

[edzieba]

I’m surprised NASA made a reuse contract change with SpaceX so quickly.

I suspect this has been in the works for some time. Initially it was mooted that post-use Crew Dragons could be converted to Cargo Dragons (as opposed to scrapping them as single-use items), but that flipped to a pretty definitive "no, we won't be doing that" a year or so ago. I expect that would coincide with positive progress in proposed re-use of Crew Dragon vehicles.

[jpo234]

You also need to include Boeing costs and all the development costs prior to CCtCAP. I work out that to be $8362.4M for 53 seats (26 for SpaceX and 27 for Boeing).

The US Government got some of this money back as taxes...
Not just from the companies themselves but also from suppliers and other secondary increases of economic activity. There are probably economic models to make an educated guess about the monetary value.

[abaddon]

I was trying to find what Boeing got for extending their mission (see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-boeing-extend-starliner-crew-flight-test-duration-to-space-station-target-new and https://spacenews.com/nasa-approves-extension-of-boeing-commercial-crew-test-flight/), but I couldn't find any reference.  It might be that whatever the deal is won't be fully arranged until the duration of the mission is determined, and that hasn't happened yet.  Or I couldn't find it.  But that would give us an apples to apples comparison as to the value of extending a short-duration flight to a long-duration flight.

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).  Boeing was already going to reuse capsules - at a much steeper price, while SpaceX is the one with experience refurbishing and reflying Dragon capsules.  And either NASA thinks flying on a SpaceX previously flown booster is as safe or safer than a new booster, or it does not.  That doesn't seem like a financial consideration for NASA, strictly a safety assessment.

I'm glad to see it happen and think it benefits both SpaceX and NASA.  But it this seems great deal for NASA - getting two more seats (estimated anywhere from $55 million to $130 million per seat, depending on which accounting measure you use) for free.

[abaddon]

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

Recent mod of contract between NASA and SpaceX showed that reuse of BOTH F9 and Crew Dragon will be allowed after USCV-2. That will enable SpaceX for higher flight rate if Boeing is not ready by then.

Yeah, my timing on that comment was (totally accidentally) great.  I guess I got to be the broken clock for once!  I imagine it's one of the paths NASA has been exploring to give them increased margin and flexibility, but honestly, the capsule refurbishment was probably the only thing they really needed to do for that, SpaceX should be able to build a new booster in plenty of time if they are asked to fill USCV-2.

@mgeagon - great question - I imagine the milestones will be largely proprietary and closely held between Boeing and NASA until they have a very good idea of what its going to look like.  IIRC they already have an Atlas V built/being built - previously for their crewed demo flight - so we should not expect to get any insight from ULA.  Based on previous situations it might be that we hear of it first from ASAP.

[DigitalMan]

I’m surprised NASA made a reuse contract change with SpaceX so quickly.

Anyone have numbers?

Edit: ok it looks like no cost modification

No cost modification due to the fact that it is an exchange.

Originally DM-2 would last only a week. But given the dire situation with regards to the presence of US astronauts on ISS there was a pressing need to turn DM-2 into a longer mission.
In doing so NASA would have to come up with compensation for SpaceX. That could be either additional money or something else.

In this case NASA and SpaceX agreed to not provide additional money but to drop the requirement of all-new boosters and all-new Crew Dragon spacecraft for all six contracted Post-Certification Missions.

In short: SpaceX gets to fly reused F9 boosters and Crew Dragons on CCP missions in exchange for extending the DM-2 mission from one week to (up to) 119 days.


IMO a really good deal.

That is quite logical, thanks. I think the training for Space Force for abort rescue is good not only for SpaceX, if they need the capability, but good for Space Force itself, which gets to practice procedures and logistics, but also other commercial providers which might also need to rely on assistance from Space Force.

[ncb1397]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

There really isn't much evidence that SpaceX can reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone. They were never planning for that and haven't even done one full crew rotation. And re-use likely won't help given the shortest interval between launches of the same Dragon cargo capsule was 459 days (CRS-16 and CRS-20). That would suggest that the DM-2 capsule would be ready for reflight on or after September 1, 2021. So, it won't help with the need for a flight to ISS in the ~March 2021 time frame. For the health of the ISS and not being put in another potential de-crewing situation (and another expedited Soyuz contract situation) , these Starliner flights in November 2020 and April 2021 need to hold.

[Coastal Ron]

Some may think this is weird coming from me, but I don't think we have to worry about Starliner becoming available for crew rotation services within the next year. I think Boeing will fix everything up, do a successful test, and NASA will allow them to do their crewed test - likely with a mission extension like the current SpaceX one.

As to Dragon Crew missions, and what they are and are not capable of doing, there is another thread for that... 

[Welsh Dragon]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

The dirty little secret is Starliner doesn't need to launch at all, until if/when SpaceX has a mishap*.  In fact, it'd be cheaper for it not to launch.  SpaceX is building plenty of capsules and the capsules could and should (and probably will be) certified for reuse at some point.

There really isn't much evidence that SpaceX can reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone. They were never planning for that and haven't even done one full crew rotation. And re-use likely won't help given the shortest interval between launches of the same Dragon cargo capsule was 459 days (CRS-16 and CRS-20). That would suggest that the DM-2 capsule would be ready for reflight on or after September 1, 2021. So, it won't help with the need for a flight to ISS in the ~March 2021 time frame. For the health of the ISS and not being put in another potential de-crewing situation (and another expedited Soyuz contract situation) , these Starliner flights in November 2020 and April 2021 need to hold.

You think they'll only have one capsule in the rotation? Come on..... Once again with the misleading numbers. Give it up.

[Vettedrmr]

And re-use likely won't help given the shortest interval between launches of the same Dragon cargo capsule was 459 days (CRS-16 and CRS-20).

A. Not relevant to Starliner
B. You assume the entire period was due to the amount of time to refurb the capsule
C. You assume that Crew Dragon will take as long to refurb as Cargo Dragon, which has been retired.

[snotis]

There really isn't much evidence that SpaceX can reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone. They were never planning for that and haven't even done one full crew rotation. And re-use likely won't help...

If NASA needed SpaceX to "reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone" I have no doubt SpaceX would figure it out.  Like 0% doubt.

That being said - Starliner will do OFT2 by the end of the year - and then assuming all went will with OFT2 (which it most likely will) they will do CFT ~4 months later.  They only have 2 operational capsules correct? (I don't think the pad-abort capsule is a fully operational one...)  If so - I don't know how fast they could turn around the capsule they use for OFT2 to be used in an operational mission after CFT.  My guess is that it takes about a year to refurb a capsule and build a new service section (because that is the cadence they were planning on for operational missions).  So they would be ready to do their first operational missions by end of 2021?

Personal log: It is becoming a fun past-time of mine to see how ncb1397 comments on news and situations regarding SpaceX - it is quite interesting!

[ncb1397]

C. You assume that Crew Dragon will take as long to refurb as Cargo Dragon, which has been retired.

You are right, it will likely take longer. First cargo dragon reuse launch interval was 915 days. Average was ~738 days. And that was without crew rating requirements. DM-2 and USCV-1 won't help with a flight in the ~March 2021 timeframe. They either have a new capsule configured for crew in the pipeline or they don't. If they don't, then Starliner has to hold the ~april 2021 crewed flight date or we have to buy another Soyuz seat.

There really isn't much evidence that SpaceX can reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone. They were never planning for that and haven't even done one full crew rotation. And re-use likely won't help...

If NASA needed SpaceX to "reliably provide crew rotation services to keep ISS up and running alone" I have no doubt SpaceX would figure it out.  Like 0% doubt.

That isn't really much of a plan in the short term. Long term, having SpaceX just figure it out could be a plan.

edit: Possibly the best bet for re-use would be the In Flight abort test vehicle that is on the ground now and ready to be worked on. But the activation of the abort system adds another wrinkle on top of all the other ones. You are possibly looking at completely replacing that system(beyond just the burst disks). Another option might be to not fly CRS-21 in ~October and try to reconfigure something not initially intended to carry humans as a crew dragon rather than a cargo dragon. That doesn't look to be a good option either as it interrupts cargo resupply beyond just the question of feasibility and schedule.

All in all, putting USCV-2 duties onto Dragon v2 on top of cargo requirements is putting a ton of schedule pressure on a crew/spacecraft program in its infancy. It is not a good option in my book. You could get by, maybe, possibly - not a qualifier that you want to place on a crewed program.

[yg1968]

I was trying to find what Boeing got for extending their mission (see https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-and-boeing-extend-starliner-crew-flight-test-duration-to-space-station-target-new and https://spacenews.com/nasa-approves-extension-of-boeing-commercial-crew-test-flight/), but I couldn't find any reference.  It might be that whatever the deal is won't be fully arranged until the duration of the mission is determined, and that hasn't happened yet.  Or I couldn't find it.  But that would give us an apples to apples comparison as to the value of extending a short-duration flight to a long-duration flight.

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).  Boeing was already going to reuse capsules - at a much steeper price, while SpaceX is the one with experience refurbishing and reflying Dragon capsules.  And either NASA thinks flying on a SpaceX previously flown booster is as safe or safer than a new booster, or it does not.  That doesn't seem like a financial consideration for NASA, strictly a safety assessment.

I'm glad to see it happen and think it benefits both SpaceX and NASA.  But it this seems great deal for NASA - getting two more seats (estimated anywhere from $55 million to $130 million per seat, depending on which accounting measure you use) for free.

NASA isn't getting 2 more seats, it's getting a longer duration flight.