Boeing's Starliner Ready For Another Human Rating Test - OFT-2 Second Attempt 

This spacecraft is better than dragon. That’s why the money is more. Crew capacity of 7 compared to 4

@@sc-gy4lg the dragon can carry 7 as well, it's just not set up for it due to mission requirements. The only benefit is station orbit boosting, which the dragon could be easily adapted to perform.

@@sc-gy4lg I’m not sure if the numbers work out but spacex could probably launch 2 crew dragons for less than 1 star liner, and dragon has capacity of 7 so….. what’s your point? Blind hate for SpaceX/Elon

I think the Boeing hate is a good thing. If Boeing gets unpopular, NASA/Congress will stop giving contracts to their golden child and start giving them to SpaceX, or any other company that actually prioritizes the job over extending government contracts for as long as possible.

True that. SpaceX is a disruptive company, and this debacle only highlights how the old guard is dying...

True

Cygnus flying 3 times on F9 is already a great meme.

that would be unfortunate

Pretty sure they jinxed themselves when protective covers started falling off en route to the launch pad.

This thing is well past jinxed and well into cursed

don't forget SLS

and prayer 🙏🙏🙏🙏

From what I've read the same could be said of the early Apollo days. I think it was only a few weeks after one of the Apollo missions there was a solar storm that they didn't predict and would have killed the mission and the crew. Of course back then they were actually trying their best with limited technology and knowledge rather than just trying to steal as much tax payer money as they can.

Why? There's no reason Boeing couldn't pull this off without a hitch this time. They've had months to square away the problems from previous attempts... ...Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face...

They could not even get the Starliner to the pad without their specialty built transporter breaking down. Then they lost a window on the way as well. Oh they called it just a “window protector”, like that made it any less an issue, was that not important to have? What other half A**ed equipment have they built. This is not going to go well!

@@sgfx You're a liar. They never lost a window, they lost a tapped on cover and they really didn't need it. Also, the transporter was fine, they only really stopped when the cover fell off. Also, Starliner made it safely into orbit and is now heading to ISS.

​@@Nowhereman10 It is you who are uninformed. It did stop on the way to the launch complex, "due to a hydraulic leak." (according to a Boeing tweet) , And at over 1.5 billion dollars, nothing should just “fall off”. And “really didn't need it”? Obviously, it was placed on the ship for a reason, to protect something. Or is Boeing just making unneeded stuff to add cost?

@@sgfx Covers fall off or get damaged. It's just paper or plastic or light foil covers. And in this case, it really wasn't anything too important. It just gave liars like yourself something to glom onto. Now, I'd rather that unimportant tapped on cover fell off than anything like that toilet that malfunctioned on Inspiration 4 last year, leaving them crapping and peeing in diapers or having to hold it for several days.

You can say (to a certain extent) the same thing about the SLS.

@@artiek1177 Not to a certain extent. More like to a massive extent. Way over budget, and Billions per launch.

@@lordgarion514 I remember hearing once when they were designing the proposed Constellation rocket that engineers did NOT want solid rocket boosters, but rather boosters using liquid propellant. However someone on the Congressional Committee had the solid rocket booster maker (ATK or it’s predecessor?) in their district.

Yep, it’s our government that is killing our space industry with their greed, should be treason

@@artiek1177 this is a massive reason the Superconducting Super Collider failed in Texas. Ellis county isn't the rest of the US and as such they didn't fund the project, because they didn't get the jobs from it.

Yup. Efficiency and mission oriented design, versus legacy inertial fraud, waste, and abuse by a contractor, is also mind boggling. Imagine a fully-public audit comparison? lol The ONLY thing holding SpaceX back at the moment, is the FAA and “environmental” shenanigans. While absolutely everything from design, to engineering and testing, holds Boeing back. lol

So is the difference between the huge amounts of funding SpaceX has received since its inception.

@@grandelDR "huge?"

@@gordonstewart5774 “Enormous” would also be appropriate.

You should look into the cost of commercial crew both in price per seat and overall cost invested into both companies. 90 million per seat for Boeing vs 55 million per seat for space x. 4.2 billion overall to Boeing. 2.6 billion overall to space x.

Ever since that acquisition they've really fallen as a respectable company.

well yeah thats what happens when you take the failing companies CEO.....

Considering how the upper management in both original companies turned out, I would argue Boeing paid McDonnell Douglas to purchase them, with the only restriction is the name of the combined company remain Boeing.

The real problem is that Boeing is being run by money managers and investment bankers, not engineers as they were in their heyday.

@@mahbriggs I mean every company is now. They had an engineer as CEO for a while in the last 20 years but that didn’t seem to change much because their old culture was destroyed

Or FFS-2

Fake It 'Til You Make It: The Sequel

Nah, the mission will probably be a great success. Now, they might decide somewhere along the way that they'd rather not go to the ISS during this mission. They may even choose to use this mission to examine what would happen to Starliner in the event it suffered some kind of catastrophic failure. Who knows? This is the kind of exciting uncertainty that comes with space travel!

DNF-2

Airbus fly good these days :) Well ignore the paint job hehe.

Started with the 787, they’ve been sliding ever since. 737 MAX, SLS, 777X, and of course Starliner. They haven’t had a truly successful product since the original 787 issues were resolved.

@@user-lv7ph7hs7l Qatar has entered the chat lol

@@adub1300 Yeah 737 NG are great and reliable airliners, sometime after that they really stopped listening to engineers if they wanted something that affected profit.

You didn't hear it from me, but according to a neighbor who used to work for Boeing the problems all started with the McDonnell-Douglas merger. According to him, a lot of the senior Boeing e-staff chose to retire and were replaced by the MD crew, who have a more, shall we say, Wall Street-oriented view (as in GE/Jack Welch) of managing their business.

You know, when Scott was going over the crew members of the previously announced launch; It was kind of a walk of shame for Boeing. This astronaut, SpaceX, other astronaut SpaceX. I am by no means a SpaceX fanboy, but I do love how they have completely turned the cost-plus model on its head and shown how stupid of a concept that was. Whoever thought that a for-profit private company being rewarded for excessive delays and over budgeting was a good idea clearly only had the interest of the private spaceflight company in mind.

@@TheAquaticMandolin NASA started moving to fixed price contracts with COTS, before the 2008 CRS contracts. Both Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Crew Dragon are on fixed price contracts from 2014. CLPS, HLS, Appendix P, and LETS are all fixed price along with many single mission contracts. I believe that SLS/Orion are the last of the cost plus contracts.

Do you love that? Are you just tickled to death that an American aerospace company that employs thousands of Americans will fail? Good for for you, Ryan.

@@steveaustin2686 No, you completely underestimate the level of corruption endemic in government contracts. The Boeing HLS bid was cost plus. For one Boeing recently renegotiated, Boeing insisted on cost-plus. Current and former Boeing employees have documented how Boeing management directed them to use/buy the most expensive design/part that they could.

@@generalyellor8188 what would be good for America is if that company had a management culture which made them compete with good products in the market place. The more such companies there are the better. On the other hand a company which relies on contracts rewarding them for delays is not a good for America since it will not develop a culture to produce competitive products.

Yep. And that point Scott made about the engines all being on the service module rather than on the capsule like Dragon? It means they don't get to recover the faulty hardware to help figure out what went wrong...

Except when he goes political.

I guess they gave up trying to make a silk purse of it.

They're probably trying to give their technology a gritty "lived-in" aesthetic like in classic Star Wars.

Sounds believable, given his contacts inside the industry it might have been an offhand comment or something by some engineer.

helps diffuse the air flow during launch aborts.

I think I recall the fence is there to provide a stabilizing airflow during a pad abort, like the fins on the trunk of Dragon. This would also parallel Soyuz's grid fins(?). But I don't have a really firm recall on this.

I heard that from an ancient NASA presentation.

I heard it said on NASA spaceflight that it was to stabilise abort mode. I'm guessing it also dirties airflow over the trailing edge of the skirt. In F1 aero theyy use dirty air to prevent verticies, and airflow attachment to the surface, I imagine as you accelerate through transonic and above this would migrate back and prevent damaging the top of booster from air slamming back to smaller diameter?? Imagine the low pressure in below that skirt, seems ludicrous at first glance....

I also read the perforated ring is for abort stability? If it was KSP you'd just put fins on it to reduce drag..... of course I'm not an engineer! 😆 🚀

@@glen5998 It's to break-up the shockwave that would hit the Centaur, which is only a pressure stabilized structure. Essentially a full beer can. I worked on the adapter from Centaur to Starliner at ULA.

Mary Poppins From Space! LOFTID is due (fingers crossed) to fly later this year

@@trs4u And technology like LDSD or LOFTID is probably critical to getting Vulcan Centaur's "SMART reuse" tech working, can't think of a better tech to use for the heatshield for that thing.

My guess it is going to be more embarrassing then the last launch.

Meaning that they're successful, or that expectations have fallen low enough that nobody notices if they fail again?

Or the second non-launch event?

I am sure that management decided to go into overtime to make sure it works this time. They are in great danger of losing support because of all those senators and representatives having so much egg on their faces.

It did make it to orbit, let's hope it doesnt bump into the ISS to hard🤔

One day one of you space hacks will explain why it is so vitally important to have a second ride to the ISS. Are you afraid SpaceX will forget how to get there? Do you expect SpaceX to refuse to fly one day? I have a second car but it's still another Ford, not a Boeing. I have 2 pairs of glasses but they are the exact same brand. Am I crazy? It is vital that I be able to see clearly but my old pair works so well and I don't have a couple Billion dollars for a Boeing pair.

​@@ellisjk1409 Imagine you only have one system, you have people up on the ISS, and a major flaw is discovered with the vehicle that grounds it while the flaw is rectified. Suddenly, you no longer have any human space capability, and even getting the astronauts back from the ISS would involve them boarding a vehicle with a known flaw.

@@goawaygoawaynow what flaw?

@@ellisjk1409 Any flaw that would jeopardize the safety of the people onboard the spacecraft

@@ellisjk1409 no. the issue is that if the dragon capsule is found to have a severe problem that would take several years to fix, the US is out of the manned flights anywhere.

Three words: Kerbal Space Program ;)

It seems like a silly question in a way but I'm actually kind of interested in what the answer might be. One possibility is that our sense of what makes a rocket look "normal" are rooted in old 40+ year old designs (Space shuttle, Saturn V, Soyuz, etc.) and when new rockets rethink old design choices or incorporate new ideas, it looks "strange" because it's not what we're used to.

Gonna be plenty room on the starships soon Gonna be a massive number of vacancies for contract work...in space...expenses paid. They're gonna need all kinds of people from Rocket engineers to janitors.

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Before too many flights, they will need a human rated rocket to get their capsule into space.

Not many people are going to get that reference. Hell, most people probably don't know that famous story had a sequel.

Vermicious Knids! Haven't heard that since grade school! ❤

origamiscienceguy Oh man, you just brought back some really good memories of my grade school's library. It was a small, cramped place but I always loved the smell of old books there. They had that sequel there, I don't remember if I read it though.

I've always far preferred the great glass elevator to the chocolate factory. Absolutely no interest in knids though.

@@paigecunningham Really? I recently re-read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for my kids, and now I'm going through Great Glass Elevator... Charlie and the Chocolate Factory felt a bit flat to me, to be honest (the whole routine of eliminating the kids one by one, harping on their flaws and the failures of their parents, Willy Wonka's schtick of pretending to have gone deaf as an excuse to ignore people, etc.) but Glass Elevator, the first portion at least, was very difficult for me to endure. All the weak political satire (literally balancing the budget, the US president as a man-child whose VP is his nanny from when he was a child, who laments that he was such a flawed individual that he had to go into politics), the name gags ("What do you think of the wall-to-wall carpets, Walter Wall?", How-Yu-Bin and "Chew on that, Chu-On-Dat...") Though I was delighted to reach the end of the Vermicious Knids/Space Hotel portion of the story and so far I feel like it's been a big step up for the story... Dunno, it's a kids book and I'm bound to see it differently as an adult than I did as a kid - but I have found it difficult to tolerate.

How can the Vulcan ever hope to compete with Falcon if it isn’t being designed to be reusable?

@@idleeric8556 it actually is.

@@Blarnix just the 2 be4 engines, maybe. Big maybe.

@@Blarnix it really isn't. Do your homework.

Just another lefty Elon hater! 💤💤

Yup. Boeing needs a corporate overhaul. People who own their stock, should be telling them that.

I agree, but I don’t think it’s greed as much as inefficiency

Well they need some way to correct for the wrong diameter rocket. Then, once dialed in, they need to compensate for the dynamic characteristics of switching to Vulcan. Either can be done with retraining operators or a maneuvered characteristics augmentation system. :-(

I thought Boeing agreed to pay for this retry themselves.

​@@johndododoe1411 boeing never pays for anything itself. that's what the American taxpayer is for. wash all those tax dollars through kickbacks and corporate beuracracy back into politicians pockets

Yup. "Team Space." The bird is paid for, and I'd really like to see it fly and for Boeing to deliver on the contract. Diversity of flight is really important for the long term.

Two options is much better than 1.

Cost to orbit - One hundred trillion billion gazillion dollars.

@@NeonVisual Nah, that's the senate launch system.

Boeing’s focus is profits as we can clearly see from this and SLS. SpaceX’s focus is innovation. They will never be the same.

@@adub1300 bullshit all companies focus on profits. It’s not a charity. If you think spacex focuses on “innovation” solely for the purpose to move the industry forward you’re kidding yourself.

I agree but I wonder if that competition will be from the old legacy boys or one the new ones. Maybe one day they'll fly people to orbit in a 3d printed rocket. :)

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom either is good with me. As someone who’s about to enter the aerospace industry, I try not to stan a particular brand. I like spacex but their culture is rough. I know more than a few people who’ve burnt out working for them.

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom It's hard to see any of the old-space outfits upping their game enough. None of the new-space outfits are remotely close to SpaceX yet, but they at least have the ambition to try, and the willingness to do new things.

Go Starliner! F**K the haters! Team SPACE. What ever rocket that's being launched into space peacefully should be where the fanboys dwell.

Didn’t it have propulsion issues?

@@Foolishem Two of three thrusters in one doghouse on Starliner failed. It still did the two burns to get to orbit and is currently 10 meters from the ISS. Redundancy is a good thing.

If they want business you’re right.That has nothing to do with space x

Boeing needs more Quality Engineers? You've never heard that "you can't test in quality", have you?

@@johnbuchman4854 I'm thinking he meant good engineers, they need more engineers in management and less bean counters

@@a..d5518 Yup

@@a..d5518 Dont discount the bean counters. They are helpfull asf in alot of cases. We need bean counters that know how to communicate. We dont need beancounters that pretend like they know shit.

Well on the one hand, there's a danger the capsule could screw up its docking approach and collide with the station. On the other hand, it'd have to get to the station first.

Well thay have had the Russians spinners so probably not to worried but I bet thay keep the hatch seal close and equip the canada arm whit a fly swatter just in case

They have incredibly strict rules on spacecraft getting close to the station. They will require it to abort before it gets anywhere near the station (or even on a trajectory that takes it anywhere near) if it isn't operating perfectly.

if it gets there, they have the humiliation of having crew dragon already there docked to the ISS.

Don't you mean, it's 'sucessless flaw rate'?

Lol! Talk about SpaceX!

@@akyhne what does SpaceX have to do with this? Lol

Not sure how reliable they would be but yes, we would be much safer that way!

@@ke6gwf They are known for making stupid "simulations". Like the earth to earth starship, and many more.

@@akyhne uh, no, SpaceX is known for being the only current US ride to space, for launching at an unprecedented cadence, for building giant shiny rockets bigger than any others ever built, and for doing it all at much lower prices than anyone else ever. Oh, and for landing and reusing rockets. The earth to earth simulation is NOT what they are known for, it's just a little side project, which by the way, the military is very interested in, and so we will probably see money put towards it.

My feelings also. This will be only the first time it has worked, if it does.

With all the ONE failure starliner had, two successful flights should be enough to be confident in the vehicle.

@@fork9001 They had one failure that brought to light another possibility catastrophic failure mode. But I am just cautious, not doomsaying. We’ve still got to see a successful reentry and landing.

@@Markle2k Successful reentry and landing on the previous test flight. And, don’t forget that the first crew flight is also considered a test flight.

@@fork9001 "With all the ONE failure starliner had, two successful flights should be enough to be confident in the vehicle." One failed FLIGHT. Multiple FAILURES. Including a software glitch that would have resulted in loss of crew! Some NINETY design/manufacture problems found in post flight review. No wonder the Boeing astronauts are bailing.

It's not a bug, it's a feature 😆

@@sandybarnes887 That "feature" would have had the service module bumping into the heat shield after separation on the demo 1 flight if they hadn't caught it while fixing the timing issue.

No worries, they ran it through the compiler and there were no warnings, so it's definitely good to go.

Ore any other of the over 60 safety issues nasa had after OFT 1 including explosive bolts for separation, Operation details, life support(redundancy issues) etc.

CapCom this is StarLiner--What does it mean "Abort, Retry Ignore"? Uh, Ground Control to Major Tom: which would you prefer? We forward your call to Dial-A-Prayer or we hand you off to Malaysian MH370 Flight Control?

I mean, a nose cone is a pretty minor part to worry about reusing

I think one change Boeing has made in the time since their last orbital trip is to have a hinged nosecone that can be reused.

@@KnightRanger38 that seems like a good decision.

@@joelholzhausen8377 that exactly was my point. I mean there are major parts which get thrown off of Starliner but Spacex tried to reuse as much of the hardware even as minor as nose cone where Starliner didn't bother doing so.

I believe that Boeing was changing Starliner to a Hinged design (like SpaceX), and NASA suggested. The fact that Boeing reduced the Starliner pressure shells from 3 to 2 … basically sealed Boeing strategy: no interest in commercial space. Ultimate insult would be to “transfer Starliner” to someone else. Blue Origin interest? ESA would be funny (Boeing/Airbus competition)

Unless the RUD demonstrates that the measures designed to keep astronauts alive during an accident work as advertised (but not intentionally demonstrated prior to the RUD.

MOLSTLY true. The Starliner design does bake in a few capabilities Crew Dragon just doesn't, so there's your "competition." For MOST LEO trips, Crew Dragon will be the smart choice, but there will be missions where Starliner's extra capabilities will come in handy...until Starship makes it look ridiculous, that is.

That's... not ksp unfortunately ._.

it's just a really old-style render

I think Boeing is also using KSP to develop their spacecraft. It's just sad that Jebediah won't be around to see the Starliner finally make it to the space station.

Scott: Got a "Fly safe, or fly Boeing!" T-shirt 👕?

Except that only works if you're facing fore. If you're facing aft, that's backwards.

They're not consuming enough mass quantities

All 7 of Starliners flights, the CFT and the 6 actual missions to ISS, will be flown on Atlas 5's....after that....maybe Vulcan, F9 or someone elses rocket.

They had to use all their backup thruster system become the primary and the first of two backup systems failed... So they got to the ISS this time around but things still broke on the way there. What is going with Boeing these days?

I think any astronaut on NASA’s roster would. They’re not afraid of risk. But I get what you mean, pucker factor will be much higher than it is for Dragon.

Why wouldn't they? What is more dangerous?

Also the idea of having two suppliers is flawed .... Scap SLiner ... If SX have a investigation... Use another SX vehicle and continue.... Even if Sliner make it, i would not put humans on it.... Already need to redesign valves ... Huh?

Biased much?

@@jacquesloubser5609 NASA wants redundant providers, so that if one spacecraft or booster has a problem, there are different spacecraft and boosters to be the backup. For example, if the Falcon 9 booster or the Atlas-V booster has a failure, the flights will be grounded until what went wrong is found. So you can not just fly the same style booster until that is done. Boeing and Aerojet Rocketdyne are arguing over who should pay for the new valves. The valves on spacecraft are not the same valves under your sink or in your car. And not only Boeing has had problems with valves and this type of hypergolic propellant. Remember a Crew Dragon blew up on the test stand due to faulty valves.

@@steveaustin2686 But as others point out, Congress wanted redundant US-ONLY suppliers, for obvious pork-barrel reasons. Otherwise they would have invited Airbus to bid, who as they already had a suitable human rated booster (Ariane 5 ) and have since built another one (Ariane 6) would have been extremely competitive.

@@kenoliver8913 I think for as much as national pride as anything else. Remember, Starliner is under the Commercial Crew program, which has firm, fixed price contracts. Boeing has been footing the bill for fixing Starliner. Ever since the run up to the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts in 2008, NASA has been moving away from the cost plus contracts to fixed price contracts. SLS/Orion are the last of the big cost plus contracts. Even the USSF (former USAF Space Command) has been doing fixed price contracts for NSSL payloads. NASA Admin Nelson said that cost plus contracts are a plague on NASA and he was a big SLS supporter when he was in Congress a while ago.

Error 404 Page Not Found

Starliner doesn't use SLS

@@charleslivingston2256 No, but SLS has the same problems that Starliner does. It's being built under the same philosophy by basically the same company.

Where did you get the idea that it's preferred?

@@tarmaque Starliner is not a cost-plus program run by NASA. That's why none of the plans are public information.

Or more

That is the common case with ablative heat shield vehicles, it's why everyone keeps looking at e.g. space planes.

It's a feature, not a bug.

@@absalomdraconis Yes, because the shuttle never had issues with its heat shield... *sarcasm

@@absalomdraconis SpaceX is reusing their dragon heatshields, despite the splashdown. Several cargo flights flew with shields from previous crew flights, and the Crew-4 flew with a used heatshield. This won't be an option for ULA, because they are dropping their heatshield to deploy landing airbags, so their heatshield will sustain impact damage.

So the standard is overcharging for their launches and lying about the re-usability of their rockets ??? Do you realize that Musk is a confidence man who was born rich as his daddy profited from Apartheid ??? Or are you a tool that invested in Hyperloop or Tesla??? [the first is a failed century old idea and the later only exists due to substitutes...]

The Space Shuttle's redundancy was multiple ships. Spacex's multiple Falcons and multiple Dragons offer more redundancy than the Space Shuttle. Even if the government had to prop up SpaceX for it to stay in business (not gonna happen), it would still be cheaper than propping up Boeing's failures.

@@GntlTch The idea is to have redundant providers, so if one has a problem, the other is there. Starliner's problems show that clearly. In 2014, if NASA had selected the safe bet with the most experience, then NASA would be likely to still be buying Soyuz seats to get to the ISS. SpaceX was the upstart risky bet in 2014 with only 12 Falcon 9 flights and no landed boosters.

@@GntlTch The Government has been overcharged by Space X repeatedly so it is being propped up...

It’s supposed to be a competition.

@@robertkiestov3734 Flexible variety is better than exclusive supremacy.

@@robertkiestov3734 according to Musk's fanboys disguised as "Space enthusiasts", it is.

If the playing field was level you'd be right, but that's now how things actually work. It IS a competition and if you don't see that it's likely you're in over your head.

@@RogerM88 Hello; I’m a Musk fanboy. I am a Musk fanboy because of his and SpaceX’s astonishing achievements. SpaceX is the most ambitious and capable entity that has ever existed on Planet Earth. In circa 10 years or so then SpaceX will be landing on Mars. Starlink isn’t doing bad either.

It's impossible for Starliner to have value in this sense, for the reasons you give. Starliner is paid for being second best. Somebody had to be second. That's the only way to view its value.

The main value is redundancy. If some major flaw is discovered in Falcon or Dragon, we'd be back to relying on Russia (not at all ideal). Of course, once Atlas is done, if there's an undetected flaw in Falcon (granted, unlikely at this point) that's gonna happen anyway. Even if there isn't a flaw, but there's a loss of vehicle event, Dragon would be grounded until the investigation could be completed. Redundancy is very good, even if Starliner's value is a distant second place at the moment.

​@@StarkRGlet's be real. the true "value" of Starliner is the taxpayer dollars that get laundered through Boeing and it's lobbyists back into congressional pockets. as an added bonus uaw (which of course sends it's vig to the dnc) gets their graft. For those reasons alone it is "justified" and even "superior" to SpaceX.

The Starliner capsule is reusable. It can fly on various boosters. Reusable boosters are not always the best option. When recovered, the Falcon 9 Block 5 can lift up to 16.3 tons to LEO. When expended the Falcon 9 Block 5 can lift up to 22.8 tons to LEO per SpaceX. So reusability costs payload mass.

@@StarkRG i can agree with that argument. its certainly a lot better than when we just had the space shuttle as the sole launch option for us launches

Maybe Soyus and Buran before.

@@debott4538 Buran won't count

Definitely the first time for two operational systems, and Orion will make that three.

@@babayada2015 Why not?

starliner is not human rated yet

It's called the Sierra Nevada Corp Dreamchaser. But NASA didn't sign an exclusivity agreement, so they might just service ESA (and maybe JAXA?)!

If something happens that grounds dragon it would be good to have a substitute ready to go instead of just not launching at all like with STS

@@Gnefitisis SNC Dream Chaser won't be ready for crew for a while. It will be just a cargo hauler for now. Likely Dream Chasers crew version won't be needed by the time they retire the ISS. It could see some limited use on Axiom Station maybe since SpaceX has stopped making Crew Dragon.

@@theatom7264 I am aware, but its the only other capsule in development that's actually close to functional. Also, it's likely that NASA won't have to human rate it, if it's going to be used by other organizations.

​@@Gnefitisis Yeah. Sorta wish Boeing would invest in making their own cost effective rocket for Starliner and try making more of the hardware in-house. Most of the issues with Starliner came up because they are treating it like cost plus program with to many manufacturers involved. Assuming incompetence is less of an issue with Boeing from here on out this could make Starliner cheaper and more reliable.