higherNo need to guess, you can look up Boeing's award to see how much has been paid or obligated:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA75C_8000
Here are the amounts for SpaceX's contract:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_NNK17MA01T_8000_NNK14MA74C_8000
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA74C_8000
The SpaceX IDIQ now runs out on 31 December 2030, presumably because of the two contract extensions.
The Boeing IDIQ award still runs out on 31 May 2027. Does this mean that NASA is not obligated to purchase Starliner services after that date?
Boeing couldn't afford to pay to crew rated another launcher after the Atlas V get used up, unless they switched to the Falcon 9. Even then Boeing will have more red ink, just much less than with any other alternate launcher.
Except for this new (to me) date information, NASA is obligated to pay Boeing for one CFT and six operational Starliner flights, and Boeing has already contracted with ULA to supply seven Atlas V launches. ULA has earmarked seven of the remaining 17 Atlas V launches for this purpose. There is no requirement for Boeing to qualify another launcher.
The problem is that everything I have seen assumes that Starliner CCP missions will alternate with Crew Dragon missions, and the first Starliner CCP mission is NET early 2025. That means that Starliner-6 would fly NET early 2030. Even if NASA and Boeing try to fly back-to-back Starliner missions without any intervening Crew Dragon, there is only time for five Starliner missions before the contract's official deadline. Even if legal, this would basically penalize SpaceX for Boeing's incompetence.
No need to guess, you can look up Boeing's award to see how much has been paid or obligated:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA75C_8000
Here are the amounts for SpaceX's contract:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_NNK17MA01T_8000_NNK14MA74C_8000
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA74C_8000
The SpaceX IDIQ now runs out on 31 December 2030, presumably because of the two contract extensions.
The Boeing IDIQ award still runs out on 31 May 2027. Does this mean that NASA is not obligated to purchase Starliner services after that date?
I don't know but it will likely get extended at some point. NASA has always said that it wanted 2 commercial crew providers.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
I hate to say so, but during the Space Age every long string of consecutive successes has ended. I doubt that the US Government really wants to depend on Russia again during a downtime. I still see value in redundancy.
- Ed Kyle
Except for this new (to me) date information, NASA is obligated to pay Boeing for one CFT and six operational Starliner flights, and Boeing has already contracted with ULA to supply seven Atlas V launches.
A terminology side-note: "obligated" has a specific meaning in US public accounting, and I think you are using it in a different meaning here. When an agency obligates money, it means that they are setting aside money for a contract they have signed, in order to pay for it when the contractor delivers. (And note that they may have set aside
less money than they have contracted for, e.g. because Congress has not yet given them enough to pay for the full contract; this can happens regularly for multi-year contracts, as funding only happens one year at a time. Also note that an obligation is not a
payment; that is called an outlay.)
I think you already know this, so this is mostly for clarity for other readers. (And I noticed at least one instance in the contract with Boeing where NASA is using the word "obligated" in the same meaning that you were using it.
)
The problem is that everything I have seen assumes that Starliner CCP missions will alternate with Crew Dragon missions, and the first Starliner CCP mission is NET early 2025. That means that Starliner-6 would fly NET early 2030. Even if NASA and Boeing try to fly back-to-back Starliner missions without any intervening Crew Dragon, there is only time for five Starliner missions before the contract's official deadline. Even if legal, this would basically penalize SpaceX for Boeing's incompetence.
That just means that NASA will negotiate a contract extension with Boeing.
I don't have the time and energy to go through the entire contract and understand it (456 pages of US legalese...), but I would expect that it stipulates how often Boeing are supposed to fly, and if they are late enough to not be able to fulfill all their flights at the required pace before the end of the contract, then it is the
contractor that loses, not NASA.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
Think NASA or Boeing will pull the plug on Starliner any time soon? Doubt it.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
I hate to say so, but during the Space Age every long string of consecutive successes has ended. I doubt that the US Government really wants to depend on Russia again during a downtime. I still see value in redundancy.
- Ed Kyle
I also see value in redundancy. I just don't see the redundancy.
Yep, eventually it is almost certain that an F9 will fail, but with its current track record, a single failure may not cause the fleet to be grounded. It will depend on the failure. This is also rapidly becoming true for Dragon 2.
We don't ground all the aircraft of a type when a single failure occurs. We usually wait for two similar failures.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
Think NASA or Boeing will pull the plug on Starliner any time soon? Doubt it.
I hope and believe that Starliner will fly a successful CFT in April. I also hope and believe they will fly Starliner-1 in early 2025. As a taxpayer, I would prefer the program to be terminated after that, with no further payments to Boeing. I do not know enough about the details of the contract to know if this can happen. I was speculating, with absolutely no knowledge, expertise, or information, that NASA might be able to terminate the contract after Starliner-3 files in early 2027, based on the contractual end date.
No need to guess, you can look up Boeing's award to see how much has been paid or obligated:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA75C_8000
Here are the amounts for SpaceX's contract:
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_NNK17MA01T_8000_NNK14MA74C_8000
https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_IDV_NNK14MA74C_8000
The SpaceX IDIQ now runs out on 31 December 2030, presumably because of the two contract extensions.
The Boeing IDIQ award still runs out on 31 May 2027. Does this mean that NASA is not obligated to purchase Starliner services after that date?
I don't know but it will likely get extended at some point. NASA has always said that it wanted 2 commercial crew providers.
It's a good thing that they wanted 2 providers, and it basically saved the CCP program. Apparently, in 2014 some folks within NASA wanted to fund only Boeing and not waste money on a second provider. Fortunately, this did not happen. But now, NASA has been using a single provider for 4 years, and Dragon 2 and Falcon 9 have built up an impressive reliability record. Circumstances have changed, and the value of a second provider covering only the years 2025-2030 is IMO no longer worth the cost.
It's probably not in the contract but NASA has said verbally that it wants to alternate between commercial crew providers. So, it's almost a given that Boeing's contract will be extended until the 6 post certification missions are completed which should be around 2030.
Starliner is part of Orbital Reef which means that Boeing would have to certify Starliner on a new LV. Boeing is likely waiting to be paid by NASA through a Commercial LEO Destinations provider before certifying Starliner with the new LV.
I hope and believe that Starliner will fly a successful CFT in April. I also hope and believe they will fly Starliner-1 in early 2025. As a taxpayer, I would prefer the program to be terminated after that, with no further payments to Boeing. I do not know enough about the details of the contract to know if this can happen. I was speculating, with absolutely no knowledge, expertise, or information, that NASA might be able to terminate the contract after Starliner-3 files in early 2027, based on the contractual end date.
There will not be any additional payments to Boeing as this is a deliverable-based FFP contract. (Maybe... we have seen payments outside of FFP contracts before and we cannot say for certain whether that has occurred or will occur, as much of that information is not public).
OTOH, contract termination clauses are public. Depends on who terminates (Boeing or NASA) and when and for what reasons. If that were to happen, likely to be a sh*t show, all bets off, and anyone's guess as to how it might turn out.
I hate to say so, but during the Space Age every long string of consecutive successes has ended.
I doubt that the US Government really wants to depend on Russia again during a downtime.
- Ed Kyle
Respectfully Ed, what downtime? Im not sure that I get your point. What you said is true, but I'm missing the relevance. Every program in the past that ended did so because it was scheduled to end. As of now, there is no scheduled end for Dragon-Falcon before the ISS is decomissioned, the only NASA LEO destination. ISS is currently scheduled to end in 2030 and the SpaceX crew contract remains in effect until then as well. No downtime. Are you saying that Dragon-Falcon will end before then, leaving the US dependent on Russia again because there is no American crewed redundancy? I hate to say this, because I used to be a really big Boeing fan, but Starliner, which WILL (hopefully) fly, will be, imo, a short flash in the sky, an also-ran. A very short-lived redundancy capability. Boeing is not going to pick up the cost of shifting to another LV. When the supply of Atlas's runs out, Starliner will be done. But there will be no downtime because of SpaceX's contract with NASA. Dragon-Falcon will continue to fly so long as NASA needs them to. Starship is on the horizon, but for this discussion, is irrelevant. Starliner is going to have a very short future and then will be done, while SpaceX will continue to carry NASA astronauts to NASA designated destinations, even beyond ISS, so long as NASA wants them to. Elon is not going to say "no".
Yes, there IS value in redundancy, but Starliner will be far too short-lived to be it. Starliner has flown twice. The first flight was a true failure. Boeing is lucky that the spacecraft even survived. The 2nd flight did manage to reach ISS but was not without several problems of its own. And Boeing is still battling design flaws that should never have happened in the first place. Will Starliner carry astronauts to the ISS? I think so - eventually. But there are a lot of well informed people that have their doubts.
I hate to say so, but during the Space Age every long string of consecutive successes has ended.
I doubt that the US Government really wants to depend on Russia again during a downtime.
- Ed Kyle
Respectfully Ed, what downtime? Im not sure that I get your point. What you said is true, but I'm missing the relevance. Every program in the past that ended did so because it was scheduled to end. As of now, there is no scheduled end for Dragon-Falcon before the ISS is decomissioned, the only NASA LEO destination.
Ed is saying that sooner or later the unbroken string of
successes will end, i.e. that there will be a
failure. And after a failure, there will be a downtime while the failure is investigated, and fixes or mitigations are developed and applied.
Ed wants redundancy for those times.
Beyond redundancy, (and this is me talking, not Ed), having a second provider also puts a ceiling on the monopolistic behaviours of the first provider. There is value in that.
How
much that redundancy and non-monopoly is worth, is of course debatable. Dan believes it is worth less than the cost of Starliner, while Ed appears to believe it is worth more than the cost of Starliner. (Personally, I haven't managed to form an opinion.)
Beyond redundancy, (and this is me talking, not Ed), having a second provider also puts a ceiling on the monopolistic behaviours of the first provider. There is value in that.
How much that redundancy and non-monopoly is worth, is of course debatable. Dan believes it is worth less than the cost of Starliner, while Ed appears to believe it is worth more than the cost of Starliner. (Personally, I haven't managed to form an opinion.)
Ed has been making these evaluations for many years. You should give his opinion more weight than mine.
Price competition is good in the abstract but does not appear to apply in this case. So far, we have not seen any tendency by SpaceX to take advantage of their effective CCP monopoly. Their two follow-on contracts don't even match inflation from the 2017 prices. (which were set in 2014), and in fact are still lower than the 2017 price for Starliner. So far, they don't need to jack up the price. I suspect their 2014 price did not anticipate how successful F9 booster recovery was going to be.
I hope and believe that Starliner will fly a successful CFT in April. I also hope and believe they will fly Starliner-1 in early 2025. As a taxpayer, I would prefer the program to be terminated after that, with no further payments to Boeing.
That makes no sense. You keep trying to find a problem in keeping Boeing like Atlas production rates and such.
Redundancy is a good thing. NASA has paid some early milestones for the followon flights.
I hope and believe that Starliner will fly a successful CFT in April. I also hope and believe they will fly Starliner-1 in early 2025. As a taxpayer, I would prefer the program to be terminated after that, with no further payments to Boeing.
That makes no sense. You keep trying to find a problem in keeping Boeing like Atlas production rates and such.
Redundancy is a good thing. NASA has paid some early milestones for the followon flights.
I'm not actually trying to find a problem. I'm trying to find out if there is a problem. There is a difference. NASA wants to spend my money for redundancy. I want to know what they are getting for that money.
The main reason I'm so interested is that Boeing no longer has any credibility, at least for me. They are no longer the company that I can count on to do what they say they are going to do. Note: I know that SpaceX doesn't always get it right, either.
*cough* Max-8 *cough*
Which took 2 crashes before the grounding occurred...
[quote author=DanClemmensen link=topic=56372.msg2544174#msg2544174 date=1701053134
The main reason I'm so interested is that Boeing no longer has any credibility, at least for me.
[/quote]
X-37, ISS, WGS, O3b mPOWER, etc
)