Quote from: BrianNH on 08/21/2014 06:00 pm Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?
Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.
Have we all noticed that "measured in mass" is not actually a quote?
Mulholland gave a one-sentence summary of how far along they are in the design process of a complex hardware development project. Measuring that by how much of the vehicle they have designed doesn't seem unreasonable. Would percent complete measured by part count be better? Either one is obviously going to be a gross simplification of the overall status of the design, but gets across his point to the journalist and the general public that they have a majority of the vehicle designed.
"Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review, while its design for the crew module was 85-percent complete, two metrics that underscored the maturity of the design."How is that not a quote? Unless he didn't actually say what the reporter said he did.
The cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.
Quote from: clongton on 08/21/2014 11:12 pmQuote from: BrianNH on 08/21/2014 06:00 pm Also, "measured in mass" is a novel way of measuring design completion.You see, that's the kind of thing that I loath about Big Corporations that make their living sucking on the government teat. "Novel" doesn't even come close. That is such a B.S. metric that I can't believe that anybody would stoop that low to actually say such a thing in public. It is incredibly imbecilic and simpleminded and reflects incredibly poorly on the management and company that fostered it. I really feel for the incredibly talented and hardworking men and women who work for that company and now have to shamefacedly face their friends, families and neighbors and try to explain to them what that "novel" metric actually means. How do you defend such an incredibly dense statement by people who are supposed to be grownups?The sad fact is that the press and American public are so woefully scientifically/mathematically illiterate that no layperson will even ask that question.
It might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.
The real question is, who's this PR for? Not NASA, they know what's really going on. The public? They just want to see something fly if they even pay that much attention in the first pace. Certain members of Congress? (Don't want to jump the shark again) So who is this message trying to influence? And why?
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 08/22/2014 12:23 amIt might very well be what Mulholland said, but I suppose I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a single reporter on technical details.And I'm a bit cynical and unwilling to trust a Boeing exec on technical details.
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/21/2014 09:57 pmISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk. Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.My $0.02I think a CST-100 derived freighter would compete much better against Orbital than it would SpaceX. Cygnus already has a smaller hatch diameter and no unpressurized cargo capacity, and as of COTS-1, is significantly more expensive than Dragon.
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk. Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.My $0.02
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/21/2014 09:02 pmThe cargo version doesn't need LAS, resulting a less expensive propulsion module.I disagree. The advantage of using the same vehicle for cargo as you do for crew is that you don't lose valuable non-human "stuff" on a cargo run if there is an abort. Sometimes that "stuff" can be unique and hard to replace, so the owners would much rather fly on a vehicle that could safeguard the "stuff" by returning it safely to Earth.
Yes, NASA knows what's really going on. But do scientifically illiterate Congresspeople who control the purse strings? No. They're just working the refs, like an NBA game. Spin until you win.
Mulholland said, measured in mass, the Boeing design for the cargo module was 96-percent complete at the time of the review,