...
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.
Adding year breaks to your schedule to make it clearer:
CD CD-BS CD-CD BS-CD CD-BS CD-CD BS-CD CD-BS CD-BS
So you have this running through 2030.
It's more efficient to end your sequence with Crew Dragon than a Boeing Starliner if you wish to maximize the interleaving.
Plus, while Boeing says they are targeting Fall 2023 for their first Post Certification Mission, NASA was mum on the subject and I think signs are pointing toward a Spring 2024 Starliner-1 as more likely, in which case this:
CD CD-CD BS-CD BS-CD BS-CD BS-CD BS-CD BS-CD CD
alternates Crew Dragon and Boeing Starliner PCMs, with two Crew Dragons in a row at the end. Seems easiest.
but it might be best to keep them flying once a year for reliability and mission assurance purposes.
Am I correct in thinking that if Crew-7 flies in late 2023, it'll only have one U.S. crew member (Moghbeli) and Soyuz MS-23 will also only have one U.S. crew member (Caldwell)? So potentially their increment will be 2 U.S., 3 Russians, Mogensen of Denmark and possibly Furukawa of Japan or Hansen of Canada?
Past precedent (at least during 7-crew ops) has typically seen 3 U.S. crew, 3 Russian crew and one IP. Is this expected to change?
Also, flying in such close proximity to Artemis II, is Hansen definitively out of the running for the lunar-orbit mission? In other words, is he unquestioningly aimed at ISS and Kutryk/Sidey-Gibbons at Artemis?
Apologies for the questions/speculation/rambling/curiosity.
I think launch of space x crew 7 is going for early 2024 now Boeing starliner crew 1 I think is supposed to fly first but could be wrong. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
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?
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though?
Does Axiom still plan to start with a module connected to ISS which will then detach to form the start of their CLD? If so, There may be multiple non-CCP CD flights to ISS in the middle of this mess.
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though?
NASA says that it would prefer dissimilar redundancy but it's not a requirement. But it is up to the commercial LEO Destinations provider to decide which commercial crew transportations systems, it wishes to use.
See this post for more info:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2366179#msg2366179
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though?
NASA says that it would prefer dissimilar redundancy but it's not a requirement. But it is up to the commercial LEO Destinations provider to decide which commercial crew transportations systems, it wishes to use.
See this post for more info:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2366179#msg2366179Arrgh. I just read the linked post. It indicates a strong desire by NASA for redundant transport to a CLD. What it does not do is indicate a desire or a mandate for a common docking standard. This is a potential logistical nightmare. I theory, each CLD will create its own docking standard and each transport provicer will need to produce a spacecraft variant for each CLD. Alternatively, each transport provider will create it's own dock interface and each CLD will need a separate dock for each provider. Somebody needs to step in now and mandate a standard. Let's please not have another EV charger or USB charger incompatibility. Same problem with space suits.
Is there some statutory requirement for 2 different crew vehicles beyond 2028-2030 (end of ISS) though?
NASA says that it would prefer dissimilar redundancy but it's not a requirement. But it is up to the commercial LEO Destinations provider to decide which commercial crew transportations systems, it wishes to use.
See this post for more info:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2366179#msg2366179Arrgh. I just read the linked post. It indicates a strong desire by NASA for redundant transport to a CLD. What it does not do is indicate a desire or a mandate for a common docking standard. This is a potential logistical nightmare. I theory, each CLD will create its own docking standard and each transport provicer will need to produce a spacecraft variant for each CLD. Alternatively, each transport provider will create it's own dock interface and each CLD will need a separate dock for each provider. Somebody needs to step in now and mandate a standard. Let's please not have another EV charger or USB charger incompatibility. Same problem with space suits.
CLD Transportation has to be certified under the commercial crew program which implies IDSS/NDS (whatever it's called now) is required?
I found the Boeing Starliner crew transporter for sale in Publix parking lot in Cocoa Beach…
Thankfully it appears to be a recreation
Here's the real one
Am I correct in thinking that if Crew-7 flies in late 2023, it'll only have one U.S. crew member (Moghbeli) and Soyuz MS-23 will also only have one U.S. crew member (Caldwell)? So potentially their increment will be 2 U.S., 3 Russians, Mogensen of Denmark and possibly Furukawa of Japan or Hansen of Canada?
Past precedent (at least during 7-crew ops) has typically seen 3 U.S. crew, 3 Russian crew and one IP. Is this expected to change?
Also, flying in such close proximity to Artemis II, is Hansen definitively out of the running for the lunar-orbit mission? In other words, is he unquestioningly aimed at ISS and Kutryk/Sidey-Gibbons at Artemis?
Apologies for the questions/speculation/rambling/curiosity.
I think launch of space x crew 7 is going for early 2024 now Boeing starliner crew 1 I think is supposed to fly first but could be wrong. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.Has something changed? at the NASA/Boeing Starliner press conference, Boeing said that they hoped to be ready to fly Starliner-1 in Fall of 2023. However, there was no comment by NASA on this subject and no commitment. Others on this forum have opined that it is not likely, because the crew assignments need to be made at least six months in advance and the Boeing CFT will not fly soon enough, so NASA will most likely jsut fly Crew-7 in Fall 2023. Based on this, I think "supposed to fly first" is a bit too strong. I think "has a non-zero chance" is a bit closer.
Am I correct in thinking that if Crew-7 flies in late 2023, it'll only have one U.S. crew member (Moghbeli) and Soyuz MS-23 will also only have one U.S. crew member (Caldwell)? So potentially their increment will be 2 U.S., 3 Russians, Mogensen of Denmark and possibly Furukawa of Japan or Hansen of Canada?
Past precedent (at least during 7-crew ops) has typically seen 3 U.S. crew, 3 Russian crew and one IP. Is this expected to change?
Also, flying in such close proximity to Artemis II, is Hansen definitively out of the running for the lunar-orbit mission? In other words, is he unquestioningly aimed at ISS and Kutryk/Sidey-Gibbons at Artemis?
Apologies for the questions/speculation/rambling/curiosity.
I think launch of space x crew 7 is going for early 2024 now Boeing starliner crew 1 I think is supposed to fly first but could be wrong. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.Has something changed? at the NASA/Boeing Starliner press conference, Boeing said that they hoped to be ready to fly Starliner-1 in Fall of 2023. However, there was no comment by NASA on this subject and no commitment. Others on this forum have opined that it is not likely, because the crew assignments need to be made at least six months in advance and the Boeing CFT will not fly soon enough, so NASA will most likely jsut fly Crew-7 in Fall 2023. Based on this, I think "supposed to fly first" is a bit too strong. I think "has a non-zero chance" is a bit closer.I have a theory not speculating this but after the test flight in February for the starliner they’ll announce Starliner crew 1. But again we won’t know the crew until they announce it same with space x crew 8 no one has been confirmed yet, only astronaut confirmed for Starliner crew 1 is Jeanette Epps, Mike fincke may fly but it’s yet to be confirmed.
Mark Nappi, Boeing vice president, and Starliner program manager, however, expressed confidence in the longevity of the program. “We have three post-certification missions and then there will be a follow on after that for (post-certification missions) four, five, and six that are not authorized today.”
The agency’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded an additional four crew rotation missions each to commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
H.19 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION PAYMENTS, MILESTONES AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED (ATP) CRITERIA
(a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.
In a recent press conference in May 2022, Boeing said that only its first three post-certification missions (PCMs) have been authorized.Quote from: May 12th Florida Today articleMark Nappi, Boeing vice president, and Starliner program manager, however, expressed confidence in the longevity of the program. “We have three post-certification missions and then there will be a follow on after that for (post-certification missions) four, five, and six that are not authorized today.”
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/05/12/nasa-boeing-starliner-needed-redundancy-crew-safety/9681774002/
I got somewhat confused at first because, I was under the impression that Boeing had been awarded all 6 post-certification missions back in January 2017 (this is indeed the case, see below). But I now realize, after looking at the CCtCap RFP (see below), that what the Boeing representative was trying to say was that they had been awarded PCM-4 to 6 but that they had not yet received authority to proceed from NASA for these missions. More specifically, the authority to proceed with a post-certification mission is at NASA's sole discretion and therefore can be later than when the task order for the post-certification mission has been awarded (which in this case was in January 2017). It's not really a concern since Boeing will eventually receive the authority to proceed for PCM-4 to 6 from NASA but as of now, they have not yet received it.Quote from: NASAThe agency’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded an additional four crew rotation missions each to commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-yearsQuote from: page 50 of the RFPH.19 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION PAYMENTS, MILESTONES AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED (ATP) CRITERIA
(a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.
In a recent press conference in May 2022, Boeing said that only its first three post-certification missions (PCMs) have been authorized.Quote from: May 12th Florida Today articleMark Nappi, Boeing vice president, and Starliner program manager, however, expressed confidence in the longevity of the program. “We have three post-certification missions and then there will be a follow on after that for (post-certification missions) four, five, and six that are not authorized today.”
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2022/05/12/nasa-boeing-starliner-needed-redundancy-crew-safety/9681774002/
I got somewhat confused at first because, I was under the impression that Boeing had been awarded all 6 post-certification missions back in January 2017 (this is indeed the case, see below). But I now realize, after looking at the CCtCap RFP (see below), that what the Boeing representative was trying to say was that they had been awarded PCM-4 to 6 but that they had not yet received authority to proceed from NASA for these missions. More specifically, the authority to proceed with a post-certification mission is at NASA's sole discretion and therefore can be later than when the task order for the post-certification mission has been awarded (which in this case was in January 2017). It's not really a concern since Boeing will eventually receive the authority to proceed for PCM-4 to 6 from NASA but as of now, they have not yet received it.Quote from: NASAThe agency’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded an additional four crew rotation missions each to commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-yearsQuote from: page 50 of the RFPH.19 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION PAYMENTS, MILESTONES AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED (ATP) CRITERIA
(a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.
Authority to proceed is indeed something different from being awarded a contract.
For example: SpaceX was awarded a contract to provide cargo services for the Lunar Gateway. But so far they have NOT gotten authority to proceed. The result is that the contract is in limbo: SpaceX has won the contract, but the customer (NASA) is currently NOT allowing them do to any work under that contract.
Same applies to the 3 PCMs that have NOT received authority to proceed. Boeing has been awarded contracts to fly six PCMs. But for only the first three of those six, they have gotten permission from NASA to actually execute on those contracts.
AIUI CCP is a performance-based contract. So Boeing will be paid for each flight service as it's provided. So they're working on the first 3, with up to 3 additional.
OTOH, it's all contractual, so I could be totally wrong.
Same applies to the 3 PCMs that have NOT received authority to proceed. Boeing has been awarded contracts to fly six PCMs. But for only the first three of those six, they have gotten permission from NASA to actually execute on those contracts.
Same applies to the 3 PCMs that have NOT received authority to proceed. Boeing has been awarded contracts to fly six PCMs. But for only the first three of those six, they have gotten permission from NASA to actually execute on those contracts.How much lead time must NASA give Boeing before each mission? It's clear NASA cannot just say "OK we'll pay you: launch tomorrow."
Post Certification Missions require at least TBP [To Be Proposed] months prior to launch to account for lead times.
Post Certification Missions require at least [redacted] months prior to launch to account for lead times.
Same applies to the 3 PCMs that have NOT received authority to proceed. Boeing has been awarded contracts to fly six PCMs. But for only the first three of those six, they have gotten permission from NASA to actually execute on those contracts.How much lead time must NASA give Boeing before each mission? It's clear NASA cannot just say "OK we'll pay you: launch tomorrow."
From what I can tell, lead-time is determined by the provider and was indicated in the Boeing contract but unfortunately it was redacted. For Soyuz, it was 2 years, so I am guessing that it is something similar to that for Starliner.Quote from: page 10 of the CCtCap RFPPost Certification Missions require at least TBP [To Be Proposed] months prior to launch to account for lead times.Quote from: page 9 of Boeing CCtCap contractPost Certification Missions require at least [redacted] months prior to launch to account for lead times.