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
In 2018, Boeing forced a renegotiation of their CCP contract. NASA agreed to pay them an additional $287 million, and the number of operational flights was changed from 2 guaranteed+4 optional to 6 guaranteed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_ProgramI think the guarantee works both ways. NASA is obligated to buy the flights, but Boeing cannot arbitrarily decline to provide them at the contracted price. However, I am not a contract lawyer, so I could be wrong on this.
NASA might choose to hold Boeing to their contract if NASA thinks a second provider is still important. F9 has more than 200 successful flights and Dragon 2 has 17 successful flights (9 crewed), so this may no longer be a major consideration.
Cross-posting:
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.
Cross-posting:
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.
Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
Cross-posting:
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.
Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
Is that a requirement, i.e. written into a contract? Or even a planning document?
I have a sense there is spec creep here.
Originally there were two programs, providing redundancy if one failed.
Now both must succeed to provide redundancy.
Some have mentioned that each program should be individually able to perform all future missions.
Next up each program must at all times be able to perform a launch on 48 hours notice.
Cross-posting:
Do you think we might see Starliner on New Glenn? There hasn't been any more talk of man-rating Vulcan from NASA, Boeing, or ULA. At least that I've seen. Particularly if either Lockheed is buying Boeing out of ULA, or Blue is buying ULA, it might make sense for Being to just move to New Glenn, which is being man-rated from the start.
An entirely different provider is also possible; the Firefly/NG MLV has grown to 16mT to LEO now, so it could probably launch Starliner.
There is no requirement to crew-rate Starliner on a new LV until Boeing has a customer other than CCP. They have enough Atlas V allocated for CFT and all six contracted CCP flights. Once a new customer signs on, they probably have plenty of time to get crew rating on Vulcan Centaur. I don't know if the CCP contract would allow Boeing to use one or more of the Atlas Vs for non-CCP flights in anticipation of back-filling later using a different certified LV.
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.
Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
But the Boeing beancounters will like it and might allow Boeing to continue offering Starliner for other commercial flights post ISS. As well as not writing off and retiring the Starliner program ASAP.
NASA should be happy that the Starliner will not be retired after the 6 operational flight or before, if that means flying it on a Falcon 9.
Is that a requirement, i.e. written into a contract? Or even a planning document?
...
Yes. That goes back to CCtCap. It is not in individual supplier contracts as NASA is responsible for ensuring redundancy. E.g., see
here and
here (among many others).
NASA has no plans to downselect the number of partners in response to lower-than-requested funding levels. As experience has shown with cargo, NASA’s plan to establish a redundant crew transportation capability is critically important for robust, safe ISS operations. ...
NASA continues to have a need for two unique crew capabilities to ensure dissimilar redundancy, ...
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.
Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
You don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy".
In retrospect, NASA's decision to award CCP contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX was clearly the right thing to do. "Redundant" development saved the program. Redundant development is not the same as redundant operational LVs.
Dragon 2 is completing missions at a steady pace, so the likelihood that Starliner is needed "for redundancy" is diminishing, but with only 18 fights so far, Dragon 2 is not as statistically reliable as F9 yet.
If the Boeing beancounters think they can stemmed the red ink from the Starliner program with a new launch provider, then they will.
Put the Starliner on a cheap reliable launcher and resell the Atlas V flights to Amazon or whoever will pay more. The new cheap reliable launcher will have to be the already crew-rated Falcon 9. The alternate launchers costs more and not much flight history.
NASA may not like that. There is less dissimilar redundancy.
You don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy".
Actually, it came up yesterday:
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1661852768221511680?s=20
You don't want your capability to depend on a single untried LV. In 2014 when the CCP contracts were awarded, F9 had no flight history and it would have been risky as a sole LV. Now, F9 has flown more than 200 times and is by some measures the most reliable LV in history. A second LV is no longer needed "for redundancy".
Actually, it came up yesterday:
[tweet about launch pad availability]
Basically, they don't want to depend on a single point of failure: the Dragon 2 access arm at LC-39A. But it's quicker and cheaper to just add a Dragon 2 access arm at SLC-40. I think this is underway?
Crew Dragon has been operating without redundancy (except Soyuz) for three years. The Shuttle operated without redundancy (except Soyuz) for 30 years.
Crew Dragon has been operating without redundancy (except Soyuz) for three years. The Shuttle operated without redundancy (except Soyuz) for 30 years.
Yes, Shuttle did operate without redundancy. There were also 2 multi-year periods where Shuttle was grounded, and the US had no way to launch crew into space because of it. Which is exactly the sort of thing that NASA wants to avoid by having redundant providers.
Crew Dragon has been operating without redundancy (except Soyuz) for three years. The Shuttle operated without redundancy (except Soyuz) for 30 years.
Yes, Shuttle did operate without redundancy. There were also 2 multi-year periods where Shuttle was grounded, and the US had no way to launch crew into space because of it. Which is exactly the sort of thing that NASA wants to avoid by having redundant providers.
I agree with the desire to have two (2) American crew transportation systems, but we DO already have redundancy. Like it or not (I don't), but Soyuz IS the redundant provider at this time.
I agree with the desire to have two (2) American crew transportation systems, but we DO already have redundancy. Like it or not (I don't), but Soyuz IS the redundant provider at this time.
The problem with Soyuz isn't that it isn't a good spacecraft able to provide redundancy. The problem is that it's used as a propaganda tool. Americans don't even realize how strong the propaganda is, especially in Europe and especially among those countries that historically had strong ties with Russia. The narrative always goes like that "American spaceships broke again and now we, Russians are going to help them. How the hell did they go to the Moon?". Now we even have an ex-Roscosmos leader who publicly doubts Apollo landings.
NASA shouldn't walk back from having two redundant providers, and ESA should finally adopt a politics about an independent access to orbit.
I know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
Has the Astronaut Office voiced their opinion regarding an independent review of Starliner issues?
I know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
ASAP is not part of GAO. It is part of NASA.
https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/
I know these are different parts of Boeing between it and Starliner, but see how again we’ve got software issues mentioned with the T-7A.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7a-schedule-boeing/
As one that has experienced the other side of defense software development, take the GAO report with about 5 pounds of salt. They take minor issues, old data, etc. and validate themselves by writing a typical "the sky is falling" report to submit to congress.
ASAP is not part of GAO. It is part of NASA.
https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/
He's no doubt referring to the GAO report on the T-7 that he quoted.