-
#860
by
DanClemmensen
on 06 Jun, 2023 13:27
-
Soyuz is currently only a 'backup' in terms of the seat-sharing agreement. That keeps a minimum single-US-astronaut presence on the ISS, but one of the major benefits of Commercial Crew was allowing more astronauts on the ISS, above those needed just to keep the lights on, allowing for a dramatically increased science output. Flying any more than that agreed single-seat-per-Soyuz means convincing Russia to either give up seats of their own astronauts (unlikely politically), or flying additional Soyuz missions (logistically unlikely).
NASA needs to fly approximately 15 more CCP missions to the ISS before it is decommissioned. Starliner will not be available until two (or more) have been flown, so Starliner will provide backup for at most 13 missions. Is the value of backup for these 13 missions worth the cost of continuing the Starliner program? The probability that backup is needed and the value of backup both decrease over time as more Crew Dragon missions are flown.
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
-
#861
by
deadman1204
on 06 Jun, 2023 15:11
-
Soyuz is currently only a 'backup' in terms of the seat-sharing agreement. That keeps a minimum single-US-astronaut presence on the ISS, but one of the major benefits of Commercial Crew was allowing more astronauts on the ISS, above those needed just to keep the lights on, allowing for a dramatically increased science output. Flying any more than that agreed single-seat-per-Soyuz means convincing Russia to either give up seats of their own astronauts (unlikely politically), or flying additional Soyuz missions (logistically unlikely).
NASA needs to fly approximately 15 more CCP missions to the ISS before it is decommissioned. Starliner will not be available until two (or more) have been flown, so Starliner will provide backup for at most 13 missions. Is the value of backup for these 13 missions worth the cost of continuing the Starliner program? The probability that backup is needed and the value of backup both decrease over time as more Crew Dragon missions are flown.
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
You are aware starliner is not a cost plus contract? That this delay costs nasa $0. Why are you making a case for nasa to cancel the contract (which will cost nasa a bunch of money). NASA wants a second crew caspule, and as long as boeing does it, its worth it.
-
#862
by
whitelancer64
on 06 Jun, 2023 15:21
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
-
#863
by
DanClemmensen
on 06 Jun, 2023 16:04
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
-
#864
by
whitelancer64
on 06 Jun, 2023 16:38
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
"The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."
https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
-
#865
by
Hamish.Student
on 10 Jun, 2023 07:00
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
"The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."
https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
-
#866
by
Tommyboy
on 10 Jun, 2023 08:32
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
"The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."
https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
As far as we know boeing is not working on the ability to launch starliner on something other than Atlas 5, and they only bought 7 more of those. So less than 10 missions for Starliner in total.
-
#867
by
mn
on 11 Jun, 2023 04:35
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
"The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."
https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
That is plenty of time to put another build in the pipeline if/when they get a contract that requires more missions.
Boeing is not the type to spend on another unit until someone is paying for it. (And I see no reason why that would be a bad thing, unless a unit fails before they complete the existing contract)
-
#868
by
Comga
on 11 Jun, 2023 05:33
-
Worry-mongering warning:
Over in the
Boeing sued by Wilson Aerospace thread there is a post containing:
167.
Over time, the trapped fittings problem became well known within the space industry, as demonstrated by a 2008 communication to the ISS where NASA referred to the FFTD-1 as the “dreaded FFTD.” Exhibit 48.
For Starliner Wilson alleges, they have designed a gearbox which was then :
221.
The Gearbox Boeing contacted the Wilsons to manufacture a Gearbox for opening and closing
the nose cone of CST-100 Starliner.
224.
On information and belief, Wilson’s name as manufacturer of the Gearbox was
erased by Boeing and another name was substituted in Wilson’s place.
There is that FFTD-1 (Flexible Fluid Torque Device) stuck in one of the docking ports of the ISS on a coupling wlith a slow leak.
It is alleged that Boeing made unapproved modifications to the device, so that it damaged both the connection and the tool.
Line 224 says that Boeing purchased a gearbox from the same vendor for actuating the nosecone of CST-100 Starliner.
Starliner cannot deploy its parachutes with this nosecone in the open position
It is alleged that Boeing has discontinued working with the original vendor and has modified the gearbox to some degree.
It is sincerely hoped that the truth and motivations behind this are found by NASA HSF as they look into the three or four other problems holding up the CFT.
-
#869
by
DanClemmensen
on 13 Jun, 2023 18:45
-
CFT is now delayed "indefinitely", possibly into late 2023. This may delay Starliner-1 into 2025. At a rate on one per year, there may not be enough time for all six CCP missions before the ISS is decommissioned.
What happens then? Presumably NASA would not be required to pay for flights not flown, but do they get to demand a refund for non-compliance?
-
#870
by
DanClemmensen
on 13 Jun, 2023 20:30
-
*snip*
Boeing only has two Starliner capsules. They can do two back-to-back CCP missions, but doing a third back-to-back mission may be a challenge because there may not be enough time to refurbish the first capsule prior to the third launch. In efffect this means the Starliner can only replace one Crew Dragon mission on a "backup" basis if Starliner and Crew Dragon are alternating, and Crew Dragon would need to be back in service six months after the grounding.
Boeing has said many times that Starliner capsule refurbishment time is about 6 months. Doing back-to-back-to-back etc. ISS crew rotations should, in theory, be possible with the two extant capsules. Yes, they should have built at least one more, but at this point, I doubt the program can afford to.
Sorry, I was unable to find an exact Boeing quote on this, but "six months" is right on the edge, and any slip would leave a gap in the schedule. It therefore depends on the details. You need to keep the entire launch-to-launch time for one capsule to one year including contingencies, and this time includes mundane things like moving the capsule from the landing site back to the refurbishment facility. Boeing would also need to build two new service modules per year instead of just one.
"The Starliner has an innovative, weldless structure and is reusable up to 10 times with a six-month turnaround time."
https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
The situation with Crew Dragon is more problematic, and the two are related. There are four active Crew Dragon capsules and possibly one in the pipeline. Crew Dragon is nominally rated for five flights, so a total of 20 or 25 flights, but they have already flown eleven and they will need to fly two or maybe three more before Starliner-1, and nominally one a year for perhaps six more years thereafter. That's 19 flights before counting the five already-manifested non-CCP flights. If Starliner cannot do its six CCP flights, there are not really enough Crew Dragon flights to pick up the slack. But all this assumes full six-month missions, and to date the CCP missions average only about 170 days.
I speculate that the 5-mission limit for Crew Dragon versus 10 missions for Starliner is based on the basic design differences. The Crew Dragon capsule is much more complicated because its trunk is much simpler than Starliner's SM. Therefore Starliner replaces a lot of complicated stuff for each flight, while Crew Dragon reuses this stuff.
-
#871
by
woods170
on 14 Jun, 2023 07:39
-
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
The situation with Crew Dragon is more problematic, and the two are related. There are four active Crew Dragon capsules and possibly one in the pipeline. Crew Dragon is nominally rated for five flights, so a total of 20 or 25 flights, but they have already flown eleven and they will need to fly two or maybe three more before Starliner-1, and nominally one a year for perhaps six more years thereafter. That's 19 flights before counting the five already-manifested non-CCP flights. If Starliner cannot do its six CCP flights, there are not really enough Crew Dragon flights to pick up the slack. But all this assumes full six-month missions, and to date the CCP missions average only about 170 days.
I speculate that the 5-mission limit for Crew Dragon versus 10 missions for Starliner is based on the basic design differences. The Crew Dragon capsule is much more complicated because its trunk is much simpler than Starliner's SM. Therefore Starliner replaces a lot of complicated stuff for each flight, while Crew Dragon reuses this stuff.
Emphasis mine.
1. A fifth Crew Dragon is being constructed as we speak. Not because it is needed to serve the CCP contract, but because SpaceX sees a booming private-spaceflight market coming.
2. Crew Dragon is already in the process of being certified for at least 10 flights each. Initial certification for 5 flights had nothing to do with the spacecraft's complexity, but everything with it landing in salt water. But the combined experience from Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 (both Crew and Cargo variants) has shown that flying Dragon 2 for more than 5 flights per vehicle (both cargo and crew variants) is not a problem.
But I digress.
-
#872
by
Asteroza
on 14 Jun, 2023 22:55
-
So to get this straight, they have 2 capsules with no more in the build pipeline, that are good for 10 launches each. So they are banking on only 20 missions for Starliner?
The situation with Crew Dragon is more problematic, and the two are related. There are four active Crew Dragon capsules and possibly one in the pipeline. Crew Dragon is nominally rated for five flights, so a total of 20 or 25 flights, but they have already flown eleven and they will need to fly two or maybe three more before Starliner-1, and nominally one a year for perhaps six more years thereafter. That's 19 flights before counting the five already-manifested non-CCP flights. If Starliner cannot do its six CCP flights, there are not really enough Crew Dragon flights to pick up the slack. But all this assumes full six-month missions, and to date the CCP missions average only about 170 days.
I speculate that the 5-mission limit for Crew Dragon versus 10 missions for Starliner is based on the basic design differences. The Crew Dragon capsule is much more complicated because its trunk is much simpler than Starliner's SM. Therefore Starliner replaces a lot of complicated stuff for each flight, while Crew Dragon reuses this stuff.
Emphasis mine.
1. A fifth Crew Dragon is being constructed as we speak. Not because it is needed to serve the CCP contract, but because SpaceX sees a booming private-spaceflight market coming.
2. Crew Dragon is already in the process of being certified for at least 10 flights each. Initial certification for 5 flights had nothing to do with the spacecraft's complexity, but everything with it landing in salt water. But the combined experience from Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 (both Crew and Cargo variants) has shown that flying Dragon 2 for more than 5 flights per vehicle (both cargo and crew variants) is not a problem.
But I digress.
There's also the design choice of a relatively dumb trunk for Dragon, versus the comparatively complex SM for Starliner. A lot more needs to go right for the single use SM, while Dragon is refurbing a lot of flight proven gear or swapping FRU packs (that were designed to be removable if needed). We've seen how much Boeing hesitates to open up the SM part and fix something because too much of it is using permanently bonded components.
-
#873
by
jarmumd
on 16 Jun, 2023 16:27
-
Note - During the podcast (at 13m16s), Eric says there is a 1 in 4 chance of Boeing pulling the plug on the Starliner program in the future. Of course that is only Eric's opinion.
My opinion - this is something we should all be worried about. Understand, I love SpaceX; but I don't want spaceflight to be only SpaceX. Companies like Boeing only exist to make money. There's money to be had with commercial crew to the ISS. At the moment, there is no money (very little at the moment) to support crew to commercial space stations (CLD). If there is a risk that CST-100 is on a CLD team that could lose, then there may be little incentive to continue development. At this moment, I'm not aware of any CLD requirement for redundant access (like to ISS).
Said another way, I'm worried that by the time NASA has the money to support CLD, the companies that support CLD will have run out of money (exception for Orbital Reef).
-
#874
by
greybeardengineer
on 20 Jun, 2023 12:53
-
https://spacenews.com/boeing-ceo-says-company-still-committed-to-starliner/
Boeing CEO says company still committed to Starliner
Jeff Foust
June 20, 2023
WASHINGTON — The chief executive of Boeing says his company is still committed to the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle despite the latest problems that have further delayed the program.
In an interview on the “Check 6” podcast by Aviation Week published June 16, Dave Calhoun said that Boeing was not “shutting the door” on Starliner after the company postponed the first crewed flight of the vehicle that had been scheduled for late July.
I think Mandy Rice-Davies's famous quote applies here.
-
#875
by
kessdawg
on 20 Jun, 2023 18:00
-
https://spacenews.com/boeing-ceo-says-company-still-committed-to-starliner/
Boeing CEO says company still committed to Starliner
Jeff Foust
June 20, 2023
WASHINGTON — The chief executive of Boeing says his company is still committed to the CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle despite the latest problems that have further delayed the program.
In an interview on the “Check 6” podcast by Aviation Week published June 16, Dave Calhoun said that Boeing was not “shutting the door” on Starliner after the company postponed the first crewed flight of the vehicle that had been scheduled for late July.
I think Mandy Rice-Davies's famous quote applies here.
Username checks out
. Quote for anyone who like me needs to look it up:
Well he would, wouldn't he?
-
#876
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 15 Jul, 2023 06:19
-
We’re now 6 weeks on from the announcement of the latest Starliner issues & delay and still no schedule update. So I’m assuming no chance now of flying this year.
I thought I saw 2 or 3 weeks ago, in an unrelated NASA press briefing, a remark about an update in a few weeks? Can’t find it now.
-
#877
by
SoftwareDude
on 15 Jul, 2023 06:40
-
We’re now 6 weeks on from the announcement of the latest Starliner issues & delay and still no schedule update. So I’m assuming no chance now of flying this year.
I thought I saw 2 or 3 weeks ago, in an unrelated NASA press briefing, a remark about an update in a few weeks? Can’t find it now.
Complete the following sentence:
"No news is ______________________"
-
#878
by
Vettedrmr
on 15 Jul, 2023 11:58
-
..."no news."
-
#879
by
SoftwareDude
on 15 Jul, 2023 15:11
-
..."no news."
No news does mean something is going on besides "We identified the problem and have remediation."
. Quote for anyone who like me needs to look it up: