Author Topic: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread  (Read 272573 times)

Online deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • California
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1916
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #940 on: 11/02/2017 11:33 PM »
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

If lower LOC/LOM for capsules are genuinely important then damage when docked to a spacestation can be handled at a system level. Docking bays designed to protect visiting vehicles against debris can be added to the ISS (and DSG). A Kevlar or equivalent wall will do this. Air tight doors are not needed because spacecraft are happy to stay in vacuum providing they are heated.

The LOC/LOM targets are explicitly vehicle side only, without program/operations mitigation.  Which is not to say that there won't be such added, only that the vehicles were supposed to meet the stated target without such.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online toren

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Idaho, USA
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 170
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions

Edit/gongora:  Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports Server
Paper
Presentation Slides

This is great stuff!  Real numbers and an understandable presentation.  Kudos to the author.  (I say that as someone with 20-plus years of experience in reading new venture and operational budgets and estimates.)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8197
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 265
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #942 on: 11/02/2017 11:49 PM »
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

If lower LOC/LOM for capsules are genuinely important then damage when docked to a spacestation can be handled at a system level. Docking bays designed to protect visiting vehicles against debris can be added to the ISS (and DSG). A Kevlar or equivalent wall will do this. Air tight doors are not needed because spacecraft are happy to stay in vacuum providing they are heated.

The LOC/LOM targets are explicitly vehicle side only, without program/operations mitigation.  Which is not to say that there won't be such added, only that the vehicles were supposed to meet the stated target without such.

Once a waiver exists the problem has to be solved somewhere else.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 708
  • Liked: 435
  • Likes Given: 47
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions

Edit/gongora:  Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports Server
Paper
Presentation Slides

This deserves its own thread, it's too important to be buried under CCtCAP, besides ~50% of the paper is about COTS and CRS, has nothing to do with CCtCAP.

Edit/Lar: Here's the thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44180

Also LOL about the following, I wonder if the author visits NSF:
Quote
It’s worth noting that many an internet discussion about the cost of commercial cargo to the ISS have failed to draw the distinctions that make for rigorous analysis, or even trying to account for major factors. Common errors include using the Space Shuttle programs historical average cost per flightd to calculate costs per kg to the ISS at a low yearly flight rate as a multiple of that average, incorrectly treating the Shuttle’s per flight costs as if NASA could purchase those flights by the yard. To make matters worse, other common errors forget that Shuttle upgrades, though not a recurring yearly operational cost, were a large, ever present and continuous capital expense in every yearly budget. Operating a Shuttle meant continually funding Shuttle upgrades. Other typical errors include using the Shuttle’s maximum payload (not cargo) of about 27,500kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at 200km, then comparing against the commercial prices for ISS cargo (not payload) delivered to the actual, higher 400km ISS orbit. With errors like these such analysis are incorrect (though “not even wrong” might also apply.)
« Last Edit: 11/08/2017 05:30 PM by Lar »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5222
  • Liked: 3133
  • Likes Given: 4449
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #944 on: 11/03/2017 11:04 AM »
Agree.  Too broad for this thread...

Examples:
PPP
Quote
Recommendation: We  propose  a  steady  transformation  of  NASA space  exploration  and  operations funding towards more, smaller commercial / public-private partnerships, favoring those with strong non-government business cases,  to increase  the  pace  of NASA achievements and avoid having  most funding in projects with goals forever a generation away.

Depots
Quote
A NASA team looked at propellant depot scenarios in 2011. The cost estimating approach for stages, tankers and the depot have since been refined.  Changes in assumptions are minor (for example, there is no assumption of cost commonality in manufacturing between propulsion stages and depots in the work here, a more conservative assumption).  Overall the new results confirm earlier findings that refueling scenarios are promising, with ample margin for error in cost estimation and for inevitable “unknown unknowns”.  Figure 16 shows an in-space refueling architecture used for lunar exploration where the SpaceX Falcon Heavy in development becomes NASA’s commercial heavy lift provider. The deep space spacecraft and lander are the same as in prior scenarios, also public private  partnerships. The new element is the propellant depot scaled for filling from tankers rendezvousing in low Earth orbit such that enough propellant is available to support 1 lunar mission per year.

Entrenchment
Quote
Reviews of cost over-runs in the US Department of Defense (DoD) note “the well-known bureaucratic power game of front-loading or buying-in.”  Once early funding is spent, this “in effect, gives the contractor permission to use public money to build his political protection network by systematically spreading subcontracts and production facilities to as many congressional districts as possible.”  Inevitably the low operational or per unit costs never materialize as their purpose was only to justify and entrench the early up-front costs.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2017 11:04 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
  • US
  • Liked: 1689
  • Likes Given: 1167
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #945 on: 11/29/2017 05:19 PM »
The slides from the NAC HEO Committee meeting are out.  No official change to dates (will be interesting to see if there are any comments about that during the presentation.)

( the presentations can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc )
« Last Edit: 11/29/2017 05:20 PM by gongora »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2347
  • US
  • Liked: 1689
  • Likes Given: 1167
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #946 on: 11/29/2017 09:10 PM »
The slides from the NAC HEO Committee meeting are out.  No official change to dates (will be interesting to see if there are any comments about that during the presentation.)

( the presentations can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc )

The dates on the schedule slide are from the beginning of September (the last publicly available update), they get updated about once a quarter.

Online deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1728
  • California
  • Liked: 1288
  • Likes Given: 1916
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #947 on: 12/01/2017 07:25 PM »
In the program and safety risks slides, they've left off "Ammonia Emergency Response" this time.  Doesn't necessarily mean that it was closed out, maybe just left off?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3522
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2272
  • Likes Given: 2841
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #948 on: 01/04/2018 03:06 PM »
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3592
  • California
  • Liked: 2836
  • Likes Given: 1787
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #949 on: 01/04/2018 04:49 PM »
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4877
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3534
  • Likes Given: 1133
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #950 on: 01/04/2018 07:22 PM »
A long update on what to expect from CC in 2018:

Quote
NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission in Sight for 2018

NASA and industry partners, Boeing and SpaceX, are targeting the return of human spaceflight from Florida’s Space Coast in 2018. Both companies are scheduled to begin flight tests to prove the space systems meet NASA’s requirements for certification in the coming year.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commercial-crew-program-mission-in-sight-for-2018

Edit to add:

Although the feature gives rough dates for SpaceX (Q2 & Q3 for demo flights 1 & 2), there’s no mention of timescales for Boeing.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 07:30 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8288
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3103
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #951 on: 01/04/2018 07:35 PM »
How many billions for commercial crew so far?
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #952 on: 01/04/2018 07:40 PM »
Hmm... SpaceX dates fit with previous dates from NASA (April and August for DM1 and DM2). Seem to conflict with reports of DM1 slipping to August and DM2 to Jan 2019.

Online vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 609
  • Likes Given: 1244
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #953 on: 01/04/2018 08:42 PM »
Hmm... SpaceX dates fit with previous dates from NASA (April and August for DM1 and DM2). Seem to conflict with reports of DM1 slipping to August and DM2 to Jan 2019.

Do you have a link to those reports, perchance? I've been looking for that, I had a similar memory.
I report on commercial space!

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #954 on: 01/04/2018 09:18 PM »
The current ISS visiting vehicle schedule (which is highly subject to changes) has SPX DM-2 in 2019. All other NASA reports and articles are still saying 2018.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9225
  • Liked: 1194
  • Likes Given: 785
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #955 on: 01/05/2018 01:23 AM »
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D

How is this misleading?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8288
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3103
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #956 on: 01/05/2018 01:25 AM »
If anything it was optimistic.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #957 on: 01/05/2018 01:37 AM »
Adjusted for inflation? Non-zero axis start?

Offline hplan

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #958 on: 01/05/2018 01:39 AM »
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:



I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D

How is this misleading?

With the bottom axis at $20 million, a brief glance that assumes the bottom is zero might conclude that the price per seat has risen by a factor of about 40, instead of "just" 4.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3592
  • California
  • Liked: 2836
  • Likes Given: 1787
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #959 on: 01/05/2018 01:53 AM »
Adjusted for inflation? Non-zero axis start?

The latter.

With the bottom axis at $20 million, a brief glance that assumes the bottom is zero might conclude that the price per seat has risen by a factor of about 40, instead of "just" 4.

Exactly.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2018 02:49 AM by Lars-J »

Tags: