Just read another article that says the next Boeing Starliner test
flight won't be before sometime in first half of 2022, and first manned
flight hopefully by end of 2022.

With SpaceX reliably providing the crew taxi/Uber service, Starliner
isn't needed. Is it possible that Boeing is trying to find a face-saving
way out of that contract for a Starliner nobody needs?

Another possible reason would be lack of cash. Bombardier started 2
business jet and the C-series project concurrently, and the second the
C-Series was late, the company ran out of cash. Killing he Lear 85
wasn't enough and it ended up draining cash from all divisions, so the
rail division no longer had the cash to increase workforce to deliver on
time and within quality standards. (to a point where New York Cuty told
Bombarder to not bother bidding again). (All that is left of Bombardier
today is the Global 7500 and Challenger business jets, the rest of the
empire was all liquidated).

With Boeing having problems with the 737 and 787, coumpounded with
COVID, if Starliner is not judged strategic, I could see why it would be
easy for Boeing to just starve it of the cash needed to boost
workforce/man hours to complete the project.

What are the odds of Starliner getting finished and going into
production/manned launches vs Boeing and NASA agreeing that Starliner is
not needed anymore ?

On 20-Oct-21 3:18 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
> Just read another article that says the next Boeing Starliner test
> flight won't be before sometime in first half of 2022, and first manned
> flight hopefully by end of 2022.
>
>
> With SpaceX reliably providing the crew taxi/Uber service, Starliner
> isn't needed. Is it possible that Boeing is trying to find a face-saving
> way out of that contract for a Starliner nobody needs?
>
> Another possible reason would be lack of cash. Bombardier started 2
> business jet and the C-series project concurrently, and the second the
> C-Series was late, the company ran out of cash. Killing he Lear 85
> wasn't enough and it ended up draining cash from all divisions, so the
> rail division no longer had the cash to increase workforce to deliver on
> time and within quality standards. (to a point where New York Cuty told
> Bombarder to not bother bidding again). (All that is left of Bombardier
> today is the Global 7500 and Challenger business jets, the rest of the
> empire was all liquidated).
>
> With Boeing having problems with the 737 and 787, coumpounded with
> COVID, if Starliner is not judged strategic, I could see why it would be
> easy for Boeing to just starve it of the cash needed to boost
> workforce/man hours to complete the project.
>
> What are the odds of Starliner getting finished and going into
> production/manned launches vs Boeing and NASA agreeing that Starliner is
> not needed anymore ?
>

I think I read somewhere, that Starliner has an ability to lift the
orbit of the ISS that Dragon lacks. Unfortunately, I cannot find a
reference.

But even if that's true, NASA would certainly be better off paying
SpaceX to develop that capability, than hoping that Starliner will
eventually deliver.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else pounded on thar keyboard to tell us
> On 20-Oct-21 3:18 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
>> Just read another article that says the next Boeing Starliner test
>> flight won't be before sometime in first half of 2022, and first manned
>> flight hopefully by end of 2022.
>>
>>
>> With SpaceX reliably providing the crew taxi/Uber service, Starliner
>> isn't needed. Is it possible that Boeing is trying to find a face-saving
>> way out of that contract for a Starliner nobody needs?
>>
>> Another possible reason would be lack of cash. Bombardier started 2
>> business jet and the C-series project concurrently, and the second the
>> C-Series was late, the company ran out of cash. Killing he Lear 85
>> wasn't enough and it ended up draining cash from all divisions, so the
>> rail division no longer had the cash to increase workforce to deliver on
>> time and within quality standards. (to a point where New York Cuty told
>> Bombarder to not bother bidding again). (All that is left of Bombardier
>> today is the Global 7500 and Challenger business jets, the rest of the
>> empire was all liquidated).
>>
>> With Boeing having problems with the 737 and 787, coumpounded with
>> COVID, if Starliner is not judged strategic, I could see why it would be
>> easy for Boeing to just starve it of the cash needed to boost
>> workforce/man hours to complete the project.
>>
>> What are the odds of Starliner getting finished and going into
>> production/manned launches vs Boeing and NASA agreeing that Starliner is
>> not needed anymore ?
>>
>
> I think I read somewhere, that Starliner has an ability to lift the orbit of
> the ISS that Dragon lacks. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reference.
>
> But even if that's true, NASA would certainly be better off paying SpaceX to
> develop that capability, than hoping that Starliner will eventually deliver.
>

NASA doesn't want a sole provider. They've already had that, and if
SpaceX had to stand down ....

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

On 20-Oct-21 4:56 pm, Snidely wrote:

> NASA doesn't want a sole provider.  They've already had that, and if
> SpaceX had to stand down ....
>

They have a sole provider now.

If they got SpaceX to address the near term problem, they could ditch
Boeing in favour of a company more likely to deliver.

Sylvia.

On Tuesday, Sylvia Else exclaimed wildly:
> On 20-Oct-21 4:56 pm, Snidely wrote:
>
>> NASA doesn't want a sole provider.  They've already had that, and if SpaceX
>> had to stand down ....
>>
>
> They have a sole provider now.
>
> If they got SpaceX to address the near term problem, they could ditch Boeing
> in favour of a company more likely to deliver.

There's someone who can deliver in two years, without already being as
far along as Boeing? Even Dragon wasn't that fast.

/dps

--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm

On 20-Oct-21 6:15 pm, Snidely wrote:
> On Tuesday, Sylvia Else exclaimed wildly:
>> On 20-Oct-21 4:56 pm, Snidely wrote:
>>
>>> NASA doesn't want a sole provider.  They've already had that, and if
>>> SpaceX had to stand down ....
>>>
>>
>> They have a sole provider now.
>>
>> If they got SpaceX to address the near term problem, they could ditch
>> Boeing in favour of a company more likely to deliver.
>
> There's someone who can deliver in two years, without already being as
> far along as Boeing?  Even Dragon wasn't that fast.
>
> /dps
>

On the showing so far, one would have to wonder whether Boeing will ever
deliver. At some point, one has to cut one's losses.

Sylvia.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Just read another article that says the next Boeing Starliner test
> flight won't be before sometime in first half of 2022, and first
> manned flight hopefully by end of 2022.

I assume it was this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/science/nasa-boeing-starliner.html
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

Hi all,

What kind of contract had Boeing got with NASA for Starliner? IF its one of their traditional "Cost+ work done+ performance bonus for delivery" then do they have any incentive to actually deliver. NASA carries on paying the bills, no matter how big and inflated they are, and no matter how far behind schedule Boeing slips.

Better to give them a stiff deadline and promise swift grimly financial penalties if the deadlines are not met. Then we'll quickly see how fast Boeing (or any of the other traditional providers) can deliver.

It took the US something like six years between Kennedy's speech and Armstrong's footstep.s The US built THREE launch vehicles (ok so two of them went on to moonlight as ICBMs) and capsule systems in that period, and did an insane amount of testing (remembering reading recently that the Mercury capsule had as many as 20 test vehicles (some scale models) before they put the chimp inside).

Admittedly the motto of Apollo was "Spend everything except Time", implying blank checques all round.

The moon race wasn't won because the scientists and engineers of the 60s were smarter or better than those of today. It was won because the companies who built the hardware were hungry for success. Nowadays companies are run by people who have no concern for the company's purpose and are only hungry to improve their own personal bottom line.

It's not just an aerospace / space tech problem. It's just more pronounced there.

What would happen at Boeing is NASA decided to hank funding tomorrow? Who would get fired? Not the suits at the top. What would the shareholders say?

Anyway, this is way too depressing. I'm pretty sure that SpaceX could develop the reboost capacity if they wanted /. needed to.

I'm sure Boeing could do it too if someone was holding a figurative gun to their pocket book.

Regards
Frank

On 2021-10-20 03:15, Snidely wrote:

> There's someone who can deliver in two years, without already being as
> far along as Boeing? Even Dragon wasn't that fast.

I understand that after the Columbia Shuttle stand down, NASA wanted 2
distinct taxis so if one goes down, ISS can still function.

But, with ISS funding ending 2025 (NASA has to go by that until it is
extended, right?), does it make sense to still push for 2 suppliers when
SpaceX has demonstrated it's ability to deliver? (and re-use)

When you look at Dragon overall, SpaceX has been sending cargo ship
to/from for years reliably, and now has done crewed transport a few
times. They already have running docking system, tested re-entry/landing
etc.

SpaceX recent private flight shows that it has more capacity to launch
than what NASA needs.

Boeing has about half a flight on its sleeve. And isn't showing signs of
being motivated or in a hurry to get Starliner into "production" (aka:
routine manned flights to ISS).

I find it ery odd that a company like Boeing can't fix Starliner in a
timely fashion.

On Oct/20/2021 at 08:11, Frank Scrooby wrote :
> Hi all,
>
> What kind of contract had Boeing got with NASA for Starliner? IF its one of their traditional "Cost+ work done+ performance bonus for delivery" then do they have any incentive to actually deliver. NASA carries on paying the bills, no matter how big and inflated they are, and no matter how far behind schedule Boeing slips.

Yes they do have an incentive to deliver. NASA has been a very lucrative
client of Boeing for a very long time. If they don't deliver, they will
probably never get another contract from NASA. SpaceX is no longer an
unproven startup and Blue Origin is starting to have some credibility so
NASA now has other options for future contracts.

Alain Fournier

On 2021-10-21 21:38, Alain Fournier wrote:

> Yes they do have an incentive to deliver. NASA has been a very lucrative
> client of Boeing for a very long time. If they don't deliver, they will
> probably never get another contract from NASA. SpaceX is no longer an
> unproven startup and Blue Origin is starting to have some credibility so
> NASA now has other options for future contracts.

If Boeing is aware that they will never be able to compete against the
new kids on the block, then it doesn't have much incentive to spend more
money on Starliner. Right now their limited cash is better spent
fixing 787 and 737 problems.

"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message
news:546c9eac-e028-4616-b906-0e6895b73074n@googlegroups.com...
>
>Hi all,
>
>What kind of contract had Boeing got with NASA for Starliner? IF its one of
>their traditional "Cost+ work done+ performance bonus for delivery" then do
>they have any incentive to actually deliver. NASA carries on paying the
>bills, no matter how big and inflated they are, and no matter how far
>behind schedule Boeing slips.
>

I believe this contract was at a fixed price.

I do know Boeing is eating the cost of the reflight. NASA basically told
them they had to do a reflight and that NASA wasn't paying for it.

So Boeing has an incentive to get this thing flying.
And yes, NASA wants at least two domestic sources for access to space.

As for a replacement, while Sierra Nevada's uncrewed Dream Chaser has been
selected for the Commercial Resupply Services-2 program, they are still
working on a crewed version and a statement in 2020 said they hoped to fly a
crew version within 5 years. So it's a long shot, but does give an option.

We could, by the end of the decade have 3-4 various commercial passengers
vehicles to orbit.
I do think Boeing will fly Starliner, but both it and Dream Chaser are
burdened with the cost of their launch vehicles (compared to Falcon).

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

"JF Mezei" wrote in message news:LxjcJ.5528$LZ1.1748@fx40.iad...
>
>On 2021-10-20 03:15, Snidely wrote:
>
>> There's someone who can deliver in two years, without already being as
>> far along as Boeing? Even Dragon wasn't that fast.
>
>I understand that after the Columbia Shuttle stand down, NASA wanted 2
>distinct taxis so if one goes down, ISS can still function.
>
>But, with ISS funding ending 2025 (NASA has to go by that until it is
>extended, right?), does it make sense to still push for 2 suppliers when
>SpaceX has demonstrated it's ability to deliver? (and re-use)
>
>
>
>When you look at Dragon overall, SpaceX has been sending cargo ship
>to/from for years reliably, and now has done crewed transport a few
>times. They already have running docking system, tested re-entry/landing
>etc.
>
>SpaceX recent private flight shows that it has more capacity to launch
>than what NASA needs.
>
>
>Boeing has about half a flight on its sleeve. And isn't showing signs of
>being motivated or in a hurry to get Starliner into "production" (aka:
>routine manned flights to ISS).
>
>I find it ery odd that a company like Boeing can't fix Starliner in a
>timely fashion.

Strictly speaking, NASA may not need this for ISS.
BUT, one of the goals of the Commercial Crew program was to encourage
multiple methods to orbit IN GENERAL.
The idea is that we are going to become a spacefaring nation and as such we
need to develop the infrastructure similar to how the Air Mail program
helped flying.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

On 2021-10-22 12:58, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> The idea is that we are going to become a spacefaring nation and as such we
> need to develop the infrastructure similar to how the Air Mail program
> helped flying.

For as much as I have criticized premature claims by SpaceX fans, the
company did en up proving re-usability and thus vastly lower launch
costs. It ahs also seriously increase launch frequency. It has been
able to create crewed vehicle. And all this in relatively short time
period.

Boeing clearly hasn'yt put a high priority on getting Starliner working,
In part because it is not part of a critical part anymore since SpaceX
filled that gap.

If Boeing can't compete against the new kids on the block, it it
possible it is retrenching on portions where it still has a market (such
as making satellites) ?

aka: out of complex manned systems where it can't compete, and stays in
satellites where the new kids on the block like SpaceX are absent?

This would explain the lack of priority/enthousiam for Starliner.

Question: in creating ULA, has Boeing lost much of its in-house
engineering talent to ULA?

Remember when JF Mezei bragged outrageously? That was Tuesday:
> Just read another article that says the next Boeing Starliner test
> flight won't be before sometime in first half of 2022, and first manned
> flight hopefully by end of 2022.
>
>
> With SpaceX reliably providing the crew taxi/Uber service, Starliner
> isn't needed. Is it possible that Boeing is trying to find a face-saving
> way out of that contract for a Starliner nobody needs?
>
> Another possible reason would be lack of cash. Bombardier started 2
> business jet and the C-series project concurrently, and the second the
> C-Series was late, the company ran out of cash. Killing he Lear 85
> wasn't enough and it ended up draining cash from all divisions, so the
> rail division no longer had the cash to increase workforce to deliver on
> time and within quality standards. (to a point where New York Cuty told
> Bombarder to not bother bidding again). (All that is left of Bombardier
> today is the Global 7500 and Challenger business jets, the rest of the
> empire was all liquidated).
>
> With Boeing having problems with the 737 and 787, coumpounded with
> COVID, if Starliner is not judged strategic, I could see why it would be
> easy for Boeing to just starve it of the cash needed to boost
> workforce/man hours to complete the project.
>
> What are the odds of Starliner getting finished and going into
> production/manned launches vs Boeing and NASA agreeing that Starliner is
> not needed anymore ?

FWIW, Boeing is taking the splash for the valve corrosion delay, to the
tune of $185M beyond the January $410M for the reflight.

<URL:https://spacenews.com/boeing-takes-185-million-charge-because-of-starliner-delays/>

<quote>
When Boeing took the original earnings charge, it said it did so
because it committed to redo the uncrewed flight test at no expense to
NASA, a point a Boeing executive reaffirmed at the Oct. 19 briefing.
“There’s no additional charges that will be going to the government for
this. This is something that The Boeing Company will make sure we’ve
got covered as we get this vehicle prepared,” said John Vollmer, vice
president and program manager for Boeing’s commercial crew program.
[...]
“I will say that we are 100% committed to fulfilling our contract with
the government, and we intend to do that,” he said.
</quote>

By now, I'm sure we all have seen Scott Manley's review of the crewed
program's candidate class:
<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM2UpLIpRhI>
Which of them would you have chosen?

As Greg noted, Dream Chaser is currently /still in development/ as a
/cargo/ craft, with manned capability somewhere beyond that. DCCargo
plays a role (and maybe a roll) in Blue Origin's _Orbital Reef_
proposal, but so does Starliner.
<URL:https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/a-once-quiet-battle-to-replace-the-space-station-suddenly-is-red-hot/>
Note that Sierra Nevada offspring Sierra Space is also developing
inflatable modules (similar to Bigelow's, perhaps starting with the
same NASA patents, but a different implementation).

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl

Hi all,

If Boeing is building Starliner on a fixed budget (which must be QUITE the novel experience for them)then how much money have they already sunk, and how much more can they spend before the penalties for exiting the contract start to look appealing compared with the cost of continuing?

I thought there was another company that had completed and tested a cargo resupply, or did I hallucinate that one. It was a strictly cargo vehicle, launched on one of the super expensive boosters that the usual suspects love to supply.

While I do not believe it is beneficial for SpaceX to be without competition in the short term it might just be what the global space industry (or at least the parts of it that are run for profit, unlike the Russian and Chinese programs (and may be the French/Euro) that are strictly speaking National Pride programs). If NASA reaches a point where they simply get tired of waiting and decide to make SpaceX their only supplier the rest of the industry might finally get the proverbial kick in the forks that they need.

Anyway, just my Tuesday morning quarterback-ing. Everything I know about running a Space Program I learned playing Kerbal Space Program.

Regards
Frank

Frank Scrooby was thinking very hard :

> I thought there was another company that had completed and tested a cargo
> resupply, or did I hallucinate that one. It was a strictly cargo vehicle,
> launched on one of the super expensive boosters that the usual suspects love
> to supply.

Cygnus? Northrup Grumman as the absorber of Orbital Sciences
Corporation.

Launched on various versions of Antares and Atlas V. Since Nov 2017,
launched on an Antares 230+, most recently the /Ellison Onizuka/ on
August 10, about 83 days ago.

Definitely not planned to be upgraded to crew, and definitely not cargo
return. However, NG is developing the Lunar Gateway HALO from these
modules.

The Japanese can still launch HTV, most recently in May of 2020, and
there's been mention of cargo return and crewed versions, but the
enhanced cargo HTV-X has not yet debuted, and it is one-way only.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean