Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[Mandella]

Interesting thread: https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1512454357865963528

SpaceX benefited tremendously from our NASA collaboration as part of @Commercial_Crew. Their spacecraft design succeeded because of their smart and hard work, but also because top JSC engineers partnered with them all the way.


Boeing did not allow collaboration in the same way. I was the spacecraft struc mech system manager on the nasa side. These 2 companies had very different relationships with my team.


Boeing believed it had all the answers, did not appear to understand the nature of a fixed price contract, and treated my team like people they hardly needed. SpaceX welcomed wisdom and guidance and fully partnered with our engineers.


To be clear, by “Boeing” I mean mgmt. the engineers we worked with were just as frustrated as we were.

I have always heard that once NASA people started working with SpaceX the relationship rapidly became mutually beneficial, with both "sides" coming to respect and value each other's culture.

But I didn't realize Boeing had actively rejected cooperation.

It's funny. According to this Boeing was the one acting like many were (and still are) accusing SpaceX of.

[John-H]

There was a discussion early on that Boeing was going to be excused from  strict NASA oversight (good), while SpaceX was stuck with it (bad).  I could see how they could end up in this situation.

John

[woods170]

There was a discussion early on that Boeing was going to be excused from  strict NASA oversight (good), while SpaceX was stuck with it (bad).  I could see how they could end up in this situation.

John

Emphasis mine.

In fact, that more or less happened. On July 7th 2020, the outcome of the Starliner investigation was discussed during a teleconference. During that teleconference Steve Stich (then Commercial Crew Program Manager) admitted "that NASA felt more comfortable with Boeing's traditional approach, so SpaceX may have had more oversight since they had a newer approach."

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1280580214729261058

[deadman1204]

There was a discussion early on that Boeing was going to be excused from  strict NASA oversight (good), while SpaceX was stuck with it (bad).  I could see how they could end up in this situation.

John

Emphasis mine.

In fact, that more or less happened. On July 7th 2020, the outcome of the Starliner investigation was discussed during a teleconference. During that teleconference Steve Stich (then Commercial Crew Program Manager) admitted "that NASA felt more comfortable with Boeing's traditional approach, so SpaceX may have had more oversight since they had a newer approach."

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1280580214729261058

Hasn't this been general knowledge for a couple years already?
Though it never hurts to point it out again. NASA will probably need reminders to stay honest.

[DanClemmensen]

Is there a published source anywhere that compares the turnaround costs other than LVs of Crew Dragon versus Starliner? Not launch costs (F9 versus Atlas V or Vulcan), but cost of recovery (water versus land), capsule refurbishment, and replacing expendable units (trunk versus service module). We can guess that water recovery is more expensive, that a Starliner capsule might be cheaper to refurbish, and the trunk is cheaper than the service module, but guesses are not substitutes for good sources.

[Coastal Ron]

Is there a published source anywhere that compares the turnaround costs other than LVs of Crew Dragon versus Starliner? Not launch costs (F9 versus Atlas V or Vulcan), but cost of recovery (water versus land), capsule refurbishment, and replacing expendable units (trunk versus service module). We can guess that water recovery is more expensive, that a Starliner capsule might be cheaper to refurbish, and the trunk is cheaper than the service module, but guesses are not substitutes for good sources.

I would imagine all of that would be termed "proprietary information", and the companies would not make it public.

Certainly once the contracts are signed, NASA doesn't care what the costs are, since the service contracts are Firm Fixed Price. Which also means that the contractors can change their processes as they go along, for reasons that would include reducing their operational costs. Which means the costs could be changing from flight to flight.

Bottom line is that I don't think we'll ever know.

[JayWee]

Bottom line is that I don't think we'll ever know.

Maybe when(if) they start flying for CLD.

[pathfinder_01]

Is there a published source anywhere that compares the turnaround costs other than LVs of Crew Dragon versus Starliner? Not launch costs (F9 versus Atlas V or Vulcan), but cost of recovery (water versus land), capsule refurbishment, and replacing expendable units (trunk versus service module). We can guess that water recovery is more expensive, that a Starliner capsule might be cheaper to refurbish, and the trunk is cheaper than the service module, but guesses are not substitutes for good sources.

All we have to go on is the fact that Boeing was awarded a higher sum than Space X by about 60%. However Boeing is both handicapped in it's conservative design and for having to pay ULA for a disposable launcher.

[baldusi]

I still want to know if the clam design of the main pressure vessel did impacted reusability (times), security and cost.

[woods170]

There was a discussion early on that Boeing was going to be excused from  strict NASA oversight (good), while SpaceX was stuck with it (bad).  I could see how they could end up in this situation.

John

Emphasis mine.

In fact, that more or less happened. On July 7th 2020, the outcome of the Starliner investigation was discussed during a teleconference. During that teleconference Steve Stich (then Commercial Crew Program Manager) admitted "that NASA felt more comfortable with Boeing's traditional approach, so SpaceX may have had more oversight since they had a newer approach."

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1280580214729261058

Hasn't this been general knowledge for a couple years already?
Though it never hurts to point it out again. NASA will probably need reminders to stay honest.

Emphasis mine. Yes, it is general knowledge NOW, exactly because of the teleconference I mentioned. But PRIOR to the comedy-of-errors that was OFT-1, it had long been suspected that NASA was giving Boeing the preferential treatment.

Not until Steve Stich pubically acknowledged that this was in fact exactly what had happened, has it become a public fact.

And yes, it is absolutely right to periodically remember people of this. Because this preferential treatment of one's system, over that of others, is being repeated by NASA as we speak. Just look at how NASA is proceeding with the SLS WDR. They new plan is to complete the WDR as a "partially dry WET Dress Rehearsal". The rationale behind this decision supposedly being that the ICPS stage is known inside-and-out (given it being a converted DCSS). I wonder what ASAP thinks of that decision and the supporting rationale.

[John-H]

The argument at the time was that NASA oversight was onerous and expensive. Private companies did not need it. Few would believe that close NASA involvement would end up saving time and money.

John

[baldusi]

[...]
And yes, it is absolutely right to periodically remember people of this. Because this preferential treatment of one's system, over that of others, is being repeated by NASA as we speak. Just look at how NASA is proceeding with the SLS WDR. They now plan to complete the WDR as a "partially dry WET Dress Rehearsal". The rationale behind this decision supposedly being that the ICPS stage is known inside-and-out (given it being a converted DCSS). I wonder what ASAP thinks of that decision and the supporting rationale.

That might be a different issue. In my country, basically the whole judiciary system considers that ruling against government is an act of treason. Being a strict auditor to your own team might not even be seen as your duty, withing NASA. In fact, I believe that the only reason it worked so well with SPX is exactly because it was not the own team way of doing things, while Boeing was "one of the boys". In other words, I worry a lot about what will happen to safety once NASA assimilates SPX way of doing things and are used to interact with them all day.

[woods170]

The argument at the time was that NASA oversight was onerous and expensive. Private companies did not need it. Few would believe that close NASA involvement would end up saving time and money.

John

Oldspace Boeing got very little oversight, while the newcomer SpaceX was burdened with a lot of oversight. The oversight NASA applied within the bounds of CCP was asymmetrical from day 1. Boeing absolutely got the preferential treatment. THAT only ended AFTER it became clear that the near-disastrous outcome of OFT-1 was the direct result of:
1. inconsequential NASA behaviour
2. Boeing taking advantage of that to cut corners

[Jim]

I wonder what ASAP thinks of that decision and the supporting rationale.

It is an uncrewed flight.  So the ASAP has no real play in it.  Much like not doing a WDR for other rockets, it is only a schedule risk.  If a problem crops up during the countdown, the necessary actions will be taken such as delay, scrub or even rollback.  If this mission were to be crewed, then a different posture would be taken such as a completely successful WDR before entering actual launch ops.

[meekGee]

The argument at the time was that NASA oversight was onerous and expensive. Private companies did not need it. Few would believe that close NASA involvement would end up saving time and money.

John

It depends on the nature of the oversight. Is it about rote paperwork or is it constructive cooperation between development engineers.

It speaks a lot about management when they're able to steer the cooperation in the direction of door #2, and it absolutely requires involvement of top-level management.

Very glad it turned out this way.

Many of the negative habits people associate with "government organizations" are equally present at very large corporations - I've seen it often enough.

[Athelstane]

There was a discussion early on that Boeing was going to be excused from  strict NASA oversight (good), while SpaceX was stuck with it (bad).  I could see how they could end up in this situation.

John

Emphasis mine.

In fact, that more or less happened. On July 7th 2020, the outcome of the Starliner investigation was discussed during a teleconference. During that teleconference Steve Stich (then Commercial Crew Program Manager) admitted "that NASA felt more comfortable with Boeing's traditional approach, so SpaceX may have had more oversight since they had a newer approach."

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1280580214729261058

Hasn't this been general knowledge for a couple years already?
Though it never hurts to point it out again. NASA will probably need reminders to stay honest.

Emphasis mine. Yes, it is general knowledge NOW, exactly because of the teleconference I mentioned. But PRIOR to the comedy-of-errors that was OFT-1, it had long been suspected that NASA was giving Boeing the preferential treatment.

Not until Steve Stich pubically acknowledged that this was in fact exactly what had happened, has it become a public fact.

And yes, it is absolutely right to periodically remember people of this. Because this preferential treatment of one's system, over that of others, is being repeated by NASA as we speak. Just look at how NASA is proceeding with the SLS WDR. They new plan is to complete the WDR as a "partially dry WET Dress Rehearsal". The rationale behind this decision supposedly being that the ICPS stage is known inside-and-out (given it being a converted DCSS). I wonder what ASAP thinks of that decision and the supporting rationale.

It's interesting to read Stich's comments about NASA's expectations regarding how working with each contractor was going to work out in light of this Twitter thread the other day, in which a former Commercial Crew manager noted what she observed about working with Boeing and SpaceX once the CCtCap contracts were awarded:

Link to thread: https://twitter.com/KarenSBernstein/status/1512461620810768384

[deadman1204]

Many of the negative habits people associate with "government organizations" are equally present at very large corporations - I've seen it often enough.

This.

That idea often boils down to political biases without any facts.

[woods170]

I wonder what ASAP thinks of that decision and the supporting rationale.

It is an uncrewed flight.  So the ASAP has no real play in it.  Much like not doing a WDR for other rockets, it is only a schedule risk.  If a problem crops up during the countdown, the necessary actions will be taken such as delay, scrub or even rollback.  If this mission were to be crewed, then a different posture would be taken such as a completely successful WDR before entering actual launch ops.

Emphasis mine.
No offense Jim, but ASAP has disagreed with this assessment several times in the past. They expect NASA to be equally rigorous for both the UNcrewed and crewed test flights of a crewed system. Just look up their reports from the period prior to the first CCP test flights.

What is now happening is that NASA is giving the impression that they are cutting corners because this is an uncrewed test flight. Given ASAP's attitude in the past I expect them to be not too happy about the plan to perform a "Partially Dry Test". Hence my remark in the original post.

Who's to say that NASA won't cut corners because the next flight is crewed? There is precedent for that in NASA's history (Challenger, Columbia).

Also: to say that ASAP has no real say, because it is an uncrewed test flight, is BS. ASAP's charter does not distinguish between the safety aspects of crewed or uncrewed space missions. Advising the NASA administrator and US Congress  on the safety of proposed operations is part of the charter. That includes as much the operations for an uncrewed test flight as it does operations for a crewed test flight.

[dglow]

It’s far too soon to fault NASA for this partial WDR. Best to wait and see what is done next with the upper stage before passing judgement. They’re taking advantage of the rocket being on the pad to accomplish as much as they can right now, and they said almost exactly as much in the press call yesterday.

Let’s let the team work their problem.

[Redclaws]

Many of the negative habits people associate with "government organizations" are equally present at very large corporations - I've seen it often enough.

It’s a bit off topic, but I agree with this strongly.  The issue is sclerosis from the lack of pressure to improve and clear connection to meaningful goals, which can happen in any organization. One key difference though is that most private companies face a basic fact: if they become too sclerotic, they die.  This does not prevent the accretion of organizational sclerosis, but it means there’s a flushing mechanism:
Sufficiently inept companies tend to die.  That’s less likely for government orgs, though similar things do sometimes occur when political forces are sufficiently upset about it.