-
#1160
by
zubenelgenubi
on 07 Feb, 2024 20:59
-
SW Dude, please keep the DoD references to space-related activities, not perceived threats/YT videos of Chinese military capabilities.
Moderator:
If you cannot stay on-topic, I will blast your posts to plasma. 🔫
This is the fourth time that I've had to moderate this thread in recent days.
Post deleted; others edited.
-
#1161
by
litton4
on 08 Feb, 2024 09:26
-
It seems like some people in the upper echelons of NASA don't like fixed-price contracts. I wonder if they are having trouble knowing the requirements to define a contract that is too complicated to know in advance. They are more comfortable with a statement of work from a contractor that can morph so that requirements can morph as new things are discovered. In the fixed-price case, unforeseen things arise, and the contractor takes a hit.
It's kind of like asking your contractor remodeling the bathroom to take the hit when they run into dry rot around the tub.
However, in the case of Starliner and the Commercial Crew Program, Boeing was the expert; they supposedly knew how to do it and were a slam dunk to build Starliner.
.......<snip>
Some NASA administrators didn't, and still don't, understand the difference between these companies. On the other hand, the Pentagon does seem to understand the difference and go with it. If the Pentagon can do it, why can't NASA?
Well, you expect your contractor to perform a survey with reasonable skill and care to determine whether or not there are issues beyond the obvious scope of work. If you then discover additional issues, that couldn't have been detected, reasonably, it then becomes a negotiation. To use your bath (tub) analogy, we recently had a water leak issue that meant replacing the floor in our bath room, the contract was to lift and replace the floor, but also to inspect on the joists and report on any work arising from that inspection. There weren't any, but if there had been, that would have meant additional work and an extension to the contract.
The problem with cost-plus, as we've seen is that there is no incentive for the contractor to exercise skill and care, or work efficiently, quite the reverse as they know they can just charge the customer for the extra, no matter how it came about (within reason?).
Not good value for money.
If you're doing something brand new, for the first time, there is scope for a different argument, but that's not the case here.
Although I think SpaceX had a fixed price contract for CRS1, didn't they?
That was their first capsule ever and they didn't drop the ball.......
CRS1 was fixed price.
SpaceX has said before that if they had known how much it would cost them, they would have bid higher. They said the same thing about the Commercial Crew contract.
Fair enough, but then they accepted the hit and moved on. Lesson learned (well maybe on the second time around).
I'd call it a loss leader, getting their foot firmly in the door, so worth it long term?
Boeing on the other hand went back to NASA and got another $xxxxM (I forget the figure) given to them for Starliner.
(Mod, if this is deemed off topic, please delete!)
-
#1162
by
SoftwareDude
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:23
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
-
#1163
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:40
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
Why? Even if it is technically possible, none of the seven remaining Starliner flights require or can accommodate a spacewalk. A spacewalk mission would be an additional mission, but there are no LVs for such a mission. Until they can somehow arrange for another LV, there is no justification for any spacewalk-related NRE.
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
-
#1164
by
whitelancer64
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:41
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
They'd likely need a development program very similar to what SpaceX is doing for Dragon / IVA suits for Polaris Dawn. Starliner's interior and controls should be rated for vacuum operations already, as far as I know, that's a NASA requirement in case of fire or other decompression event while in orbit. However, there's a difference between being able to operate in vacuum during an emergency and deliberately doing so as part of normal operations. SpaceX is doing both software and hardware modifications to enable that.
-
#1165
by
whitelancer64
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:44
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
-
#1166
by
SoftwareDude
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:45
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
Why? Even if it is technically possible, none of the seven remaining Starliner flights require or can accommodate a spacewalk. A spacewalk mission would be an additional mission, but there are no LVs for such a mission. Until they can somehow arrange for another LV, there is no justification for any spacewalk-related NRE.
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
I asked the question because I am trying to understand what SpaceX did.
-
#1167
by
MattMason
on 08 Feb, 2024 17:57
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
While Falcon 9 is now obviously human-rated, someone would need to spend a lot of money to human-rate New Glenn. At present, it's unclear what group may currently pay for human-rating Vulcan, ostensibly the next Starliner launch vehicle since Vulcan's predecessor is their current workhorse.
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
-
#1168
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Feb, 2024 18:00
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
I guess I evaluated these as less likely than Atlas V or Vulcan Centaur, but that's just my opinion. New Glenn has not flown at all, it suffers from the same chicken-and-egg crew certification problem as Vulcan Centaur, and Starliner would not get any particular advantage from its increased payload mass.
Falcon 9 would work technically and it is probably easier/cheaper to crew certify for Starliner, since it is already crew-certified for Crew Dragon. My problem here is finding a customer that would pay for Starliner on F9. Why do that instead of Crew Dragon on F9? It weakens the redundancy argument.
-
#1169
by
whitelancer64
on 08 Feb, 2024 18:04
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
Why? Even if it is technically possible, none of the seven remaining Starliner flights require or can accommodate a spacewalk. A spacewalk mission would be an additional mission, but there are no LVs for such a mission. Until they can somehow arrange for another LV, there is no justification for any spacewalk-related NRE.
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
I asked the question because I am trying to understand what SpaceX did.
SpaceX did some hardware and software changes on Dragon. I don't know what those are, but my speculative list would include a thorough re-checking and testing of all systems that would be exposed to vacuum, double-checking that life support systems can handle functioning in vacuum for long periods of time, checking mechanical things like cabin vent valves (normally always closed) can open and close repeatedly. Modifications to the forward hatch and sides of Dragon and Trunk for handholds to support EVA. Figuring out what needs more thermal insulation with the hatch open in vacuum. Software would include new mission modes, tweaks needed for operating with the hatch open, and supporting crew EVA.
I think the biggest item is the spacewalking suit for crew EVA.
-
#1170
by
whitelancer64
on 08 Feb, 2024 18:07
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
While Falcon 9 is now obviously human-rated, someone would need to spend a lot of money to human-rate New Glenn. At present, it's unclear what group may currently pay for human-rating Vulcan, ostensibly the next Starliner launch vehicle since Vulcan's predecessor is their current workhorse.
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
It's not human rated, but New Glenn was designed with human rating in mind. Vulcan also designed with human rating in mind, and they've already done it once with Atlas V so they know what it needs. I don't anticipate any problems with human rating Vulcan.
Boeing has been evaluating whether or not to build a third Starliner for some time. If they figure the economic benefit pays off, they could do so.
-
#1171
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Feb, 2024 18:10
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
While Falcon 9 is now obviously human-rated, someone would need to spend a lot of money to human-rate New Glenn. At present, it's unclear what group may currently pay for human-rating Vulcan, ostensibly the next Starliner launch vehicle since Vulcan's predecessor is their current workhorse.
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
Each of those two capsules is supposed to be good for 10 flights, for a total of 20. They have flown three and they have a manifest for 7 more, so the certification would be amortized across ten additional flights. The other problem is the long(ish) turnaround time. It appears to me that one capsule cannot (quite) handle back-to-back CCP missions. Even if they manage of pull in the turnaround time so mission+turnaround is less than 1 year, they cannot realistically fly more than one non-CCP mission per year, and they won't have much redundancy. This may be OK if they planned to run the non-CCP missions after ISS is decommissioned. I doubt they could plan on SpaceX to extend the life of F9 for that.
-
#1172
by
SoftwareDude
on 08 Feb, 2024 18:42
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
Why? Even if it is technically possible, none of the seven remaining Starliner flights require or can accommodate a spacewalk. A spacewalk mission would be an additional mission, but there are no LVs for such a mission. Until they can somehow arrange for another LV, there is no justification for any spacewalk-related NRE.
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
I asked the question because I am trying to understand what SpaceX did.
SpaceX did some hardware and software changes on Dragon. I don't know what those are, but my speculative list would include a thorough re-checking and testing of all systems that would be exposed to vacuum, double-checking that life support systems can handle functioning in vacuum for long periods of time, checking mechanical things like cabin vent valves (normally always closed) can open and close repeatedly. Modifications to the forward hatch and sides of Dragon and Trunk for handholds to support EVA. Figuring out what needs more thermal insulation with the hatch open in vacuum. Software would include new mission modes, tweaks needed for operating with the hatch open, and supporting crew EVA.
I think the biggest item is the spacewalking suit for crew EVA.
Could the same kind of things probably be done for Starliner?
-
#1173
by
whitelancer64
on 08 Feb, 2024 19:00
-
Could Starliner be modified to do Spacewalks? How hard would that be?
Why? Even if it is technically possible, none of the seven remaining Starliner flights require or can accommodate a spacewalk. A spacewalk mission would be an additional mission, but there are no LVs for such a mission. Until they can somehow arrange for another LV, there is no justification for any spacewalk-related NRE.
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
I asked the question because I am trying to understand what SpaceX did.
SpaceX did some hardware and software changes on Dragon. I don't know what those are, but my speculative list would include a thorough re-checking and testing of all systems that would be exposed to vacuum, double-checking that life support systems can handle functioning in vacuum for long periods of time, checking mechanical things like cabin vent valves (normally always closed) can open and close repeatedly. Modifications to the forward hatch and sides of Dragon and Trunk for handholds to support EVA. Figuring out what needs more thermal insulation with the hatch open in vacuum. Software would include new mission modes, tweaks needed for operating with the hatch open, and supporting crew EVA.
I think the biggest item is the spacewalking suit for crew EVA.
Could the same kind of things probably be done for Starliner?
Yes. Just a matter of not really any call for it to be done.
-
#1174
by
Kiwi53
on 08 Feb, 2024 20:25
-
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
Each of those two capsules is supposed to be good for 10 flights, for a total of 20. They have flown three and they have a manifest for 7 more, so the certification would be amortized across ten additional flights. The other problem is the long(ish) turnaround time. It appears to me that one capsule cannot (quite) handle back-to-back CCP missions. Even if they manage of pull in the turnaround time so mission+turnaround is less than 1 year, they cannot realistically fly more than one non-CCP mission per year, and they won't have much redundancy.
You also need a new Service Module for each Starliner flight.
How many has Boeing built already - do they already have the seven they need for CFT and the six contracted Crew flights? What is Boeing's capacity to build more?
-
#1175
by
AS-503
on 08 Feb, 2024 20:44
-
*snip*
Two possible LVs:
Arrange to grab one of the remaining Atlas V currently assigned to Kuiper, but Kuiper is unlikely to release one.
Certify Starliner on Vulcan Centaur, but this is a chicken-and-egg problem.
3. New Glenn
4. Falcon 9
While Falcon 9 is now obviously human-rated, someone would need to spend a lot of money to human-rate New Glenn. At present, it's unclear what group may currently pay for human-rating Vulcan, ostensibly the next Starliner launch vehicle since Vulcan's predecessor is their current workhorse.
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
It's not human rated, but New Glenn was designed with human rating in mind. Vulcan also designed with human rating in mind, and they've already done it once with Atlas V so they know what it needs. I don't anticipate any problems with human rating Vulcan.
Boeing has been evaluating whether or not to build a third Starliner for some time. If they figure the economic benefit pays off, they could do so.
The two big hurdles for NASA human rating of a launch vehicle are:
1). Emergency Detection System
2). Structural factory of safety => 1.4
The Atlas and Delta EELVs do not have an EDS and their structural Fs are ~1.25
IIRC, a waiver for flying on Atlas is required and the 2 engine Centaur is required to minimize black zones on ascent.
EDIT: As usual Jim and Jorge are correct. I was typing from memory #badme and thank you for the correction.
-
#1176
by
Jim
on 08 Feb, 2024 20:48
-
The two big hurdles for NASA human rating of a launch vehicle are:
1). Emergency Detection System
2). Structural factory of safety => 1.4
The Atlas and Delta EELVs do not have an EDS and their structural Fs are ~1.25
IIRC, a waiver for flying on Atlas is required and the 2 engine Centaur is required to minimize black zones on ascent.
Atlas V has an EDS and 1.4 is not a hard requirement
-
#1177
by
Jorge
on 09 Feb, 2024 00:25
-
The two big hurdles for NASA human rating of a launch vehicle are:
1). Emergency Detection System
2). Structural factory of safety => 1.4
The Atlas and Delta EELVs do not have an EDS
Atlas V has an EDS
Right you are. Not like this is even news, either. Discoverable with a ten-second web search. Wondering where AS-503 got that mistaken impression and why he felt the misplaced confidence to state it so definitively.
https://news.satnews.com/2022/05/17/23808/The Centaur upper stage includes an active Emergency Detection System (EDS) that monitors the health of the rocket throughout the flight. The EDS also provides critical in-flight data that supports jettison of the ascent cover and initiates Starliner spacecraft separation.
-
#1178
by
DanClemmensen
on 09 Feb, 2024 01:49
-
There are still two and only two operational Starliners, right? That's a lot of work and money for two spacecraft to go somewhere else outside of the ISS contracts.
Each of those two capsules is supposed to be good for 10 flights, for a total of 20. They have flown three and they have a manifest for 7 more, so the certification would be amortized across ten additional flights. The other problem is the long(ish) turnaround time. It appears to me that one capsule cannot (quite) handle back-to-back CCP missions. Even if they manage of pull in the turnaround time so mission+turnaround is less than 1 year, they cannot realistically fly more than one non-CCP mission per year, and they won't have much redundancy.
You also need a new Service Module for each Starliner flight.
How many has Boeing built already - do they already have the seven they need for CFT and the six contracted Crew flights? What is Boeing's capacity to build more?
The Crew Dragon trunk is relatively simple. By contrast, the Starliner SM is a fairly complicated chunk of hardware and is therefore (I speculate) fairly expensive. I'm not sure how this would affect the economics of a batch build versus a build-as-needed strategy.
-
#1179
by
Coastal Ron
on 09 Feb, 2024 02:29
-
You also need a new Service Module for each Starliner flight.
How many has Boeing built already - do they already have the seven they need for CFT and the six contracted Crew flights? What is Boeing's capacity to build more?
The Crew Dragon trunk is relatively simple. By contrast, the Starliner SM is a fairly complicated chunk of hardware and is therefore (I speculate) fairly expensive. I'm not sure how this would affect the economics of a batch build versus a build-as-needed strategy.
As to how Boeing builds each Service Module, Commercial Crew is a Firm Fixed Price contract, so Boeing would likely be buying components and building assemblies based on what they have calculated is the method that yields the most potential profit.
For instance, for custom electronic components they may have made a "lifetime" buy, but they are only building electronic assemblies as needed. The structures for the Service Module are likely being built only as the launch schedule requires.
Overall, when you are only building 10 units over a period of 10 years or more, there is no "assembly line" per se, probably more like a bunch of specialized workstations. No real "economies of scale".