Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing Developments

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
That's a little harsh. Until June 2020, NASA required SpaceX to only provide new capsules. SpaceX had looked at conversion to cargo version, but it wasn't worth it.
Not harsh. SpaceX has a much bigger vision than selling expensive one ofs to NASA. No vision, no guts, no glory indeed. This is the way that big companies eventually die.

Story time. I was working as a Computer networking consultant back in the early 1990s when twisted pair (cat 5) Ethernet was just being invented and standardized. I remember talking to a senior product manager who had just left his job at Northern Telecom. He had been pushing for Nortel to come out with their own version since they had patents and technology, and manufacturing expertise. He realized he was spending way more time trying to convince upper management of something than actually working on a product, so he left the company and joined a Silicon Valley startup. Nortel was bankrupt within 10 years, once a Canadian blue chip stock.

Frankly, I could care less if Boeing went under. What’s scary though is that this same mentality of slow, expensive product development and manufacturing pervades the US defense industry. The war in Ukraine is showing how big a problem that is, with our stocks of Stingers and Javelins getting dangerously low. Russia might yet win that war, and they’ll do it via a long slog which will eventually deplete Natos ability to supply Ukraine with weapons.
 
Not harsh. SpaceX has a much bigger vision than selling expensive one ofs to NASA. No vision, no guts, no glory indeed. This is the way that big companies eventually die.
Why would a company spend the extra money and resources to make a new product reusable when the only customer won't pay for it?
SpaceX had previously won the CRS contract which was a 12 launch award for SpaceX with future follow on opportunities. Almost all capsules after CRS-11 (first reflight) were flight proven. Crew Dragon was based off that reusable cargo capsule. Elon said replacement probably would have been cheaper than refurb for the 1st CRS ship(s).
For Boeing, crew was stand alone and 6 operational flights; as it was fixed cost contract, adding reusability would not have made financial nor engineering sense. (Unless part of a larger strategy which faced the headwind of SpaceX's proven reuse tech)

Side note: Boeing may have been instrumental in Commercial Crew happening . Former NASA leaders praise Boeing’s willingness to risk commercial crew
 
That's a little harsh. Until June 2020, NASA required SpaceX to only provide new capsules. SpaceX had looked at conversion to cargo version, but it wasn't worth it.
And look at how handsomely Elon’s vision of full reusability is paying off for SpaceX; now NASA is accepting ”flight proven” Crew Dragons and they can also be reused for private commercial missions, generating more revenue for SpaceX.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Why would a company spend the extra money and resources to make a new product reusable when the only customer won't pay for it?
SpaceX had previously won the CRS contract which was a 12 launch award for SpaceX with future follow on opportunities. Almost all capsules after CRS-11 (first reflight) were flight proven. Crew Dragon was based off that reusable cargo capsule. Elon said replacement probably would have been cheaper than refurb for the 1st CRS ship(s).
For Boeing, crew was stand alone and 6 operational flights; as it was fixed cost contract, adding reusability would not have made financial nor engineering sense. (Unless part of a larger strategy which faced the headwind of SpaceX's proven reuse tech)

Side note: Boeing may have been instrumental in Commercial Crew happening . Former NASA leaders praise Boeing’s willingness to risk commercial crew
Isn’t the main starliner capsule reusable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal and mongo
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Why would a company spend the extra money and resources to make a new product reusable when the only customer won't pay for it?
Because they have no vision, no goal except to do the things the way they always have because that made them money before with their throwaway rockets. Trashing hardware and getting paid twice as much as SpaceX to take people from Earth to LEO.

And by the way…since the aft section of Starliner, which contains among other things the OMAC thrusters that partially failed during ascent, is jettisoned before the crew section of Starliner begins atmospheric reentry the thrusters that malfunctioned cannot be physically examined later <face palm>

So how can NASA and Boeing figure out what caused the OMACs to malfunction? They only have the telemetry data, which may not be enough information.
 
Last edited:
Because they have no vision, no goal except to do the things the way they always have because that made them money before with their throwaway rockets. Trashing hardware and getting paid twice as much as SpaceX to take people from Earth to LEO.
???
That seems like a response to "why wouldn't they", my post you quoted asked "why would they", which I called out at the end of that post as not making sense unless part of a larger strategy.

Lumping in the launch vehicle side, it's not full reuse, but Starliner is going to transition to Vulcan (once complete and human rated) which will theoretically recover and reuse the engine section in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Eric Berger — How NASA finally melted its giant “self-licking ice cream cone”
"The relentless momentum of the status quo exists for most government contracting because people who are paid to do something aren't interested in someone lowering the cost," [former deputy NASA Administrator Lori] Garver said. "Historically, if you look at NASA's budget and the number of astronauts we've flown, we've spent about a billion dollars per astronaut," she said. "We've flown around 350 people in space since Apollo, and we've spent about $350 billion. SpaceX is now charging $55 million a seat.”

So how much is Boeing going to charge NASA? In 2019 the NASA Inspector General predicted $90 million per seat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Eric Berger — How NASA finally melted its giant “self-licking ice cream cone”


So how much is Boeing going to charge NASA? In 2019 the NASA Inspector General predicted $90 million per seat.
It's a fixed cost contract, so Boeing can't charge a per seat fee (other than maybe the 5th seat).
OIG backed out dev costs which gives a closer rate to future missions. Based on the inital dev award of $4.2 B, 6 flights with 4 astronauts is $175 million a seat.
Soyuz was 87 million or so at the end.
NASA's deal to fly astronauts with Boeing is turning out to be much more expensive than SpaceX
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/tech/boeing-starliner-issues-whats-next-scn/index.html
The docking occurred about an hour later than expected as ground crews worked through a few issues, including a software issue that skewed graphics, sort of like a misaligned GPS map. There were also issues with sensors and some docking components that were not initially moving correctly.
The capsule has a docking ring that pops out as it approaches its port and is used to latch on to the ISS. During the first attempt at docking, some components didn't move into the proper configuration. Ground teams had to try the pop-out process a second time to get everything in the right place. There had also been a small problem with the Starliner's cooling loops, which are part of the system that regulates the spacecraft's temperature.
Looming over the mission, however, has been several other issues with the spacecraft's on-board thrusters, which maneuver and orient that vehicle as it sails through space. Two of those thrusters shut down prematurely shortly after the spacecraft reached orbit. A couple of other thrusters had problems later on.
NASA and Boeing officials said that the thruster issues aren't major concerns because the Starliner has "a lot" of built-in backups, Stich said. There are 48 such thrusters on the vehicle, and the capsule's onboard computers can choose to use one thruster over another if it detects anything slightly off.
Although Boeing does want to understand why the thrusters weren't working as planned, according to Nappi, it might not happen.
"We may never know what the real cause of this is," he said.
Engineers narrowed the thruster issues down to "six or seven" possible causes, with three that seemed most likely. Zeroing in on the exact issue may require engineers to see the thrusters in person, something that can't happen because the thrusters are attached to the service module — a part that will be jettisoned and left to burn up in the atmosphere before the Starliner makes its controlled return to Earth.
Despite the setbacks, the spacecraft was performing "beautifully," according to Steve Stich, the manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program, which oversees Starliner as well as SpaceX's Crew Dragon program.
Really? This is incredible. If Crew Dragon had the same thruster issue I don’t think it would have been treated so leniently.
 
Lumping in the launch vehicle side, it's not full reuse, but Starliner is going to transition to Vulcan (once complete and human rated) which will theoretically recover and reuse the engine section in the future.
Starliner will not launch on Vulcan at all, unless things change drastically. Primarily because Vulcan will not be human rated. ULA will need to drop a ton of money on Vulcan to get it human rated. My previous post with the Space News article confirms this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVCollies and mongo
ULA will need to drop a ton of money on Vulcan to get it human rated.
And it seems unlikely they will do so given the probability that the ISS will be retired in a few years and NASA will no longer pay for Starliner missions (my personal speculation).

With Congress being willfully blind about the cost of SLS missions and continuing to fund that jobs program, that is going to suck up a large fraction of NASA’s budget. If the Russians pull out the cost to keep the ISS in orbit is going to be vulnerable to budget cuts, and as SpaceX makes tangible progress towards sending humans to Mars there is going to be a lot of pressure on NASA to be part of that mission which is going to require a serious investment. After all, how would the US look if a private company started sending humans to Mars and NASA had nothing to do with that? Major embarrassment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
On the flip side, if ULA can convince NASA to pay for getting Vulcan human rated, whey wouldn't they do it? Where is the hard stop for Atlas? If NASA still needs dual source LEO human access beyond the Atlas EOL, then they might pay for human rating Vulcan. That is, assuming Vulcan is already a reliable launch platform by that time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
On the flip side, if ULA can convince NASA to pay for getting Vulcan human rated, whey wouldn't they do it? Where is the hard stop for Atlas? If NASA still needs dual source LEO human access beyond the Atlas EOL, then they might pay for human rating Vulcan. That is, assuming Vulcan is already a reliable launch platform by that time.
August 2021 https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/26/22641048/ula-boeing-lockheed-end-sales-atlas-v-rocket-russia-rd180

“We’re done. They’re all sold,” CEO Tory Bruno said of ULA’s Atlas V rockets in an interview. ULA, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has 29 Atlas V missions left before it retires sometime in the mid-2020s and transitions to its upcoming Vulcan rocket, Bruno said. The remaining Atlas V missions include a mix of undisclosed commercial customers and some for the Space Force, NASA, and Amazon’s budding broadband satellite constellation, Project Kuiper.
”Mid-2020s”. About the time the ISS could be retired, despite NASA’s hopeful statements to the contrary. It will all depend on Congressional funding, which cannot be predicted but I’m not betting on since the ISS is not a multi-state jobs program like the SLS.

Vulcan may launch by the end of 2022 but I can’t find any recent statements about plans for getting it human rated. In 2016 Tory Bruno tweeted “We intend to human rate Vulcan/ACES”. But then in 2016 Vulcan was supposed to launch in a few years. And there were announcements that the first stage would feature partial reuse (of engines, avionics, and thrust structure) but ULA has not publicly announced that project has been funded and is actually in development.

I expect that Vulcan will be a reliable launch vehicle about the time the ISS is de-orbited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
How many missions needed for deorbiting? Wouldn't it be done one module at a time?
I’m not an expert, but that approach does not make sense to me. Think of the EVA time required to detach just one module from the ISS. For what purpose?

No, I assume the station will be deorbited in one piece.

Sorry, we are getting off topic for this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
In Scott Manley’s latest video, starting at 6:18, he offers some useful commentary about the issues with the Starliner OMAC thrusters.

Yes, he basically says it isn’t a big deal, that on new craft, it could easily be that sensor envelopes were too tight. As may be, but not being able to check the engines upon recovery is still a problem. Hard to improve a design when you don’t have good data. While SpaceX reusability is an obvious win for direct cost savings, it also allows engineers to improve the design by finding all the little things that need to be upgraded and tweaked.