-
#480
by
yg1968
on 26 Aug, 2022 15:54
-
I'm certain that the PAMs and the 5th seat are two different opportunities. The 5th seat would be part of a standard ISS flight, but with a 5th person, presumably someone who is normally in the running for an ISS mission. This was one of the big marketing points during Starliner's original bid. The PAMs would be separate missions like Axiom-1.
I have doubts that a 5th seat will be used on a NASA mission. NASA never requested a 5th seat for commercial crew and I don't think that NASA would allow an 8th person on the ISS for a period of 6 months.
Would be a way for Axiom to have longer term mission once their module(s) arrive. Upcoming rules would likely limit that 5th seat passenger to former NASA astronauts though.
I don't think that NASA wants 8 people on the station for a period of 6 months. I am guessing that it would require a lot more cargo to have an 8th person on the ISS.
-
#481
by
yg1968
on 26 Aug, 2022 16:02
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
-
#482
by
DanClemmensen
on 26 Aug, 2022 16:24
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
No I do not know, so
speculation: When Demo-2 went up, ISS did not have a full crew, so there was space for them and there was work for them to do. Not true in February 2023.
-
#483
by
yg1968
on 26 Aug, 2022 16:58
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
No I do not know, so speculation: When Demo-2 went up, ISS did not have a full crew, so there was space for them and there was work for them to do. Not true in February 2023.
I am pretty sure that it has to do with the direct handover related to SpaceX-5 and SpaceX-6 (both crew Dragons need to be docked at ISS for a few days during that handover). SpaceX-6 arrives in early 2023 and CFT has to be gone by then (since they need both available ports). If CFT arrives after the SpaceX-5 and 6 direct handover, there would be less constraints, I imagine but they want to fly CFT before the launch of SpaceX-6.
-
#484
by
arachnitect
on 26 Aug, 2022 17:08
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
No I do not know, so speculation: When Demo-2 went up, ISS did not have a full crew, so there was space for them and there was work for them to do. Not true in February 2023.
CFT was originally planned to be extended. When Boeing was delayed Demo-2 was extended instead.
In 2020 Soyuz seat purchases were running out and there was often only 1 USOS crew member on ISS.
-
#485
by
erioladastra
on 26 Aug, 2022 21:21
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
No I do not know, so speculation: When Demo-2 went up, ISS did not have a full crew, so there was space for them and there was work for them to do. Not true in February 2023.
You want the test flights to be as short as possible to get the vehicle back for evaluation (and of course refurb) as soon as possible. When it looked like CFT would fly when the ISS needed an increment crew it was prepared to be up to 6 months but was never officially set that long. When CFT gets closer to flight (more likely later in the spring) the duration could be changed again - perhaps even shortened. Depends on the situation at the time (e.g., crew needs, vehicle traffic, other major activities...). Don't get married to any specific plan...
CFT was originally planned to be extended. When Boeing was delayed Demo-2 was extended instead.
In 2020 Soyuz seat purchases were running out and there was often only 1 USOS crew member on ISS.
-
#486
by
yg1968
on 27 Aug, 2022 04:02
-
One question that I wish had been asked during the teleconference is why is CFT only 8 days where as SpaceX Demo-2 was 63 days. I am guessing because of ISS traffic and the availability of the IDA-2 and IDA-3 ports (they both have to be available for direct handovers) but I was hoping that someone would ask. Does anyone know?
No I do not know, so speculation: When Demo-2 went up, ISS did not have a full crew, so there was space for them and there was work for them to do. Not true in February 2023.
CFT was originally planned to be extended. When Boeing was delayed Demo-2 was extended instead.
In 2020 Soyuz seat purchases were running out and there was often only 1 USOS crew member on ISS.
You want the test flights to be as short as possible to get the vehicle back for evaluation (and of course refurb) as soon as possible. When it looked like CFT would fly when the ISS needed an increment crew it was prepared to be up to 6 months but was never officially set that long. When CFT gets closer to flight (more likely later in the spring) the duration could be changed again - perhaps even shortened. Depends on the situation at the time (e.g., crew needs, vehicle traffic, other major activities...). Don't get married to any specific plan...
Thanks for your reply! That makes sense.
P.S. I fixed the quotes in your post.
-
#487
by
AstroWare
on 27 Aug, 2022 14:00
-
Would be a way for Axiom to have longer term mission once their module(s) arrive. Upcoming rules would likely limit that 5th seat passenger to former NASA astronauts though.
It may allow for a full complement of axiom customers on dedicated short duration missions though.
1. Long term former Astro UP on NASA starliner seat 5
2. Short duration Axiom PAM with 4/5* customers.
3. Perhaps multiple back-to-back PAMs to take advantage of the resident Axiom member.
4. Long term Astro returns on NASA starliner.
*Dragon/SecondStarliner (trying to not exclude starliner from possible Axiom PAM missions)
Crew Dragon can only seat 4 in its current configuration.
That's correct, but not what I said. I said 4/5 for dragon/starliner respectively. Axiom has said they are open to starliner flights for PAMs. So leaving the door open in my comment. Especially since this is the starliner thread I did not want to dismiss the possibility out of hand, even if unlikely that we see two starliners flying concurrently.
-
#488
by
yg1968
on 29 Aug, 2022 15:16
-
Would be a way for Axiom to have longer term mission once their module(s) arrive. Upcoming rules would likely limit that 5th seat passenger to former NASA astronauts though.
It may allow for a full complement of axiom customers on dedicated short duration missions though.
1. Long term former Astro UP on NASA starliner seat 5
2. Short duration Axiom PAM with 4/5* customers.
3. Perhaps multiple back-to-back PAMs to take advantage of the resident Axiom member.
4. Long term Astro returns on NASA starliner.
*Dragon/SecondStarliner (trying to not exclude starliner from possible Axiom PAM missions)
Crew Dragon can only seat 4 in its current configuration.
That's correct, but not what I said. I said 4/5 for dragon/starliner respectively. Axiom has said they are open to starliner flights for PAMs. So leaving the door open in my comment. Especially since this is the starliner thread I did not want to dismiss the possibility out of hand, even if unlikely that we see two starliners flying concurrently.
OK. I understand but the problem is that there is not enough Atlas Vs left for private missions. Boeing will have to re-certify its commercial crew system with a new launch vehicle. That is likely to be done within the Commercial LEO destinations program (doing within CCtCap would be complicated).
-
#489
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 08 Sep, 2022 09:33
-
OK. I understand but the problem is that there is not enough Atlas Vs left for private missions. Boeing will have to re-certify its commercial crew system with a new launch vehicle. That is likely to be done within the Commercial LEO destinations program (doing within CCtCap would be complicated).
Given the additional 5 ISS Dragon flights now awarded, there will only be the currently awarded 6 Starliner flights to ISS. So all the work and costs associated with certifying Starliner on a different launch vehicle (Vulcan, F9, NG, ...) will have to be borne by flights to CLDs and any commercial (Inspiration4-like) LEO flights.
To me it seems that Boeing has a real chicken and egg problem. I don't see them committing funds to develop/re-certify without a high degree of confidence that they'll get their money back. But I don't see them winning orders until they're much further along than they are, plus it's not clear to me how cost competitive they'll be with Dragon.
I get NASA may want crew vehicle redundancy for their program of flights to CLDs, but I assume NASA will only be looking to buy flight services and there won't be separate development funding?
Does anyone see a path forward for Starliner? Or does it end with Atlas?
-
#490
by
Zed_Noir
on 08 Sep, 2022 10:15
-
OK. I understand but the problem is that there is not enough Atlas Vs left for private missions. Boeing will have to re-certify its commercial crew system with a new launch vehicle. That is likely to be done within the Commercial LEO destinations program (doing within CCtCap would be complicated).
Given the additional 5 ISS Dragon flights now awarded, there will only be the currently awarded 6 Starliner flights to ISS. So all the work and costs associated with certifying Starliner on a different launch vehicle (Vulcan, F9, NG, ...) will have to be borne by flights to CLDs and any commercial (Inspiration4-like) LEO flights.
To me it seems that Boeing has a real chicken and egg problem. I don't see them committing funds to develop/re-certify without a high degree of confidence that they'll get their money back. But I don't see them winning orders until they're much further along than they are, plus it's not clear to me how cost competitive they'll be with Dragon.
I get NASA may want crew vehicle redundancy for their program of flights to CLDs, but I assume NASA will only be looking to buy flight services and there won't be separate development funding?
Does anyone see a path forward for Starliner? Or does it end with Atlas?
A semi serious path forward. Boeing quits and fire sells the Starliner to
Below Orbit Blue Origin for use as their interim manned orbital vehicle on the New Glenn.
-
#491
by
niwax
on 08 Sep, 2022 13:31
-
There are more problems, Boeing shut down Starliner production and is planning to fly their NASA contract on two alternating capsules. They sized their operation to the absolute minimum to fulfill the base contract in the expectation of going pseudo-cost plus later.
-
#492
by
vapour_nudge
on 08 Sep, 2022 14:07
-
OK. I understand but the problem is that there is not enough Atlas Vs left for private missions. Boeing will have to re-certify its commercial crew system with a new launch vehicle. That is likely to be done within the Commercial LEO destinations program (doing within CCtCap would be complicated).
Given the additional 5 ISS Dragon flights now awarded, there will only be the currently awarded 6 Starliner flights to ISS. So all the work and costs associated with certifying Starliner on a different launch vehicle (Vulcan, F9, NG, ...) will have to be borne by flights to CLDs and any commercial (Inspiration4-like) LEO flights.
To me it seems that Boeing has a real chicken and egg problem. I don't see them committing funds to develop/re-certify without a high degree of confidence that they'll get their money back. But I don't see them winning orders until they're much further along than they are, plus it's not clear to me how cost competitive they'll be with Dragon.
I get NASA may want crew vehicle redundancy for their program of flights to CLDs, but I assume NASA will only be looking to buy flight services and there won't be separate development funding?
Does anyone see a path forward for Starliner? Or does it end with Atlas?
Are you implying there’s nothing on the map after Atlas? 😄
-
#493
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Sep, 2022 14:43
-
OK. I understand but the problem is that there is not enough Atlas Vs left for private missions. Boeing will have to re-certify its commercial crew system with a new launch vehicle. That is likely to be done within the Commercial LEO destinations program (doing within CCtCap would be complicated).
Given the additional 5 ISS Dragon flights now awarded, there will only be the currently awarded 6 Starliner flights to ISS. So all the work and costs associated with certifying Starliner on a different launch vehicle (Vulcan, F9, NG, ...) will have to be borne by flights to CLDs and any commercial (Inspiration4-like) LEO flights.
To me it seems that Boeing has a real chicken and egg problem. I don't see them committing funds to develop/re-certify without a high degree of confidence that they'll get their money back. But I don't see them winning orders until they're much further along than they are, plus it's not clear to me how cost competitive they'll be with Dragon.
I get NASA may want crew vehicle redundancy for their program of flights to CLDs, but I assume NASA will only be looking to buy flight services and there won't be separate development funding?
Does anyone see a path forward for Starliner? Or does it end with Atlas?
Are you implying there’s nothing on the map after Atlas? 😄
No, Vulcan and other launchers were specifically mentioned. FutureSpaceTourist's assertion is that there is no path forward for Starliner that makes economic sense. In addition to those arguments, the two Starliners will have flown nine orbital flights (OFT-1,OFT-2, CFT, and Starliner-1 through 6) and will therefore only have eleven more before their ten-flight lifetimes run out. Any expense associated with shifting to a new launcher would be amortized over only those 11 flights, and one of those might be needed for the launcher certification/qualification/whatever. Boeing does not appear to be in a position to build more Starliners, which by 2028 would be competing against more modern crew launchers anyway.
-
#494
by
baldusi
on 08 Sep, 2022 15:47
-
[...]. Boeing does not appear to be in a position to build more Starliners, which by 2028 would be competing against more modern crew launchers anyway.
Like which ones? Save for a possible Starship, nobody is really that close for crew. DreamChaser will be lucky if they have Cargo by 2024 commissioned, and crew would take at least 5 more years and 1B to certify. I simply see nobody by Starliner as a viable competitor for the next eight years. And no, I don't trust Blue to suddenly become a nimble dark horse.
-
#495
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Sep, 2022 15:52
-
[...]. Boeing does not appear to be in a position to build more Starliners, which by 2028 would be competing against more modern crew launchers anyway.
Like which ones? Save for a possible Starship, nobody is really that close for crew. DreamChaser will be lucky if they have Cargo by 2024 commissioned, and crew would take at least 5 more years and 1B to certify. I simply see nobody by Starliner as a viable competitor for the next eight years. And no, I don't trust Blue to suddenly become a nimble dark horse.
I was trying to avoid being called a Starship Fanatic Fanboi. You know: the guys who say "Starship is the answer! What was the question?"
-
#496
by
arachnitect
on 08 Sep, 2022 16:56
-
There are more problems, Boeing shut down Starliner production and is planning to fly their NASA contract on two alternating capsules. They sized their operation to the absolute minimum to fulfill the base contract in the expectation of going pseudo-cost plus later.
I'm guessing they'll just extend the capsule life and fly more than 10 times, but it's not impossible to build more, there never was a high volume production line.
-
#497
by
niwax
on 08 Sep, 2022 17:05
-
There are more problems, Boeing shut down Starliner production and is planning to fly their NASA contract on two alternating capsules. They sized their operation to the absolute minimum to fulfill the base contract in the expectation of going pseudo-cost plus later.
I'm guessing they'll just extend the capusle life and fly more than 10 times, but it's not impossilbe to build more, there never was a high volume production line.
It's neither impossible to build more nor to uprate the capsule, the question is who would be willing to pay for it, considering their current offering is already pretty pricey. Uprating would be cheaper but other than NASA+ISS, would it be worth the certifying and training to use a system that only has a few flights left?
-
#498
by
Asteroza
on 08 Sep, 2022 23:05
-
There are more problems, Boeing shut down Starliner production and is planning to fly their NASA contract on two alternating capsules. They sized their operation to the absolute minimum to fulfill the base contract in the expectation of going pseudo-cost plus later.
I'm guessing they'll just extend the capusle life and fly more than 10 times, but it's not impossilbe to build more, there never was a high volume production line.
It's neither impossible to build more nor to uprate the capsule, the question is who would be willing to pay for it, considering their current offering is already pretty pricey. Uprating would be cheaper but other than NASA+ISS, would it be worth the certifying and training to use a system that only has a few flights left?
The Boeing footgun here is impressive.
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though? If there is, then it's a direct fight between Starliner and Dreamchaser to get qualified for human flight on a new launcher, and an argument could be made that NASA has to foot the bill there under the auspices of continuing NASA commercial crew to commercial stations. Launcher human rating is a common bottleneck (with the potential pigeonholing to Vulcan), but a cost fight between a flown capsule being recertified and a new spaceplane being partially recertified (cargo Dreamchaser functionally is being manufactured like it's human rated, so is it closer than the difference between Dragon v1/v2?)
If dual vehicle setup is only a "generic" NASA proclamation, or the dual vendor language only applies up to ISS end in the contract language of commercial crew, then NASA can justify sole source to crew Dragon after 2030... though single vendor/two vehicles is an interesting fork in the road with Starship, then there is the spectre of SpaceX self-funding Starshio certification when ULA/Boeing/Sierra absolutely will ask for handouts.
-
#499
by
DanClemmensen
on 08 Sep, 2022 23:23
-
There are more problems, Boeing shut down Starliner production and is planning to fly their NASA contract on two alternating capsules. They sized their operation to the absolute minimum to fulfill the base contract in the expectation of going pseudo-cost plus later.
I'm guessing they'll just extend the capusle life and fly more than 10 times, but it's not impossilbe to build more, there never was a high volume production line.
It's neither impossible to build more nor to uprate the capsule, the question is who would be willing to pay for it, considering their current offering is already pretty pricey. Uprating would be cheaper but other than NASA+ISS, would it be worth the certifying and training to use a system that only has a few flights left?
The Boeing footgun here is impressive.
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though? If there is, then it's a direct fight between Starliner and Dreamchaser to get qualified for human flight on a new launcher, and an argument could be made that NASA has to foot the bill there under the auspices of continuing NASA commercial crew to commercial stations. Launcher human rating is a common bottleneck (with the potential pigeonholing to Vulcan), but a cost fight between a flown capsule being recertified and a new spaceplane being partially recertified (cargo Dreamchaser functionally is being manufactured like it's human rated, so is it closer than the difference between Dragon v1/v2?)
If dual vehicle setup is only a "generic" NASA proclamation, or the dual vendor language only applies up to ISS end in the contract language of commercial crew, then NASA can justify sole source to crew Dragon after 2030... though single vendor/two vehicles is an interesting fork in the road with Starship, then there is the spectre of SpaceX self-funding Starshio certification when ULA/Sierra absolutely will ask for handouts.
The simple solution is to not do strict alternation. Spread the six Starliner missions out a bit. There are 11 remaining Crew Dragon missions and 6 operational Starliner missions, so do C-C-S-C-C-S-C-C-S-C-C-S-C-C-S-C-S, or some such. I don't think Boeing can reasonably complain since they are the ones who created this mess.
I was trying to avoid being called a Starship Fanatic Fanboi. You know: the guys who say "Starship is the answer! What was the question?"