Boeing's Starliner (CST-100) - Discussion Thread 6

#740 by racevedo88 on 01 Apr, 2023 21:06
What recertification will starliner needs to fly on Vulcan. Abort test? OFT 3? Any ideas?
#741 by DanClemmensen on 01 Apr, 2023 23:02
Quote from: racevedo88 on 01 Apr, 2023 21:06
What recertification will starliner needs to fly on Vulcan. Abort test? OFT 3? Any ideas?

We know that SpaceX and/or NASA decided that Crew Dragon on Falcon 9 should do an in-flight abort test.

We know that no in-flight abort test has been done with Starliner on Atlas V N22, and we know that Atlas V was not human-certified prior to Starliner.

There was some speculation that Atlas V was given a human certification based on its long string of successful launches.

Somebody who knows a lot more than I do will need to evaluate how all this relates to Starliner on Vulcan.

Boeing has reserved seven Atlas Vs, enough for the CFT and all six CCP flights. I speculate that Boeing will not bother to certify Starliner on Vulcan unless they get some contingent orders for non-CCP flights.
#742 by rpapo on 02 Apr, 2023 22:44
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01 Apr, 2023 23:02
We know that SpaceX and/or NASA decided that Crew Dragon on Falcon 9 should do an in-flight abort test.
SpaceX offered to do it. NASA did not require it.
#743 by joek on 03 Apr, 2023 04:21
Quote from: rpapo on 02 Apr, 2023 22:44
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01 Apr, 2023 23:02
We know that SpaceX and/or NASA decided that Crew Dragon on Falcon 9 should do an in-flight abort test.
SpaceX offered to do it. NASA did not require it.

Nit: A bit more complex than that. SpaceX committed to an in-flight abort test as part of CCDev2. That was carried over to CCiCap (aka CCDev3). NASA stated in 2015 that they were committed to completing CCiCap when CCtCap awards were made to SpaceX and Boeing.

So... Although CCtCap did not require an in-flight abort test from any bidder, would NASA have let SpaceX slide on that commitment? Or maybe SpaceX did not push because they figured they would still make money on it? Very difficult to tell from publicly available info.

In any case, back to CST-100.... Difficult to tell what NASA may require for CST-100 on Vulcan. Whether Boeing goes down that path likely has a lot to do with what NASA will require, the costs, and who pays for it. All unknowns at this point.
#744 by DanClemmensen on 03 Apr, 2023 05:18
Quote from: joek on 03 Apr, 2023 04:21
Quote from: rpapo on 02 Apr, 2023 22:44
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01 Apr, 2023 23:02
We know that SpaceX and/or NASA decided that Crew Dragon on Falcon 9 should do an in-flight abort test.
SpaceX offered to do it. NASA did not require it.

Nit: A bit more complex than that. SpaceX committed to an in-flight abort test as part of CCDev2. That was carried over to CCiCap (aka CCDev3). NASA stated in 2015 that they were committed to completing CCiCap when CCtCap awards were made to SpaceX and Boeing.

So... Although CCtCap did not require an in-flight abort test from any bidder, would NASA have let SpaceX slide on that commitment? Or maybe SpaceX did not push because they figured they would still make money on it? Very difficult to tell from publicly available info.

In any case, back to CST-100.... Difficult to tell what NASA may require for CST-100 on Vulcan. Whether Boeing goes down that path likely has a lot to do with what NASA will require, the costs, and who pays for it. All unknowns at this point.
OK, SpaceX proposed a full-up in-flight abort test as part of CCDev2. This was awarded in 2011, when F9 had flown a total of one time. I know that the abort system is primarily implemented in the spacecraft, not the LV, but SpaceX might have thought that proposing a full-up in-flight abort test was needed to convince NASA that SpaceX was a credible vendor.

We still don't know if this has any relevance to crew-certifying Vulcan.
#745 by joek on 04 Apr, 2023 00:46
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03 Apr, 2023 05:18
OK, SpaceX proposed a full-up in-flight abort test as part of CCDev2. This was awarded in 2011, when F9 had flown a total of one time. I know that the abort system is primarily implemented in the spacecraft, not the LV, but SpaceX might have thought that proposing a full-up in-flight abort test was needed to convince NASA that SpaceX was a credible vendor.

We still don't know if this has any relevance to crew-certifying Vulcan.

Yes and yes. Key phrase "We still don't know ..."
#746 by Robotbeat on 04 Apr, 2023 01:05
I just want to say that although it would've been better if Starliner had had an in-flight abort test, Atlas V is so reliable that I'm not sure it makes enough of a difference to matter.

In fact, and this observation is probably not gonna win me many friends, but: Falcon 9 is now so reliable that Dragon might actually be safer if they REMOVED the abort system, considering the abort system actually once blew up a capsule. Launch abort systems aren't the end-all, be-all and if your launcher is reliable enough, they can actually end up increasing the overall risk just by being present.
#747 by llanitedave on 04 Apr, 2023 17:32
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04 Apr, 2023 01:05
I just want to say that although it would've been better if Starliner had had an in-flight abort test, Atlas V is so reliable that I'm not sure it makes enough of a difference to matter.

In fact, and this observation is probably not gonna win me many friends, but: Falcon 9 is now so reliable that Dragon might actually be safer if they REMOVED the abort system, considering the abort system actually once blew up a capsule. Launch abort systems aren't the end-all, be-all and if your launcher is reliable enough, they can actually end up increasing the overall risk just by being present.
I agree in principle, the question is what would it take to conclude that the relative risks between Falcon 9 and the Dragon abort system are at that point?
#748 by abaddon on 04 Apr, 2023 18:19
This is all off-topic, but for Dragon abort nothing needs to be "removed", they could just not fuel the abort system. (Or if you want to be really conservative, fuel it with something that weighs a similar amount but is inert). I'm sure it's not quite as simple as that, but it would surely be simpler than removing the tanks and plumbing and nozzles et all.

Not saying I agree... I don't think I do.
#749 by SoftwareDude on 06 Apr, 2023 16:19
I am a little confused about the parachute situation.
Steve Stitch said, "It's just a matter of going through all that data and looking at the data and making sure we're really ready to go fly safely."
Okay, but then separately there is a ground test of part of the parachute system yet to take place.
Does anyone else think it is conflicting information?
#750 by whitelancer64 on 06 Apr, 2023 16:30
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 06 Apr, 2023 16:19
I am a little confused about the parachute situation.
Steve Stitch said, "It's just a matter of going through all that data and looking at the data and making sure we're really ready to go fly safely."
Okay, but then separately there is a ground test of part of the parachute system yet to take place.
Does anyone else think it is conflicting information?

They are doing another ground test of the drogue chute for the forward heatshield. What this test entails or why they are doing it has not been specified.
#751 by Vettedrmr on 06 Apr, 2023 17:31
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 06 Apr, 2023 16:19
I am a little confused about the parachute situation.
Steve Stitch said, "It's just a matter of going through all that data and looking at the data and making sure we're really ready to go fly safely."
Okay, but then separately there is a ground test of part of the parachute system yet to take place.
Does anyone else think it is conflicting information?

I think it's likely both: they're still going through the data reviews (whether chute related or something else) and have this one ground test to conduct. Both can probably be done in parallel.
#752 by Chris Bergin on 12 Apr, 2023 14:02
We will not allow personal attacks on this forum, be it a new member or someone who's been here years. Grow up.

PS The post was removed (was not talking about the latest poster).
#753 by ZachS09 on 12 Apr, 2023 16:02
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12 Apr, 2023 14:02
We will not allow personal attacks on this forum, be it a new member or someone who's been here years. Grow up.

P.S. The post was removed (was not talking about the latest poster).

I agree. Let’s keep it peaceful from this point on.
#754 by Vahe231991 on 12 Apr, 2023 22:13
Quote from: racevedo88 on 01 Apr, 2023 21:06
What recertification will starliner needs to fly on Vulcan. Abort test? OFT 3? Any ideas?
A hypothetical OFT-3 is out of the question because the OFT-2 was designed as a repeat of the short-lived OFT test flight. NASA and ULA will be eager to see how well the CFT goes to determine whether that flight exceeds enough orbital performance expectations for Starliner to be potentially certified for use on the Vulcan, or if any thought of adapting the Vulcan for launching the Starliner will be quashed by the higher operating cost of the Starliner relative to that of the Dragon 2.
#755 by clongton on 13 Apr, 2023 14:12
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 12 Apr, 2023 22:13
... or if any thought of adapting the Vulcan for launching the Starliner will be quashed by the higher operating cost of the Starliner relative to that of the Dragon 2.

Personally, while not happy with the selection of Boeing's Starliner for Commercial Crew, I accepted the political reality that some good-ole-boys backroom dealing was going to get them included - no matter what, so I held my nose, supported the selection and wished them well, I really did. But based on their test performance even that begrudging acceptance has gone away. They've had 2 test flights now. The 1st was an outright embarrassing failure. The 2nd, while much better, still left some items on the table that need fixing, including the stuck valve problem that plagued them in the beginning. It's still unsolved. With regard to the upcoming crew flight, I am confident that the Atlas will perform nominally and properly insert Starliner. After that it's all on Starliner, and I am personally nervous for the crew. I want Starliner ditched - outa here - in 1 of 2 ways, both of which involve immediately funding DreamChaser to carry crew on future Commercial flights:

1. The Crew flight goes well and returns the crew safely home, with no incidents, anomalies or things that didn't work. In that case, let Starliner have its contracted Atlas-lofted flights, shared 50/50 with Dragon - and then dump it. Do not certify it to fly on Vulcan.
2. The Crew flight does not perform as hoped. In that case, cancel Boeing's contract, immediately dumping Starliner. Dragon becomes, by default (for the time being (as it currently is)), the sole Crew spacecraft until DreamChaser-Crew comes online, at which point NASA will have its desired 2nd, dissimilar crew spacecraft.

Dreamliner is going to be certified to fly on Vulcan. That's already underway. Do NOT certify Starliner for Vulcan under any circumstances. Dump Starliner. Boeing got its undeserved shot and utterly blew it. Dump them. Boeing doesn't deserve it.

All this is, of course, my opinion, and expresses my EMMENSE disappointment in Boeing, a once great aerospace company, but has now become just a sad, dim shadow of its former self.
#756 by Vettedrmr on 13 Apr, 2023 15:08
Can't argue with the frustration/anger towards Boing, but Dreamchaser is a really unknown entity at this point in time.
#757 by DanClemmensen on 13 Apr, 2023 15:38
Quote from: clongton on 13 Apr, 2023 14:12
[best-case scenario is...]1. The Crew flight goes well and returns the crew safely home, with no incidents, anomalies or things that didn't work. In that case, let Starliner have its contracted Atlas-lofted flights, shared 50/50 with Dragon - and then dump it. Do not certify it to fly on Vulcan.
This seems to be NASA's plan, but it's unclear if Boeing will actually make any money on these six fixed-price missions over the next six years. The original Starliner business plan called for non-CCP missions, similar to Crew Dragon's business.

Even worse: this requires ULA to maintain the ability to launch Atlas V for the next six years. I suspect Atlas V was profitable for most of its lifetime (97 launches in 20 years) but a launch cadence of one per year makes it hard to pay the fixed costs. Some contract officers and accountants somewhere must know who pays these costs, Boeing or ULA. Accounting is complicated by the nine Atlac V kuiper missions that will start flying in this timeframe. If the missions are evenly spread, there would be 15/6=2.5 missions per year, but Kuiper should be front-loaded, so I think it is more likely we see something like all 9 Kuipers in 2024, with only the one Starliner/year in 2025-2029.
#758 by clongton on 13 Apr, 2023 23:21
Quote from: Vettedrmr on 13 Apr, 2023 15:08
Can't argue with the frustration/anger towards Boing, but Dreamchaser is a really unknown entity at this point in time.

With respect, at the time of the award, Starliner and Dragon-Crew were both unknown entities. At least at this point, DreamChaser has flown drop tests and currently has a NASA contract to deliver and return cargo to/from the ISS.
#759 by Kiwi53 on 14 Apr, 2023 03:36
Quote from: clongton on 13 Apr, 2023 14:12
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 12 Apr, 2023 22:13
... or if any thought of adapting the Vulcan for launching the Starliner will be quashed by the higher operating cost of the Starliner relative to that of the Dragon 2.

1. The Crew flight goes well and returns the crew safely home, with no incidents, anomalies or things that didn't work. In that case, let Starliner have its contracted Atlas-lofted flights, shared 50/50 with Dragon - and then dump it. Do not certify it to fly on Vulcan.

I believe that this is by far the most likely course.
I firmly expect that Boeing will continue to make large losses on the six contracted 'production' Starliner flights, so the idea that they would stump up even more money to qualify Starliner on Vulcan seems fanciful to me.
Also, Boeing has AIUI made only two 'production standard' Starliner capsules, which are good for a limited number of flights each (maybe 5?). To go much beyond the existing contracted six flights, or to fly more frequently than annually, Boeing would have to restart capsule production - another very large investment.

In my view the second most likely outcome (after Boeing completing the six contracted flights and then stopping as @clongton expects) is that Boeing's accountants will persuade the Board that they are throwing good money after bad and they should just quit the Starliner program, without fulfilling their contact for six flights