-
#580
by
DanClemmensen
on 31 Oct, 2022 23:57
-
NASA's Kathy Lueders says just now that Boeing could have chosen to "not do a second uncrewed flight" of Starliner. Says that decision was taken by the company's top level of management. It strikes me as wild that NASA would have gone for that, but Kathy was the boss.
It's really striking to me that Boeing top level management obviously had less confidence in the Starliner team than NASA did. Probably they were still in shock of the 737 MAX mess and didn't want to get into another possible nightmare.
There was also money on the table. The OFT was a contract milestone. They could not collect that money until they passed that milestone. In retrospect, the two retries ended up costing a whole lot more than the milestone payments, but this was not predictable in advance. It is my hope that Boeing's team did the retries because it was the correct technical decision.
-
#581
by
Zed_Noir
on 01 Nov, 2022 05:20
-
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1587138603573977090
I've heard the Crew Flight Test is definitely not happening in February, or probably even March, but so far NASA has not said anything on the record.
Seems doubtful that the first operational Starliner will launch in 2023 if the Starliner CFT flight happening after March 2023.
-
#582
by
AmigaClone
on 01 Nov, 2022 09:21
-
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1587138603573977090
I've heard the Crew Flight Test is definitely not happening in February, or probably even March, but so far NASA has not said anything on the record.
Seems doubtful that the first operational Starliner will launch in 2023 if the Starliner CFT flight happening after March 2023.
It does appear that the first operational Starliner mission will be launching after SpaceX Crew-7.
-
#583
by
Ike17055
on 01 Nov, 2022 10:09
-
Well, the article was written by Boeing.
this is an "advertorial," a "news" piece made to look like reporting but purchased space for promotion. This is a very common media technique used by advocacy groups. both corporate and nonprofit. They can be quite effective, and are intended to create an impression of "objective" copy because of the inherent degree of credibility that readers often attribute to media sources they choose to consume. (Skeptics and The "fake news" deniers tend to gravitate toward media sources that confirm what they believe.) Publications make a considerable amount of money from accepting these, but often label them as "Advertisement" and sometimes the less-transparent "Sponsored"
-
#584
by
woods170
on 01 Nov, 2022 14:38
-
NASA's Kathy Lueders says just now that Boeing could have chosen to "not do a second uncrewed flight" of Starliner. Says that decision was taken by the company's top level of management. It strikes me as wild that NASA would have gone for that, but Kathy was the boss.
It's really striking to me that Boeing top level management obviously had less confidence in the Starliner team than NASA did. Probably they were still in shock of the 737 MAX mess and didn't want to get into another possible nightmare.
I think Lueders is just saying that technically it was up to Boeing to propose a recovery plan, not saying that NASA was ready to proceed to CFT.
That is the correct interpretation. If Boeing had decided to NOT do another OFT, it would have meant that the CCtCAP contract between NASA and Boeing would be effectively dead.
That is because several "must meet" milestones were not met during the original OFT, one of them being docking to the ISS.
Without those "must meet" milestones having been met, NASA never would have given authority to proceed to CFT. Which effectively would have put the CCtCAP contract between NASA and Boeing in limbo, if not kill it outright.
But Kathy is also right in that NASA was not in any position to force Boeing to do another OFT, given the nature of the milestones-based Firm-Fixed-Price CCtCAP contract. The decision to do another OFT really was up to Boeing.
And had Boeing management decided that doing another OFT was not worth the financial risk, than the CCP landscape would look rather different today IMO. Because it is likely that, similar to what happened in the early stages of COTS, NASA would have reopened the CCtCAP condition to on-ramp a replacement for Boeing. And that really could have been just one thing: crewed Dream Chaser.
-
#585
by
Zed_Noir
on 01 Nov, 2022 15:19
-
<snip>
And had Boeing management decided that doing another OFT was not worth the financial risk, than the CCP landscape would look rather different today IMO. Because it is likely that, similar to what happened in the early stages of COTS, NASA would have reopened the CCtCAP condition to on-ramp a replacement for Boeing. And that really could have been just one thing: crewed Dream Chaser.
Not necessary. By the time the Crew DreamChaser gets certified for operational flights. Might not be that many remaining crew rotation flights to the ISS left to justified the cost of developing another ISS Crew vehicle. More likely is that SpaceX will build a few more Crew Dragon capsules.
-
#586
by
kevinof
on 01 Nov, 2022 15:38
-
NASA needs to be thankful that it didn't bow to pressure to down select to a single (Boeing) vehicle. They would be rightly stuffed right now.
-
#587
by
clongton
on 01 Nov, 2022 15:47
-
NASA's Kathy Lueders says just now that Boeing could have chosen to "not do a second uncrewed flight" of Starliner. Says that decision was taken by the company's top level of management. It strikes me as wild that NASA would have gone for that, but Kathy was the boss.
It's really striking to me that Boeing top level management obviously had less confidence in the Starliner team than NASA did. Probably they were still in shock of the 737 MAX mess and didn't want to get into another possible nightmare.
I think Lueders is just saying that technically it was up to Boeing to propose a recovery plan, not saying that NASA was ready to proceed to CFT.
That is the correct interpretation. If Boeing had decided to NOT do another OFT, it would have meant that the CCtCAP contract between NASA and Boeing would be effectively dead.
That is because several "must meet" milestones were not met during the original OFT, one of them being docking to the ISS.
Without those "must meet" milestones having been met, NASA never would have given authority to proceed to CFT. Which effectively would have put the CCtCAP contract between NASA and Boeing in limbo, if not kill it outright.
But Kathy is also right in that NASA was not in any position to force Boeing to do another OFT, given the nature of the milestones-based Firm-Fixed-Price CCtCAP contract. The decision to do another OFT really was up to Boeing.
And had Boeing management decided that doing another OFT was not worth the financial risk, than the CCP landscape would look rather different today IMO. Because it is likely that, similar to what happened in the early stages of COTS, NASA would have reopened the CCtCAP condition to on-ramp a replacement for Boeing. And that really could have been just one thing: crewed Dream Chaser.
Emphasis mine
Which, in my opinion would have been the better spacecraft in lieu of Boeing's offering.
-
#588
by
freddo411
on 01 Nov, 2022 16:16
-
On a slightly different note, I have accounting questions as they pertain to public company (Boeing) announcements, in this case about Starliner.
First, here are my assumptions:
* This is a fixed price contract for a total of $4.2 billion if/when all terms are met
* Boeing initially estimated a total internal cost of $cost. Let's assume that was $4 billion. Exact amount isn't important to these questions
Questions:
* When Boeing announces they are taking a charge of $100 million dollars, does this imply that Boeing now estimates that it will cost $4.1 billion dollars for the total program? (thus, not actually losing NET money on the contract)
* Boeing's total costs for Starliner haven't been incurred yet, so no one knows the final internal Boeing costs. True or False?
-
#589
by
baldusi
on 03 Nov, 2022 14:23
-
* When Boeing announces they are taking a charge of $100 million dollars, does this imply that Boeing now estimates that it will cost $4.1 billion dollars for the total program? (thus, not actually losing NET money on the contract)
I'm no expert, but I assume that since the contract is IDIQ, they can't charge whatever cost to future missions since they lack the ATP. Thus, they probably are applying those costs to the CFT directly. And here is where they can sorta play with numbers: you can take those invested moneys and apply them as an investment, which you will have to eventually amortize evenly through the missions, or as a charge to the CFT program alone that they can deduct from income tax on the current period. Now, they did get a 6 launch contract conditional on the effective performance of CFT, so they might not be able to do whatever they want. Specially with how FAR is structured. But I would tend to assume (specially in high inflation scenario) that they will take is as a charge to the CFT or the certification phase of the contract, not the whole thing.
* Boeing's total costs for Starliner haven't been incurred yet, so no one knows the final internal Boeing costs. True or False?
That's absolutely true. But this is a fixed firm price contract, which surely had some inflation adjustment in each year's pricing when they did their bid. But Boeing will have to eat any cost they didn't expected. What I mean is that it's only a problem for Boeing since NASA knows the cost to them.
-
#590
by
mn
on 03 Nov, 2022 14:39
-
* When Boeing announces they are taking a charge of $100 million dollars, does this imply that Boeing now estimates that it will cost $4.1 billion dollars for the total program? (thus, not actually losing NET money on the contract)
I'm no expert, but I assume that since the contract is IDIQ, they can't charge whatever cost to future missions since they lack the ATP. Thus, they probably are applying those costs to the CFT directly. And here is where they can sorta play with numbers: you can take those invested moneys and apply them as an investment, which you will have to eventually amortize evenly through the missions, or as a charge to the CFT program alone that they can deduct from income tax on the current period. Now, they did get a 6 launch contract conditional on the effective performance of CFT, so they might not be able to do whatever they want. Specially with how FAR is structured. But I would tend to assume (specially in high inflation scenario) that they will take is as a charge to the CFT or the certification phase of the contract, not the whole thing.
* Boeing's total costs for Starliner haven't been incurred yet, so no one knows the final internal Boeing costs. True or False?
That's absolutely true. But this is a fixed firm price contract, which surely had some inflation adjustment in each year's pricing when they did their bid. But Boeing will have to eat any cost they didn't expected. What I mean is that it's only a problem for Boeing since NASA knows the cost to them.
In the long term a problem for your contractor is a problem for you, unless you don't mind being left without choices in the future.
NASA will have to figure out how to make fixed price contracts work for the contractors or they will be left without any viable bids on future needs.
There will always be new guys bidding, but very few of them will be able to deliver.
-
#591
by
arachnitect
on 03 Nov, 2022 23:30
-
I doubt the issue is actually the VV schedule -but if it is- Boeing needs to put their foot down and demand more opportunities. Resupply can wait a few weeks.
-
#592
by
deadman1204
on 04 Nov, 2022 13:06
-
* When Boeing announces they are taking a charge of $100 million dollars, does this imply that Boeing now estimates that it will cost $4.1 billion dollars for the total program? (thus, not actually losing NET money on the contract)
I'm no expert, but I assume that since the contract is IDIQ, they can't charge whatever cost to future missions since they lack the ATP. Thus, they probably are applying those costs to the CFT directly. And here is where they can sorta play with numbers: you can take those invested moneys and apply them as an investment, which you will have to eventually amortize evenly through the missions, or as a charge to the CFT program alone that they can deduct from income tax on the current period. Now, they did get a 6 launch contract conditional on the effective performance of CFT, so they might not be able to do whatever they want. Specially with how FAR is structured. But I would tend to assume (specially in high inflation scenario) that they will take is as a charge to the CFT or the certification phase of the contract, not the whole thing.
* Boeing's total costs for Starliner haven't been incurred yet, so no one knows the final internal Boeing costs. True or False?
That's absolutely true. But this is a fixed firm price contract, which surely had some inflation adjustment in each year's pricing when they did their bid. But Boeing will have to eat any cost they didn't expected. What I mean is that it's only a problem for Boeing since NASA knows the cost to them.
In the long term a problem for your contractor is a problem for you, unless you don't mind being left without choices in the future.
NASA will have to figure out how to make fixed price contracts work for the contractors or they will be left without any viable bids on future needs.
There will always be new guys bidding, but very few of them will be able to deliver.
However its widely known that the contract wasn't the problem, it was how Boeing managed itself.
-
#593
by
abaddon
on 04 Nov, 2022 13:43
-
However its widely known that the contract wasn't the problem, it was how Boeing managed itself.
Not just how Boeing managed itself, but how NASA managed Boeing. NASA was much stricter with SpaceX and gave Boeing a lot of leeway and trust. I get the feeling NASA was comfortable working with Boeing on the SLS core stage (and previous engagements) where they have a deeper insight and assumed Boeing would behave the same for Commercial Crew without needing explicit oversight. Whatever the case, Boeing clearly has to earn back NASA's trust at this point.
-
#594
by
ulm_atms
on 04 Nov, 2022 14:17
-
I doubt the issue is actually the VV schedule -but if it is- Boeing needs to put their foot down and demand more opportunities. Resupply can wait a few weeks.
No.
Boeing needs to get there house in order first. They have been given slots and ended up messing up those opportunities so they need more. Please explain why everyone else needs to make room for the company that can't get their act in gear?
If anything...NASA needs to put their foot down and tell Boeing to stop screwing up so bad and don't come to them till they are ACTUALLY ready.
-
#595
by
whitelancer64
on 04 Nov, 2022 14:49
-
I doubt the issue is actually the VV schedule -but if it is- Boeing needs to put their foot down and demand more opportunities. Resupply can wait a few weeks.
No.
Boeing needs to get there house in order first. They have been given slots and ended up messing up those opportunities so they need more. Please explain why everyone else needs to make room for the company that can't get their act in gear?
If anything...NASA needs to put their foot down and tell Boeing to stop screwing up so bad and don't come to them till they are ACTUALLY ready.
The ISS visiting vehicle schedule is
extremely notorious for slipping and sliding all over the place. There are large numbers of variables and logistics problems that feed into it. This does not mean that Boeing is screwing up.
-
#596
by
Vettedrmr
on 04 Nov, 2022 15:39
-
I doubt the issue is actually the VV schedule -but if it is- Boeing needs to put their foot down and demand more opportunities. Resupply can wait a few weeks.
That's absurd. CFT is a
test flight, not a vehicle providing operational support for ISS. Also, we don't know what the resolution is for the ASAP findings. I expect that the April slot is a best guess as to when CFT will be ready and a slot is open. The fact that NASA has already stated the crew rotation for 3Q '23 will be on Dragon is a good hint they believe there is some risk to CFT.
-
#597
by
arachnitect
on 04 Nov, 2022 16:12
-
I doubt the issue is actually the VV schedule -but if it is- Boeing needs to put their foot down and demand more opportunities. Resupply can wait a few weeks.
That's absurd. CFT is a test flight, not a vehicle providing operational support for ISS. Also, we don't know what the resolution is for the ASAP findings. I expect that the April slot is a best guess as to when CFT will be ready and a slot is open. The fact that NASA has already stated the crew rotation for 3Q '23 will be on Dragon is a good hint they believe there is some risk to CFT.
I'm just frustrated that this "optimal visiting vehicle schedule" line gets trotted out everytime Boeing slips because I doubt it's true and if it is true it's a bad reason anyway. Back when NASA was actually in a hurry (getting Commerical Crew running, at various points where station was low on supplies) they would schedule VV in conflict pretty much right up to the wire with the assumption that at some point one mission would slip more than the other.
If Boeing can be ready to fly, NASA needs to get out of the way so they can keep moving. Is CFT more important than a crew rotation? No. Is it more important than a resupply run? I would say at some point yes, it is. You need to spend time on your new capabilities.
I just hope there are people at Boeing and NASA trying to accelerate CST, because from the outside it sure doesn't look like anyone has any sense of urgency.
-
#598
by
Vettedrmr
on 04 Nov, 2022 16:30
-
I don't want to beat this horse to death, but you're making the assumption that the only reason CFT is going to be in April is the VV schedule. I expect it's the best guess as to when they think Boeing will be ready for CFT and a slot opens up in the VV schedule.
-
#599
by
arachnitect
on 04 Nov, 2022 17:10
-
I don't want to beat this horse to death, but you're making the assumption that the only reason CFT is going to be in April is the VV schedule. I expect it's the best guess as to when they think Boeing will be ready for CFT and a slot opens up in the VV schedule.
I agree that Boeing probably isn't on track for February, but if the VV schedule isn't an issue NASA shouldn't imply that it is. For context, this is the first 2 paragraphs of what NASA released yesterday:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2022/11/03/nasa-updates-commercial-crew-flight-manifest-to-space-station/NASA and its mission partners are gearing up for a busy 2023 with crew launches and returns from the International Space Station. NASA worked closely with its international partners and commercial crew providers, Boeing and SpaceX, to secure new target launch dates for the upcoming flights that are optimal for space station needs.
Starliner Flight Date Targets
NASA and Boeing now are targeting April 2023 for the agency’s Crew Flight Test (CFT), the first flight with astronauts on the company’s CST-100 Starliner. The date adjustment deconflicts visiting spacecraft traffic at the space station as NASA and Boeing work together to achieve flight readiness.
I think this kind of language sends the wrong message. The message should be "We're ready for CFT and will aggressively work to fly them as soon as they are ready."