Thread by @jimmayjr

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 1/ Wow, okay, there's a lot to break down in what you just said.

Being a bit pedantic here, Starliner is literally flying right now. But it's fair argument to describe this more as SpaceX is many flights ahead.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 2/ While Starliner did have problems that required significant amounts time to address, there is a lot more to the story around the full duration of many of the gaps between flights. ...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 3/ ... Some have to do with how Boeing as a organization and as a publicly shared company approaches development. SpaceX has the "fail early and fail often" mantra and that has its merits, but also has its optics and the companies get treated very differently...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 4/ ... by basically everyone - loudest are the general public and "fanboys", but also from people and organizations with significant influence and control of money for the industry. And optics/issues elsewhere in Boeing as a company pretty significantly...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 5/ affects how Starliner gets treated with its own program issues, even when _completely_ unrelated and totally not connected. Generalizations about the company are easier to make than understanding that those in the trenches, and...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 6/ ... even up to senior and program managers, very often don't represent many of the things said about the company.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 7/ But continuous development/improvment is a thing, both for Dragon as well as Starliner. And there is an attempt to try to be accurate for duration when having to slip a schedule. And the ISS schedule is a complex _beast_. So if there is a slip while issues get addressed, ...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 8/ ...many other work items get planned during that timeframe as well - forward work, cost and technical improvements, etc. When you pair this with the ISS schedule, there is veeeryyy limited parking up there. So sometimes if you have to slip, you might have to wait many months.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 9/ A problem that is now exacerbated by Cargo Dragon using 1 of 2 docking ports for months at a time instead of a berthing port like all the other US segment cargo vehicles do and Dragon 1 used to.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 10/ Pile on requirements changes, similar things like the tape and how it can be used is changed, other external influences, etc. It paints a better rational picture of why some of the delays were what they were.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 11/ If you don't understand how Dragon 2 is a derivative of Dragon 1 and how the development costs awarded for SpaceX and Boeing for CCtCap are not as directly comparable when you take that into account, just skip this next part.

See my longer post for some ^ derivative info.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 12/ If you don't understand how Dragon 2 is a derivative of Dragon 1 and how that might affect development costs, just skip this next part.

When you take that into account, the comparison of contract values for Dragon and Starliner for the CCtCap award makes a lot more sense.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 13/ Dragon 1 development started in 2004, got a COTS award in 2006, test flights starting in late 2010, and went into service in 2012.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 14/ Dragon 2 development start date is a little less clear, but was awarded a CCDev2 contract in 2011 (after skipping the first round, CCDev1), CCiCap award in 2012, and CCtCap award in 2014.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 15/ Starliner had CCDev1 2010, CCDev2 2011, CCiCap 2012, and CCtCap 2014.

Both companies got CPC awards with similar contract values, but that was small compared to the aggregate vehicle development contract values.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 16/ Starliner started development contract flights in 2019 and is currently (2024) in the middle of its last. Expected service readiness in 2024, likely won't have its first service flight till 2025.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 17/ Similarly, Dragon 2 started development flights (I'm going to exclude pad abort) in 2019, its last in 2020, and then went into service later in 2020.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 18/ Now we sum dev costs and remind ourselves that the Dragon 1 to 2 progression is relevant. I've included totals both with and without COTS. Even though there was Dragon work in COTS, I believe there was also some booster work. So the true value is probably in the middle.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 19/ To get to certified Crew (B,X) & Cargo (X):

With COTS: Boeing $5.1B, SpaceX $5.4B
Without COTS: Boeing $5.1B, SpaceX $5.0B

Here is the breakdown of development-only portions of the contracts.

A lot of the info is in this OIG report: oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/upl…

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 20/ Granted, SpaceX had a non-insignificant amount of modifications to get from Dragon 1 to 2. But they only received ~$280M during CRS-2 for modifications required for cargo beyond the Crew Dragon baseline design.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 21/ And I admit, they did a lot with the money they got for 2 vehicles with varying amounts of commonality and derivatives between them.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 22/ But if you give Boeing another $280M and it's enough to complete modifications for cargo-only flights, that puts the grand total (COTS included) to...

Boeing: $5,388.0B
SpaceX: $5,420.6B

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 23/ lol, k

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 24/ Some amount of apples to oranges. SpaceX had a _massive_ head start with COTS, CRS, and a vertically integrated launch vehicle. They have moved fast, work their employees reaaally hard, and have generally been very successful.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 25/ And last decade, sure, Starliner program has had many struggles and delays, even though some delays were not entirely Boeing's fault and led to _test_ flights where issues could be found to be put off until later. But even still, it's a fair point.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 26/ But zoom out a bit and look at the *first* decade specific to each vehicle:

- Dragon 1 -
Start: 2004
First flight: 2010
Time to flight (no crew systems): 6 years

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 27/
- Dragon 2 -
Start: ~2011*
First flight: 2019
Time to flight: ~8 years

* Their 2011 CCDev2 award was only for the Launch abort system and I'm having trouble finding a reference for when the Dragon 1-2 mod work started. New Crew design wasn't unveiled until 2014.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 28/
- Starliner -
Start: 2010
First flight: 2019
Time to flight: 9 years

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 29/ Time to first flight, only a difference of 1 year, although Starliner OFT had some significant issues. But let's keep in mind SpaceX was building on top of a considerable number of already mature Dragon 1 subsystems, including the propulsion system (minus the abort system).

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 30/ Now the much stronger argument is time to first services, since Starliner is still not there.

Dragon: 2011-2020, 9 years
Starliner: 2010-2024/2025?, 14-15 years

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 31/ Points for SpaceX here, Dragon has flown 9 flights (8 + 1 active) with crew to Station compared to the 1 Starliner is flying right now.

And plenty more cargo flights which is a contract Starliner doesn't have and can't use to gain experience & system maturity.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 32/ But even with you asking me to only compare the past decade, that includes 26/30 of the anomalies in my previous thread + ones I missed...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 33/ ...I was reminded offline that I missed the Crew-4 parachute deployment FOD anomaly where an aluminum press tool was left in a parachute deployment bags and ejected during landing. I feel like this was downplayed more than it probably should have. ...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 34/ ...Steve Stich mentioned a similar helium leak to CFT that happened on an earlier Dragon flight. The Falcon 9 for CRS-3 also had a helium leak that caused a launch scrub. That brings the anomaly count I've found so far up to 33, I think.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 35/ And look, I'm not trying to make any of these anomaly discussions to be whataboutism. Space. Is. Hard. And we're all trying to succeed in this industry. I'm really just trying to meticulously document the what they are and when they happened because it is...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 36/ ..._unbelievably_ hard to convince people that 1. they ever happened, 2. Starliner's aren't all worse, and 3. what they think is "flawless" performance for Dragon isn't what they think it means.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 37/ But I think an actual objective, rational comparison between programs and anomalies is important and requires a reminder that both companies did not start from scratch in 2010-2011. And with SpaceX's continuing overall success, many earlier struggles tend to fade from memory.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 38/ Both Dragon vehicle losses were in the last decade - C109 during CRS-7 and C204 post Demo-1, pre In-Flight Abort Test. 11 years ago CRS-2 anomaly resulted in a loss of control similar to OFT's "high visibility close call" from OFT. Very serious events, but all addressed.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 39/ Alright, finally to the last part of your comment.

Yep, at least by the few publicly available numbers I can find, by 92kg. But I'm not sure how accurate either of those really are.

Crew Dragon: 192kg (423lb) cargo
Starliner: 100kg (200lb) cargo

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 40/ But as far a value to ISS, I don't think that's the whole story. Dragon can carry more cargo according to those ^ numbers, however...

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 41/ As many times as people say Dragon can fly 7 crew, it's actually 4. And I've seen no public plans shared to increase that after the seat safety redesign broke the original layout. There are only 4 seats, only mounts for 4 seats, only life support connections for 4 crew.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 42/ And yes, SpaceX's website says Dragon can fit 7. Volumetrically that is true. Boeings's website also says the same thing about Starliner, which has a larger internal volume than Dragon and can also technically fit 7. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 43/ But Starliner's current design has a slot for a 5th seat while Dragon's doesn't, so it is able take up an extra crew member, whether commercial tourist or researcher or professional space agency astronaut.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 44/ And Starliner's completely aft-facing thrusters and general shielding from Station allows it to boost Station's orbit, but Dragon's design doesn't provide the same protection.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 45/ Starliner nominally lands on land, closer to ground crews, closer to large numbers of ground crews. Time-critical and environment sensitive cargo can be unloaded faster and more easily.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 46/ So there is more to value than just "kg to orbit". But if you actually meant Falcon 9 puts more kg to orbit, then okay, Starliner isn't a launch vehicle and is in no way competing for kg to orbit stats.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 47/ Sure, there are a lot of Falcon 9 launches, but not nearly as many launches to Station. And even fewer launches of crew to Station.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 48/ Falcon 9 is listed as capable of 22,800kg to LEO. But that's only in expendable "Full Thrust" mode. Reusable is only 13,100kg.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 49/ Starliner launches on Atlas V, which can lift 8,910kg to 17,720kg to ISS LEO altitude depending on the rocket configuration.

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink 50/ None of which is relevant to Dragon vs. Starliner development and issues outside of ironing out Falcon 9 issues with # of flights which can help ensure Dragon mission completion. But Atlas V is also an incredibly reliable rocket even with fewer launches.

/end

@T30E1 @kogavfx @culpable_mink @threadreaderapp unroll