2. Will NASA have to consider flying a second CFT due to these issues or is it just going to be post flight improvement and testing?
This specific question was asked in the CFT press briefing yesterday. Both NASA and Boeing responded that they believe all troubleshooting and testing can be performed on the ground, without the need for an additional, uncrewed test flight.
Is nasa going to consider reducing the number of starliner flights or will they simply not order more over the current number?
I don’t think NASA will seek to change the number of planned Starliner flights in either direction at this time.
Also what is the current number of planned flights I don't actually know where that stands right now?
Six operational flights. This number has a ceiling imposed imposed by the number of remaining Atlas Vs available to fly Starliner. A Starliner mission seven will require Boeing to human-rate a new launch vehicle, presumably Vulcan.
Discussion/update thread posts seemed to indicate the first operational mission for starliner may not be until next year.
It's early yet, but there are some burning questions I have, maybe others have as well:
1. What is causing these valves to stick and not seat? Is this more of the corrosion seen previously or is the manufacturer having QA/defect issues? Are most of these valves in the SM and thus can't be examined post flight or are some of them in the CM?
2. Will NASA have to consider flying a second CFT due to these issues or is it just going to be post flight improvement and testing?
3. How many delays to 'operational flight 1' are worth tolerating at this point? Is nasa going to consider reducing the number of starliner flights or will they simply not order more over the current number? Also what is the current number of planned flights I don't actually know where that stands right now?
Imho the idea of ending up with or downselecting to just one crew provider is no more appetizing today than it was at the outset of CRS. Just because the competition so far has a decent record does not mean it will stay that way. Also having a sole provider tends to result in cost growth since that sole contractor can eventually and invariably charge whatever they want.
But with all of that said it's really not great to see this many issues this late in the game for this vehicle. It was intended to be a simple and reliable crew transport capsule to and from ISS based on heritage tech, very simple nothing more nothing less. Instead we are approaching 2025 and the vehicle hasn't flown operational missions yet and is still having issues and only just now flying it's first crew. Imho it's still worth continuing for now, given all the time effort and money spent, but maybe not for very long. ISS is approaching the end of its life as a government operated platform after all.
Starliner-1 in 2024 has been off the table since October 2023, when NASA said that mission 9 (august 2024) will be Crew Dragon, and Mission 10 (March? 2025) was not yet decided, pending the results of Starliner CFT.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2023/10/12/nasa-updates-commercial-crew-planning-manifest/The current question/speculation is whether or not NASA can analyze the CFT results in time for Starliner-1 to fly in March 2025. If not it might still fly mission 11 August 2025. NASA has not said how long the can wait before making the decision, but mission planning takes time so it must happen some time in the Summer or Fall.
There are several possible outcomes of CFT, but the highest likelihood is Starliner-1 for mission 10 or mission 11 (i.e., in 2025). At the planned rate of 1 Starliner per year, that still allows for six Starliner missions before ISS is decommissioned, with Starliner-6 in 2030. A slip of Starliner-1 to 2026 would make Starliner-6 problematical. If NASA requires Boeing to fly CFT-2 (highly unlikely), then it might fly in 2025, but that would also consume one of the six remaining allocated Atlas V rockets, and Boeing would need to qualify another rocket (or something) for Starliner-6.
I personally see no problem for NASA if the Starliner program is cancelled. NASA has operated ISS for the last 25 years without a second crew transport provider, and ISS has only another 6 years to go.
At this point, all I want is for Butch and Suni to get back safely. Personally, I'm expecting quite a bit of time to work through CFT-1's issues, because I'm sure there are more than has been released, just because they're minutiae. Important minutiae, but just not something that needs to be discussed with the public because it requires so much context to understand.
Crew doesn't have to return on Starliner there is option of using a Dragon. Would mean sending up an unscheduled Dragon at short notice. Very expensive call but at least its a viable backup plan.
There are several possible outcomes of CFT, but the highest likelihood is Starliner-1 for mission 10 or mission 11 (i.e., in 2025). At the planned rate of 1 Starliner per year, that still allows for six Starliner missions before ISS is decommissioned, with Starliner-6 in 2030. A slip of Starliner-1 to 2026 would make Starliner-6 problematical. If NASA requires Boeing to fly CFT-2 (highly unlikely), then it might fly in 2025, but that would also consume one of the six remaining allocated Atlas V rockets, and Boeing would need to qualify another rocket (or something) for Starliner-6.
Would Starliner-1 flying after Crew-10 necessitate back-to-back Starliner launches? If ISS is going to be deorbited in the first quarter or so of 2031, which I'm pretty sure is the latest plan, I did not think there would be crews going up in the late summer or early fall of 2030, but there would have to be if Starliner only launches once per year starting in the fall of 2025 and gets six crew rotation flights (assuming, of course, a usual 6-month duration).
At this point, all I want is for Butch and Suni to get back safely. Personally, I'm expecting quite a bit of time to work through CFT-1's issues, because I'm sure there are more than has been released, just because they're minutiae. Important minutiae, but just not something that needs to be discussed with the public because it requires so much context to understand.
Crew doesn't have to return on Starliner there is option of using a Dragon. Would mean sending up an unscheduled Dragon at short notice. Very expensive call but at least its a viable backup plan.
"Boeing, in flying 24 astronauts, has a per-seat price of $183 million. SpaceX, in flying 56 astronauts during the same time frame, has a seat price of $88 million. Thus, NASA is paying Boeing 2.1 times the price per seat that it is paying SpaceX, inclusive of development costs incurred by NASA." From Ars:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/nasa-will-pay-boeing-more-than-twice-as-much-as-spacex-for-crew-seats/Wonder who would be on the hook if a Dragon rescue mission proved necessary, NASA or Boeing or both?
Wonder who would be on the hook if a Dragon rescue mission proved necessary, NASA or Boeing or both?
It almost does not matter. In the unlikely event that this occurs, the least expensive option is probably to fly Crew-9 with only two astronauts, and let Sunni and Butch (or any two of the four Crew-8 crew) remain on ISS until next March. NASA pays SpaceX for the full Crew-9, and does not pay Boeing for a completed CFT. Simple in concept, probably very complicated indeed in detail.
There are several possible outcomes of CFT, but the highest likelihood is Starliner-1 for mission 10 or mission 11 (i.e., in 2025). At the planned rate of 1 Starliner per year, that still allows for six Starliner missions before ISS is decommissioned, with Starliner-6 in 2030. A slip of Starliner-1 to 2026 would make Starliner-6 problematical. If NASA requires Boeing to fly CFT-2 (highly unlikely), then it might fly in 2025, but that would also consume one of the six remaining allocated Atlas V rockets, and Boeing would need to qualify another rocket (or something) for Starliner-6.
Would Starliner-1 flying after Crew-10 necessitate back-to-back Starliner launches? If ISS is going to be deorbited in the first quarter or so of 2031, which I'm pretty sure is the latest plan, I did not think there would be crews going up in the late summer or early fall of 2030, but there would have to be if Starliner only launches once per year starting in the fall of 2025 and gets six crew rotation flights (assuming, of course, a usual 6-month duration).
Operationally, Boeing can probably fly two missions back-to-back, but flying three in a row may not be possible because of capsule turnaround time.
Contractually, that's a question for the lawyers. IANAL. I do not understand how NASA could be compelled to pay for a Starliner-6 that it cannot use because of Boeing's 7-year schedule slip. NASA intends to send crew to CLDs after ISS is decommissioned, so if forced to use Starliner-6, they might still have a use for it. On the third hand, the Starliner CCP is a fixed-price contract, and inflation may make Starliner-6 unprofitable (I am also not an accountant, so this is speculative).
...
I personally see no problem for NASA if the Starliner program is cancelled. NASA has operated ISS for the last 25 years without a second crew transport provider, and ISS has only another 6 years to go.
What's the Soyuz, chopped liver?
...
I personally see no problem for NASA if the Starliner program is cancelled. NASA has operated ISS for the last 25 years without a second crew transport provider, and ISS has only another 6 years to go.
What's the Soyuz, chopped liver?
It's not a NASA service and it does not allow for a big-enough crew for the US side of the ISS. It supplied barely-adequate minimal service during the period (2011-2020) when NASA had zero crew transport of its own. Before that, they had one (STS). After that, they have one (Crew Dragon). One is enough. Soyuz provides a small amount of redundancy.
Wonder who would be on the hook if a Dragon rescue mission proved necessary, NASA or Boeing or both?
It almost does not matter. In the unlikely event that this occurs, the least expensive option is probably to fly Crew-9 with only two astronauts, and let Sunni and Butch (or any two of the four Crew-8 crew) remain on ISS until next March. NASA pays SpaceX for the full Crew-9, and does not pay Boeing for a completed CFT. Simple in concept, probably very complicated indeed in detail.
Least expensive way to handle this
VERY unlikely scenario.
Also makes the case for universal suit life support ports.
...
I personally see no problem for NASA if the Starliner program is cancelled. NASA has operated ISS for the last 25 years without a second crew transport provider, and ISS has only another 6 years to go.
What's the Soyuz, chopped liver?
Dan meant:
a second American crew transport provider
More generally, I would consider any alternative service provider capable of meeting NASA's requirements, and I still think that NASA does not need a second provider.
...
Also makes the case for universal suit life support ports.
Yes.
I'd love to hear a reporter ask about such contingency capability.
Without cross-compatible adapters, the dissimilar redundancy is almost as much a liability as it is a benefit.
Dan meant:
a second American crew transport provider
More generally, I would consider any alternative service provider capable of meeting NASA's requirements, and I still think that NASA does not need a second provider.
Spaceflight is not perfected, and every launch opens the door to something going awry with Falcon 9 or Dragon. I like to think that Soyuz would be an option, as I understand relations between NASA and Roscosmos remain cordial and professional.
But Crew Dragon came online before Russia went full offensive in Ukraine. Putin was willing to detain an American basketball player who played for his country's own league – imagine the hay he'd be willing to make were the US left without a crew vehicle to ISS.
We want and need Starliner flying soon – as backup if nothing more.
How in the world were the ports not forced to a standard in the first place? The use of vender specific suits could be argued (transportation as a service, vender maintains the sevice etc.) but not declaring a cross compatible set of interfaces for very forseeable emergencies seems incredibly short sighted.
Dan meant:
a second American crew transport provider
More generally, I would consider any alternative service provider capable of meeting NASA's requirements, and I still think that NASA does not need a second provider.
Spaceflight is not perfected, and every launch opens the door to something going awry with Falcon 9 or Dragon. I like to think that Soyuz would be an option, as I understand relations between NASA and Roscosmos remain cordial and professional.
But Crew Dragon came online before Russia went full offensive in Ukraine. Putin was willing to detain an American basketball player who played for his country's own league – imagine the hay he'd be willing to make were the US left without a crew vehicle to ISS.
We want and need Starliner flying soon – as backup if nothing more.
Absolutely agree.
There is a reason why NASA requested dissimilar redundancy for both CRS and CCP: lessons learned from the Shuttle era, and confirmed in the early CRS era.
All the people stating that Starliner isn't needed really ought to read up on history. If they did, and understood and learned from history, we wouldn't be having the, IMO ludicrous, discussion about the need for a second operational CCP vehicle.
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Could it have to do with the spacecraft sitting around for an extra year, when it was a few weeks from flight a year ago?
From a popular mechanics style perspective - I agree like taking the muscle car up to 140 mph thats been sitting for years.
If not, um....what did they do different on this SM?
Could it have to do with the spacecraft sitting around for an extra year, when it was a few weeks from flight a year ago?
From a popular mechanics style perspective - I agree like taking the muscle car up to 140 mph thats been sitting for years.
A muscle car that was in air-conditioned storage in special facilities and then towed to a garage run by the manufacturer, inspected and repaired and reconditioned before the key ever went in the ignition.
Spaceflight is not perfected, and every launch opens the door to something going awry with Falcon 9 or Dragon.
F9 Block 5 is flying about 3 times a week, was first flown ins 2018, and has flown more than 290 missions without a failure. It's hard to think of a design failure that would ground the fleet.
Dragon 2 has flown 24 successful mission without a failure. That might not be enough for a statistical analysis, but a design problem appears to be increasingly unlikely, so grounding the fleet due to a single failure is not necessary.
We do not have dissimilar redundancy now and have never had it in the past 25 years, except for Soyuz. Why should we keep wasting NASA's time and money (NASA oversight costs money) on Starliner? Maybe fund crewed Dream Chaser.
I still hope CFT-1 completes its mission with no further problems.
Spaceflight is not perfected, and every launch opens the door to something going awry with Falcon 9 or Dragon.
F9 Block 5 is flying about 3 times a week, was first flown ins 2018, and has flown more than 290 missions without a failure. It's hard to think of a design failure that would ground the fleet.
It’s actually incredibly easy to think of dozens of failures that could do so. F9 has shown astonishing reliability, no question,
especially amidst its epic, record-setting launch campaigns of the past several years.
But even if the odds of failure are demonstrably low, they are still odds, they exist. And every launch, whether Dragon or commercial or Starlink, represents another roll of the dice. Eventually an undesirable number will come up.
We do not have dissimilar redundancy now and have never had it in the past 25 years, except for Soyuz.
Don’t forget commercial resupply to ISS: Cargo Dragon on F9 and Cygnus on Antares or Atlas V.
Why should we keep wasting NASA's time and money (NASA oversight costs money) on Starliner? Maybe fund crewed Dream Chaser.
Okay, but that is making a very different argument.