-
#680 by clongton on 25 Mar, 2023 15:53
-
I agree it is much preferable to have a dissimilar backup capsule, but it’s not a “need”. Prior to the start of the close cooperation with Russia, there was no backup to any US vehicle. Arguably, there is not a real backup right now.
When Starliner (SL) starts flying, I don’t expect an emergency SL flight would be very quick…. Unlike a dragon, which could be cycled quickly
I hope for SL success.
Highlight mine.
Hmm. SL could also have been interpreted as Space Launch, among many other possibilities. Proper introduction of a non-standard abbreviation: define it for the first use, then use as often as desired from there on. Thanks -
#681 by DanClemmensen on 25 Mar, 2023 17:37
-
When [Starliner] (SL) starts flying, I don’t expect an emergency SL flight would be very quick…. Unlike a dragon, which could be cycled quickly
There are two (mostly) separate needs for an alternate: emergency backup, and operational continuity. Continuity means you can fly the next mission on schedule even if one of your two systems is grounded. SL would could fulfill this if a capsule can be readied on six months' notice or so. Emergency backup is dicey and depends on the emergency. A week is too long for some emergencies but two weeks might cover most emergencies.
I hope for SL success.
For a true emergency, pad availability and related stuff (ASDS availability, etc.) won't be a problem, because the emergency mission would get the priority.
I don't know what constrains the availability for SL. Is it mostly the capsule, the SM, or the Atlas V? I speculate that with only two capsules and with the published refurbishment time of about 6 months, there will be times when no capsule is available.
I also don't know what constrains the availability for Crew Dragon. With four capsules, they probably have one ready at any time, and they probably have a trunk available since a spare trunk is cheap. Therefore it's probably F9 availability. -
#682 by Vahe231991 on 25 Mar, 2023 18:15
-
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
US astronauts flew in the Soyuz from 2011-2019 due to the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and they flew in an indigenous American spacecraft again in 2020 when the first manned Crew Dragon flight took place. No matter if no more operational crewed Starliner flights are contracted after Starliner-1 to Starliner-6 are completed, no backup will be waiting in the wings for the Crew Dragon, especially when bearing in mind the fact that SpaceX has carried out all Crew Dragon flights under budget and on time, even though the crewed variant of the Dream Chaser spaceplane could one day serve as a backup for the Dragon 2 if it's ever built. -
#683 by DanClemmensen on 25 Mar, 2023 20:06
-
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
Why not? NASA and Roscosmos already have a seat-swapping arrangement, so we already send US astronauts on Soyuz. -
#684 by freddo411 on 25 Mar, 2023 21:49
-
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
Why not? NASA and Roscosmos already have a seat-swapping arrangement, so we already send US astronauts on Soyuz.
Geopolitics have shifted since that time. it might be more fair to say that it is "unlikely" that we'd negotiate new contracts to pay to fly astros on Soyuz -
#685 by freddo411 on 25 Mar, 2023 21:52
-
I agree it is much preferable to have a dissimilar backup capsule, but it’s not a “need”. Prior to the start of the close cooperation with Russia, there was no backup to any US vehicle. Arguably, there is not a real backup right now.
When Starliner (SL) starts flying, I don’t expect an emergency SL flight would be very quick…. Unlike a dragon, which could be cycled quickly
I hope for SL success.
Highlight mine.
Hmm. SL could also have been interpreted as Space Launch, among many other possibilities. Proper introduction of a non-standard abbreviation: define it for the first use, then use as often as desired from there on. Thanks
Sorry for the confusion. The thread context seemed clear. I like your suggestion -
#686 by mandrewa on 25 Mar, 2023 23:23
-
The Soyuz is not a real backup for the Crew Dragon. We can't negotiate new contracts to fly astronauts to the ISS, like was once done. That is no longer tenable.
US astronauts flew in the Soyuz from 2011-2019 due to the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and they flew in an indigenous American spacecraft again in 2020 when the first manned Crew Dragon flight took place. No matter if no more operational crewed Starliner flights are contracted after Starliner-1 to Starliner-6 are completed, no backup will be waiting in the wings for the Crew Dragon, especially when bearing in mind the fact that SpaceX has carried out all Crew Dragon flights under budget and on time, even though the crewed variant of the Dream Chaser spaceplane could one day serve as a backup for the Dragon 2 if it's ever built.
If the only future Starliner flights are the demos and Starliner-1 through Starliner-6, then the Starliner program will have been a failure. It's possible that may happen, but this is not what success looks like.
Look, imagine it's 2029. Starliner has completed its sixth operational mission and also two other non-NASA missions. All of these missions were successful. A crewed Dream Chaser has not yet flown. (I'm not forecasting this. But I am pointing out how many things have to go well before a crewed Dream Chaser can fly and something about how long such a program would probably take.)
In this scenario, Starliner missions cost more than Crew Dragon missions but they are less than, let's say, 50% more expensive.
And there are two Commercial LEO stations in orbit, or there soon will be.
It's my belief that in such a scenario the value of having an alternate path to get people to orbit is more than great enough that both NASA and the commercial LEO station operators will sometimes buy Starliner missions simply to keep that capability in play.
Notice I said nothing about the Starship carrying crew. If Starship is successful and gets certified to carry crew to LEO by NASA, well then on that day, if not before, the Starliner might be obsolete. But, let us not count our chickens before they hatch. -
#687 by DanClemmensen on 25 Mar, 2023 23:32
-
If the only future Starliner flights are the demos and Starliner-1 through Starliner-6, then the Starliner program will have been a failure. It's possible that may happen, but this is not what success looks like.
Look, imagine it's 2029. Starliner has completed its sixth operational mission and also two other non-NASA missions. All of these missions were successful. A crewed Dream Chaser has not yet flown. (I'm not forecasting this. But I am pointing out how many things have to go well before a crewed Dream Chaser can fly and something about how long such a program would probably take.)
There are only seven Atlas Vs for Starliner: CFT and Starliner 1 through 6. They will need to crew-certify Starliner on Vulcan or another LV if Starliner is to fly any other missions.
However, sunk costs are sunk. Whether or not Starliner can recover all the past costs, Boeing will evaluate its continuation based on costs versus price of the ongoing missions. -
#688 by mandrewa on 26 Mar, 2023 00:03
-
If the only future Starliner flights are the demos and Starliner-1 through Starliner-6, then the Starliner program will have been a failure. It's possible that may happen, but this is not what success looks like.
Look, imagine it's 2029. Starliner has completed its sixth operational mission and also two other non-NASA missions. All of these missions were successful. A crewed Dream Chaser has not yet flown. (I'm not forecasting this. But I am pointing out how many things have to go well before a crewed Dream Chaser can fly and something about how long such a program would probably take.)
There are only seven Atlas Vs for Starliner: CFT and Starliner 1 through 6. They will need to crew-certify Starliner on Vulcan or another LV if Starliner is to fly any other missions.
However, sunk costs are sunk. Whether or not Starliner can recover all the past costs, Boeing will evaluate its continuation based on costs versus price of the ongoing missions.
Well, that's a good point, Dan. But if Crew Dragon is the only Western path to LEO (excluding Orion because Orion is outrageously expensive) then NASA has quite an incentive to push for Starliner to be certified on another launcher. And most likely it will be Vulcan Centaur. But it could even be the Falcon 9.
And if it's Falcon 9, then I suspect it would be a relatively modest effort to certify the Falcon 9 to launch the Starliner. And why might that be acceptable? Well the demonstrated reliability of the Falcon 9 is reaching remarkable levels. There's never been anything else like it. -
#689 by Zed_Noir on 26 Mar, 2023 02:35
-
<snip>
Plus the cost of a Falcon 9 when compared to a Vulcan Centaur VC2N (2 x GEM-63XL and no payload fairing). If Boeing needs more launchers for the Starliner, they will likely choose the cheapest to booked and be certified for the Starliner. Since, IIRC Boeing have to pay for certifying a new launcher themselves.
But if Crew Dragon is the only Western path to LEO (excluding Orion because Orion is outrageously expensive) then NASA has quite an incentive to push for Starliner to be certified on another launcher. And most likely it will be Vulcan Centaur. But it could even be the Falcon 9.
And if it's Falcon 9, then I suspect it would be a relatively modest effort to certify the Falcon 9 to launch the Starliner. And why might that be acceptable? Well the demonstrated reliability of the Falcon 9 is reaching remarkable levels. There's never been anything else like it. -
#690 by abaddon on 26 Mar, 2023 02:42
-
Give me a break, Boeing has nothing to do with their inability to deliver on their cargo contract.Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle,
Yes, that company. Their delivery delays are directly tied to the funding that was needed to meet the contracts requirements, that Boeing got instead, leaving that company to struggle on its own to stay viable. Yes, that company. -
#691 by woods170 on 26 Mar, 2023 19:38
-
Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle,
Yes, that company. Their delivery delays are directly tied to the funding that was needed to meet the contracts requirements, that Boeing got instead, leaving that company to struggle on its own to stay viable. Yes, that company.
No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract.
SCN itself is mostly to blame for the mess they are in.
First of all: when your design was for a crewed spacecraft, but now you use it for cargo instead, DON'T significantly redesign your spacecraft.
Yet that is exactly what SNC did.
Suddenly they wanted the thing to fit inside a fairing, which meant folding the wings and redesigning the way it attaches to the launch vehicle. They also added a new unpressurized module, which wasn't present on the crewed version. That was an all-new, from scratch, development, which costs additional dollars. SNC also decided to nearly completely redesign the RCS system. And they changed the TPS layout on almost the entire vehicle.
And it's not like SNC had to fund all those changes themselves. When they won a CRS-2 contract, NASA awarded SNC a little over $1B in development funds to complete development of Cargo Dream Chaser. That was in 2016, with the first Cargo Dream Chaser test flight expected to occur in 2020. It is now 2023, and SNC still isn't ready to fly.
When Gerst denied SNC a CCP contract in 2014, they were not "cheated" out of a contract by Boeing. They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing. The reason was also rightly named by Gerst: spaceplanes with fully reusable heat shields are by definition harder and more expensive to develop than "mere" capsules with ablative heat shields. -
#692 by clongton on 26 Mar, 2023 22:41
-
No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract. <snip> They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing.
I don't disagree however Boeing was obviously not as far along as they publicly purported to be and NASA (knowingly?, congressional pressure?) bought the lie. One need only look at the very sad state of affairs wrt their competence the way Starliner performed on both its test flights. And the 2nd one was not without problems either, that they are STILL working through, as demonstrated by the crewed flight being delayed - yet again - to fix -another- problem. And they are STILL redesigning that sticking valve! IMO, the true state of "far enough along" had Dream Chaser and Starliner approximately equal, at different places to be sure, but overall approximately equal. In addition, there was a LOT of pressure to make sure Boeing got a contract. Without that silent requirement, SNC "might" have gotten the nod. That is the source of my "cheated" statement. -
#693 by Lee Jay on 27 Mar, 2023 00:00
-
Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle,
Yes, that company. Their delivery delays are directly tied to the funding that was needed to meet the contracts requirements, that Boeing got instead, leaving that company to struggle on its own to stay viable. Yes, that company.
No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract.
SCN itself is mostly to blame for the mess they are in.
First of all: when your design was for a crewed spacecraft, but now you use it for cargo instead, DON'T significantly redesign your spacecraft.
Yet that is exactly what SNC did.
Suddenly they wanted the thing to fit inside a fairing, which meant folding the wings and redesigning the way it attaches to the launch vehicle. They also added a new unpressurized module, which wasn't present on the crewed version. That was an all-new, from scratch, development, which costs additional dollars. SNC also decided to nearly completely redesign the RCS system. And they changed the TPS layout on almost the entire vehicle.
And it's not like SNC had to fund all those changes themselves. When they won a CRS-2 contract, NASA awarded SNC a little over $1B in development funds to complete development of Cargo Dream Chaser. That was in 2016, with the first Cargo Dream Chaser test flight expected to occur in 2020. It is now 2023, and SNC still isn't ready to fly.
When Gerst denied SNC a CCP contract in 2014, they were not "cheated" out of a contract by Boeing. They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing. The reason was also rightly named by Gerst: spaceplanes with fully reusable heat shields are by definition harder and more expensive to develop than "mere" capsules with ablative heat shields.
They *had* to redesign. It was designed as a crew vehicle - not enough cargo, cargo-useless windows, no unpressurized cargo. If they hadn't redesigned, they wouldn't have won an award.
COVID + supply chain disruption probably accounts for a good bit of the slip. I've personally had contractors take 4 years to do a 1.5 year contract that started in 2019. Some of them have been quoted 70+ week lead times for components they could buy off the shelf before the pandemic. This has been so bad that some of the slips have been caused by having to re-design systems to use parts that were more available. Can you imagine spending a year doing a redesign because that's *faster* than waiting for component delivery? One contractor ordered a component in January 2021 and was quoted July 2023 for delivery. Others have had to cannibalize evaluation boards or old, returned products to get parts for new products. It's a mess, even for really common components like capacitors and switches. -
#694 by DanClemmensen on 27 Mar, 2023 01:45
-
Perhaps in hindsight. However, when CCtCap was awarded in 2014, Boeing was the clear front runner and the only company that could actually build their design and fly it as required by 2017. SpaceX and SNC were competing to be the second-place long-shot backup, with no chance of making the schedule. In the event, SpaceX was late by three years, so the skeptics were right about that. Of course the pragmatic realists were a bit mistaken about Boeing.No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract. <snip> They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing.
I don't disagree however Boeing was obviously not as far along as they publicly purported to be and NASA (knowingly?, congressional pressure?) bought the lie. One need only look at the very sad state of affairs wrt their competence the way Starliner performed on both its test flights. And the 2nd one was not without problems either, that they are STILL working through, as demonstrated by the crewed flight being delayed - yet again - to fix -another- problem. And they are STILL redesigning that sticking valve! IMO, the true state of "far enough along" had Dream Chaser and Starliner approximately equal, at different places to be sure, but overall approximately equal. In addition, there was a LOT of pressure to make sure Boeing got a contract. Without that silent requirement, SNC "might" have gotten the nod. That is the source of my "cheated" statement. -
#695 by Zed_Noir on 27 Mar, 2023 07:04
-
Both Boeing and SpaceX got slow-roll by the Senator from Alabama and associated Critters who drastically reduce the annual funding to the Commercial Crew program during the start of the program.
Perhaps in hindsight. However, when CCtCap was awarded in 2014, Boeing was the clear front runner and the only company that could actually build their design and fly it as required by 2017. SpaceX and SNC were competing to be the second-place long-shot backup, with no chance of making the schedule. In the event, SpaceX was late by three years, so the skeptics were right about that. Of course the pragmatic realists were a bit mistaken about Boeing.No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract. <snip> They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing.
I don't disagree however Boeing was obviously not as far along as they publicly purported to be and NASA (knowingly?, congressional pressure?) bought the lie. One need only look at the very sad state of affairs wrt their competence the way Starliner performed on both its test flights. And the 2nd one was not without problems either, that they are STILL working through, as demonstrated by the crewed flight being delayed - yet again - to fix -another- problem. And they are STILL redesigning that sticking valve! IMO, the true state of "far enough along" had Dream Chaser and Starliner approximately equal, at different places to be sure, but overall approximately equal. In addition, there was a LOT of pressure to make sure Boeing got a contract. Without that silent requirement, SNC "might" have gotten the nod. That is the source of my "cheated" statement.
Always consider the Boeing Starliner to be the long shoot to meet the schedule. Boeing hasn't the experience of operating a recoverable capsule going to and back from the ISS that SpaceX have.
The skeptics would been correct about SpaceX if the Commecial Crew program was fully funded from the start. Which was not.
-
#696 by woods170 on 27 Mar, 2023 14:39
-
No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract. <snip> They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing.
I don't disagree however Boeing was obviously not as far along as they publicly purported to be and NASA (knowingly?, congressional pressure?) bought the lie. One need only look at the very sad state of affairs wrt their competence the way Starliner performed on both its test flights. And the 2nd one was not without problems either, that they are STILL working through, as demonstrated by the crewed flight being delayed - yet again - to fix -another- problem. And they are STILL redesigning that sticking valve! IMO, the true state of "far enough along" had Dream Chaser and Starliner approximately equal, at different places to be sure, but overall approximately equal. In addition, there was a LOT of pressure to make sure Boeing got a contract. Without that silent requirement, SNC "might" have gotten the nod. That is the source of my "cheated" statement.
You are overlooking a few things. From all perspectives, bar one (software), Boeing was ready to fly the uncrewed test flight just 9 months after SpaceX. And that was for a company that DIDN'T have the benefit of building off a prior generation of capsules.
And NASA, by voice of Kathy Lueders and others, have already admitted that they didn't pay as much attention to Boeing's software efforts as they should have. They were pre-occupied with SpaceX, because SpaceX used a software development standard with which NASA had no prior experience. That led to NASA being so busy trying to understand what SpaceX was doing, that they "trusted Boeing a bit too much", based on prior experience.
But in 2014, when CCtCAP was awarded, it was clear to NASA that Boeing and SpaceX were both well ahead of SNC. The call Gerst made back then was the right one. -
#697 by whitelancer64 on 27 Mar, 2023 15:23
-
Give the contract to the company that Boeing cheated out. It's not like replacing contractors hasn't happened before. Think Kistler.
You mean the company that can't even deliver on their cargo vehicle,
Yes, that company. Their delivery delays are directly tied to the funding that was needed to meet the contracts requirements, that Boeing got instead, leaving that company to struggle on its own to stay viable. Yes, that company.
No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract.
SCN itself is mostly to blame for the mess they are in.
First of all: when your design was for a crewed spacecraft, but now you use it for cargo instead, DON'T significantly redesign your spacecraft.
Yet that is exactly what SNC did.
Suddenly they wanted the thing to fit inside a fairing, which meant folding the wings and redesigning the way it attaches to the launch vehicle. They also added a new unpressurized module, which wasn't present on the crewed version. That was an all-new, from scratch, development, which costs additional dollars. SNC also decided to nearly completely redesign the RCS system. And they changed the TPS layout on almost the entire vehicle.
And it's not like SNC had to fund all those changes themselves. When they won a CRS-2 contract, NASA awarded SNC a little over $1B in development funds to complete development of Cargo Dream Chaser. That was in 2016, with the first Cargo Dream Chaser test flight expected to occur in 2020. It is now 2023, and SNC still isn't ready to fly.
When Gerst denied SNC a CCP contract in 2014, they were not "cheated" out of a contract by Boeing. They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing. The reason was also rightly named by Gerst: spaceplanes with fully reusable heat shields are by definition harder and more expensive to develop than "mere" capsules with ablative heat shields.
They *had* to redesign. It was designed as a crew vehicle - not enough cargo, cargo-useless windows, no unpressurized cargo. If they hadn't redesigned, they wouldn't have won an award.
COVID + supply chain disruption probably accounts for a good bit of the slip. I've personally had contractors take 4 years to do a 1.5 year contract that started in 2019. Some of them have been quoted 70+ week lead times for components they could buy off the shelf before the pandemic. This has been so bad that some of the slips have been caused by having to re-design systems to use parts that were more available. Can you imagine spending a year doing a redesign because that's *faster* than waiting for component delivery? One contractor ordered a component in January 2021 and was quoted July 2023 for delivery. Others have had to cannibalize evaluation boards or old, returned products to get parts for new products. It's a mess, even for really common components like capacitors and switches.
I can speak to COVID / supply chain issues. I work for a company that does electronics assembly, we primarily do automotive, medical, and aerospace work.
A lot of electronics parts suppliers flat out stopped production for long periods during the pandemic. Parts we used to be able to order 3-8 weeks in advance of a job in some cases are now taking years to be supplied. This is still a big problem, and it is only very slowly getting better.
And what used to be a fairly minor problem in counterfeit parts is now much worse. We are also finding parts we receive that are old, mislabeled, or are far more prone to failure.
We have multiple customers that are doing redesigns because critical parts they used to rely on are no longer made. -
#698 by SoftwareDude on 27 Mar, 2023 16:22
-
WIthout the software, its like saying they are building a car and have the tires figured out; all that is left is the car.No offense Chuck, but SNC's lack of progress on Cargo Dream Chaser is not tied to them not getting a CCtCAP contract. <snip> They were exactly what Gerst said they were: not far enough along in development compared to SpaceX and Boeing.
I don't disagree however Boeing was obviously not as far along as they publicly purported to be and NASA (knowingly?, congressional pressure?) bought the lie. One need only look at the very sad state of affairs wrt their competence the way Starliner performed on both its test flights. And the 2nd one was not without problems either, that they are STILL working through, as demonstrated by the crewed flight being delayed - yet again - to fix -another- problem. And they are STILL redesigning that sticking valve! IMO, the true state of "far enough along" had Dream Chaser and Starliner approximately equal, at different places to be sure, but overall approximately equal. In addition, there was a LOT of pressure to make sure Boeing got a contract. Without that silent requirement, SNC "might" have gotten the nod. That is the source of my "cheated" statement.
You are overlooking a few things. From all perspectives, bar one (software), Boeing was ready to fly the uncrewed test flight just 9 months after SpaceX. And that was for a company that DIDN'T have the benefit of building off a prior generation of capsules.
And NASA, by voice of Kathy Lueders and others, have already admitted that they didn't pay as much attention to Boeing's software efforts as they should have. They were pre-occupied with SpaceX, because SpaceX used a software development standard with which NASA had no prior experience. That led to NASA being so busy trying to understand what SpaceX was doing, that they "trusted Boeing a bit too much", based on prior experience.
But in 2014, when CCtCAP was awarded, it was clear to NASA that Boeing and SpaceX were both well ahead of SNC. The call Gerst made back then was the right one. -
#699 by EspenU on 27 Mar, 2023 16:41
-
WIthout the software, its like saying they are building a car and have the tires figured out; all that is left is the car.
I know software is very important, but it seems like you might be elevating it a little bit too much
.