So, we again come back to the fact that everyone who is claiming Boeing has done more work than the other competitors has no way to prove their claims. As long as everyone agrees to this, I think we know how we should treat these claims.
As has been said multiple times on here, dismissing CDR as "just a powerpoint" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how engineering design works.To dumb it down somewhat, CDR is when the blueprints get approved. Here are just a few examples of tricky design issues that have to be tackled to pass CDR:
SpaceX is being paid $40M for their ICDR.I believe that Boeing has yet to do their ICDR.
BoeingCritical Design Review (CDR) BoardCompletion of critical baseline design of the CCTS integrated system and operations that confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for production and integration ... Boeing shall establish and demonstrate a critical baseline design of the CCTS that meets system requirements. CDR confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for production and integration. ... The CDR demonstrates that the maturity of the design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and test. CDR determines that the technical effort is on track to complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations, meeting mission performance requirements within cost and schedule constraints.SpaceXIntegrated Critical Design Review (CDR)Scope: SpaceX will hold an Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA, or a nearby facility to demonstrate that the maturity of the CTS design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and test. This integrated CDR will determine that the technical effort is on track to complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations in order to meet mission performance requirements and schedule. NASA and relevant industry teammates will be invited to attend and to provide comments and feedback. This integrated CDR will cover spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations systems.
Lack of progress??? Boeing completed CDR, something neither SpaceX nor Sierra Nevada have done! Their design is further along than either of their competitors -- SpaceX by a few months but Sierra Nevada by a few years.
SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete. It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.
The proposed hardware development testing will expedite design maturity, leading to an integrated critical design review (CDR) in March 2014.
Who said it was a cake walk?
So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware. SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here. I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.
Nothing would make me happier than to see Boeing do a FFP CC entry that preserved those NASA advantages come in on schedule/price. But for that to happen, they have to selectively use the above mentioned advantage for CCtCAP. The way it would seem they did CCiCAP does not suggest that this is likely.
Quote from: docmordrid on 10/16/2014 04:28 amQuote from: the_other_Doug on 10/16/2014 04:06 am>I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy. Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch. And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.-DougSpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.Good, and I hope their products work well and need very little tweaking. I wasn't trying to forecast doom for the ECS (or whatever acronym you wish to use for it, I tend to use the Apollo acronyms out of habit). I was just coming up with the first example that came to mind.There are, of course, a lot of other systems that SpaceX will have to add to their cargo version of the spacecraft to make it a manned spacecraft -- just as Boeing has to develop the same kinds of systems for their spacecraft. It doesn't surprise me that they might be using the same contractors for some systems, either. But every manned space vehicle America has produced to date has dealt with major rework issues in critical systems late in their development cycles, most of which have caused delays in the flight schedules. As I said, I'd bet you any money that the things that pop up as critical, last-minute reworks are probably not even on their radar right now.It's just hard to plan for that kind of thing, ya know? If you knew what was going to become your major pain-in-the-ass beforehand, you would know to fix it earlier and then something else would come to the forefront as the pacing item. You can try to leave room in the schedules for this kind of thing, but you really can only let it play itself out the best you can.-DougWith my shield, not yet upon it
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 10/16/2014 04:06 am>I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy. Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch. And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.-DougSpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.
>I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy. Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch. And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.-Doug
It is better to build test modify and test again.
Quote from: sublimemarsupial on 10/17/2014 04:34 amA CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.You cannot state that CDR involves only "a powerpoint, nothing more";. What is required for CDR is program-specific. All we know is that Boeing passed CDR--as defined by NASA as part of the CCiCap milestones and schedule--and that others did not.
A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.
I'm a bit dismayed that a lot of people here haven't bothered to learn much about NASA program management. Here's a short overview: (Please shorten the link, breaks site format - Chris).A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation. It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done. The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware. These processes seem burdensome, but they were developed from painful, expensive experience on the part of the military and NASA when developing high technology projects. It's true that we don't know the exact content of Boeing's CDR. We do know that SpaceX and SNC have not completed their CDRs. If the CDR is a cakewalk with no real content, it does not reflect well on those companies to not have completed it yet.
When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result.
Quote from: Atomic Walrus on 10/17/2014 05:55 amA critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation. It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done. The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware. Correct. But it's even more expensive and more difficult to fix problems, resulting from the CDR, after you've begun INTEGRATING your hardware components into an integrated spacecraft.And that's why Boeing had done only marginal integration activities (at best) before completion of their CDR.Meaning that as of the end of august (this year) Boeing had no integrated CST-100 spacecraft (not even a partially integrated one) to show off, unlike SpaceX at their Dragon 2 presentation. Hence the mock-up only display when Boeing officially presented the CST-100 in last June, two months before completion of their CDR.
A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation. It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done. The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware.
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:Quote from: mkent on 10/17/2014 01:44 amLack of progress??? Boeing completed CDR, something neither SpaceX nor Sierra Nevada have done! Their design is further along than either of their competitors -- SpaceX by a few months but Sierra Nevada by a few years.So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware. SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.SpaceX is therefore ahead of Boeing in terms of the goal of getting their hardware into space on a test flight first, with the notable caveat that if NASA finds something in CDR that they don't like, it could potentially cause rework of already completed hardware that could set SpaceX back as compared to Boeing.SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete. It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here. I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.
Quote from: raketa on 10/17/2014 07:30 pmIt is better to build test modify and test again. That is opinion, not fact, and while it is applicable in some cases, it certainly isn't appropriate for all.
In my world of IT, CDR approach in complicated project took at least 3 times more time and resources(In simple one 10 times and more). It is important that your initial design is flexible. By testing and modifying to you can achieve result in surprisingly short time. Because real test is best CDR.