Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640870 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #320 on: 10/15/2014 07:29 pm »
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #321 on: 10/15/2014 07:40 pm »

Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.

Boeing did Spacehab on FFP
Not really a HSF vehicle. More like Dragon or Cygnus - occupied on orbit after checks, unoccupied ascent/reentry.

Entirely different issues as you well know.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #322 on: 10/15/2014 08:00 pm »
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #323 on: 10/15/2014 08:45 pm »
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 1349
  • Likes Given: 2394
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #324 on: 10/15/2014 09:53 pm »
The question isn't why they picked Boeing over SNC with the extra $900M cost of Boeing, but rather if they believed that SNC could complete their project at all with the fixed cost nature of the contract. 

Maybe paying Boeing the big bucks seemed safer especially with schedule drivers.  If unknown risks materialized in the Dreamchaser (engine change?, tile issues?, other unknown unknowns?), NASA would have to either let them fail, hope that SNC ponied up the required $resources$, or have to find ways to bail them out.

On the ground floor of the National Space Foundation... Colonize Mars!

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #325 on: 10/15/2014 09:55 pm »
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.
Hmmm...

I'm with Jim here.

For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity.

From a purely fan-in-the-seat perspective, it will be fascinating having Boeing and SpaceX, 2 extraordinarily different companies, going full-out to hit 2017. It's a great narrative.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #326 on: 10/15/2014 10:26 pm »

If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.
Hmmm...

I'm with Jim here.

For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity.

From a purely fan-in-the-seat perspective, it will be fascinating having Boeing and SpaceX, 2 extraordinarily different companies, going full-out to hit 2017. It's a great narrative.
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #327 on: 10/15/2014 10:30 pm »
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.

SpaceX isn't that new. It already has experience with cargo flights and has been very successful at it. In that sense, SpaceX has more experience than Boeing because it has already has a proven product with Dragon 1.   
« Last Edit: 10/15/2014 10:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #328 on: 10/15/2014 10:45 pm »
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #329 on: 10/15/2014 11:21 pm »
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #330 on: 10/15/2014 11:26 pm »
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
It seems some of the challenges are indeed technical. NASA saw more technical and schedule risk with both SpaceX and SNC. The most with SNC, the least with Boeing and SpaceX was in between.

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle


 
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #331 on: 10/15/2014 11:34 pm »
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #332 on: 10/16/2014 12:05 am »
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

If having flown humans in space had been a requirement, new new entrants would ever be allowed. Luckily that never was actually a requirement.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #333 on: 10/16/2014 12:10 am »
We really don't know what technical issues there may or may not be.

It may be the ECLSS is the least of their challenges. I'd place my bet that the bolting of 4 clusters of SDs to the primary structure and associated plumbing, avionics control is giving them a run for their money. The abort keeps being pushed back and they still haven't passed their Primary Structure Qual milestone AFAIK. Maybe the new outer mold line accommodating the SDs is causing some issues. Perhaps the legs extending through the heat shield is causing challenges. Perhaps the avionics controlling the final landing burn is. Perhaps their newly designed docking adapter and operational cone. Hell, maybe they can't seem to keep the solar film attached to the trunk during MaxQ simulations.

This really is not a plug and play from cargo to crew. That ship sailed long ago.
« Last Edit: 10/16/2014 12:12 am by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #334 on: 10/16/2014 12:35 am »
(1) In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size.   [..]  What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)

(2) I applaud your humility at the end there, it's a shame you didn't rethink your entire comment from that perspective. SNC are a 53 year old aerospace company.. this is not their first BBQ.

(1) The largest spacecraft Sierra Nevada has ever produced is the Orbcomm OG-2 minisatellite.  Even that had a Boeing communications payload (usually considered the most challenging part of a comsat).  The next biggest is the Chipsat microsatellite.  I don't think there is a third biggest.

(2) There's a big difference between supplying components for someone else's vehicle and developing the overall vehicle yourself.  Huge difference.  Like the difference between, say, Philco and Ford.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #335 on: 10/16/2014 12:47 am »

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Apollo 13 adapted some CO2 filters from one CO2 scrubber to other. Nothing different from jumping one battery to another.

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #336 on: 10/16/2014 12:48 am »

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.


Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

I wouldn't say that. Boeing has done many FFP.  TDRSS, every NASA Delta launch since 1992 and there are others.

Many others.  Many, if not most, of Boeing's big military contracts are firm fixed-price.  F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, E/A-18G Growler, CH-47F Chinook, KC-46A Pegasus, the new A-10 wing, JDAM, SDB, Delta IV Heavy, CCDEV, CCiCap, CCtCap.  I believe Block III Apache and WGS are as well.

On the last C-17 Globemaster contract Boeing offered the USAF a firm fixed-price contract for $152 million each, but the Air Force, under pressure from John McCain, turned them down, preferring a cost-plus contract for $175 million each.

Then there's all of their commercial airliner and commercial space work.

Cost-plus contracts have their place, but Boeing doesn't need them to make money in aerospace.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #337 on: 10/16/2014 12:53 am »
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

While any speculation of this being the issue or not is nearly meaningless... I did want to point out that it is not that trivial to uprate a vehicle.  Yes, a CO2 scrubber is a relatively simple thing.   Now you have to dehumidify and keep the temperature in a narrower band.  Means a more active cooling system.  Since you have humans you need more oxygen tanks and a way to fit/feed that into a spacesuit.  Those computers that were fine with redundancy for unmanned cargo now need to be MUCH more robust.  Your automated piloting system must now have a way for a pilot to fly manually.  Your comm systems needs more redundancy on the ground.  And so on and so on.  Each item in itself is not a deal breaker but it combines to add up to significant modifications.    SpaceX is definitely ahead of the game in having to be modifying a flying vehicle but it is significant work.  And from the articles, it sounds like maybe their design upgrades were not as well developed and the schedule was not as clearly defined with reliability as many people here seem to think.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #338 on: 10/16/2014 12:57 am »

I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
The riskiness level is extracted from the articles regarding NASA's opinion.
And yes, ECLSS, human interface, avionics, tolerances, redundancy, LAS, failure modes. All those things either don't apply or are much simpler with cargo crafts. Please remember that NASA is buying a certified service. This means that the contractor has to have the best plan to identify and mitigate risks. And I can think of no company with better track record for this than Boeing. In fact, the CCiCap performance seems to have been very important for NASA's management. The only company that hit its milestones on time was Boeing. SpaceX has had its delays and when reading about the ISS interface, you can see that they usually have an "optimist" attitude.
Regarding financial safety, the fact that Boeing didn't put much skin in the game actually means that they are doing a conservative budget. This is a fixed price contract and they sure don't want to put their own money. And if they had to, there's no other US with better financial capability to cover any excess costs in this contract.
You can look at it from many angles and Boeing is always going to be the less risky choice. You might want to question NASA risk aversion, But that's a whole different topic.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #339 on: 10/16/2014 01:07 am »
The articles were opinion pieces that did not release the relevant source document.
You are entitled to accept their opinion, but the protest will do real fact finding.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0