Author Topic: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis  (Read 105082 times)

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5184
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 1740
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #400 on: 07/20/2017 11:45 PM »
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2017/07/20/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-flight-dates/
Quote
Targeted Test Flight Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test: June 2018
Boeing Crew Flight Test: August 2018
SpaceX Demonstration Mission 1: February 2018
SpaceX Demonstration Mission 2 (crewed): June 2018

Well this is an incredibly quiet, under the radar release.  And yeah, there's a seeming mismatch between what SpaceX has publicly said and what NASA's now saying.  Interesting.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 390
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #401 on: 07/21/2017 12:46 AM »
The blog entry also stated:
"The following schedule reflects the most recent publicly-releasable dates for both providers."

Program reports don't always become public in a timely manner so these could be from an already out-of-date source.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3881
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2562
  • Likes Given: 846
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #402 on: 07/21/2017 07:51 PM »
Quote
NASA and companies express growing confidence in commercial crew schedules
by Jeff Foust July 21, 2017

http://spacenews.com/nasa-and-companies-express-growing-confidence-in-commercial-crew-schedules/

Offline Chalmer

  • Member
  • Posts: 95
  • Copenhagen
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #403 on: 07/25/2017 08:32 AM »
SpaceX and Boeing Milestones from NAC yestesday. Taken from Eric Bergers twitter feed.

Full presentations from yesterday and today should be uploaded at below address within a few days:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1784
  • US
  • Liked: 1206
  • Likes Given: 919
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #404 on: 10/05/2017 03:54 PM »
NASA ASAP notes:

Kathy Leuders and team doing great job

Schedule: SpaceX April 2018 uncrewed, August 2018 crewed.  Boeing August 2018 uncrewed, November 2018 crewed.

MMOD - something about purposely putting some defects on a cargo Dragon so they can inspect on return and refine the MMOD models???

Both providers still doing parachute testing.  SpaceX has several more tests to help reduce uncertainty in the models.  Boeing added six tests (not all drop tests?  something about a high mach test?) for parachutes.  Boeing found issue with shock of parachute deployment during structural testing, being worked.

NASA working on launch commit criteria, including weather/sea states for abort scenarios.  Also looking at on-orbit MMOD inspections.

Approval of the vehicles will occur at Associate Administrator or higher level.

SpaceX continues development of the COPV 2.0.  Some members of the panel visited SpaceX last month to discuss.  NASA is still doing lots of analysis on COPV physics, something about NASA working on some alternative path for the COPVs.

The Merlin turbine disc improvements have been implemented and are in the middle of testing.  One of the panel members with propulsion experience had a chance to go over it with SpaceX.  Referred to it as a bladed disc (blisc) in a single forging.  It's a complex, state of the art forging.

Boeing making progress on RD-180 certification, working through several unspecified design changes.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 03:58 PM by gongora »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7158
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2768
  • Likes Given: 825
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #405 on: 10/05/2017 05:55 PM »
NASA ASAP notes:

Kathy Leuders and team doing great job

Schedule: SpaceX April 2018 uncrewed, August 2018 crewed.  Boeing August 2018 uncrewed, November 2018 crewed.

MMOD - something about purposely putting some defects on a cargo Dragon so they can inspect on return and refine the MMOD models???

Both providers still doing parachute testing.  SpaceX has several more tests to help reduce uncertainty in the models.  Boeing added six tests (not all drop tests?  something about a high mach test?) for parachutes.  Boeing found issue with shock of parachute deployment during structural testing, being worked.

NASA working on launch commit criteria, including weather/sea states for abort scenarios.  Also looking at on-orbit MMOD inspections.

Approval of the vehicles will occur at Associate Administrator or higher level.

SpaceX continues development of the COPV 2.0.  Some members of the panel visited SpaceX last month to discuss.  NASA is still doing lots of analysis on COPV physics, something about NASA working on some alternative path for the COPVs.

The Merlin turbine disc improvements have been implemented and are in the middle of testing.  One of the panel members with propulsion experience had a chance to go over it with SpaceX.  Referred to it as a bladed disc (blisc) in a single forging.  It's a complex, state of the art forging.

Boeing making progress on RD-180 certification, working through several unspecified design changes.

Take-away:
- Both SpaceX demo missions have slipped two months in the past 3 months.
- Boeing unmanned demo mission has slipped six months in the past 3 months.
- Boeing manned demo mission has slipped four months in the past 3 months.

Prediction: before the first quarter of 2018 is over it will have become clear that the SpaceX unmanned demo mission is the only CCP mission that will fly in 2018. All other demo missions will have slipped into 2019.

The on-orbit MMOD inspections that NASA is proposing will only serve to delay CCP further. Those inspections will bring with them new requirements and new procedures to be implemented before the first manned missions lift-off.

NASA-induced slips are now responsible for over half of the delays since the originally targeted 2017 launch dates. It is almost as if NASA doesn't want those vehicles to ever fly. Every few months NASA comes up with yet another new set of requirements for some previously unlisted feature. Very disappointing. And I can imagine extremely frustrating for both Boeing and SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2017 06:01 PM by woods170 »

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1208
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #406 on: 10/05/2017 06:13 PM »
Take-away:
- Both SpaceX demo missions have slipped two months in the past 3 months.
...
Prediction: before the first quarter of 2018 is over it will have become clear that the SpaceX unmanned demo mission is the only CCP mission that will fly in 2018. All other demo missions will have slipped into 2019.
Depends on how you are counting. An earlier official source in May indicated March 9 as the placeholder date for DM-1.

That makes it closer to a 1 month slip in 5 months. I'd say SpaceX has a good chance of getting both demos completed in 2018.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2307
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2164
  • Likes Given: 1569
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #407 on: 10/06/2017 12:59 AM »
Suggest that there is less incentive to realize commercial crew launches from America, more reason to add ambiguity to commercial crew safety, and to artificially inflate program cost ... possibly to lessen the differences to other vehicle(s). Under constantly shifting goalposts.

Poor leadership. From the usual source.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7158
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2768
  • Likes Given: 825
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #408 on: 10/06/2017 06:33 AM »
Suggest that there is less incentive to realize commercial crew launches from America, more reason to add ambiguity to commercial crew safety, and to artificially inflate program cost ... possibly to lessen the differences to other vehicle(s). Under constantly shifting goalposts.

Poor leadership. From the usual source.
Agree.

IMO this latest "on orbit MMOD inspections" is the most recent attempt to meet the theoretical 1-in-270 LOC/LOM number.
That is NASA again sticking to theory in stead of having a good look at "what can we do realistically?"

Only when there is absolutely no alternative are they willing to think outside their usual frame-of-reference and except reality over theory. Such as flying US astronauts on Soyuz because the shuttle no longer flies.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 10:02 AM by woods170 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5138
  • Liked: 947
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #409 on: 10/06/2017 06:24 PM »
Quick 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



- NASA
- Nefarious interests
- political undercurrents

It's never ever the contractors fault though.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2017 06:24 PM by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 390
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #410 on: 10/06/2017 08:23 PM »

- NASA
- Nefarious interests
- political undercurrents

It's never ever the contractors fault though.

It's the contractor's fault if they aren't "newspace."

Online AbuSimbel

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Italy
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #411 on: 10/07/2017 09:35 AM »

- NASA
- Nefarious interests
- political undercurrents

It's never ever the contractors fault though.

It's the contractor's fault if they aren't "newspace."
It's NASA's/congress' fault even with SLS, at lest with that I'm coherent. But this discussion is Off topic
« Last Edit: 10/07/2017 09:37 AM by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • USA
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #412 on: 10/08/2017 07:13 PM »
The on-orbit MMOD inspections that NASA is proposing will only serve to delay CCP further. Those inspections will bring with them new requirements and new procedures to be implemented before the first manned missions lift-off.

Why? As I understand it, this would just be using Canadarm and the crew photography equipment to take pictures of the outsides of the vehicles, same way they did/do for Shuttle and Soyuz and planned to for Orion CEV. No hardware changes needed for the vehicles, and the on-station work would be no different from any other Canadarm operations

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1419
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #413 on: 10/08/2017 08:23 PM »
I think the MMOD risk models are way off. There have been 12+ months of combined Dragon presence at the ISS without any related concerns over MMOD (damage to the Dragon because of MMOD). MMOD is a statistical item in that the longer the exposure even if not the same vehicle the higher the likelihood of an incident involving MMOD. What the previous Dragon missions have shown is that the MMOD risk values seem to be overblown.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7158
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2768
  • Likes Given: 825
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #414 on: 10/08/2017 08:32 PM »
The on-orbit MMOD inspections that NASA is proposing will only serve to delay CCP further. Those inspections will bring with them new requirements and new procedures to be implemented before the first manned missions lift-off.

Why? As I understand it, this would just be using Canadarm and the crew photography equipment to take pictures of the outsides of the vehicles, same way they did/do for Shuttle and Soyuz and planned to for Orion CEV. No hardware changes needed for the vehicles, and the on-station work would be no different from any other Canadarm operations
Wrong. New requirement:  perform multiple additional manoeuvres, in support of on-orbit inspections,  in stead of straight- in approach. This in turn requires the development of a whole set of new additional procedures. Those don't come into existence overnight. They will take several months of additional time. Thus: delay.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #415 on: 10/09/2017 04:05 PM »

Wrong. New requirement:  perform multiple additional manoeuvres, in support of on-orbit inspections,  in stead of straight- in approach. This in turn requires the development of a whole set of new additional procedures. Those don't come into existence overnight. They will take several months of additional time. Thus: delay.

Of course, inspecting it on the way in after it has been in space for less than 24 hours doesn't mean a whole lot when it won't get used for reentry until 6 months later.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8148
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #416 on: 10/09/2017 04:32 PM »

Wrong. New requirement:  perform multiple additional manoeuvres, in support of on-orbit inspections,  in stead of straight- in approach. This in turn requires the development of a whole set of new additional procedures. Those don't come into existence overnight. They will take several months of additional time. Thus: delay.

Of course, inspecting it on the way in after it has been in space for less than 24 hours doesn't mean a whole lot when it won't get used for reentry until 6 months later.

Yes and no. There are 6 months to fix the capsule. The parts sent up on a later mission. If the capsule cannot be repaired a replacement can be sent to the spacestation.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7158
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2768
  • Likes Given: 825
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #417 on: 10/09/2017 06:29 PM »

Wrong. New requirement:  perform multiple additional manoeuvres, in support of on-orbit inspections,  in stead of straight- in approach. This in turn requires the development of a whole set of new additional procedures. Those don't come into existence overnight. They will take several months of additional time. Thus: delay.

Of course, inspecting it on the way in after it has been in space for less than 24 hours doesn't mean a whole lot when it won't get used for reentry until 6 months later.
The whole MMOD idea is still in initial development, but right now they are looking at multiple opportunities:
- Photographic MMOD inspections on the way in (prior to docking) much like was done with shuttle.
- Robotic inspections (while docked to ISS) much like was done on shuttle by means of robotic arm.
- Photographic post-undocking inspections (with the option of safe-have re-docking if anything major is discovered).

The last scenario is the most unlikely one. It would require the CCP spaceships to remain on orbit for at least one more day  after undocking, near by the ISS, in case of the need to perform a safe-have re-docking. Problem is that original requirements for the CCP ships does not really provide the CCP ships with capacity to actually loiter a full day after undocking. Fullfilling a new requirement to actually do so will require major (re)work to the ships. So, the first two scenario's are more likely to be implemented. IF they are implemented...

Online butters

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #418 on: 10/09/2017 07:08 PM »
MMOD - something about purposely putting some defects on a cargo Dragon so they can inspect on return and refine the MMOD models???

Sounds like SpaceX tried to pull a "But what about cargo Dragon? Doesn't that count as evidence concerning MMOD?"

Not so fast, SpaceX. We see what you're trying to do here, attempting to substitute empirical evidence for statistical hand-waving. We'll only let you test with an intentionally defective spacecraft. It would obviously be unfair to test with a representative flight article. Let's be reasonable.

Plus it would be unfair to Boeing, since they don't have a existing spacecraft. The statistical hand-waving can be equally applied to both vehicles.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2017 07:26 PM by butters »

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #419 on: 10/09/2017 07:09 PM »
Yes and no. There are 6 months to fix the capsule. The parts sent up on a later mission. If the capsule cannot be repaired a replacement can be sent to the spacestation.

Considering that the probability of sustaining an MMOD strike is directly proportional to the time on orbit, it's more to the point that it's FAR more likely to sustain a strike while docked than during the relatively brief time between launch and docking.  Unless an approach inspection is going to reveal something that would rule out docking, it doesn't seem to add a lot of value.

I'm also struggling to think of any component that could be repaired on orbit in that timeframe.  Unlike station, the commercial crew vehicles are not being designed with on-orbit (EVA or EVR) repair in mind.

Tags: