Quote from: savuporo on 01/29/2017 02:15 amQuick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?More.
Quick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?
Quote from: woods170 on 01/27/2017 03:37 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2017 02:38 pmEric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:Quote from: Eric BergerAmong those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one. The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2017 02:38 pmEric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:Quote from: Eric BergerAmong those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.
Eric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/
Among those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.
So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame- Congress- FAR- space is hard
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/29/2017 02:09 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/27/2017 03:37 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2017 02:38 pmEric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:Quote from: Eric BergerAmong those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one. The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months. I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for. Both have also proposed to dock. That is their plan. However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock. Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork.
Quote from: savuporo on 01/29/2017 10:15 pmSo I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame- Congress- FAR- space is hardFeature creep. Fake competition.
Quote from: QuantumG on 01/29/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: savuporo on 01/29/2017 02:15 amQuick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?More. So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame- Congress- FAR- space is hard
Quote from: erioladastra on 01/29/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 01/29/2017 02:09 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/27/2017 03:37 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2017 02:38 pmEric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:Quote from: Eric BergerAmong those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one. The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months. I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for. Both have also proposed to dock. That is their plan. However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock. Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork. Yes, I agree. But what I meant to say is that saying that SpaceX is likely to dock isn't false. The uncrewed flight doesn't have to dock for SpaceX or Boeing to be certified. Only a succesfull crewed flight that docks to the ISS is required.
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/30/2017 02:48 amQuote from: erioladastra on 01/29/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 01/29/2017 02:09 pmQuote from: woods170 on 01/27/2017 03:37 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2017 02:38 pmEric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:Quote from: Eric BergerAmong those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one. The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months. I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for. Both have also proposed to dock. That is their plan. However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock. Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork. Yes, I agree. But what I meant to say is that saying that SpaceX is likely to dock isn't false. The uncrewed flight doesn't have to dock for SpaceX or Boeing to be certified. Only a succesfull crewed flight that docks to the ISS is required.It only isn't false if you think 100% counts as "likely." They are going to dock with that mission, and if they somehow fail to dock, they would likely do another unmanned mission unless they were able to do a full checkout of almost all systems, and there is a simple fix for whatever failed. It is in their contracts that they will dock, so that flight and its goals are now required. When they use "likely" in the article it makes it sound like it isn't decided if they will dock. If they want to avoid "will" because the mission could possibly fail, they could just say "is planned to." And it isn't just there, it is throughout the whole article, phrasing makes it sound like the source had no real inside information. This is just a particular spot to pick on because it sounds like the source is also unaware of public information.
It only isn't false if you think 100% counts as "likely." They are going to dock with that mission, and if they somehow fail to dock, they would likely do another unmanned mission unless they were able to do a full checkout of almost all systems, and there is a simple fix for whatever failed. It is in their contracts that they will dock, so that flight and its goals are now required. When they use "likely" in the article it makes it sound like it isn't decided if they will dock. If they want to avoid "will" because the mission could possibly fail, they could just say "is planned to." And it isn't just there, it is throughout the whole article, phrasing makes it sound like the source had no real inside information. This is just a particular spot to pick on because it sounds like the source is also unaware of public information.
Notice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitions
Quote from: savuporo on 02/01/2017 03:33 amNotice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitionsFeature creep is contractors screwing up. So is fake competition. Neither would be a problem if NASA was actually interested in actually flying astronauts any time soon with an efficient use of their available funds.
No evidence of this yet. So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.
Quote from: erioladastra on 02/02/2017 05:42 pmNo evidence of this yet. So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.Huh? Dragon 2 is packed full of features that NASA never asked for...
Those aren't changes. They were planned since the beginning.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/03/2017 02:42 amThose aren't changes. They were planned since the beginning.Planned overengineering is still overengineering. There have been delays due to SpaceX's overreach and that has knocked into the need for requirements changes too. It's a double whammy caused by overambition.Only a few more years to go - Elon Musk (May 24, 2014)