4 ms·

At this point, what's the purpose of continuing with the Starliner program? Does it provide any capability that's not already proven with Dragon?

logdap 3y ago
Two is better than one. If Dragon were grounded for some reason, an operational Starliner would give NASA a lot more flexibility.
wongarsu 3y ago
Having a second provider makes sense: competition keeps the prices down and innovation up, and you have some redundancy if one company or launch system has trouble (like when the Space Shuttle was grounded for 2.5 years after the Columbia disaster). Whether that second provider should still be Boeing is less clear. But inertia and sunk cost make it easier to stick with them than to give the money to someone else.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Obviously in hindsight it was a very good idea to award the contract to two teams to develop commercial crew, but Dragon/Falcon has a good service history now. Also, the ISS is will probably be retired in 8 years or less, so NASA could simply buy Dragon flights to cover them through that time. It's not clear what the purpose of either vehicle will be once the ISS is retired, especially considering that Starship will very likely be flying, which completely changes the economics and practical possibilities of spaceflight. Even in the context of the partially reusable Falcon 9, Vulcan makes very questionable sense, but in the context of the fully reusable Starship, Vulcan seems incredibly wasteful to continue flying.
  - Beached 3y ago
    there is already a number of space station replacements in progress, including NASA funded axiom. the intent is that NASA will become a Tennant on a commercial station or two, and be a customer of commercial transport to and from those stations. dragon, starliner, and dream chaser all plan on serving the iss until retirement, as well as private stations well after it's retirement. NASA and ESA don't plan on stopping their LEO work when the iss is retired, they just plan on stopping the development and maintenance of LEO transport and stations.
- tjpnz 3y ago
  Dream Chaser may be able to fill that gap. And unlike Dragon it would be capable of reboosting the ISS.
gcanyon 3y ago
It's not inconceivable that Elon Musk could pack up his toys and move his business elsewhere. He has amply demonstrated his mercurial nature and his willingness to throw a pile of money/infrastructure/relationships onto a bonfire just to watch the fire dance. I love the progress he's made, but it's unsafe to assume he's 100% aligned with U.S. interests.
larkost 3y ago
The same reason as the Dragon was initially funded: options. The thinking is that only having one option is more risky than having two, and spending the extra money on the two programs is justified both by the enhancements that competition between teams brings, and by the lowering of risk to the program as a whole (if one does not work out, then we have a second one). And to counter the idea "the race is won, we don't need a second one", I will argue that we don't want this to end up like the Apollo program where we get there and then don't go back for 60 years.
wmf 3y ago
NASA is already buying the minimum number of Starliner flights. I don't know if NASA can legally cancel the Starliner contract and everyone involved would lose even more face by canceling.
proggy 3y ago
“First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?” - S.R. Hadden, Contact

logdap 3y ago

Two is better than one. If Dragon were grounded for some reason, an operational Starliner would give NASA a lot more flexibility.

wongarsu 3y ago

Having a second provider makes sense: competition keeps the prices down and innovation up, and you have some redundancy if one company or launch system has trouble (like when the Space Shuttle was grounded for 2.5 years after the Columbia disaster). Whether that second provider should still be Boeing is less clear. But inertia and sunk cost make it easier to stick with them than to give the money to someone else.

cameldrv 3y ago
Obviously in hindsight it was a very good idea to award the contract to two teams to develop commercial crew, but Dragon/Falcon has a good service history now. Also, the ISS is will probably be retired in 8 years or less, so NASA could simply buy Dragon flights to cover them through that time. It's not clear what the purpose of either vehicle will be once the ISS is retired, especially considering that Starship will very likely be flying, which completely changes the economics and practical possibilities of spaceflight. Even in the context of the partially reusable Falcon 9, Vulcan makes very questionable sense, but in the context of the fully reusable Starship, Vulcan seems incredibly wasteful to continue flying.
- Beached 3y ago
  there is already a number of space station replacements in progress, including NASA funded axiom. the intent is that NASA will become a Tennant on a commercial station or two, and be a customer of commercial transport to and from those stations. dragon, starliner, and dream chaser all plan on serving the iss until retirement, as well as private stations well after it's retirement. NASA and ESA don't plan on stopping their LEO work when the iss is retired, they just plan on stopping the development and maintenance of LEO transport and stations.
tjpnz 3y ago
Dream Chaser may be able to fill that gap. And unlike Dragon it would be capable of reboosting the ISS.

gcanyon 3y ago

It's not inconceivable that Elon Musk could pack up his toys and move his business elsewhere. He has amply demonstrated his mercurial nature and his willingness to throw a pile of money/infrastructure/relationships onto a bonfire just to watch the fire dance. I love the progress he's made, but it's unsafe to assume he's 100% aligned with U.S. interests.

larkost 3y ago

The same reason as the Dragon was initially funded: options. The thinking is that only having one option is more risky than having two, and spending the extra money on the two programs is justified both by the enhancements that competition between teams brings, and by the lowering of risk to the program as a whole (if one does not work out, then we have a second one). And to counter the idea "the race is won, we don't need a second one", I will argue that we don't want this to end up like the Apollo program where we get there and then don't go back for 60 years.

wmf 3y ago

NASA is already buying the minimum number of Starliner flights. I don't know if NASA can legally cancel the Starliner contract and everyone involved would lose even more face by canceling.

proggy 3y ago

“First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?” - S.R. Hadden, Contact