But the scenario was if an *astronaut* needed to make an emergency return. In that case, I assume the entire crew would abort their mission and return home, using the IVA suits they flew up in.
No.
The question is: can the Starliner send 5 astronauts?
For example, Axiom could very well use the Starliner to send 5 astronauts, instead of 4, on an Ax mission.
But the scenario was if an *astronaut* needed to make an emergency return. In that case, I assume the entire crew would abort their mission and return home, using the IVA suits they flew up in.
No.
The question is: can the Starliner send 5 astronauts?
For example, Axiom could very well use the Starliner to send 5 astronauts, instead of 4, on an Ax mission.
There are no Atlas V left anymore, Axiom would need to pay Boeing to certify Starliner for another launch vehicle.
Moreover, even with 5 astronauts in a Starliner the cost per seat would still be significantly higher than that of 4 astronauts in a Dragon.
<snip>
Perhaps more significantly, Starliner's concept of operations is fundamentally different from Dragon's in a way which makes one wonder whether Boeing ever had any intention of marketing a commercial service for non-NASA customers. Boeing doesn't provide mission control for Starliner missions. Instead they train NASA controllers to operate Starliner. Mission Control Houston runs the show, and Boeing only provides backroom engineering support. Houston was tossed into the deep end immediately after spacecraft separation on OFT(-1), with the webcam silently portraying the NASA FDO gesticulating wildly as he discussed the unfolding situation with the Flight Director.
No private crew transportation customer is going to put themselves in that position. Boeing would have to stand up an independent mission control capability to have any prayer of securing a private customer, as I see it.
<snip>
<snip>
Perhaps more significantly, Starliner's concept of operations is fundamentally different from Dragon's in a way which makes one wonder whether Boeing ever had any intention of marketing a commercial service for non-NASA customers. Boeing doesn't provide mission control for Starliner missions. Instead they train NASA controllers to operate Starliner. Mission Control Houston runs the show, and Boeing only provides backroom engineering support. Houston was tossed into the deep end immediately after spacecraft separation on OFT(-1), with the webcam silently portraying the NASA FDO gesticulating wildly as he discussed the unfolding situation with the Flight Director.
No private crew transportation customer is going to put themselves in that position. Boeing would have to stand up an independent mission control capability to have any prayer of securing a private customer, as I see it.
<snip>NASA's Johnson Space Center really should not be running mission control for Starliner flights.
First Boeing is supposedly being pay to provide a service, which should include flight operations of the Starliner from liftoff to touchdown. Not to off loaded mission control to the Johnson Space Center.
Second the folks at the Johnson Space Center don't have much expertise or experience doing flight operations with crewed spacecrafts. The folks with the expertise and experience are no longer there.
<snip>
Most of the JSC flight controllers supporting Starliner are shuttle/ISS veterans. The FDO who was "gesticulating wildly" during OFT? Former shuttle FDO. The flight director he was discussing the situation with? Former shuttle flight director. Shuttle was not that long ago, Zed. Some former shuttle flight controllers are retired but many are still mid-career.
<snip>
Most of the JSC flight controllers supporting Starliner are shuttle/ISS veterans. The FDO who was "gesticulating wildly" during OFT? Former shuttle FDO. The flight director he was discussing the situation with? Former shuttle flight director. Shuttle was not that long ago, Zed. Some former shuttle flight controllers are retired but many are still mid-career.Ok, stand corrected. But most of the Shuttle/ISS veterans will be retiring soon, AIUI.
I don't think Boeing will make any decisions about Starliner's future until NASA irons out the details of the post-ISS crew transportation contracts for Commercial LEO Destinations. I think they hope they can back NASA into a corner where they get nervous about only having SpaceX as a crew transportation provider and "come to their senses" about this "bad for the industry" form of contracting. Boeing seems to be playing a similar game of chicken with the E-4B "doomsday plane," declining to bid on a nearly-explicit requirement for a modified 747, hoping that the Air Force will come to their senses on contract terms.
I don't think Boeing will make any decisions about Starliner's future until NASA irons out the details of the post-ISS crew transportation contracts for Commercial LEO Destinations. I think they hope they can back NASA into a corner where they get nervous about only having SpaceX as a crew transportation provider and "come to their senses" about this "bad for the industry" form of contracting. Boeing seems to be playing a similar game of chicken with the E-4B "doomsday plane," declining to bid on a nearly-explicit requirement for a modified 747, hoping that the Air Force will come to their senses on contract terms.
It's amazing that Boeing can get away with extortion of US government with zero consequences, and zero media scrutiny. Meanwhile everybody is yapping about SpaceX's domination/monopoly of launch like that's the end of the world, even though SpaceX didn't remotely exhibit any bad behavior as Boeing has.
I don't think Boeing will make any decisions about Starliner's future until NASA irons out the details of the post-ISS crew transportation contracts for Commercial LEO Destinations. I think they hope they can back NASA into a corner where they get nervous about only having SpaceX as a crew transportation provider and "come to their senses" about this "bad for the industry" form of contracting. Boeing seems to be playing a similar game of chicken with the E-4B "doomsday plane," declining to bid on a nearly-explicit requirement for a modified 747, hoping that the Air Force will come to their senses on contract terms.
It's amazing that Boeing can get away with extortion of US government with zero consequences, and zero media scrutiny. Meanwhile everybody is yapping about SpaceX's domination/monopoly of launch like that's the end of the world, even though SpaceX didn't remotely exhibit any bad behavior as Boeing has.What extortion? People seem to think boeing is making money off of delaying starliner. Its been stated ad naseum that its a milestone based contract. Beoing gets paid when they hit certain points. If they wait 5 years before the the crewed launch, they get paid $0 waiting for that launch. In fact the amount they get paid kinda decreases, because its a fixed amount, and inflation means its worth less 5 years from now.
Boeing not wanting to commit their own money until they have a business case for starliner is jsut basic business. Yes they screwed up alot to be where they are, but its not evil. Its inabilty to do milestone based contracting.
I would turn by ire towards the rest of beoings gov business related practices, because they are awful. However Starliner is the very rare case where its not costing the gov money.
I don't think Boeing will make any decisions about Starliner's future until NASA irons out the details of the post-ISS crew transportation contracts for Commercial LEO Destinations. I think they hope they can back NASA into a corner where they get nervous about only having SpaceX as a crew transportation provider and "come to their senses" about this "bad for the industry" form of contracting. Boeing seems to be playing a similar game of chicken with the E-4B "doomsday plane," declining to bid on a nearly-explicit requirement for a modified 747, hoping that the Air Force will come to their senses on contract terms.
It's amazing that Boeing can get away with extortion of US government with zero consequences, and zero media scrutiny. Meanwhile everybody is yapping about SpaceX's domination/monopoly of launch like that's the end of the world, even though SpaceX didn't remotely exhibit any bad behavior as Boeing has.What extortion? People seem to think boeing is making money off of delaying starliner. Its been stated ad naseum that its a milestone based contract. Beoing gets paid when they hit certain points. If they wait 5 years before the the crewed launch, they get paid $0 waiting for that launch. In fact the amount they get paid kinda decreases, because its a fixed amount, and inflation means its worth less 5 years from now.
Boeing not wanting to commit their own money until they have a business case for starliner is jsut basic business. Yes they screwed up alot to be where they are, but its not evil. Its inabilty to do milestone based contracting.
I would turn by ire towards the rest of beoings gov business related practices, because they are awful. However Starliner is the very rare case where its not costing the gov money.
[tweet of a two-parachute drop test]
[tweet of a two-parachute drop test]Wait a minute. Starliner used three parachutes in the past. Has this changed, or is this test to make sure that it can come down if the third parachute fails to open?
I don't think Boeing will make any decisions about Starliner's future until NASA irons out the details of the post-ISS crew transportation contracts for Commercial LEO Destinations.
[tweet of a two-parachute drop test]Wait a minute. Starliner used three parachutes in the past. Has this changed, or is this test to make sure that it can come down if the third parachute fails to open?
Yes, AIUI, this was a 1 chute out test. To me, it's interesting that the failed chute wasn't part of the test, but IDK the details of what function they were actually testing (just soft links?).
NASA payed Boeing an extra $287.2 million that wasn't in the contract, for "schedule assurance". Apparently, Boeing had overspent and was threatening to pull out of the commercial crew program altogether unless they got more money.
Firm fixed price is only as firm as the customer's ability to walk away.
NASA payed Boeing an extra $287.2 million that wasn't in the contract, for "schedule assurance". Apparently, Boeing had overspent and was threatening to pull out of the commercial crew program altogether unless they got more money.
Firm fixed price is only as firm as the customer's ability to walk away.
And THAT is exactly what NASA did when OFT-1 failed. Boeing wanted NASA to pick up the bill for the modifications to Starliner and the OFT reflight.
NASA said "NO".
The result is that Boeing has now charged over a billion US dollars against their profits to pay for the Starliner mods and reflights out of its own pockets.
IOW, NASA learned from their $287.2M mistake and applied it when Boeing came back a second time begging for more money.
NASA payed Boeing an extra $287.2 million that wasn't in the contract, for "schedule assurance". Apparently, Boeing had overspent and was threatening to pull out of the commercial crew program altogether unless they got more money.
Firm fixed price is only as firm as the customer's ability to walk away.
And THAT is exactly what NASA did when OFT-1 failed. Boeing wanted NASA to pick up the bill for the modifications to Starliner and the OFT reflight.
NASA said "NO".
The result is that Boeing has now charged over a billion US dollars against their profits to pay for the Starliner mods and reflights out of its own pockets.
IOW, NASA learned from their $287.2M mistake and applied it when Boeing came back a second time begging for more money.NASA may or may not have learned, and it may not have been a mistake. The situation had changed. In 2016(?) when Boeingextorteddemanded the $287.2M, NASA thought Boeing was the frontrunner and had the best chance of quickly delivering a CCP product. They thought SpaceX had no chance of delivering by 2018, and they were right.
By the time of OFT-1 in December 2019, SpaceX had already flown Crew Dragon Demo-1 and was preparing for the crewed demo. NASA was no longer desperate to keep Boeing on board. So when Boeing threatened to quit, NASA called their bluff because they were fairly sure Starliner was no longer irreplaceable.
And this is the true reason that a second source is probably worthwhile.
We found that NASA agreed to pay an additional $287.2 million above Boeing’s fixed prices to mitigate a perceived 18-month gap in ISS flights anticipated in 2019 and to ensure the contractor continued as a second commercial crew provider, without offering similar opportunities to SpaceX.
According to several NASA officials, a significant consideration for paying Boeing such a premium was to ensure the contractor continued as a second crew transportation provider. CCP officials cited NASA’s guidance to maintain two US commercial crew providers to ensure redundancy in crew transportation as part of the rationale for approving the purchase of all four missions at higher prices.