Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/28/2016 05:33 pmRight. Remember who makes the laws: Congress. So if you say, "NASA legally had to do FAR," this is just another way of blaming Congress.Depends on which part of CCtCap you are referring to. As yg1968 suggested:- DDT&E -- Probably could be done under an SAA.[1][2]- Certification -- Maybe could be done under an SAA (NASA IG said no).[2]- Operational (post-certification) missions -- Could not be done under an SAA.However, if those were split: (a) it would likely take longer; and (b) the contractor is not obligated to take the next step.[1] edit: Add qualifier; depends on specifics or which parts of DDT&E per NASA IG.[2] See:NASA’S Management of the Commercial Crew Program, IG-14-001, NASA OIG, 13-Nov-2013NASA’s Use of Space Act Agreements, IG-14-020, NASA OIG, 5-Jun-2014.
Right. Remember who makes the laws: Congress. So if you say, "NASA legally had to do FAR," this is just another way of blaming Congress.
Congress did not provide sufficient funds soon enough for commercial crew, and used funding as a lever to influence behavior in ways which may have been detrimental.
Quote from: joek on 05/29/2016 10:41 pmCongress did not provide sufficient funds soon enough for commercial crew, and used funding as a lever to influence behavior in ways which may have been detrimental.How do you support that assertion?
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/29/2016 11:21 pmQuote from: joek on 05/29/2016 10:41 pmCongress did not provide sufficient funds soon enough for commercial crew, and used funding as a lever to influence behavior in ways which may have been detrimental.How do you support that assertion?Prior to CCtCap, Congress game much less than the President's request.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/29/2016 11:52 pmPrior to CCtCap, Congress game much less than the President's request... and why do you think the partners needed more than Congress provided? Isn't it just as possible that NASA requested more than they needed?
Prior to CCtCap, Congress game much less than the President's request.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/30/2016 12:14 amQuote from: yg1968 on 05/29/2016 11:52 pmPrior to CCtCap, Congress game much less than the President's request... and why do you think the partners needed more than Congress provided? Isn't it just as possible that NASA requested more than they needed?Remember, the original NASA plan circa FY2010-2011 was CCIDC which at that time would have included all the work subsequently performed under CCDevX SAA's under a FAR-based program (IIRC some referred to as "Orion lite"). Given NASA's experience at that time, it is anyone's guess whether the requested funding would have been excessive, insufficient, or nominal.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/29/2016 11:52 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 05/29/2016 11:21 pmQuote from: joek on 05/29/2016 10:41 pmCongress did not provide sufficient funds soon enough for commercial crew, and used funding as a lever to influence behavior in ways which may have been detrimental.How do you support that assertion?Prior to CCtCap, Congress game much less than the President's request... and why do you think the partners needed more than Congress provided? Isn't it just as possible that NASA requested more than they needed?
CCIDC was replaced by CCiCap (which was under SAAs). CCIDC would have been under FAR. But it was a program after CCDev1 and 2. The reason that NASA stuck to SAAs for CCiCap is because the funding from Congress was less than requested.
Next milestone of Initial Propulsion Module Testing was scheduled for April. That milestone was delayed by 7 months.Why? Because SpaceX was focused on pad abort test. Originally scheduled for December 2013, it was completed in May 2015.
In June, the Falcon 9 exploded and sent a Dragon supply ship to the bottom of the Atlantic.
Initial Propulsion Module Testing: Delayed from April to NovemberDelta Critical Design Review (dCDR): Delayed from June to DecemberDocking System Qualification Testing Complete: Delayed from August to DecemberPropulsion land landing test: Delayed from September to DecemberLaunch Site Operational Readiness Review was completed as scheduled in November.
In essence, they were already running behind schedule early in the year. Once Falcon 9 crashed, they didn't completely any milestones until November when they were getting Falcon 9 ready for return to flight.
SpaceX still has a bunch of milestones to complete, including the in-flight abort test left over from CCiCap. That had been originally scheduled for April 2014, so it's running well over 2 years behind schedule.
Respectfully, I don't think it had ANYTHING to do with the slightly under-nominal pad abort test.The schedule slip is due to:1) The regular old over-optimistic SpaceX schedules.
2) Perhaps some regular old funding uncertainty.
3) CRS-7 failure slowing everything down and likely causing both SpaceX and NASA to take a second look at everything to make sure a similar slip-up isn't hiding somewhere that would put crew at risk.
I'm not at all convinced that the slight underperformance of the abort matters to the schedule one iota.
Remember, SpaceX was already planning an in-flight abort using very realistic flight conditions. They've also done hover tests and will do landing tests. This allows them to address any and all concerns that the pad abort may have brought up.
And hovering (and that one integrated propulsion test we saw) /does/ mitigate questions posed by the slight underperformance.
SpaceX can show they understood exactly what caused the underperformance and prove they addressed it by the Dragon 2 tests in McGregor.