Author Topic: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew  (Read 4507 times)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5863
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 1147
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #20 on: 02/18/2017 06:19 AM »
The most disappointing part of the report in my view is that NASA can't keep its hands-off. A major goal of the commercial cargo and crew programs was to re-orientate NASA's relationship with the launch providers. I hope NASA takes the GAO concerns seriously and considers how they can move towards a lighter touch, while still getting to a high-standard for certification.

If nothing else highlights this it is the RD-180 issue. NASA needs deep insight into them. Seriously? What about their launch history? Even with the recent hickup it is very good.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4017
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #21 on: 02/18/2017 07:24 AM »
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Provided Dragon 2 demo missions go well, SpaceX is highly confident of being able to fly US astronauts in 2018
3:07 AM - 18 Feb 2017

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1410
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #22 on: 02/18/2017 06:38 PM »
Cross-posting, suggest following up on Dragon 2 thread:

In response to Elon's tweet:

@elonmusk Can u address specifics in GAO report? Past projections proved optimistic. Why is GAO wrong? What's different now?

@spacecom They are often right, but, in this case, we have already retired so much R&D risk on Dragon 2, that I feel very confident of 2018.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1274
  • California
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 1134
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #23 on: 02/19/2017 07:30 AM »
This pivot back to a traditional insight/oversight system for the final stage of the Crew Program was 100% intentional.

That must be why it was such a surprise to everyone, including the people who no longer work in the commercial crew office after they fought hard to stop it.
Maybe the way that I wrote that is causing some confusion.  I don't mean that it was always the plan to structure the Crew Transport Systems developments so that the final phase would be a contract.  I mean that when it came time move from CCiCap to CCtCap, NASA looked at their history of the development so far and the results from COTS and determined that using an SAA would not give them the level of insight/oversight they felt they needed.  Additionally, they felt they needed to be able to set requirements--which they can't do under an SAA.  That's why there was a switch to contract.  This clearly wasn't the original plan as crew transport was initially envisioned under COTS Part D. 

My comment was in response to rockets4life97's and it was intended to point out that that ship had sailed.  As soon as NASA switched to contracts, it was obvious that the era of "more hands off" or "lighter touch" was over.  I was trying to explain that that was an intentional change.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.  But, in practice, there is.  --Jan van de Snepscheut

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8868
  • Liked: 1061
  • Likes Given: 690
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #24 on: 02/27/2017 03:37 PM »
FYI, NASA announced its contingency plan last week:

NASA quitely announced that it bought Soyuz seats for 2017 and 2018 from Boeing last week:

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: GAO Feb 2017 report on commercial crew
« Reply #25 on: 04/25/2017 08:02 PM »
... and contract line item 001 for SpaceX by $91 million for a hardware requirement change and the addition of cargo during an ISS test flight.
So it seems SpaceX DM1 will have a cargo manifest paid outside either CRS contract.
« Last Edit: 04/25/2017 08:02 PM by yokem55 »