Quote from: yg1968 on 08/15/2017 02:28 pmBear in mind that Space's comments were made 5 years ago before CCtCap when commercial crew was still under SAAs. Remember Musk's recent comments about NASA's oversight being difficult for his employees. He qualified it by saying it that it is necessary for commercial crew but there was clearly some frustration in his tone over how cumbersome the oversight has become under CCtCap. My own view is that this cumbersome oversight doesn't make commercial crew any safer just more expensive. Insight is important for commercial crew but oversight should be minimized. NASA oversight discovered people sitting on installed COPV's
Bear in mind that Space's comments were made 5 years ago before CCtCap when commercial crew was still under SAAs. Remember Musk's recent comments about NASA's oversight being difficult for his employees. He qualified it by saying it that it is necessary for commercial crew but there was clearly some frustration in his tone over how cumbersome the oversight has become under CCtCap. My own view is that this cumbersome oversight doesn't make commercial crew any safer just more expensive. Insight is important for commercial crew but oversight should be minimized.
Quote from: Jim on 08/15/2017 02:31 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/15/2017 02:28 pmBear in mind that Space's comments were made 5 years ago before CCtCap when commercial crew was still under SAAs. Remember Musk's recent comments about NASA's oversight being difficult for his employees. He qualified it by saying it that it is necessary for commercial crew but there was clearly some frustration in his tone over how cumbersome the oversight has become under CCtCap. My own view is that this cumbersome oversight doesn't make commercial crew any safer just more expensive. Insight is important for commercial crew but oversight should be minimized. NASA oversight discovered people sitting on installed COPV'sAfter the COPV accident or before?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/15/2017 03:53 amAfter reading the article I looked up Dr. Pace and saw that he doesn't have any "operational experience" in space transportation, just academic interest and policy level type stuff. Maybe that doesn't matter, but it seemed to put him more in the category of pundit He started out as an engineer at Rockwell on the shuttle program.
After reading the article I looked up Dr. Pace and saw that he doesn't have any "operational experience" in space transportation, just academic interest and policy level type stuff. Maybe that doesn't matter, but it seemed to put him more in the category of pundit
But since you opened up the issue of credentials: this is the policy section, what are your credentials to comment on policy?
You guys read these articles and draw your conclusions, but you lack the context and the knowledge of what is really being discussed. Government procurement isn't simply a signed piece of paper for a contract. There's a lot more going on. There's a whole level of involvement by the customer (i.e. the government) in the development, and that's what Dr. Pace was referring to.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/11/2017 03:32 amI'm sure you weren't implying that Eric Berger is not a "reasonably minded person"... In this particular instance I don't think Mr. Berger was being reasonably minded, hence my statement on the article being a bit unfair towards Mr. Pace. Quote from: Proponent on 08/11/2017 07:54 amThat's fine, but where is Pace's skepticism about NASA? To be fair NASA has been launching humans into space since the 1960s. I don't think anyone should be "skeptical" about NASA's ability to launch humans. Let's also be clear here that Pace's skepticism about commercial crew was/is pretty mild. In the 2012 interview he made a point about not letting launch fever override safety. Additionally he pointed out how many successful launches are needed for commercial and government customers to feel good about putting their payloads on a commercial rocket. I don't see any indication that he was saying, "commercial crew is too dangerous" or "it will never work."Edited to add: Personally I don't think anyone should be "skeptical" of SpaceX's (or Boeing's) ability to launch people into space either. Skeptical of timelines and other various promises? Sure, but not their ability. It is true though that this type of structure (commercial companies owning the LVs and the spacecraft) is new and doesn't have as much of a track record as previous NASA programs. QuoteGiven his skepticism of commercial crew, why would he not be concerned about the risks of putting a crew even on EM-2He might say that a rocket and spacecraft designed mainly for human spaceflight differs from a rocket whose primary role is commercial and cutting costs. I don't know. Maybe Mr. Berger should have asked him. Dragon 2 will only have one test flight before crew is put on it, just like Orion. I haven't heard Mr. Pace criticize either policy so I don't think he is being unfair to the commercial side.
I'm sure you weren't implying that Eric Berger is not a "reasonably minded person"...
That's fine, but where is Pace's skepticism about NASA?
Given his skepticism of commercial crew, why would he not be concerned about the risks of putting a crew even on EM-2
It's true that Pace's discussion of crew safety is focused principally on the launch-vehicle aspect of it. Because he is a prominent figure in space policy, we have many sources of information about his views aside from Berger's article. In particular, Pace has suggested (see 13:37:47 and following) that a launch vehicle should not carry a really valuable payload until it has at least seven successful launches under its belt. Atlas V easily satisfies that criterion, and will rack up further flights before it first carries a Starliner with crew. Falcon 9 should too, before it carries a Dragon 2 with crew (I hedge a bit only because I don't know how many F9 Block 5 flights will have occurred, but F9 family heritage counts for something too).SLS, in contrast, will fly once before it carries a crew, and Pace is on record (see attachment) advocating sending a crew past Mars on its very first flight. SLS's Shuttle heritage counts for something, but under the scenario Pace advocated, it would have been ten years since NASA itself had launched anything. How does that square with the once-per-year cadence we've been told is needed for safe operations? Considering the fact that NASA has not brought a new launch vehicle to flight since the 1980s and has not developed a launch vehicle that met its major design goals since the 1960s, how could anybody have more confidence in NASA's ability to get a new launch vehicle right on the very first flight than in SpaceX's ability to get it right after dozens of flights or ULA's after a hundred or so? I think Pace has demonstrated grossly inconsistent standards for NASA and commercial crew launch.
This was the argument against procurement of commercial launch services Back in the Day when the government was responsible for civil launches; the "conventional wisdom" was that only the government had the expertise to safely conduct space launches. That assumption took a hit in 1986. At the time, the story was that NASA would not launch a rocket until the paperwork weighed as much as the rocket.After 1990, when NASA began to procure launch services commercially, an amazing thing happened - the cost to the taxpayer per launch dropped, and the success rate remained unchanged, if not better.So, we have heard the "commercial is dangerous" message before, and it turned out to be false.
The inconsistent standards will be justified by NASA by means of the magic words "Insight" and "Oversight".
Quote from: woods170 on 08/16/2017 10:09 amThe inconsistent standards will be justified by NASA by means of the magic words "Insight" and "Oversight".Just because you don't understand what those words mean does not mean that they mean nothing to the people who actually do government procurement.
NASA said that under commercial crew SAAs, it had insight but not oversight. So that was the excuse for Congress and NASA to mandate FAR for CCtCap. Now that NASA has oversight under FAR, the delays and the cost of commercial crew have increased. I am not advocating that NASA should have no oversight but it appears to be excessive under CCtCap. Hopefully, it will diminish once certification has been acheived.
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/16/2017 01:48 pmQuote from: woods170 on 08/16/2017 10:09 amThe inconsistent standards will be justified by NASA by means of the magic words "Insight" and "Oversight".Just because you don't understand what those words mean does not mean that they mean nothing to the people who actually do government procurement.You parsed my post incorrectly.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/16/2017 08:51 pmNASA said that under commercial crew SAAs, it had insight but not oversight. So that was the excuse for Congress and NASA to mandate FAR for CCtCap. Now that NASA has oversight under FAR, the delays and the cost of commercial crew have increased. I am not advocating that NASA should have no oversight but it appears to be excessive under CCtCap. Hopefully, it will diminish once certification has been acheived. The companies didnt have to take the money
Quote from: Jim on 08/16/2017 10:07 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/16/2017 08:51 pmNASA said that under commercial crew SAAs, it had insight but not oversight. So that was the excuse for Congress and NASA to mandate FAR for CCtCap. Now that NASA has oversight under FAR, the delays and the cost of commercial crew have increased. I am not advocating that NASA should have no oversight but it appears to be excessive under CCtCap. Hopefully, it will diminish once certification has been acheived. The companies didnt have to take the moneyThe companies will do whatever NASA asks. But that doesn't mean that this was the best model to use. You often hear that NASA should follow the COTS model for new commercial programs but you rarely hear that NASA should follow the follow the commercial crew model for new programs. There was a lot of political interference under the commercial crew program which lead to a FAR/more cumbersome oversight program under CCtCap. In any event, it's water under the bridge now. But I am starting to think that the COTS model will not be replicated in the future. Hopefully, it's not too late for commercial habitats (Nexstep) to avoid the same problems that commercial crew experienced.
But I admit that I have the same concerns as you that they will end up following the CCtCap model for habitats and not the COTS model.
I am hoping that the new NASA admistrator will change things for the future (Nextstep) rounds of habitat development.
COTS is a dead model. It was unique that it was to develop capabilities not just for the government. COTS monies were used for and paid for Falcon 9 development. Commercial use of Antares has yet to happen.