-
#1340 by John_Marshall on 08 Jun, 2024 16:08
-
What never? No, never, What, never? Well, hardly ever.
Lost heat shield tiles, engine compartment fires, engines shutting down, engines not restarting...
Bravo on the reference. I give you three cheers and one cheer more. -
#1341 by dglow on 08 Jun, 2024 19:29
-
...One thing about SpaceX is that they never seem to have the same problem multiple times.
First rule of posting on NSF:neverinfrequently use absolutes. -
#1342 by dglow on 08 Jun, 2024 19:46
-
Now that Starliner has delivered astronauts to the ISS and, I assume, for this discussion, Boeing will bring Butch and Suni home safely, I want to ask about the future. Does the Boeing business model support the idea of making Starliner into a commercial success?
Think about it: Boeing isn't an airline; its customers are airlines. Boeing does not directly service its customers' aircraft, though it consolidates a supply chain for parts. No marketing arm of Boeing sells a service that is anything like what it would take to commercialize Starliner. Boeing's business model would typically be to manufacture Starliner and sell it to some businesses that will launch people in it.
Now, Boeing still owns part of ULA, which provides a launch service. Wouldn't it make more business sense for ULA to take over Starliner once the bugs are worked out with Boeing manufacturing more Starliners?
Or do we expect Boeing to build an entirely new kind of business, selling and marketing a service that takes people where they want to go in space? What do people think about this?
If/when their acquisition of ULA is completed, Blue will be the sole company with means for launching Starliner, both currently and beyond Atlas V. Given this, ISTM Boeing would be wise to partner with Blue on the business of Starliner. If a workable model means Boeing just builds and sells capsules, leaving launch and mission operations predominantly to Blue, then so be it. -
#1343 by meekGee on 08 Jun, 2024 20:02
-
here's the amusing part...some commentors on this thread predictably saying "OMG, crew has to troubleshoot thruster issues" on the way to successful docking (even though the name of the mission is literally CREW FLIGHT TEST) so "Starliner is surely DOOMED -- a total failure! Pull the plug now before astronauts DIE!" ...A few clicks away, same commentors are writing "Yeeaa...Starship may have blown up on ascent (twice) and then lost control, lost its heat tiles and burned up on reentry...but we got further than last time so Mission was A TOTAL SUCCESS...after all, this is what testing is for, don't ya know..so stop pointing to the negatives...ON TO MARS!" AT least today they got the fourth flight of the thing to crash into the ocean in one piece instead of doing so in multiple pieces...SUCCESS!!
All the posts comparing Starliner and Starship...
The differences in the scale of the endeavor and the stage the program is in are so extreme, your comparisons become meaningless.
Starliner is supposed to be in final form already, and it's just a capsule, the very thing Boeing argued it already knew how to do. It is super expensive, super late, and still has issues.
Starship is an early prototype, it is unprecedented by orders of magnitude, and is on a completely different scale.
So that comparison is the best you can do? Compare Starliner with Dragon, Atlas (or Vulcan one day maybe) with Falcon.
This last flight was not good. Ignoring the problems because Starship lost tiles is idiotic. If anyone is catching breaks that they don't deserve it's Boeing. -
#1344 by SoftwareDude on 08 Jun, 2024 20:10
-
The comparison was a giant swirling cloud of apples and oranges.here's the amusing part...some commentors on this thread predictably saying "OMG, crew has to troubleshoot thruster issues" on the way to successful docking (even though the name of the mission is literally CREW FLIGHT TEST) so "Starliner is surely DOOMED -- a total failure! Pull the plug now before astronauts DIE!" ...A few clicks away, same commentors are writing "Yeeaa...Starship may have blown up on ascent (twice) and then lost control, lost its heat tiles and burned up on reentry...but we got further than last time so Mission was A TOTAL SUCCESS...after all, this is what testing is for, don't ya know..so stop pointing to the negatives...ON TO MARS!" AT least today they got the fourth flight of the thing to crash into the ocean in one piece instead of doing so in multiple pieces...SUCCESS!!
All the posts comparing Starliner and Starship...
The differences in the scale of the endeavor and the stage the program is in are so extreme, your comparisons become meaningless.
Starliner is supposed to be in final form already, and it's just a capsule, the very thing Boeing argued it already knew how to do. It is super expensive, super late, and still has issues.
Starship is an early prototype, it is unprecedented by orders of magnitude, and is on a completely different scale.
So that comparison is the best you can do? Compare Starliner with Dragon, Atlas (or Vulcan one day maybe) with Falcon.
This last flight was not good. Ignoring the problems because Starship lost tiles is idiotic. If anyone is catching breaks that they don't deserve it's Boeing. -
#1345 by SoftwareDude on 08 Jun, 2024 20:13
-
Do you know of an example of a line of business at Boeing that does something similar to commercializing Starliner that could be leveraged for it?
Think about it: Boeing isn't an airline; its customers are airlines. Boeing does not directly service its customers' aircraft, though it consolidates a supply chain for parts. No marketing arm of Boeing sells a service that is anything like what it would take to commercialize Starliner. Boeing's business model would typically be to manufacture Starliner and sell it to some businesses that will launch people in it.
no, Boeing is not monolithic. The space side has nothing to do with the airliner side. In fact, most of the space side is heritage Hughes, Rockwell and MDC. They
No, ULA has nothing to do with spacecraft, especially ones with crew. Spacecraft operations is nothing like launch vehicle operations.
Now, Boeing still owns part of ULA, which provides a launch service. Wouldn't it make more business sense for ULA to take over Starliner once the bugs are worked out with Boeing manufacturing more Starliners? -
#1346 by r8ix on 08 Jun, 2024 20:36
-
What never? No, never, What, never? Well, hardly ever.
Lost heat shield tiles, engine compartment fires, engines shutting down, engines not restarting...
Bravo on the reference. I give you three cheers and one cheer more.
I just sang that role about a month ago… -
#1347 by DanClemmensen on 08 Jun, 2024 20:46
-
CCtCap initially had a fixed price for two operational missions, at the end of which Boeing would have been able to re-negotiate for more missions at a higher price. SpaceX and NASA negotiated follow-on Crew Dragon missions at higher prices, twice, once for Crew-7-9, and then for Crew 10-14. In each case the new prices were (by my crude calculations) just about enough to account for inflation. My question remains: Will Starliner 1-6 be profitable for Boeing?Folks talking about starliner being abandoned… you are kinda forgetting that with the completion of this flight, all the heavy lifting is now done. A solid flight hardware design is on the books. Software works.
This assumes that Starliner-1 through Starliner-6 will be profitable. Do we know this? At Boeing's insistence, the contract was modified in about 2017 to commit Boeing to fixed price for these flights, and the flights were to commence in 2018, so that would be 2018 through 2023. There has been cumulative inflation of 25% from 2018 to 2024. I do not know how to predict inflation out to 2030.
From here it’s flying the damn things and making money…and given the rocky path here, they will fly what they can to fill that financial hole. Not to do so would be stupid. Capital to get to this point is a done deal. So time to earn.
CCtCap always had fixed prices. -
#1348 by deadman719 on 08 Jun, 2024 20:56
-
Coming back to the Starliner tour video, I was surprised to see that there is somehow less space in the Starliner than in the Dragon. This is probably due to the way it was filmed, as the sizes of the two ships are rather similar.
I too thought it looked cramped compared to Dragon. The "small cockpit" as described by Sunny appears to take up more volume than Dragon's version as it is thicker, cant say if it is also wider. This, coupled with the fact Starliner is not as tall as Dragon, may result in less open volume for the crew. -
#1349 by dglow on 08 Jun, 2024 21:03
-
here's the amusing part...some commentors on this thread predictably saying "OMG, crew has to troubleshoot thruster issues" on the way to successful docking (even though the name of the mission is literally CREW FLIGHT TEST) so "Starliner is surely DOOMED -- a total failure! Pull the plug now before astronauts DIE!" ...A few clicks away, same commentors are writing "Yeeaa...Starship may have blown up on ascent (twice) and then lost control, lost its heat tiles and burned up on reentry...but we got further than last time so Mission was A TOTAL SUCCESS...after all, this is what testing is for, don't ya know..so stop pointing to the negatives...ON TO MARS!" AT least today they got the fourth flight of the thing to crash into the ocean in one piece instead of doing so in multiple pieces...SUCCESS!!
All the posts comparing Starliner and Starship...
The differences in the scale of the endeavor and the stage the program is in are so extreme, your comparisons become meaningless.
Starliner is supposed to be in final form already, and it's just a capsule, the very thing Boeing argued it already knew how to do. It is super expensive, super late, and still has issues.
Starship is an early prototype, it is unprecedented by orders of magnitude, and is on a completely different scale.
So that comparison is the best you can do? Compare Starliner with Dragon, Atlas (or Vulcan one day maybe) with Falcon.
This last flight was not good. Ignoring the problems because Starship lost tiles is idiotic. If anyone is catching breaks that they don't deserve it's Boeing.
I think you miss the man's point.
Ike isn't comparing Starship the launcher to Starliner the capsule... he's comparing the reactions of members of this very forum in response to each vehicle's progress; all in service of highlighting 'hypocrisy' loosely-defined or, heavens forbid, bias.
So let's just take a minute and give it up for such a heroic effort.
Kudos, @Ike17055, your post wins a prize. Keep up the excellent work. We certainly need more of this on NSF. -
#1350 by SoftwareDude on 08 Jun, 2024 21:18
-
The Starship meets mission requirements by failing, Starliner's mission requirement is not to fail.here's the amusing part...some commentors on this thread predictably saying "OMG, crew has to troubleshoot thruster issues" on the way to successful docking (even though the name of the mission is literally CREW FLIGHT TEST) so "Starliner is surely DOOMED -- a total failure! Pull the plug now before astronauts DIE!" ...A few clicks away, same commentors are writing "Yeeaa...Starship may have blown up on ascent (twice) and then lost control, lost its heat tiles and burned up on reentry...but we got further than last time so Mission was A TOTAL SUCCESS...after all, this is what testing is for, don't ya know..so stop pointing to the negatives...ON TO MARS!" AT least today they got the fourth flight of the thing to crash into the ocean in one piece instead of doing so in multiple pieces...SUCCESS!!
All the posts comparing Starliner and Starship...
The differences in the scale of the endeavor and the stage the program is in are so extreme, your comparisons become meaningless.
Starliner is supposed to be in final form already, and it's just a capsule, the very thing Boeing argued it already knew how to do. It is super expensive, super late, and still has issues.
Starship is an early prototype, it is unprecedented by orders of magnitude, and is on a completely different scale.
So that comparison is the best you can do? Compare Starliner with Dragon, Atlas (or Vulcan one day maybe) with Falcon.
This last flight was not good. Ignoring the problems because Starship lost tiles is idiotic. If anyone is catching breaks that they don't deserve it's Boeing.
I think you miss the man's point.
Ike isn't comparing Starship the launcher to Starliner the capsule... he's comparing the reactions of members of this very forum in response to each vehicle's progress; all in service of highlighting 'hypocrisy' loosely-defined or, heavens forbid, bias.
So let's just take a minute and give it up for such a heroic effort.
Kudos, @Ike17055, your post wins a prize. Keep up the excellent work. We certainly need more of this on NSF. -
#1351 by Jim on 08 Jun, 2024 22:09
-
If/when their acquisition of ULA is completed, Blue will be the sole company with means for launching Starliner, both currently and beyond Atlas V. Given this, ISTM Boeing would be wise to partner with Blue on the business of Starliner. If a workable model means Boeing just builds and sells capsules, leaving launch and mission operations predominantly to Blue, then so be it.
What is the point of giving up Starliner Mission ops?
Boeing would have to be there to support each mission anyways as OEM. -
#1352 by Jim on 08 Jun, 2024 22:11
-
Do you know of an example of a line of business at Boeing that does something similar to commercializing Starliner that could be leveraged for it?
Starliner is already commercialized. Boeing operates X-37. -
#1353 by JSz on 08 Jun, 2024 22:30
-
Coming back to the Starliner tour video, I was surprised to see that there is somehow less space in the Starliner than in the Dragon. This is probably due to the way it was filmed, as the sizes of the two ships are rather similar.
I too thought it looked cramped compared to Dragon. The "small cockpit" as described by Sunny appears to take up more volume than Dragon's version as it is thicker, cant say if it is also wider. This, coupled with the fact Starliner is not as tall as Dragon, may result in less open volume for the crew.
Starliner is wider at the base than Dragon: 4.56 vs. 4.0 m. On the other hand, Dragon has less wall slope, but some of that volume is taken up by the service section, which is built into the capsule. So I don't know - maybe such a heavily sloped cone is less manageable.
I could not find anywhere a bit more precise data on the dimensions of the Starliner, nor any diagram of its construction. -
#1354 by JSz on 08 Jun, 2024 22:35
-
By the way: we have the first situation in history that there are manned ships of four different types (Starliner, Crew Dragon, Soyuz, and Sheznhou) in orbit at the same time.
-
#1355 by Coastal Ron on 08 Jun, 2024 22:37
-
Do you know of an example of a line of business at Boeing that does something similar to commercializing Starliner that could be leveraged for it?
Starliner is already commercialized. Boeing operates X-37.
My two bits is that "commercialized" means that besides the U.S. Government there can be other customers not connected to the U.S. Government. Using that definition then yes, Starliner was meant to be a "commercial" service, even if it turns out that there are no non-government customers.
The X-37B is not "commercial", in that it is a USAF program, but Boeing is the prime contractor.
Back in 2010 when the Commercial Crew program was created, there were indications that non-government demand would emerge for "commercial" crew services to/from LEO, and Boeing had interest from Bigelow Aerospace to use the CST-100 to support Bigelow space stations in LEO.
Fast forward to today and the "commercial" landscape has changed dramatically, with Bigelow closing in 2020, SpaceX offering a less expensive crew transportation service, and a general lack of activity in LEO that would require a second provider besides SpaceX.
My own suspicion is that Boeing really thought they could make money off of just the NASA Commercial Crew contract by bumping up their contract value over time using tried and true government contracting methods. However SpaceX turned out to be a real competitor, and they found themselves having to actually execute their contract as negotiated - to their horror!
I'm actually surprised that they haven't given up on the contract, and now that they have made a (mostly) successful flight (so far), I think it is more likely they will continue with the contract. And I hope that this experience results in Boeing better understanding how to run a complex program like Commercial Crew, but that may be asking too much...
-
#1356 by Targeteer on 08 Jun, 2024 22:48
-
By the way: we have the first situation in history that there are manned ships of four different types (Starliner, Crew Dragon, Soyuz, and Sheznhou) in orbit at the same time.
Shenzhou is a bootleg copy/knock-off of Soyuz so 3 or 3 1/2 might be more accurate. -
#1357 by JSz on 08 Jun, 2024 22:58
-
All right - if you don't count the Shenzhou, we have the first situation in history where three different types of manned ships are in orbit at the same time...
-
#1358 by Elvis in Space on 08 Jun, 2024 23:03
-
By the way: we have the first situation in history that there are manned ships of four different types (Starliner, Crew Dragon, Soyuz, and Sheznhou) in orbit at the same time.
Shenzhou is a bootleg copy/knock-off of Soyuz so 3 or 3 1/2 might be more accurate.
It's different enough and certainly the nation that built and launched it is. That is four for me. -
#1359 by deadman719 on 08 Jun, 2024 23:28
-
Coming back to the Starliner tour video, I was surprised to see that there is somehow less space in the Starliner than in the Dragon. This is probably due to the way it was filmed, as the sizes of the two ships are rather similar.
I too thought it looked cramped compared to Dragon. The "small cockpit" as described by Sunny appears to take up more volume than Dragon's version as it is thicker, cant say if it is also wider. This, coupled with the fact Starliner is not as tall as Dragon, may result in less open volume for the crew.
Starliner is wider at the base than Dragon: 4.56 vs. 4.0 m. On the other hand, Dragon has less wall slope, but some of that volume is taken up by the service section, which is built into the capsule. So I don't know - maybe such a heavily sloped cone is less manageable.
I could not find anywhere a bit more precise data on the dimensions of the Starliner, nor any diagram of its construction.
If I recall correctly, construction photographs showed that, while the base is wider, part of the pressurized wall is straight. The lower external slope being used to house various systems and components. I believe the upper slope begins just below the window / door. Of course I may be wrong.
Edit: found a diagram showing the configuration.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.1280
