Author Topic: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis  (Read 398184 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #180 on: 05/29/2016 07:36 pm »
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.

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-2013
NASA’s Use of Space Act Agreements, IG-14-020, NASA OIG, 5-Jun-2014.
Congress wrote those laws. This should be an obvious point that I'm making, but sometime I think people have a mental block that prevents understanding it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #181 on: 05/29/2016 10:41 pm »
The vast majority of "other transaction authority" (e.g., SAA) governing details are NASA-defined rules and regulations (see the IG reports, among others), and Congress generally leaves those details to the agencies.  The basis for much of that governance dates to NASA decisions made decades ago and refined more recently as the use of $$$ SAA's expanded.

It's easy to say Congress makes the laws therefore Congress is ultimately responsible, but that is not very informative or reasonably precise in this case.  The exception are laws which direct funding, in which case I agree: 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.  For the rest (specifically the use of SAA's), you should probably take it up with NASA leadership, the IG and GC.  Don't want to get into space policy, so I'll leave it at that.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #182 on: 05/29/2016 11:21 pm »
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.

How do you support that assertion?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #183 on: 05/29/2016 11:52 pm »
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.

How do you support that assertion?

Prior to CCtCap, Congress gave much less than the President's request.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2016 02:23 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #184 on: 05/30/2016 12:14 am »
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.

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?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #185 on: 05/30/2016 12:15 am »
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.
How do you support that assertion?

Hesitant to go too far down this path as we're getting into space policy and opinions about priorities and where available funds should have been spent.

I'll only say that in hindsight I believe the FY2011 PBR profile for CCP was overly-aggressive (which I supported), and the Congressional response was overly-conservative.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #186 on: 05/30/2016 12:30 am »
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?

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #187 on: 05/30/2016 02:27 am »
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?

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.

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.

Orion lite was a Bigelow proposal to team up with LM which never materialized since they decided to team up with Boeing instead.
« Last Edit: 05/30/2016 02:41 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #188 on: 05/30/2016 02:33 am »
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.

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?

For what it's worth, I don't think that commercial crew development was underfunded either. The fact that it was underfunded in the earlier years may have forced NASA to stick to SAAs which was a good thing.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2016 03:15 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #189 on: 05/30/2016 02:48 am »
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.

Understood, and that is a point worth repeating.  It does not, however, address the question of whether the FY2010-2011 CCICAP plan was over-reach on the part of NASA.  (While I supported it at that time, in retrospect it probably was.)  If CCICAP had been fully funded, would we be better off (operational crewed flights sooner)?  Maybe a bit sooner, but I doubt it would have made a significant difference.  But who knows.  I certainly don't... too many if's maybe's and but's in the equation.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #190 on: 05/30/2016 03:38 pm »
Actually, the underlying discussion on funding was more NASA's desire to keep a commercial approach with multiple providers with fixed priced milestones contract, versus Congress desire for a cost-plus single contractor program (that contractor being Boeing, obviously).
NASA was saying "we want 800 millions to keep at least three companies running until certification" and Congress was "here's 500M, hire a single contractor and do things like you usually do".
I don't think that this war of wills should be forgotten when analyzing the crewed services "delay". After all, ISS was supposed to be deorbited by 2015.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #191 on: 06/19/2016 10:50 pm »
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.

Suggest it was because the results of the pad abort test, and critical under performance. Clearly they blew the schedule on that. The point of such tests are to find weaknesses, and that is sure one.

Quote
In June, the Falcon 9 exploded and sent a Dragon supply ship to the bottom of the Atlantic.

They are still reeling from that one. The upcoming CRS launch will be watched carefully, and launch cadence will need to step up alongside bringing in schedule. CRS and CCtCap need to advance in measure together given teams.

Quote
Initial Propulsion Module Testing: Delayed from April to November
Delta Critical Design Review  (dCDR): Delayed from June to December
Docking System Qualification Testing Complete: Delayed from August to December
Propulsion land landing test: Delayed from September to December
Launch Site Operational Readiness Review was completed as scheduled in November.

Competing for attention are other sizable programs as well. The dCDR and docking system qual are the most risky in that you can liken to their rival, a fall into a schedule "free fall" with a "long pole".

The trouble with the SX "everybody does 2 or more jobs" approach is that "everyone gets behind on 2 or more jobs" too. Their rival's variation on this is that "everyone waits for those 2 or more jobs to be complete". Either way both get schedule slips, while Boeing's higher corporate loading loses them money faster. One place where being >100x bigger hurts you.

Quote
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.

Yes. Note also that OA is facing delays on Antares RTF, and ULA just got back on the board with an unheard of RD180 anomaly and resolution. Those bad days cost your entire org.

Quote
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.

It's interesting to watch the race for CC to fly. Boeing has more history/skill/resources, but their rear loaded processes have significant "downside risk" that occurs late in the program, where a multi year slip is quite possible. SX suffers greater risk from bad early decisions and too many "attention grabbers", so while they can move faster to recover, the anxiety of a 6 month slip on many milestones makes for "white knuckle ride" on meeting them.

Had Boeing been more "front loaded", they might have aced out SX. As it is, while SX is more dramatic, the inside edge of having flow Dragon 1 for so long may well keep them in the lead.

Still waiting on the Centaur Starliner abort issue resolution. Doesn't seem to be an easy one to close out.

Both seemed to greatly affected by abort systems bringing up the rear. Not too surprising that these are floating to the end of the schedule.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #192 on: 06/20/2016 12:06 am »
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #193 on: 06/20/2016 12:29 am »
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.

Shades of the dread "Pad X" ;) Or Musk dilation effect (the closer/more attention you get, the more he cares, and the slower things go?).

Quote
2) Perhaps some regular old funding uncertainty.

Yes, writing all those reports to show you're not wasting money, while you wait for ... money ...

Quote
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.

AF. You forgot the AF. Trust me they really, really want to know what you do wrong. I included that and all you have here in 3) in my "reeling from it" comment.

No, they did under perform. Luckily they made it to the water. There were other issues like wind.

Now if you're doing an escape from a live ascending booster, you might want to insure you are on top of your game for that one.

And, if you're doing same with a Centaur under you, clearly you don't want a side thrust or plume intrusion to crease those nice stainless walls and have a bad day...

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #194 on: 06/20/2016 12:50 am »
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #195 on: 06/20/2016 01:07 am »
I'm not at all convinced that the slight underperformance of the abort matters to the schedule one iota.

Don't think it would matter if this was, say, Orion. On the other hand, more would come out of Congress then to deal with such.

Suggest to you that the sensitivity of a CCDEV abort, both in terms of extremes of safety concerns coupled with hardnosed congressional nitpicking might make this a bit more then just a "oof, good enough for most bad days that'll never come" that you're suggesting.

Quote
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.

Yes, the in-flight abort seems the best "fixup" for this. Hover / landing tests are less relevant.

Having trouble with the "any and all concerns". Think that the combo of the uncrewed ISS flight return and the in-flight abort will address concerns for a crewed flight. Have never seen a 100% flight test where you didn't stare at things in the margin.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #196 on: 06/20/2016 01:11 am »
Yeah, I agree an uncrewed flight to ISS is required. That's unchanged, however.

But I still do not think the very slight underperformance of the pad abort makes any difference, handwaving about Congress notwithstanding. CRS-7, on the other hand, /did/ make a huge difference.

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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #197 on: 06/20/2016 01:23 am »
And hovering (and that one integrated propulsion test we saw) /does/ mitigate questions posed by the slight underperformance.
More of a test of combustion stability while throttling, and GNC.

Quote
SpaceX can show they understood exactly what caused the underperformance and prove they addressed it by the Dragon 2 tests in McGregor.

Not sure if you can fly high and downrange enough at McGregor due to license, noise, and hazards issues. You need to ramp thrust to prove no issue, might in a static test.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #198 on: 06/20/2016 01:56 am »
The underperformance was due to the Superdracos. They can address that with the ground tests I mentioned and confirm it under thrust with the in-flight abort. Everything else in the test went swimmingly.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #199 on: 06/20/2016 12:41 pm »
The many employees and contractors at SpaceX are not buying or renting homes, buying groceries, paying for services and other goods with play money from a SpaceX Monopoly set.

At the least, SpaceX has clearly earned money sufficient to pay its employees, the contractors that recover stages, the suppliers that provide the materials for assembly, the contractors that are altering LC39A and building Boca Chica.

Don't mistake SpaceX for NASA and certainly not Boeing, which are both a bit more dependent on huge government  budgets and contracts and (thus) the bureaucracy of payment. SX's private status, without even an IPO, means that real money must flow in and out.

We don't know how much but we can safely assume that people are getting paid. We'd certainly know; they are some who would love to tarnish the company's reputation it's gained thus far by indicating any kind of insolvency.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0