At 47 minutes of this video, Mark Nappi of Boeing said that they are interested in private missions later in the decade but that their immediate focus is on the NASA ISS missions:
<snip>
Doubtful, unless Boeing have an alternate launcher to replaced the Atlas V. Which means Boeing have to pay out of pocket for the development cost.
Presumably, NASA could pay for the certification of demo Starliner missions with a new LV as part of a Commercial LEO Destinations proposal but that part isn't clear. I keep hoping that someone asks that question to Steve Stich but nobody has asked him the question, so far.
I have a hunch, and it's just a hunch, that Boeing is waiting for the launch market to shake out a bit before making that decision. Right now Vulcan, with it's perfect launch, using the same pad, being partially owned by Boeing, and just generally being the only non-SpaceX American option, is the obvious choice. But by this time next year ULA may have been sold, New Glenn may have flown, and Terran R and/or MLV may be showing signs of life.
At 47 minutes of this video, Mark Nappi of Boeing said that they are interested in private missions later in the decade but that their immediate focus is on the NASA ISS missions:
<snip>
Doubtful, unless Boeing have an alternate launcher to replaced the Atlas V. Which means Boeing have to pay out of pocket for the development cost.
Presumably, NASA could pay for the certification of demo Starliner missions with a new LV as part of a Commercial LEO Destinations proposal but that part isn't clear. I keep hoping that someone asks that question to Steve Stich but nobody has asked him the question, so far.
I have a hunch, and it's just a hunch, that Boeing is waiting for the launch market to shake out a bit before making that decision. Right now Vulcan, with it's perfect launch, using the same pad, being partially owned by Boeing, and just generally being the only non-SpaceX American option, is the obvious choice. But by this time next year ULA may have been sold, New Glenn may have flown, and Terran R and/or MLV may be showing signs of life.
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program, at the latest after CCP Starliner-6. Starliner expends its complex and expensive SM on each launch. Crew Dragon expends its much less expensive trunk. Crew Dragon shares its operations, recovery, and refurbishment with Cargo Dragon, which provides economies of scale.
Since there are only two Starliner capsules, Starliner will have a low flight rate, so the certification cost must be amortized over only a few missions.
Also, Starliner would need to recover the investment starting sooner, not later, because SpaceX intends to produce a crewed EDL Starship. Before Boeing proceeds with the program they would need to evaluate this as unlikely to succeed. Betting against SpaceX has not worked out very well so far, but I guess they might anyway, on the grounds that SpaceX will eventually make a large mistake.
At 47 minutes of this video, Mark Nappi of Boeing said that they are interested in private missions later in the decade but that their immediate focus is on the NASA ISS missions:
<snip>
Doubtful, unless Boeing have an alternate launcher to replaced the Atlas V. Which means Boeing have to pay out of pocket for the development cost.
Presumably, NASA could pay for the certification of demo Starliner missions with a new LV as part of a Commercial LEO Destinations proposal but that part isn't clear. I keep hoping that someone asks that question to Steve Stich but nobody has asked him the question, so far.
I have a hunch, and it's just a hunch, that Boeing is waiting for the launch market to shake out a bit before making that decision. Right now Vulcan, with it's perfect launch, using the same pad, being partially owned by Boeing, and just generally being the only non-SpaceX American option, is the obvious choice. But by this time next year ULA may have been sold, New Glenn may have flown, and Terran R and/or MLV may be showing signs of life.
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program, at the latest after CCP Starliner-6. Starliner expends its complex and expensive SM on each launch. Crew Dragon expends its much less expensive trunk. Crew Dragon shares its operations, recovery, and refurbishment with Cargo Dragon, which provides economies of scale.
Since there are only two Starliner capsules, Starliner will have a low flight rate, so the certification cost must be amortized over only a few missions.
Also, Starliner would need to recover the investment starting sooner, not later, because SpaceX intends to produce a crewed EDL Starship. Before Boeing proceeds with the program they would need to evaluate this as unlikely to succeed. Betting against SpaceX has not worked out very well so far, but I guess they might anyway, on the grounds that SpaceX will eventually make a large mistake.
NASA wants redundant commercial crew systems, even for the Commercial LEO Destinations program, so Starliner doesn't need to beat out SpaceX. Also, crewed Starship doesn't meet the commercial crew requirements.
NASA wants redundant commercial crew systems, even for the Commercial LEO Destinations program, so Starliner doesn't need to beat out SpaceX. Also, crewed Starship doesn't meet the commercial crew requirements.
But commercial crew requirements are for ISS. Crew Dragon and eventually Starliner can handle ISS for its lifetime. Crewed Starship will probably be available to support CLDs. It's hard for me to see a viable business case for Starliner if it only exists for redundancy.
NASA wants redundant commercial crew systems, even for the Commercial LEO Destinations program, so Starliner doesn't need to beat out SpaceX. Also, crewed Starship doesn't meet the commercial crew requirements.
But commercial crew requirements are for ISS. Crew Dragon and eventually Starliner can handle ISS for its lifetime. Crewed Starship will probably be available to support CLDs. It's hard for me to see a viable business case for Starliner if it only exists for redundancy.
I tend to agree with Dan. Boeing is a for-profit company and there is no way for Starliner to be a profitable endeavour. If Boeing continues to fly Starliner anyway - at a loss - the shareholders will scream bloody murder and fire every single one of them. I don't believe there is anyone on the Boeing BOD who is stupid enough to sacrifice their position - and extremely fat salaries and bonuses - for NASA's redundancy dreams. And for what it's worth, NASA has *NEVER* had redundant human launch capability or spacecraft. It has always been just one spacecraft design at a time, since its founding in 1958. That's 66 years of non-redundant flights. In spite of NASA's pipe dreams that is not going to change now.
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program, at the latest after CCP Starliner-6. Starliner expends its complex and expensive SM on each launch. Crew Dragon expends its much less expensive trunk. Crew Dragon shares its operations, recovery, and refurbishment with Cargo Dragon, which provides economies of scale.
I tend to agree with Dan. Boeing is a for-profit company and there is no way for Starliner to be a profitable endeavour. If Boeing continues to fly Starliner anyway - at a loss - the shareholders will scream bloody murder and fire every single one of them. I don't believe there is anyone on the Boeing BOD who is stupid enough to sacrifice their position - and extremely fat salaries and bonuses - for NASA's redundancy dreams.
I broadly agree with the logic and reasoning you two are using here. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back it up. I mean don't get me wrong, that is very much the sort of thing Boeing management does. But, at the moment at least, all of Boeing's actions and words suggest that they intend to continue on with Starliner.
Still, fair as a hunch I suppose.
I wonder if they might attempt to squeeze some return on investment out of Starliner by selling the entire project? I can certainly imagine Northrop Grumman, or a non-Blue owned ULA, having an interested in it.
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program.
I tend to agree with Dan.
I broadly agree with the logic and reasoning you two are using here. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back it up.
Still, fair as a hunch I suppose.
No evidence at all, just possibly faulty logic, plus their declaration that they will no longer do fixed-price contracts. However, I know of no evidence that Boeing is doing anything to extend the program, either. No LV certification plans, No additional capsule plans, no cost-reduction plans.
Applicable to this thread in the general sense.
Boeing chief executive Dave Calhoun to leave as firm faces safety crisis https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68656925
From Wikipedia:
"Calhoun was born April 18, 1957, in Philadelphia[5] and grew up in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He attended Parkland High School in South Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania, graduating in 1975. In high school, Calhoun was one of three captains of the varsity basketball team and played golf.[6] He attended Virginia Tech, graduating in 1979 with a degree in accounting."
What can you expect from an accountant?
What can you expect from an accountant?
Maybe spinning out non-core businesses (like Starliner) to shore up the core aviation businesses.
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program, at the latest after CCP Starliner-6. Starliner expends its complex and expensive SM on each launch. Crew Dragon expends its much less expensive trunk. Crew Dragon shares its operations, recovery, and refurbishment with Cargo Dragon, which provides economies of scale.
I tend to agree with Dan. Boeing is a for-profit company and there is no way for Starliner to be a profitable endeavour. If Boeing continues to fly Starliner anyway - at a loss - the shareholders will scream bloody murder and fire every single one of them. I don't believe there is anyone on the Boeing BOD who is stupid enough to sacrifice their position - and extremely fat salaries and bonuses - for NASA's redundancy dreams.
I broadly agree with the logic and reasoning you two are using here. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back it up. I mean don't get me wrong, that is very much the sort of thing Boeing management does. But, at the moment at least, all of Boeing's actions and words suggest that they intend to continue on with Starliner.
Still, fair as a hunch I suppose.
I wonder if they might attempt to squeeze some return on investment out of Starliner by selling the entire project? I can certainly imagine Northrop Grumman, or a non-Blue owned ULA, having an interested in it.
Just curious what have been Boeing's actions (like spending real money) on extending Starliner beyond ISS?
My hunch is that Boeing realizes that Starliner can never compete on price with Crew Dragon, so they have already decided to terminate the program, at the latest after CCP Starliner-6. Starliner expends its complex and expensive SM on each launch. Crew Dragon expends its much less expensive trunk. Crew Dragon shares its operations, recovery, and refurbishment with Cargo Dragon, which provides economies of scale.
I tend to agree with Dan. Boeing is a for-profit company and there is no way for Starliner to be a profitable endeavour. If Boeing continues to fly Starliner anyway - at a loss - the shareholders will scream bloody murder and fire every single one of them. I don't believe there is anyone on the Boeing BOD who is stupid enough to sacrifice their position - and extremely fat salaries and bonuses - for NASA's redundancy dreams.
I broadly agree with the logic and reasoning you two are using here. My problem is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to back it up. I mean don't get me wrong, that is very much the sort of thing Boeing management does. But, at the moment at least, all of Boeing's actions and words suggest that they intend to continue on with Starliner.
Still, fair as a hunch I suppose.
I wonder if they might attempt to squeeze some return on investment out of Starliner by selling the entire project? I can certainly imagine Northrop Grumman, or a non-Blue owned ULA, having an interested in it.
Just curious what have been Boeing's actions (like spending real money) on extending Starliner beyond ISS?
To date (at least publicly), nothing.
But, at the moment at least, all of Boeing's actions and words suggest that they intend to continue on with Starliner.
Just curious what have been Boeing's actions (like spending real money) on extending Starliner beyond ISS?
To date (at least publicly), nothing.
What do you mean nothing? The entire reason we're even having this discussion is because of a quote up thread, where the Starliner program manager said that they are considering offering commercial Starliner flights later in the decade.
At 47 minutes of this video, Mark Nappi of Boeing said that they are interested in private missions later in the decade but that their immediate focus is on the NASA ISS missions:
https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1771175188438114572
All the public comments from people actually working on Starliner indicate that they think it will continue. And yes, given that our concerns are with upper management, this is not necessarily the most compelling evidence. But it definitely is
something.
I don't consider comments and expectations to be "actions".
I don't consider comments and expectations to be "actions".
That's fair, I guess. I don't think that really changes my point though.
I don't consider comments and expectations to be "actions".
That's fair, I guess. I don't think that really changes my point though.
I'm just done with only words, though. Here's what I'd like to see to be able to claim "actions":
1. Have a successful CFT (successful being having findings minor enough to not prevent Starliner from getting into its ISS operational cadence)
2. Get into that cadence
3. Start talks/plans to migrate Starliner onto another launch vehicle. Right now that's F9
4. Start digging for these commercial customers that are, as of now, completely notional.
THEN I'll start feeling more like Starliner is serious about commercial use.
I'm just done with only words, though. Here's what I'd like to see to be able to claim "actions":
1. Have a successful CFT (successful being having findings minor enough to not prevent Starliner from getting into its ISS operational cadence)
Not good enough for me. They need to completely succeed on the May CFT, not some later CFT, and NASA needs to accept the CFT, certify Starliner, and assign the early 2025 mission to Starliner-1 instead of Crew-10. any further slip begins to put Starliner-6 at risk, because ISS will be de-orbiting in 2030.
3. Start talks/plans to migrate Starliner onto another launch vehicle. Right now that's F9
Not F9, if you believe major customer requirements include either redundancy or not-SpaceX or both. I think it has to be Vulcan Centaur. Yes, Vulcan is way too expensive, but Starliner is already so much more expensive that we are already assuming the customer is not really using cost as a criterion.
Not F9, if you believe major customer requirements include either redundancy or not-SpaceX or both. I think it has to be Vulcan Centaur. Yes, Vulcan is way too expensive, but Starliner is already so much more expensive that we are already assuming the customer is not really using cost as a criterion.
I was limiting my requirements to commercial (i.e. not NASA) customers, where redundancy isn't relevant. Also, I wasn't attempting to determine Starliner's viability as a commercial vehicle, just that I don't believe Boeing's serious about commercial customers until they do those things I listed.
Not F9, if you believe major customer requirements include either redundancy or not-SpaceX or both. I think it has to be Vulcan Centaur. Yes, Vulcan is way too expensive, but Starliner is already so much more expensive that we are already assuming the customer is not really using cost as a criterion.
I was limiting my requirements to commercial (i.e. not NASA) customers, where redundancy isn't relevant. Also, I wasn't attempting to determine Starliner's viability as a commercial vehicle, just that I don't believe Boeing's serious about commercial customers until they do those things I listed.
I just do not see a customer who would use Starliner-on-F9 instead of Crew Dragon. Why would anyone do that?
Not F9, if you believe major customer requirements include either redundancy or not-SpaceX or both. I think it has to be Vulcan Centaur. Yes, Vulcan is way too expensive, but Starliner is already so much more expensive that we are already assuming the customer is not really using cost as a criterion.
I was limiting my requirements to commercial (i.e. not NASA) customers, where redundancy isn't relevant. Also, I wasn't attempting to determine Starliner's viability as a commercial vehicle, just that I don't believe Boeing's serious about commercial customers until they do those things I listed.
I just do not see a customer who would use Starliner-on-F9 instead of Crew Dragon. Why would anyone do that?
Here's a question: why would Boeing even consider trying to develop a market for commercial Starliner use, considering they don't have a launch vehicle that's crew rated in any way? F9's the only game in town currently, and from a
customer POV, that makes no sense, because they'd just use Crew Dragon. Unless, of course, the customer wants to develop something in a pathological "anything but SpaceX" mindset.
Boeing knows this, so why put forth *any* effort at commercial ops?