-
#1360
by
dglow
on 09 Jun, 2024 00:21
-
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.
It’s a response to a hypothetical queued-up by Software Dude’s post. Would Boeing prefer to operate as a pure capsule manufacturer going forward? If so does a role exist for Starliner following its six ISS missions, and how? Two conditionals in there.
Yes, Boeing still need to be involved in ops; but another company, like Blue, could become the Prime and take point for the entire mission, for making the business case close, and for selling/marketing this service.
This assumes Boeing is tired of Starliner and wants to pull back. That may not be the case.
-
#1361
by
Ike17055
on 09 Jun, 2024 00:23
-
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.
[/quote]
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
-
#1362
by
ImperfectSense
on 09 Jun, 2024 00:51
-
It doesn't feel like hypocrisy to applaud "learning through failing" when a spacecraft is at the very early stages of its unmanned development, while feeling concerned at "learning through failing" on a spacecraft that is purported to be so fully perfected that it is ready to carry crew. It comes down to expectations. SpaceX set the Startship expectations as "excitement guaranteed". Boeing set the Starliner expectations as "this is our final validation/checkout flight to confirm the ship is fully ready for commercial crew operations". The way I see it, although this is called a "test flight" it is more akin to a "delivery flight" of an airliner. Starliner has been test flown, multiple times, and NOW is being demonstrated one final time before beginning commercial ops. So I do not expect them to still be finding serious issues, whether those are new or recurring. If Boeing had come out and said, look, we expect to need at least one or two MORE test flights after this flight, but we need to test the spacecraft with crew on board.... then that would be different. But they are giving everyone the impression that the next flight for Starliner will be a commercial flight with "paying passengers", and NOT a further test flight. So... yea, you can and should expect a higher level of performance than we are seeing so far, imo.
-
#1363
by
Jim
on 09 Jun, 2024 00:58
-
The X-37B is not "commercial", in that it is a USAF program, but Boeing is the prime contractor.
A discinction without a difference when it comes operating a spacecraft.
-
#1364
by
Jim
on 09 Jun, 2024 01:02
-
Yes, Boeing still need to be involved in ops; but another company, like Blue, could become the Prime and take point for the entire mission, for making the business case close, and for selling/marketing this service.
It would only add costs and doesn't add value.
This assumes Boeing is tired of Starliner and wants to pull back. That may not be the case.
then why would it want continue to manufacture them?
-
#1365
by
dglow
on 09 Jun, 2024 01:27
-
Yes, Boeing still need to be involved in ops; but another company, like Blue, could become the Prime and take point for the entire mission, for making the business case close, and for selling/marketing this service.
It would only add costs and doesn't add value.
Would it? Please share your reasoning.
This assumes Boeing is tired of Starliner and wants to pull back. That may not be the case.
then why would it want continue to manufacture them?
I don’t know, but perhaps you can tell me?
Recouping investment comes to mind.
Remember, this is a hypothetical. Engage in the spirit of amicable debate and discussion, or don’t engage at all.
-
#1366
by
dglow
on 09 Jun, 2024 01:45
-
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
First, please learn how to quote correctly.
Second, when you describe another’s reaction as “SOOO predictable”, that indicates that you take some amount of pleasure in witnessing, if not directly eliciting, such reactions.
Please don’t do that. It’s called trolling, and it isn’t welcome here.
-
#1367
by
Jim
on 09 Jun, 2024 02:18
-
Yes, Boeing still need to be involved in ops; but another company, like Blue, could become the Prime and take point for the entire mission, for making the business case close, and for selling/marketing this service.
It would only add costs and doesn't add value.
Would it? Please share your reasoning.
This assumes Boeing is tired of Starliner and wants to pull back. That may not be the case.
then why would it want continue to manufacture them?
I don’t know, but perhaps you can tell me?
Recouping investment comes to mind.
Remember, this is a hypothetical. Engage in the spirit of amicable debate and discussion, or don’t engage at all.
Having somebody else operate it is just adding another layer. Unlike airliners, Boeing would be involved with every mission.
If they are going to continue manufacturing to recoup costs then why not continue with mission ops too
I don't understand the thought process behind separating manufacturing and operations and any benefits it would bring.
-
#1368
by
yg1968
on 09 Jun, 2024 02:50
-
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.
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.
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.
CCtCap always had fixed prices.
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?
CctCap included 6 post-certification missions (PCMs) from the outset, the last of these 4 post-certification missions were options for NASA and their prices were already set. SpaceX's first 6 post certification missions were also set in their initial contract. Once that NASA decided to extent the SpaceX contract past the contract's initial 6 post-certification missions then SpaceX was able to negotiate a new price (they had to do a sole-source solicitation in order to add missions above the initial 6 PCMs). Boeing's contract won't get extended past the 6 post-certification missions.
-
#1369
by
SoftwareDude
on 09 Jun, 2024 04:18
-
The X-37B is not "commercial", in that it is a USAF program, but Boeing is the prime contractor.
A discinction without a difference when it comes operating a spacecraft.
Commercializing something requires marketing and sales, among other things, creating business partners, and hiring a lot of people and gaining expertise where your business has none.
-
#1370
by
JSz
on 09 Jun, 2024 07:51
-
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
Thanks deadman719! This diagram is admittedly from 11 years ago, but surely not that much has changed in the overall interior layout.
We can see that there are two rows of seats in the Starliner: four seats in the rear row and three in the front one. Is it possible that on the CFT mission the front row was simply clogged by cargo?
As far as I know, the 7-seat version of the Starliner is still valid?
-
#1371
by
JSz
on 09 Jun, 2024 08:04
-
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
Thanks to you Ike17055 for those comments! But the brief discussion about comparing Starliner and Crew Dragon was only about whether there was less room in Starliner. It was not about the overall comparison, much less the comparison with the Starship.
-
#1372
by
clongton
on 09 Jun, 2024 14:08
-
Shenzhou is a bootleg copy/knock-off of Soyuz so 3 or 3 1/2 might be more accurate.
No it's not. Not any more than Starliner is a copy of Orion or Apollo. Shenzhou
looks like Soyuz but is actually a much more capable spacecraft.
-
#1373
by
freddo411
on 09 Jun, 2024 14:12
-
Shenzhou is a bootleg copy/knock-off of Soyuz so 3 or 3 1/2 might be more accurate.
No it's not. Not any more than Starliner is a copy of Orion or Apollo. Shenzhou looks like Soyuz but is actually a much more capable spacecraft.
Shenzhou is definitely a follow on version of soyuz, sharing many design elements.
Starliner duplicates the outer mold line of Apollo (as does Orion), but the design does not share anything else.
-
#1374
by
meekGee
on 09 Jun, 2024 14:29
-
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
"Hypocrisy" no less.
Wright brothers first successful flight would be considered a failure for a 787 that just came off the line. Hypocrisy again?
-
#1375
by
Ike17055
on 09 Jun, 2024 23:51
-
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
First, please learn how to quote correctly.
Second, when you describe another’s reaction as “SOOO predictable”, that indicates that you take some amount of pleasure in witnessing, if not directly eliciting, such reactions.
Please don’t do that. It’s called trolling, and it isn’t welcome here.
yeah, except : 1) apparently trolling is in fact, VERY welcome here, and 2) my post is not trolling...it is making a point, through illustration rather than mere blunt force accusation, that the double standards exists, even among very smart people, in spades. And yes, it is somewhat "fun" I guess to call it out and show it for what it is...Boeing has screwed this up, to be sure, yet there are far too many posters taking apparent delight in that...THEY are the trolls, often with nitpicking over puny points and even introducing misinformation and concern trolling -- the raising of non-issues to perpetuate the pearl clutching... yet they simultaneously are making excuses when their favorite rocket suffers the same type of failings that are part and parcel of any test regimen and even beyond. I want all these companies as well as NASA to succeed and I and many others take no delight in the difficulties they face.
As I have said before, one could make the case that almost every topic here on non-SpaceX topics seems to want to be renamed by a batch of very vocal posters to use the modifier of "Why (topic) sucks compared to anything SpaceX." It is tiresome to see every thread turned into that.
-
#1376
by
meekGee
on 10 Jun, 2024 01:38
-
you missed the point completely. It is CLEAR the development cycles of the spacecraft are vastly different -- just as Boeing and SpaceX started on Commercial Crew from vastly unequal starting points (yet the fact is ignored in comparisons by so many.) The rap was on the hypocrisy of some posters in how they define "Success" and that their inherent bias and unequal application of facts calls their arguments into doubt about objectivity and what constitutes progress as well as Success.. I chuckle because the reaction to the post is SOOO predictable.
First, please learn how to quote correctly.
Second, when you describe another’s reaction as “SOOO predictable”, that indicates that you take some amount of pleasure in witnessing, if not directly eliciting, such reactions.
Please don’t do that. It’s called trolling, and it isn’t welcome here.
yeah, except : 1) apparently trolling is in fact, VERY welcome here, and 2) my post is not trolling...it is making a point, through illustration rather than mere blunt force accusation, that the double standards exists, even among very smart people, in spades. And yes, it is somewhat "fun" I guess to call it out and show it for what it is...Boeing has screwed this up, to be sure, yet there are far too many posters taking apparent delight in that...THEY are the trolls, often with nitpicking over puny points and even introducing misinformation and concern trolling -- the raising of non-issues to perpetuate the pearl clutching... yet they simultaneously are making excuses when their favorite rocket suffers the same type of failings that are part and parcel of any test regimen and even beyond. I want all these companies as well as NASA to succeed and I and many others take no delight in the difficulties they face.
As I have said before, one could make the case that almost every topic here on non-SpaceX topics seems to want to be renamed by a batch of very vocal posters to use the modifier of "Why (topic) sucks compared to anything SpaceX." It is tiresome to see every thread turned into that.
Sorry, in this round it was the poster crying about "why are you criticizing Boeing but being merciful to SpaceX" that started this idiotic comparison.
The only time previously was when people claimed that "these things are unavoidable and part of operations", and then it was very much on-topic to show that no it's not, by way of example.
The problems with this capsule are Boeing's own making - stop blaming the messengers.
-
#1377
by
Jim
on 10 Jun, 2024 01:44
-
The X-37B is not "commercial", in that it is a USAF program, but Boeing is the prime contractor.
A discinction without a difference when it comes operating a spacecraft.
Commercializing something requires marketing and sales, among other things, creating business partners, and hiring a lot of people and gaining expertise where your business has none.
wrong. The program exists and is operating. Don't need business partners, don't need to hire any additional people. Boeing has marketing people. There isn't any experience to be gained that the business doesn't already have.
Commercial just means having non government customers.
-
#1378
by
zubenelgenubi
on 10 Jun, 2024 18:22
-
CAPCOM call to crew. Landing attempt no earlier than 18 June to allow the EVA on the 13th.
Most astronauts/most situations = Brer Rabbit: Stay in space a few days longer? Please, Brer Fox
Brer Bear, don't throw me into the briar patch!
🐰 🐻 🦊
Corrected
-
#1379
by
greybeardengineer
on 10 Jun, 2024 19:02
-
Live now:
LIVE: @NASA_Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams speak with @SenBillNelson and agency leaders about their ongoing #Starliner mission on a call from the @Space_Station. [Jun 10]
Got a good laugh at Butch's reply to Bill Nelson's silly leading question.
Ballast Bill: "So are the guys on Dragon are they going be lusting wishing they were on Starliner?"
Butch: laughs "All the Dragon guys would want fly... trust me if they're test pilots that's where they want to be"
That is a really clever reply that can be interpreted at multiple levels.
🐰 🐻 🦊