NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Crew Vehicles General => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 09/24/2014 11:14 pm

Title: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/24/2014 11:14 pm
Follow on thread to the massive discussion through to the revealing of the CCtCAP winners:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28699.0

Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.0

Resources:

Commercial Crew News:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon+2/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/starliner/

L2 SpaceX - Covering Dragon:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0

L2 Commercial Crew and Cargo - Covering Starliner:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/24/2014 11:40 pm
Thanks Chris. This is a whole new world :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/25/2014 03:39 pm
Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/25/2014 03:50 pm
Why worry. Crewed Dragon won't land on water.

Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/25/2014 04:02 pm
Why worry. Crewed Dragon won't land on water.

Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?

It must be certified to be able to land in water. Also, in the most extreme possible launch conditions (ie the abort). As well any return from orbit that has to take place on an emergency basis the likely hood is a water landing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/25/2014 04:15 pm
True but in an emergency are you going to worry about a little water ingress? It hasn't caused any major problems for Space X yet and for all we know they may have already fixed the problem.


Why worry. Crewed Dragon won't land on water.

Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?

It must be certified to be able to land in water. Also, in the most extreme possible launch conditions (ie the abort). As well any return from orbit that has to take place on an emergency basis the likely hood is a water landing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mongo62 on 09/25/2014 04:42 pm
Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?

The water ingress would not be into the pressure vessel itself, for obvious reasons, so it must be either into volumes that are exposed to vacuum in orbit, lying between the pressure vessel and the outer casing, or into empty tanks with an open path between them and the water.

The designers would surely have known about the first case and allowed for it, so it must be the second case. One possible path for water to enter would be through a Draco rocket nozzle, past an open or partly open injector and valve and into one of the hypergolic propellant tanks.

If it had only happened once, I would think that it was an error in procedures where somebody forgot to close the valve after the tank emptied, but since it appears to have happened several times, I'm guessing that it might be a design or manufacturing flaw with the valves, where they do not fully close as commanded when there is significant water pressure on the downstream side of the valve.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/25/2014 05:46 pm
Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?

The water ingress would not be into the pressure vessel itself, for obvious reasons, so it must be either into volumes that are exposed to vacuum in orbit, lying between the pressure vessel and the outer casing, or into empty tanks with an open path between them and the water.

The designers would surely have known about the first case and allowed for it, so it must be the second case. One possible path for water to enter would be through a Draco rocket nozzle, past an open or partly open injector and valve and into one of the hypergolic propellant tanks.

If it had only happened once, I would think that it was an error in procedures where somebody forgot to close the valve after the tank emptied, but since it appears to have happened several times, I'm guessing that it might be a design or manufacturing flaw with the valves, where they do not fully close as commanded when there is significant water pressure on the downstream side of the valve.

All incorrect.  Water was in the pressurized cargo area.  Yes, there should be concern
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 09/25/2014 05:57 pm
Hans recently mentioned that they moved a few "Components" from the internal pressure vessel to the exterior volume occupied by the tanks and Draco engines. This reference was for the cargo Dragon but I imagine similar and more intense efforts are underway for DV2 as well. (As well as potential additional valve redundancies and valve reengineering.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mongo62 on 09/25/2014 09:49 pm
I'm guessing that it might be a design or manufacturing flaw with the valves, where they do not fully close as commanded when there is significant water pressure on the downstream side of the valve.

All incorrect.  Water was in the pressurized cargo area.  Yes, there should be concern

If water did not get in through malfunctioning valves, how did it get there? It's a sealed vessel, designed to hold pressure against a vacuum. I repeat that the only mechanism I can think of is water getting past a valve.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/25/2014 09:54 pm
They're called "cracks". Slamming an object into the ocean at high speeds tends to make them.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 09/25/2014 10:00 pm
The advantage of launching unmanned versions of the vessel years in advance of a manned launch is that you can find the problems that you didn't anticipate and fix them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/26/2014 01:11 am
They're called "cracks". Slamming an object into the ocean at high speeds tends to make them.



nope, not cracks.  But I am not at liberty to say.  keen eyed folks might figure out near the end of the current flight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/26/2014 02:14 am
They're called "cracks". Slamming an object into the ocean at high speeds tends to make them.



nope, not cracks.  But I am not at liberty to say.  keen eyed folks might figure out near the end of the current flight.
In a vacuum any seals are designed for the interior to be at a positive pressure. When it hits the water the interior is at a negative pressure compared to water.

 Designing seals to handle opposite pressure differences is not easy.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 09/26/2014 10:06 am
They're called "cracks". Slamming an object into the ocean at high speeds tends to make them.
nope, not cracks.  But I am not at liberty to say.  keen eyed folks might figure out near the end of the current flight.
It has been mentioned a few times (on this forum and elsewhere) about pressure equalization valves being opened on purpose when Dragon splashes down, resulting in a short period of seawater incursion:
https://www.google.fr/search?q=spacex+pressure+equalization+valve
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/26/2014 03:45 pm
Those valves and the fact that last time due to rough seas, the capsule was towed to port. So it had waves and the water had the pressure generated by the tow. Nothing like what would happen to a crewed flight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/26/2014 05:15 pm
Those valves and the fact that last time due to rough seas, the capsule was towed to port. So it had waves and the water had the pressure generated by the tow. Nothing like what would happen to a crewed flight.

Not valves but related to towing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 09/29/2014 02:09 pm
Should we worry about those seawater intrusions that have bugged the Dragon V1 on some landings? Doesn't sound good...:/ How is it even getting in?

How much water are we talking about in total (by volume)?  Has there ever been any definitive statements on that?  As troubling as it may be from an engineering/manufacturing perspective, given the fact that the capsule was floating for 11 hours I'm not too concerned from a human safety perspective.  At least not in respect to the dangers directly posed by sea water intrusions.  What they may mean indirectly will depend on their cause.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 09/30/2014 10:14 pm
Commentary by Rand Simberg on the Commercial Crew selections. I did not see this posted anywhere on NSF but beg indulgence if it's already been posted somewhere:

Good analysis of Boeing and SpaceX's situations and some mention of the SNC controversy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388477/boeing-isnt-getting-more-nasa-money-because-its-doing-better-job-spacex-rand-simberg
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 10:16 pm
Here is a link to a thread on the CCtCap RFP documentation:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1257904#msg1257904

I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere. But I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 09/30/2014 10:25 pm
I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.

Isn't it stronger than that? NASA cannot even enter into the awarded contracts, much less pay for work performed under them, until the dispute is resolved?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 09/30/2014 10:49 pm
I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.
Isn't it stronger than that? NASA cannot even enter into the awarded contracts, much less pay for work performed under them, until the dispute is resolved?

Yes.  Contract award may not be completed while the protest is outstanding.  If contracts were awarded, any work incurring USG obligations would be suspended unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise; none of those would apply in this case.  (FYI.  GAO must resolve within 100 days, although it typically takes less time.  Deadline for this dispute is 5-Jan-2015.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/30/2014 10:58 pm
The next question is, does that prevent SpaceX and Boeing from doing work on their own?  Presumably, one is more likely to do that than the other. How about paying for delayed milestones from CCiCap? Don't both have abort tests that moved right, not just SpaceX?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/01/2014 12:24 am
The next question is, does that prevent SpaceX and Boeing from doing work on their own?  Presumably, one is more likely to do that than the other. How about paying for delayed milestones from CCiCap? Don't both have abort tests that moved right, not just SpaceX?

This does not prevent Boeing or SpaceX from performing CCtCap-related work--as long as no USG obligations are incurred.  USG obligations include any work by contractors for which any payment is expected or liability incurred, and any work by NASA in support of such; e.g., consulting or other support for Boeing or SpaceX.

In short, if the work was either not part of the CCtCap contract, was at no charge (directly or indirectly) to the USG, and the work did not incur any other liabilities for which the USG might be held accountable, then SpaceX and Boeing would be free to proceed with that work.  No idea what CCtCap-related work by Boeing or SpaceX might fall into that category.

This does not prevent work from proceeding or payments being made under CCiCap.  Essentially the same situation as PlanetSpace protest of CRS, which did not prevent work continuing under COTS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/01/2014 01:34 am
Its sounds like you're saying the protest should have no effect on SpaceX's pad abort test schedule, correct?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/01/2014 09:06 am
Its sounds like you're saying the protest should have no effect on SpaceX's pad abort test schedule, correct?
Correct as the pad abort is part of CCiCAP, not CCtCAP.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/01/2014 03:02 pm
Found this in the avweek article linked in the DreamChaser thread, but I think it's more appropriate here:

Quote
In filing its bid protest on Sept. 26, Sierra Nevada set a 10-day clock running for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to issue a stay of NASA’s decision. Even without a stay, the protest could place a question mark over future work by Boeing and SpaceX as they prepare their CST-100 and Dragon crew vehicles to meet NASA’s deadline of first flights in 2017. The GAO has until Jan. 5, 2015, to make its decision.
http://aviationweek.com/space/sierra-nevada-turns-international-market-dream-chaser

This is the first I have heard of a 10 day clock for an initial stay.  That's five days from now...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/01/2014 03:26 pm
Avweek writer has several points wrong.  It is a 100 day clock not a 10 day clock (10 days is the window in which to file a protest after an award, which SNC did).

GAO does not issue stay; it is the contracting agency's responsibility (i.e., NASA).  The agency (NASA) must be informed of a protest within 1 day of receipt by the GAO.  That is, the GAO informs the agency; the agency then takes the required action, which will vary depending on where things are in the contracting cycle.

The stay is required, immediate, and automatic unless and until "a written finding that urgent and compelling circumstances which significantly affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting for the decision" [see 31 USC 3553]

In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/01/2014 04:09 pm
And that's why I come here for good info and avoid reading too much into what the press say.  Thanks joek.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/01/2014 09:20 pm


In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jcc on 10/01/2014 11:50 pm


In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

Garret Reisman said SpaceX was already starting the next steps beyond CCiCAP including "bending metal" even before the CCtCAP announcement, so I don't think they will stop now.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jabe on 10/01/2014 11:54 pm
Garret Reisman said SpaceX was already starting the next steps beyond CCiCAP including "bending metal" even before the CCtCAP announcement, so I don't think they will stop now.
this is something I am not clear of what are they building beyond their current dragon V2?  I wish they will release details of the award (unless i missed it) to see what the next process will be.  time will tell
jb
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/02/2014 12:42 am


In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

No payment from NASA and NASA (CCP and ISS) cannot help either partner towards integration or certification.  Both Boeing and SpaceX are continuing to work towards their tCAP milestones.   SpaceX has money flowing in form NASA since they are behind on their milestones but probably have enough money in house anyway to keep pressing.  But in my opinion it is the interaction with NASA that will put things behind.  We will see in a short bit hopefully fi the courts will let them continue while the GAO occurs. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 10/02/2014 01:20 am


In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

No payment from NASA and NASA (CCP and ISS) cannot help either partner towards integration or certification.  Both Boeing and SpaceX are continuing to work towards their tCAP milestones.   SpaceX has money flowing in form NASA since they are behind on their milestones but probably have enough money in house anyway to keep pressing.  But in my opinion it is the interaction with NASA that will put things behind.  We will see in a short bit hopefully fi the courts will let them continue while the GAO occurs.

I don't think "flowing in" is an accurate depiction - as a milestone-based FFP contract, they get paid when they accomplish an agreed-upon milestone. The other option would be a cost-reimbursable contract where they get paid as they spend money. While a cost-reimbursable contract would be issued a stop-work order (because spending money encumbers the government), Boeing and SpaceX are spending their own money anyway. What the SNC protest does is put them at risk, because if they get dropped due to the protest, they never get paid. Each company can stop work because of the risk inherent in the protest, but any money they spend will get paid back if they make the milestone and aren't dropped from the winning companies.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/02/2014 01:37 am


In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

No payment from NASA and NASA (CCP and ISS) cannot help either partner towards integration or certification.  Both Boeing and SpaceX are continuing to work towards their tCAP milestones.   SpaceX has money flowing in form NASA since they are behind on their milestones but probably have enough money in house anyway to keep pressing.  But in my opinion it is the interaction with NASA that will put things behind.  We will see in a short bit hopefully fi the courts will let them continue while the GAO occurs.

I don't think "flowing in" is an accurate depiction - as a milestone-based FFP contract, they get paid when they accomplish an agreed-upon milestone. The other option would be a cost-reimbursable contract where they get paid as they spend money. While a cost-reimbursable contract would be issued a stop-work order (because spending money encumbers the government), Boeing and SpaceX are spending their own money anyway. What the SNC protest does is put them at risk, because if they get dropped due to the protest, they never get paid. Each company can stop work because of the risk inherent in the protest, but any money they spend will get paid back if they make the milestone and aren't dropped from the winning companies.

I think everyone here understands the CCiCap money is paid for milestones and I interpreted "flowing in" to mean they'll keep getting paid for CCiCap milestones as they hit them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/02/2014 03:06 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 10/02/2014 03:41 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation,  their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX.

A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/02/2014 03:54 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation,  their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX.

A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.

It's a good thing that the Administration fought to have at least two CCtCap companies. DC on Stratolaunch (if it goes ahead) may end up being the cheapest because they won't have to deal with NASA oversight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/02/2014 04:08 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

And that article was effectively debunked here by Rand Simberg:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388477/boeing-isnt-getting-more-nasa-money-because-its-doing-better-job-spacex-rand-simberg
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/02/2014 04:26 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

And that article was effectively debunked here by Rand Simberg:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388477/boeing-isnt-getting-more-nasa-money-because-its-doing-better-job-spacex-rand-simberg

Rand's good, but I don't see how he debunked today's article in the WSJ back on Sep 19. :)

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/02/2014 05:51 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

The article says the document was signed by Gerstenmaier and that it was his decision.  A number of the quotes in the article about why Boeing was better than SpaceX are directly attributed to Gerstenmaier.  He spent his entire career in a culture that NASA's traditional ways of doing things are the best.  It's no surprise that his dings against SpaceX all seem to fall into the category of subjective judgement that the old-school NASA way is better.

SpaceX also got penalized for bidding to do more for less money compared with Boeing on CCiCap.  Boeing bid to do not very much for a lot of money, so it easily met all its milestones on time.  SpaceX bid to do a lot more in the same time for less money and was late.  Never mind that for the next round SpaceX has less to do than Boeing because they're farther along.

This is also the same NASA human spaceflight organization that's building Orion and SLS.  Is it really a surprise they are resistant to change and more comfortable with spending huge amounts of money doing things the way they've always been done?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 10/02/2014 06:53 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.
Seems to imply that if snc are successful in their protest, they would replace SpaceX rather than Boeing.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 10/02/2014 06:55 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation,  their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX.

A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.

It's a good thing that the Administration fought to have at least two CCtCap companies. DC on Stratolaunch (if it goes ahead) may end up being the cheapest because they won't have to deal with NASA oversight.
That's only three crew, so doesn't look to meet requirements.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/02/2014 07:20 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.
Seems to imply that if snc are successful in their protest, they would replace SpaceX rather than Boeing.

I'm sure that's what Pasztor would like everyone to believe.

But it makes no sense.  If the GAO upholds the protest claim, they have to buy the theory that Boeing's proposal wasn't substantially better than SNC's, just more expensive.  All the points used in the article to say Boeing is superior to SpaceX would also apply to Boeing being superior to SNC.  So if Boeing isn't superior to SNC, it also isn't superior to SpaceX, so Boeing, SpaceX and SNC are all equal and the award would go to SpaceX and SNC based purely on price.

If the GAO buys the points Pasztor is making about Boeing versus SpaceX, the GAO would have to reject the protest by SNC.

In no case, protest approved or protest denied, does SpaceX lose out.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: pospa on 10/02/2014 10:47 am
I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.
Isn't it stronger than that? NASA cannot even enter into the awarded contracts, much less pay for work performed under them, until the dispute is resolved?

Yes.  Contract award may not be completed while the protest is outstanding.  If contracts were awarded, any work incurring USG obligations would be suspended unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise; none of those would apply in this case.  (FYI.  GAO must resolve within 100 days, although it typically takes less time.  Deadline for this dispute is 5-Jan-2015.
And here it is: http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-spacex-race-to-station/#.VC0qXWd_sn4

*NOTE: While NASA has awarded this contract, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance on the contract while the GAO resolves a protest.*
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2014 10:55 am

The article says the document was signed by Gerstenmaier and that it was his decision.  A number of the quotes in the article about why Boeing was better than SpaceX are directly attributed to Gerstenmaier.  He spent his entire career in a culture that NASA's traditional ways of doing things are the best.  It's no surprise that his dings against SpaceX all seem to fall into the category of subjective judgement that the old-school NASA way is better.

SpaceX also got penalized for bidding to do more for less money compared with Boeing on CCiCap.  Boeing bid to do not very much for a lot of money, so it easily met all its milestones on time.  SpaceX bid to do a lot more in the same time for less money and was late.  Never mind that for the next round SpaceX has less to do than Boeing because they're farther along.

This is also the same NASA human spaceflight organization that's building Orion and SLS.  Is it really a surprise they are resistant to change and more comfortable with spending huge amounts of money doing things the way they've always been done?


Your post is no better.  You make assumptions about Gerstenmaier that aren't based on fact.  He made the CRS choice, the other commercial crew choices, etc.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/02/2014 11:36 am
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.

I basically read it as NASA was too worried about SpaceX's innovation,  their secrecy, independence of NASA and not using NASA/space related COTS hardware as the main negative or risks. I don't see NASA opinions a negative on SpaceX.

A badge of honor IMO. It is labeled New Space for a reason.

It's a good thing that the Administration fought to have at least two CCtCap companies. DC on Stratolaunch (if it goes ahead) may end up being the cheapest because they won't have to deal with NASA oversight.
That's only three crew, so doesn't look to meet requirements.

Cheers, Martin
True Martin but that would be DC Mk II (my designation) not the orginal DC MK I part of the protests. (yea ok, I like Spitfires) ;D
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/02/2014 11:43 am
Gerst is a good guy even if DC got shut-out. My issue is with the CC comp framework, new particpants only with an already operational CST-100 on orbit...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/02/2014 01:33 pm

The article says the document was signed by Gerstenmaier and that it was his decision.  A number of the quotes in the article about why Boeing was better than SpaceX are directly attributed to Gerstenmaier.  He spent his entire career in a culture that NASA's traditional ways of doing things are the best.  It's no surprise that his dings against SpaceX all seem to fall into the category of subjective judgement that the old-school NASA way is better.

SpaceX also got penalized for bidding to do more for less money compared with Boeing on CCiCap.  Boeing bid to do not very much for a lot of money, so it easily met all its milestones on time.  SpaceX bid to do a lot more in the same time for less money and was late.  Never mind that for the next round SpaceX has less to do than Boeing because they're farther along.

This is also the same NASA human spaceflight organization that's building Orion and SLS.  Is it really a surprise they are resistant to change and more comfortable with spending huge amounts of money doing things the way they've always been done?


Your post is no better.  You make assumptions about Gerstenmaier that aren't based on fact.  He made the CRS choice, the other commercial crew choices, etc.

Paztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 01:49 pm
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-boeing-beat-spacex-in-nasas-space-taxi-contest-1412207046

Nothing surprising, seems in terms of HSF NASA is still very much in the old ways, unlike COTS. Very little information on SNC, author is too busy gloating for Boeing.
It wouldn't let me read it (telling me it's for subscribers only), following the link directly from here, but I could get it by going through this:
https://plus.google.com/101878230938393527110/posts/jcmPMbFM8Qc

So now the fight gets dirty.  A document gets leaked, and somehow we only hear the points in Boeing's favor.  I wonder who leaked it, and under what terms.

Apparently "agency officials rated Boeing's bid better across the board", on a contract where the primary selection factor was supposed to be price, and Boeing was the highest bidder by nearly a billion dollars.  That's certainly an interesting appraisal of a non-public document he's not showing us.  Hmm.

And most of the arguments favoring Boeing appear to be along the lines that this is an old NASA contractor, doing things in the old (expensive) NASA contractor way.  Where the whole point of the program was to get away from that method and its costs.  This actually makes me feel like SNC has a very strong case.

Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.

It is wise to remember the example of the Delta IV, where Boeing stepped away from the cost-plus contractor model to try and do something in space, in a similar arrangement of an initial development subsidy, and no solid long-term arrangements for what happens after.  After Boeing gambled large amounts of money on the prospect of success and profit in the commercial launch market, and failed miserably, they spun it off into a merged program with their supposed competitor, replacing the intended commercial competition model with a monopoly, recovering their investment from the taxpayer through large cost-plus "capability maintenance" payments, and a share of the monopolistic profits on the grotesquely overpriced sole-provider sales of the competing vehicle that would have crushed them out of the market if they'd stayed separate.

THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.  "Heads I win, tails you lose." Boeing.  "I have altered the deal.  Pray I don't alter it further." Boeing.  With their lobbying power and shamelessness, the potential for them to lose money on this project if they perform poorly is more dangerous to you than it is to them.

As for "complex hardware and software development" remaining to be done at SNC, surely that applies to Boeing as well.  They haven't demonstrated their pusher abort system, and they've got a pop-off heat shield that's never been in space and is going into space precisely once before they trust it not to pop off at the wrong time with people in it (you'd think the Mercury experience would make them hesitate to trust such devices).  Two crucial systems for crew survival are designed to separate from the crew compartment, so there's a serious inherent risk that they'll do so at the worst possible times.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2014 01:52 pm
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts. 

Incorrect, Boeing has done many fixed price contracts.


THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.


Again, incorrect.  Not the same group at Boeing.  CST-100 is mostly legacy Rockwell.   The Delta program went to ULA.  But anyways, Delta did many fixed price contracts.

You are completely wrong on all your points.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/02/2014 01:55 pm


Paztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.

I don't quite understand the "price is the main factor" thing. It's absurd on the face of it. If NASA has little or no confidence that the offeror can do what he proposes, then price becomes irrelevant. NASA is just not going to select a proposal that they have low confidence in.

I suspect what happened here is that NASA simply had less confidence that SNC would be able to meet their milestones. The WSJ article by Andy Pazstor said NASA rated Boeing "very high confidence", and SpaceX "high confidence." He didn't say how SNC ranked, but I doubt they got a "high confidence."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/02/2014 02:46 pm
{snip}
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.
{snip}

Worse this is a fixed time contract.  Anything that may delay the launch date is going to receive a nasty reception from Boeing's management.  When the managers realise that say changing the shade of blue on the NASA symbol can expose the company to public ridicule they will get awkward.  It is not so much the minutes needed to buy the paint but the week the engineers on the critical path will need to write the report replying to the change request.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/02/2014 02:49 pm


Paztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.

I don't quite understand the "price is the main factor" thing. It's absurd on the face of it. If NASA has little or no confidence that the offeror can do what he proposes, then price becomes irrelevant. NASA is just not going to select a proposal that they have low confidence in.

I suspect what happened here is that NASA simply had less confidence that SNC would be able to meet their milestones. The WSJ article by Andy Pazstor said NASA rated Boeing "very high confidence", and SpaceX "high confidence." He didn't say how SNC ranked, but I doubt they got a "high confidence."

Yes of course. Price is the main factor but it's not the only factor. But the article doesn't say that NASA had little or no confidence in SpaceX's or SNC's proposal. Like I said, I will reserve judgment until I see the selection statement but NASA needs to explain why it decided to spend an extra $900M on Boeing's proposal over the one by SNC. Perhaps this is well explained in the selection statement. It's not well explained in Paztor's article.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/02/2014 03:04 pm
Let's say the price rating was 4 for SpaceX, 3 for SNC, and 2 for Boeing and the price confidence rating was 4 for Boeing, 3 for SpaceX, and 2 for SNC.  Usually these two are multiplied together to get the ranking: SpaceX 12, Boeing 8, and SNC 6. So if this was close to the actual numbers used the ranking was the reason why SNC ended up on the bottom.  While the price rating is an objective rating the confidence level in the price is an opinion/subjective rating.

The source selection review of proposals is supposed to be blind in that the proposers name is replace by a number in all documents being reviewed.  This works fine if the reviewers have no past experience with the proposed products.  But since the proposed products are well known to the reviewers the source selection confidence rating will be tainted by the opinions on the proposer rather than the proposal in front of them.  If this tainting of the confidence rating of both the price and technical can be shown to have occurred by the GAO review then the awardee relative rankings of the proposals could be very different than the NASA one in which one or both (not likely to have both) awards are overturned and an new first and second place is designated resulting in a contract cancelation and a new contract award.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: starsilk on 10/02/2014 03:05 pm
Paztor's account is likely onesided, so I will reserve judgment on the selection process until I see the actual selection statement. But what I don't understand is why price was not given more weight in the selection process. The selection criteria were very clear that price was supposed to be the most important factor. Was this followed? I think that is DC's main complaint also. Their proposal was significantly cheaper ($900M) than Boeing's.

hmm. perhaps nobody on the selection committee realized they were supposed to be selecting based on the lowest price? ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/02/2014 03:13 pm
Let's say the price rating was 4 for SpaceX, 3 for SNC, and 2 for Boeing and the price confidence rating was 4 for Boeing, 3 for SpaceX, and 2 for SNC.  Usually these two are multiplied together to get the ranking: SpaceX 12, Boeing 8, and SNC 6. So if this was close to the actual numbers used the ranking was the reason why SNC ended up on the bottom.  While the price rating is an objective rating the confidence level in the price is an opinion/subjective rating.

The source selection review of proposals is supposed to be blind in that the proposers name is replace by a number in all documents being reviewed.  This works fine if the reviewers have no past experience with the proposed products.  But since the proposed products are well known to the reviewers the source selection confidence rating will be tainted by the opinions on the proposer rather than the proposal in front of them.  If this tainting of the confidence rating of both the price and technical can be shown to have occurred by the GAO review then the awardee relative rankings of the proposals could be very different than the NASA one in which one or both (not likely to have both) awards are overturned and an new first and second place is designated resulting in a contract cancelation and a new contract award.

Past performance is typically a legitimate factor in evaluating proposals. And in this case there is specific mention of past performance in the Gerstenmaier memo cited by Andy Pasztor in the WSJ:

"Based on Boeing's performance on a preliminary contract, NASA concluded it had "very high confidence" in that company's likelihood of delivering what it promised—the highest ranking possible."

"In summary, Mr. Gerstenmaier decided that "Boeing's superior proposal, with regard to [the company's] technical and management approach and its past performance," was worth the higher price."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/02/2014 03:19 pm
I don't quite understand the "price is the main factor" thing. It's absurd on the face of it. If NASA has little or no confidence that the offeror can do what he proposes, then price becomes irrelevant. NASA is just not going to select a proposal that they have low confidence in.
What you have to factor in is that NASA's standards have been judged unreasonable, from higher up the food chain.  NASA has been constrained by law to use commercial space transportation services whereever possible.  (And they've also been constrained by law to build the SLS.  It's not that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, it's just that one hand hates the other and keeps trying to break its fingers.)

They can't just use a supposed commercial acquisition contract as a fig leaf for business as usual, while actually ignoring economy and insisting on their usual level of involvement and control right down to the choices of components used on the vehicles.  They can't just give lip service to treating price as a strong factor in their solicitation, and then make excuses for going with the high bidder.  They have to operate in actual good faith.

SNC's case is that they haven't, and now I think they've got a strong one.

He didn't say how SNC ranked, but I doubt they got a "high confidence."
Because the article is a hatchet job.  Of course SNC also got rated "high confidence".  If it didn't, he'd have said so because it would hurt SNC, just as SNC claimed in their press release that the difference in mission suitability scores was minor, when they're aiming to displace Boeing, who scored higher.

If he comes out and says that SNC got rated as highly as someone who did get a contract, that's fuelling SNC's claim of being adequate for the job and nearly a billion dollar cheaper, which should have been a lock according to the terms of the solicitation.  Public perception matters.  If SNC and SpaceX can whip up outrage over $4.2 billion for a clunky, ugly, primitive, quasi-reusable system which lands like other things crash, and which even the provider doesn't believe in enough to build without a fat NASA contract, when the other options were 2.6 and 3.3 billion for sleek futuristic designs aiming for high reusability and aircraft-like operations, which are going ahead one way or another regardless of government funding, the scandal will likely influence the ultimate outcome (if not of this protest, then of the funding for the program, and its possible cancellation in favor of something with less NASA oversight).

Whether or not there was a quid pro quo arrangement with Boeing representatives to leak this document (and they've certainly been caught with their fingers in the pie before), the content of this article clearly comes from a Boeing supporter trying to manipulate public perception in Boeing's favor with half-truths and tactical omissions.

THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.
Again, incorrect.  Not the same group at Boeing.  CST-100 is mostly legacy Rockwell.
I'm not talking about the engineering team, I'm talking about the whole corporate machine.  You don't deal with one tentacle in isolation from the beast.  As I've posted before, I like the engineering.  I think there's real long-term potential in the modular concept, beyond LEO.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/02/2014 03:28 pm
Of course SNC also got rated "high confidence".

Hmmm, you sound awfully sure of your crystal ball.  ;)

We'll find out soon. I don't claim to know. It would certainly bolster SNC's case if they did get a "high confidence." But NASA could then claim that "very high" beats merely "high."

It all comes down to the relative weight of the factors.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/02/2014 03:49 pm

I'm not talking about the engineering team, I'm talking about the whole corporate machine.  You don't deal with one tentacle in isolation from the beast. 

Yes, you do.  The groups are isolated.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/02/2014 03:58 pm
Let's say the price rating was 4 for SpaceX, 3 for SNC, and 2 for Boeing and the price confidence rating was 4 for Boeing, 3 for SpaceX, and 2 for SNC.  Usually these two are multiplied together to get the ranking: SpaceX 12, Boeing 8, and SNC 6. So if this was close to the actual numbers used the ranking was the reason why SNC ended up on the bottom.  While the price rating is an objective rating the confidence level in the price is an opinion/subjective rating.

The source selection review of proposals is supposed to be blind in that the proposers name is replace by a number in all documents being reviewed.  This works fine if the reviewers have no past experience with the proposed products.  But since the proposed products are well known to the reviewers the source selection confidence rating will be tainted by the opinions on the proposer rather than the proposal in front of them.  If this tainting of the confidence rating of both the price and technical can be shown to have occurred by the GAO review then the awardee relative rankings of the proposals could be very different than the NASA one in which one or both (not likely to have both) awards are overturned and an new first and second place is designated resulting in a contract cancelation and a new contract award.

Past performance is typically a legitimate factor in evaluating proposals. And in this case there is specific mention of past performance in the Gerstenmaier memo cited by Andy Pasztor in the WSJ:

"Based on Boeing's performance on a preliminary contract, NASA concluded it had "very high confidence" in that company's likelihood of delivering what it promised—the highest ranking possible."

"In summary, Mr. Gerstenmaier decided that "Boeing's superior proposal, with regard to [the company's] technical and management approach and its past performance," was worth the higher price."

Each rating is done by a separate group and has no contact with each other to avoid cross contamination of rating opinions. So the past performance group have no contact with the other raters. Also past performance rating is confidence input to the confidence levels generated on price and technical.

So your argument that because past performance is a rating element that everyone does their rating colored by past performance is wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kerlc on 10/02/2014 05:23 pm
I don't know whether this has been posted elsewhere already, but I saw this article on spaceflight now.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC2JPRbcNzg
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 10/02/2014 05:35 pm
The one point from that article (which, in my not so humble opinion is obviously biased and which obviously cherry picked what to quote based on justifying its headline and slant) that detracts from it's headline and slant is that Boeing and SpaceX were separated by 6% on the score. Does the relatively minor difference in score justify a 50% higher price tag. Or is price part of that score? We need more than just cherry picked and leaked statements to determine this fully, but the articles credibility is question by that inconsistency of the 6% difference - say the difference between a 3.9 and a 3.6 grade point average or less than a quarter of a star in a 5 star rating system.

So what was SNC's score 1 or 2% higher or lower than SpaceX, certainly no more than 6% less than SpaceX if their rhetoric in challenging the decision has any credibility.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 10/02/2014 06:19 pm
Scores are out of 1000. If cost is equivalent to the other two factors, then it is 500/1000, and the other two are 250/1000.

Assume that costs are scored:-
SpaceX: 300
SNC: 250
Boeing: 200

The SFN article says "SNC’s proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals.", so give them all the same arbitrary score. (Doesn't make any difference if they're all zero, or all 250).

SpaceX: 200
SNC: 200
Boeing: 200

SNC claim "In fact, out of a possible 1,000 total points, the highest ranked and lowest ranked offerors were separated by a minor amount of total points and other factors were equally comparable."

To get nearly identical scores (let's assume SNC scored 25/1000 less, and the other two identically), the past performance scores will need to mirror the differences in cost scores. At one extreme, you'd end up with:-

SpaceX: 150
SNC: 175
Boeing: 250

On the other extreme, you'd end up with:-
SpaceX: 0
SNC: 25
Boeing: 100

Neither of these extremes is really reasonable, and the takeaway is that SpaceX & SNC could have been quite close on past performance, but neither really encouraging any particular confidence (per Pasztor's article, but also implied by SNC's press release). So NASA chose one they they could rely on, and the best scoring of the "well, they might get the job done" options.

What will be interesting to watch, is how funding is allocated if Congress appropriates a shortfall from the requested burn rates. Assuming SpaceX is lower on dev costs, do they fully fund SpaceX and pay Boeing the rest of whatever is appropriated? Or fully fund Boeing (as the safe bet), and stretch out SpaceX's development? Or reduce both pro-rata?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/02/2014 06:55 pm
Just release the darn selection document already, NASA. It is already starting to leak. The reluctance to do so isn't exactly giving a favorable impression.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/02/2014 06:59 pm

So your argument that because past performance is a rating element that everyone does their rating colored by past performance is wrong.

Not what I said at all. Merely observed that past performance is a legitimate evaluation factor, contrary to what I thought you were saying. Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

So we agree that past performance is a legitimate factor, when appropriately applied, in part of the evaluation. Moving on...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/02/2014 11:54 pm
{snip}
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.
{snip}

Worse this is a fixed time contract.  Anything that may delay the launch date is going to receive a nasty reception from Boeing's management.  When the managers realise that say changing the shade of blue on the NASA symbol can expose the company to public ridicule they will get awkward.  It is not so much the minutes needed to buy the paint but the week the engineers on the critical path will need to write the report replying to the change request.


I don't think that is correct.  the contract is fixed in price and specifies what needs to be delivered.  I think 2017 is a "goal" (NASA has been very careful about that).  I don't think there is any fixed time thing.  However, everyone wants to reach 2017 and of course I am sure both SpaceX and Boeing want to be first for bragging rights.  A more realistic issue is when NASA changes requirements...something they are already doing and will continue to do so.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/03/2014 12:35 am
{snip}
Of course, past experience with Boeing being "responsive" can't be counted on here, since their past experience of Boeing is on cost-plus contracts.  This is firm fixed price.  If NASA says, "We're not sure we like this cheap thing, do this expensive thing instead." the past answer was, "Sure, it's your dime." now it'll be, "You want to spend Boeing's money?"  It's not going to go the same way, and extra fat in the contract isn't going to change that, because with a firm fixed price, every dollar they don't spend is profit for them.
{snip}

Worse this is a fixed time contract.  Anything that may delay the launch date is going to receive a nasty reception from Boeing's management.  When the managers realise that say changing the shade of blue on the NASA symbol can expose the company to public ridicule they will get awkward.  It is not so much the minutes needed to buy the paint but the week the engineers on the critical path will need to write the report replying to the change request.


I don't think that is correct.  the contract is fixed in price and specifies what needs to be delivered.  I think 2017 is a "goal" (NASA has been very careful about that).  I don't think there is any fixed time thing.  However, everyone wants to reach 2017 and of course I am sure both SpaceX and Boeing want to be first for bragging rights.  A more realistic issue is when NASA changes requirements...something they are already doing and will continue to do so.


It is more than bragging rights.  We are rapidly approaching the "You want NASA to buy an extra Soyuz because of ..." point.

The ISS operational people will have to replan because astronauts are not where there need to be.  A repeat of the things they did when Shuttle was retired.

New ideas go into the Mark 2 vehicle.  Extra documents and reports get written after the launch.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/03/2014 04:53 am
Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?

No work performed that would incur USG obligations and no monies can be paid.  If Boeing or SpaceX want to perform work outside the CCtCap contract, they are free to do so.  NASA is not free to do so and as erioladastra pointed out, that may be the most significant factor ...

No payment from NASA and NASA (CCP and ISS) cannot help either partner towards integration or certification.  Both Boeing and SpaceX are continuing to work towards their tCAP milestones.   SpaceX has money flowing in form NASA since they are behind on their milestones but probably have enough money in house anyway to keep pressing.  But in my opinion it is the interaction with NASA that will put things behind.  We will see in a short bit hopefully fi the courts will let them continue while the GAO occurs.  .

Agree.  And typically in at the start of the contract one of the first items on the agenda is some sort of kick-off sessions which require NASA participation, which would necessarily be on hold.  Not sure what you are referring to by the "courts" here?  The GAO protest process is specifically intended to provide quick resolution to disputes, and does not involve traditional courts; there is no recourse in the short term other than waiting for the GAO, or for NASA to issue a statement that there are compelling reasons why they (NASA) cannot wait for a GAO decision.

I don't think "flowing in" is an accurate depiction - as a milestone-based FFP contract, they get paid when they accomplish an agreed-upon milestone. The other option would be a cost-reimbursable contract where they get paid as they spend money. While a cost-reimbursable contract would be issued a stop-work order (because spending money encumbers the government), Boeing and SpaceX are spending their own money anyway. What the SNC protest does is put them at risk, because if they get dropped due to the protest, they never get paid. Each company can stop work because of the risk inherent in the protest, but any money they spend will get paid back if they make the milestone and aren't dropped from the winning companies.

Careful.  There are milestone payments, and there are also interim, progress or financing payments.  Just because a contract is FPP with milestones and associated payments does not mean there are not other payments made between milestones.  (We don't whether such is the case with CCtCap.)  The difference in payment types has to do with the government's ability to recoup payments in cases such as, e.g., contractor does not make sufficient and timely progress; contractor default or failure to meet milestones; contract termination due to cause.

In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/03/2014 06:02 am
Quote
In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Does it really matter? The only thing that matters is the following question:

Is there a market for U.S. based safe crew access space?

 If the answer is yes, you would think some business would want to exploit an un-exploited market with zero established competitors. Private enterprise should be clamoring to gain the capability to fulfill the market demands just like in any other industry. Imagine back when Commercial Crew was established if there was already a U.S. company with a proven design that had already flown. It wouldn't be a competition, their competitors would be slaughtered. Not only that, but they could demand a high premium and the government would pay it(just like the EELV market shows). If a business is too focused on government development money and can't see beyond that(i.e. providing actual goods and services where a customer can meet the costs of provision), and they consequently fall behind, this is simply market discipline. If every non-competitive entity was allowed to flourish and thrive, our economy would be vastly inefficient. The car wouldn't have replaced the horse and buggy.

Cutting off the suckling babes from their mother, if only temporarily, may be helpful for them to gain some measure of independance and maturity which is good for a competitive enterprise. If they aren't weened, I'm afraid the end result would be the corporate equivalent of man-children.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/03/2014 06:11 am
Quote
In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Probably safe to assume spacex is proceeding. Fairly certain Boeing is as well though that is a bit more complex.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/03/2014 06:54 am
Quote
In any case, at this point--and until this protest is resolved--there are effectively no CCtCap contracts in force (signatures on paper notwithstanding).  Therefore, by definition, no work can be conducted under such a (non-existent) CCtCap contract.  However, again, if Boeing or SpaceX want to proceed with work without a contract, without any expectation of getting paid for such work, without any basis for getting paid for such work, and can do so without incurring any USG obligations, then they are free to do so.

Probably safe to assume spacex is proceeding. Fairly certain Boeing is as well though that is a bit more complex.

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc)

Quote from: SFN
NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability, or CCtCap, contracts Sept. 16, and Sierra Nevada filed a protest to the GAO on Sept. 26, seeking "a further detailed review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and capabilities," the company said in a statement.

The legal challenge stops any work to be executed under the Boeing and SpaceX contracts, according to Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson.

"Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract," Schierholz said.

Officials did not say if the work stoppage prevents activities using internal funds.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/03/2014 09:43 am

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here

When they start firing people you know that internal funds have run out.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/03/2014 11:23 am
(1) It is my opinion that Boeing will perform only minimal activities while the GAO protest works itself out, only enough to maintain the CST-100 staff and facilities in stand-by mode pending the outcome. I say that because it does not like to expend its own funds unless it has a contract in hand. In this case they do but it is in real jeopardy. They will march in place for a while.

(2) It is my opinion that SpaceX will proceed, using internal funding, wrapping as much development  that are CCtCap related as it can into the completion of it CCiCap milestone efforts, because their CCtCap hardware was already under development. SpaceX was already working down this road before the award announcements and had every intention of continuing alone had they not gotten an award.

I believe those 2 divergent paths are a reflection of the internal goals of the respective companies. Boeing is in it for the money only, while SpaceX is in it for the future. Boeing's overriding goal is to return higher stock prices to its shareholders, with or without spacecraft, while Elon's overriding goal is to make mankind a multi-planetary species. Both goals are appropriate for the kind of companies they are. Both are good. Neither are bad. They are just different and each will follow the path that best reflects their different goals.

No bashing of either company is appropriate.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Giovanni DS on 10/03/2014 12:51 pm
Both are good. Neither are bad.

They can make both sense for the involved companies but cash grabs and lofty goals are not even comparable IMHO.

Good or bad depend on the scale of values of the observers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/03/2014 03:37 pm
Quote
Agree.  And typically in at the start of the contract one of the first items on the agenda is some sort of kick-off sessions which require NASA participation, which would necessarily be on hold.  Not sure what you are referring to by the "courts" here?  The GAO protest process is specifically intended to provide quick resolution to disputes, and does not involve traditional courts; there is no recourse in the short term other than waiting for the GAO, or for NASA to issue a statement that there are compelling reasons why they (NASA) cannot wait for a GAO decision.

It is possible to go to court to allow NASA to proceed while the GAO reviews.  Not sure of all the risk and legal wranglings but it is possible.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/03/2014 05:21 pm
It is possible to go to court to allow NASA to proceed while the GAO reviews.  Not sure of all the risk and legal wranglings but it is possible.

It's generally the reverse ..

An agency may override the automatic stay initiated by a GAO protest by issuing a determination that there are compelling reasons not to wait for completion of the GAO process before allowing contract award or work to proceed.

That is an agency administrative action and no court is involved.  The GAO has no authority to reverse or otherwise prevent an agency override.  The only entity which can reverse an agency override is a Federal Claims Court.

In short, NASA could at any time effectively ignore the GAO (for the moment) and allow work to proceed under CCtCap by issuing an override.  If NASA did so, a petition might then be filed with a Federal Court to reverse NASA's override and prevent work from proceeding (presumably by the protesting party, in this case SNC).

That said, the probability of NASA issuing an override is likely nil as the bar is pretty high for defending such actions, and it would open a whole new can of worms.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: PreferToLurk on 10/03/2014 07:15 pm

The order to stop work on CCtCAP is now in place.
Not entirely safe to assume SpaceX and Boeing will be proceeding on internal funds. From here http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1410/01cctcapprotest/#.VC5HsUCyFlc)

Quote from: SFN
NASA announced the winners of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability, or CCtCap, contracts Sept. 16, and Sierra Nevada filed a protest to the GAO on Sept. 26, seeking "a further detailed review and evaluation of the submitted proposals and capabilities," the company said in a statement.

The legal challenge stops any work to be executed under the Boeing and SpaceX contracts, according to Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokesperson.

"Pursuant to the GAO protest, NASA has instructed Boeing and SpaceX to stop performance of the CCtCap contract," Schierholz said.

Officials did not say if the work stoppage prevents activities using internal funds.

Assuming no internal funds (seems safe for Boeing, iffy for SpaceX), Boeing is completely done with their CCiCap milestones while SpaceX still has a few months of work left.  Wouldn't this imply that the Boeing time table is being pushed to the right, whereas the SpaceX timeline would be minimally impacted?  Or would SpaceX really be pushing CCtCap progress before the abort tests have completed? 

Seems like a potentially savvy move by SpaceX, if intentional, that they can continue work while Boeing is grounded in the event of a protest (which was pretty likely regardless of who lost).

Can anyone speak to the type of work that would be potentially disrupted at SpaceX due to this freeze?   Thanks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 10/03/2014 07:55 pm
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kc-46-first-flight-delayed-to-april-2015-403764/

 ::)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: symbios on 10/03/2014 09:28 pm
SpaceX has 3000 + people working. I do not think Mr Musk is going to let them sit on their arses and do nothing just because of a little snag like this...

PS. Do not know the % of people working in R&D for the Dragon and associated projects.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: R.Simko on 10/03/2014 11:01 pm
Now that the CCtCAP awards have been awarded, even though they are now under protest, I think it's time for a new poll.  We have hundreds of pages of people debating who is ahead in CC.  Well the poll can be a very simple one.

Which company will be the first to fly people to the ISS?

1.  Boeing.
2.  SpaceX
3.  SNC  for those who think they will be successful in their protest.

I know a similar poll created in the past, but I think it was removed, or at least I haven't been able to find it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/03/2014 11:03 pm
Now that the CCtCAP awards have been awarded, even though they are now under protest, I think it's time for a new poll.  We have hundreds of pages of people debating who is ahead in CC.  Well the poll can be a very simple one.

Which company will be the first to fly people to the ISS?

1.  Boeing.
2.  SpaceX
3.  SNC  for those who think they will be successful in their protest.

I know a similar poll created in the past, but I think it was removed, or at least I haven't been able to find it.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33739.0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SoulWager on 10/04/2014 12:36 pm
Now that the CCtCAP awards have been awarded, even though they are now under protest, I think it's time for a new poll.  We have hundreds of pages of people debating who is ahead in CC.  Well the poll can be a very simple one.

Which company will be the first to fly people to the ISS?

1.  Boeing.
2.  SpaceX
3.  SNC  for those who think they will be successful in their protest.

I know a similar poll created in the past, but I think it was removed, or at least I haven't been able to find it.
I thought SpaceX would send the first commercial crew to the ISS before the CCtCap awards, and that hasn't changed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/05/2014 03:40 am
A very informative article today in the Denver Post on the mechanics of the protest and the various ways it can play out:

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26659843/so-sierra-nevada-protested-nasa-space-taxi-contract
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 10/05/2014 06:11 pm
Here's a prediction: During the pause for the review of this award, SpaceX will continue to progress although the rate will be much slower. Boeing, on the other hand will set down tools and wait, costing them the lead that NASA reports they had going into the CCtCAP award.

This is not Boeing hate. Boeing has stated explicitly that progress with CST-100 is tied to government funding. SpaceX have said that they'll proceed at their own pace using their own funding. If the government orders a stop, then Boeing will stop but no-one can stop Elon and his investors spending heir own money on Dragon v.2 and LC-39A if they choose to do so.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/05/2014 06:30 pm
Here's a prediction: During the pause for the review of this award, SpaceX will continue to progress although the rate will be much slower. Boeing, on the other hand will set down tools and wait, costing them the lead that NASA reports they had going into the CCtCAP award.

This is not Boeing hate. Boeing has stated explicitly that progress with CST-100 is tied to government funding. SpaceX have said that they'll proceed at their own pace using their own funding. If the government orders a stop, then Boeing will stop but no-one can stop Elon and his investors spending heir own money on Dragon v.2 and LC-39A if they choose to do so.

If not Boeing hate it clearly still shows a very strong anti-Boeing bias.  You are confusing Boeing's approach here considerably.  Boeing has stated that a commercial market, in their opinion (and hotly debated here - don't need to rehash here again) to sustain development of their vehicle.  Their vehicle, like NASA likes to see, is more (some might say over) engineered than purely commercial development would support in their opinion.  So, yes, until CCtCAP they stated they were depending on government money.  Boeing has NOT stopped as far as I can tell.  Slowed yes, but not stopped.  Also, has I have said many, many times here, right now I personally believe the long pole is going to be integration from NASA.  So even if the companies are making their own progress, they will continue to fall behind on the schedule just because NASA CCP and ISS can't work with them. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/05/2014 08:29 pm
right now I personally believe the long pole is going to be integration from NASA.  So even if the companies are making their own progress, they will continue to fall behind on the schedule just because NASA CCP and ISS can't work with them. 

Kenny Todd had what seemed like a perfect opportunity to talk about this in his intro to the recent ISS spacewalk briefing. He touched on the upcoming EVA work that would be done in preparation for docked commercial crew vehicles, and talked like everything was good and on track.

He is Space Station Mission Operations Integration Manager; surely he would be aware? Is NASA prohibited from commenting on this? Or is it just a preference to keep fear, uncertainty and doubt out of sight?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 08:53 pm
If not Boeing hate it clearly still shows a very strong anti-Boeing bias. 

No it doesn't. It shows an unbiased view of both Boeing and SpaceX.

Boeing is driven by shareholder value. SpaceX is driven by Elon's dream. Each company will follow the path most appropriate for it. Both paths are good. Neither are bad. They are just different.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/05/2014 10:06 pm
I believe Gerst did what he thought was best for NASA. I infer his reasoning to be sound, at least from what has been leaked, reported thus far.

Essentially he selected one company with massive spaceflight heritage both in terms of management and technical experience. He views this as buying down risk and ensuring NASA's needs are met on schedule. (The cost of that buy-down is certainly subject to questioning but not the reasoning behind the selection imo)

Then he selected another company who he believes will be an exceptional partner both in terms of capability and costs but that still needs to mature to the point where their "estimated" timelines become more closely aligned with their "actual" timelines.

Frankly, and in all honesty, I was in a bit of denial with my desire to see two novices re-shape the future of commercial spaceflight. But in retrospect, there was little chance NASA was going to take on that much perceived potential risk. Perhaps this will be amended in future contracts whether crew or cargo.

The major issue remaining for me is that one of the main tenets of CC was to help drive down costs through competition and heaping to create a truly commercial market beyond NASA. I'm not sure in the final analysis the program has achieved those goals in full. Perhaps it was unrealistic to think it could just yet. But i'd like to see how this evolves once the initial CCtCAP contract ends and they compete another round of contracts with systems already developed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/05/2014 10:23 pm
I believe Gerst did what he thought was best for NASA.

I do not doubt that he did that. The open question is "did he stick to the selection criteria", and "will the GAO agree"?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/05/2014 10:31 pm
I believe Gerst did what he thought was best for NASA.

I do not doubt that he did that. The open question is "did he stick to the selection criteria", and "will the GAO agree"?
Yes, it's an interesting question. I suspect if NASA had to do it over, they'd have worded things a  bit differently.
My only point was agree with the end result from their perspective,  not necessarily how they got there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Wayne Hale on 10/09/2014 06:31 pm
NASA just sent out return to work orders . . . .
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 10/09/2014 06:52 pm
NASA just sent out return to work orders . . . .
any public link to that?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/09/2014 07:27 pm
NASA just sent out return to work orders . . . .

So what does that mean?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/09/2014 07:31 pm
Perhaps...
A) NASA found a loop hole that allows them to keep working, or
B) The SNC protest has been pulled or denied early?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/09/2014 07:32 pm
An agency may override the automatic stay initiated by a GAO protest by issuing a determination that there are compelling reasons not to wait for completion of the GAO process before allowing contract award or work to proceed.

That is an agency administrative action and no court is involved.  The GAO has no authority to reverse or otherwise prevent an agency override.  The only entity which can reverse an agency override is a Federal Claims Court.

In short, NASA could at any time effectively ignore the GAO (for the moment) and allow work to proceed under CCtCap by issuing an override.

Is this what just happened?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 10/09/2014 08:21 pm
Game on.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html#.VDbt-vldW9E

"On Oct. 9, under statutory authority available to it, NASA has decided to proceed with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts awarded to The Boeing Company and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. notwithstanding the bid protest filed at the U.S. Government Accountability Office by Sierra Nevada Corporation. The agency recognizes that failure to provide the CCtCap transportation service as soon as possible poses risks to the International Space Station (ISS) crew, jeopardizes continued operation of the ISS, would delay meeting critical crew size requirements, and may result in the U.S. failing to perform the commitments it made in its international agreements. These considerations compelled NASA to use its statutory authority to avoid significant adverse consequences where contract performance remained suspended. NASA has determined that it best serves the United States to continue performance of the CCtCap contracts that will enable safe and reliable travel to and from the ISS from the United States on American spacecraft and end the nation’s sole reliance on Russia for such transportation. "
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 10/09/2014 09:52 pm
I am relieved. 100 days is too long to hold up even though I kind of support SNC's protest.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/09/2014 10:23 pm
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/09/2014 10:31 pm
All fine and good... but that doesn’t alter the complaint...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/09/2014 10:40 pm
All fine and good... but that doesn’t alter the complaint...
If I understood it right, it actually increases the contract contingencies, right?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/09/2014 10:49 pm
All fine and good... but that doesn’t alter the complaint...
If I understood it right, it actually increases the contract contingencies, right?
I’m not sure... There may be a mechanism in place to continue work but not the full award. We need to hear from some lawyers here of NSF...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/10/2014 01:11 am
Perhaps...
A) NASA found a loop hole that allows them to keep working, or
B) The SNC protest has been pulled or denied early?

Neither as I stated earlier.  NASA reviewed the objection and felt the impact and likelihood of their decision being over turned was low.  Now SNC will probably request an injunction, which likely won't do anything though there is always a chance.  If granted then all work would stop until the GAO review is completed by January.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/10/2014 01:36 am
Now SNC will probably request an injunction, which likely won't do anything though there is always a chance.  If granted then all work would stop until the GAO review is completed by January.

Given NASA's justification for lifting the stop-work order, any move by SNC to request an injunction might appear unpatriotic, putting the company's interests ahead of the nation's. Whether that's true or not wouldn't matter. It's what NASA claims is the case.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 07:20 am
An agency may override the automatic stay initiated by a GAO protest by issuing a determination that there are compelling reasons not to wait for completion of the GAO process before allowing contract award or work to proceed.

That is an agency administrative action and no court is involved.  The GAO has no authority to reverse or otherwise prevent an agency override.  The only entity which can reverse an agency override is a Federal Claims Court.

In short, NASA could at any time effectively ignore the GAO (for the moment) and allow work to proceed under CCtCap by issuing an override.
Is this what just happened?

Yes, that is exactly what happened.  Suprising move IMHO.  Key words and phrases "compelled" and "best serves the United States":
Quote
... These considerations compelled NASA to use its statutory authority to avoid significant adverse consequences where contract performance remained suspended. NASA has determined that it best serves the United States to continue performance of the CCtCap contracts ...

SNC could at this point file a petition with a Federal Claims Court to reinstate the stay and stop work under CCtCap.  NASA must be fairly confident that either: (a) SNC's protest will be denied (insufficient reason in and of itself); or (b) if SNC's protest is upheld, that proceeding in the interim will get them further-faster even if they have to clean up after-the-fact.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 10/10/2014 07:48 am
If CCtCap only pays on completion of milestones, I don't see any danger that anyone will earn a milestone payment during the protest period. (Or, can someone correct me on that?)

Any risk would therefore seem to be carried by the contractors, in that they would do work that wouldn't be recompensed if they become excluded?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 07:49 am
Perhaps...
A) NASA found a loop hole that allows them to keep working, or
B) The SNC protest has been pulled or denied early?
Neither as I stated earlier.  NASA reviewed the objection and felt the impact and likelihood of their decision being over turned was low.  Now SNC will probably request an injunction, which likely won't do anything though there is always a chance.  If granted then all work would stop until the GAO review is completed by January.

Sort of.  The basis and finding for such a decision cannot be NASA's judgment of the merits or the probability of a GAO decision will go one way or another--that would make a mockery of the entire process.  NASA's basis and finding must be that of a compelling need to proceed with work under CCtCap regardless of what NASA feels are the merits of the protest  or of what NASA feels will be the GAO's ultimate decision.

In other words, NASA cannot simply state "we think the merits of the protest or the probability of GAO upholding the protest are low, so we are going to proceed".  NASA must find and attest that "regardless of the merits of the protest and the GAO's final ruling, there are compelling reasons to proceed".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 08:04 am
If CCtCap only pays on completion of milestones, I don't see any danger that anyone will earn a milestone payment during the protest period. (Or, can someone correct me on that?)

There may be interim progress or financing payments between milestones.  We don't know if there are, as those would be in the CCtCap contract details which are not public.  Also, actions by contractors or by NASA which may incur US government liabilities under CCtCap also count, even if no immediate payments are involved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/10/2014 08:06 am
I wonder if they'll release the source selection document or list the milestones, or whether the first we'll see of that is the GAO response.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/10/2014 11:16 am
I wonder if they'll release the source selection document or list the milestones, ...

That is not typically done until the protest has run its course.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 10/10/2014 11:22 am
SNC doesn't have a leg to stand on and NASA knows it. If transport availability doesn't happen in 2017 (NASA) will be fried. I think they made a calculated decision.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/10/2014 11:40 am
SNC doesn't t have a leg to stand on and they know it.

No they do not know that! Did Mark tell you that? The people at SNC are high-integrity people and would not stoop to the kind of thing you are suggesting. They took this action because they DO believe they "have a leg to stand on". Whether the GAO concurs or not is yet to be determined.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 10/10/2014 12:32 pm
Ammended because I didn't mean SNC.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 10/10/2014 04:50 pm
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 10/10/2014 05:01 pm
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.
And some internal resource supporting the participants.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Todd Martin on 10/10/2014 06:01 pm
I do not see why SNC would want to file an injunction in Federal Court to stay the work being done by Boeing & SpaceX while the GAO protest is being considered.  SNC is not being harmed by this interim work.  If SNC lands a CCtCAP contract as a result of their protest, they could still get every penny they asked for.

Even if there was a minor harm to SNC by the resume work order, there is still a corresponding benefit in that SNC is no longer considered by some as obstructing progress in US manned spaceflight.

It is NASA that is taking the financial risk in issuing a resume work order and that decision must have been balanced by the certain financial & schedule loss in a 100 day delay. 

As a SNC supporter, I am glad NASA chose to issue the resume work order.  It solves a number of problems while allowing the GAO protest process to continue.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/10/2014 06:46 pm
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.

nothing played

Bolden's announcement performance, and now this NASA action speak volumes.

Not even waiting until the election. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/10/2014 07:03 pm

It is NASA that is taking the financial risk in issuing a resume work order and that decision must have been balanced by the certain financial & schedule loss in a 100 day delay. 


SpaceX still had time on their meter from CCiCAP, so their critical path work would likely not be impacted by anything like 100 days.  Since they are on a timeline that is ahead of Boeing by a couple years, NASA's 'national interest' argument in replacing the Russian taxi service is somewhat hollow, except in the case SpaceX fails badly (and Boeing overachieves).

On the other hand, Boeing was ready to lay off 200 plus workers if they didn't get selected/funded -- they are the ones with financial and schedule risk if NASA doesn't resume work.  (With the original announcement delays and this extra protest delay, this could have summed to tens of millions.) 

Wouldn't be too surprising if Boeing weighed in and forced NASA's hand.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/10/2014 08:04 pm
Even with SpaceX still having uncompleted CCiCap milestones, a stop-work order would still put a delay in the works, as they would not be able to do any work that would have been funded by a CCtCap milestone.  With the "back to work" order, the CCiCap and CCtCap milestones can be worked in parallel.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/10/2014 09:01 pm
Even with SpaceX still having uncompleted CCiCap milestones, a stop-work order would still put a delay in the works, as they would not be able to do any work that would have been funded by a CCtCap milestone.  With the "back to work" order, the CCiCap and CCtCap milestones can be worked in parallel.

Having NASA involved witnessing work or reviewing anything would be delayed for sure.  I would suspect that there is work that could continue at risk toward a CCtCAP milestone during the stop work and still get credited fully when the applicable milestone is achieved after the stop work was lifted. The risk would be that they wouldn't get reimbursed if they were de-selected, but SpaceX has stated that they'd go ahead -- at a slower pace -- without NASA funding. 

The 100 day delay of the protest wouldn't translate one-for-one into SpaceX schedule impact is all I'm speculating.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 09:47 pm
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.

There are two types of cards: "urgent and compelling circumstances"; or in the "best interests of the United States".  The latter is a weaker card, the one which NASA played,  the one most difficult to defend, and the one most often overturned--it is by no means synonymous with national security or national defense.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/10/2014 10:21 pm
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.

There are two types of cards: "urgent and compelling circumstances"; or in the "best interests of the United States".  The latter is a weaker card, the one which NASA played,  the one most difficult to defend, and the one most often overturned--it is by no means synonymous with national security or national defense.

Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 10:43 pm
Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.

So they may.  But in cases where need and urgency have been used to override a GAO protest stay, the time frame in question has typically been months, not years.  If NASA is stating that a 100 day delay in a multi-year program is make-or-break, there are more serious problems.

More likely IMHO is that NASA feels that a 100 day delay will result in far longer knock-on delays due to, e.g., personnel being layed off or repurposed and that it will take much longer than 100 days to restart.  The source of such warnings (or threats) is unknown, but I'd hazard a guess that it comes from the incumbents, and one in particular.  YMMV.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/10/2014 11:14 pm
Anyone remember when the CC announcement was supposed to be first made? Where was the sense of urgency then?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2014 11:19 pm
Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.

I would think NASA knows when the window would open for the first Commercial Crew flight based on the current crew rotation schedule, and would want both of their providers to be shooting for that earliest possible need date.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/10/2014 11:21 pm
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 11:36 pm
I would think NASA knows when the window would open for the first Commercial Crew flight based on the current crew rotation schedule, and would want both of their providers to be shooting for that earliest possible need date.

That is a far cry from asserting a "compelling need" or "national interest" (or whatever) as the basis for a GAO protest override.  Something more must be in play as the basis for NASA issuing such an override.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/10/2014 11:41 pm
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.

Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/11/2014 12:07 am
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.

Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Pardon, I honestly don't understand. What rules? What game? I'm just saying that regardless how the protest turns out, with allowing continued work, at least one system will remain on schedule. I'm not saying NASA's reasoning for full steam ahead is completely sound but it keeps the train a hummin and at least half that train is guaranteed to make into station. (pun intended)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/11/2014 12:36 am
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.
Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Pardon, I honestly don't understand. What rules? What game? I'm just saying that regardless how the protest turns out, with allowing continued work, at least one system will remain on schedule. I'm not saying NASA's reasoning for full steam ahead is completely sound but it keeps the train a hummin and at least half that train is guaranteed to make into station. (pun intended)

NASA cannot assume that one system--or any system--would remain on schedule based on the GAO's final decision.  NASA cannot base an override decision on whether one system--or any system--will remain on track based the GAO's final decision.

If NASA were to say or imply that their decision was based on an assumption or assertion that at least one system would remain on track regardless of the GAO's ultimate decision, then NASA would be admitting that their override decision was based on reasons other than those allowed.

If NASA's override decision is based on any basis other than allowed, then that override decision is effectively null and void (assuming anyone objects).  No court or the GAO would uphold it, and those responsible for attempting such a charade would likely see the chopping block.  Again, I don't think NASA would be so stupid as to make such a mistake. 

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/11/2014 11:33 am
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 12:47 pm
Since Boeing has a lock on the project and they have the money, they can go on ahead on their own dime... Oh wait...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/11/2014 01:13 pm
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.

Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 10/11/2014 02:23 pm
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.

True, could be more than 1 milestone, and I also assume that the GAO decision will not take the full 100 days.

Why do some posters think SpaceX is at risk? The protest is clearly based on the financial argument of saving taxpayers money and that will only happen if SNC replaces Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/11/2014 03:25 pm
Why do some posters think SpaceX is at risk? The protest is clearly based on the financial argument of saving taxpayers money and that will only happen if SNC replaces Boeing.
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.  If that had not been the case, they couldn't have argued on general principles that the award should be overturned because it would save taxpayer money.

The bid was put in based on the solicitation.  If the solicitation had put a premium on design conservatism or additional services, SNC might have made a different proposal.  Inconsistency between the criteria given in the solicitation and the criteria used to make the decision would be grounds to overturn the award.

For instance, the determining factor may have been that Boeing bid a non-reuse approach, while SNC bid reuse, and the NASA decision-makers, despite judging SNC's approach highly likely to succeed, decided to throw cost considerations out the window and spend another billion dollars for a hair more confidence that the non-reuse approach would deliver.

This would be inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, which describe an emphasis on price, and if they had known the actual criteria which would be applied, SNC might also have bid a non-reuse plan.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/11/2014 07:16 pm
Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?
No.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/11/2014 07:29 pm
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.

Not quite, and that meme needs to be squashed:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP NNK14467515R
M.1   SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL
...
(e)   Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.  The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
NB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

edit: To be clear, Price is the most important factor (or tie-breaker) only if you assume that the evaluation of Mission Suitability and Past Performance are also equal.  I would not make such an assumption.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 10/11/2014 07:59 pm
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.

Not quite, and that meme needs to be squashed:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP NNK14467515R
M.1   SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL
...
(e)   Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.  The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
NB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

edit: To be clear, Price is the most important factor (or tie-breaker) only if you assume that the evaluation of Mission Suitability and Past Performance are also equal.  I would not make such an assumption.

???
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/11/2014 08:17 pm
???
Price is not the sole, primary, or overriding evaluation factor--as some seem to claim--but one of several evaluation factors.  Given that SNC (presumably) had a lower evaluated price than, e.g., Boeing, then it is likely SNC lost based on other evaluation factors: Mission suitability and Past Performance.  Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/11/2014 09:11 pm
???
Price is not the sole, primary, or overriding evaluation factor--as some seem to claim--but one of several evaluation factors.  Given that SNC (presumably) had a lower evaluated price than, e.g., Boeing, then it is likely SNC lost based on other evaluation factors: Mission suitability and Past Performance.  Hope that makes sense.

That is true but imo you went too far in the opposite direction.
NASA itself stated that price would be given double value over all the other factors.
Mind you that does not say that price is primary - there is no primary - only that price is 2x more important than any other "single" factor.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/11/2014 10:46 pm
NASA itself stated that price would be given double value over all the other factors.

NASA never stated or implied that price was double the value of all other factors (and I have never claimed otherwise).

As far as I can tell, the "price above all" meme has grown from an inaccurate reading of the evaluation factors and conflation of the total Mission Suitability score with the Mission Suitability: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance subfactor score (or something like that).

In short, one could reasonably assert that Price is approximately twice the weight of the Mission Suitability: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance subfactor score.  However, asserting that Price is approximately twice the weight of the Mission Suitability total score is incorrect.

Quote from: CCtCap RFP
M.1   SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL
...
(e)   Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.  The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
... or that Price is is approximately equal to ...
Quote
M.2   MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR
...
Mission Suitability Subfactors (Scored Elements)Weight (Points)
Subfactor 1: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance525
Subfactor 2: Management Approach400
Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization75
Total1000
... plus ...
Quote
M.4   PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR
...  The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements by assigning a confidence rating to the overall Past Performance factor.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 10/11/2014 11:22 pm
Quote
M.4   PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR
...  The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements by assigning a confidence rating to the overall Past Performance factor.

Seems to me this really is one of the more important points for the outcome we got, and the selection makes a lot more sense when you take it into account.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/11/2014 11:44 pm
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/12/2014 12:03 am
past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition?

The apparent point of the competition was to apply some pricing pressure on the established market participants. Personally I assume that had SNC not been competing, Boeing's offer would have been different and its price would have been even higher than what they bid. So maybe the competition worked just as intended?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/12/2014 12:08 am
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

In cases with no history the evaluation must be neutral; per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) (http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2015_3.html); incorporated by reference in the CCtCap RFP:
Quote

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/12/2014 12:24 am
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

In cases with no history the evaluation must be neutral; per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) (http://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2015_3.html); incorporated by reference in the CCtCap RFP:
Quote

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

How does that work? Does a favorable prior performer get positive points, an unfavorable prior performer negative points, and a new offeror zero points? If another metric, how is it set up?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 12:31 am
past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition?

The apparent point of the competition was to apply some pricing pressure on the established market participants. Personally I assume that had SNC not been competing, Boeing's offer would have been different and its price would have been even higher than what they bid. So maybe the competition worked just as intended?
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/12/2014 01:00 am
How does that work? Does a favorable prior performer get positive points, an unfavorable prior performer negative points, and a new offeror zero points? If another metric, how is it set up?

Yes, more-or-less. Past performance is not numerically scored, but is expressed as a confidence level.  If past performance information is available and relevant, it would typically be expressed on a scale of, e.g., "low" (negative) to "high" (positive).  Those without a history would typically be graded "unknown", or "neutral".

A negative confidence level works against you; a positive confidence level works for you.  All other things equal, the competitor with the highest confidence level wins, with "unknown" or "neutral" being the equivalent of zero.  However, an "unknown" or "neutral" confidence level cannot be used as the sole basis for acceptance or rejection.

However, past performance and confidence level cannot be divorced from other evaluation factors.  A proposal which has a very high price and a very high confidence level does not necessarily get a pass vs. a proposal with a lower price and a lower confidence level.  That is where fuzzy interpretations of timeliness, need, and "value to the government" comes into play, and where disputes due to such fuzzy interpretations arise.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/12/2014 01:03 am
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

Exactly.  The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/12/2014 01:25 am
Exactly.  The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.

Forget for a moment the term "commercial", and instead consider replacing it with the term "competitive", as in the "Competitive Crew Program".  Does that make you happier?  And on what basis do you assert that a cost+ (presumably sole-source?) contract would have lead to a better result?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 01:26 am
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

Exactly.  The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.
It is endemic with the ever shifting priorities that come with Presidential election cycles and the changing of the NASA Administrator. Throw in the congressional meddling and we have a disjointed space program with the goal posts being frequently moved resulting in wasted time and money. Russia seems to always be consistent whether is under the U.S.S.R or the current regime... It might not be innovative but is rarely has gaps in space access...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2014 10:14 am
However, asserting that Price is approximately twice the weight of the Mission Suitability total score is incorrect.

The last sentence in my post explicitly stated:
Quote
Mind you that does not say that price is primary - there is no primary - only that price is 2x more important than any other "single" factor.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2014 10:20 am
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...

No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 11:40 am
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...

No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.
Then that fly’s in the face of NASA selection due to “past performance” which they appear to give them high marks... Or is that just based on the “legacy companies” they swallowed up over the years which then should have no bearing on selection...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2014 12:17 pm
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

SNC could and did bring in experienced subcontractors, that helps getting around this.

Past performance is always a consideration.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2014 12:20 pm

Exactly.  The outcome basically just reinforced my cynical suspicion all along that this "commercial" program was little more than a charade that would inevitably lead to more or less what we could have had by awarding a cost plus contract to the entrenched establishment without wasting all this time pretending to want to spur innovation.

Wings do not equate to innovation. 
Also, SNC's "innovation" bit it in the arse, they had to re-engine the vehicle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 12:36 pm
Unfortunately past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition? Assign a contract and get on with it...

SNC could and did bring in experienced subcontractors, that helps getting around this.

Past performance is always a consideration.
I agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/12/2014 12:49 pm

I agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?

I think you mean "should include"

And SNC past experience for other projects always came in on time and within budget?



Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/12/2014 01:54 pm

I agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?

I think you mean "should include"

And SNC past experience for other projects always came in on time and within budget?
Fair point Jim, unfortunately the sample size for human rated spacecraft is rather small.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/12/2014 04:47 pm
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...

No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.

don't you think the politics of the RD-180 hurt that process?

When it comes to use of taxpayer money this program is no different.  Lot's of unneeded bells, and whistles on some of the designs.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/12/2014 06:06 pm
This discussion both fascinates and perplexes me. From the public statements I have read from SNC and NASA, the justifications for SNC’s filing the appeal with the GAO and for NASA’s resume work order appear straightforward: SNC has viewed the documents showing NASA’s reasons for selecting Boeing and SpaceX. The company believes that its system scored competitively on safety, reliability, and cost against those other aerospace concerns; more than that, it believes that it outperformed at least one of its competitors. Therefore, it believes that empirical grounds exist for overturning NASA’s decision.  There is no publicly announced basis at present for determining which criteria played the most significant role in either NASA’s selection decision or SNL’s appeal. As for NASA’s order to resume work, it put forward the justification that national interest outweighed the financial risk of having its selection decision overturned by the GAO. The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback. Until all the facts become public, what reasons are there to second-guess any of the public statements of the parties to the dispute?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/12/2014 06:56 pm
How does that work? Does a favorable prior performer get positive points, an unfavorable prior performer negative points, and a new offeror zero points? If another metric, how is it set up?

Yes, more-or-less. Past performance is not numerically scored, but is expressed as a confidence level.  If past performance information is available and relevant, it would typically be expressed on a scale of, e.g., "low" (negative) to "high" (positive).  Those without a history would typically be graded "unknown", or "neutral".

A negative confidence level works against you; a positive confidence level works for you.  All other things equal, the competitor with the highest confidence level wins, with "unknown" or "neutral" being the equivalent of zero.  However, an "unknown" or "neutral" confidence level cannot be used as the sole basis for acceptance or rejection.

However, past performance and confidence level cannot be divorced from other evaluation factors.  A proposal which has a very high price and a very high confidence level does not necessarily get a pass vs. a proposal with a lower price and a lower confidence level.  That is where fuzzy interpretations of timeliness, need, and "value to the government" comes into play, and where disputes due to such fuzzy interpretations arise.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/12/2014 09:44 pm
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...

No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.

False argument and not sure what data you are basing it on.  Human rating the Atlas is not relatively easy.  Most of the steps to getting there is a LOT of analysis, which Boeing and ULA have been doing.  I wont' disagree that if more money had been put to the effort it would be further along.  But easy, no, far from it.  Also, equally critical is NASA has a significant role in the human rating and until CCiCAP, really not fully engaged in it.

I suspect what you are trying to say is that if was Boeing solo there would be no incentive to do it as fast or cheaply as has been done so far.  That may well be a true statement (I don't think there is any data one way or the other but fair argument to postulate).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/12/2014 10:25 pm
The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/12/2014 11:14 pm
The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/13/2014 01:09 am
The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Serious charges. I infer that the corruption you're referring to involves the selection of Boeing over SNC. You didn't spell it out, so if I'm wrong, please clarify.

You certainly could be right. I've had the same suspicion. However, the key point of my post was that no publicly available evidence that I'm aware of exists at this time to sustain such a theory. Absent a study of the documents that lay out the basis of NASA's selection decision, it simply is not possible to conclude that Boeing's political influence, corrupt or otherwise, led NASA to decide as it did. Thus, I think it serves no constructive purpose to speculate in an incriminatory manner about Boeing's or NASA's roles in the down-select process.

That said, I too am concerned about the decision. I was among the many who felt that SNC and SpaceX outpaced Boeing's entry. I was shocked when I saw that the CST-100 beat out the Dream Chaser. The tax-paying public deserves a full accounting of what happened.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/13/2014 01:12 am
In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

So you're defending NASA's rationale of "national interest" for ordering Boeing and SpaceX to resume work?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2014 02:05 am
In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

So you're defending NASA's rationale of "national interest" for ordering Boeing and SpaceX to resume work?

Yes.  NASA now has a difficult deadline about 4 years away.  If it misses that deadline it will cause international embarrassment for both NASA and the USA.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/13/2014 02:14 am
I think the international embarrassment for both NASA and the USA ship sailed years ago when we gounded our fleet and had to "go hat in hand to Russia"....
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/13/2014 04:19 am
While I wouldn't be surprised at politics being involved in Boeing's selection, I do buy NASA's assertion that 100 days would jeopardize the launch deadline.  Part of my job involves software project management.  While this isn't nearly as complex as dealing with new manned spacecraft, any delay ripples through the chain of work.  3 months is a long time and with the possibility of further legal action, it could go longer.  I read in Motley Fool that SNC was on the receiving end of a contract dispute from Beechcraft over providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan and it took a year to resolve (which it did in SNC's favor).  Also, those who would argue that the company's involved can keep working are forgetting NASA itself.  For the project to stay on course, NASA needs to keep moving too.  Of course political pressure could have been applied to NASA to keep going, but I can't imagine it was just that.  Three years is short when you factor in the need for test flights and the whole host of unknowns that can still come up.

This is just my 2 cents.  I mentioned the reinstatement to my Dad and he said "of course."  Maybe some here know the situation much better, and maybe know something more than I do, but I can take it at face value.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/13/2014 07:06 am
A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/13/2014 07:41 am
Human rating the Atlas is not relatively easy.  Most of the steps to getting there is a LOT of analysis, which Boeing and ULA have been doing.  I wont' disagree that if more money had been put to the effort it would be further along.  But easy, no, far from it.  Also, equally critical is NASA has a significant role in the human rating and until CCiCAP, really not fully engaged in it.
This flies directly in the face of Jim who stated that human rating launchers is actually not all that difficult, nor all that expensive, as it is mostly a paper exercise.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/13/2014 12:27 pm
Another article based on source selection document:

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle

I wonder what they meant by SpaceX has "the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on the Phase 1 products that are the foundations of certification in this second phase.", and what are the "problems not yet well understood, and design trades made late in the development process"
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2014 12:36 pm
The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 10/13/2014 01:10 pm
Another article based on source selection document:

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle

I wonder what they meant by SpaceX has "the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on the Phase 1 products that are the foundations of certification in this second phase.", and what are the "problems not yet well understood, and design trades made late in the development process"
Interesting article.  Bill G sounds a lot like Jim in his assertions.

It would seem that NASA found something during the previous phase that they think will require significant rework by SpaceX.  On the other hand, SpaceX has considerable padding in their schedule too.

Odd the article would say that the Dragon Crew launch would take place from LC40.  I was under the impression they were planning on using LC39A for crewed launches.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/13/2014 01:24 pm
Yeah, crew will be from 39a. The article is wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/13/2014 01:45 pm
The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.

Correct - I don't think NASA believes the 2016 date and you shouldn't either.  You can measure that multiple ways.  Past performance has been pretty clear (and not trying to fault SpaceX - this is hard work and they should be commended for where they have gotten, but they have been over optimistic, as all aerospace companies are).  WHat they submitted in CCiCAP, especially CPC.   But most importantly, and I have repeatedly stated this multiple times but it seems to be getting lost on many folks here is how long it will take NASA to integrate a human rated vehicle into the CCP and ISS programs.   Now, I won't say that is good or bad but it is the reality.  NASA would be very hard pressed to support the critical work needed for a single human vehicle to be ready in 2017 for one company.  I do not believe NASA has allocated the resources todo that for TWO companies.   So my point is that even if SpaceX was, in their opinion, ready to launch a crew in 2016 I don't believe they can be ready by NASA's standards by then.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/13/2014 01:47 pm
A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time.   Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz.  That is significant money and political/national prestige there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2014 01:54 pm
Correct - I don't think NASA believes the 2016 date and you shouldn't either.

The 2016 flight will not be a NASA flight. It will be a SpaceX vehicle likely with a SpaceX crew on a SpaceX mission to shake down the vehicle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/13/2014 01:58 pm
A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time.   Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz.  That is significant money and political/national prestige there.
Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 02:25 pm

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.

If you are reffering to SpaceX and flying manned in 2016.  Has SpaceX ever delivered a project on time? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/13/2014 04:34 pm

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.

If you are reffering to SpaceX and flying manned in 2016.  Has SpaceX ever delivered a project on time?

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 04:41 pm

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2014 04:45 pm

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 04:55 pm

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract.  Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime.  SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time.  NASA needed to have a commercial crew contract partner that can deliver ontime and not be distracted by other things, like the President of the company going around and talking about colonizing Mars etc.  Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack.  They also don't have all the distractions that SpaceX has.  Not saying that SpaceX will not deliver on time but if they do, it will be a first.  SpaceX needs to demonstrate better project management skills and planning that it has so far in its company history if it wants to compete in the same space as the big firms like Boeing for govt contracts.     
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/13/2014 05:06 pm

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract.  Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime.  SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time.

When did Boeing last deliver a large Aerospace contract ontime?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2014 05:07 pm

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract.  Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime.  SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time.

When did Boeing last deliver a large Aerospace contract ontime?

They haven't - not in living memory.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/13/2014 05:09 pm

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack.  They also don't have all the distractions that SpaceX has. 

Boeing has more distractions. SpaceX is tightly focused around launch vehicles and a few specific spacecraft designs. In fact, commercial crew itself is a distraction from Boeing's 5,000 airliner backlog.

Quote
Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime. [snip] Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack.

Boeing doesn't deliver every project on time. Statistically it is far from assured.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 05:29 pm

They haven't - not in living memory.

You must have a short memory.

You can look at the 777 airliner and 747 development for well managed projects and delivered on time.  The Delta-IV and the SaturnV-SIC stage.  The F-18 Super Hornet was also delivered on time. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 10/13/2014 05:38 pm
In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Never attribute to corruption that which is adequately explained by bureaucratic risk aversion.

(Norm's corollary to Hanlon's Razor)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/13/2014 05:45 pm

They haven't - not in living memory.

You must have a short memory.

You can look at the 777 airliner and 747 development for well managed projects and delivered on time.  The Delta-IV and the SaturnV-SIC stage.  The F-18 Super Hornet was also delivered on time. 

No they weren't. You need to look at the "original" schedule, not the ones that were published close to delivery of the product.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 05:51 pm

No they weren't. You need to look at the "original" schedule, not the ones that were published close to delivery of the product.

Sure share with me the original schedule then since it appears that you are in the know and I am wrong. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/13/2014 05:54 pm

They haven't - not in living memory.

You must have a short memory.

You can look at the 777 airliner and 747 development for well managed projects and delivered on time.  The Delta-IV and the SaturnV-SIC stage.  The F-18 Super Hornet was also delivered on time. 
You have a long and rather selective memory.  The 777 went into customer service 19 years ago, the same year the Super Hornet first flew.

The 747, and the Saturn first stage. were designed in the 1960s.  I'd be amazed if anyone responsible for managing these projects is still at Boeing.

About the Delta-IV, "The first flight of Delta 4 has been delayed several times this year because of various technical problems. It was originally supposed to have flown before the Atlas 5."  from a Seattle paper, http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Boeing-has-a-lot-riding-on-the-Delta-4-rocket-1100684.php

 The 787, a much more recent yardstick of ability to deliver on time, was several years late.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 05:55 pm
Boeing doesn't deliver every project on time. Statistically it is far from assured.

Nothing is assured but Boeing has the history and experience that Space doesn't.   

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle

Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 06:02 pm
You have a long and rather selective memory.  The 777 went into customer service 19 years ago, the same year the Super Hornet first flew.

The 747, and the Saturn first stage. were designed in the 1960s.  I'd be amazed if anyone responsible for managing these projects is still at Boeing.

About the Delta-IV, "The first flight of Delta 4 has been delayed several times this year because of various technical problems. It was originally supposed to have flown before the Atlas 5."  from a Seattle paper, http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Boeing-has-a-lot-riding-on-the-Delta-4-rocket-1100684.php

 The 787, a much more recent yardstick of ability to deliver on time, was several years late.

The problem is that SpaceX has never delivered on time.  NASA rated Boeing's technical, management and past performance to be superior to SpaceX. 

SpaceX needs to demonstrate the ability to more closely meet project deadlines and not be years off in it's deliverable dates.   

Quote
Discussing costs, Gerstenmaier says that “although SNC’s price is lower than Boeing’s price, its technical and management approaches and its past performance are not as high and I see considerably more schedule risk with its proposal. Both SNC and SpaceX had high past performance, and very good technical and management approaches, but SNC’s price is significantly higher than SpaceX’s price.”

 Touching on why Boeing received a $4.2 billion contract, versus $2.6 billion for SpaceX, he adds “I consider Boeing’s superior proposal, with regard to both its technical and management approach and its past performance, to be worth the additional price in comparison to the SNC proposal.”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/13/2014 06:05 pm
A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time.   Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz.  That is significant money and political/national prestige there.
Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...

Half true.  Joe the plumber is not interested in what NASA hopes to do at the ISS in ~4 years time.  He knows that the Shuttles were cancelled because one crashed and has accepted that there will be a delay before the replacement flies.  In 4 years time, when the replacement does not fly, he will be less forgiving.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/13/2014 06:19 pm
Half true.  Joe the plumber is not interested in what NASA hopes to do at the ISS in ~4 years time.  He knows that the Shuttles were cancelled because one crashed and has accepted that there will be a delay before the replacement flies.  In 4 years time, when the replacement does not fly, he will be less forgiving.

To be completely true, Joe the plumber thinks NASA was cancelled altogether.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 10/13/2014 06:45 pm
Boeing is already late on the KC-46 tanker.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024732896_boeingtankerxml.html
And this happens with an old and very well known airplane.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 07:00 pm
Boeing is already late on the KC-46 tanker.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024732896_boeingtankerxml.html
And this happens with an old and very well known airplane.

The USAF delivery date is in 2017 for the first operational aircraft.   It cannot be late for a contract delivery date that is still in the future.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 10/13/2014 07:11 pm
"Boeing said Wednesday that the first test plane for its KC-46 Air Force aerial-refueling tanker program is expected to fly in late November or early December.

That’s a delay of two months or more beyond the projection Boeing’s leadership gave in July, when Chief Financial Officer Greg Smith predicted on an earnings call with analysts that first flight would be late in the third quarter."

I don't know if they will recover, but now Boeing has a delay (i.e. it's late) on a projection done in July.
And originally the first flight was foreseen for April 2014, go figure.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/13/2014 07:11 pm
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/13/2014 08:07 pm
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.

This seems to imply the most NASA-like management culture is the best... Seriously?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/13/2014 09:21 pm
Maybe NASA simply didn't want to stick two feet into the future, so it chose to keep one foot in the past. Boeing's design struck the selectors as safe, stodgy, reliable, and predictable—Apollo redux. SpaceX's capsule design has futuristic elements (the SuperDraco's and propulsive landing on terra firma), but still has a parachute. It's a technological advancement over Boeing's concept, but it's not "out there". The Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding. It's riskier than the other two, or so I imagine the selectors saw it. NASA is a conservative culture. It doesn't go out on limbs, even though, tragically, it occasionally cuts corners.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/13/2014 09:40 pm
Essentially why the upstart newcomers barely had a chance, and we might as well have avoided the time wasting charade and awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract years ago. The whole "commercial crew" thing was largely a farce.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 10:02 pm
Essentially why the upstart newcomers barely had a chance, and we might as well have avoided the time wasting charade and awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract years ago. The whole "commercial crew" thing was largely a farce.

Well SpaceX has been given a seat at the table so I am not sure if you can call it a waste of time.  SNC just had to many variables in their design and NASA didn't feel comfortable with selecting them and SpaceX.  The biggest problem that SNC had was they where up against SpaceX which brought a complete package of launch vehicle, capsule and a lower bid to the table.  Which I suspect a chunk of that higher price was the vehicle development costs and that a Atlas-V just costs more money than a Falcon9v1.1. 

Quote
Discussing costs, Gerstenmaier says that “although SNC’s price is lower than Boeing’s price, its technical and management approaches and its past performance are not as high and I see considerably more schedule risk with its proposal. Both SNC and SpaceX had high past performance, and very good technical and management approaches, but SNC’s price is significantly higher than SpaceX’s price.”

I also thing that NASA has been backed into a corner because of continued budget cuts to the commercial crew contract.  Originally NASA already wanted the new capsules flying by now.  The cuts had forced a slowdown in the program.  NASA has to get something ready by 2017 which means they cannot take a chance and select two upstarts and have them both fail.  Now if SpaceX falls on it's face Boeing is their as old reliable.  Not saying that SpaceX but it has to be in the back of some people's mind at NASA.  So with the contest down to Boeing and whoever else SNC coulnd't beat SpaceX so they lost. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/13/2014 10:08 pm
NASA has to get something ready by 2017 which means they cannot take a chance and select two upstarts and have them both fail.  Now if SpaceX falls on it's face Boeing is their as old reliable.  Not saying that SpaceX but it has to be in the back of some people's mind at NASA.  So with the contest down to Boeing and whoever else SNC coulnd't beat SpaceX so they lost.
If this is their actual reasoning, then we can expect SNC to win their case.

This is simply not what the solicitation described, and they're required to maintain consistency between the selection criteria given in the solicitation and the selection criteria actually applied.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 10:10 pm
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.

From the bits and pieces I have been able to read their was enough subjective parts in the selection process scoring that essentially NASA could select Boeing despite the higher bid by Boeing.  Any GAO investigation is going to get into this and since it is subjective they are going to have a hard time second guessing NASA.  Dealing with this type of items it will be hard for GAO to come away with the conclusion that NASA was wrong in it's selection of Boeing. 

Quote
Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 10:13 pm
If this is their actual reasoning, then we can expect SNC to win their case.

This is simply not what the solicitation described, and they're required to maintain consistency between the selection criteria given in the solicitation and the selection criteria actually applied.

They don't have to come right out and say it.  However if you are grading on technical and management approach and past performance Boeing is getting the higher grade.  If they can bring in such arguments like past performance in the grading then yes it can be a subjective part of the equation and they can rank a company higher based on it's previous performance. 

Quote
“I consider Boeing’s superior proposal, with regard to both its technical and management approach and its past performance, to be worth the additional price in comparison to the SNC proposal.”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/13/2014 10:51 pm

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Nope - can't blame NASA really for that - I think that is pretty squarely on congress.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/13/2014 11:00 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbuQ7mAFeZQ

You can actually see a politician thinking. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/13/2014 11:20 pm

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Nope - can't blame NASA really for that - I think that is pretty squarely on congress.

I don't know about that. Orion is the long tent in the pole. You can't really say that Orion is being underfunded by Congress.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/13/2014 11:42 pm
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified.  Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 

Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided in order to meet a short-term mission requirement. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/13/2014 11:58 pm
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified. 

How are you drawing that conclusion?  The entire commercial crew program has stimulated a lot of new development. 

If you just look at the Commercial Orbit Transportation Services program for the investment of $800 Million in money the US has two new launch vehicles and to cargo spacecraft. 


Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided.

We could have arrived at a obvious "safe" solution years ago if Congress was willing to fund the development of both Orion Capsule and a Earth Orbit capsule at the same time.  How are we throwing away the long term potential in the investment in the upstarts?  SpaceX has had remarkable success and is bringing commercial launch services back to US shores.   



Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2014 12:17 am
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided in order to meet a short-term mission requirement. 

What says SNC has long-term potential?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/14/2014 12:42 am

What says SNC has long-term potential?

SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS.  CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that. 

But maybe the question is, if it didn't have potential, why did we invest a couple hundred million dollars in it only to add it to the long list of abandoned programs?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/14/2014 12:49 am
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified. 

How are you drawing that conclusion?  The entire commercial crew program has stimulated a lot of new development. 

If you just look at the Commercial Orbit Transportation Services program for the investment of $800 Million in money the US has two new launch vehicles and to cargo spacecraft. 


Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided.

We could have arrived at a obvious "safe" solution years ago if Congress was willing to fund the development of both Orion Capsule and a Earth Orbit capsule at the same time.  How are we throwing away the long term potential in the investment in the upstarts?  SpaceX has had remarkable success and is bringing commercial launch services back to US shores.   
The mess all started with CxP with Orion on Ares 1 with all its associated problems and Griffin has stated on record that he had all the money he needed...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 10/14/2014 12:53 am
TBH I was shocked at the high amounts awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX, but then I put it in the context that they received half of the funding in previous rounds vs Obama's recommendations. So now they have to play catch-up. Has CONgress approved this funding? Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 12:57 am
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.

It's an almost certainty.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 12:59 am
TBH I was shocked at the high amounts awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX,

Were not the amounts awarded based on what the companies bid for the contract?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 01:02 am
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.

It's an almost certainty.

Oh that would be funny.  Congress we cut your funding in half.  NASA ok, we are dropping Boeing and going single source with SpaceX because at 1/2 funding we can still afford SpaceX but not Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/14/2014 01:12 am

What says SNC has long-term potential?

SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS.  CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that. 

But maybe the question is, if it didn't have potential, why did we invest a couple hundred million dollars in it only to add it to the long list of abandoned programs?
Boeing seems pretty cozy with Bigelow.  I don't really know of any commercial customers SNC has lined up.

As for being a one-trick pony, that seems unfair to CST-100.  Dream Chaser is heavily specialized for taking people to and from LEO stations (and accordingly, in some ways it would do it better than either of the capsules).  CST-100 is a modular design that would be easier to adapt to other purposes.

Notably, even in the base design CST-100 is suitable for providing stationkeeping/reboost delta-V for the station it's docked with.  Additional services weren't supposed to be a determining consideration, but there's a pretty good case for NASA and other station operators to prefer the CST-100 even for that reason alone.  Its heat shield is also protected behind the propulsion module (and, being detachable, may even be replaceable in orbit), which is one reason I think it's likely to be the best lifeboat of the three.

I think we could argue the relative technical merits of the three candidates forever and not pick a clear winner.  They're good at different things, and I think it's a shame if all three don't get developed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/14/2014 01:18 am

I think we could argue the relative technical merits of the three candidates forever and not pick a clear winner.  They're good at different things, and I think it's a shame if all three don't get developed.

That's the real problem, which is a bigger picture issue that gets beyond the scope of this thread.  Our whole human spaceflight policy is a disaster, and it's hard not to just give up in disgust.  We need some real leadership in high places to champion the human spaceflight program, and to care not just about keeping contractors fed but to care about the actual mission(s) and performance. 

Certainly it seems as if the amount of money going into projects is inversely proportional to their payoff these days, and I think the projected SLS/Orion flight rates are so ridiculously low that it's almost comical.  I have to think something's gotta give, as our current path is insane, with commercial crew vehicles being developed for 6 flights and then nothing else, and Orion/SLS being developed at insane cost levels with no actual mission and no money for a lunar lander, mission module, or anything that would make Orion remotely useful.  It's just nuts.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 01:19 am
Oh that would be funny.  Congress we cut your funding in half.  NASA ok, we are dropping Boeing and going single source with SpaceX because at 1/2 funding we can still afford SpaceX but not Boeing.

That would be taking action.. no, what'll happen is they'll just whine a lot and then change nothing. The schedules will blow out and when it becomes apparent that none of the providers will fly before the end of life of the ISS (or the heat death of the universe), the entire program will be cancelled with a lot of "I told you so" from the usual suspects in Congress.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2014 02:31 am

SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS.  CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that. 


SNC goals are meaningless in this context.  As for one trick ponies, look no further than DC.  CST-100 has more utility and adaptability.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 03:34 am

That would be taking action.. no, what'll happen is they'll just whine a lot and then change nothing. The schedules will blow out and when it becomes apparent that none of the providers will fly before the end of life of the ISS (or the heat death of the universe), the entire program will be cancelled with a lot of "I told you so" from the usual suspects in Congress.


The total proposal is 4.2+2.6 so around 7 Billion.  However that includes both development and operational expenses.  I think for Boeing's proposal it is up to 4.2 which would cover several manned test flights and up to 6 crew flights.  So potentially cuts could happen and still finish the development of the capsule.  The wild card is SpaceX and Musk because of their focus beyond just making money.  With the funding from NASA, even partial. Musk could just decide to push ahead and complete development at the original schedule just to tweak Boeing and Jeff Bezos.  There is bragging rights for the first private company to get a crew into orbit and recover them successfully and I bet that Musk want's those bragging rights.  That is one thing that Billionaire's love and that is bragging rights.  Certainly Musk isn't going to let Bezo's Blue Origin get that milestone first.  For a Billionaire their is only so many  super cars and luxury jets you can buy.  However having a Space Company that has done something only 3 other nations has done, gives you bragging rights at the next cocktail party.  For Boeing it is all business and dollars and cents for Musk and SpaceX it is more than that.  Which makes it a big variable because Musk has no board etc. to report to, he has complete control of SpaceX.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 05:37 am
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 10/14/2014 06:01 am
The Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding.

Challenger did not crash because of failed head shielding.  Please be more careful in your assertions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/14/2014 06:08 am
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Aren't you the same QuantumG who posted recently that "NASA was holding SpaceX back"? A sudden change of opinion?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/14/2014 06:30 am
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Aren't you the same QuantumG who posted recently that "NASA was holding SpaceX back"? A sudden change of opinion?
Actually, with those two statements, QuantumG is saying the same thing twice. He has not changed opinion IMO.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 07:44 am

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract.  Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime.  SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time.  NASA needed to have a commercial crew contract partner that can deliver ontime and not be distracted by other things, like the President of the company going around and talking about colonizing Mars etc.  Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack.  They also don't have all the distractions that SpaceX has.  Not saying that SpaceX will not deliver on time but if they do, it will be a first.  SpaceX needs to demonstrate better project management skills and planning that it has so far in its company history if it wants to compete in the same space as the big firms like Boeing for govt contracts.     
Are you serious? Boeing never deliver under budget and on time maybe last time at Apollo time. Why so much project was canceled in the last 35 years,because over budget not because delay(Ventura star, spaceplane,). Spacex is first company that deliver little bite late but on budget. Spacex is probably the only company that in next 10 years deliver all components that NASA wants to have to explore our solar system.
-Earth to orbit heavy lunch.
-spacecraft able to and on mars or together solar body and deliver significant payload
-interplanetary vehicle
-new better spacesuit
-reusable system
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 10/14/2014 10:42 am
(Ventura star, spaceplane,).
Please keep your facts straight.  Though I agree Boeing tends towards cost and schedule overruns (and they are not the only one by far), VentureStar was a Lockheed-Martin project, not one of Boeing's.  That particular project died largely because it was too ambitious.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 11:44 am
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now? 

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 10/14/2014 12:23 pm
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now?

Three years ahead of Boeing instead of only two and ready to fly crew as soon as the new docking adapter is installed.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 02:28 pm
Are you serious? Boeing never deliver under budget and on time maybe last time at Apollo time. Why so much project was canceled in the last 35 years,because over budget not because delay(Ventura star, spaceplane,). Spacex is first company that deliver little bite late but on budget. Spacex is probably the only company that in next 10 years deliver all components that NASA wants to have to explore our solar system.
-Earth to orbit heavy lunch.
-spacecraft able to and on mars or together solar body and deliver significant payload
-interplanetary vehicle
-new better spacesuit
-reusable system

If Boeing performs so poorly as you are asserting then why did NASA associatte administrator William Gerstenmaier write this in a internal document about the contract award?  If you are serious that must mean SpaceX really sucks as far as program management, because NASA thinks they are worse than Boeing in this category.   So what say you?

Quote
Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/14/2014 02:33 pm
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 03:47 pm
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."

It is subjective but it is the conclusion of NASA's evaluation board on the matter, which is what counts in the commercial Crew selection.  There were enough subjective areas like management competence, project management, organizational structure, technical maturity, ability to stick to a timetable. The higher ranking by Boeing in these areas put it ahead of SNC, despite the price difference.  I doubt that the GAO is going to over-rule NASA and say that SNC should have been more highly rated in these subjective areas.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/14/2014 03:51 pm
Some congressmen ask Bolden, why not use Orion for commercial crew purposes?
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 10/14/2014 04:09 pm
The original Constellation program overview in 2006 included Orion support for the ISS with 6 crew, 210 day stay time, lifeboat, and pressurized cargo capabilities.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 10/14/2014 05:48 pm
Some congressmen ask Bolden, why not use Orion for commercial crew purposes?
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew

Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/14/2014 06:05 pm

Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.

Ha!  I think that would be the official death of any hope for NASA.  The way I see it, the $2.6 billion or whatever it is going to SpaceX is the only ray of hope right now in an otherwise hopelessly aimless agency that seems to exist more for political pork than for advancing aeronautics or space exploration. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/14/2014 07:08 pm
No surprise in any of this. Just the usual budget politics around HSF.

Commercial crew is a direct threat to Orion/SLS. The BLEO/LEO artificial differentiation is a political mechanism to allow Orion arbitrary budget inflation while all the pseudo "fiscal responsibility" is directed at the "less necessary", cheaper program of commercial crew. Now the fiscal hawks can look good at saving the nation billions by brilliantly observing that one can dual use a single capsule. "Simple".

I begin to dimly understand why Musk didn't do the "quick and dirty" approach to a manned Dragon 1 capsule, but instead focused on the much more elaborate Dragon 2 design.

The moment COTS-D vanished as a possibility, the game changed. COTS was intended as a failure to washout Kistler cheaply, and the additions of SpaceX and Orbital were unexpected. It was supposed to be "oh dear, we tried that, what can be done, and back to Constellation  level bad spending and Ares IX results, is best we can do".

The trick pony was allowing Boeing's failed OSP bid back into the tent of CC as a security against what happened with COTS.

The advantage of Dragon 2 taking longer was to make it less like Orion/CST-100. Because by the way Congress worked things, all capsules would appear to be alike (perhaps also why DC biased from selection as well?),  and Congress can "save the day" with this masterful move. Meaning there was nothing to be gained by a fast, minimalist capsule ... because it would be slowed down by perhaps more/different "hobbling" moves all along.

So maybe Musk was right in his showmanship with the Dragon-2 reveal, which reminded me nothing so much as a new car introduction. And what we are about to watch from Congress, is a variation on the Wall Street badmouthing of the Tesla Model D. By my read, its not as successful in dampening interest as Tesla's adversaries had hoped - so perhaps Congress might also not bring this off as well.

There's a lot at stake now, and the performance in the next few months may turn things in different directions. Each of the HSF vehicles has something underway that can affect this game. As well as the "unintended consequences" of some. Remember the EELV "winners" ...

Congress will wait, now having set the stage for the outcome it desires. They will side with the "winners" of this drama in the next act.

1, 2 , or 3.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/14/2014 07:29 pm
Some congressmen ask Bolden, why not use Orion for commercial crew purposes?
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew

A thread was started on this yesterday and is located in the Space Policy Discussion section:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35833.0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 07:54 pm
(Ventura star, spaceplane,).
Please keep your facts straight.  Though I agree Boeing tends towards cost and schedule overruns (and they are not the only one by far), VentureStar was a Lockheed-Martin project, not one of Boeing's.  That particular project died largely because it was too ambitious.
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget. You will not find such project. The only project that was deliver on budget was Commercial to ISS. Tell me that Spacex project to make reusable is not ambitious, but didn't effect cost of their deliver to ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 08:00 pm
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.

Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now?
I hear in this forum 8 years ago doubt, that Musk rocket will  ever fly and compete with Delta or Atlas. Now these rocket are not competition for them except environment where their lobby overcome their superior price and services. Spacex is feared by  Ariane, chinese and russian, who could imagine that 5 years ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 08:17 pm
Are you serious? Boeing never deliver under budget and on time maybe last time at Apollo time. Why so much project was canceled in the last 35 years,because over budget not because delay(Ventura star, spaceplane,). Spacex is first company that deliver little bite late but on budget. Spacex is probably the only company that in next 10 years deliver all components that NASA wants to have to explore our solar system.
-Earth to orbit heavy lunch.
-spacecraft able to and on mars or together solar body and deliver significant payload
-interplanetary vehicle
-new better spacesuit
-reusable system

If Boeing performs so poorly as you are asserting then why did NASA associatte administrator William Gerstenmaier write this in a internal document about the contract award?  If you are serious that must mean SpaceX really sucks as far as program management, because NASA thinks they are worse than Boeing in this category.   So what say you?

Quote
Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without  assurance to bring them back.
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor  and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost  overrun.
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 08:19 pm
Some congressmen ask Bolden, why not use Orion for commercial crew purposes?
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew

Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.
wov ULA complete victory
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/14/2014 08:20 pm

Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.

Ha!  I think that would be the official death of any hope for NASA.  The way I see it, the $2.6 billion or whatever it is going to SpaceX is the only ray of hope right now in an otherwise hopelessly aimless agency that seems to exist more for political pork than for advancing aeronautics or space exploration.
amen
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/14/2014 09:14 pm
1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without  assurance to bring them back.
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor  and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost  overrun.
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/14/2014 09:46 pm

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Wrong.  Boeing did parachute drops.  Just drop the bias, SNC is way behind Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:02 pm

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Wrong.  Boeing did parachute drops.  Just drop the bias, SNC is way behind Boeing.

.. of a Styrofoam and plywood mockup. Don't forget, their subcontractor also dropped it off the back of a pickup truck to test the airbags. Soooo much more impressive than a glide test.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 10:06 pm
[1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without  assurance to bring them back.
No that is what Congress wants them to do.  NASA had plans they are just stuck in the funding model that Congress has provided. 
 
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor  and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost  overrun.

Really?  That is the first to hear that NASA hopes that the Mars trip will be canceled.  Any evidence besides Congres not funding a Mars Trip? 

3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.

The point of the Boeing spacecraft and the entire Commerical Crew contract is to go to LEO and the ISS.  Discussing going further is pointless.  The only Capsule design that can go BEO is SpaceX DragonV2.   Are you saying the DreamChaser has BEO capability as designed?

4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.

A possibility but NASA still gave SpaceX high marks and selected them. 

5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.

How is that relevant?  Boeing has meet all the current milestone goals that NASA has set for them as part of the Commerical crew contract process. 

6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.

Yes and if SpaceX does that it will be what the first time they will actually meet a projected scheduled completion date for development of a flight vehicle.  They missed on Falcon 9, 9v1.1, Dragon and they what are two +years late on Falcon Heavy and counting.  It will be great if SpaceX can get a vehicle up and flight ready by 2015.  However if they are actually that close to being flight ready (February 2015) then their is almost no development left to be done on DragonV2.  I don't think that is the case.   Crewed spacecraft are complicated and I have a hard time seeing a flight ready system in February of next year.  I would love to be proven wrong. 

Quote
Despite SpaceX only showing “satisfactory” performance during CPC, Gerstenmaier says the young space company has “performed very well” on other relevant work and has the benefit of more schedule margin than the other companies.

This could indicate that NASA does believe that SpaceX is ahead of Boeing.

Quote
Space X had the best price of the three contenders and Gerstenmaier expressed a “high” overall level of confidence in the company’s ability to successfully perform the CctCap contract. However he acknowledged “some technical concerns about this proposal,” and worries that the schedule could be affected by having to tackle redesign issues late in the program.


However NASA is concerned that design issues (probably because of SpaceX's limited experience in manned spaceflight) could set that schedule back. 


7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.

What matters is if Boeing meets the scheduled completion dates that they set out in the Commerical Crew proposal that they submitted to NASA.  If SpaceX meets its hardware goals first, that is great for SpaceX.  They can start to demonstrate to NASA and aerospace observers they can meet or beat scheduled dates for getting a vehicle flight ready.  However based on past experience NASA administrators feel that Boeing has a greater chance of meeting it's proposed project schedule dates than SpaceX.   

8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

NASA prefers a partner with with previous manned spacecraft experience.  SpaceX and SNC don't have this.  Hopefully SpaceX will have this experience soon.  Also the SNC Dream Chaser had more technical risk in their design than either the Boeing or SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:09 pm
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 10:14 pm
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.

Except for the goal of being full flight ready by 2017 so additional Soyuz seats don't have to be purchased. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:24 pm
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.

Except for the goal of being full flight ready by 2017 so additional Soyuz seats don't have to be purchased.

Which isn't a deadline.. it's just a desire.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 10:38 pm
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.

Except for the goal of being full flight ready by 2017 so additional Soyuz seats don't have to be purchased.

Which isn't a deadline.. it's just a desire.

There was a project plan submitted and that project plan had dates on it.  The companies submitted a schedule.  That schedule factored into the decision making process.  So it was more than a desire.  The companies where graded on it.       

Quote
Gerstenmaier goes on to say that Sierra’s proposal “has more schedule uncertainty. For example, some of the testing planned after the crewed flight could be required before the crewed flight, and the impact of this movement will greatly stress the schedule.”


Quote
Although the document praises Sierra’s “strong management approach to ensure the technical work and schedule are accomplished,” it cautions that the company’s Dream Chaser had “the longest schedule for completing certification.” The letter also states that “it also has the most work to accomplish which is likely to further extend its schedule beyond 2017, and is most likely to reach certification and begin service missions later than the other ‘Offerors’.”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:41 pm
so.. just curious.. what do you think a deadline is?

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/14/2014 10:48 pm
so.. just curious.. what do you think a deadline is?

I will freely admit I was intermixing to much deadline and schedule dates, my apologies.  The proposals included a schedule with dates attached.  You are correct, no specific deadlines from NASA in the project that would include financial penalties( or other penalties) for not meeting those deadlines.  However NASA did look at the proposed completion dates in the schedule that was submitted as part of each companies schedule.  However NASA is fully aware that funding issues could cause those dates to slip so it would be pointless to set a deadline.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/14/2014 11:44 pm
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
E/A-18G Growler
C-17 Globemaster III for the last 20 years
CH-47F Chinook
AH-64 Block III Apache
JDAM
SDB
Atlas V
Delta IV Heavy
WGS

I believe these were as well:

GPS IIF
TDRS

You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 11:56 pm
You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).

You must be using some definition of "on budget" that the rest of us are not privy to. Boeing and Lockheed wouldn't agree with your list, they regularly talk about the losses they took on some of those projects for going overbudget.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 12:09 am

You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget. You will not find such project. 

You are very mistaken and must be overlooking data that greatly conflicts with your incorrect statement.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 12:10 am

wov ULA complete victory

Wrong, Boeing and Lockheed do not build launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 12:11 am
Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.

Nonsense and what Lockheed launch vehicle?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/15/2014 12:32 am
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

3/ Boeing's CST-100 is nearly as capable BLEO as SpaceX's Dragon 2.  The only difference is Dragon 2's thicker heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/15/2014 12:36 am
1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without  assurance to bring them back.
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor  and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost  overrun.
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Hmmm, could it be possible that Boeing focused on what was critical to advance the program and not a test that looked cool (and admittedly captured a lot of people's imagination) but maybe not as critical to achieving their goal?  And which, if people will recall did not end well.  And recall one of the milestones of CCDev2 was to test the landing gear.  So what confidence does that provide? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/15/2014 12:36 am
You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).

You must be using some definition of "on budget" that the rest of us are not privy to. Boeing and Lockheed wouldn't agree with your list, they regularly talk about the losses they took on some of those projects for going overbudget.

If you disagree with my list, then name a program on that list that is over budget.  I bet you can't (except for the ones I weaseled with a "believe.")

Hint: Most of these, if not all of them, were firm, fixed-price contracts.

Edited to add hint (and to test the editing process).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/15/2014 12:37 am

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Wrong.  Boeing did parachute drops.  Just drop the bias, SNC is way behind Boeing.

.. of a Styrofoam and plywood mockup. Don't forget, their subcontractor also dropped it off the back of a pickup truck to test the airbags. Soooo much more impressive than a glide test.

I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/15/2014 12:40 am
Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Hmmm, could it be possible that Boeing focused on what was critical to advance the program and not a test that looked cool (and admittedly captured a lot of people's imagination) but maybe not as critical to achieving their goal?  And which, if people will recall did not end well.  And recall one of the milestones of CCDev2 was to test the landing gear.  So what confidence does that provide?

Exactly.  The purpose of the CCiCap contract was to take an integrated crew launch / return capability through CDR.  That's exactly what Boeing did and their competitors did not by the the time of contract award.  SpaceX almost did, which is why they got the second award.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 12:44 am
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
E/A-18G Growler
C-17 Globemaster III for the last 20 years modified YC-15
CH-47F Chinook
AH-64 Block III Apache
JDAM
SDB
Atlas V
Delta IV Heavy
WGS

I believe these were as well:

GPS IIF
TDRS

You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ... modified F18(not new airplane)
E/A-18G Growler           ... modified F18(not new airplane)
C-17 Globemaster III for the last 20 years, modify YC-15
CH-47F Chinook was not develop in last 35 years
AH-64 Block III Apache..upgrade of original vehicle(not new aircraft)
JDAM..not aircraft, dumb munition
SDB...not aircraft, dumb munition
Atlas V...... cost launch is more than was promise
Delta IV Heavy...... cost launch is more than was promise
WGS...not aircraft,
GPS IIF..upgraded GPS satellite
TDRS.. it was upgrade satellite for NASA purposes
Even if you find some example ratio will be at least 10 overruns for 1 program une budget.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 12:45 am
I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Actually no. I know the people who did it. They've made no secret of the fact that it was just a mockup. Boeing has yet to build an integrated vehicle. I keep asking for people who think Boeing has done more than component level testing to show us some evidence but they haven't so far. They certainly haven't been paid for any such work yet under a NASA contract.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 12:47 am

You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget. You will not find such project. 

You are very mistaken and must be overlooking data that greatly conflicts with your incorrect statement.
give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list and if have time I will give very long list.  Please make facts decide merit.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Atomic Walrus on 10/15/2014 01:02 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 01:09 am
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

3/ Boeing's CST-100 is nearly as capable BLEO as SpaceX's Dragon 2.  The only difference is Dragon 2's thicker heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.
3/...
heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.
They will testing power landing  in every landing event . Great exercise for Mars landing

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.
Purpose of these spacecraft is not to fly 100 days and keep crew alive, but to land on Earth and on Mars. To keep alive crew on the way will be something more fit for that purpose, something like Bigelow modules.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.
What is better CDR or real hardware flying and testing capabilities?

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.
I said if inflight aboard will be successfully, the could fly Dragon 2 any day, if Falcon 9 available.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.
If Boeing plan 2017, my calculated ration for their slip will be 2019.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.
Landing of mockup you try to compare landing real hardware?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/15/2014 01:10 am
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 01:11 am

give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list a

Your list is bogus and wrong, so why should I bother?  Your mind is made up and facts won't change it.  You really don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 01:11 am

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.

To be fair we don't know who was rated highest since we haven't seen the complete report which would show the overall scoring.  What has been partially leaked is more of the subjective parts like management competence etc.  I say partially because it seems like the leaks seem to be center around the subjective parts which leads me to believe that either Boeing or someone aligned with Boeing is doing the leaking.  SpaceX has been unusually quiet as this process unfolds. However the overall scoring would also take into account pricing.  I have not seen anything released that shows how pricing impacts the scoring.  Some people have interpreted that because Boeing got more money they won, which isn't really the case with this type of contract.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 01:12 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?

Welcome to the forum!

No-one is making this claim about SpaceX or SNC. They are making the claim about Boeing, as the primary reason why they were chosen over SNC. Apparently it's even non-controversial enough to be written into an official NASA document intended for public consumption. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for a relevant example or two. That list of projects is, as I've already said, not even something Boeing with agree with, let alone relevant. If the Delta IV is anything to go by, and it's probably the most relevant example here as the same subcontractor/subsidiary is involved, we can expect a double blowout in budget, significant schedule slip and perhaps a corporate espionage case.
 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 01:13 am
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 01:15 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 01:17 am

give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list a

Your list is bogus and wrong, so why should I bother?  Your mind is made up and facts won't change it.  You really don't know what you are talking about.
Show me facts and save the word of condemnation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 01:19 am

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.

False, there are many on that list.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 01:21 am

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.

False, there are many on that list.

Is there a relevant one? Is it animal or mineral?

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/15/2014 01:23 am
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated
Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 01:28 am
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated
Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?

They came very close to pricing themselves out of the competition. Practically, they probably have. We'll have to wait and see how Congress responds.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 01:32 am
Have only just 30-40 additional years on the Earth to see landing on Mars. Spacex is only hope my dream to get fulfilled. Boeing/Lockheed.... didn't do any step foward to make it possible in last 45 years I was able to witness and react. If you are working for these companies and you think there is hope let me know and what can I do to help you.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/15/2014 01:32 am
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated
Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?

They came very close to pricing themselves out of the competition. Practically, they probably have. We'll have to wait and see how Congress responds.
Boeing knows how much the market will bear... Sure we’ll have see what Congress will do and they could just decide to fund one...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 01:36 am
Boeing knows how much the market will bear...

What market?

You mean they know how to get inside info on what the cutoffs are.. yeah, they do. They also managed to make the whole not-enough-skin-in-the-game problem go away.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 10/15/2014 01:42 am
Boeing knows how much the market will bear...

What market?

You mean they know how to get inside info on what the cutoffs are.. yeah, they do. They also managed to make the whole not-enough-skin-in-the-game problem go away.
It’s just an expression as that they know their customers well be it NASA or DoD... I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse them of wrong doing...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2014 02:05 am
I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Actually no. I know the people who did it. They've made no secret of the fact that it was just a mockup. Boeing has yet to build an integrated vehicle. I keep asking for people who think Boeing has done more than component level testing to show us some evidence but they haven't so far. They certainly haven't been paid for any such work yet under a NASA contract.
It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used. This is edging on to serious territory.

It might imply a "too cozy" relationship between vendor and agency. When this has been found to have happened before (at least with the AF), heads rolled, contracts changed/lost, and the reporters filed juicy stories for a few years.

One of the advantages of long relationships with industry contractors is that they know what an agency needs and how to supply it, so its a selection that makes life easy at an agency, because of such "impedance matches". It's a lot harder when you have to train a vendor, get them up to speed, and deal with the misses along the way as additional schedule/program risk.

The disadvantages might be that one tends to presume too much in the too easy relationship sometimes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 02:11 am
It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used.

What? When did NASA assume anything about it? The only drop tests of CST-100 that I'm aware of are the component level parachute tests. They could have used a stack of bricks and it would have been just as valid.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 10/15/2014 02:20 am
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:


NASA has a leak?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2014 02:23 am
It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used.

What? When did NASA assume anything about it? The only drop tests of CST-100 that I'm aware of are the component level parachute tests. They could have used a stack of bricks and it would have been just as valid.

The answer is - it depends on the representations to the agency and how they were expressed in internal reports and publications. We're not talking contracts here, but the workings of institutions and their own "administrative" law, so to speak.

Not like companies.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 03:08 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/15/2014 03:11 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/15/2014 03:13 am

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.
A good fraction of the interplanetary missions are delivered on time (since missing the launch window requires a long wait).   For the latest example, see MAVEN, selected in 2008 ( http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/maven_20080915.html ) for launch in the 2013 Mars window, which it hit.  See also MOM from India, same window.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 03:24 am
No-one is making this claim about SpaceX or SNC. They are making the claim about Boeing, as the primary reason why they were chosen over SNC. Apparently it's even non-controversial enough to be written into an official NASA document intended for public consumption. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for a relevant example or two. That list of projects is, as I've already said, not even something Boeing with agree with, let alone relevant. If the Delta IV is anything to go by, and it's probably the most relevant example here as the same subcontractor/subsidiary is involved, we can expect a double blowout in budget, significant schedule slip and perhaps a corporate espionage case.

That is fairly hard because of how govt cost plus contracting works.  If I have a project to deliver first production examples of say a Fighter to the USAF by X-date.  If Congress decides to cut the budget and the USAF stretches out the delivery time from  so the project is now delivery time is stretched out by three more years, whose fault is that?  I would hold it against the contracted company.  Of if USAF decides I need to change the design and this stretches out the date.   

This is the problem with the murky world of cost-plus because nobody is really held accountable when dates are missed or cost overruns.  That being said NASA has experience with Boeing's project management abilities.  The successful development of a aerospace equipment fighter, bomber, airliner, launch vehicle or space capsule is more about project management abilities than anything else.  You can have the best engineers in the world but if you don't have effective project management they will be wasted.  The most challenging task of the  Apollo program was more about project management of Billion dollar projects than anything else.  Judging by some of the language in the documents that have been leaked to the press.  NASA has high marks for Boeing's project management ability to manage multi-billion dollar projects to develop aerospace vehicles.   

 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 03:26 am

Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

To me it really doesn't because that has been the preferred style of NASA and most govt contracts for that matter, cost-plus.  Especially when you are developing a new vehicle. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 03:38 am
So you admit there's no example and therefore the subjective bias of certain people at NASA to prefer Boeing's project management over others is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, I bet ya can't even name an SNC project, let alone one that was affected by poor project management. I know the goal here is to cast SNC as a hip new company that throws out traditional project management and flies by the seat of it's metaphorical pants, but the fact is SNC is a boring government contractor just like Boeing, with all the same waterfall/spiral/eight-layers-of-management baggage that is a prerequisite of getting contracts to make systems to guide bombs and soldiers into war zones. While it's true that Boeing is 50 years older than SNC, it's the 50 years before Yuri Gagarin flew.. but don't worry, I'm sure someone will be by to point out why the 247, 314 and B-17 are totally relevant examples of Boeing's superiority over SNC.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/15/2014 03:38 am

Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

To me it really doesn't because that has been the preferred style of NASA and most govt contracts for that matter, cost-plus.  Especially when you are developing a new vehicle.
Right. But that also kind of defeats the whole purpose of the word "commercial" in commercial crew. It's not SUPPOSED to be the same contracting style, the same lack of skin in the game, the same lack of any other market, the same old management style, etc.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/15/2014 03:58 am
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:

NASA has a leak?

Hah! A sieve has holes?

Seriously I said nothing about the source of the leak. Only that a media reporter has a document which has not been made available to the public. The relevant quote from that document asserted Boeing has, "very comprehensive and integrated program management."

I'm not sure all participants in this discussion have the same understanding of the term, "program management." In addition to being a job title, it is a term of art. Rather like economics, put three program managers in a room together and you'll get four definitions of the job. (But for young engineers: if you have never had an opportunity to work on a project with a really good program manager, seek one out! The difference is like night and day.)

Also, if you're managing a project that has to have an external dependency on one or another program in development, choose to depend on the one that has the best program management. It will make your job so much easier!

That's what NASA's ISS/Commercial Crew integration leadership is doing by selecting Boeing: making their own job easier.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/15/2014 04:03 am
Yeah, there's no doubt that there's more culture clash with SpaceX (or probably SNC) than Boeing, but that's hardly a good reason to pick Boeing over SNC or SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 10/15/2014 05:07 am

wov ULA complete victory

Wrong, Boeing and Lockheed do not build launch vehicles.

Wrong, commercial (and international) launches on Atlas are managed by Lockheed-Martin Commercial Launch Services, not ULA, just as commercial launches on Delta are managed by Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Atomic Walrus on 10/15/2014 06:04 am
If you want to stay in business for any length of time as an aerospace contractor, cost plus makes sense.  Fixed price makes sense if you're doing something well understood with clear, firm requirements.  On the other hand, if you're dealing with a customer who constantly changes requirements, you're taking a lot of risk.  Same goes for a program with a lot of technical risk - hard to bid a fixed price when you don't know what you're signing up for.  Cost plus can even be a better deal for the customer - contractors don't have to pad their quotes to hedge risk, and you reduce the risk of them going out of business in the middle of a program because they bid low.  Of course, you're always going to have business people trying to maximize revenue as well.  That's why the customer also needs strong management and requirements.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 08:31 am
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Work in IT with one  of big five company for years.The goal was not deliver  solution that will move thing forward. But commit  as less delivery could be done  and still get project and lower risk to be able to deliver on time and budget. Customer was stuck with something that works, but didn't move thing forward.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 08:40 am
If you want to stay in business for any length of time as an aerospace contractor, cost plus makes sense.  Fixed price makes sense if you're doing something well understood with clear, firm requirements.  On the other hand, if you're dealing with a customer who constantly changes requirements, you're taking a lot of risk.  Same goes for a program with a lot of technical risk - hard to bid a fixed price when you don't know what you're signing up for.  Cost plus can even be a better deal for the customer - contractors don't have to pad their quotes to hedge risk, and you reduce the risk of them going out of business in the middle of a program because they bid low.  Of course, you're always going to have business people trying to maximize revenue as well.  That's why the customer also needs strong management and requirements.
Most of the project budget overrun cause not by changing requirement,but with the dealing to achieve what was promised and modification that change original plan to achieve it. Troubles during design are not very good handle by big company and cost lot of additional money. Think about catcher/basket for curiosity,it was cancel because required additional several tens of millions dollar.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/15/2014 11:37 am
In addition to being a job title, it [program management] is a term of art. [...] (But for young engineers: if you have never had an opportunity to work on a project with a really good program manager, seek one out! The difference is like night and day.)
I second and third this comment, which is the most useful observation on this thread by far!

Quote
Also, if you're managing a project that has to have an external dependency on one or another program in development, choose to depend on the one that has the best program management. It will make your job so much easier!

That's what NASA's ISS/Commercial Crew integration leadership is doing by selecting Boeing: making their own job easier.
This is my suspicion as well.  Also, as many have pointed out, they have done this before.  Sometime well, and sometimes poorly, but they've done many projects of this size.  They are not likely to run into "unknown unknowns" and have likely reserved enough money to resolve the "known unknowns", due to a combination of their experience, a conservative design, and a generous budget margin.

In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size.   The biggest SpaceX project was presumably commercial cargo at $1.6B (but this is extremely relevant experience, clearly).  What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/15/2014 11:44 am
In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size.   [..]  What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)

I applaud your humility at the end there, it's a shame you didn't rethink your entire comment from that perspective. SNC are a 53 year old aerospace company.. this is not their first BBQ.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/15/2014 12:39 pm

wov ULA complete victory

Wrong, Boeing and Lockheed do not build launch vehicles.

Wrong, commercial (and international) launches on Atlas are managed by Lockheed-Martin Commercial Launch Services, not ULA, just as commercial launches on Delta are managed by Boeing.
What letter of the word 'build' were you unable to parse?
Building rockets is quite different from managing launches.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/15/2014 01:13 pm
In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size.   [..]  What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)

SNC are a 53 year old aerospace company.. this is not their first BBQ.

That much I knew.  What I did not (and do not) know is their experience, and track record, in managing large projects.  The largest one I could find, apart from DC, was the "Gorgon Stare" project.  One article ( http://www.wired.com/2009/02/gorgon-stare/ )as of 2009 said this was to be a $150M project, but a 2011 article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012406320.html ) stated that the project cost was $426M as of 2011, and at that time was not working well.   But as of 2014 they were still involved with a later version (http://www.uasvision.com/2014/07/04/increment-2-gorgon-stare-gets-operational-clearance-from-usaf/) so there should be some history here.

And they must have done other large projects.  What were they, and how did they turn out? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:00 pm
I keep saying that I will reserve judgment until I see the full selection statement. But I must admit that the parts of the selection statement that we have seen so far do not justify NASA paying almost twice as much for the CST-100 as Dragon 2. Gerst only says "it's worth it". That's the kind of thing people say when they splurged and bought the most expensive model (TV, car, etc.) there was. You can't really justify it so you try to convince yourself that all of the (useless) extra bells and whistles are worth the extra price that you paid. I can't think of 900,000 reasons why NASA should have preferred SNC's proposal over Boeing's.

The fact that NASA goes as far as saying that Boeing had a better proposal than SpaceX despite the higher price is adding insult to injury. It's obvious that Boeing does things the way NASA likes them but the whole point of commercial crew is trying a different approach. If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/15/2014 02:23 pm
I keep saying that I will reserve judgment until I see the full selection statement. But I must admit that the parts of the selection statement that we have seen so far do not justify NASA paying almost twice as much for the CST-100 as Dragon 2.
Once Dragon V2 was selected, the cost difference between CST-100 and Dragon V2 became irrelevant.

Of the three, Dragon V2 is the "no brainer": lowest price, just about to start abort tests, and they're already flying a version of the spacecraft regularly to the ISS.

If you're going to argue that CST-100 was overpriced, make comparisons with the Dream Chaser cost.  In this case, it's about 27% more, not "almost twice as much", and roughly the same proportional cost difference as between Dream Chaser and Dragon V2.

Furthermore, the actual difference in the price used for comparison is probably smaller than 27%, since the CST-100 is capable of additional services (station reboost, possibly additional cargo) which are (I'm pretty sure) included in the maximum contract value but not used in the price comparison.

It sounds like more when you say $900 million than when you say 27%, but it's just a big contract.  And I'm sure the real difference is going to be significantly less than 27% once the value of the additional services is revealed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 02:36 pm
Right. But that also kind of defeats the whole purpose of the word "commercial" in commercial crew. It's not SUPPOSED to be the same contracting style, the same lack of skin in the game, the same lack of any other market, the same old management style, etc.

I don't disagree.  Everybody is adjusting to these changes.  The problem is the people inside of NASA are used to old way of doing business, it is going to take several cycles of projects like these to change this institutional mindset.   This is a change in how NASA does business and you have interests outside of NASA and inside of NASA trying to make sure that this new way of business fails.  You don’t take an organization as large as NASA and just change people’s thinking that quickly. 

Edit/Lar: Fix quotes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:39 pm
I keep saying that I will reserve judgment until I see the full selection statement. But I must admit that the parts of the selection statement that we have seen so far do not justify NASA paying almost twice as much for the CST-100 as Dragon 2.
Once Dragon V2 was selected, the cost difference between CST-100 and Dragon V2 became irrelevant.

Of the three, Dragon V2 is the "no brainer": lowest price, just about to start abort tests, and they're already flying a version of the spacecraft regularly to the ISS.

If you're going to argue that CST-100 was overpriced, make comparisons with the Dream Chaser cost.  In this case, it's about 27% more, not "almost twice as much", and roughly the same proportional cost difference as between Dream Chaser and Dragon V2.

Furthermore, the actual difference in the price used for comparison is probably smaller than 27%, since the CST-100 is capable of additional services (station reboost, possibly additional cargo) which are (I'm pretty sure) included in the maximum contract value but not used in the price comparison.

It sounds like more when you say $900 million than when you say 27%, but it's just a big contract.  And I'm sure the real difference is going to be significantly less than 27% once the value of the additional services is revealed.

I agree with some of what you said. But Boeing came ahead of SpaceX too which bothers me as well. There is still talk in the House of downselecting to one commercial crew provider. If there is a downselection to one provider, it seems likely to be Boeing based on the CCtCap evaluation of the proposals. I am glad that there is still competition. But I wish NASA had selected the two cheapest proposals. If commercial crew had really been commercial from the outset, the two remaining companies would be SpaceX and Blue Origin. To me competition includes competition on prices. You could argue that DC should be more expensive because of its different capabilities. But I am not sure that the same case can be made for the CST-100.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 03:11 pm
So you admit there's no example and therefore the subjective bias of certain people at NASA to prefer Boeing's project management over others is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, I bet ya can't even name an SNC project, let alone one that was affected by poor project management. I know the goal here is to cast SNC as a hip new company that throws out traditional project management and flies by the seat of it's metaphorical pants, but the fact is SNC is a boring government contractor just like Boeing, with all the same waterfall/spiral/eight-layers-of-management baggage that is a prerequisite of getting contracts to make systems to guide bombs and soldiers into war zones. While it's true that Boeing is 50 years older than SNC, it's the 50 years before Yuri Gagarin flew.. but don't worry, I'm sure someone will be by to point out why the 247, 314 and B-17 are totally relevant examples of Boeing's superiority over SNC.


We don’t know the exact reasons for the decision but the people doing the evaluation have access to a whole lot more information than we do.  These same people gave Boeing a higher ranking in project management than either SpaceX or SNC.  I don’t know the full details and if they will have to justify that ranking someplace in the evaluation document.  It will be enlightening if they have to and that justification is buried in a document and several months from now we will be able to read it and we can all slap or foreheads and say “we didn’t know that”.    NASA could have been very happy with Boeing’s management of the construction of several modules for the international space station.  If we wanted to look at recent experience.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/15/2014 03:16 pm

I agree with some of what you said. But Boeing came ahead of SpaceX too which bothers me as well. There is still talk in the House of downselecting to one commercial crew provider. If there is a downselection to one provider, it seems likely to be Boeing based on the CCtCap evaluation of the proposals. I am glad that there is still competition. But I wish NASA had selected the two cheapest proposals. If commercial crew had really been commercial from the outset, the two remaining companies would be SpaceX and Blue Origin. To me competition includes competition on prices. You could argue that DC should be more expensive because of its different capabilities. But I am not sure that the same case can be made for the CST-100.

The competition was also based on price.  Points where awarded on price and other items like project management, past experience etc.  I have to wonder when we see the articles in the WSJ etc that say that Boeing's proposal was ahead of both SpaceX and SNC if they are really reffering to just the more subjective parts of the proposal, and are leaving off price.  I hope at some point we can actually see the full document listing out the points in all areas including pricing.  To me the leaking of documentation keeps trying to show Boeing in the best light and SpaceX and SNC in the worse light.  Which makes me owner if Boeing supporters are the one's doing the leaking.  If that is the case would they actually show the document discussing pricing and points awarded because this wasn't Boeing's strong point of it's proposal?  I doubt it. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 03:31 pm

I agree with some of what you said. But Boeing came ahead of SpaceX too which bothers me as well. There is still talk in the House of downselecting to one commercial crew provider. If there is a downselection to one provider, it seems likely to be Boeing based on the CCtCap evaluation of the proposals. I am glad that there is still competition. But I wish NASA had selected the two cheapest proposals. If commercial crew had really been commercial from the outset, the two remaining companies would be SpaceX and Blue Origin. To me competition includes competition on prices. You could argue that DC should be more expensive because of its different capabilities. But I am not sure that the same case can be made for the CST-100.

The competition was also based on price.  Points where awarded on price and other items like project management, past experience etc.  I have to wonder when we see the articles in the WSJ etc that say that Boeing's proposal was ahead of both SpaceX and SNC if they are really reffering to just the more subjective parts of the proposal, and are leaving off price.  I hope at some point we can actually see the full document listing out the points in all areas including pricing.  To me the leaking of documentation keeps trying to show Boeing in the best light and SpaceX and SNC in the worse light.  Which makes me owner if Boeing supporters are the one's doing the leaking.  If that is the case would they actually show the document discussing pricing and points awarded because this wasn't Boeing's strong point of it's proposal?  I doubt it.

AVWeek and the NYT had access to the entire selection statement according to their articles. But eventually the selection statement will be made public once SNC's protest has been resolved. I am not sure that I agree with the idea of not releasing the selection statement until after the protest is resolved.  I don't see why a protest should prevent NASA from releasing the selection statement. But that's the excuse that is being given for not releasing it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 05:32 pm
You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

I wouldn't say that. Boeing has done many FFP.  TDRSS, every NASA Delta launch since 1992 and there are others.

Edit/Lar: fix quotes
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2014 06:15 pm
You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.
Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

I wouldn't say that. Boeing has done many FFP.  TDRSS, every NASA Delta launch since 1992 and there are others.
Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.

Edit/Lar: Fix quotes
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/15/2014 06:31 pm
I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Actually no. I know the people who did it. They've made no secret of the fact that it was just a mockup. Boeing has yet to build an integrated vehicle. I keep asking for people who think Boeing has done more than component level testing to show us some evidence but they haven't so far. They certainly haven't been paid for any such work yet under a NASA contract.

Right, I am not sure you understand what a boilerplate is - it is essentially a mockup.  Frequently it is just a mass simulator.  I was NOT a plywood boilderplate - it was metal.  You seem to have some misinformation.  And yes, no one ever tried to imply that it was anything other than that.  It was designed to test airbags and parachutes. 

Agree with you however, that as part of the {b] visible milestones [/b], Boeing only did component level testing.  Nothing wrong with that.   Recall NASA said to get to a crewed flight what are your most critical things to test to mitigate risk.  People have bashed Boeing for having a basic, nothing new system.  The advantage is their pinch points are not the same as others. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/15/2014 07:08 pm
I keep saying that I will reserve judgment until I see the full selection statement. But I must admit that the parts of the selection statement that we have seen so far do not justify NASA paying almost twice as much for the CST-100 as Dragon 2. Gerst only says "it's worth it". That's the kind of thing people say when they splurged and bought the most expensive model (TV, car, etc.) there was. You can't really justify it so you try to convince yourself that all of the (useless) extra bells and whistles are worth the extra price that you paid. I can't think of 900,000 reasons why NASA should have preferred SNC's proposal over Boeing's.

The fact that NASA goes as far as saying that Boeing had a better proposal than SpaceX despite the higher price is adding insult to injury. It's obvious that Boeing does things the way NASA likes them but the whole point of commercial crew is trying a different approach. If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.
good point
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 07:27 pm

Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.

Boeing did Spacehab on FFP
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 07:29 pm
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2014 07:40 pm

Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.

Boeing did Spacehab on FFP
Not really a HSF vehicle. More like Dragon or Cygnus - occupied on orbit after checks, unoccupied ascent/reentry.

Entirely different issues as you well know.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 08:00 pm
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/15/2014 08:45 pm
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 10/15/2014 09:53 pm
The question isn't why they picked Boeing over SNC with the extra $900M cost of Boeing, but rather if they believed that SNC could complete their project at all with the fixed cost nature of the contract. 

Maybe paying Boeing the big bucks seemed safer especially with schedule drivers.  If unknown risks materialized in the Dreamchaser (engine change?, tile issues?, other unknown unknowns?), NASA would have to either let them fail, hope that SNC ponied up the required $resources$, or have to find ways to bail them out.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/15/2014 09:55 pm
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.
Hmmm...

I'm with Jim here.

For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity.

From a purely fan-in-the-seat perspective, it will be fascinating having Boeing and SpaceX, 2 extraordinarily different companies, going full-out to hit 2017. It's a great narrative.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/15/2014 10:26 pm

If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.
Hmmm...

I'm with Jim here.

For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity.

From a purely fan-in-the-seat perspective, it will be fascinating having Boeing and SpaceX, 2 extraordinarily different companies, going full-out to hit 2017. It's a great narrative.
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 10:30 pm
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.

Not true.  Commercial does not always mean cheapest.  When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.

Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?

One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.

SpaceX isn't that new. It already has experience with cargo flights and has been very successful at it. In that sense, SpaceX has more experience than Boeing because it has already has a proven product with Dragon 1.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 10:45 pm
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/15/2014 11:21 pm
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/15/2014 11:26 pm
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
It seems some of the challenges are indeed technical. NASA saw more technical and schedule risk with both SpaceX and SNC. The most with SNC, the least with Boeing and SpaceX was in between.

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle


 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/15/2014 11:34 pm
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/16/2014 12:05 am
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

If having flown humans in space had been a requirement, new new entrants would ever be allowed. Luckily that never was actually a requirement.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 10/16/2014 12:10 am
We really don't know what technical issues there may or may not be.

It may be the ECLSS is the least of their challenges. I'd place my bet that the bolting of 4 clusters of SDs to the primary structure and associated plumbing, avionics control is giving them a run for their money. The abort keeps being pushed back and they still haven't passed their Primary Structure Qual milestone AFAIK. Maybe the new outer mold line accommodating the SDs is causing some issues. Perhaps the legs extending through the heat shield is causing challenges. Perhaps the avionics controlling the final landing burn is. Perhaps their newly designed docking adapter and operational cone. Hell, maybe they can't seem to keep the solar film attached to the trunk during MaxQ simulations.

This really is not a plug and play from cargo to crew. That ship sailed long ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/16/2014 12:35 am
(1) In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size.   [..]  What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)

(2) I applaud your humility at the end there, it's a shame you didn't rethink your entire comment from that perspective. SNC are a 53 year old aerospace company.. this is not their first BBQ.

(1) The largest spacecraft Sierra Nevada has ever produced is the Orbcomm OG-2 minisatellite.  Even that had a Boeing communications payload (usually considered the most challenging part of a comsat).  The next biggest is the Chipsat microsatellite.  I don't think there is a third biggest.

(2) There's a big difference between supplying components for someone else's vehicle and developing the overall vehicle yourself.  Huge difference.  Like the difference between, say, Philco and Ford.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/16/2014 12:47 am

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Apollo 13 adapted some CO2 filters from one CO2 scrubber to other. Nothing different from jumping one battery to another.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/16/2014 12:48 am

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.


Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

I wouldn't say that. Boeing has done many FFP.  TDRSS, every NASA Delta launch since 1992 and there are others.

Many others.  Many, if not most, of Boeing's big military contracts are firm fixed-price.  F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, E/A-18G Growler, CH-47F Chinook, KC-46A Pegasus, the new A-10 wing, JDAM, SDB, Delta IV Heavy, CCDEV, CCiCap, CCtCap.  I believe Block III Apache and WGS are as well.

On the last C-17 Globemaster contract Boeing offered the USAF a firm fixed-price contract for $152 million each, but the Air Force, under pressure from John McCain, turned them down, preferring a cost-plus contract for $175 million each.

Then there's all of their commercial airliner and commercial space work.

Cost-plus contracts have their place, but Boeing doesn't need them to make money in aerospace.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/16/2014 12:53 am
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

While any speculation of this being the issue or not is nearly meaningless... I did want to point out that it is not that trivial to uprate a vehicle.  Yes, a CO2 scrubber is a relatively simple thing.   Now you have to dehumidify and keep the temperature in a narrower band.  Means a more active cooling system.  Since you have humans you need more oxygen tanks and a way to fit/feed that into a spacesuit.  Those computers that were fine with redundancy for unmanned cargo now need to be MUCH more robust.  Your automated piloting system must now have a way for a pilot to fly manually.  Your comm systems needs more redundancy on the ground.  And so on and so on.  Each item in itself is not a deal breaker but it combines to add up to significant modifications.    SpaceX is definitely ahead of the game in having to be modifying a flying vehicle but it is significant work.  And from the articles, it sounds like maybe their design upgrades were not as well developed and the schedule was not as clearly defined with reliability as many people here seem to think.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/16/2014 12:57 am

I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.

When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule.

Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
The riskiness level is extracted from the articles regarding NASA's opinion.
And yes, ECLSS, human interface, avionics, tolerances, redundancy, LAS, failure modes. All those things either don't apply or are much simpler with cargo crafts. Please remember that NASA is buying a certified service. This means that the contractor has to have the best plan to identify and mitigate risks. And I can think of no company with better track record for this than Boeing. In fact, the CCiCap performance seems to have been very important for NASA's management. The only company that hit its milestones on time was Boeing. SpaceX has had its delays and when reading about the ISS interface, you can see that they usually have an "optimist" attitude.
Regarding financial safety, the fact that Boeing didn't put much skin in the game actually means that they are doing a conservative budget. This is a fixed price contract and they sure don't want to put their own money. And if they had to, there's no other US with better financial capability to cover any excess costs in this contract.
You can look at it from many angles and Boeing is always going to be the less risky choice. You might want to question NASA risk aversion, But that's a whole different topic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/16/2014 01:07 am
The articles were opinion pieces that did not release the relevant source document.
You are entitled to accept their opinion, but the protest will do real fact finding.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/16/2014 01:09 am
One provider was new and only had a few ratings.  I don't trust new ones.

Hmmm...

I'm with Jim here.

For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity.

Exactly.  Mitigating risks is exactly what is in play here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35728.msg1265759#msg1265759 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35728.msg1265759#msg1265759)

NASA's in a bind.  CCtCap is not an X-program.  They need commercial crew service in late 2017.  If that doesn't happen, they need to know by mid-2015 so they can begin negotiations with the Russians for extending Soyuz service.  Having the commercial crew contractor(s) unpredictably late risks the whole ISS.

So if NASA has only enough funds for one provider, it's got to be the low-risk provider.  That's Boeing.

If there enough funds for a second provider, they need to go with the low-cost provider (this needs to eventually be a purely commercial service for NASA to be able to afford their long-term plans).  That's SpaceX.

If there are enough funds for a third provider, it can be a high-risk / high-payoff provider.  That's Sierra Nevada (and others, but Sierra was more highly ranked in earlier competitions).

If you look at the downselections through the entire Commercial Crew process, NASA has pretty much followed this philosophy.  That's why Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada were the final three, and why Boeing and SpaceX are the final two.  It's why the CCtCap contract provides guarranteed flights (to shorten the time table and thus reduce risk) and why if there end up being multiple providers at the end there will be a competition for additional flights.

Overall, excellent project management by NASA.  If only their other manned spaceflight programs were that well run.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/16/2014 01:13 am
And from the articles, it sounds like maybe their design upgrades were not as well developed and the schedule was not as clearly defined with reliability as many people here seem to think.
Come on, now.  The articles are extremely one-sided.  Someone leaked this to specific people, with expectations of the kind of story that would be written, either because they knew their allegiances well enough to predict the bias, or because there was an agreement in exchange for the leak.

If the intent had been simply to share the truth, the whole document would be out on the internet.  Instead, we get this, "Trust us, it says Boeing is awesome and the other guys suck.  No you can't look for yourself."

We should treat any leak articles like an unofficial press release for whoever's favored in them, until the whole document's out.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/16/2014 02:01 am
So if NASA has only enough funds for one provider, it's got to be the low-risk provider.  That's Boeing.
No, the low-risk provider is SpaceX.  The cozy familiar choice is Boeing, but that's little reason to expect them to deliver on time.  SpaceX has a vehicle operating now.  They're doing the abort tests of the crew version over the next couple of months.  They're obviously far out in front in everything but NASA paperwork.

If it's such an incredibly overwhelming priority to get an American crew launch option, they can stick some seats and suits in a cargo Dragon and launch in December.  It would be less risk than the average astronaut has accepted, historically, and probably wouldn't even double the risk of astronauts heading to spend months in their shirtsleeves in an aging space station.

So why isn't this option on the table?  Usual standards are to limit spending to under $10 million in taxpayer dollars to save one American life.  If delivering crew to the ISS is so important to American interests, they can let the astronauts bear some risk rather than spend years and billions of dollars on a chance of having a theoretically ideal system (which could still have very poor reliability in practice, since they're rushing to put people in them with a minimum of testing -- you only get something as trustworthy as Soyuz by exceeding a hundred flights of real experience, not by bureaucrats shuffling together impossible standards with launch fever and drawing a hand out of that deck).

If they need to launch in 2017, they can hope for Dragon V2 and fall back on cargo Dragon.  They can count on the bird in the hand, they can't count on some new vehicle being built to the highest standards ever applied to a crew vehicle within the next few years, no matter who's doing it.

They should be investing in the development of something meaningful in the long term, not throwing dump trucks of money at an ugly quick fix, because they do already have an ugly quick fix ready to go.  If they're going to fund multiple launch options, each should have compelling value.  None is a safer bet than Dragon V2.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/16/2014 02:32 am

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM?

No, they made an adapter so that a CM LIOH canister could be used with the LM environmental control system.  The rest of the system still had to operate
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2014 02:43 am
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.
Dragon is part of a human habitat when docked to station and certainly has to maintain a comfortable, even temperature (as well as air circulation) and pressure. Much more than just a box.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/16/2014 02:57 am
Boeing has more experience flying humans because [whole bunch of stuff in the 60s and other stuff that isn't relevant] and ISS modules. SpaceX has no experience flying humans because they've only flown ISS modules they actually built themselves and that go through ascent and that can manoeuvre under their own power in space. <- Totally reasonable and well thought out argument.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2014 03:26 am

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM?

No, they made an adapter so that a CM LIOH canister could be used with the LM environmental control system.  The rest of the system still had to operate

Pretty sure that is exactly what I said. Anyways, we aren't talking about lunar circumnavigation duration. Nothing here needs to be overcomplicated or more complicated than manned submersibles. Oxygen candles/oxygen masks are the backup. Anyways, about 19 cubic feet of oxygen at STP is consumed by 4 astronauts in 6 hours. Dragon v1 is 350 cubic feet or pressurized volume. Elon Musk's manned dragon setup of giving an astronaut an oxygen mask in v1 was actually more than what was required. In fact, absolutely nothing at all was required.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/16/2014 04:06 am
Speaking of the environmental control system (ECS), it's good to learn from history.  What seems like a very simple thing (oxygen and perhaps nitrogen bottles, some plumbing, regulators and fans, a lithium hydroxide canister system and a dehumidifier) don't seem all that complicated.

But the Mercury system, built by by a company named AiResearch which had made oxygen and cabin pressurization systems for a number of aircraft, had to be reworked many times before it was cleared for flight.  For Gemini, the engineers figured it would be easy -- just put in two proven Mercury systems, one on each side of the spacecraft to support the individual pilots.  They would switch back and forth between the right and left systems for maintaining the cabin atmosphere, and each system was individually capable of sustaining the one astronaut for which it was responsible.  But, to their surprise, it didn't work.  A combined system was needed to fit in the available space and to provide acceptable life support.  And it had to be modified even before Gemini flew to support EVA, something the planners originally thought they wouldn't have to worry about until the second half of the program.

Then when we got to Apollo, we had a bunch of experience on how to do it, right?  But the ECS for spacecraft 012 had to be removed and replaced so many times (the last being in December of 1966, IIRC) that the scuffing, pushing on wire bundles and stressing the piping it caused was considered to be at least partly to blame for the condition that capsule was in at the time the fire occurred.  Heck, the fatal plugs-out test was held up for a while because there was a smell of sour milk in the suit circuit when Grissom's crew plugged into it, and they had to leave the hatch open while a few lines were flushed and then reactivated.

And heck, the Shuttle was designed to use a complex CO2 scrubbing system similar to the one used by the Russians on Mir and in the ISS SM.  If my aging and drug-addled memory (from the painkillers after my difficult surgeries this year, just to be clear for the NSA monitors, LOL) is recalling correctly, I believe it involved a water circuit that was used to absorb CO2 and excess cabin humidity from the cabin air.  That system had enough glitches that, for most missions, it was pulled out and an Apollo-style LiOH canister system was installed in its place.

So, just looking at that very basic kind of system, just because it's been done before doesn't make it easy to do again.  Elegant, economic and lightweight systems are hard to come by -- it's often not even pick any two, sometimes it's pick any one.

I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy.  Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch.  And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.

-Doug

With my shield, not yet upon it
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/16/2014 04:20 am
If items require frequent rework then they need testing at least a year before launch.  So that is 2015 or 2016.  I hope there is a milestone where the ECLSS is ground tested by locking people into an air tight box for several days.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/16/2014 04:28 am
>
I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy.  Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch.  And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.

-Doug

SpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 10/16/2014 06:51 am
>
I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy.  Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch.  And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.

-Doug

SpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.

Nope, SpaceX ECLSS for both the current Cargo Dragon and Dragon 2 are in house. Paragon was dropped a while ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/16/2014 11:22 am
Really?

Edit: based on this hire?

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/9527411
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/16/2014 12:26 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/16/2014 02:21 pm
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule

An upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

While any speculation of this being the issue or not is nearly meaningless... I did want to point out that it is not that trivial to uprate a vehicle.  Yes, a CO2 scrubber is a relatively simple thing.   Now you have to dehumidify and keep the temperature in a narrower band.  Means a more active cooling system.  Since you have humans you need more oxygen tanks and a way to fit/feed that into a spacesuit.  Those computers that were fine with redundancy for unmanned cargo now need to be MUCH more robust.  Your automated piloting system must now have a way for a pilot to fly manually.  Your comm systems needs more redundancy on the ground.  And so on and so on.  Each item in itself is not a deal breaker but it combines to add up to significant modifications.    SpaceX is definitely ahead of the game in having to be modifying a flying vehicle but it is significant work.  And from the articles, it sounds like maybe their design upgrades were not as well developed and the schedule was not as clearly defined with reliability as many people here seem to think.

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/16/2014 02:39 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/16/2014 03:09 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/16/2014 04:05 pm
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.

What more would be learned from that that wasn't learned from using a boilerplate capsule?

You don't waste expensive hardware on potentially destructive tests unless you absolutely have to.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 10/16/2014 04:08 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.


Wasn't the spacex drop test vehicle a modified v1?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/16/2014 04:45 pm
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.

What more would be learned from that that wasn't learned from using a boilerplate capsule?

You don't waste expensive hardware on potentially destructive tests unless you absolutely have to.

Tell that to SpaceX. They based their parachute drop test article around an actual pressure hull and dropped it from a helo. Twice.
Somehow that didn't bother them.

On the other hand you have Jim who became somewhat upset when QC suggested that the Boeing drop test article was constructed mainly of wood, sheet-metal and styrofoam. Big difference between a for-real pressure hull and a glorified wooden model.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/16/2014 04:46 pm

It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM?

No, they made an adapter so that a CM LIOH canister could be used with the LM environmental control system.  The rest of the system still had to operate

Pretty sure that is exactly what I said. Anyways, we aren't talking about lunar circumnavigation duration. Nothing here needs to be overcomplicated or more complicated than manned submersibles. Oxygen candles/oxygen masks are the backup. Anyways, about 19 cubic feet of oxygen at STP is consumed by 4 astronauts in 6 hours. Dragon v1 is 350 cubic feet or pressurized volume. Elon Musk's manned dragon setup of giving an astronaut an oxygen mask in v1 was actually more than what was required. In fact, absolutely nothing at all was required.

Another example of way over simplfying things.  NASA requirements are for ~80 hours of free flight capability.  Also, NASA has said 3 days on masks is not acceptable.  You may quiblle with that but if you are to meet the requirements it is not that simple.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2014 04:49 pm
His point wasn't that Dragon V1 met all of what NASA wants, it's that it could've certainly been done.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: enkarha on 10/16/2014 04:50 pm
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.

What more would be learned from that that wasn't learned from using a boilerplate capsule?

You don't waste expensive hardware on potentially destructive tests unless you absolutely have to.

Tell that to SpaceX. They based their parachute drop test article around an actual pressure hull and dropped it from a helo. Twice.
Somehow that didn't bother them.

On the other hand you have Jim who became somewhat upset when QC suggested that the Boeing drop test article was constructed mainly of wood, sheet-metal and styrofoam. Big difference between a for-real pressure hull and a glorified wooden model.

What's the difference in a drop test?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/16/2014 05:06 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.


Wasn't the spacex drop test vehicle a modified v1?

Pretty much. Having seen it myself in person, it wasn't a mockup.

Ok, the idea here is high vs low fidelity representation. Yes, as QG earlier posted, you can use a ton of bricks for an extremely low fidelity test.

Such allows you to prove a subsytem, component, or assembly as being able to function under the intended capabilities but is not in the use case for qualification, and even further from certification .

Why we approach higher fidelity tests is that we find out more in the use case, and that historically has always brought surprises of small through large variety.

To boil this ocean storm of niggling posts down, my concerns of flying these three vehicles are as follows"
  1) CST100 - the vendor has a history, albeit past, of constructing, testing, ... certifying such a vehicle in the past. They then can be counted on to do so again, but because they did so not on a FFP before (as me jousting with Jim got at), the could go long on schedule, long on budget, and there were ways of bringing schedule in with longer costs, which is among. If we have an imperative to do so, then as YG has implied, its not really the intent of CC but more like Orion LEO only, which plays into Congress going "why are we funding two capsules". The reason is that they have held off actual flight hardware level high fidelity work, choosing to couple it with the program requirements verification/certification/other of the massive part of the program, such that in the flood with NASA they use own advantage of high rate of effective communication to achieve best effect of historical interaction - their advantage.
 2) Dragon - the vendor has a contemporaneous capsule program which is current and flying with up to date flight history on a valid HR vehicle. They seek to revise the vehicle can carry as much of the flight history, especially launch and entry validation into this. The key lack of abort validation is the biggest event they have to conquer. But they don't have any idea yet how much they are going to be fire hosed during qualification/certification and the response rate you can't fall behind on - a significant NASA concern. However, they have all along been doing high fidelity tests/fixtures, unlike others, so they come to the game with much better position of addressing schedule/program risk than even Boeing. The issue is about being able to communicate it effectively, and in addressing it such that NASA does not doubt the results. Since they don't trust past practices e.g. they are often skeptical of NASA/"old space" to euphemize here, the ability to accomplish this is more complicated as they wish to preserve more modern advantages. Which does not assure. Yet in the end may be more effective at bringing in schedule than others fear. Keep in mind that they can retest and get to certification a lot faster than Boeing can, due to starting on actual hardware many years earlier.
 3) DC - has the burdens of both of the above, but possesses significant advantages from being the most current of HSF vehicles being contemporaneously done with Shuttle. Meaning they are in a hybrid position with Boeing/SpaceX for in between reasons. My fear for them is that they underbid given all that there is to do, and that too much rides on too few tests, in essence like Boeing.

Bottom line - SpaceX will be fine even if NASA nervous, just like last time. Boeing will way exceed schedule/budget and get cut a "mulligan" or fifty. DC will have a "white knuckle ride" but can do it.

Oh, and I completely disagree with Jim. Sometimes when I buy on eBay/internet, the more trusted vendor disappoints - my strategy is to study real time feedback carefully. Jim, it's a "big data" world that didn't exist before - get with the program! :) The smarter you are at absorbing the fire hose of inbound data, the better the outcome. Wished we had this 20-30 years ago, fewer people dead, fewer bad decisions, and better schedules/budgets. But it doesn't come for free, very taxing to apply.

Judge now in aerospace by the application of oceans of data, where trickles/creeks ran before. 1,000,000x Shuttle/EELV.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/16/2014 05:18 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.

I forgot about that image. Thanks for reminding me. They should have used that for their unveiling. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/16/2014 06:03 pm
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.

What more would be learned from that that wasn't learned from using a boilerplate capsule?

You don't waste expensive hardware on potentially destructive tests unless you absolutely have to.

Tell that to SpaceX. They based their parachute drop test article around an actual pressure hull and dropped it from a helo. Twice.
Somehow that didn't bother them.

On the other hand you have Jim who became somewhat upset when QC suggested that the Boeing drop test article was constructed mainly of wood, sheet-metal and styrofoam. Big difference between a for-real pressure hull and a glorified wooden model.

That was an answer to *some* question.  It wasn't an answer to mine.  I'll repeat and clarify: for a parachute drop test, what is the benefit of dropping a (not cheap!) bare prototype pressure shell instead of a boilerplate capsule that more accurately simulates the mass and outer mold line of the actual flight article?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2014 06:21 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/16/2014 06:31 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.


Wasn't the spacex drop test vehicle a modified v1?

Pretty much. Having seen it myself in person, it wasn't a mockup.

Ok, the idea here is high vs low fidelity representation. Yes, as QG earlier posted, you can use a ton of bricks for an extremely low fidelity test.

Such allows you to prove a subsytem, component, or assembly as being able to function under the intended capabilities but is not in the use case for qualification, and even further from certification .

Why we approach higher fidelity tests is that we find out more in the use case, and that historically has always brought surprises of small through large variety.
If the mass simulator was correct, the outer mold line was correct, and the release mechanism was correct, what else is there to learn from using elements that will be passive?
The Dragon and Cygnus experience have shown that the pacing item has been software and interfaces certification. With human piloted crafts, that problem is compounded. Only other pacing item I can think of, is the LAS. But Aerojet tested and retested the engines even before SpaceX had fired their first SuperDraco. The pressure vessel testing article has a long time. And it does have some innovations. For example, it has no welds. It is formed out of a single billet of aluminum and then machined on the outside.
Oh! And Aerojet is trying to 3D print the LAS engine's Nozzle and MCC in just three parts. So there is a lot of innovation in CST. It just not on making things that might seem cool, but on actually lowering costs, reducing complexity and increasing reliability.
Sure, I might personally like SpaceX method better (I'm a BSD lover), but Boeing's approach is extremely professional. In fact, its CCDev1/2 and CCiCap performance have been the best performers.
And please stop spreading the argument about extra cost. It's a firm fixed price contract and nobody have their financial backing. And its clear from their price that they padded their numbers with a lot of margin. But if they had to actually put their own money, some executive's head might roll but they won't fault on a contract with Uncle Sam.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 10/16/2014 06:48 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.

No.

5,000 ppm is the maximum allowable average over 8 hours. Studies show that mental impairment starts closer to 2,000 ppm.

4 astronauts would have 5 or so hours more like 1 or 2 from when you pulled the ventilation line out at the launch pad. They should try not to move around much.

Just because the average NSF member is willing to go to space in a garbage bin with the lid taped on doesn't mean its a good idea.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/16/2014 06:55 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.

As an x-submariner, I know the painful (screaming headaches) concentration is much below the 'fatal' level.  The reference below shows that this severe symptomatic threshold is 2,000ppm, with 1,000 ppm as normal indoor air.  So, do your calculation for a delta of 1,000 ppm instead of your suggested 50,000 (a factor of 50 more restrictive with one astro, 350 with seven).

Quote
The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

    250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
    350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
    1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
    2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.  Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
    >5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
    >40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm

Edit: What arachnitect said.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/16/2014 06:55 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.
so, 2% and 7%. I'll assume it's by mass, a conservative assumption. In 350 ft^3 at 1.2kg/m^3 density there is 11kg of air. Average person expels roughly 1kg of CO2 a day, so... 0.22 kg is the limit for safe, .77kg is limit for fatal. Better do fast rendezvous! Astronaut has just a bit over 5 hours at safe levels, and 18.5 hours before fatal levels. "Just" bring a few scuba rebreather scrubber cartridges and put them in front of the recirculation fans (which Dragon already has for ISS).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2014 07:06 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.
so, 2% and 7%. I'll assume it's by mass, a conservative assumption. In 350 ft^3 at 1.2kg/m^3 density there is 11kg of air. Average person expels roughly 1kg of CO2 a day, so... 0.22 kg is the limit for safe, .77kg is limit for fatal. Better do fast rendezvous! Astronaut has just a bit over 5 hours at safe levels, and 18.5 hours before fatal levels. "Just" bring a few scuba rebreather scrubber cartridges and put them in front of the recirculation fans (which Dragon already has for ISS).

It is parts per million, so it is by volume or molar. For this purpose, they are interchangeable. If an astronaut consumes 19 cubic feet of oxygen per day, he generates 18 cubic feet of CO2 per day or  .75 cubic feet per hour. This represents a .75/350 hourly increase of the proportion of CO2 or 2142 ppm/hour.

To clarify a bit:
0-20,000: no noticeable effects or very little incumberance
20,000-70,000: symptoms of CO2 intoxication
70,000 +: CO2 poisoning, loss of consciousness, death, etc.

It will reach the 20,000 level in 9 hours and the 70,000 mark in 32 hours.

Soyuz' fast rendevous is 6 hours.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 10/16/2014 07:21 pm
If it's such an incredibly overwhelming priority to get an American crew launch option, they can stick some seats and suits in a cargo Dragon and launch in December.

Sorry but this has to be the most uninformed statement in this entire thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Atomic Walrus on 10/16/2014 07:46 pm
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.

What more would be learned from that that wasn't learned from using a boilerplate capsule?

You don't waste expensive hardware on potentially destructive tests unless you absolutely have to.

Tell that to SpaceX. They based their parachute drop test article around an actual pressure hull and dropped it from a helo. Twice.
Somehow that didn't bother them.

On the other hand you have Jim who became somewhat upset when QC suggested that the Boeing drop test article was constructed mainly of wood, sheet-metal and styrofoam. Big difference between a for-real pressure hull and a glorified wooden model.

That was an answer to *some* question.  It wasn't an answer to mine.  I'll repeat and clarify: for a parachute drop test, what is the benefit of dropping a (not cheap!) bare prototype pressure shell instead of a boilerplate capsule that more accurately simulates the mass and outer mold line of the actual flight article?

The benefit of using a higher fidelity structure is that you'd be able to gather experimental data on the effect of the landing on the structure.  Mechanical shocks aren't easy to model, so there could be some benefit there.  Of course,  a test engineer is always trying to balance the incremental benefit against the incremental cost.  If you've got spare structures around, might as well use one of them and get the benefit.  If you have to fabricate one and you don't expect to mitigate much risk with the test, you go with a cheaper route.  Probably also worth noting that using an actual pressure hull isn't necessarily a huge benefit if the intended design deviates significantly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/16/2014 07:52 pm
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.

As an x-submariner, I know the painful (screaming headaches) concentration is much below the 'fatal' level.  The reference below shows that this severe symptomatic threshold is 2,000ppm, with 1,000 ppm as normal indoor air.  So, do your calculation for a delta of 1,000 ppm instead of your suggested 50,000 (a factor of 50 more restrictive with one astro, 350 with seven).

Quote
The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

    250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
    350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
    1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
    2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.  Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
    >5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
    >40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.
http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm

Edit: What arachnitect said.

I'm using submarine standards. The following PDF describes one sumbarine standard upper limit used by the Canadians of 1.75% or 17,500 ppm. Canadian Submariners need to think while an astronaut in a cargo vehicle would be doing absolutely nothing as it is controlled remotely. This scenario though applies to a dragon v2 without a crew life support system or to a vehicle with a broken or non-functioning life support system.

Quote
As seen in Figure 1, the first protocol was monitored without any purification over 13.25 hours
with a final average concentration in all of the compartments at the end of the protocol was
1.34%. Specifically, CO2 concentrations of 1.39% were seen in the motor room and WSC, 1.34%
in the senior accommodation space and control room, and 1.20% and 1.37% in the junior rates
accommodation space and junior ranks mess, respectively. This increase was not unexpected, as
the Standard suggests that with 50 crew a 1% CO2 concentration would be reached in 7.7 hours. It
was projected that with a crew complement of 59 that the upper limit of 1.75% would be reached
in 13.5 hours. This calculation has been based upon the prediction guidelines identified in BR
1326, whereby an initial concentration of 0.2% CO2 with no air purification is assumed. The
calculation, as identified in BR 1326, is also based also upon an average respiration rate of
24L/man/hour and a total breathable volume of 1129 m3 (39870 ft3).  The findings have shown
that after 13.25 hours under patrol conditions the recommended ceiling of 1.75% CO2 was not
reached, even without the aid of purification assistance.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA473000&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=XR5AVPiKHsrCsATEuYDwDQ&ved=0CCgQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNHq0nb-a7j8WTyg2Tw_9zW4wmMs8w
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/16/2014 08:13 pm

You make some good points. But nevertheless, the CST-100 is only a mockup at this point as you pointed out and SpaceX has a capsule that has already been tested. So they are ahead in terms or real hardware. They have had a few years to plan out the life support issue.

To me, this is more than a mockup.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.


Wasn't the spacex drop test vehicle a modified v1?

Pretty much. Having seen it myself in person, it wasn't a mockup.

Ok, the idea here is high vs low fidelity representation. Yes, as QG earlier posted, you can use a ton of bricks for an extremely low fidelity test.

Such allows you to prove a subsytem, component, or assembly as being able to function under the intended capabilities but is not in the use case for qualification, and even further from certification .

Why we approach higher fidelity tests is that we find out more in the use case, and that historically has always brought surprises of small through large variety.
If the mass simulator was correct, the outer mold line was correct, and the release mechanism was correct, what else is there to learn from using elements that will be passive?
For proving a subsystem - nothing. For addressing systems qualification - everything. Qualification feeds certification.

During Shuttle, a lot was learned in the step up to high fidelity. In fact, if they had trusted this earlier instead of being overruled by the supposed insights of certain people, things would have turned out very differently. It was surprising the things that were found out so late in the program that had "impact".

The Dragon and Cygnus experience have shown that the pacing item has been software and interfaces certification. With human piloted crafts, that problem is compounded.
Neither firms software groups am I remotely comfortable with BTW. This I don't worry about with Boeing.

Only other pacing item I can think of, is the LAS. But Aerojet tested and retested the engines even before SpaceX had fired their first SuperDraco.
I have concerns about GNC. I have concerns about stability with both capsules. Trust SpaceX's models of control and stability more here.

The pressure vessel testing article has a long time. And it does have some innovations. For example, it has no welds. It is formed out of a single billet of aluminum and then machined on the outside.
This I have concerns for. Don't think that the materials and the tests are sufficient. Would have preferred the parachute/airbags as an all up test with representative pressure vessel. Duh. Look at Orion for "surprises" here.

Oh! And Aerojet is trying to 3D print the LAS engine's Nozzle and MCC in just three parts. So there is a lot of innovation in CST.
Yes. And they also could do additive manufacturing to improve cost/strength in pressure vessel / capsule other. I agree, these are good.

It just not on making things that might seem cool, but on actually lowering costs, reducing complexity and increasing reliability.
Where is the traceability of these through Apollo, the last capsule? Then I'd feel better about that. Not seeing it.

Sure, I might personally like SpaceX method better (...
For completeness in this interrogation, WTF do you mean exactly?

I'm a BSD lover ...
(You have no idea at all of what you think you are stepping on with that comment BTW ;D )

...), but Boeing's approach is extremely professional.
Never said otherwise. Just like in past programs I'll mention below.

In fact, its CCDev1/2 and CCiCap performance have been the best performers.
It depends on how you score performance. And concern.

And please stop spreading the argument about extra cost. It's a firm fixed price contract and nobody have their financial backing. And its clear from their price that they padded their numbers with a lot of margin. But if they had to actually put their own money, some executive's head might roll but they won't fault on a contract with Uncle Sam.
First, I've never claimed extra cost. I've claimed concern over FFP. Different. For example, some of the NASA claimed flexibility could vanish for no added cost. Duh. Happened before with Shuttle - will not specify so don't ask.

I'm quite familiar with them, Shuttle, Delta IV, and about a hundred other programs. My concerns I have specifically addressed. They have never done a HSF vehicle that has launched/returned humans without overruns both in budget and time. Its true that they could prove this wrong. And my concerns are very specific and well considered. This is a far simpler vehicle. But so was Orion supposed to be. As LockMart goes, so often goes Boeing ... duh.

Do not underestimate how much things have changed in even the last decade. So much so that to adapt to current improvements, there is a tendency to avoid traceability by all. Or, to abandon current improvements, and to presume traceability that doesn't exist either. Both vex me in the extreme. Am I communicating?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: PreferToLurk on 10/16/2014 08:51 pm
Original discussion was locked down in the SpaceX forums, because it was highly off topic. As a lurker who is here almost all the time, I should know better than to respond to off topic with more off topic...   :-[

Anyway, if they want to continue the discussion, they can do so here. 


What about X37?  started off NASA, transferred to DOD, now flying.  Good luck getting solid cost figures out of DOD, but its definitely operational.

Also, the vast majority of these programs were "X" projects.  Designed to push the envelope and develop new technologies.  These programs are expected to run into cost overruns and technical delays.  If they knew how to design and build them on the first try, they wouldn't be X projects. 

NASA isn't asking for new technologies here.  They are asking for a service.  Get crew from point A to point B.  Sierra Nevada basically proposed an X project, SpaceX proposed an advanced version of their cargo vessel, and Boeing proposed a (mostly) plain vanilla capsule.  Can you guess who scored the highest and the lowest?

Pointing out past delays and cost overruns that Boeing has had in X projects is nothing more than red herring.

PreferToLurk, I am curious how Dream Chaser equates to an X-project by your own definition.

Hybrid engines, skid landing gear, automated aerodynamic landings.  What we have heard so far about the selection is that Dream Chaser posed the highest technical risk.  Its nothing like a true X-project, but it was the least proven design. I should have been more clear originally.
Quote
If anything, Dragon 2 approaches your definition more than SNC’s Dream Chaser.
Things like:
-Integrated and reusable LAS made possible by powerful and compact 3D printed engines.

Already highly tested (on the ground), and despite the 3D printing, they are pretty simple pressure fed engines.
Quote
-Precision land landings (ultimately).

You said it yourself -- ultimately.  not part of the proposal. The proposal has Dragon landing with chutes.
Quote
-High redundancy landing options (including abort modes).
Wait, how does this increase technical risk?
Quote
-“Off the shelf” non rad-hardened polling/voting avionics with triple redundancy
Already demonstrated on cargo dragon.
Quote
-- snip --
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/16/2014 09:13 pm
They have never done a HSF vehicle that has launched/returned humans without overruns both in budget and time.

Do not underestimate how much things have changed in even the last decade.
You said it well enough on your own.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/16/2014 09:55 pm
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 10/16/2014 10:06 pm
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.

Well they have actually integrated the paperwork pretty efficently :)

Randy
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/17/2014 01:00 am
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.

From public information that is what people would conclude.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/17/2014 01:07 am
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

20,000 PPM CO2 is considered safe. 70,000 PPM + is potentially fatal. Do the calculation on how long it will take 1 astronaut to generate that amount of CO2 in a 350 cubic foot cabin at STP.
so, 2% and 7%. I'll assume it's by mass, a conservative assumption. In 350 ft^3 at 1.2kg/m^3 density there is 11kg of air. Average person expels roughly 1kg of CO2 a day, so... 0.22 kg is the limit for safe, .77kg is limit for fatal. Better do fast rendezvous! Astronaut has just a bit over 5 hours at safe levels, and 18.5 hours before fatal levels. "Just" bring a few scuba rebreather scrubber cartridges and put them in front of the recirculation fans (which Dragon already has for ISS).

It is parts per million, so it is by volume or molar. For this purpose, they are interchangeable. If an astronaut consumes 19 cubic feet of oxygen per day, he generates 18 cubic feet of CO2 per day or  .75 cubic feet per hour. This represents a .75/350 hourly increase of the proportion of CO2 or 2142 ppm/hour.

To clarify a bit:
0-20,000: no noticeable effects or very little incumberance
20,000-70,000: symptoms of CO2 intoxication
70,000 +: CO2 poisoning, loss of consciousness, death, etc.

It will reach the 20,000 level in 9 hours and the 70,000 mark in 32 hours.

Soyuz' fast rendevous is 6 hours.
I'm a physicist doing a quick estimation, that's my excuse for PPMv=PPMm. ;)
So it looks like you could do 3 astronauts with quick rendezvous, they'd just be a bit loopy by the time they got up there... 3 astronauts for a couple hours (enough to get back, provided someone rigged together a way to control the arm and release it from the ground) would be totally fine.

EDIT:Not that I'm suggesting we do it... It's just that they most likely could survive.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/17/2014 01:15 am
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.

From public information that is what people would conclude.

If you have other information, share it. If not, you're just making a unverifiable claim.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/17/2014 02:29 am
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.

From public information that is what people would conclude.

I disagree.  With publicly available information, anyone with experience in the field knows pretty much where they are in the development process.

Quote
If you have other information, share it. If not, you're just making a unverifiable claim.

Just look at their CCiCap milestones:

4) Software Integrated Engineering Release 2.0
5) Landing, Recovery, & Ground Communication Design Review
7) Integrated Stack Force & Moment Wind Tunnel Test
10) Spacecraft Primary Structures CDR
11) Service Module Propulsion System CDR
13) Launch Vehicle Adapter CDR
16) Avionics Software Integration Lab Multi-String Demonstration Test
17) Pilot-in-the-Loop Demonstration
18) Software CDR

In addition, Boeing has taken the launch-pad and crew-access mods...

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=62533 (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=62533)

...and the ISS docking adapter to a CDR level.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-8-26-Boeing-Continues-Progress-on-Improved-Space-Station-Docking-System (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-8-26-Boeing-Continues-Progress-on-Improved-Space-Station-Docking-System)

Then there's the big one:

19) Integrated CDR

Structures, propulsion, avionics, software, mission control interface, launch vehicle adapter, docking adapter, and launch pad mods all at CDR, plus the integrated CDR.

SpaceX is ahead on some testing, but Boeing is ahead on the design.  Sierra Nevada is nowhere close on either.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 10/17/2014 02:30 am
>
I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy.  Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch.  And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.

-Doug

SpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.

Good, and I hope their products work well and need very little tweaking.  I wasn't trying to forecast doom for the ECS (or whatever acronym you wish to use for it, I tend to use the Apollo acronyms out of habit).  I was just coming up with the first example that came to mind.

There are, of course, a lot of other systems that SpaceX will have to add to their cargo version of the spacecraft to make it a manned spacecraft -- just as Boeing has to develop the same kinds of systems for their spacecraft.  It doesn't surprise me that they might be using the same contractors for some systems, either.  But every manned space vehicle America has produced to date has dealt with major rework issues in critical systems late in their development cycles, most of which have caused delays in the flight schedules.  As I said, I'd bet you any money that the things that pop up as critical, last-minute reworks are probably not even on their radar right now.

It's just hard to plan for that kind of thing, ya know?  If you knew what was going to become your major pain-in-the-ass beforehand, you would know to fix it earlier and then something else would come to the forefront as the pacing item.  You can try to leave room in the schedules for this kind of thing, but you really can only let it play itself out the best you can.

-Doug

With my shield, not yet upon it
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/17/2014 02:41 am
Just look at their CCiCap milestones:

[..]

SpaceX is ahead on some testing, but Boeing is ahead on the design.  Sierra Nevada is nowhere close on either.

None of your listed milestones support the argument that Boeing has done any hardware integration or software integration of the on-orbit stages of flight. That's the claim that people keep making about Boeing and for which there is no evidence at all. Boeing hasn't been contracted for that work yet, and Boeing doesn't do work before they have a contract in hand. They learnt that mistake the hard way.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/17/2014 02:48 am
Just look at their CCiCap milestones:

[..]

SpaceX is ahead on some testing, but Boeing is ahead on the design.  Sierra Nevada is nowhere close on either.

None of your listed milestones support the argument that Boeing has done any hardware integration or software integration of the on-orbit stages of flight. That's the claim that people keep making about Boeing and for which there is no evidence at all. Boeing hasn't been contracted for that work yet, and Boeing doesn't do work before they have a contract in hand. They learnt that mistake the hard way.

Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 10/17/2014 04:34 am
Just look at their CCiCap milestones:

[..]

SpaceX is ahead on some testing, but Boeing is ahead on the design.  Sierra Nevada is nowhere close on either.

None of your listed milestones support the argument that Boeing has done any hardware integration or software integration of the on-orbit stages of flight. That's the claim that people keep making about Boeing and for which there is no evidence at all. Boeing hasn't been contracted for that work yet, and Boeing doesn't do work before they have a contract in hand. They learnt that mistake the hard way.

Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?

A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/17/2014 05:10 am
A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.

You cannot state that CDR involves only "a powerpoint, nothing more";. What is required for CDR is program-specific.  All we know is that Boeing passed CDR--as defined by NASA as part of the CCiCap milestones and schedule--and that others did not.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/17/2014 05:19 am
So, we again come back to the fact that everyone who is claiming Boeing has done more work than the other competitors has no way to prove their claims. As long as everyone agrees to this, I think we know how we should treat these claims.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 10/17/2014 05:47 am
Btw, is not oxygen but CO2 poisoning one of the problems. The other being humidity control (with water extraction being, of course, the hard one).

The trick they're using for humidity control is super clever and simple. Not sure if it's public knowledge though, so I'd want to check with my source before I blab details.

~Jon
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Atomic Walrus on 10/17/2014 05:55 am
I'm a bit dismayed that a lot of people here haven't bothered to learn much about NASA program management.  Here's a short overview: (Please shorten the link, breaks site format - Chris).

A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation.  It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done.  The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware.  These processes seem burdensome, but they were developed from painful, expensive experience on the part of the military and NASA when developing high technology projects. 

It's true that we don't know the exact content of Boeing's CDR.  We do know that SpaceX and SNC have not completed their CDRs.  If the CDR is a cakewalk with no real content, it does not reflect well on those companies to not have completed it yet. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/17/2014 06:05 am
If the CDR is a cakewalk with no real content, it does not reflect well on those companies to not have completed it yet.

Who said it was a cake walk? I've heard it described as a PhD confirmation where the audience is full of undergraduates.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 10/17/2014 06:08 am
Boeing hasn't been contracted for that work yet, and Boeing doesn't do work before they have a contract in hand. They learnt that mistake the hard way.

What incident are you referring to by "learning the hard way"?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/17/2014 06:12 am
Boeing hasn't been contracted for that work yet, and Boeing doesn't do work before they have a contract in hand. They learnt that mistake the hard way.

What incident are you referring to by "learning the hard way"?

I had in mind the EELV program.. but I've heard Boeing people say it and don't know what they had in mind.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2014 10:33 am
A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation.  It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done.  The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware. 

Correct. But it's even more expensive and more difficult to fix problems, resulting from the CDR, after you've begun INTEGRATING your hardware components into an integrated spacecraft.
And that's why Boeing had done only marginal integration activities (at best) before completion of their CDR.
Meaning that as of the end of august (this year) Boeing had no integrated CST-100 spacecraft (not even a partially integrated one) to show off, unlike SpaceX at their Dragon 2 presentation. Hence the mock-up only display when Boeing officially presented the CST-100 in last June, two months before completion of their CDR.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/17/2014 02:08 pm
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.

From public information that is what people would conclude.

If you have other information, share it. If not, you're just making a unverifiable claim.

He is in a position to know.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/17/2014 02:11 pm
A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.

You cannot state that CDR involves only "a powerpoint, nothing more";. What is required for CDR is program-specific.  All we know is that Boeing passed CDR--as defined by NASA as part of the CCiCap milestones and schedule--and that others did not.

SpaceX is on the verge of completing its CDR. I suspect that they will be done by the time CCtCap actually starts (when the protest is over).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/17/2014 02:23 pm

Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?
CDRs, and testing, are both ways to try to catch bugs before they create a big problem.   Both are needed and both are used on critical projects.  A CDR has a group of smart and experienced designers see if there is any problem they can think of with a design.  It can work well, but it can miss problems that people just don't think of (for example, the Fregat stage of the recent Galileo failure doubtless went through a CDR, but they did not spot this problem.)

Testing can find bugs that no-one thought of, but can miss problems, too, since not all combinations of circumstances can be tested (or example, the Fregat stage of the recent Galileo failure was tested, and similar models used extensively, but a problem still occurred.)

Testing and relevant experience can help at CDRs - "How do we know that tank won't freeze?  Here's our temperature data from previous missions using that tank configuration..."  and CDRs can help direct testing to places the designer may not have though of.

The fastest path to a working system - how much testing to do before the CDR, and how much after - is a matter of engineering judgement.  Just knowing that Boeing has completed their CDR, but SpaceX is scheduling their abort tests earlier, is not enough to tell who is ahead.  You'd need a very detailed look into both efforts to tell that.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/17/2014 03:21 pm

Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?
CDRs, and testing, are both ways to try to catch bugs before they create a big problem.   Both are needed and both are used on critical projects.  A CDR has a group of smart and experienced designers see if there is any problem they can think of with a design.  It can work well, but it can miss problems that people just don't think of (for example, the Fregat stage of the recent Galileo failure doubtless went through a CDR, but they did not spot this problem.)

Testing can find bugs that no-one thought of, but can miss problems, too, since not all combinations of circumstances can be tested (or example, the Fregat stage of the recent Galileo failure was tested, and similar models used extensively, but a problem still occurred.)

Testing and relevant experience can help at CDRs - "How do we know that tank won't freeze?  Here's our temperature data from previous missions using that tank configuration..."  and CDRs can help direct testing to places the designer may not have though of.

The fastest path to a working system - how much testing to do before the CDR, and how much after - is a matter of engineering judgement.  Just knowing that Boeing has completed their CDR, but SpaceX is scheduling their abort tests earlier, is not enough to tell who is ahead.  You'd need a very detailed look into both efforts to tell that.
From what I read about the article, NASA thought that not having an integrated system before CDR is a feature, not a bug. As it reads, it would seem that they consider that if they found anything at CDR having to redo the integration is costlier and require more time than catching it at CDR. Thus, Boeing is doing it the NASA way and they feel more confident on that way of doing things. Given their experience on doing hard stuff, they might have a point. I would be very careful to dismiss this as "old thinking".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 03:55 pm
CDRs, and testing, are both ways to try to catch bugs before they create a big problem.   Both are needed and both are used on critical projects.  A CDR has a group of smart and experienced designers see if there is any problem they can think of with a design.  It can work well, but it can miss problems that people just don't think of (for example, the Fregat stage of the recent Galileo failure doubtless went through a CDR, but they did not spot this problem.)

If I am not mistaken, Boeing used this approach in development of the 787. The entire design was refined down to the last detail in 3-D on CAD programs before anything was fabricated. Other than the battery problem, which this would not have detected, the transition from CAD to CAM was very smooth. The plane has performed remarkably well (other than battery). Back in the days when pressurized cabins and jet turbines were new, you drew two dimensional elevation plans from all three axes, built prototypes, did some testing, then went into production, hoping not to face catastrophic failures like the De Havilland 106 Comet. The 787 integrates the best of everything that has been learned about aircraft design over the last 65 years with cutting edge technology like carbon composite materials. The CAD created prior to production of the plane is infinitely more sophisticated than just a collection of Power Point Presentations and Word Documents.

I would think that Boeing has taken a similar approach with CST-100. While I admire the pluck taken by SNC and SpaceX, I can see why NASA would see the Boeing design as the safest, based on proven design, and also why NASA would have complete confidence in Boeing's design process. As has been said, the purpose is not to demonstrate innovation, but to provide access to ISS. This is not to say that I do not have concerns over the price or that I doubt some politicians stuck their fingers in the pie. I don't doubt those things at all. Nevertheless, I can see a logic by which this design was chosen.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 04:01 pm
As has been said multiple times on here, dismissing CDR as "just a powerpoint" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how engineering design works.

To dumb it down somewhat, CDR is when the blueprints get approved.  Here are just a few examples of tricky design issues that have to be tackled to pass CDR:

- Cable routing: minimizing noise and crosstalk, ensuring there is room for every cable, ensuring that routing does not interfere with other "behind the panel" issues like life support hardware and plumbing.  Minimizing the mass contribution of the cables while retaining robustness and redundancy where necessary.  Ever try to neatly manage cables for a home entertainment system when you have a satellite box, a Blu-Ray player, three game systems, and a surround sound system?  Go visit the SAIL in Building 16 at JSC to see just how big a deal cable routing is.

- Plumbing and ventilation: ensure lines are wide enough to avoid large pressure drops (including cavitation for liquids) while yet keeping them within mass limits and making sure they fit within the outer mold line.  Just within the pressurized volume, you need to handle: oxygen, nitrogen, water, CO2 removal, refrigerant (or other heat transfer fluid).  Between the pressure shell and the outer mold line, you need: all of the above, plus RCS/OMS (or equivalent) fuel and oxidizer, and pressurant for those two.  Routing for these is not trivial -- if water lines are too close to refrigerant lines for the avionics, you risk freezing the water lines.  Do you mix the nitrogen and oxygen in a manifold or a plenum before delivering it to the crew space to avoid problems with high/low oxygen concentrations?  How do you get fluids and electrical power / signals between the crew module and the service module?  Do you go through the heat shield?  If so, how do you ensure reentry survivability?  If not, you have to change the outer mold line.

- Structures: As strong as possible, and as light as possible, but even then, it's not that simple.  You need to provide attach points for every cable, fluid line, and tank.  If the routing changes, your design changes.  Oh, and by the way, it's your job to ensure there are no bizarre modal resonances that could shake the spacecraft apart during launch.  To do that correctly, you need to know the mass of every component in the craft and where it will be. 

- Aerodynamics: Your vehicle needs to perform in all flow regimes -- subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic.  Even after years of Shuttle, hypersonic flight is still not well-understood, (see issues with the X-51 and differences in aerothermal heating on Shuttle between prediction and reality).  For a capsule, this isn't so bad, but for a winged vehicle or a lifting body, well, there's a reason pretty much all winged hypersonic craft (including spacecraft other than Shuttle) are X-vehicles.

Ensuring you pass CDR before you get serious with "bending metal" is the epitome of the "measure twice, cut once" philosophy.  Fabrication of space hardware is extremely expensive.  It pays to make sure your design makes sense before you fire up the CNC machines.

You wouldn't build a skyscraper without detailed blueprints.  Why would you assume CDR for a spacecraft is anything less than what it is -- an evaluation of the design's maturity and readiness for manufacture?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 10/17/2014 04:07 pm
So, we again come back to the fact that everyone who is claiming Boeing has done more work than the other competitors has no way to prove their claims. As long as everyone agrees to this, I think we know how we should treat these claims.

As long as we can also agree that Boeing received higher marks than either SpaceX or SNC by the the NASA review panel for the Commercial Crew Contract proposals, in areas of technical maturity, management competence, program management and past performance. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: YesRushGen on 10/17/2014 04:10 pm
As has been said multiple times on here, dismissing CDR as "just a powerpoint" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how engineering design works.

To dumb it down somewhat, CDR is when the blueprints get approved.  Here are just a few examples of tricky design issues that have to be tackled to pass CDR:
snip...

<DE-LURK>Thanks so much for succinctly describing everything that goes into these designs. Very informative post!</DE-LURK>
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 10/17/2014 04:17 pm
As several have pointed out CDRs are a big deal. Anyone who thinks NASA is willing to pay $17.9M for someone to throw together a PowerPoint presentation is off their nut.

I only know what I have read on this forum, not an expert, but I get the distinct impression that there is a big difference between a Critical Design Review and an Integrated Critical Design Review. IIRC SpaceX went through a CDR with COTS and that may have been relevant for CCiCAP
According to: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_Feb_2014.pdf
Boeing was paid $17.9M for their CDR.
SpaceX is being paid $40M for their ICDR.
I believe that Boeing has yet to do their ICDR.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/17/2014 04:57 pm
SpaceX is being paid $40M for their ICDR.
I believe that Boeing has yet to do their ICDR.

Both are integrated CDR's ...

Quote from: CCiCap SAA
Boeing
Critical Design Review (CDR) Board

Completion of critical baseline design of the CCTS integrated system and operations that confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for production and integration ... Boeing shall establish and demonstrate a critical baseline design of the CCTS that meets system requirements. CDR confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for production and integration. ... The CDR demonstrates that the maturity of the design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and test. CDR determines that the technical effort is on track to complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations, meeting mission performance requirements within cost and schedule constraints.


SpaceX
Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR)

Scope: SpaceX will hold an Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) at the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA, or a nearby facility to demonstrate that the maturity of the CTS design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and test. This integrated CDR will determine that the technical effort is on track to complete the flight and ground system development and mission operations in order to meet mission performance requirements and schedule. NASA and relevant industry teammates will be invited to attend and to provide comments and feedback. This integrated CDR will cover spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations systems.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/17/2014 05:14 pm
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:

Lack of progress???  Boeing completed CDR, something neither SpaceX nor Sierra Nevada have done!  Their design is further along than either of their competitors -- SpaceX by a few months but Sierra Nevada by a few years.

So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware.  SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.

SpaceX is therefore ahead of Boeing in terms of the goal of getting their hardware into space on a test flight first, with the notable caveat that if NASA finds something in CDR that they don't like, it could potentially cause rework of already completed hardware that could set SpaceX back as compared to Boeing.

SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete.  It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.

Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here.  I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/17/2014 05:38 pm
SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete.  It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.

I wouldn't necessarily classify SpaceX's approach as riskier, just a different path than Boeing has taken getting to CDR:
Quote from: SpaceX CCiCap SAA
The proposed hardware development testing will expedite design maturity, leading to an integrated critical design review (CDR) in March 2014.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/17/2014 05:57 pm
Yeah they have both done CDR of integrated systems - can we table this finally?

As I said earlier, Boeing wishes to use its immense advantage of overlapping execution of an actual build with the considerable portions of working with NASA for what its processes need as well. And the reason you don't do early integration work, among others, is to have a better integration in the second now first pass.

This necessarily "rear loads" the program execution heavily. Why large firms can do this, they pay a penalty in having heavy corporate loading - the two go hand in hand. Unlike what happened with COTS, which use less loading through different approaches. Reflecting concern, not badmouthing any here.

Here's the risks with both:
1) In the large corporation, often miscommunication gets picked up late, requires redo's. These can have significant impact because the leverage advantage works backwards for obvious reasons. On commonly issued projects, its less of a deal because the repeats don't have obvious big redo's. In this case, the leveraged commonality is from ISS related recent history for the most part. I buy off on that for in space systems. The rest is where my concern for FFP comes from. Look to Orion for its learning curve on capsules for more specifics. As I said, I'd have been happier if the pressure vessel in the drops was representative high fidelity. Net effect is that this way of getting things done uses overruns/take-backs through management buffering as its recovery means.

2) In the smaller ones, the issues involve overtaxed multiple use people waiting too long to revise a key component/process/issue/"long pole", and no bandwidth to do the "get ahead" tasks - they bite off more than they can chew. This also may be complicated by things like working NASA's processes, which are feared might slip. None of them ever are prepared for what this takes. However, there is much less of the "organizational leverage" effect mentioned in the prior, and often how these things are addressed is a spontaneous change in design (but not scope) to subsume the vexing item differently than expected - this almost never occurs in the prior case. Part of the necessary incrementalism from start to finish, with start at the start unlike the prior case. Which may(always) cause NASA unexpected disruption in processes. A side effect may be things get improved beyond expectation (although that may be seen in hindsight further on). The lack of the "organizational leverage" means the costing tends to go less out of control, because they are always smaller, tighter groups who find ways to take in the schedule for recovery, depending on management more in continuity.

This is an extreme simplification of course. But it explains why COTS like programs can be successful. CC was supposed to be like COTS.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Boeing do a FFP CC entry that preserved those NASA advantages come in on schedule/price. But for that to happen, they have to selectively use the above mentioned advantage for CCtCAP. The way it would seem they did CCiCAP does not suggest that this is likely.

Did I do that respectfully enough, preserving professional appreciation of heritage contractors?

Back to your regularly scheduled "food fight".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 06:08 pm
Who said it was a cake walk?

Chris, respectfully, you have said that all Boeing had produced was some Power Points and Word documents. Though you did not use the term specific term cake walk, what you did say implied that Boeing had not done serious or scholarly work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 06:13 pm
So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware.  SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.

Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here.  I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.

Not really, because what NASA has required to this point is design, not fabrication. So from the specific technical and legal definitions, Boeing is ahead. Period. Not that Boeing was my choice, but from a technical standpoint, this is what is clear.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/17/2014 06:26 pm
Nothing would make me happier than to see Boeing do a FFP CC entry that preserved those NASA advantages come in on schedule/price. But for that to happen, they have to selectively use the above mentioned advantage for CCtCAP. The way it would seem they did CCiCAP does not suggest that this is likely.
I believe that you are worrying about something that's not the core issue (for NASA/Boeing). They are worried about schedule, not cost, since this is a FFP contract. NASA is not worried that Boeing will default on the contract, either (if there's one company that has almost infinite financial resources for NASA is Boeing).
And from Boeing side, they probably calculated a 3.2B of expected cost and added a 30% margin on top of that. So if they execute well, they get a ridiculous profit. If they don't, they get normal profits. Thus, they are betting on keeping costs low and if they get behind, then let's tap the reserves. But this can only happen iff Congress funds this program. Again, this goes into the margin.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 07:30 pm
>
I'm confident that SpaceX will be able to design and install the needed systems, but it's not a given that it will be easy.  Learning from history, some of them may require some redesign along the way and become real pacing items for a 2017 launch.  And as with most things, the items that will rear up and bite them in the butt aren't necessarily on their (or our) radar at the moment.

-Doug

SpaceX is using an ECLSS made by Paragon SDC, and developed during COTS-1 for commercial spacecraft. IIRC they're also providing systems for Orion.

Good, and I hope their products work well and need very little tweaking.  I wasn't trying to forecast doom for the ECS (or whatever acronym you wish to use for it, I tend to use the Apollo acronyms out of habit).  I was just coming up with the first example that came to mind.

There are, of course, a lot of other systems that SpaceX will have to add to their cargo version of the spacecraft to make it a manned spacecraft -- just as Boeing has to develop the same kinds of systems for their spacecraft.  It doesn't surprise me that they might be using the same contractors for some systems, either.  But every manned space vehicle America has produced to date has dealt with major rework issues in critical systems late in their development cycles, most of which have caused delays in the flight schedules.  As I said, I'd bet you any money that the things that pop up as critical, last-minute reworks are probably not even on their radar right now.

It's just hard to plan for that kind of thing, ya know?  If you knew what was going to become your major pain-in-the-ass beforehand, you would know to fix it earlier and then something else would come to the forefront as the pacing item.  You can try to leave room in the schedules for this kind of thing, but you really can only let it play itself out the best you can.

-Doug

With my shield, not yet upon it
It is better to build test modify and test again. If NASA prefer paper work , she is guilty by driving development the way that is more in  risk of delay and cost overrun. When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result. With rise of 3D printing I think it is moment to use same method in physical product development.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 07:45 pm
It is better to build test modify and test again.

That is opinion, not fact, and while it is applicable in some cases, it certainly isn't appropriate for all.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 07:48 pm
A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.

You cannot state that CDR involves only "a powerpoint, nothing more";. What is required for CDR is program-specific.  All we know is that Boeing passed CDR--as defined by NASA as part of the CCiCap milestones and schedule--and that others did not.
OK  and MS project plan :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 07:54 pm
I'm a bit dismayed that a lot of people here haven't bothered to learn much about NASA program management.  Here's a short overview: (Please shorten the link, breaks site format - Chris).

A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation.  It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done.  The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware.  These processes seem burdensome, but they were developed from painful, expensive experience on the part of the military and NASA when developing high technology projects. 

It's true that we don't know the exact content of Boeing's CDR.  We do know that SpaceX and SNC have not completed their CDRs.  If the CDR is a cakewalk with no real content, it does not reflect well on those companies to not have completed it yet.
If NASA has to pay for modification and mistake that company did during development, I see point to have CDR. But in this program all development issue are solo provider responsibility. NASA just state which type of service and detail of this service is required.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/17/2014 07:57 pm
When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result.

Then you should stay away from safety- or life-critical systems.  That is a very different world, where opportunities to iterate in the real world are limited, testing is not a sufficient defense, and mistakes can cause death, dismemberment and destruction.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 08:01 pm
A critical design review is a lot more than a Powerpoint presentation.  It's a review that you do when the design is substantially done.  The reason for the review is that it's a lot more expensive and difficult to fix problems after you've started fabricating hardware. 

Correct. But it's even more expensive and more difficult to fix problems, resulting from the CDR, after you've begun INTEGRATING your hardware components into an integrated spacecraft.
And that's why Boeing had done only marginal integration activities (at best) before completion of their CDR.
Meaning that as of the end of august (this year) Boeing had no integrated CST-100 spacecraft (not even a partially integrated one) to show off, unlike SpaceX at their Dragon 2 presentation. Hence the mock-up only display when Boeing officially presented the CST-100 in last June, two months before completion of their CDR.
'
This is reason it is necessary to have it for Boeing, because outsourcing, not for Spacex where outsourcing is minimal.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 08:10 pm
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:

Lack of progress???  Boeing completed CDR, something neither SpaceX nor Sierra Nevada have done!  Their design is further along than either of their competitors -- SpaceX by a few months but Sierra Nevada by a few years.

So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware.  SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.

SpaceX is therefore ahead of Boeing in terms of the goal of getting their hardware into space on a test flight first, with the notable caveat that if NASA finds something in CDR that they don't like, it could potentially cause rework of already completed hardware that could set SpaceX back as compared to Boeing.

SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete.  It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.

Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here.  I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.
yes I think you clarify it
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 08:18 pm
It is better to build test modify and test again.

That is opinion, not fact, and while it is applicable in some cases, it certainly isn't appropriate for all.
In my world of IT, CDR approach in complicated project took at least 3 times more time and resources(In simple one 10 times and more). It is important that your initial design is flexible. By testing and modifying to you can achieve result in surprisingly short time. Because real  test is best CDR.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 08:26 pm
In my world of IT, CDR approach in complicated project took at least 3 times more time and resources(In simple one 10 times and more). It is important that your initial design is flexible. By testing and modifying to you can achieve result in surprisingly short time. Because real  test is best CDR.

This isn't IT.  Not even close.  Don't even *try* to compare the two.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 08:35 pm
When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result.

Then you should stay away from safety- or life-critical systems.  That is a very different world, where opportunities to iterate in the real world are limited, testing is not a sufficient defense, and mistakes can cause death, dismemberment and destruction.
You think if I am talking about service, it is about deliver astronauts to the orbit death or alive, is it fulfilling requirement? I doubt. How long this company will do business for NASA? For example private company will never allow to fly spaceshuttle, even in it is  last iteration. It will be too risky from business reputation point of view. Only NASA a national interest keep this dangerous machine fly and risk every time lost of crew. How many people lost russians in space 4. And on them was during test fly. Their discipline and quality is hundred times worse then any america company. But the design was dumb easy and tested and tested.....
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/17/2014 08:41 pm
In my world of IT, CDR approach in complicated project took at least 3 times more time and resources(In simple one 10 times and more). It is important that your initial design is flexible. By testing and modifying to you can achieve result in surprisingly short time. Because real  test is best CDR.

This isn't IT.  Not even close.  Don't even *try* to compare the two.
you know that in todays date majority money spend on spacecraft are  on developing programs for spacecraft. You have requirement, than you write your plan how to achieve it, build program/spacecraft and start to test and modify. I know spacecraft takes more hours and more people, but principle is same. You are developing digital or physical product that is able to provide some service.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 08:47 pm
It is better to build test modify and test again. If NASA prefer paper work , she is guilty by driving development the way that is more in  risk of delay and cost overrun. When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result. With rise of 3D printing I think it is moment to use same method in physical product development.

That is an obsolete approach. The power of modern computers makes it possible to identify and eliminate the  vast majority of those mistakes in a virtual realm rather than having them occur in reality after you've bent metal.  The computer modeling follows complex algorithms finds places where problems occur. These problems are eliminated and the design modified long before you manufacture anything. This does not mean every single problem is identified and eliminated, however most are. Risk is reduced by an order of magnitude or more. Physical testing still has to occur, but the long process of physical trial, error, modification, retrial, etc. is highly reduced.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 08:48 pm
you know that in todays date majority money spend on spacecraft are  on developing programs for spacecraft. You have requirement, than you write your plan how to achieve it, build program/spacecraft and start to test and modify. I know spacecraft takes more hours and more people, but principle is same. You are developing digital or physical product that is able to provide some service.

It's really not the same.  Physical testing is extremely expensive and often destructive.  Flight hardware is 3 to 5 times as expensive to produce as non-flight hardware, due to rigorous acceptance testing and traceability requirements.  As a result, the process is heavy on the plan and simulate phase, reserving tests for what can't be reliably simulated.  You make it sound like you start building hardware on a half-baked design.  That is lunacy.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 10/17/2014 08:50 pm
That is an obsolete approach. The power of modern computers makes it possible to identify and eliminate the  vast majority of those mistakes in a virtual realm rather than having them occur in reality after you've bent metal.  The computer modeling follows complex algorithms finds places where problems occur. These problems are eliminated and the design modified long before you manufacture anything. This does not mean every single problem is identified and eliminated, however most are. Risk is reduced by an order of magnitude or more. Physical testing still has to occur, but the long process of physical trial, error, modification, retrial, etc. is highly reduced.

You are absolutely right. In that brave new world of virtual testing such a dumb thing like a pressure vessel developing cracks on the first pressure test can never happen.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/17/2014 08:55 pm
Not really, because what NASA has required to this point is design, not fabrication. So from the specific technical and legal definitions, Boeing is ahead. Period. Not that Boeing was my choice, but from a technical standpoint, this is what is clear.

Unless NASA never requires hardware to be built, and the completion of CCtCAP is design, my point stands.  Just because NASA hasn't asked for hardware yet doesn't mean they aren't going to need it, obviously.  CCiCAP requirements for Boeing were quite different from SpaceX but the CCtCAP requirements are going to be much more similar, because the end result is the completed vehicle and operations.

SpaceX is clearly ahead.  That isn't to say Boeing can't catch up... now that they have a firm contract in hand including a guaranteed minimum number of flights I expect they will be more serious in spending the money required to complete the project.

To be clear... SpaceX is behind in CCiCAP.  SpaceX is ahead in the race to get a crew vehicle to space first.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 08:55 pm
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:

Lack of progress???  Boeing completed CDR, something neither SpaceX nor Sierra Nevada have done!  Their design is further along than either of their competitors -- SpaceX by a few months but Sierra Nevada by a few years.

So, Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of having their design reviewed and approved by NASA (they are done), but behind in building and integrating the hardware.  SpaceX is ahead of Boeing in terms of actually building their design, but behind in terms of having it reviewed and approved by NASA.

SpaceX is therefore ahead of Boeing in terms of the goal of getting their hardware into space on a test flight first, with the notable caveat that if NASA finds something in CDR that they don't like, it could potentially cause rework of already completed hardware that could set SpaceX back as compared to Boeing.

SpaceX is choosing the riskier approach of proceeding further with hardware implementation before CDR is complete.  It will pay off if they come out of CDR relatively clean.

Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong here.  I think this is why we keep having the "Boeing is ahead" vs. "SpaceX is ahead" debate; because both are right and wrong.
yes I think you clarify it

He is incorrect. No production has been required, only design. Boeing is ahead.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 08:57 pm
It is better to build test modify and test again.

That is opinion, not fact, and while it is applicable in some cases, it certainly isn't appropriate for all.
In my world of IT, CDR approach in complicated project took at least 3 times more time and resources(In simple one 10 times and more). It is important that your initial design is flexible. By testing and modifying to you can achieve result in surprisingly short time. Because real  test is best CDR.

In the expensive world of aeronautical research and development, the best test is extensive computer modeling before you begin building anything.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 10/17/2014 09:00 pm
That is an obsolete approach. The power of modern computers makes it possible to identify and eliminate the  vast majority of those mistakes in a virtual realm rather than having them occur in reality after you've bent metal.  The computer modeling follows complex algorithms finds places where problems occur. These problems are eliminated and the design modified long before you manufacture anything. This does not mean every single problem is identified and eliminated, however most are. Risk is reduced by an order of magnitude or more. Physical testing still has to occur, but the long process of physical trial, error, modification, retrial, etc. is highly reduced.

You are absolutely right. In that brave new world of virtual testing such a dumb thing like a pressure vessel developing cracks on the first pressure test can never happen.

Assuming the computer model is accurate and there is no guarantee of that. You still will have surprises during physical testing. It won't happen as often as it did in the old days, but it will happen.

Never say never.  :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/17/2014 09:02 pm
For those who have played Mario Kart 64, this quibbling over who is ahead reminds me of the Yoshi Valley level. (http://www.mariowiki.com/Yoshi_Valley) 

(http://www.mariowiki.com/images/thumb/9/92/Yoshi_Valley_%28arieal%29.jpg/235px-Yoshi_Valley_%28arieal%29.jpg)

There are multiple paths to the same goal, each fraught with its own risks.  It is next to impossible to tell who is ahead unless everyone is on the same track.  We'll know for sure who is ahead when the first crew members fly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 09:02 pm
That is an obsolete approach. The power of modern computers makes it possible to identify and eliminate the  vast majority of those mistakes in a virtual realm rather than having them occur in reality after you've bent metal.  The computer modeling follows complex algorithms finds places where problems occur. These problems are eliminated and the design modified long before you manufacture anything. This does not mean every single problem is identified and eliminated, however most are. Risk is reduced by an order of magnitude or more. Physical testing still has to occur, but the long process of physical trial, error, modification, retrial, etc. is highly reduced.

You are absolutely right. In that brave new world of virtual testing such a dumb thing like a pressure vessel developing cracks on the first pressure test can never happen.

As I said, you still have to test, and problems will be found, but the amount of refinement is reduced. There is a distinction.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: zodiacchris on 10/17/2014 09:14 pm
Yawn! Let's just wait and see... ::)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 09:30 pm
That is an obsolete approach. The power of modern computers makes it possible to identify and eliminate the  vast majority of those mistakes in a virtual realm rather than having them occur in reality after you've bent metal.  The computer modeling follows complex algorithms finds places where problems occur. These problems are eliminated and the design modified long before you manufacture anything. This does not mean every single problem is identified and eliminated, however most are. Risk is reduced by an order of magnitude or more. Physical testing still has to occur, but the long process of physical trial, error, modification, retrial, etc. is highly reduced.

You are absolutely right. In that brave new world of virtual testing such a dumb thing like a pressure vessel developing cracks on the first pressure test can never happen.

Assuming the computer model is accurate and there is no guarantee of that. You still will have surprises during physical testing. It won't happen as often as it did in the old days, but it will happen.

Never say never.  :)

guckyfan was being sarcastic (or at best facetious) by making reference to the Orion pressure test vessel. He is saying you can't depend upon computer modeling. You and I are in agreement; modeling reduces the risk, but you still have to test because there will still be some surprises. The salient point here is that NASA had not yet required any physical testing, only design. Based on that criteria, Boeing is ahead in their milestones.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/17/2014 09:31 pm
SpaceX is on the verge of completing its CDR. I suspect that they will be done by the time CCtCap actually starts (when the protest is over).

We can hope.  Last word appears to be from a  NASA press release (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20140821.html) 21-Aug:
Quote
SpaceX will conduct a critical design review of its ground systems and mission and crew operations plans toward the end of August as it advances Dragon V2 through development. The company also is coming up on the primary structure qualification for the Dragon V2, which is a more advanced version of the cargo-only spacecraft SpaceX uses to transport supplies to the International Space Station.

NB: Only the "ground systems and mission and crew operations plans" are mentioned; nothing about the spacecraft or launch vehicle.  That may simply be an innocent omission in the press release, but I doubt it; per the original CDR scope:
Quote from: SpaceX CCiCap SAA
This integrated CDR will cover spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations systems.

Also, in the original CCiCap schedule, both the pad abort test and the Dragon primary structure qualification milestones preceded CDR (which are now 9 and 10 months late respectively).  No idea if those are CDR prerequisites, but presumably they preceded CDR by 2-3 months for a reason.

In any case, I think it is premature to say that "SpaceX is on the verge of completing its CDR".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/17/2014 09:35 pm
For those who have played Mario Kart 64, this quibbling over who is ahead reminds me of the Yoshi Valley level. (http://www.mariowiki.com/Yoshi_Valley) 

(http://www.mariowiki.com/images/thumb/9/92/Yoshi_Valley_%28arieal%29.jpg/235px-Yoshi_Valley_%28arieal%29.jpg)

There are multiple paths to the same goal, each fraught with its own risks.  It is next to impossible to tell who is ahead unless everyone is on the same track.  We'll know for sure who is ahead when the first crew members fly.

The discussion regards who is ahead in terms of reaching NASA established milestones, and in this process there is only one path: the meeting of those milestones. I think members here want to see multiple paths, but NASA only sees the path that it established. That is the sourse of all the dissonance in this and related threads.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/17/2014 11:47 pm
The discussion regards who is ahead in terms of reaching NASA established milestones, and in this process there is only one path: the meeting of those milestones. I think members here want to see multiple paths, but NASA only sees the path that it established. That is the sourse of all the dissonance in this and related threads.

Only in the imaginary world where SpaceX and Boeing set the same milestones.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 12:25 am
When I develop my program, it is good to know what I am building, but it is better to develop basic program structure, that is flexible to change and then I test and modify and test until I am happy with result.

Then you should stay away from safety- or life-critical systems.  That is a very different world, where opportunities to iterate in the real world are limited, testing is not a sufficient defense, and mistakes can cause death, dismemberment and destruction.
I am calling you on this. Test is the ONLY true way you can determine unknown unknowns. A billion CDRs doesn't help you find unknown unknowns, just your known knows or perhaps known unknowns.

I don't buy that NASA's typical approach is the only way. A test-heavy approach is far superior, in my opinion, to a paper-heavy approach when it comes to safety. That's why airplanes don't fly passengers until they've flown dozens of times. Adding another layer of paper only makes it so it's too expensive to test and so have to fly with fewer tests.

NASA/Boeing had 2 fatal Shuttle failures. The traditional management largesse actually got in the way of identifying and fixing the problems beforehand that led to these fatalities. They knew about them well before but were too stiff to respond until it was too late.

So yeah, I don't buy the condescending attitude that NASA and Boeing have a monopoly on safety due to their management structure. I do buy that SpaceX has a huge advantage due to flying the main hardware successfully 6 times already.

Also, Boeing is much further away on a lot of key tests by their own choice. They set the bar quite low so they could hop over it. I'm not going to concede that they're thus somehow ahead in any real terms due to that technicality.

EDIT: If NASA/Boeing were better able to adapt and change post-design, they would've been able to save 14 astronauts' lives. Being adaptable is KEY to safety because, unlike the traditional management assumption, humans are fallible and the design as well, no matter how much preliminary work you do. Your best bet is to do a good job on initial design, prototype, test, then use that to inform final design and keep in place the flexibility to identify and adapt to near-misses as soon as they happen and before anyone dies.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/18/2014 12:52 am
Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?

A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.

No, that is very, very wrong.

The CDR is the Critical Design Review.  It is the second-most important milestone on an aerospace development program -- second only to first flight.

It means that the engineering is essentially done (usually defined as 90% release of the build-to packages).  To reach this point, it means the structural, system, and tooling design is essentially done.  It means the software has largely been written.  It means the manufacturing planning is nearly complete, and it means that purchase orders* for long-lead items have been placed.

Simply put, it is the gate between design and fabrication.  If you haven't passed CDR, you aren't in fabrication, you're still in design.  Boeing is done with design and starting fabrication.  SpaceX is almost done with design and about to start fabrication.  Sierra Nevada is still well within the design phase.

If it weren't for the protest, Boeing would likely be turning dirt at LC-41, installing production tooling in OPF-3, and fabricating parts for the structural test article by now.

And, oh, you're not doing any qualification or acceptance testing until after CDR.  (Qualified to what?  The design isn't done yet.)

* probably contingent in this case, as they hadn't won CCtCap yet.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/18/2014 01:08 am
Huh?  I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?

A CDR is a powerpoint, nothing more. You don't have to (necessarily) do dev testing, and you certainly don't QTP or ATP anything. QuantumG is totally right here.

No, that is very, very wrong.

The CDR is the Critical Design Review.  It is the second-most important milestone on an aerospace development program -- second only to first flight.
No, that is very, very wrong.

You realize the Falcon 9 + Dragon V2 stack is scheduled to fly early next year right?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 01:12 am
...and the Dragon/Falcon9 stack has had half a dozen orbital then reentry and recovery missions, too.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 10/18/2014 01:24 am
You realize the Falcon 9 + Dragon V2 stack is scheduled to fly early next year right?

No, not the full vehicle -- an engineering test article.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/18/2014 01:39 am
Then you should stay away from safety- or life-critical systems.  That is a very different world, where opportunities to iterate in the real world are limited, testing is not a sufficient defense, and mistakes can cause death, dismemberment and destruction.
I am calling you on this. Test is the ONLY true way you can determine unknown unknowns. A billion CDRs doesn't help you find unknown unknowns, just your known knows or perhaps known unknowns. ...
Getting OT but to clarify ...

Sorry if I was unclear.  I was not denigrating the importance of test nor did I intend to imply that testing is irrelevant, only that testing is an insufficient defense--or more properly much less of a defense in safety- and life-critical systems.  I did not state or mean to imply that NASA's or Boeing's traditional approach is the only way.

There is a balance between the two approaches (design-review-build-test-build-test vs, design-review-design-review-design-review-build-test).  However, as the risk and consequences of failure increase, so does the emphasis on verifying and validating requirements and design.  You see that tradeoff made every day in every engineering effort from household goods to automotive to aerospace to medical devices.

On a more personal level ... Try going to work every day thinking "If I make a mistake someone could die".  And if and someone dies, could I honestly say to the survivors or testify in court that I did everything in my power and used best practices to prevent that death?  Been there.  Done that.  Don't want to do it again.  Ever.*

So apologies if I react a bit harshly when someone asks "why isn't this development like the rest of IT (or whatever)?"  Maybe some can be as cold-hearted and calculating and would shrug off a bit of blood on their hands; me not so much.


* [sarcasm] May I interest you in our new radiotherapy treatment system that consigns patients to a gruesome death every once in a while?  We figured a few gruesome deaths is a small price to pay for accelerating time-to-market and bypassing all those costly and time-consuming reviews.  All for the greater good of course. [/sarcasm]

Edit/Lar: Softened. No name calling please.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/18/2014 01:54 am
In the expensive world of aeronautical research and development, the best test is extensive computer modeling before you begin building anything.

Worked great on Ares I.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 01:55 am
Joek: I would assert, in human spaceflight systems, that at the extreme, being able to test something 10,000 times (with lessons-learned fed into the design which is then tested thousands of more times) but having the design itself opaque to analysis beats a totally, endlessly reviewed something that has never been tested.

And yeah, Soyuz is a good example. Besides the first few early flights (test flights, or at least they should have been), there have been zero fatalities. I would trust Soyuz more than Shuttle or Orion even in spite of the truly scary state of Russian aerospace quality control. Test flights are more important than design review.

...which gets to one of Boeing's genuine strengths, here, over SpaceX: Atlas V's longer launch history. That means a lot more than a new launch vehicle with endless review (like SLS) but basically no track record, flying manned on the second flight. Sure, Falcon 9 is human rated from the start, but flight history is where it really counts (assuming you human rate both launch vehicles). That said, such an advantage will fade dramatically before the end of 2017. F9 may have 50 flights by then, compared to around 75 for Atlas V.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/18/2014 01:56 am
Who said it was a cake walk?

Chris, respectfully, you have said that all Boeing had produced was some Power Points and Word documents. Though you did not use the term specific term cake walk, what you did say implied that Boeing had not done serious or scholarly work.

I'm not Chris, Robotbeat is. Again, Powerpoint and Word documents can be plenty hard. People make a career out of it. What it isn't is integrated hardware, which various people keep trying to insist Boeing has, but can't show us any evidence.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 01:57 am
In the expensive world of aeronautical research and development, the best test is extensive computer modeling before you begin building anything.

Worked great on Ares I.
Yeah, that statement is a joke. Real world tests are vastly more valuable. Computer tests are just easier and cheaper, absolutely not better.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/18/2014 01:59 am
The only design review that matters is the one done by the physical world on a test article. The review phase could be just as blind as the design phase. Shuttle passed design reviews but didn't catch problems that only showed up during flight 25 and 113.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/18/2014 02:01 am
I'm not Chris, Robotbeat is. Again, Powerpoint and Word documents can be plenty hard. People make a career out of it. What it isn't is integrated hardware, which various people keep trying to insist Boeing has, but can't show us any evidence.
Nor does SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/18/2014 02:02 am
In any case, I think it is premature to say that "SpaceX is on the verge of completing its CDR".

The last SpaceX CDR milestone was scheduled for November last I checked. But even after they are completed, it takes a while for the announcement to be made. 

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/07/spacex-sets-dates-dragon-abort-tests/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 02:03 am
I'm not Chris, Robotbeat is. Again, Powerpoint and Word documents can be plenty hard. People make a career out of it. What it isn't is integrated hardware, which various people keep trying to insist Boeing has, but can't show us any evidence.
Nor does SpaceX.
Yeah, the Dragon 2 unveiling showed hardware integration, certainly more than Boeing has.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/18/2014 02:14 am
Yeah, the Dragon 2 unveiling showed hardware integration, certainly more than Boeing has.
It showed a spacecraft, not an integrated system.  If it showed an integrated system, presumably SpaceX would be past CDR by now.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/18/2014 02:35 am
Yeah, the Dragon 2 unveiling showed hardware integration, certainly more than Boeing has.
Don't play his goalpost moving game.

Who is moving goalpoasts?  Wasn't it you who said:
So, we again come back to the fact that everyone who is claiming Boeing has done more work than the other competitors has no way to prove their claims. As long as everyone agrees to this, I think we know how we should treat these claims.

So you take SpaceX's Dragon 2 unveil claims as proof that they have done "more work" as more credible than Boeing's claims?  Or what?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 10/18/2014 03:03 am
I don't hear anyone saying computer modeling identifies and eliminates all problems. Nor do I hear anyone saying that physical testing should not be done. What computer modeling does is eliminate a lot of the problems earlier, before you've invested even bigger bucks into bending metal. Boeing designed the 787 this way. Did that mean it didn't need to go through many months of test flights? No, not at all. Nevertheless, the plane did not have catastrophic failures which required going back to the drawing board and starting over. If you run trial and error, and keep finding errors after each redesign, you're really wasting serious time and money. The entire purpose is to expose as many potential problems as possible before you start bending metal, then hopefully discover a minimum of other problems while you perform rigorous physical testing. If engineers have done a good job with their modeling, there won't be nearly as much to redesign after you start physical tests.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 10/18/2014 03:14 am
Everyone does modeling before building. Boeing isn't unique. Anyone with a copy of Solidworks can do it. The big difference is SpceX is flying a nearly identical craft right now, literally, and has done so successful 5 other times. SpaceX is able to feed that insight into Dragon2. Also, Dragon2 already has lots of metal bent. Outer mold line is done for at least one of them and two pressure vessels are done (I believe). SpaceX can feed the results of that into their first manned flight, too. SpaceX will soon do two aborts, both of which will further refine Dragon 2. That all beats the crap out of computer simulations, ESPECIALLY Dragon's reentry data (which computers have a difficult time accurately predicting, at least compared to just regular old FEA stress tests and subsonic CFD). Yeah, SpaceX is way ahead on hardware.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/18/2014 01:10 pm
I have a friend who worked designing cruise missiles (for a group that is now part of Boeing).  He described CDRs in rather unflattering terms.  He said they spent months of preparation organizing serious and formal responses to all possible questions, even ones where the sensible engineering answer is "That's a silly hypothetical question".  Then, he said, the entire engineering staff was on 24 hour call during the entire CDR.  Then if someone asked any question during the CDR (the real life example he used is "That part's an odd shape.  How will you paint it?"), the presenter was instructed to say "I don't have that process document with me - I'll bring it tomorrow."  Then at the next break, he'd contact the engineering staff, who would work overnight, frantically writing document AA-XXXX-1234, Specification for the Painting of Widget X.   They would present it the next day as if they had simply dug it out of the archives.

He said that neither of the main CDR goals (Is the design sound?  Is it ready for fabrication?) was advanced by the CDR.  The first had been settled long ago, by informal meetings between the relevant technical experts.   It was unthinkable that anyone would advance to a CDR with any serious technical questions unanswered.  This left the second part, is it ready for fabrication?  But if the design is OK, then how to build the parts is the domain of the company, and outside reviewers add very little.

This guy had worked before on the commercial side of the company, where the question of "does it work" was dictated by reputation and legal concerns, and the question of "is it ready for production" was determined by the folks responsible for building each part.   When he switched to the military side of the house (not by choice, his commercial product got cancelled),  he started to have to run formal CDRs.  He felt the process sucked up an enormous amount of engineering time, to very little practical benefit. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 10/18/2014 03:14 pm
Having been through a lot of CDRs, both on the design teams and as a reviewer, I would absolutely reject the concept that they're not useful. In a perfect world, the CDR is where you certify that the design is complete and correct and you are ready to start cutting metal - but in reality, with concurrent engineering practices the wall between "design" and "fabrication" is largely broken down. There are long-lead components you have to start on well before CDR if you have a hope of making the launch on time. (Try calling a supplier and finding out the items you want have a 36-month delivery time!)

The other thing is that there is no such monolithic thing as "CDR". Every individual system usually has their own CDR, and in some organizations they have both "internal CDRs" and "external CDRs". There are "Mission System CDRs" and "Flight System CDRs" and "Program CDRs". It is absolutely true that the process is a major driver of personnel resources, and development can grind to a halt for months in preparation for the CDR cycle. (Although, if you really want to talk about major drain on resources, try going through the shuttle or station Payload Safety Review Panels - all four review cycles...)

There are some silly RIDs (my favorite was "The name of this program is stupid and you should change it", but that one wasn't even entered into the formal tracking system, it just gave us all a good laugh), but the worst CDRs I've ever been involved with were the ones where the organization wasn't ready, but the program schedule said this was when the CDR took place, and they held it anyway. That wastes everyone's time for a week and gives rise to the worst possible outcome, a "Delta CDR" where you spend another week doing it all over again. Bringing this back to Commercial Crew, NASA has a real fetish for meeting schedule, and I'm not surprised that Boeing met schedule because they live the classic flight culture, but I applaud SpaceX if they looked and said "We're not ready for CDR and we'll do it when we're ready." I think that's a lot more productive of everyone's time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/18/2014 04:43 pm
Apparently I missed the memo that SpaceX's Integrated CDR milestone 13 was split into two milestones before July, and then split again for total of four milestonesin late July.  From NASA Extends SpaceX CCiCap Award Period Into 2015, Splits Up Company's Critical Design Review Milestone (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=65123), AmericaSpace, July 30:
Quote
“NASA approved SpaceX’s request to split some content from its Integrated Critical Design Review (Milestone 13) to two, resulting in Milestone 13A and 13B,” said Kraft. “More recently, NASA approved SpaceX’s request to shift some content from Milestone 13A to two new milestones, Milestone 13C and 13D, along with commensurate funding. SpaceX has completed the newly formed Milestone 13A. Milestones 13B, 13C and 13D are planned for later this year.  None of the original milestone content was removed from the agreement, just shifted among the milestones, nor was any content added to the agreement.”
(There is an error in the article which shows milestone 13A as Dragon primary structure qualification test, which is milestone 12 and which as far as I can tell has not been completed.)

A good summary can be found at An Updated List of NASA's Commercial Crew Partner Milestones (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html) which shows:
M13A: Integrated Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review (complete)
M13B: Operations Critical Design Review
M13C: Crew Vehicle Technical Interchange Meetings
M13D: Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 10/18/2014 06:29 pm
I've been reluctant to wade into this because, as everyone knows, I have an opinion here, and a rather strong one at that, but on reading this thread I found a lot of less than excellentness... Posts calling others names. Posts warning against particular debate tactics. Posts cheering each other's post (that's what the like button is for).

I've edited a few. I removed a few. I may have shown my bias in not being evenhanded enough... take it up with Chris. But I'd like to see the excellentness level increased. And if we could all agree on a few things and/or agree to disagree without rehashing them in a stale manner, that would be great.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: dkovacic on 10/18/2014 07:58 pm
As has been said multiple times on here, dismissing CDR as "just a powerpoint" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how engineering design works.

To dumb it down somewhat, CDR is when the blueprints get approved.  Here are just a few examples of tricky design issues that have to be tackled to ...
Wow! This is one of the best posts I have read on NSF. And I have read a lot of them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/18/2014 10:44 pm
I have to wonder if the original COTS competition took place today under the CCtCAP model, whether SpaceX would have been awarded a contract to build a spacecraft at all.  The funding mechanism for CCtCAP maybe innovative, but all the award decisions have stifled any sort of innovation.

Unless you had a simple capsule and built a manned-capable spacecraft previously, a company was just not going to win. That was true for this round, and arguably it was true for CCiCAP (only a last minute "half-award" saved DC then) It is rather sad, wasn't commercial crew supposed to stimulate the commercial space market?

Sierra Nevada has built spacecraft for 50 years, they integrate defense aircraft that support our troops, they were arguably the most innovative business case with agreements with other space agencies but they lost because they werent Boeing or SpaceX. I see now why the "big guys" were excluded from COTS, they stifle any sort of innovation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/19/2014 12:57 am
If there wasn't the Russian situation, and if all partners had agreed to extend the station to 2024, at least, then SNC might have had a chance. NASA is in a hurry, and they are the least likely to finish on time. And FFP makes sure that everybody finishes on price.
COTS had a lot of more margin, and it was a kind of experiment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/19/2014 01:17 am
Sierra Nevada has built spacecraft for 50 years, they integrate defense aircraft that support our troops, they were arguably the most innovative business case with agreements with other space agencies but they lost because they werent Boeing or SpaceX.

If the internal info on CCtCap that is being quoted in the press is true, then it likely that it wasn't that SNC was being too innovative, but had not eliminated enough unknowns on the Dream Chaser to be worth the risk for NASA.

Remember the #1 goal for NASA is that whoever is bidding has to have a realistic chance of being ready by 2017.  It appears that NASA was not confident enough that SNC would be ready with Dream Chaser, and decided to go with the two most qualified bidders - both of whom they felt had realistic chances of being ready by 2017.

And if that is the reason, then SNC will have no chance in their protest, because NASA will be able to show reasonable justification for why they didn't think SNC was qualified for an award.  It makes me sad, since I wanted Dream Chaser to get an award...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/19/2014 02:16 am
Any news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx (http://tiny.cc/7fgynx).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 10/19/2014 02:28 am
Any news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx (http://tiny.cc/7fgynx).

From http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/snc-v-nasa-boeing-and-spacex-alllowed-to-intervene-next-hearing-date-set

"Today, Judge Marian Blank Horn granted motions from Boeing and SpaceX to "intervene" in the case and ordered that they file their submissions by Monday, October 20, at noon.  The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, at 2:30 pm ET."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/19/2014 02:30 am
Any news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx (http://tiny.cc/7fgynx).

From http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/snc-v-nasa-boeing-and-spacex-alllowed-to-intervene-next-hearing-date-set

"Today, Judge Marian Blank Horn granted motions from Boeing and SpaceX to "intervene" in the case and ordered that they file their submissions by Monday, October 20, at noon.  The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, at 2:30 pm ET.".

Thanks. Obviously, the judge won't issue a ruling without hearing countervailing testimony. What I'm curious about is why he allowed Boeing and SpaceX to jump in. SNC's request was for an injunction to force NASA to reinstate its stop-work order. I should think that only NASA would have standing, no?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 10/19/2014 02:40 am
Any news on what transpired in the Court of Federal Claims yesterday in SNC's attempt to block NASA's resume work order? See http://tiny.cc/7fgynx (http://tiny.cc/7fgynx).

From http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/snc-v-nasa-boeing-and-spacex-alllowed-to-intervene-next-hearing-date-set

"Today, Judge Marian Blank Horn granted motions from Boeing and SpaceX to "intervene" in the case and ordered that they file their submissions by Monday, October 20, at noon.  The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21, at 2:30 pm ET.".

Thanks. Obviously, the judge won't issue a ruling without hearing countervailing testimony. What I'm curious about is why he allowed Boeing and SpaceX to jump in. SNC's request was for an injunction to force NASA to reinstate its stop-work order. I should think that only NASA would have standing, no?


Take a look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

Edit: GO Big Red !!!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/19/2014 02:47 am
Apparently I missed the memo that SpaceX's Integrated CDR milestone 13 was split into two milestones before July, and then split again for total of four milestonesin late July.  From NASA Extends SpaceX CCiCap Award Period Into 2015, Splits Up Company's Critical Design Review Milestone (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=65123), AmericaSpace, July 30:
Quote
“NASA approved SpaceX’s request to split some content from its Integrated Critical Design Review (Milestone 13) to two, resulting in Milestone 13A and 13B,” said Kraft. “More recently, NASA approved SpaceX’s request to shift some content from Milestone 13A to two new milestones, Milestone 13C and 13D, along with commensurate funding. SpaceX has completed the newly formed Milestone 13A. Milestones 13B, 13C and 13D are planned for later this year.  None of the original milestone content was removed from the agreement, just shifted among the milestones, nor was any content added to the agreement.”
(There is an error in the article which shows milestone 13A as Dragon primary structure qualification test, which is milestone 12 and which as far as I can tell has not been completed.)

A good summary can be found at An Updated List of NASA's Commercial Crew Partner Milestones (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html) which shows:
M13A: Integrated Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review (complete)
M13B: Operations Critical Design Review
M13C: Crew Vehicle Technical Interchange Meetings
M13D: Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review

See also this link:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/12/spacex-commercial-crew-status-july-2014/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 10/19/2014 02:51 am
Take a look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24

(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:

(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or

(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.

Yep. That would explain it! Thanks!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/21/2014 08:46 am

Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Gov't req1:Despite SpaceX dev. lead, 2 fly 'NASA cert. vehicle' w/crew by 2017 must start CCtCap all-out now incl. much discussion w/Agency.

Gov't req 2: So if SpaceX requires all-out to have crewed "NASA certification flight" by 2017, how can Boeing do it given its hardware lag?

Gov't req'ts make 2017 a challenge;Cong. likely 2 underfund,force slip;Gerst. freaks re dubious 'risk' w/SNC's lower bid than Boeing. Sense?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/22/2014 12:48 am
Sierra Nevada has built spacecraft for 50 years, they integrate defense aircraft that support our troops, they were arguably the most innovative business case with agreements with other space agencies but they lost because they werent Boeing or SpaceX.

If the internal info on CCtCap that is being quoted in the press is true, then it likely that it wasn't that SNC was being too innovative, but had not eliminated enough unknowns on the Dream Chaser to be worth the risk for NASA.

Remember the #1 goal for NASA is that whoever is bidding has to have a realistic chance of being ready by 2017.  It appears that NASA was not confident enough that SNC would be ready with Dream Chaser, and decided to go with the two most qualified bidders - both of whom they felt had realistic chances of being ready by 2017.

And if that is the reason, then SNC will have no chance in their protest, because NASA will be able to show reasonable justification for why they didn't think SNC was qualified for an award.  It makes me sad, since I wanted Dream Chaser to get an award...

I think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.
But the poor performance on SS2 may have been a seen as a negative for the hybrid rockets on DC.

Though DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2's motor may not have been directly applicable.
In retrospect maybe they should have stuck with a more conventional hypergolic liquid abort engines as they would have been perceived as lower risk.

As for Boeing being able to be ready faster in theory yes since it is a much simpler vehicle but Boeing has a bad track record of making on time deliveries.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/22/2014 12:51 am
I think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.

No. Dreamchaser doesn't have the lower vibration requirements of SS2.

Quote from: Patchouli
DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.

Yep.

SNC offered to do a liquid system because NASA kept harping on about the hybrid motors. They don't have any problems with them.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 10/22/2014 12:36 pm
New (old) troubles for Boeing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.html
After the McDonnel Douglas deal they have lost the engineering touch; really curious to see how this will evolve.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/22/2014 01:55 pm
New (old) troubles for Boeing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-20/boeing-seeks-revised-schedule-for-u-s-aerial-tanker.html
After the McDonnel Douglas deal they have lost the engineering touch; really curious to see how this will evolve.

From the article:

Quote
The Air Force and the U.S. Government Accountability Office have praised Boeing’s progress on the $51 billion program to build 179 of the planes, which is based on the company’s 767 jetliner and designated the KC-46. However, the service estimates that Boeing will have to absorb $1 billion in costs for exceeding a $4.9 billion ceiling to develop the first four planes.

I don't know how this contract compares with CCtCAP, but this is a good example of the contractor not being able to just up the price on the contract if it missed its estimates.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 10/22/2014 02:05 pm
I think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.

No. Dreamchaser doesn't have the lower vibration requirements of SS2.

Quote from: Patchouli
DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.

Yep.

SNC offered to do a liquid system because NASA kept harping on about the hybrid motors. They don't have any problems with them.

So that whole situation at Scaled Composites had nothing to do with SNC's decission to change from the Hybrids?  I was under the understanding that was primary reason that they changed to liquid fueled from the hybrids.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 10/22/2014 02:38 pm
I think they were hoping the engine on SS2 would act as a test mule for the abort engines on Dream Chaser.

No. Dreamchaser doesn't have the lower vibration requirements of SS2.

Quote from: Patchouli
DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.

Yep.

SNC offered to do a liquid system because NASA kept harping on about the hybrid motors. They don't have any problems with them.

This is nonsense, the decision had nothing to do with NASA - it was an internal change.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 03:27 pm
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/22/2014 04:47 pm
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RanulfC on 10/22/2014 05:16 pm
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/

Yes but wasn't that AFTER everything was already submitted for consideration?

RAndy
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 07:38 pm
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/
I don't have time to look it up right now, but an SNC representative claimed that wasn't true recently.  Maybe someone else can link it?  I'll dig it up later if nobody else does.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/22/2014 07:43 pm
As I recall, their comment appeared very carefully couched: "We did not announce that."  Neither a confirmation nor a denial.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/22/2014 08:01 pm
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/

Actually, SNC is still making trade studies about the DC engines. Sirangelo refuted (in an interview with AmericaSpace) what was said by Kathy Lueders. No final decision has yet been announced.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/22/2014 10:55 pm
If SNC is uncertain about DC's engines can we really be surprised if NASA was concerned about a schedule slip? 

Not to mention the problems VG has had with SNC built hybrids. The NASA people weren't locked in a vault.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/22/2014 10:58 pm
If SNC is uncertain about DC's engines can we really be surprised if NASA was concerned about a schedule slip? 

Investigating alternatives isn't being "uncertain".

Quote from: docmordrid
Not to mention the problems VG has had with SNC built hybrids. The NASA people weren't locked in a vault.

They're completely different motors.. and completely different vehicles.. for completely different purposes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/22/2014 11:05 pm
If SNC is uncertain about DC's engines can we really be surprised if NASA was concerned about a schedule slip? 

Investigating alternatives isn't being "uncertain".-

Optics. A political term, but politics intrudes everywhere these days.

Quote
Quote from: docmordrid
Not to mention the problems VG has had with SNC built hybrids. The NASA people weren't locked in a vault.

They're completely different motors.. and completely different vehicles.. for completely different purposes.

And likely made using similar processes, and by the same division.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 10/22/2014 11:20 pm
Here it is:
Mark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview.
 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66192

 “We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”

“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”

“There is no schedule change related to engines.”

So the DC is staying with it's existing hybrid engines for the first orbital version at least.
There's some more discussion in that topic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 10/22/2014 11:31 pm
The reason SNC has no trouble with their hybrids is that they designed their vehicle around their engines.. as any sensible vehicle engineer would do.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 10/23/2014 12:07 am
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/)

Actually, SNC is still making trade studies about the DC engines. Sirangelo refuted (in an interview with AmericaSpace) what was said by Kathy Lueders. No final decision has yet been announced.   

The decision has been documented. That's all I can say.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/23/2014 02:55 am
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser.  They just started studying the option.

That is not correct.
A liquid engine has been baselined for DreamChaser. The Hybrid motor has been abandoned.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/ (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/)

Actually, SNC is still making trade studies about the DC engines. Sirangelo refuted (in an interview with AmericaSpace) what was said by Kathy Lueders. No final decision has yet been announced.   

The decision has been documented. That's all I can say.

I went to the Orbitec web site and found this .

http://www.orbitec.com/propulsion.html

"ORBITEC is also applying the coaxial vortex flow field to hybrid rocket engine systems that produce fuel regression rates significantly higher than conventional hybrid configurations. This increase in fuel regression rate enables the use of a simple circular grain port and leads to significant gains in performance, reliability, and durability of hybrid systems."

It seems they're considering on moving to a simpler round fuel grain port vs a star or rod and tube as Orbitec's votrex flow allows this change.

This should help with combustion instabilities.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 10/28/2014 01:14 am
Space News has an article with additional details on the contract decision I've not seen elsewhere and also on the apparent stand off between NASA and congress.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42324house-republicans-clamor-for-commercial-crew-source-selection-document

This is certainly not where I expected Commercial Crew to be at this point.  The more I think about it, the more I think the disparity in the contract amounts ($2 billion!), whatever the technical merits of CST-100, is a potentially big public relations problem for NASA.  I hope all this ends well but I'm getting very concerned.  A storm seems to be brewing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/28/2014 01:41 am
Here is an extract from the article, this states that SNC have still not finalized the main propulsion engines. That is definitely a big cross against them in regards to the selection.


http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=a7e5ffb24b9e84f4f4f6bbd88aa4e5b8&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spacenews.com%2Farticle%2Fcivil-space%2F42324house-republicans-clamor-for-commercial-crew-source-selection-document&subId=9e0e40a51b6ed794dbcfbd46410ba102

Gerstenmaier said he was troubled by “a critical design decision yet to be made regarding different main propulsion systems” for Dream Chaser, which resembles a mini space shuttle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/28/2014 02:11 am
It was a little late in the game for a propulsion change.  Pretty remarkable how DC went from hybrid-palooza to no hybrids at all!

(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8335/dn8335-1_488.jpg)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 10/28/2014 04:25 am
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.

This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/28/2014 07:48 am
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.

This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.
Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.
WARNING: the next few sentences are pure and utter speculation: IF a single person was capable of over-riding the evaluation board it would largely invalidate the usefullness of having an evaluation board. The general purpose of having an evaluation board is to come to a well-considered and weighed conclusion (with regards to the evaluation), a concensus if you will. Having that concensus shoved aside by a single person would indeed not look to well in the court of public opinion. And I suspect it would not look too well in US Congress either.
So I really hope the SpaceNews article has it's facts wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/28/2014 09:24 am
Space News has an article with additional details on the contract decision I've not seen elsewhere and also on the apparent stand off between NASA and congress.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42324house-republicans-clamor-for-commercial-crew-source-selection-document

This is certainly not where I expected Commercial Crew to be at this point.  The more I think about it, the more I think the disparity in the contract amounts ($2 billion!), whatever the technical merits of CST-100, is a potentially big public relations problem for NASA.  I hope all this ends well but I'm getting very concerned.  A storm seems to be brewing.

Congress can ask NASA what is so urgent about Commercial Crew that it cannot wait a 100 days?
The answer is likely to be politically embarrassing so I suggest that they wait until after the election in case they are one of the politicians being protected.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/28/2014 02:15 pm
Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.
WARNING: the next few sentences are pure and utter speculation: IF a single person was capable of over-riding the evaluation board it would largely invalidate the usefullness of having an evaluation board. The general purpose of having an evaluation board is to come to a well-considered and weighed conclusion (with regards to the evaluation), a concensus if you will. Having that concensus shoved aside by a single person would indeed not look to well in the court of public opinion. And I suspect it would not look too well in US Congress either.

It all depends. If the margins of selection was very thin, a very small criteria difference would be well within the rights (and duties) of the Selection Officer. In fact, that's why there's one. If the technical committee had the final weights and criteria, then  there would be no point in having a second stage of selecting officer.
I've got no reason to consider any sort of illegal bias nor wrong doing from Gerst. He did stated a certain difference of criteria on very few points (and it happened across the board), but the structure of ratings was such that I simply don't see an actual impact (sorry, can't go into specifics). The only point that I think could be argued (and still think it is baseless), is one technicality regarding the rating system. When the Source Selection Document is released to the general public, we can go into specifics.
Meanwhile, there's no lobby hand, nor a secret agenda. It might have come down to different set of  criteria.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/28/2014 03:10 pm
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.

This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.
Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.
Not at all.  The top administrator's job is to make the big decisions on spending, risk vs reward, and so on.  But he or she does not have the time (even if they have the expertise) to delve into each designs technical and financial details.  So the evaluation board does that - they visit the vendors, look at the designs in detail, check the financials and proposed schedules, and so on.  Then they report their data to the administrator, who uses it to make a final decision, which may or may not agree with the board.

Lots and lots of processes work this way.  The referees review papers, but the editor decides.  The decadal review has the scientist's preferences, but the funding agencies decide.  Cabinet officers express their views, but the president can decide otherwise.  In most cases it's a sensible division of labor, since neither the technical experts or the administrators have the time (and often the ability) to do the other's job well.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 10/28/2014 06:41 pm
Thread trimmed due to off topic post surrounding an idiot's comment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 10/29/2014 01:57 pm
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.

This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.
Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.
Not at all.  The top administrator's job is to make the big decisions on spending, risk vs reward, and so on.  But he or she does not have the time (even if they have the expertise) to delve into each designs technical and financial details.  So the evaluation board does that - they visit the vendors, look at the designs in detail, check the financials and proposed schedules, and so on.  Then they report their data to the administrator, who uses it to make a final decision, which may or may not agree with the board.

Lots and lots of processes work this way.  The referees review papers, but the editor decides.  The decadal review has the scientist's preferences, but the funding agencies decide.  Cabinet officers express their views, but the president can decide otherwise.  In most cases it's a sensible division of labor, since neither the technical experts or the administrators have the time (and often the ability) to do the other's job well.

Yes and NASA works this way as well. Programs undergo PDR, CDR, and the Brass makes the KDP choices based on the results of those reviews. This is no different. It is Gerst's job to review the data and make the final call.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/29/2014 05:24 pm
If anything last night's Antares problem  should teach the Congresscritters that redundancy is good - we need more than one provider for launch, cargo and crew. Not saying it will, they're a rather dense lot, but still.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/29/2014 08:05 pm
It was a little late in the game for a propulsion change.  Pretty remarkable how DC went from hybrid-palooza to no hybrids at all!

(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8335/dn8335-1_488.jpg)

I wonder how hard that would have been to tame and how cost effective it would have been?

I also wonder will the OSC incident cause a reevaluation of the commercial crew?

The full size DC can do much of Cygnus's or Dragon's cargo duties if one gets grounded since it has a similar capacity.
While the CST-100 has a much smaller cargo capacity then either vehicle.

If I was in NASA's place I would be reconsidering the commercial crew decision based on that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 08:50 pm

1.  I wonder how hard that would have been to tame and how cost effective it would have been?

2.  I also wonder will the OSC incident cause a reevaluation of the commercial crew?

3.  The full size DC can do much of Cygnus's or Dragon's cargo duties if one gets grounded since it has a similar capacity.
While the CST-100 has a much smaller cargo capacity then either vehicle.


Wrong take away.

1.  It is a cluster

2.  No,

3.  Wrong.  CST-100 can carry as much.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/29/2014 09:11 pm
To expand on Jim's reply -- DC and CST both use docking tunnels, which can't accommodate the large, bulky cargo that the CBM allows. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 10/29/2014 10:16 pm
Plus, no CCiCap competitor offered more than 16m³ of volume. Enhanced Cygnus (the 3-segment pressurized module version that would fly from CRS-4 onwards), is 26m³, and the proposed "SuperCygnus" version (with 4 segment pressurized module) would have 33.5m³. Of course either Atlas V 501, Delta IV M+(5,2) or even Falcon 9 v1.1 could fit within existing fairing and with a lot of mass margin. They could take up to 4 tonnes of cargo per trip with that configuration. With that they could cover their CRS1 contract in just five launches. The nice thing of flying Cygnus on Atlas V is that ISS would be fully redundant on crew and cargo but still get a nice level of orders for each system. I guess it would require 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 Crew Dragon, 2 Cygnus and 1 CST-100. That's 4 x Falcon 9 per year and 3 x Atlas V. They could get a nice discount on that. Specially since its contracted through commercial means and thus SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing will fight for the best price.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/29/2014 10:24 pm
To expand on Jim's reply -- DC and CST both use docking tunnels, which can't accommodate the large, bulky cargo that the CBM allows. 

Most of the CRS cargo can fit through docking tunnels
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 10/29/2014 10:42 pm

3.  Wrong.  CST-100 can carry as much.

It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

DreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/30/2014 12:15 am
It was a little late in the game for a propulsion change.  Pretty remarkable how DC went from hybrid-palooza to no hybrids at all!

(http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8335/dn8335-1_488.jpg)


 I also wonder will the OSC incident cause a reevaluation of the commercial crew?

The full size DC can do much of Cygnus's or Dragon's cargo duties if one gets grounded since it has a similar capacity.
While the CST-100 has a much smaller cargo capacity then either vehicle.



Absolutely it will.  I anticipate both Boeing and SpaceX will be pushed harder on many areas.  And not just because of whatever the investigation shows (e.g., maybe cost cutting profit making companies do cut corners, or NASA oversight was as good as now it should be [not saying either is true, but these are the reactions people will have]) but also because people will be extra paranoid they are missing something.  At a min it will probably slow things down because the CCP will be trying all the harder to not let the same thing happen. 

As to DC - I would only caution you to be careful quoting numbers from a system that didn't make it as mature as CDR.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 10/30/2014 12:17 am
Plus, no CCiCap competitor offered more than 16m³ of volume. Enhanced Cygnus (the 3-segment pressurized module version that would fly from CRS-4 onwards), is 26m³, and the proposed "SuperCygnus" version (with 4 segment pressurized module) would have 33.5m³. Of course either Atlas V 501, Delta IV M+(5,2) or even Falcon 9 v1.1 could fit within existing fairing and with a lot of mass margin. They could take up to 4 tonnes of cargo per trip with that configuration. With that they could cover their CRS1 contract in just five launches. The nice thing of flying Cygnus on Atlas V is that ISS would be fully redundant on crew and cargo but still get a nice level of orders for each system. I guess it would require 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 Crew Dragon, 2 Cygnus and 1 CST-100. That's 4 x Falcon 9 per year and 3 x Atlas V. They could get a nice discount on that. Specially since its contracted through commercial means and thus SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing will fight for the best price.

it is totally invalid to compare iCAp proposals - designed and optimized for humans - to what these companies may be proposing for CRS2, and especially something for something that is evolving itself (CRS-4).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 01:17 am

1.  It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

2.  The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

3. vDreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.

1.  I find 2800kg
2.  Where are the volume numbers to back up the claim? OML is meaningless.  The CST-100 is wider than dragon.   I see 16-18 for CST-100
3.  Most not useable for cargo in the Dc

Another offhanded claim debunked.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 01:46 am

1.  It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

2.  The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

3. vDreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.

1.  I find 2800kg
2.  Where are the volume numbers to back up the claim? OML is meaningless.  The CST-100 is wider than dragon.   I see 16-18 for CST-100
3.  Most not useable for cargo in the Dc

Another offhanded claim debunked.

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.

2. My very rough "calculation" for CST-100 usable volume is 12.75m3, and that's probably generous. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1246468#msg1246468

3. Same place that had the 1200kg number for CST had something around 1300kg for DC. No clue on volume and don't care enough about DC to try and figure it out.

source on mass numbers: http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/30/2014 01:55 am
Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 10/30/2014 01:59 am

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 02:06 am

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Planetaryduality on 10/30/2014 04:25 am

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.

Would it not be possible to encapsulate the CST-100 cargo variant within the 5m fairing? CST at 4.56m should just barely fit.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/30/2014 08:42 am

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist (http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist)

Not kg but pounds Jim.
Quote from: Graig Mellow Air and Space Magazine
Its intended payload capacity is a mere 2,800 pounds,


Another offhanded claim debunked.
While not having your facts straight?  ::)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 10/30/2014 09:52 am
Must take screenshots. Jim may have been wrong about something.  :o
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 10/30/2014 05:08 pm

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.

Would it not be possible to encapsulate the CST-100 cargo variant within the 5m fairing? CST at 4.56m should just barely fit.

I think the thruster doghouses would interfere. The vehicle adapter vs. Centaur Forward Load Reactor would need to be figured out. At a certain point you're better off just starting from scratch. Or flying Cygnus on Atlas.

Point is, none of the crew vehicles can do what Cygnus does.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/30/2014 05:23 pm
Or flying Cygnus on Atlas.

Point is, none of the crew vehicles can do what Cygnus does.

Boeing will offer a cargo version of its CST-100 on an Atlas V for CRS2. Orbital will offer its Cygnus on its new Antares rocket. No one will offer Cygnus on an Atlas V as an option.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/31/2014 11:33 pm
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.
This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.

The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) evaluates; the Source Selection Authority (SSA) decides.  The SEB does not make comparative judgements or recommend awards.  The substantive overlap between the SEB and the SSA are those discimnators which the SEB feels are important, for which it is left to the SSA to decide.  The importance or weight of those discrimators as articulated by the SEB are intentionally left to the judgement of the SSA; specifically (emphasis added):
Quote from: NASA Source Selection Guide
Source selection decisions (SSD) made by the Source Selection Authority must be a comparative assessment of proposals based upon the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and represent the independent judgment of the SSA. The SEB helps the SSA make the selection by identifying significant discriminators in each of the proposals resulting from its evaluation and explaining the significance of those discriminators. The SEB performs its duties without comparing proposals. It is the responsibility of the SSA to compare proposals using the findings made by the SEB. The SSA exercises independent judgment when determining how these discriminators factor into the selection decision. Since the findings of the SEB are part of the record, the SSA should return the evaluation to the SEB for its further consideration if the SSA believes the SEB’s findings are flawed.

If the SSA (Gerst) felt the SEB's evaluation was incomplete or flawed, then he would have (or should have) returned to the SEB for clarification or reconsideration--and that would be part of the record.  If the SSA made a decision based on information other than that provided by the SEB, then that would be grounds for a challenge.  That the SSA weighed the discriminators differently than the SEB is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for a challenge.

In any case, the GAO protest override issued by NASA has little or no relationship to the award decision.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/01/2014 12:38 am
Most of the CRS cargo can fit through docking tunnels
That does not mean sufficient, which is the operative question.  Specifically, is it sufficient to meet NASA's requirements, as expressed in the CRS2 RFP?  If it does not meet those requirements, then the fact that it can "fit most" is of dubious relevance.

As to DC - I would only caution you to be careful quoting numbers from a system that didn't make it as mature as CDR.
Not to mention that DC cannot meet NASA's minimum requirements for cargo, unless one assumes a disposable DC or module attached to DC for pressurized or unpressurized disposal.

In any case, before we go more off-topic here, there is a thread specifically for these CRS2-related discussions at ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.0) thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 11/01/2014 01:59 am
If the SSA (Gerst) felt the SEB's evaluation was incomplete or flawed, then he would have (or should have) returned to the SEB for clarification or reconsideration--and that would be part of the record.

Thanks for this, and for your other clarifying remarks.

When you suggest this "would be part of the record" had it occurred, do you mean it would currently be public knowledge?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/01/2014 02:43 am
When you suggest this "would be part of the record" had it occurred, do you mean it would currently be public knowledge?
Not public knowledge, or likely to be made public.  It is part of the record NASA is required to maintain to support their actions (e.g., in cases such as this where the decision is subject to scrutiny by the GAO).  None of that record, other than the final source selection statement, is typically made public.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/02/2014 04:11 am
With all of the talk about the difference between the SEB and the SSA, all I can do is point out an historical reference.

When proposals were received for the Apollo CSM, the SEB of the time recommended the Martin Company.  They were told by NASA management (the equivalent of the SSA at that time) to rescore their evaluation giving a greater multiplier to anyone who had previously built experimental aircraft -- this was apparently done to increase North American Aviation's score.  The Martin Company *still* got the highest score and was recommended by the SEB.

The SSA then proceeded to override the SSB's scoring of the proposals and awarded the contract to North American.

This caused a fair little scandal after the Apollo 1 fire, and some of the people who were involved in overriding the SEB's recommendation went through a good, long time sitting on pretty hot seats.  But no one was fired for it.

So, yes, the SSA can and has overridden the recommendations of the SEB on a given contract award.  The SSA has the power and the authority to do so, if they think they're right.  But they also have to take the heat if they're wrong, or if the decision comes under scrutiny down the road due to "unforeseen circumstances"...

-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/02/2014 08:10 pm
With all of the talk about the difference between the SEB and the SSA, all I can do is point out an historical reference.

When proposals were received for the Apollo CSM, the SEB of the time recommended the Martin Company.  They were told by NASA management (the equivalent of the SSA at that time) to rescore their evaluation giving a greater multiplier to anyone who had previously built experimental aircraft -- this was apparently done to increase North American Aviation's score.  The Martin Company *still* got the highest score and was recommended by the SEB.

...

Much has changed between then and now.  The process, roles and responsibilities are much more structured.  The SSA cannot force the SEB to revise their results unless the SSA can show that the SEB did not perform their evaluation per the rules.  For the SSA to retroactively change the rules would be an obvious and egregious violation of the evaluation and selection process.  I seriously doubt Gerst would be dumb enough to think he could get away with that today.

If the SSA has a substantive disagreement with the SEB as to the importance of discriminators or the manner in which the SEB performed its evaluation, that would be documented and part of the record which the GAO will examine as part of the challenge.  In any case, the selection statement clearly points out where the SSA disagreed with the SEB on the importance of various discriminators.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 11/07/2014 04:01 am
I like to track the CCiCap milestones via NASA's Commercial Spaceflight - 60 Day Reports
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html#.VFwQAskhPph
but it is now 120 days. Does anyone know why the delay and when the next report will come out?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/17/2014 03:15 am
An update on CCiCap:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141114.html
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: fatjohn1408 on 11/20/2014 10:03 am
I was wondering if there are any actual contracts already online? A search on fbo.gov didn't help.

If not could someone at least give me a link to the exact figures of the awards all articles round off to the nearest 100 million.

Thanks a lot!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 12/02/2014 03:21 pm
seeing as Boeing have just completed the first milestone of their CCtCAP contract*, I'm re-asking fatjohn1408's question in the post above: have any contracts been published yet?

Also, has a list of milestones even been published yet?

* see here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1295208#msg1295208
and here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141201.html

edit: added links above
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/02/2014 04:11 pm
I don't think that the CCtCap contracts will be released until the SNC protest is over.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 12/03/2014 11:19 am
I don't think that the CCtCap contracts will be released until the SNC protest is over.
and yet they're allowed release info when CCtCap milestones are completed. Bizarre.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 01:22 am
Commercial crew will be getting $805M for FY 2015 and the Shelby language requiring certified cost and pricing for commercial crew and cargo is now gone. See this thread for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1300580#msg1300580
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/10/2014 04:09 am
How does the $805M compared to what was expected, what was requested, what is needed, and what was previously approved?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 04:14 am
The President requested $848M in his FY 2015 budget and commercial crew got $696M last year (in FY 2014). I suspect that it is enough but I don't know for sure.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 12/10/2014 03:12 pm
Great news. That number should be enough to sustain the path for 2017 for both providers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/17/2014 01:05 am
Great news. That number should be enough to sustain the path for 2017 for both providers.

I don't think that will be enough for two full providers...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 12/19/2014 03:51 am
Great news. That number should be enough to sustain the path for 2017 for both providers.

I don't think that will be enough for two full providers...
What makes you that? The $805M is just for this year. Boeing got awarded $4.2B and SpaceX 2.6B, but these figures include two flights each delivering astronauts to the ISS. So to figure out what portion is for development is a little murky. Assume about $150M/flight for SpaceX and $200M/flight for Boeing so that leaves $6.1B over 3 years or about $2B/year. So yeah, this year's budget is less than half that, but these projects tend to get more expensive as they become closer to reality. It seems pretty clear to me, now that the contracts have been awarded, that NASA is not going to down-select to one provider. I expect next year's budget to be $2B+.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: enkarha on 12/19/2014 10:05 am
The notional numbers in the President's budget requests top out at 872 million in 2016. This year's budget discussions will be interesting.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 12/19/2014 06:40 pm

SpaceX Completes First Commercial Crew Transportation Milestone
December 19, 2014

SpaceX Crew Dragon concept
An artist concept of SpaceX Crew Dragon approaching the Interantional Space Station.

NASA has approved the completion of SpaceX’s first milestone in the company’s path toward launching crews to the International Space Station (ISS) from U.S. soil under a Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract with the agency.

During the Certification Baseline Review, SpaceX described its current design baseline including how the company plans to manufacture its Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket, then launch, fly, land and recover the crew. The company also outlined how it will achieve NASA certification of its system to enable transport of crews to and from the space station.

“This milestone sets the pace for the rigorous work ahead as SpaceX meets the certification requirements outlined in our contract,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “It is very exciting to see SpaceX's proposed path to certification, including a flight test phase and completion of the system development.”

On Sept. 16, the agency unveiled its selection of SpaceX and Boeing to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their Crew Dragon and CST-100 spacecraft, respectively. These contracts will end the nation’s sole reliance on Russia and allow the station’s current crew of six to increase, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.

Under the CCtCap contracts, the companies will complete NASA certification of their human space transportation systems, including a crewed flight test with at least one NASA astronaut aboard, to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch from the United States, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, and validate its systems perform as expected.

Throughout the next few years, SpaceX will test its systems, materials and concept of operations to the limits to prove they are safe to transport astronauts to the station. Once certified, the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket will be processed and integrated inside a new hangar before being rolled out for launch. This will all take place at the historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Crew Dragon is expected to be able to dock to the station for up to 210 days and serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space.

“SpaceX designed the Dragon spacecraft with the ultimate goal of transporting people to space,” said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer.  “Successful completion of the Certification Baseline Review represents a critical step in that effort—we applaud our team’s hard work to date and look forward to helping NASA return the transport of U.S. astronauts to American soil.”

By expanding the station crew size and enabling private companies to handle launches to low-Earth orbit -- a region NASA has been visiting since 1962 -- the nation's space agency can focus on getting the most research and experience out of America's investment in ISS. NASA also can expand its focus to develop the Space Launch System and Orion capsule for missions in the proving ground of deep space beyond the moon to advance the skills and techniques that will enable humans to explore Mars.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/19/2014 07:14 pm
Link: http://www.nasa.gov/content/spacex-completes-first-commercial-crew-transportation-milestone/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/spacex-completes-first-commercial-crew-transportation-milestone/)

Nice development too: Boeing and SpaceX both completing their Certification Baseline Review for CCtCap within 3 weeks from each other.



SpaceX Completes First Commercial Crew Transportation Milestone
December 19, 2014

SpaceX Crew Dragon concept
An artist concept of SpaceX Crew Dragon approaching the Interantional Space Station.

NASA has approved the completion of SpaceX’s first milestone in the company’s path toward launching crews to the International Space Station (ISS) from U.S. soil under a Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract with the agency.

During the Certification Baseline Review, SpaceX described its current design baseline including how the company plans to manufacture its Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket, then launch, fly, land and recover the crew. The company also outlined how it will achieve NASA certification of its system to enable transport of crews to and from the space station.

“This milestone sets the pace for the rigorous work ahead as SpaceX meets the certification requirements outlined in our contract,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “It is very exciting to see SpaceX's proposed path to certification, including a flight test phase and completion of the system development.”

On Sept. 16, the agency unveiled its selection of SpaceX and Boeing to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their Crew Dragon and CST-100 spacecraft, respectively. These contracts will end the nation’s sole reliance on Russia and allow the station’s current crew of six to increase, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.

Under the CCtCap contracts, the companies will complete NASA certification of their human space transportation systems, including a crewed flight test with at least one NASA astronaut aboard, to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch from the United States, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, and validate its systems perform as expected.

Throughout the next few years, SpaceX will test its systems, materials and concept of operations to the limits to prove they are safe to transport astronauts to the station. Once certified, the Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket will be processed and integrated inside a new hangar before being rolled out for launch. This will all take place at the historic Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Crew Dragon is expected to be able to dock to the station for up to 210 days and serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space.

“SpaceX designed the Dragon spacecraft with the ultimate goal of transporting people to space,” said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer.  “Successful completion of the Certification Baseline Review represents a critical step in that effort—we applaud our team’s hard work to date and look forward to helping NASA return the transport of U.S. astronauts to American soil.”

By expanding the station crew size and enabling private companies to handle launches to low-Earth orbit -- a region NASA has been visiting since 1962 -- the nation's space agency can focus on getting the most research and experience out of America's investment in ISS. NASA also can expand its focus to develop the Space Launch System and Orion capsule for missions in the proving ground of deep space beyond the moon to advance the skills and techniques that will enable humans to explore Mars.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 12/20/2014 10:58 am
Oh! I love it. Some nice real competition of upmanship is exactly what I like to see.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/22/2014 06:44 pm
Some CCiCap and CCtCap news:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-commercial-crew-partners-complete-23-milestones-in-2014-look-ahead-to-2015

Quote
SpaceX performed two milestones, its Dragon Primary Structure Qualification and Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review, in November as part of its CCiCap agreement

Quote
In 2015, the company [SNC] will perform the second free-flight of its Dream Chaser test article at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center.

Quote
Blue Origin continued the development of its Space Vehicle spacecraft designed to carry people into low-Earth orbit. The company also continued work on its subscale propellant tank assembly through an unfunded Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) agreement with NASA, which was recently extended until April 2016.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/22/2014 07:20 pm
It's not entirely clear to me but I think that SpaceX has completed CDR with the completion of milestones 13D. Reisman had stated in a presentation that 13B had been completed and the November commercial crew update seems to imply that 13C has happened.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 01/05/2015 06:36 pm
From a tweet by James Dean (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/552142421979824128):
Quote
U.S. GAO has denied Sierra Nevada bid protest of NASA's Commercial Crew contract awards to Boeing, SpaceX.

Followed by (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/552142881314844672):
Quote
GAO "found no undue emphasis" on NASA’s consideration of proposed schedules or likelihood of meeting 2017 goal.

And one more (https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/552148079873646595) with link to the GAO statement:
Quote
Link to GAO statement on SNC bid protest: http://1.usa.gov/17drs5q .
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/05/2015 08:14 pm
NASA's reaction to the GAO's decision on the SNC protest:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html#.VKroLSvF-Ag

Quote
"The GAO has notified NASA that it has denied Sierra Nevada Corporation's protest of the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract awards. NASA is pleased the GAO's decision allows the agency to move forward and continue working with Boeing and SpaceX on the Launch America initiative that will enable safe and reliable crew transportation to and from the International Space Station on American spacecraft launched from the United States, ending the nation's sole reliance on Russia for such transportation. The case remains under the protective order and blackout until the GAO releases its decision."

Read the GAO's full statement on its ruling at:

http://www.gao.gov/press/pr_statement_sierra_nevada_bid_protest.htm
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 01/05/2015 08:25 pm
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?  And if not, why did we even waste taxpayer dollars funding the charade?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/05/2015 08:36 pm
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?  And if not, why did we even waste taxpayer dollars funding the charade?

The full decision by the GAO hasn't been released yet. So it's hard to criticize it without having read it. But I kind of agree with SNC that too much emphasis was put on the 2017 target date in the selection statement. SNC is behind because it received a half award for CCiCap and it seems that SNC lost out in CCtCap because it was behind Boeing and SpaceX (both of which received full awards under CCiCap).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 01/05/2015 08:49 pm
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?  And if not, why did we even waste taxpayer dollars funding the charade?

Did SNC ever stand a chance one it became apparent DC's prop system required a do-over? Straw, meet camel.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/05/2015 09:43 pm
SNC Press release on GAO decision:

http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=422 (http://www.sncspace.com/press_more_info.php?id=422)

From the press release (with my emphasis):
Quote
The company is privileged to have been part of NASA’s Commercial Space Program since its inception over 8 years ago. SNC remains fully committed to being a part of returning world-class human spaceflight and enhanced cargo capabilities to low-Earth orbit.

Does their use of the past tense indicate that they will not be going after the remaining milestones in the old contract, such as the next free flight?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mkent on 01/05/2015 10:27 pm
From the press release (with my emphasis):
Quote
The company is privileged to have been part of NASA’s Commercial Space Program since its inception over 8 years ago. SNC remains fully committed to being a part of returning world-class human spaceflight and enhanced cargo capabilities to low-Earth orbit.

Does their use of the past tense indicate that they will not be going after the remaining milestones in the old contract, such as the next free flight?

I think you're reading too much into it.  I think they're just saying that they are unlikely to move forward within the Commercial Crew program.

I see no reason why they wouldn't complete all the tasks that they are on-contract to do and collect the money for it.  There is only up-side to do that, no down-side.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/05/2015 10:37 pm
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?

If either Boeing or SpaceX had fumbled the ball, yes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/06/2015 01:32 am
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?  And if not, why did we even waste taxpayer dollars funding the charade?

SNC was always choice number 3.  But it wasn't a waste to fund them because choice number 1 or number 2 could have faltered and SNC could have moved in to replace that contractor.

I see no reason why they wouldn't complete all the tasks that they are on-contract to do and collect the money for it.  There is only up-side to do that, no down-side.

There's a simple reason they might not: if the cost to them to complete the milestone is greater than the payment they would receive for it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 01/06/2015 05:38 am

SNC was always choice number 3.  But it wasn't a waste to fund them because choice number 1 or number 2 could have faltered and SNC could have moved in to replace that contractor.


Yep.  Like Kistler's contract going to Orbital after it failed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 01/08/2015 05:32 am
SpaceX passes CBR

Link.... (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/spacex-completes-first-milestone-for-commercial-crew-transportation-system/#.VK4fQSUo7qD)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/08/2015 06:08 am
SpaceX passes CBR

Link.... (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/spacex-completes-first-milestone-for-commercial-crew-transportation-system/#.VK4fQSUo7qD)

That's slightly old news and was reported in the appropriate SpaceX thread. Also of note: SpaceX did this within three weeks of Boeing doing exactly the same.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/08/2015 03:30 pm
That's slightly old news and was reported in the appropriate SpaceX thread. Also of note: SpaceX did this within three weeks of Boeing doing exactly the same.

I agree it is a bit old news, but are you saying that SpaceX passing the first CCtCAP milestone is not relevant in the Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) discussion thread?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/08/2015 03:47 pm
That's slightly old news and was reported in the appropriate SpaceX thread. Also of note: SpaceX did this within three weeks of Boeing doing exactly the same.

I agree it is a bit old news, but are you saying that SpaceX passing the first CCtCAP milestone is not relevant in the Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) discussion thread?
You do realize there are dedicated threads for both Dragon2 and CST-100? Most of the milestones are reported primarily in those dedicated threads.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/08/2015 03:59 pm
You do realize there are dedicated threads for both Dragon2 and CST-100? Most of the milestones are reported primarily in those dedicated threads.

Of course, but that doesn't make it not relevant here.  Thread overlap is a common thing.  But, I'm not going to bother arguing further about this, it seems we just don't agree.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2015 05:22 pm
SpaceX's redacted CCtCap contract has been released (but Boeing not yet). See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36899.0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: bulkmail on 03/05/2015 05:00 pm
Both SpaceX and Boeing CCtCap contracts are published (with blackout redactions):

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/03/03/cctcap-contracts-available-online/

At Parabolicarc they have extracted the milestones, but I'm unsure about what this forum policy about links to other sites is.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/05/2015 08:04 pm
At Parabolicarc they have extracted the milestones, but I'm unsure about what this forum policy about links to other sites is.

There's no problem. We do it all the time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ngilmore on 03/05/2015 08:17 pm
Well, apparently the redactions indicate order of magnitude.

 ;D
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/08/2015 01:48 pm
Well, apparently the redactions indicate order of magnitude.

 ;D

The lengths implies a figure value in the format of 9,999,999.00 but the second one is a possible no cost value in the form of 0.00.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/16/2015 10:23 pm
New commercial crew video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHODhOg6x0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/17/2015 06:51 am
New commercial crew video:
<skip>
New being a relative term here. Nothing that we had not already seen.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: okan170 on 05/03/2015 12:37 am
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/08/2015 02:17 pm
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)

Indeed! Another fantastic render okan!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 05/09/2015 10:22 am
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/09/2015 06:30 pm
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!

The similarity between Orion and the CST-100 is obvious, as they both use the Apollo CM outer mold line. If our cash-strapped agency is going to be developing three different spacecraft, there should be room to make one of them a lifting body reusable shuttle imo. I say cut the Orion/SLS pork that's eating through NASA's budget, adapt CST-100 and Dragon for beyond-LEO missions, and fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/09/2015 08:51 pm
Technically, all 3 of them have a lifting trajectory, not a ballistic one.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/09/2015 09:06 pm
fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.

Diversity has benefits and costs.  They already have diversity with CST-100 and Dragon 2.  There's far less benefit from adding a third option than from going from one to two options.  I can't see how the minor benefit of having a third vehicle for such a small number of missions could possibly be worth the enormous cost.

One of the main promises of Commercial Crew is cost savings.  Scale is one of the biggest drivers of cost savings, and the scale is terribly low even if just one provider had all the flights.  Splitting it among three is a huge blow to potential cost savings from commercial crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/09/2015 10:32 pm
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/09/2015 10:43 pm
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.

I agree with you there -- Orion and SLS are far worse than Dream Chaser.  I'd just rather spend that money on BEO infrastructure than Dream Chaser.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/09/2015 11:11 pm
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.

The Orion and SLS program where justifiable when first started.  Even three years ago could anyone seriously buy into the concept of putting faith into Elon Musk and SpaceX for the US BEO manned spaceflight program?  You have billions already spent on SLS and Orion and you expect NASA to ask to abandon these programs and re-direct funding to SpaceX? 

What you are seeing is a fundamental problem in how the US govt procures the development of multi-billion hardware from military fighters, submarines to space hardware.  The process is broken, it isn't that NASA is broken.     

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/10/2015 12:01 am
The Orion and SLS program where justifiable when first started.  Even three years ago could anyone seriously buy into the concept of putting faith into Elon Musk and SpaceX for the US BEO manned spaceflight program?

Three years ago there wasn't a funded BEO program, and there still isn't today.  So the SLS/Orion represent "excess capability".

Quote
You have billions already spent on SLS and Orion and you expect NASA to ask to abandon these programs and re-direct funding to SpaceX?

The U.S. Government doesn't have a funded BEO program, so they don't need any BEO hardware from anyone.  But when that day comes for non-NASA hardware, normally there would be a competition held to find the best solution & provider.  Maybe SpaceX would win, maybe not, but usually competition results in the best potential result.

However notice I said "normally", since the SLS and Orion were not the result of any competitive process, either for the solution or the provider.  Which is part of the reason they don't perfectly match any known need.

Quote
What you are seeing is a fundamental problem in how the US govt procures the development of multi-billion hardware from military fighters, submarines to space hardware.  The process is broken, it isn't that NASA is broken.   

You are comparing apples & oranges.

The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.

The SLS and Orion were not competitively procured, they were specified by Congress.  So what they represent is how the political process screws things up, not that government procurement per se is broken.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/10/2015 12:47 am
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.
The truth is that the requirements were such that this is how it ended up. Orion is a Congress mandate, there's no point in criticizing NASA for that. And NASA wanted at least two crew contractors, the only pair of offerings with realistic chances of IOC in 2017, were the two chosen ones. Lifting bodies are cool, but also require extra work. If you look at Orbital proposal, they were very clear that it is a very costly development and they wouldn't pursue it without a massive assurance of ROI.
Now, you want the cheapest way to transport 16 astronauts at a time to LEO? Probably HL42/Falcon Heavy would be the cheapest option. And could probably do 15tonnes of cargo, too. But those were not the requirements. Plain and simple. Not now, not in the future. If NASA was planning on opening a LEO training facility in 15 years, the DC would probably be the best option, but that's not what's planned for the future. In fact, the ISS partners are planning on BEO destinations, and both Dragon and CST-100 (and Cygnus and Jupiter/Exoliner) are easily extendable to lunar and Martian returns. DreamChaser isn't and thus it is a LEO dead end for a program that plans to go BEO in the future.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 05/10/2015 01:08 am
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!

The similarity between Orion and the CST-100 is obvious, as they both use the Apollo CM outer mold line. If our cash-strapped agency is going to be developing three different spacecraft, there should be room to make one of them a lifting body reusable shuttle imo. I say cut the Orion/SLS pork that's eating through NASA's budget, adapt CST-100 and Dragon for beyond-LEO missions, and fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.
That sounds like faulty logic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/10/2015 01:35 am
Three years ago there wasn't a funded BEO program, and there still isn't today.  So the SLS/Orion represent "excess capability".

Depends on how you define a "BEO program".  Certainly hardware development for a manned BEO program has been funded for almost a decade.  What hasn't been funded is specific mission for that hardware, just the hardware capability itself to allow a BEO mission.  In my opinion the funding of that hardware does represent a BEO program.  It might not have every laid out neatly as we would like but it is a program.   

The U.S. Government doesn't have a funded BEO program, so they don't need any BEO hardware from anyone.  But when that day comes for non-NASA hardware, normally there would be a competition held to find the best solution & provider.  Maybe SpaceX would win, maybe not, but usually competition results in the best potential result.

The funding of that hardware does represent a BEO program.  There was a "competition" for Orion and SLS hardware development.  It was held in the previous decade. 

However notice I said "normally", since the SLS and Orion were not the result of any competitive process, either for the solution or the provider.  Which is part of the reason they don't perfectly match any known need.

There was a "competition".  Congress just made sure that specific companies won the competition for better or for worse.  Then the actual mission for what to use the hardware for was changed.  This has lead NASA to just go with developing the capability and then hopefully a mission will be funded by Congress. 

 
You are comparing apples & oranges.
The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.
The SLS and Orion were not competitively procured, they were specified by Congress.  So what they represent is how the political process screws things up, not that government procurement per se is broken.

Of course I am comparing Apples and Oranges.  The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.  The Orion and SLS are not.  More important the Commercial Crew is a good example of how to use "fixed cost" contracting along with FAR.  The biggest determent for NASA with Orion and SLS is that they are "cost plus" contracts and not competitively procured.  We know how to build space hardware.   NASA needs to use more "fixed cost" contracting to control costs.  The govt procurement process of using cost plus contracting to develop new hardware is broken.  We start using more competitive processes and "fixed cost" contracting this can hopefully minimize damage from the political process which will always be there.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/10/2015 11:44 am
Reacting to a report to mod, but everyone please focus on the thread title ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 05/13/2015 09:19 pm
DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule just like Dragon and CST, which also could be reusable of reusability made sense economically. I don't believe that it qualifies as a "reusable shuttle" as it needs to launch on top of an expendable EELV just like the other capsules.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2015 11:40 pm
DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule just like Dragon and CST, which also could be reusable of reusability made sense economically. I don't believe that it qualifies as a "reusable shuttle" as it needs to launch on top of an expendable EELV just like the other capsules.
It can fly on F9R, I believe with first stage reuse, which makes it at least as reusable as Shuttle was (though cheaper and smaller).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 05/31/2015 10:10 am
Not sure this is the right thread for this.

Can anyone explain why it's going to take almost another 2 years before we see the first crewed flight of CST or Dragon? I know there is some engineering to be done but in this day and age, with all our great modelling, prior experience etc, it should be possible to get a vehicle flying sooner than 2 years (April 2017 I think is the planned date).

Is it primarily down to cost? If Nasa released more $$, would this happen sooner? I realize there are some engineering bits to be done but it's not like we're starting from scratch - We understand heat shields, chutes, life support, abort systems. Why 2 (ish) years?

#frustrated!

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2015 04:49 pm
Not sure this is the right thread for this.

Can anyone explain why it's going to take almost another 2 years before we see the first crewed flight of CST or Dragon? I know there is some engineering to be done but in this day and age, with all our great modelling, prior experience etc, it should be possible to get a vehicle flying sooner than 2 years (April 2017 I think is the planned date).

Is it primarily down to cost? If Nasa released more $$, would this happen sooner? I realize there are some engineering bits to be done but it's not like we're starting from scratch - We understand heat shields, chutes, life support, abort systems. Why 2 (ish) years?

#frustrated!
From the standpoint of project management, there are independent tasks and dependent tasks that have to be executed in a specific order. Many of the remaining tasks are of the second type while most of the paperwork engineering reviews are of the independent type (human flight cert).

Because the tasks have a specific order of completion it causes time to pass because it is physically impossible to complete the tasks much faster no matter how much manpower you have. A good task dependency analysis can greatly reduce the scheduled completion date for a project. A baddly done one can cause tremendous amont of delays.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 05/31/2015 08:01 pm
In responce to spacenut concerning accelerated CC wrt recent Russian failures:

Currently Congress approved less funding in their most recent budget. While still needing to be reconciled with the Senate, it seems SLS continues to get priority.

But as these most recent events work their way through Congressional consciousness, they may alter their thinking. Or not. At least they are funding to somewhat acceptable levels.

What may actually happen is NASA may take stock as to where Boeing and SpaceX are in their development, who needs the least amount of time and money to make it through certification and select accordingly with full funding for that system.  While that may delay one of the providers from entering service in 2017, it will assure that we at least have one domestic assured access to ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/31/2015 11:57 pm
To finish quickly at this stage of a project the project manager needs to worry about morale and perform chase off. Providing his people are working away they can be left to work.

People working late nights and weekends to crack difficult problems can get demoralised. Investors, customers and board members can get impatient. Such impatience can lead to meddling - which will delay the project, increase costs and reduce quality. Stick to the plan and reassure the outsiders.

Having chased off the meddling outsiders there are other people who need chasing off. For instance other project managers will want to take take your people, money, machines, work areas and other resources for their own projects.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/06/2015 10:51 am
Came across this recently published CCtCap Combined Milestone chart compiled by NASA (dated Feb 2, 2015) from SpaceX and Boeing FY15Q1 sources (so early on in the contract).

Acronym list for this chart:

CBR     Certification Baseline Review
CDR     Critical Design Review
CFT     Crewed Flight Test
CPWSR   Configuration Performance and Weight Status Report
CR      Certification Review
DCR     Design Certification Review
DM-x    Demonstration Mission x
ECLSS   Environmental Control Life Support System
FSW     Flight Software
FTRR    Flight Test Readiness Review
ICDR    Integrated Critical Design Review
IRR     Integration Readiness Review
MCC     Mission Control Center
OFT     Orbital Flight Test
ORR     Operational Readiness Review
PAT     Pad Abort Test
PQR     Post Qualification Review
PRR     Production Readiness Review
QTV     Qualification Test Vehicle
SAR     System Acceptance Review
SM      Service Module
STA     Structural Test Article
STRB    Safety Technical Review Board
TRR     Test Readiness Review
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 06/11/2015 09:35 am
Commercial Crew Program status brief to NASA Advisory Committee (Apr. 2015):
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1-CSD_Brief_to_NAC_Apr_2015_TAGGED.pdf

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/12/2015 02:11 am
Unfortunately, I am not surprised :(
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-statement-on-senate-appropriations-subcommittee-vote-on-commercial
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Grandpa to Two on 06/12/2015 02:28 am
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/12/2015 03:00 am
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/12/2015 06:59 am
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.


Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 06/12/2015 11:22 am
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.


Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy in human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/12/2015 11:28 am
I'm not American, but it seems to me that the United States would benefit from having more than one choice for getting astronauts to orbit/ISS. The private sector providers, both old and new, are providing a newer generation of solutions which improve over their previous capabilities. There is no more Space Shuttle program hogging huge amounts of money, and these private sector providers are much cheaper by comparison. So how much more of an argument do you need beyond that?

To the eyes of a layman, it looks like the US Congress is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 06/12/2015 11:47 am
..... There is no more Space Shuttle program hogging huge amounts of money.......

That role (hogging huge amounts of money) was taken over by SLS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 06/12/2015 11:48 am
It would be so easy if Nasa played it the other way round:

Congress: Too expensive!
Nasa: Ok, I'll have to downselect to the cheapest provider.
Congress: OK, here's the money.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/12/2015 12:25 pm
It would be so easy if Nasa played it the other way round:

Congress: Too expensive!
Nasa: Ok, I'll have to downselect to the cheapest provider.
Congress: OK, here's the money.
As long as it's Boeing...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 06/12/2015 12:38 pm
Wonder how far away SpaceX are from a working Crewed Dragon? - ie one that could fly/orbit and return in 6/10 months from now.  I'm thinking take away all the Nasa milestones and paperwork and get something operational, send it up (uncrewed) and splash it down. This would be on their dime, not Nasa. It's SpaceX just validating their design!

Would put them in a very strong position but also stick it to congress - Nasa either selects the cheapest/closet to working or you fund both.

Personally I want to see both. Besides bringing redundancy, it generates competition and pushes everyone forward.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/12/2015 01:19 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Bob Shaw on 06/12/2015 01:28 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/12/2015 01:54 pm
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.
I agree and it was totally predictable that they would do that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/12/2015 01:57 pm
They provided more funding this year than last year.
And it was too little back then too, causing further delays in the commercial crew program.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/12/2015 02:14 pm
Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy in human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.
No, within the frame of reference of ISS flights Orion is not a cooky but an unpalatable bowl of sprouts.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/12/2015 03:03 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 06/12/2015 03:14 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Not just champagne contributors but caviar as well.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 06/12/2015 03:17 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 06/12/2015 03:44 pm
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Alternative 1: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops SpaceX and fully funds Boeing. Everyone happy except for Elon and us amazing peoples. (As a NASA guy told me once, "We like working with people we're used to working with.") NASA throws Elon a bone with the next cargo contract.

Alternative 2: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops Boeing and fully funds SpaceX. Hordes of lobbyists make emergency phone calls.
  Outcome 1: Commercial crew funding restored, or
  Outcome 2: Bolden "resigns to spend more time with his family", Alternative 1 enacted.

Cost-optimal solution: Cancel commercial crew altogether, pay Russia ~$250M/year (the price will undoubtedly go up if they can't be threatened with an alternative) through 2024 and then splash ISS. NASA flies crew to DLRO in 2022-2023 and declares victory.

(When did I become this old and cynical?)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 06/12/2015 03:50 pm
Alternative 3 - SpaceX says we want to keep the current schedule up to the manned demo flight, you can settle the tab when we take the first contracted crew there.  Boeing cries fowl - SpaceX is using influence and power to steal Boeings future contract revenue and set themselves up as a a monopoly, besides Boeing already has a contract to deliver crew and SpaceX doesn't.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/12/2015 04:00 pm
     I'm not saying Bolden isn't a good director of Nasa, but we NEED someone who can go to Congress and explain to them, quite simply;

    "You have assigned us to perform a particular set of tasks, in order to perform those particular taskes, we require this much funding as that is what the equipment and manpower are going to cost to complete those tasks in the timeframe that you have given us.

     "You want us to innovate and create new technologies to make Areospace travel of all sorts safer, then this is how much the research is going to cost.  You want us to explore space, find out new things that could have a direct impact on how we live, we need this much to do what you want.

     "Will we fail at some things?  Will people likely die in some cases?  Yes to both questions.  We can try as we might to make sure we succeed in all of our experiments and designs, we do our best to avoid death and injury, but sometimes, things that now one imagines nor in some cases CAN imagine, go wrong, sometimes badly wrong.

     "Do we stop flying when a plane crashes?  No, we find out what went wrong, and correct the issues that lead to the crash.

     "Do we stop driving, using trains, tunnels, subways, buildings, and so forth, when soemone get's hurt, dies or something catastophic happens involving these?  No, we correct what went wrong and continue on.

     "When mankind first started to learn to fly, many people died in their experiments, but we continued on.

     "When we came to new frontiers, many died because of unforseen dangers along the way, yet we continued on.

     "Lives are lost pushing to new frontiers, in this case, designers, engineers, technicians, test pilots and astronauts, all have given their full measure, trying to explore those new frontiers.

     "As one of, if not the most innovative, and frontier pushing nations on Earth, we have it in our power to be the trail blazers, to chart new paths, and to go to lands yet unseen nor imagined, or we can follow as some other country, Russia, China, Japan, or maybe even India, blazes that trail.  It is here and NOW that that decision MUST be made, and her and now that that future must be invested in.

     "Do we want to allow the lives that have been lost in this pursuit to have been in vane?  Do we want the heritage that we have established to simply be a footnote in history?

     "No.  It is time to go back to the Moon, explore and sample asteroids and comets, go on to Mars, and learn what we need to do to not only push the boundries of who and what we are, but to learn what we need to to continue to thrive, grow and reach the potentile that we have as a species.

     "The Commercial Space program, both Cargo and Crew are needed, primarily, to allow Nasa to concentrate on projects that we already have scarce funding for, and to pave the way for the general public to start going into space.

     "When a government organization decides to build a new building, it is contracted out to Commercial companies, when a cargo needs to be transported from one facility to another, it is usually contracted out to a Commercial Contractor, when personnel need to get from one place to another, it is usually contracted out to a commercial airline.  We have now reached the point where we need commercial contractors to transport these cargos and personnel to space.

     "With most commercial contracts, bids are put out for the best price that can be gotten.  Without competition, prices escalate, and should the worst happen, there is no redundancy to use an alternative contractor.  Why fund SNC, Orbital Sciences, ULA and SpaceX?  To get them on their feet and create competetion and further commercial innovation.  No other organization will currently provide the funds needed to act as seed money for these companies, the risks are simply too high as yet.

     "At present, without Commercial Space companies, providing the needed services that they do, we will have to depend more and more upon foreign launch providers, sending money to other countries, to provide both the cargo and crew launch services at, if I may point out, far higher prices than commercial launch providers are currently asking.

     "It is with this in mind that not only do we ask Congress to fully fund our current budget requests, but to increase that budget to the point where Nasa and it's commercial providers of all levels, are ABLE to provide those goals that have been set before us, in a reasonable time frame."



     I seriously doubt anyone will use even a fraction of this when addressing Congess, but it would be nice to imagine if someone did...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/12/2015 04:02 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/12/2015 04:02 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Not just champaign contributors but caviar as well.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: John-H on 06/12/2015 06:48 pm
And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/12/2015 07:24 pm
<SNIP>

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John

Too true, but the way that Congress is positioning things, the only ones who truely profit, are the Russians.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 06/12/2015 08:00 pm
There are few paths to continue onwards through 2016 without an either/or down-select.

-NASA can renegotiate specific milestone costs. (Mostly with the highest bidder)

-NASA could potentially reduce (the scope) and/or eliminate certain milestones to reduce program costs. (take on increased risk)

-NASA can fully fund the vehicle that has the least costs associated with getting to a 2017 certification and extend the other vehicle and associated milestones out to 2018-2019.

-NASA can simply ask Boeing to find a way to come in at 4-Billion and SpaceX to come in at 2.5-Billion. Let industry figure this out as well.

There is a way to do this without pushing everything out into the 20s.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/12/2015 08:56 pm

Alternative 1: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops SpaceX and fully funds Boeing. Everyone happy except for Elon and us amazing peoples. (As a NASA guy told me once, "We like working with people we're used to working with.") NASA throws Elon a bone with the next cargo contract.

Alternative 2: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops Boeing and fully funds SpaceX. Hordes of lobbyists make emergency phone calls.
  Outcome 1: Commercial crew funding restored, or
  Outcome 2: Bolden "resigns to spend more time with his family", Alternative 1 enacted.

If I were Bolden I would definitely make the Alternative 2 play (or a variation of it, i.e. fully fund SpaceX and partially fund Boeing). Even if it doesn't result in getting full funding restored and Alternative 1 happens we will at least have 1 provider ready by 2017.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 06/12/2015 09:05 pm

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.


I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John

I think this line of speculation needs to end before it gets any more tinfoil hat like!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 06/12/2015 09:25 pm
partially fund Boeing

Not possible I would think. Boeing would not accept. Partially funding, thus prolonging, a fixed price (or any other) contract will make it more expensive.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/12/2015 09:46 pm
partially fund Boeing

Not possible I would think. Boeing would not accept. Partially funding, thus prolonging, a fixed price (or any other) contract will make it more expensive.

Given that NASA will not have enough money to fully pay them under the current scenario I don't think they would have a choice. If I was Bolden I would tell them (and SpaceX too for that matter) that if they want to get fully paid they better lean as hard as they can on Congress. Maybe with a lot of lobbying from both companies they could get full funding.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 06/12/2015 10:26 pm
I'd love to know of the 1.2 Billion NASA requested for 2016, how much did Boeing need Vs SpaceX to complete their 2016 milestones?

(And wouldn't it be depressingly ironic if the number for SpaceX was around...300Million.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/12/2015 10:30 pm
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:
...

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.  That includes DDT&E through certification and a minimum of two post-certification missions for Boeing and SpaceX.  The only contractual wiggle room NASA has of its own accord is the number of post-certification missions (beyond the minimum of two each) awarded to Boeing and SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: John-H on 06/12/2015 10:59 pm
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:
...

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.  That includes DDT&E through certification and a minimum of two post-certification missions for Boeing and SpaceX.  The only contractual wiggle room NASA has of its own accord is the number of post-certification missions (beyond the minimum of two each) awarded to Boeing and SpaceX.

How does this work? Have they already awarded the contracts even though the budget has not passed? Can the contractor depend on getting his money if it doesn't pass?

Or are the bids not binding if the money is not there, and the whole process starts over?

John
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/12/2015 11:10 pm
I'm just gunna remind y'all that CCDev1 was $50M, CCDev2 was $270M, CCiCap was $1112M and CCtCap is $6800M, for a grand total of $8232M. NASA most recently paid $76.3M/seat for Soyuz. So the cost of the Commercial Crew program is 107 Soyuz seats. For shuttling astronauts to a station that will be dumped into the Pacific in 2028, at the latest, even if the program had been fully funded so it could start flying this year (and completely ignoring the potentially low price per seat of Commercial Crew) it would still have been cheaper to just buy more Soyuz seats.

The argument that Commercial Crew is cheaper than the Soyuz just doesn't work. That's why Bolden stopped making it. A much worse calculation than mine was presented to him in the House (relying on the non-extended ISS retirement date) and he failed to respond to it. He can't even make the sunk cost argument, because the payments to Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada have torpedoed it. The Commercial Crew program budget has ballooned, as all NASA programs seem to do, and now the only argument he can make is nationalism. Russia is even making it incredibly easy to make that argument, and Bolden still can't sell it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 06/12/2015 11:27 pm
IIRC, I thought originally, Commercial Crew was to free up NASA to go to Mars / BLEO? Pass LEO off to industry, We'll save money and resources if industry does LEO and then we/NASA can focus on MARS.

That was the reason for Cargo and after the Ares I debacle, the reason for CC.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/12/2015 11:32 pm
The mistake, IMO, was selecting 2 vehicles.  The competition should have ended with whoever could get to 2017 for the lowest price.

That would have required real competition. NASA procurement isn't about that.

Hey, they could still save it - they could throw out the Gantt chart and the guaranteed launches and tell the providers they have to race. Whoever finishes their compulsory milestones first gets the contract. Milestone payments will be paid on a first completed basis, with no carry-over year to year - that way the provider will have to decide if they prefer to be paid or to win.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 06/12/2015 11:38 pm
The mistake, IMO, was selecting 2 vehicles.  The competition should have ended with whoever could get to 2017 for the lowest price.

That would have required real competition. NASA procurement isn't about that.

Hey, they could still save it - they could throw out the Gantt chart and the guaranteed launches and tell the providers they have to race. Whoever finishes their compulsory milestones first gets the contract. Milestone payments will be paid on a first completed basis, with no carry-over year to year - that way the provider will have to decide if they prefer to be paid or to win.
Yes, I posted that on another thread. I would love to see that. "Hey guys, here's 900Million for 2016. First come first serve."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/12/2015 11:40 pm
The Commercial Crew program budget has ballooned, as all NASA programs seem to do, and now the only argument he can make is nationalism.

To me Commercial Crew has been more about redundancy than anything else.  What's the value of having a backup in case the Soyuz is not available?  Certainly not priceless, but potentially worth a lot - more than what it's costing us to put Commercial Crew in place I'd say.

A secondary goal, although not an explicit one, would be in creating a new industry.  And the economic reason for doing that is to eventually repay the tax money that it took to create Commercial Crew...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/12/2015 11:44 pm
To me Commercial Crew has been more about redundancy than anything else.  What's the value of having a backup in case the Soyuz is not available?  Certainly not priceless, but potentially worth a lot - more than what it's costing us to put Commercial Crew in place I'd say.

While I expect you could make this argument to some, good luck making it to Congress. In any case, you only need one backup to Soyuz.

Quote from: Coastal Ron
A secondary goal, although not an explicit one, would be in creating a new industry.  And the economic reason for doing that is to eventually repay the tax money that it took to create Commercial Crew...

Do ya know what it's called when the government sets about "creating a new industry"? The polite term is economic central planning. Have you seen the kind of industries they make?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/13/2015 12:05 am
Please someone succinctly summarize for me in a nutshell why the US Congress has done what is has done. Why pinch pennies with such a promising program like Commercial Crew, which could add significant capability for reasonable cost? I don't want to get political, but I thought previous testimony and debates by US Congress had expressed a consensus on trying to avoid reliance on Soyuz for future manned flights. The reasoning about Boeing being better as backup seems to be convoluted. Has the US Congress shot US manned spaceflight interests in the foot?

Even if SpaceX seems a little bit slow on the timeline to be astronaut-ready, surely their past track record shows them to be quite credible.

What risk was the US Congress trying to avoid by voting this way? Were they afraid that neither SpaceX nor Boeing would deliver on readiness for manned spaceflight? I don't understand why they went with Soyuz over their own people. Surely there was more to this decision than just a few hundred million dollars.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/13/2015 12:32 am
$8B is a lot to ask.. if you can't answer basic questions as to why you need to spend that much money, you really shouldn't be surprised when they don't give it to you.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/13/2015 01:07 am
Please someone succinctly summarize for me in a nutshell why the US Congress has done what is has done. Why pinch pennies with such a promising program like Commercial Crew, which could add significant capability for reasonable cost? I don't want to get political, but I thought previous testimony and debates by US Congress had expressed a consensus on trying to avoid reliance on Soyuz for future manned flights. The reasoning about Boeing being better as backup seems to be convoluted. Has the US Congress shot US manned spaceflight interests in the foot?

Even if SpaceX seems a little bit slow on the timeline to be astronaut-ready, surely their past track record shows them to be quite credible.

What risk was the US Congress trying to avoid by voting this way? Were they afraid that neither SpaceX nor Boeing would deliver on readiness for manned spaceflight? I don't understand why they went with Soyuz over their own people. Surely there was more to this decision than just a few hundred million dollars.
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia... Shuttle should have been slowly phased out in a sensible retirement, one Orbiter at a time, while CC proved itself...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deadman719 on 06/13/2015 01:19 am
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Alternative 1: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops SpaceX and fully funds Boeing. Everyone happy except for Elon and us amazing peoples. (As a NASA guy told me once, "We like working with people we're used to working with.") NASA throws Elon a bone with the next cargo contract.

Alternative 2: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops Boeing and fully funds SpaceX. Hordes of lobbyists make emergency phone calls.
  Outcome 1: Commercial crew funding restored, or
  Outcome 2: Bolden "resigns to spend more time with his family", Alternative 1 enacted.

Cost-optimal solution: Cancel commercial crew altogether, pay Russia ~$250M/year (the price will undoubtedly go up if they can't be threatened with an alternative) through 2024 and then splash ISS. NASA flies crew to DLRO in 2022-2023 and declares victory.

(When did I become this old and cynical?)

Another option: Fund Boeing or SpaceX at their programmed level for the year and the remaining company at partial funding.  This keeps one company on schedule and extends the schedule for the other company.  Although neither funding profile is known, one could extrapolate from awarded contract totals that SpaceX has a smaller yearly profile than Boeing.  Assuming this is true, fully funding SpaceX while partially funding Boeing stretches dollars the furthest. 

The above option also puts dollars on the more mature vehicle (given public information) enabling schedule to be maintained.  Additional funding next year could help reduce the schedule impact for the underfunded company.   
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/13/2015 01:21 am
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia... Shuttle should have been slowly phased out in a sensible retirement, one Orbiter at a time, while CC proved itself...

It was always the intention of the ISS program to rely on Soyuz for rotation of the crew, and they were doing so before the shuttle retirement happened. If ya want to pick a date when the ISS program went pear shaped, it was probably 1998.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/13/2015 01:28 am
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia... Shuttle should have been slowly phased out in a sensible retirement, one Orbiter at a time, while CC proved itself...

It was always the intention of the ISS program to rely on Soyuz for rotation of the crew, and they were doing so before the shuttle retirement happened. If ya want to pick a date when the ISS program went pear shaped, it was probably 1998.
Until CxP, Orion and Ares-1 was the goto vehicle in the early 2000's...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/13/2015 01:29 am
Please someone succinctly summarize for me in a nutshell why the US Congress has done what is has done. Why pinch pennies with such a promising program like Commercial Crew, which could add significant capability for reasonable cost? I don't want to get political...

NASA has always been about politics, just for different goals at different times.

NASA was created in response to a perceived national threat, and the Apollo program was created specifically for political reasons.

The Shuttle followed the Apollo program, and it may have started out with the right idea (i.e. transportation infrastructure), but the Shuttle program was allowed to keep going far beyond when it should have because it had become institutionalized within certain political boundaries.

The ISS was born out of a desire to try and nullify threats from the dismemberment of the USSR, even though it also serves a legitimate science purpose, and our reliance on the Soyuz for being able to continuously staff the ISS with U.S. personnel was a political decision.

Even today all you have to do is look to see what the largest funded development program is (i.e. SLS + Orion), and what it means to all the existing NASA centers (and their employees).

Now look at NASA's budget from the perspective of the Republican controlled Congress, with a lack of any clear future goals being pushed by the Democratic President whom they don't really agree with (to put it nicely).  NASA's budget is pretty much a zero-sum game, meaning there is no support to increase the overall budget amount by very much, BUT there is a large amount of support for the SLS & Orion.

Throw in also that some in Congress have been non-supportive of Commercial Crew since the beginning (like Senator Shelby), regardless how much sense it makes from a international political standpoint or from a NASA standpoint.

One last factor, and I can't quantify it but it exists, is that there are basically two camps within NASA:

1.  BFR's are the only way to go, and they must be NASA owned.

2.  Commercial services are the way to go, and NASA no longer needs to own commodity transportation hardware.

Group #1 sees the success of commercial services like Commercial Crew (#2) as a threat, and it's easy to convince politicians that the end result of such paradigm change would mean an eventual reduction in personnel, and a HUGE reduction in need for certain well-entrenched government contractors and their fat contracts.  Losing voter jobs and constituent cash flow is a fear that is real for politicians, and can override national priorities.

However other than expressing a lack of confidence in the best aerospace industry in the world, Congress really hasn't explained why they would rather continue to send money to Russia instead of of supporting U.S. industry.

But likely it's based on fear - fear of losing influence and money in the political districts.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/13/2015 01:35 am
How does this work? Have they already awarded the contracts even though the budget has not passed? Can the contractor depend on getting his money if it doesn't pass?

Or are the bids not binding if the money is not there, and the whole process starts over?

Contracts were awarded last year; contracts are binding, but there are caveats if funding is not available (as with all such government contracts).  The process would not start over if the money is not there.  Beyond that, what would happen is anyone's guess.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Billium on 06/13/2015 01:41 am
From my basic knowledge of government RFPs, albeit from a different jurisdiction and without knowing the specific wording, I don't think NASA can simply down select to 1 unless it does so based on the criteria of the RFP.

I think that certain members of congress intend the CCtCAP budget shortfall to either delay commercial crew so that it is not available before Orion and SLS are ready, or in the alternative that there will be a down select to Boeing.

I recall that certain members of congress had previously tried to write into law that NASA had to give weight only to safety or schedule certainty and give no or little weight to price, but that never became law, and the RFP does have price as a criteria. Given how close spacex was on everything other than price, and how far ahead it is on price, it is not clear to me who would win.

Although I'm sure certain members of congress would like to think that NASA can/should just down select to Boeing because it was number 1 in most criteria, except price, I don't think this is an option because that is not how the RFP was issued.

If that happened I think Spacex could protest because they could have bid differently if price was weighted differently. I think NASA would have to reissue the RFP. I think the only other option is to delay the milestones or attempt to renegotiate with the bid winners.

I imagine this won't come to a head until the fall at least because of general disagreement about the federal budget. I'm really excited about dragon2 so I'm hopping they can make enough progress even if they get cut, so that they don't get delayed multiple years.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/13/2015 02:07 am
Please someone succinctly summarize for me in a nutshell why the US Congress has done what is has done. Why pinch pennies with such a promising program like Commercial Crew, which could add significant capability for reasonable cost? I don't want to get political, but I thought previous testimony and debates by US Congress had expressed a consensus on trying to avoid reliance on Soyuz for future manned flights. The reasoning about Boeing being better as backup seems to be convoluted. Has the US Congress shot US manned spaceflight interests in the foot?

Even if SpaceX seems a little bit slow on the timeline to be astronaut-ready, surely their past track record shows them to be quite credible.

What risk was the US Congress trying to avoid by voting this way? Were they afraid that neither SpaceX nor Boeing would deliver on readiness for manned spaceflight? I don't understand why they went with Soyuz over their own people. Surely there was more to this decision than just a few hundred million dollars.

Without going too much into the details, I'll point out that getting a top line budget increase for anything discretionary is basically impossible right now.

Commercial Crew needed a big increase and that's very hard to do right now.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/13/2015 02:09 am
Without going too much into the details, I'll point out that getting a top line budget increase for anything discretionary is basically impossible right now.

NASA got a top line budget increase.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/13/2015 02:44 am
     I'm not saying Bolden isn't a good director of Nasa, but we NEED someone who can go to Congress and explain to them, quite simply...

Mike Griffin tried to do that, and they rewarded him with the mandate to land people on the Moon and then Mars while giving him a tenth of the money he said he needed to do it.  By the end, just to keep things going, hoping for that balloon payment at the end when it's time to start flying, Griffin was telling them whatever they wanted to hear that would keep him from being fired and keep the VSE from being canned altogether.

Congress is not a rational body, and cannot be swayed by rational logic, any more than you can convince someone who believes Apollo was a hoax with all the evidence in the world.  Its standpoint is an emotional one, and cannot be swayed by facts.  I don't think this is a good way to govern, but them's the facts of the matter.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/13/2015 02:52 am
The thing that gets me is Congress says they're saving money by cutting $300 million from commercial crew, but it's turning around and spending almost the same amount on Soyuz seats in that same period.

As Joe Shea used to say, a decision against is not a decision delayed.  Commercial crew is a decision that's already been made -- the decision against making Orion a LEO shuttle, and against continuing to depend on the politically unreliable Russians to field an American presence in LEO, has already been made.  Money has been spent (a lot of it) and metal is being bent.  Crewed flights are less than two years away, not 10 to 20 as was the case when VSE was canceled.  It's not the time to come back to it and say, "Well, wouldn't it be better to just keep buying Soyuz seats?"  The time to ask that question is long past.  It's time to finish what we started, and go freakin' fly!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/13/2015 02:55 am
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia...

The Shuttle was never a replacement for the Soyuz, since it could only stay in space for two weeks maximum, and the requirement is to have a vehicle (i.e. a lifeboat) available at all times during a normal crew mission (typically 6 months).  The Shuttle could provide temporary access, and it could swap out crew, but it couldn't keep crew at the ISS for longer than two weeks.

The real root of this situation goes back to the beginning of the ISS program, when it was known back then that only the Soyuz was available for lifeboat duty.  The X-38 was to be the U.S. lifeboat vehicle (still would need the Shuttle for swapping crew though), but it was cancelled in 2002 due to budget cuts.  Of course we were far friendlier with Russia back then, and even then the Soyuz had a long and safe flight history.

So our current dependence on Russia for keeping crew at the ISS goes back to decisions made in 2002.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/13/2015 03:21 am
How does this work? Have they already awarded the contracts even though the budget has not passed? Can the contractor depend on getting his money if it doesn't pass?

Or are the bids not binding if the money is not there, and the whole process starts over?

Contracts were awarded last year; contracts are binding, but there are caveats if funding is not available (as with all such government contracts).  The process would not start over if the money is not there.  Beyond that, what would happen is anyone's guess.

Bolden sort of answered that during a hearing. He said that they would have to renegotiate milestones with SpaceX and Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 06/13/2015 03:34 am
Please someone succinctly summarize for me in a nutshell why the US Congress has done what is has done. Why pinch pennies with such a promising program like Commercial Crew, which could add significant capability for reasonable cost? I don't want to get political, but I thought previous testimony and debates by US Congress had expressed a consensus on trying to avoid reliance on Soyuz for future manned flights. The reasoning about Boeing being better as backup seems to be convoluted. Has the US Congress shot US manned spaceflight interests in the foot?

Even if SpaceX seems a little bit slow on the timeline to be astronaut-ready, surely their past track record shows them to be quite credible.

What risk was the US Congress trying to avoid by voting this way? Were they afraid that neither SpaceX nor Boeing would deliver on readiness for manned spaceflight? I don't understand why they went with Soyuz over their own people. Surely there was more to this decision than just a few hundred million dollars.
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia... Shuttle should have been slowly phased out in a sensible retirement, one Orbiter at a time, while CC proved itself...

Having a set in stone retirement date for the Shuttle was making the exact same mistake they made retiring Apollo before the Shuttle was ready.

The X-38 should have never been canceled and Orion should have stayed on the spiral development plan as it could have been ready by now and the Shuttle could have been flown for a few more years.

It is just dumb to keep buying seats on Soyuz when Spacex has proven they can safely fly to ISS.
Though I do not believe Boeing's time line and feel their vehicle is over priced even they're a better investment then sending money to the Russians.
But they if have to make do with 300 million less and cannot afford to fund both Dragon V2 and the CST-100 the wise thing to do would be the drop Boeing and put SNC or Blue Origin in their place so they still get two providers while meeting their budget.
Dropping Spacex would be pretty brain dead since they're the only provider who have both a working spacecraft and crew rated launch vehicle with domestically produced engines.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/13/2015 03:51 am
     I'm not saying Bolden isn't a good director of Nasa, but we NEED someone who can go to Congress and explain to them, quite simply...

Mike Griffin tried to do that, and they rewarded him with the mandate to land people on the Moon and then Mars while giving him a tenth of the money he said he needed to do it.

No, Griffin became NASA Administrator after the Constellation program was started.  Griffin did reshape it though based on the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which is when Griffin tilted the scale on the hardware side to things he wanted to do - like the Ares I and the "Apollo on steroids" Orion capsule.

Regarding the role of the NASA Administrator, per NASA's website:

3.2.1 NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.

The Administrator and immediate senior staff provide overall strategic direction and policies for the organization and establish the Agency's relative priorities, associated budget guidelines, and performance assessment. Senior staff officials within the Office of the Administrator include the Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator (Technical), Chief Engineer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Scientist, and the Chief Technologist.


Their official role does not include coming up with policy and then advocating it within the legislative branch - unless the President they serve wants them to.

But I think the angst we have about whether the NASA Administrator is doing enough advocating or not is really part of the whole "what are we really DOING in space?" question.

If our goal is to expand humanity out into space, the Commercial Crew makes a lot of sense.  But if the goal is to just use NASA as a funding stream for certain constituents, then Commercial Crew is not really necessary.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 06/13/2015 04:33 am
Griffin threw out the spiral development plan which could have gotten something flying in LEO before the rest of lunar architecture was ready.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/13/2015 04:42 am
Without going too much into the details, I'll point out that getting a top line budget increase for anything discretionary is basically impossible right now.

NASA got a top line budget increase.


Not as big as requested, and even with the proposed top line increase the Commercial Crew bump was to be offset by a decrease in SLS/Orion funding.

One point (which I think you'd agree with) is that it's helpful to recognize congress isn't "cutting" CC or denying them a shot at readily available money, they're just refusing to fund it out of their own priorities.

My larger point is that while the $300M that would make a difference here is a drop in the Federal bucket, in reality it has to be "stolen" from someone's favorite program.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 06/13/2015 04:51 am
The NSA and DEA probably could afford a budget cut of a few hundred million as they seem to have too much money or even just do away with the TSA there's 8 billion a year there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/13/2015 05:24 am
The thing that gets me is Congress says they're saving money by cutting $300 million from commercial crew, but it's turning around and spending almost the same amount on Soyuz seats in that same period.

{snip}

Does reducing Commercial Crew by $300 million mean that the Orion/SLS budget will have to be cut by say $400 million to buy Soyuz seats?

Also the programme will probably take an extra year to complete and the total spend increase.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sanman on 06/13/2015 06:48 am
Article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-and-the-russian-rocket-mess-1434149145


Have Musk or any other US commercial crew players officially reacted yet?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/13/2015 09:22 am
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/13/2015 09:28 am
$8B is a lot to ask.. if you can't answer basic questions as to why you need to spend that much money, you really shouldn't be surprised when they don't give it to you.

Yup, and exactly the same thing got CxP canned. That's why I think that under the next president CCP will get axed swiftly. With current funding levels neither SpaceX nor Boeing will have anything operational at the beginning of 2017. Also: there already is a mandated-by-law back-up to Soyuz. It's called Orion.

What I think will happen is this: next president is going to be a Republican.
CCP will be axed early 2017 with the former CCP funding added to the Orion budgetline to speed up her development to get her flying in manned-LEO-capable form in early 2019. Soyuz will remain the prime crew-rotation vehicle until ISS-splash in 2024 (unless Putin starts a nuclear war or something similarly nuts)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/13/2015 09:40 am
NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.
Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.
In that case that single provider will be Boeing, as they scored highest on the current CCtCAP-contract score-card. That will not have changed significantly by the time a re-compete becomes reality.

Note: I don't think the above scenario will come into reality any time soon. IMO Bolden will rather stretch development of both CCP vehicles than down-select to one, just to make US Congress look bad.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/13/2015 09:54 am
Mike Griffin tried to do that, and they rewarded him with the mandate to land people on the Moon and then Mars while giving him a tenth of the money he said he needed to do it.

That's not the way he saw it.

Quote from: the_other_Doug
By the end, just to keep things going, hoping for that balloon payment at the end when it's time to start flying,

Jeez, anyone would think you're saying Griffin invented go-as-you-pay.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 06/13/2015 10:34 am
$8B is a lot to ask.. if you can't answer basic questions as to why you need to spend that much money, you really shouldn't be surprised when they don't give it to you.

Yup, and exactly the same thing got CxP canned. That's why I think that under the next president CCP will get axed swiftly. With current funding levels neither SpaceX nor Boeing will have anything operational at the beginning of 2017. Also: there already is a mandated-by-law back-up to Soyuz. It's called Orion.

What I think will happen is this: next president is going to be a Republican.
CCP will be axed early 2017 with the former CCP funding added to the Orion budgetline to speed up her development to get her flying in manned-LEO-capable form in early 2019. Soyuz will remain the prime crew-rotation vehicle until ISS-splash in 2024 (unless Putin starts a nuclear war or something similarly nuts)

Given current relations with russians, I doubt, that someone would actually try to cancel Commercial Crew, simple because it could later blow up in their face. Politicians dont take more risk than is necessary, unless there is a large advantage to it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 06/13/2015 10:46 am
NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.
Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.
In that case that single provider will be Boeing, as they scored highest on the current CCtCAP-contract score-card. That will not have changed significantly by the time a re-compete becomes reality.

Note: I don't think the above scenario will come into reality any time soon. IMO Bolden will rather stretch development of both CCP vehicles than down-select to one, just to make US Congress look bad.

Yes Boeing scored higher on the bids but I suspect SpaceX are closer to a flying vehicle than Boeing, plus they are cheaper. You could have Bolden going the SpaceX route because of this and then waiting for a response from congress. It will either be 1) ok fine, correct decision on cost/timelines etc or 2) no way. We want Boeing even if it's more expensive, takes more time etc.

I think you are correct with Bolden. He want's two providers to keep long term costs down, and provide redundancy , and will do what he can to keep both going.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 06/13/2015 12:00 pm
At the CCtCap announcement they said they'd recompete if they don't get the funding...
That was not said at either the announcement itself (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kECY85DM2I8q) or the follow-up teleconference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCrK83IkDrE) with Kathy Lueders.

Charles Lurio asked, but Lueders dodged the question:
Quote from: Teleconference with Kathy Lueders
33:55 K. Lueders: Our plan to execute the contract is per the proposed budget as outlined in the 2015 NASA request.

34:55 C. Lurio: How long are you committed to maintaining the two contractors?  Is there any circumstance under which you would be, because of a combination of low budgets and time pressure, obliged to pull back to a single contractor?

35:23 K. Lueders: We're executing our plan to that five year budget.  We're confident that our providers will be able to execute to the plan and schedule they have in front of them.

The closest they came in the announcement itself was:
Quote from: CCtCap Announcement
29:15  Irene Klotz, Reuters: "Are these awards at all dependent on NASA having more than a continuing resolution for this year's budget?"

30:03 Charles Bolden: "In order for us to get to 2017 what we really need is for the congress to support the president's request.  We are confident that given where we are right now with the 2014 budget and its outrun, we can make the 2017 launch date.  But that again depends on congress fully funding the budget as requested by the president."

~Kirk
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/13/2015 12:21 pm
The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia...

The Shuttle was never a replacement for the Soyuz, since it could only stay in space for two weeks maximum, and the requirement is to have a vehicle (i.e. a lifeboat) available at all times during a normal crew mission (typically 6 months).  The Shuttle could provide temporary access, and it could swap out crew, but it couldn't keep crew at the ISS for longer than two weeks.

The real root of this situation goes back to the beginning of the ISS program, when it was known back then that only the Soyuz was available for lifeboat duty.  The X-38 was to be the U.S. lifeboat vehicle (still would need the Shuttle for swapping crew though), but it was cancelled in 2002 due to budget cuts.  Of course we were far friendlier with Russia back then, and even then the Soyuz had a long and safe flight history.

So our current dependence on Russia for keeping crew at the ISS goes back to decisions made in 2002.
Yes Ron that was before Orion/Ares-1 and before the X-38 it was the HL-20 once the station was completed. This is the core of problem with NASA; it keeps getting re-invented with each administration leading to wasted time, money and no coherent sustainable plan.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/13/2015 02:03 pm
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.
As will CCP seats later. It's why the CCP budget is projected to be nearly zero in about 3 years.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/13/2015 04:35 pm
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.

As will CCP seats later. It's why the CCP budget is projected to be nearly zero in about 3 years.

Almost certainly higher if CCP is delayed by cuts. If it isn't higher, a downselect will happen (one of arguable objectivity) and much exercise would have been frivolous.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/13/2015 08:07 pm
From my basic knowledge of government RFPs, albeit from a different jurisdiction and without knowing the specific wording, I don't think NASA can simply down select to 1 unless it does so based on the criteria of the RFP.

If by "based on the criteria of the RFP" you mean that there is some objective criteria in the RFP that would allow NASA to select one provider vs. another, and thus terminate the contract of one provider based on that criteria, there is not.  That ship sailed when NASA awarded two CCtCap contracts.

Assuming both awardees nominally perform per the terms of the contract, terminating one would fall under "Termination for the Convenience of the Government" or possibly "Limitation of Funds" contract clauses.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/14/2015 04:43 am
NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.
Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.

You might want to review those "dissolve clauses"; they are standard FAR boilerplate (included by reference in the RFP/contracts). There is nothing in those clauses which allows re-compete unless there is a failure to perform.*

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

In short, NASA is contractually committed to two CCtCap providers.  The only thing likely to change that is Congressional legislation which overrides those commitments.


* edit: Or obviously Congressional action.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/14/2015 05:06 am
This is the core of problem with NASA; it keeps getting re-invented with each administration leading to wasted time, money and no coherent sustainable plan.

Yep, it's non-optimal.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 06/14/2015 05:50 am

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/14/2015 01:38 pm

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 06/14/2015 01:42 pm

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/14/2015 02:48 pm
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.
I agree and it was totally predictable that they would do that.

Really?  Commercial Crew has manned test flights planned in 2017.  SLS/Orion has manned test flight planned around 2021.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/14/2015 03:16 pm

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
Failure to perform would be inability to provide the end product/service. NASA would have to prove that the contractor is technically of fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.
That would go from being contested by the GAO to being contested in Federal Court as a contract violation. Even exit clauses for fiscal reasons can be tough to enact since the contractor will point out in court that an agency that has an 18 billion dollar budget should be able to make up the shortfall from other areas when it comes to services already contracted for.

It's also a penny-wise pound foolish approach. Anyone bidding on future contracts will build greater liability into their bids because NASA has shown it won't act in good faith which drives costs of everything from launch services to plumbers bills up.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/14/2015 05:30 pm

You might want to review those "dissolve clauses"; they are standard FAR boilerplate (included by reference in the RFP/contracts). There is nothing in those clauses which allows re-compete unless there is a failure to perform.*

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

In short, NASA is contractually committed to two CCtCap providers.  The only thing likely to change that is Congressional legislation which overrides those commitments.


* edit: Or obviously Congressional action.

Ha ha ha. He he he.

If CCtCap had been a Space Act Agreement (SAA) NASA would probably have got out of it but being an ordinary FAR contract NASA is stuck with it for 2 years. The US Government can cancel the contract but still has to pay.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: watermod on 06/14/2015 08:51 pm
As somebody who has voted for the pubs, in the past, I find this troubling on another level of debate.   

The question I posed to my congress critter is: "SLS is an extremely expensive government designed rocket with no real mission.  Commercial Crew is made up of rockets designed by corporations and entrepreneurs to a government purpose with the added benefit of possibly creating a new arena for capitalism to thrive.  As members of The Grand Old Party why are you supporting the socialist rocket and a  make work path for NASA and the USA in space?"
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/14/2015 08:56 pm
As somebody who has voted for the pubs, in the past, I find this troubling on another level of debate.   

The question I posed to my congress critter is: "SLS is an extremely expensive government designed rocket with no real mission.  Commercial Crew is made up of rockets designed by corporations and entrepreneurs to a government purpose with the added benefit of possibly creating a new arena for capitalism to thrive.  As members of The Grand Old Party why are you supporting the socialist rocket and a  make work path for NASA and the USA in space?"

I love the idea of manipulating party partisan sentiment (rightwing or leftwing) to try and get your congressmen to do something bipartisan and universally good for the country - good on you.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/14/2015 09:04 pm
If CCtCap had been a Space Act Agreement (SAA) NASA would probably have got out of it but being an ordinary FAR contract NASA is stuck with it for 2 years. The US Government can cancel the contract but still has to pay.

Unlikely.  SAA would not materially change NASA's rights to unilateraly terminate the agreement, at least if prior SAA's are any indication.  E.g.,The CCiCap SAA's contain the following termination clauses:
Quote from: CCiCap SAA
ARTICLE 16. TERMINATION
A. Termination by Mutual Consent
...
B. Termination for Failure to Perform
...
C. Termination for Unacceptable Risk to Human Life
...
D. Unilateral Termination by NASA
(1) NASA may unilaterally terminate this Agreement upon written notice in the following circumstances: (a) upon a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States; or (b) upon a declaration of a national emergency by the President of the United States; or (c) upon a NASA determination, in writing, that NASA is required to terminate for reasons beyond its control. For purposes of this Article, reasons beyond NASA's control include, but are not limited to, acts of God or of the public enemy, acts of the U.S. Government other than NASA, in either its sovereign or contractual capacity (to include failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding), fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or unusually severe weather.

edit: And before you jump on the "to include failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding", note that does not address the criteria on which a down-select might be based, or the process for a down-select.  Again, there is nothing in those SAA's. or in the CCtCap RFP or contracts which provides for such.  And we already saw what happened with the SAA's--the schedule was stretched to accommodate available funding.  Likely the same will occur for CCtCap--unless Congress forces NASA to do otherwise.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/14/2015 09:45 pm
What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?

Short version...
Quote from: CCtCap sec 52.249-8 and 52.249-9
(a) (1) The Government may, subject to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this clause, by written Notice of Default to the Contractor, terminate this contract in whole or in part if the Contractor fails to --
(i) Perform the work under the contract within the time specified in this contract or any extension;
(ii) Prosecute the work so as to endanger performance of this contract (but see subparagraph (a)(2) of this clause); or
(iii) Perform any of the other provisions of this contract (but see subparagraph (a)(2) of this clause).
(2) The Government’s right to terminate this contract under subdivisions (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this clause may be exercised if the Contractor does not cure such failure within 10 days (or more, if authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer) after receipt of the notice from the Contracting Officer specifying the failure

52.249-8 and 52.249-9 are basically the same with respect to cause, but there are some slight differences in rights as CCtCap has separate contract line items (CLIN); 52.249-8 applies to CLIN-002 and -003 (services); 52.249-9 applies to CLIN-001 (DDT&E, aka certification).

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/14/2015 10:11 pm
Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

No. Milestone payments are essentially pay-as-you-go.  If NASA does not have the required funds to cover the work, they do not authorize the work.  If that results in schedule stretch, increased costs, and missed dates, the contractor is not liable and cannot be held at fault; that would fall under "acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity" exclusion clauses.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/14/2015 11:23 pm
Would that also be under NASA is unable to pay for the milestone? Ergo contractor is fiscally unable to reach the end point they were contracted for.

No. Milestone payments are essentially pay-as-you-go.  If NASA does not have the required funds to cover the work, they do not authorize the work.  If that results in schedule stretch, increased costs, and missed dates, the contractor is not liable and cannot be held at fault; that would fall under "acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity" exclusion clauses.

So NASA is likely to reschedule the work. It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.

(Down selecting is not my argument.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/15/2015 12:32 am
So NASA is likely to reschedule the work.
Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.
Quote
It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.
CCtCap has no provision for optional milestones.  Additional milestones or interim progress payments might be added.

Again, however, I caution that CCtCap contains two very different types of contract line items, with very different provisions.
CLIN-001 -- DDTE/certification.  This is fixed-price *not* IDIQ.
CLIN-002 -- Post-certification mssions (PCMs).  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.
CLIN-003 -- Special Studies.  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.

The two primary items of interest are CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification)and CLIN-002 (PCMs), as those represent the bulk of the funds.  However, CLIN-002 (and CLIN-003) notably have specific provisions for funding limitations, whereas CLIN-001 does not (at least to the best of my reading).

That means NASA's only basis for terminating CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification) work by a contractor would be FAR 52.249-2 (https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_248_253.html#wp1119611), Termination for Convenience of the Government.*

Such a termination would be an egregious act on NASA's part, especially if both contractors were performing nominally, and likely result in a legal fur-ball.  I seriously doubt NASA would take that step unless forced.  And by "forced", I mean more than Congress simply underfunding CCtCap--but passing legislation stating that NASA must down-select to a single provider.


* Other than a default or failure to perform by the contractor.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/15/2015 07:28 am
So NASA is likely to reschedule the work.
Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.
Quote
It may even add in an optional milestone as a face saving excuse, although the total expenditure will increase.
CCtCap has no provision for optional milestones.  Additional milestones or interim progress payments might be added.

Again, however, I caution that CCtCap contains two very different types of contract line items, with very different provisions.
CLIN-001 -- DDTE/certification.  This is fixed-price *not* IDIQ.
CLIN-002 -- Post-certification mssions (PCMs).  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.
CLIN-003 -- Special Studies.  This is fixed-price IDIQ services.

The two primary items of interest are CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification)and CLIN-002 (PCMs), as those represent the bulk of the funds.  However, CLIN-002 (and CLIN-003) notably have specific provisions for funding limitations, whereas CLIN-001 does not (at least to the best of my reading).

That means NASA's only basis for terminating CLIN-001 (DDTE/certification) work by a contractor would be FAR 52.249-2 (https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_248_253.html#wp1119611), Termination for Convenience of the Government.*

Such a termination would be an egregious act on NASA's part, especially if both contractors were performing nominally, and likely result in a legal fur-ball.  I seriously doubt NASA would take that step unless forced.  And by "forced", I mean more than Congress simply underfunding CCtCap--but passing legislation stating that NASA must down-select to a single provider.


* Other than a default or failure to perform by the contractor.

Terminating contracts when it suits the government has been done before. The clauses required to support multiple scenario's are all there in standard FAR. Official CxP cancellation was done quite some time after the budget for CxP was set to zero. This most-extreme-of-all-cases-of-budget-cuts led to a good number of contracts being terminated outright and some contracts re-negotiated to support SLS.

This sets precedent for a scenario where underfunding of CCP could possibly lead to terminating the current contracts and/or possibly re-negotiate them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: davey142 on 06/16/2015 12:24 am
I've heard people mentioning that the contracts might be re-negotiated.  What exactly does this mean? Smaller payments? Certain milestones get shuffled around?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/16/2015 02:19 am
I've heard people mentioning that the contracts might be re-negotiated.  What exactly does this mean? Smaller payments? Certain milestones get shuffled around?

I suspect that any renegotiation would involve more money for the same work. So the milestones would be stretched and the amount paid for each milestone would increase.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 06/19/2015 09:58 pm
Space Station Live: The News on Commercial Crew

Published on Jun 19, 2015
NASA Commentator Kyle Herring talks with Kathy Lueders, the manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, about the status of efforts to develop commercial space vehicles to deliver human crew members to the International Space Station. NASA is working with Boeing and SpaceX as those companies work through milestones to get their vehicles, Boeing’s CST-100 and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, ready for their first crewed flights to the station, while the space station program is re-configuring the station and preparing for spacewalks to install the new International Docking Adapters to which the new commercial spacecraft will dock.

https://youtu.be/1sMPwJJuBMU
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: John-H on 06/20/2015 12:24 am
How long will the first demonstration flights last? I am assuming that the demo flights will not stay up the six months they need to replace Soyuz.

John
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 06/20/2015 03:38 am
The following is a quote from Forum member Obi-wan's recent tour of pad 39A, posted in the 39A thread of the SpaceX General sub-forum:

"Just remembered a couple more tidbits from my tour/discussions at 39A - there are ongoing discussions with NASA about crewed launch operations - SpaceX wants to have the crew ingress after fueling operations are complete (which conforms to all previous crewed vehicles), but NASA wants the crew in the vehicle and all of the final support personnel clear of the pad prior to tanking. This new desire may be tied to another SpaceX comment, which is they want to reach the point of taking only 60 minutes from erection to launch. Maybe (and this is my conjecture) NASA feels like having the crew on board for an hour or so is not unusual, and it would allow them to not require the close-out crew to perform operations on a fully fueled vehicle."

What I would like to know is if this conversation is also taking place between NASA and Boeing/ULA regarding operations at their pad and with Atlas and/or Vulcan?  Does anyone know if those launchers can accommodate this desire?  This is a significant change to nearly all manned spaceflight operations, although someone said in the other thread that Atlas-Mercury loaded LOX after the astronaut was sealed in.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/20/2015 03:51 am
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 06/20/2015 06:13 am
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.

It is not obvious. So far it seems that the act of fuelling was regarded dangerous, less so the fuelled launch vehicle. So they did fuelling first and then access the capsule. What has changed to change the procedure? Or was it always wrong to fuel first?

A bit of an irony. It was always critisized that SpaceX is not following established procedures. Now they stick to established procedures and it is wrong again.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/20/2015 05:18 pm
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.

It is not obvious. So far it seems that the act of fuelling was regarded dangerous, less so the fuelled launch vehicle. So they did fuelling first and then access the capsule. What has changed to change the procedure? Or was it always wrong to fuel first?

A bit of an irony. It was always critisized that SpaceX is not following established procedures. Now they stick to established procedures and it is wrong again.
As Trevor pointed out, what changed was the LAS. Shuttle had none so leaving astronauts on top during the fueling process with no means of escape was the greater risk. Now with both CC providers using LAS the greater risk is having additional people around a fueled vehicle. Evolve safety and retire risk.

Unless people want to argue SpaceX should be copying old space, which would be just as ironic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 06/20/2015 05:34 pm
I think SpaceX is not so much looking at the dragon as the MCT.  Having 5-7 people sitting around for a couple hours is not that big of deal, having a hundred is a different story.

Not counting how long it will take to fuel the larger rocket.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/20/2015 05:38 pm
NASA wouldn't have any say in MCT launches.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 06/20/2015 05:39 pm
I think SpaceX is not so much looking at the dragon as the MCT.  Having 5-7 people sitting around for a couple hours is not that big of deal, having a hundred is a different story.

On a Dragon one hour represents 2% of the trip to ISS on an MCT 3 hours represents probably < .1% of the voyage to Mars.  I think waiting for a Dragon is more significant than the MCT.  However airliners undergoing deicing, or departing busy airports often keep passengers on the tarmac for 30 minutes to an hour after boarding and the longest flights there are 14-15 hours or so.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/20/2015 05:59 pm
To add some data about Atlas and Mercury, the Atlas as an ICBM had to go from standby (only the RP1 loaded) to launch in 30 minutes. This meant that the Atlas was designed for rapid LOX loading in about 15-20 minutes. NASA used this to their advantage for Mercury although the first MA launch sat on the pad for hours with the astronaut inside.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/20/2015 07:29 pm
Yeah, just the idea that we used to (and still do!) launch astronauts on ICBMs should be proof enough there's more than one "right" way of doing something (or rather, that there is no "right" way of doing things, just better or worse ways).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/20/2015 10:36 pm

On a Dragon one hour represents 2% of the trip to ISS on an MCT 3 hours represents probably < .1% of the voyage to Mars.  I think waiting for a Dragon is more significant than the MCT.  However airliners undergoing deicing, or departing busy airports often keep passengers on the tarmac for 30 minutes to an hour after boarding and the longest flights there are 14-15 hours or so.

I assume the Dragons and Orions can be fed breathable oxygen and electricity whilst their launch vehicle is being fuelled.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 06/21/2015 12:38 pm
How long will the first demonstration flights last? I am assuming that the demo flights will not stay up the six months they need to replace Soyuz.

John
The uncrewed flight will last for 30 days, the crewed flight will last for 14 days.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: John-H on 06/21/2015 08:52 pm
Thanks.  So, a few more years of Soyuz anyway.

John
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/23/2015 01:39 pm
How long will the first demonstration flights last? I am assuming that the demo flights will not stay up the six months they need to replace Soyuz.

John
The uncrewed flight will last for 30 days, the crewed flight will last for 14 days.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/

TBD - each partner determines the needs.  May be anywhere from 3-30 days.  Not defined yet.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/23/2015 11:59 pm
Yeah, just the idea that we used to (and still do!) launch astronauts on ICBMs should be proof enough there's more than one "right" way of doing something (or rather, that there is no "right" way of doing things, just better or worse ways).
At least they're nice enough to remove the warheads first... ;D
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 06/24/2015 09:16 pm
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.

It is not obvious. So far it seems that the act of fuelling was regarded dangerous, less so the fuelled launch vehicle. So they did fuelling first and then access the capsule. What has changed to change the procedure? Or was it always wrong to fuel first?

A bit of an irony. It was always critisized that SpaceX is not following established procedures. Now they stick to established procedures and it is wrong again.
As Trevor pointed out, what changed was the LAS. Shuttle had none so leaving astronauts on top during the fueling process with no means of escape was the greater risk. Now with both CC providers using LAS the greater risk is having additional people around a fueled vehicle. Evolve safety and retire risk.

Unless people want to argue SpaceX should be copying old space, which would be just as ironic.

Why would LAS make any difference?  The Saturn-1B and Saturn-V launches the crew boarded after the vehicle was fueled.  The Titan II for Gemini launches was fueled before the crew boarded. 

Is NASA going to have the crew board the Orion Capsule and then start fueling the SLS?  They might want to bring a sandwich and a book while they wait. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/25/2015 01:55 am
The problem with boarding a fully fuelled LV is crew and ground crew are vulnerable while boarding.
It takes a considerable amount of time to access pad, go up tower, board the capsule and get strapped in. Once hatch is closed the crew has LAS but ground crew still has get to ground and exit pad.
The crew would also be reluctant to abort while ground crew are in the area.
The Saturn tower had a flying fox but it takes minutes for everybody to go down it, while a fire to explosion can takes seconds.

It will be interesting to see how Blue Origin approaches this issue with New Shepard.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 06/25/2015 02:33 pm
The problem with boarding a fully fuelled LV is crew and ground crew are vulnerable while boarding.
It takes a considerable amount of time to access pad, go up tower, board the capsule and get strapped in. Once hatch is closed the crew has LAS but ground crew still has get to ground and exit pad.
The crew would also be reluctant to abort while ground crew are in the area.
The Saturn tower had a flying fox but it takes minutes for everybody to go down it, while a fire to explosion can takes seconds.

It will be interesting to see how Blue Origin approaches this issue with New Shepard.

Make sure the crew packs a sandwich in-case they get hungry while the LV is fueling.   

(http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s479/brovane/Space/ap12-KSC-69PC-640_zpsdzm4nepj.jpg)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 06/25/2015 11:56 pm
New Crew Access Tower Takes Shape at Cape

Published on Jun 25, 2015
The metal segments that will be stacked to form a complete crew access tower later this year are taking shape a few miles from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The work by Boeing and United Launch Alliance is critical in readying the launch site for a crew flight test to certify their systems in 2017 for operational missions to the International Space Station for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

https://youtu.be/ehnh99dLxVg
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 06/26/2015 09:55 am
Regarding fuel-after-boarding: I'm still curious if anyone knows whether Boeing/ULA has been asked to do this?  Can Atlas V fuel this quickly?  If SpaceX says: "Okay, we can make it work", and Boeing/ULA says: "Won't work", then will this have a bearing on any attempts to downselect to one provider?  Besides the really obvious difference in price, I mean.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/26/2015 01:00 pm
Regarding fuel-after-boarding: I'm still curious if anyone knows whether Boeing/ULA has been asked to do this?  Can Atlas V fuel this quickly?  If SpaceX says: "Okay, we can make it work", and Boeing/ULA says: "Won't work", then will this have a bearing on any attempts to downselect to one provider?  Besides the really obvious difference in price, I mean.

I'm guessing they'll load RP-1 the night before or before the crew arrives at the pad, then do all the cryo tanking with the crew in place and the pad evacuated.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/26/2015 06:26 pm
Reminds me of Mike Collins' observation from when he and the rest of the Apollo 11 crew boarded their vehicle.  He basically said that every other time he had been to the pad, it was swarming with busy workers.  When they approached the pad and got into the elevator on launch morning, he was impressed by the fact that all the busy-bee workers were gone, now.  He realized that, because the Saturn was fueled (or being fueled), the pad was now not as safe a place to hang out, and wondered if those missing workers knew something he didn't...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 06/27/2015 03:38 am
I'm just gunna remind y'all that CCDev1 was $50M, CCDev2 was $270M, CCiCap was $1112M and CCtCap is $6800M, for a grand total of $8232M. NASA most recently paid $76.3M/seat for Soyuz. So the cost of the Commercial Crew program is 107 Soyuz seats. For shuttling astronauts to a station that will be dumped into the Pacific in 2028, at the latest, even if the program had been fully funded so it could start flying this year (and completely ignoring the potentially low price per seat of Commercial Crew) it would still have been cheaper to just buy more Soyuz seats.

The argument that Commercial Crew is cheaper than the Soyuz just doesn't work. That's why Bolden stopped making it. A much worse calculation than mine was presented to him in the House (relying on the non-extended ISS retirement date) and he failed to respond to it. He can't even make the sunk cost argument, because the payments to Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada have torpedoed it. The Commercial Crew program budget has ballooned, as all NASA programs seem to do, and now the only argument he can make is nationalism. Russia is even making it incredibly easy to make that argument, and Bolden still can't sell it.

This keeps ignoring the fact that with CCrew, they can increase the population of the USOS side of ISS from 3 to 4. While this doesn't sound like a big deal, currently 2 people worth of time is tied up in maintaining the ISS, and only ~2000 man hours per year of research is happening on the USOS side. If there were 4 astronauts, they could nearly double the amount of available research hours per year, and yes right now astronaut time is one of the scarcest commodities on the ISS. So "just buying more Soyuz seats" doesn't cut it on an apples-to-apples basis.

~Jon
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/27/2015 04:01 am
This keeps ignoring the fact that with CCrew, they can increase the population of the USOS side of ISS from 3 to 4. While this doesn't sound like a big deal, currently 2 people worth of time is tied up in maintaining the ISS, and only ~2000 man hours per year of research is happening on the USOS side. If there were 4 astronauts, they could nearly double the amount of available research hours per year, and yes right now astronaut time is one of the scarcest commodities on the ISS. So "just buying more Soyuz seats" doesn't cut it on an apples-to-apples basis.

That's why there was an agreement to ramp up Soyuz production, which coincidentally would have provided more seats for Space Adventures.. but NASA didn't like that, so they locked them out of the deal. That made it "too expensive" compared to the false promise of a COTS-like procurement of commercial crew seats.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/27/2015 06:21 am
That's why there was an agreement to ramp up Soyuz production, which coincidentally would have provided more seats for Space Adventures.. but NASA didn't like that, so they locked them out of the deal. That made it "too expensive" compared to the false promise of a COTS-like procurement of commercial crew seats.

Can you provide more information on this?  I never heard of a proposed Soyuz ramp-up besides the one that boosted the crew from three to six.

And even if you ramped up Soyuz, there are a limited number of docking ports on the Russian size.  You would need three Soyuzes docked whenever there were seven crew on the station, so you'd be limited to only one Progress (or historically, one ATV).  I'm skeptical that this would be enough.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/27/2015 07:08 am
Can you provide more information on this?  I never heard of a proposed Soyuz ramp-up besides the one that boosted the crew from three to six.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12soyuz/

The deal died in 2012.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/27/2015 08:36 pm
This keeps ignoring the fact that with CCrew, they can increase the population of the USOS side of ISS from 3 to 4. While this doesn't sound like a big deal, currently 2 people worth of time is tied up in maintaining the ISS, and only ~2000 man hours per year of research is happening on the USOS side. If there were 4 astronauts, they could nearly double the amount of available research hours per year, and yes right now astronaut time is one of the scarcest commodities on the ISS. So "just buying more Soyuz seats" doesn't cut it on an apples-to-apples basis.
That's why there was an agreement to ramp up Soyuz production, which coincidentally would have provided more seats for Space Adventures.. but NASA didn't like that, so they locked them out of the deal. That made it "too expensive" compared to the false promise of a COTS-like procurement of commercial crew seats.

Agree; Commercial Crew has never been justifiable on a direct cost basis vs. Soyuz.  The only way to justify CC vs. Soyuz is to include other benefits.

A. Based on current trends and assuming:
1. All CCtCap post-certification mission (PCM) options are exercised for both providers.[1]
2. PCMs start in 2018 going through 2024 (12 PCMs total).
3. Then Commercial Crew expenditures (CCDev1,CCDev2,CCiCap...) total ~$8,362M through 2024.

B. On a per-seat basis, given projected per-seat price trends, for Soyuz 2018-2024...
4. 6 Soyuz seats/yr total ~$3,567M
5. 8 Soyuz seats/yr total ~$4,756M

C. Assuming 8 seats/yr requires NASA to pay in full for one additional Soyuz launch (regardless of seats used) 2018-2014...
6. 8 Soyuz seats/yr total ~$5,3516M

D. Assuming 8 seats/yr requires NASA to pay in full for two additional Soyuz launches (regardless of seats used) 2018-2024...
7. 8 Soyuz seats/yr total ~$7,135M

My best WAG is that on a direct cost basis, CC might be more cost effective than Soyuz circa 2032--assuming CC costs don't increase, and Soyuz price trends hold.

[1] CCtCap provides for a maximum of 6 total between both providers.  For this calculation I assume 6 PCMs are awarded to each provider for a total of 12 PCMs, or 2 flights/yr and 6 years total crew service.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 06/27/2015 09:29 pm
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/27/2015 10:17 pm
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").

Right; as I said, "The only way to justify CC vs. Soyuz is to include other benefits."  Having multiple providers and redundancy is one of many potential benefits.  Problem is objective valuation of those benefits, which is why I excluded them.  (Discussed many times on other threads, and the result was endless posts with no objective basis.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/27/2015 10:59 pm
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").

Majority owner of your own LEO space station:  $100B

How much you pay someone else to access your own LEO space station:  $71M/person

How much it will cost to have your own transportation to your LEO space station:  priceless
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/28/2015 12:17 am
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12soyuz/

The deal died in 2012.

It's an interesting proposed arrangement, but there is nothing in that article that talks about adding a seventh crew member.  In fact it very specifically says ""But the number of seats committed to NASA and Russia and the other partners will remain at 12", i.e. two groups of six.

According to that article, this was not a NASA deal that "coincidentally would have provided more seats for Space Adventures" as you put it.  This was a deal between Space Adventures and Russia which didn't involve NASA at all.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/28/2015 03:28 am
It's an interesting proposed arrangement, but there is nothing in that article that talks about adding a seventh crew member.  In fact it very specifically says ""But the number of seats committed to NASA and Russia and the other partners will remain at 12", i.e. two groups of six.

According to that article, this was not a NASA deal that "coincidentally would have provided more seats for Space Adventures" as you put it.  This was a deal between Space Adventures and Russia which didn't involve NASA at all.

Look, you just heard about it and all the research you've done is the one article I linked you to.. so don't go telling me what it was and wasn't.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 06/28/2015 05:07 am
Look, you just heard about it and all the research you've done is the one article I linked you to.. so don't go telling me what it was and wasn't.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.  I'm just pointing out that you cited that article to support your contention that NASA had a plan to use Soyuz to support 4 USOS crew, whereas that article has a sentence that directly contradicts your contention.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/28/2015 05:14 am
I'm doing nothing of the sort.  I'm just pointing out that you cited that article to support your contention that NASA had a plan to use Soyuz to support 4 USOS crew, whereas that article has a sentence that directly contradicts your contention.

I didn't "cite" it. I offered it to you as a place to start reading. Someone would have linked to that article on this forum around the time that it was all going on.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 06/28/2015 06:14 am
(Discussed many times on other threads, and the result was endless posts with no objective basis.)

:)

It would be interesting to see an objective analysis of commercial crew transport made with the "cheap lift" assumption, i.e. with the orbital launch component of the provider's cost decreasing rapidly. Soyuz seat prices wouldn't see any benefit from that (Soyuz LV costs can't decrease much further), but SpaceX and ULA LV costs could/would.

In that scenario, does the value gained by having competing commercial spacecraft (Dragon/CST) potentially drive the cost of US crew transport lower than the cost of Soyuz seats?

My best WAG is that on a direct cost basis, CC might be more cost effective than Soyuz circa 2032

Yes, like in that time period, by which point "cheap lift" might be a valid assumption.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/29/2015 04:20 am
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").

Majority owner of your own LEO space station:  $100B

How much you pay someone else to access your own LEO space station:  $71M/person

How much it will cost to have your own transportation to your LEO space station:  priceless

If you are doing a price comparison include the Shuttle. The US Government was willing to pay its price for access to the ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/29/2015 04:28 am
If you are doing a price comparison include the Shuttle. The US Government was willing to pay its price for access to the ISS.

Yep, just unwilling to solve the problem of lifeboats (or accept the reality of spaceflight risk.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/04/2015 01:12 am
It would be interesting to see an objective analysis of commercial crew transport made with the "cheap lift" assumption, i.e. with the orbital launch component of the provider's cost decreasing rapidly. Soyuz seat prices wouldn't see any benefit from that (Soyuz LV costs can't decrease much further), but SpaceX and ULA LV costs could/would.

In that scenario, does the value gained by having competing commercial spacecraft (Dragon/CST) potentially drive the cost of US crew transport lower than the cost of Soyuz seats?

Depends on what costs you charge to Commercial Crew.  My calculations are based on total cost for CC, including prior development (CCDev etc), which is intended to address the question: "When does the investment in CC start to save money vs. Souyz?".

The simple answer: A long time.  On a per-seat basis, the cumulative CC cost for 12 CC flights or 48 seats through 2024 is ~$8.4B.  The cumulative cost for the same number of Soyuz seats through 2024 is ~$5.3-7.1B.  The numbers are squishy as we don't know what 8 seats/yr on Soyuz would cost--likely significantly more than the per-seat cost for 6 seats/yr as it would require at least one, and possibly two, additional Soyuz flights.

Taking 2025 as the baseline, we then enter that year with Soyuz costing ~1.3-3.1B less than CC.  How long does it take for CC to become cheaper (all up) than Soyuz?  Depends on how much subsequent CC and Soyuz seats/flights cost.  If CC is $10M/seat cheaper, it will take ~16 years (payoff ~2041).  If CC is $20M/seat cheaper, it will take ~8 years (payoff ~2033).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/04/2015 01:17 am
If you are doing a price comparison include the Shuttle. The US Government was willing to pay its price for access to the ISS.
Shuttle is not appropriate to include in this comparison.  Shuttle was primarily for construction and cargo.  Unclear how to factor out the cost of construction flights.  For cargo the appropriate comparison is CRS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/04/2015 02:46 am
There is more to it than seat price. The extra crew member per CC flight (4 seats) allows NASA to double the ISS science experiments. While the 2 crew that are permanently maintaining station is far from wasted time as there is a lot to be learnt from ISS maintenance, it is a large overhead.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/04/2015 05:28 am
There is more to it than seat price. The extra crew member per CC flight (4 seats) allows NASA to double the ISS science experiments. While the 2 crew that are permanently maintaining station is far from wasted time as there is a lot to be learnt from ISS maintenance, it is a large overhead.

I wonder why this obvious point is mostly ignored. Without it and without giving independent access capability a value in itself Commercial Crew is indeed barely worth it purely financial.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2015 05:34 am
I wonder why this obvious point is mostly ignored. Without it and without giving independent access capability a value in itself Commercial Crew is indeed barely worth it purely financial.

Because the Russians have been offering extra seats for longer than commercial crew existed and NASA wasn't interested (except momentarily in 2011), and "independent access" is a pretty abstract concept for a station that can't operate with Russian cooperation.

The extra seat thing is a rationalization made up after the fact. If the commercial crew program had been pitched as a "Soyuz replacement" instead of a Shuttle replacement, the partners would have been offering three seat vehicles and no-one would have cared. If extra seats were really valuable NASA would be asked for 5 or 6 or 7 seats per flight, or more flights. Four seats is just an accidental benefit, and NASA might not even use them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/04/2015 05:49 am
I wonder why this obvious point is mostly ignored. Without it and without giving independent access capability a value in itself Commercial Crew is indeed barely worth it purely financial.

Because the Russians have been offering extra seats for longer than commercial crew existed

How?  They can have only two permanently parked Soyuz as rescue vehicles. That's 6 escape seats and that is what the station is limited to.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2015 05:57 am
How?  They can have only two permanently parked Soyuz as rescue vehicles. That's 6 escape seats and that is what the station is limited to.

Yeah, because it's impossible to add more docking ports. I mean the commercial crew vehicles are going to just be tied to the station with silly string and the astronauts are going to space walk across.

*cough*http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_fgb2.html*cough*



Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/04/2015 07:06 am
How?  They can have only two permanently parked Soyuz as rescue vehicles. That's 6 escape seats and that is what the station is limited to.

Yeah, because it's impossible to add more docking ports. I mean the commercial crew vehicles are going to just be tied to the station with silly string and the astronauts are going to space walk across.

*cough*http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_fgb2.html*cough*

So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?
But instead I prefer to turn that argument around, asking how much would those extra two launches per year cost? It would certainly help amortizing the US vehicles sooner.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2015 07:14 am
So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?

I suggested nothing of the sort. The Russians didn't end up adding extra docking ports because couldn't convince NASA to pay for expanded Soyuz production.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/04/2015 07:21 am
So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?

I suggested nothing of the sort.

Maybe not but your

Quote
I mean the commercial crew vehicles are going to just be tied to the station with silly string and the astronauts are going to space walk across.

gets very close to implying it.

But I don't like endless back and forth arguments and end it with the cost argument how much that extra two Soyuz would cost, plus installing extra ports at the russian side.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2015 07:28 am
But I don't like endless back and forth arguments and end it with the cost argument how much that extra two Soyuz would cost, plus installing extra ports at the russian side.

It was offered for much cheaper than commercial crew and it would have been done by now (instead of whatever fictional date you prefer for commercial crew). This is irrelevant to your question, which was why no-one bothers to talk about this.. NASA has already decided that more seats isn't important, otherwise they would have just paid for it. You're presupposing that some sort of rational "utilization strategy" exists. It doesn't. The ISS is a white elephant.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/04/2015 05:47 pm
There is more to it than seat price. The extra crew member per CC flight (4 seats) allows NASA to double the ISS science experiments. While the 2 crew that are permanently maintaining station is far from wasted time as there is a lot to be learnt from ISS maintenance, it is a large overhead.

The cost comparison is based on 8 seats/yr, USOS crew of 4, for CC vs. Soyuz.  That is independent of the benefit for a USOS crew of 4.

Yes, there is presumably benefit for a USOS crew of 4.  I tried to quantify and illustrate with a simple cost-benefit analysis a few years ago (emphasis added)...
Agree.  I also believe that at least in the context of ISS, looking at this as a competition between CTS and Soyuz $/seat, or purely on a $/seat basis, is an extremely limited view.  An alternative metric is $/hr of usable crew time (time available for supporting research)...

A. Given:
1. ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr.
2. USOS crew of 3 provides ~35hrs of usable hrs/wk (per GAO).
3. Soyuz price $60M/seat (2015 pricing, per GAO).
4. Crew consumables 4.7kg/day/person (per NASA).
5. Crew cargo transportation $60K/kg (CRS pricing).
6. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.8M/hr

B. Assuming:
1. An additional crew member for a total of 4.
2. Additional crew member adds 25% usable crew time(~44hrs total, conservative).
3. CTS price $80M/seat (+25% vs. Soyuz A.3).
4. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.5M/hr (-16%).

In short, in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.

While those numbers are dated, the conclusion is no different today (feel free to pick your own numbers).  Using a baseline of: nominal Soyuz cost of $70M/seat, ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr, a USOS crew of three with 42 usable hrs/wk usable crew time; then cost-benefit for a USOS crew of four...

Conservative: +25% usable crew time (52.5hr/wk) and $100M/seat = ~$360M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$155M/seat.

Nominal: +50% usable crew time (63hr/wk) and $80M/seat = ~$1025M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$275M/seat.

Optimistic: +75% usable crew time (73.5hr/wk) and $80M/seat = ~$1410M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$385M/seat.

Note that the annual benefit is most sensitive to usable crew time, not seat cost.  That also provides a basis for determining total benefit over the life of the program and, depending on what DDT&E costs are attributed to CC, the  CC payoff period.

However, again, this says nothing about whether CC is a better deal than Soyuz for achieving a USOS crew of four.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: BobCarver on 07/05/2015 01:47 am
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. As I wrote over two years ago after discussing this with Chairman Lamar Smith:

Money we spend in Russia does not circulate within the US. If the government spent the same amount of money within the USA, it would be multiplied through the money multiplier effect. In effect, the $424 million is spent in Russia, while the same amount of money spent in the USA may have a total economic effect of several times, perhaps more than a billion dollars in total.

When you consider that money spent in the USA is subject to income tax, some of that money the government spends in the USA will come back to the government in terms of tax revenue, further reducing the overall cost.

Bottom line: Spending the same amount in the USA could end up greatly reducing the amount of government money spent for the same services we are paying the Russians for. Economically, it just makes sense.

It's nice when a politician is actually working for the proper course forward.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 07/05/2015 05:24 pm
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. As I wrote over two years ago after discussing this with Chairman Lamar Smith:

Money we spend in Russia does not circulate within the US. If the government spent the same amount of money within the USA, it would be multiplied through the money multiplier effect. In effect, the $424 million is spent in Russia, while the same amount of money spent in the USA may have a total economic effect of several times, perhaps more than a billion dollars in total.

When you consider that money spent in the USA is subject to income tax, some of that money the government spends in the USA will come back to the government in terms of tax revenue, further reducing the overall cost.

Bottom line: Spending the same amount in the USA could end up greatly reducing the amount of government money spent for the same services we are paying the Russians for. Economically, it just makes sense.

It's nice when a politician is actually working for the proper course forward.

True a good example would be  engineers and technicians working in the US will in turn buy houses and cars which keeps carpenters and factory workers employed.
Those workers will in turn buy goods as well.
The government gets a cut on each transaction in taxes.

Money sent overseas on the other hand is pretty much money thrown away from a return stand point.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/05/2015 11:25 pm
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. ...

While I appreciate the sentiment, credible numbers are hard to find.  And at the risk of veering into Space Politics territory... Why should USG industrial policy (which is what we're really talking about here) favor government investment in this endeavor vs. others?  The competition is not USG funds for Commercial Crew vs. Soyuz, it is Commercial Crew vs. every other USG program clamoring for funds, many of which would claim an equal or greater "money multiplier" effect.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/05/2015 11:32 pm
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. ...

While I appreciate the sentiment, credible numbers are hard to find.  And at the risk of veering into Space Politics territory... Why should USG industrial policy (which is what we're really talking about here) favor government investment in this endeavor vs. others?  The competition is not USG funds for Commercial Crew vs. Soyuz, it is Commercial Crew vs. every other USG program clamoring for funds, many of which would claim an equal or greater "money multiplier" effect.
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/05/2015 11:48 pm
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

They do actually, that's the point. The expansion of Soyuz production was denied. Paying for seats is not "investing", even in the government version of the word. Soyuz seats would be a lot cheaper than they are now - and astronauts wouldn't have to go to Russia to train - if the US was willing to "invest" in it. The fundamental thing that people don't seem to get here is that the ISS is has an expiration date. Remember the pushback from Russia when NASA announced they don't see a problem with extending that date to 2029?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/05/2015 11:57 pm
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

They do actually, that's the point. The expansion of Soyuz production was denied. Paying for seats is not "investing", even in the government version of the word. Soyuz seats would be a lot cheaper than they are now - and astronauts wouldn't have to go to Russia to train - if the US was willing to "invest" in it. The fundamental thing that people don't seem to get here is that the ISS is has an expiration date. Remember the pushback from Russia when NASA announced they don't see a problem with extending that date to 2029?
Semantics...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/06/2015 12:40 am
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

Well, there are "they" who believe that investing available USG funds in other US industries provides a better return; and some "they" even have data on which their analysis and recommendations are based.

What exactly you are disagreeing with is unclear, as so far all I see is hand waving.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/06/2015 12:54 am
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

Well, there are "they" who believe that investing available USG funds in other US industries provides a better return; and some "they" even have data on which their analysis and recommendations are based.

What exactly you are disagreeing with is unclear, as so far all I see is hand waving.
I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/06/2015 01:26 am
I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?

Which is a great thing.. it means people will move away from a swamp and get jobs that actually contribute to the economy, instead of being a net loss. The people who made sandwiches for Shuttle pad workers now make sandwiches for sail boat builders or moved to Bone Valley to make sandwiches for Phosphate miners or moved to Georgia to make sandwiches for workers at the Kia Motors plant or one of the many textiles manufacturers. The increased availability of labor in those local economies is a plus, not a negative, and their quality of life is improved.

In fact, every dollar the government sends to Russia instead of spending in the US has a net improvement on the local economies of areas that aren't supported by government funding. That has a multiplier effect on the products that are produced in those industries which has a widespread positive effect everywhere those products are sold.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/06/2015 11:40 am
I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?

Which is a great thing.. it means people will move away from a swamp and get jobs that actually contribute to the economy, instead of being a net loss. The people who made sandwiches for Shuttle pad workers now make sandwiches for sail boat builders or moved to Bone Valley to make sandwiches for Phosphate miners or moved to Georgia to make sandwiches for workers at the Kia Motors plant or one of the many textiles manufacturers. The increased availability of labor in those local economies is a plus, not a negative, and their quality of life is improved.

In fact, every dollar the government sends to Russia instead of spending in the US has a net improvement on the local economies of areas that aren't supported by government funding. That has a multiplier effect on the products that are produced in those industries which has a widespread positive effect everywhere those products are sold.
The jobs lost in America were not all on the low end of the economic scale, many were highly trained subcontractors that had to take lower paid jobs.  This trend impacts on the entire nation and affects the standard of living. The mismanagement (giving it away)of commercial launch industry has been going on for close to three decades and the time has come to take it back. I’m just not interested in creating jobs in Russia, that’s Putin’s problem... We should stop before they change another thread to policy again.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 07/26/2015 02:56 am
Defining Operational Space Suit Requirements for Commercial Orbital Spaceflight (July 2015)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150013807.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 09/08/2015 02:08 pm
I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:
Quote
06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/08/2015 02:47 pm
I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:
Quote
06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk
No, it has not.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/08/2015 03:13 pm
I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:
Quote
06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk

Here is what Hans said (from your transcript):

Quote from: Hans
We have a demo flight to the ISS without crew coming up in the end of '16ish, we have an in-flight abort test after that, and then we have a demo flight 2 to the ISS, this time with crew, after those two first flights. Overall goal, restore the U.S. crew carrying capability by 2017.

P.S. Thanks for the transcript.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 09/08/2015 03:25 pm
Interesting.  I had interpreted Mulholland's "So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017." as meaning that the "first crewed services flight" was "ours" (Boeing's) as well, but he doesn't explicitly say that.  I suppose his words could be interpreted as "... our pad abort test, [our] uncrewed flight test, [our] crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight [which may or may not be ours] all in 2017."  Good point.

~Kirk
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jak Kennedy on 09/08/2015 05:05 pm
Why do so many people whichever side they are on seem to want to amortize the cost of commercial crew through to 2024. These investments will be used after the ISS (hopefully ::) )
What would be worse would be in 2024 and still no ability for the US to fly it's own missions but having to rely on the Russians, Chinese or Indians to get into space.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 09/09/2015 02:00 am
Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager).  He had Rand Simberg and Leonard David with him to asked questions as well.  Given Simberg's Safe Is Not an Option (http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Option-Rand-Simberg/dp/0989135519/) views, it is not surprising that much of the discussion dealt with the program's risk and safety philosophy, and Lueders delved much deeper into the subject than I had heard her do elsewhere.

  Show description: http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2545
  Direct link to audio: http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2545-BWB-2015-09-03.mp3
  Show's blog entry: https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/kathy-lueders-dr-heidi-fearn-thursday-9-3-15/

This is not a normal Space Show program with callers, etc. because of David's attendance at AIAA Space 2015, but instead is a pair of interview segments.  His 45 minute interview with Kathy Lueders runs from 06:50 - 51:40.  That segment is followed by a tour of Dr. James Woodward's Cal St. Fullerton lab, hosted by his Mach effect co-researcher, Dr. Heidi Fearn (which runs from 51:45 through the end at 1:45:15).

Unfortunately, David Livingston forbids transcripts of his shows, so the best I can do is an outline.

06:50  Introduction
07:29  Commercial Crew Program Overview
08:20  Continued support to Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin
09:40  Budget concerns
12:04  Prioritizing milestones
15:55  Loss of IDA and C2V2 radio on SpaceX CRS-7
17:09  Quantifying safety; probabilistic risk assessment vs. fault tolerance
23:15  Origin of 1/270 chance LOC requirement
27:02  Risk vs. value of mission
28:20  Program design philosophy
30:45  Government insight/oversight vs. proprietary information & maintaining competitive advantage
34:03  Intent vs. standards
39:15  Variance to requirements
42:50  Commercial Crew Astronauts / Crew cadre selection
45:23  Reusability
50:06  Closing comments
51:40  End

I found this interview much more interesting than the panel discussion.

~Kirk
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/09/2015 10:18 am
Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager). 

A few technical tidbits from this interview:

- Orbital demonstration test from Boeing CST-100 will carry two people: one from Boeing and one from NASA.
- Demonstration mission from SpaceX Dragon 2 will carry two people: both from NASA
- LIDAR's are constantly being re-used on current SpaceX CRS missions, so the (flight) history of the LIDAR hardware is well known.
- Boeing proposed and plans to re-use it's CST-100 spacecraft on CCP missions.
- SpaceX proposed new Dragon 2 for each mission, with re-use of specific components being discussed.
- SpaceX proposed propulsive landing for CCP missions but NASA declined. Kathy expects not to see propulsive landings on CCP missions for the foreseeable future.

About that last point: that means that for the foreseeable future the Dragon 2 CCP missions will end in a water landing. That's probably also the reason why SpaceX proposed new vehicles for each CCP mission. Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/09/2015 01:40 pm
Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.
Didn't we just hear that SpaceX plans to reuse the pressure vessel from a previously used Dragon 1?  And they've already reused components from previous Dragon flights.  Obviously that's not as good as just flying it again full stop.  But reusing the pressure vessel has to save a good amount of $$ I would think.

Reentry is also quite destructive on the outside of the capsule, so I would expect even with a reused capsule (CST-100 and eventually Dragon 2, I would guess for the first re-bid of crewed transport) that it would require a fair amount of work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/09/2015 02:07 pm
Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager). 

A few technical tidbits from this interview:

- Orbital demonstration test from Boeing CST-100 will carry two people: one from Boeing and one from NASA.
- Demonstration mission from SpaceX Dragon 2 will carry two people: both from NASA
- LIDAR's are constantly being re-used on current SpaceX CRS missions, so the (flight) history of the LIDAR hardware is well known.
- Boeing proposed and plans to re-use it's CST-100 spacecraft on CCP missions.
- SpaceX proposed new Dragon 2 for each mission, with re-use of specific components being discussed.
- SpaceX proposed propulsive landing for CCP missions but NASA declined. Kathy expects not to see propulsive landings on CCP missions for the foreseeable future.

About that last point: that means that for the foreseeable future the Dragon 2 CCP missions will end in a water landing. That's probably also the reason why SpaceX proposed new vehicles for each CCP mission. Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.

Did she say why NASA declined propulsive landing? Safety reasons? Perhaps, SpaceX should have offered propulsive landing assisted by parachutes. That would have seemed like a reasonable compromise. It's not that different from Soyuz and to the extent that the landing would still work even without the propulsive landing, it shouldn't be much of a safety concern.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/09/2015 02:27 pm
Probably a "not until proven" position. And we know pretty well that for ISS programs "always in motion the future is".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/09/2015 02:45 pm
Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager). 

A few technical tidbits from this interview:

- Orbital demonstration test from Boeing CST-100 will carry two people: one from Boeing and one from NASA.
- Demonstration mission from SpaceX Dragon 2 will carry two people: both from NASA
- LIDAR's are constantly being re-used on current SpaceX CRS missions, so the (flight) history of the LIDAR hardware is well known.
- Boeing proposed and plans to re-use it's CST-100 spacecraft on CCP missions.
- SpaceX proposed new Dragon 2 for each mission, with re-use of specific components being discussed.
- SpaceX proposed propulsive landing for CCP missions but NASA declined. Kathy expects not to see propulsive landings on CCP missions for the foreseeable future.

About that last point: that means that for the foreseeable future the Dragon 2 CCP missions will end in a water landing. That's probably also the reason why SpaceX proposed new vehicles for each CCP mission. Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.

Correction. I just listened to the part about propulsive landing. NASA never said that they were opposed to it. Lueders said that SpaceX is looking at propulsive landing in the future and she said that she could see that happenning in the future. It's at the 49-50 minute mark of the show.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 09/09/2015 03:32 pm
A few technical tidbits from this interview:
[snip]
- SpaceX proposed propulsive landing for CCP missions but NASA declined. Kathy expects not to see propulsive landings on CCP missions for the foreseeable future.

About that last point: that means that for the foreseeable future the Dragon 2 CCP missions will end in a water landing. That's probably also the reason why SpaceX proposed new vehicles for each CCP mission. Re-use of Dragon 2 vehicles will probably only be done with land-landed vehicles given the destructive effects of immersion in salt-water on structures and electronics.

Correction. I just listened to the part about propulsive landing. NASA never said that they were opposed to it. Lueders said that SpaceX is looking at propulsive landing in the future and she said that she could see that happenning in the future. It's at the 49-50 minute mark of the show.

It not perfectly clear, but I agree with you, yg.  Starting at 49:30 I hear her say:
Quote
You know, we'd had a little bit of a discussion at the beginning, because they were, SpaceX was really looking at, and they would still like to go eventually to a capsule that does a propulsive landing.  Instead of the landing, the water landing under parachutes, they would like to move toward a propulsive land landing.  And when you do that then, guess what, it kind of opens up some options from a reusability standpoint, and so I wouldn't -- I would see that happening in our future.  But that will be something we'll work through.

I can't swear that second one was a "would" and not a "wouldn't", but it sounds like "would" to me, and I think that fits the sentence better.  I suspect that she started to say something like "and so I wouldn't rule that out" and stopped after the "wouldn't" and changed that to a more affirmative "I would see that happening in our future."

~Kirk
 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/09/2015 11:04 pm
I heard exactly what you heard. The second verb is a "would" (not a "wouldn't").
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2015 01:34 pm
I finished listening to the entire interview. It's worth listening in its entirety. Lueders was very candid in her responses during the interview. She knows her stuff. There was an interesting discussion about safety. Rand Simberg asked whether the 1 in 270 loss of crew ratio was arbitrary. She said that the ratio came from Constellation. They initially wanted to have a 1 in a 1000 ratio Under Constellation (to be 10 time safer than the Shuttle) but realized that this ratio was not possible at a practical level.   Lueders also mentionned that there was a lot of pushback from both providers on the commercial crew requirements and that NASA explained why it was important that they meet these requirements. NASA did allow the providers to propose alternate ways of meeting the intent of their requirements through alternate standards. She thought that there was a healthy tension between NASA and the providers on these requirements. She said that double fault tolerance is required for the operations close to the ISS and for certain parts of ascent and descent. On reusability, she said that they learned during the Shuttle program that material fatigue was mission specific.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/10/2015 04:33 pm
The following notes shed a little more light on the LOC/LOM figures for Commercial crew.  They are from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) May 2015 Meeting Minutes.

Commercial Crew Program Loss of Crew/Loss of Mission

Mr. John Frost reported on the briefing by Mr. Justin Kerr, Manager of the Spacecraft Office in the CCP. Loss of Crew (LOC)/Loss of Mission (LOM) has been a topic of great interest to the ASAP for years. The LOC is loss of crew probability—how likely there will be loss of crew on a given mission. It is a top level metric that tells how safe the system is overall. It is a theoretical number, evaluated by a probabilistic risk assessment. The Panel is interested in ensuring that the bar is set high enough to drive designers and engineers to provide the safest vehicle possible.

Mr. Frost provided some background on the topic. The Panel had understood at an earlier meeting that the LOC requirement was being reduced fairly significantly. There was a lot of detailed information provided by Mr. Kerr, and the “change” in requirement is not as bad as the Panel originally thought. The Space Shuttle at end-of-life had LOC of about 1 in 90. The follow on Constellation (that was originally envisioned to replace Shuttle) had a goal of 10 times better (1 in 1000), based on a 2005 study, which at that time was thought possible and was consistent with the request from the Astronaut Office. As the Constellation system design began and the program started looking at hazards and threats, in particular the very significant Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) threat, they found that 1 in 1000 was going to be an impossible number to meet. The Agency decided toward the end of that program to reduce the LOC number to 1 in 270 (or 3 times better than Shuttle at end-of-life).

The Panel had a concern with that LOC number at prior meetings and asked NASA to relook at it. They did and felt it was the best that could be done. When the CCP came along, the HEOMD chose that same number to keep an even playing field (commercial crew should be as safe as Constellation would have been), and the requirement of 1 in 270 was set for commercial crew.  Most felt that the contract was clear that the requirement was to be met without any inspection on orbit. As the contractors started producing their designs and analyses started coming in, NASA learned that both commercial providers were relying on inspection on orbit, which was not intended by the Program.

That triggered more studies and analyses, which finally led the CCP to conclude that even the 1 in 270 couldn’t be met, primarily because of MMOD hazard. The CCP wanted to focus the contractors’ attention on the things that they could do. The approach that NASA took was to take the requirement, reduce it slightly to what was believed to be the most safety that could be attained without operational mitigations (1 in 200), and clearly made the contractors understand that no inspection could be counted on—they had to meet that number on their own. It is now clear that coupled with that, NASA has a made commitment to find other operational control mechanisms that will make up the gap between 1 in 200 and 1 in 270. The kinds of things that can be done on orbit include: inspection by ExtraVehicular Activity (EVA) or robotic arm, docking procedures and location of docking port, and reducing time on orbit. All of these will be examined. The CCP has committed to studies to determine which of those make the most sense and to implement them. Mr. Frost cautioned that some of those operational constraints, such as EVA inspection, carry their own risk. NASA needs to be careful as it picks what the controls will be and to be smart about how to make up the gap. Bottom line, there is still a 1 in 270 requirement; some of that has been allocated to the contractors and some to the Program. The Panel believes NASA is moving forward in an orderly and well-thought-through process.


See page 5 in the following document@
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Second_Quarterly_Meeting_2015.pdf (http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Second_Quarterly_Meeting_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/11/2015 06:24 pm
A follow-up comment by ASAP on LOM/LOC at their last meeting (Aug 2015)

[... complimenting new CCP openess]  "One item he drew attention to was the probability of loss of crew that the Panel had focused upon in the past. At the last ASAP meeting, the Panel had a “deep dive” into the changes to the LOC number that was allocated to the contractors. At the end of that review, the Panel understood what had been done. The contractors had been allocated a different amount of the risk, and the Program would make up the gap by procedures, orientation, orbit, or other changes. NASA further addressed the topic at this fact-finding meeting. It has become clear that it may be harder to do than they thought it would be. Currently, they are looking at all options. They are also pursuing “buying” some of that risk back through vehicle design. The Panel needs to keep close attention on that issue. The Panel’s concern last quarter was that it might be hard to buy risk back, and NASA might end up with a lower LOC than what was initially desired."

See page 13/14 of the following document:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Third_Quarterly_Meeting_2015.pdf (http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Third_Quarterly_Meeting_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2015 08:04 am
Uh oh...

http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

Quote from: Jeff Foust
One key member of Congress swiftly criticized the administration for not providing Orion with enough funding to support a 2021 launch. “Once again, the Obama administration is choosing to delay deep space exploration priorities such as Orion and the Space Launch System that will take U.S. astronauts to the Moon, Mars, and beyond,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee, in a Sept. 16 statement.

Maybe I'm a pessimist but I feel another shifting of funds from CCP to Orion/SLS coming up in the next budget cycle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/07/2015 02:04 am
This isn't new but I can't remember if it has been posted before:

Quote
NASA has no plans to downselect the number of partners in response to lower-than-requested funding levels. As experience has shown with cargo, NASA’s plan to establish a redundant crew transportation capability is critically important for robust, safe ISS operations.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/McAlister_Commerical_Crew_Program_Status_TAGGED.pdf

Quote
Mr. McAlister explained that NASA has no plans to down-select the number of partners in response to a lower-than-requested funding level. He asserted that redundant, crew transportation capability is critically important for robust, safe ISS operations.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEO_Minutes_2015_7_27_29_FINALrev1_Bowersox_Comments_100415.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ngilmore on 11/21/2015 02:54 am
NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station

NASA took a significant step Friday toward expanding research opportunities aboard the International Space Station with its first mission order from Hawthorne, California based-company SpaceX to launch astronauts from U.S. soil. This is the second in a series of four guaranteed orders NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts. The Boeing Company of Houston received its first crew mission order in May. “It’s really exciting to see SpaceX and Boeing with hardware in flow for their first crew rotation missions,” said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “It is important to have at least two healthy and robust capabilities from U.S.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/11/20/nasa-orders-spacex-crew-mission-to-international-space-station/

edit: Added this quote:
“Commercial crew launches are really important for helping us meet the demand for research on the space station because it allows us to increase the crew to seven,” said Julie Robinson, International Space Station chief scientist. “Over the long term, it also sets the foundation for scientific access to future commercial research platforms in low- Earth orbit.”
http://go.nasa.gov/1N0L2TX
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 03:43 am
Here is an update on commercial crew:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z36Rj_78wo0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 03:50 am
One thing that was mentionned by Kathy Lueders is that NASA is close to ordering a second Boeing post-certification mission.

Another thing is that NASA is working with the FAA in order to add language that adds a definition of government astronaut in the Commercial Space Launch Act (at the 21 minute mark). It seeks to ensure that the governmental role is understood by both the companies and NASA as they move in the post certification phase.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 05:08 pm
Presentation by Luders at the NAC on certification:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/6-Status_of_CCP.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 11/28/2015 06:27 pm
The Q&A has been truncated from ALL of the ISPCS 2015 videos on Youtube that I have found. I find the Q&A sometimes the most interesting and informative portions of the conversation. Does anyone know if the Q&A is available anywhere?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/28/2015 06:33 pm
The Q&A has been truncated from ALL of the ISPCS 2015 videos on Youtube that I have found. I find the Q&A sometimes the most interesting and informative portions of the conversation. Does anyone know if the Q&A is available anywhere?

I don't think that it's available but there may have been tweets on them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: getitdoneinspace on 12/20/2015 12:50 am
I noticed the second NASA order for a Boeing Crew Mission to the International Space Station yesterday.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/12/18/nasa-orders-boeing-crew-mission-international-space-station/

I have been wondering the exact reason why NASA has been ordering these mission from Boeing sooner than SpaceX and guessed it was due to a longer lead time Boeing requires to execute the order. I discovered today, and would like to share with fellow NSFers, that the required lead time for ordering was specified in Boeing's bid for CCtCAP.

The below was extracted from Boeing bid which you can find here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... (Look at page 9)

B.4 POST CERTIFICATION MISSIONS (IDIQ) (CLIN 002)
...
Post Certification Missions require at least xxx months prior to launch to account for lead times.
...
The xxx I added since the redacted highlight did not copy/paste.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/21/2015 03:21 pm
Kathy Lueders also mentionned that Boeing got the task order first because Boeing required longer lead time. She also said that each company will get at least two PCMs. So SpaceX is sure to get at least another one too.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 12/21/2015 03:28 pm
I wonder if their lead time has more to do with securing the launch vehicle then being able to have the Starliner ready?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 01/07/2016 02:18 pm
I wonder if their lead time has more to do with securing the launch vehicle then being able to have the Starliner ready?

It could be many things.  It could be components for that particular spacecraft.  I'm not as familiar with the specific wording of the contract, but it would not surprise me if they were basically not allowed to spend any money on mission-specific hardware until ATP is granted.  If particular spacecraft components are long-lead items and are on the critical path for assembly, that would necessitate an early ATP.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/08/2016 05:37 pm
Presentation by Luders at the NAC on certification:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/6-Status_of_CCP.pdf

The minutes of the NAC meeting have now been released. There is some interesting points that were made regarding commercial crew certification.

There was a question on flight directors which was interesting:

Quote from: NAC November 2015 meeting minutes
Mr. Lopez-Alegria asked who the flight director would be during the rendezvous phase. Ms. Lueders answered that ISS FD will lead operations during ISS rendezvous and docked phases which are "joint operations" phases. CCP vehicle Flight Directors will be lead for the CCP vehicles operations during all other phases.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_Minutes_November_4-5_2015_final_121815.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 01/14/2016 03:52 am
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-astronauts-to-continue-flying-on-soyuz-post-commercial-crew

Quote
NASA astronauts will continue flying on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft even after U.S. commercial crew systems come on line and Russian cosmonauts will fly on the U.S. systems according to NASA astronaut Jeff Williams.

This keeps going back and forth, but it looks like "seat swapping" is still baselined. No exchange of funds.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/14/2016 04:03 am
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 01/14/2016 04:40 am
Don't let rhetoric get in the way of reality either.

1) Without Commercial Crew, loss of Soyuz would require the ISS to be de-crewed and possibly even splashed.
2) Without Commercial Crew, the maximum number of full-time crew is six.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/14/2016 04:41 am
*Yawn*

Did I feel a breeze in here just now?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/14/2016 04:43 am
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

Being solely dependent on Russia is a problem in the current political climate.

I doubt that the Russians are making NASA pay for the development costs of Soyuz through their agreements. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 01/14/2016 06:03 am
Being solely dependent on Russia is a problem in the current political climate.

Being solely dependent on Russia a single launch provider is a problem in the current political any climate.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2016 12:56 am
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)
Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 01/15/2016 01:10 am
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/15/2016 01:11 am
Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2016 01:21 am
Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.

Then you are not comparing apples to apples.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: okan170 on 01/15/2016 01:22 am
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?

Why obviously its time to cancel everything if it doesn't fit an arbitrary metric of "cheapness" or "commercial-ness"!  I'd wager that Commercial Crew has lots of value beyond the price it has cost to develop, and it would seem that the US Government agrees with that now.

As a US taxpayer, I'm glad that a tiny fraction of my contribution can help programs like this, and if it costs a little more to have domestic crew capability, well then thats worth it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/15/2016 01:30 am
I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?

COTS was pretty good. Milestones that are hardware, not paperwork. Contractors required to show instead of tell. Some sort of incentive for the contractors to keep schedule - just one more guaranteed flight as a prize, for example. Published requirements and open bidding (remember that?). Space Act agreements instead of FAR.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/15/2016 03:17 am
Then you are not comparing Apples to Apples.

I was comparing dollars to doughnuts. ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 01/15/2016 08:07 am
QuantumG does have a point regarding the SAA acquisition process as well as the milestones.

But, a big difference for this program is that it..

a. Has to carry people, thus forcing NASA to do a lot more qualification and certification work than what COTS needed. You cannot simply set requirements and let the companies to do as they please (or at least, that is the justification for the much bigger oversight the program has over COTS).

b. The schedule is very dependent on funding for the milestones. This holds very true, especially for the first years of the program. NASA had some funding problems there, which may not have jacked up the price of the program - directly, but indeed stretched the schedule a lot more than justified.



For reference. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 01/15/2016 12:48 pm
And an article on that.

NASA ASAP Concerned About Commercial Crew Safety (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/01/14/nasa-asap-concerned-commercial-crew-safety)

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2016 03:10 pm
One of the positives of the DC cargo selection under CRS2 is that it means that the money spent by NASA on the crewed DC for the commercial crew program wasn't waisted after all.

Money spent on Blue Origin was also not waisted as the Blue engine will be used by Orbital/ATK, ULA and Blue.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/15/2016 03:32 pm
Honestly, the DreamChaser has had a lot of money spent on it over the years.  As skeptical as I am of the cost involved in the CRS2 award, I'm very glad to see that it's going to actually be a production vehicle, unlike so many of the previous attempts at a follow-on space plane to the Space Shuttle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2016 01:56 pm
This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:

Quote from: page 17 of the ASAP 2015 Report
The CCP has a requirement to achieve a LOC risk of no worse than 1 in 270 (1:270). Analysis of current designs indicates that they fall short of that limit. The primary risk contributor is MMOD damage. The strategy that is being taken to meet the LOC requirement is to back off to 1:200 for the spacecraft themselves, but to require that the design and vehicle capability be the sole means to achieve that level without consideration of operational adjustments. Any potential inspections or other operational workarounds will be put aside and left for later consideration. Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks. While there will always be risk from MMOD, NASA wants the providers to do as well as they can in using the spacecraft design to provide primary prevention before looking at other ways to improve safety through secondary preventive techniques such as inspection. There is some evidence that this strategy will have a positive result.

See the post above on LOC ratio and MMOD risks for commercial crew.

It is from page 17 of this report:

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2016 12:59 am
This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:

Quote from: page 17 of the ASAP 2015 Report
The CCP has a requirement to achieve a LOC risk of no worse than 1 in 270 (1:270). Analysis of current designs indicates that they fall short of that limit. The primary risk contributor is MMOD damage. The strategy that is being taken to meet the LOC requirement is to back off to 1:200 for the spacecraft themselves, but to require that the design and vehicle capability be the sole means to achieve that level without consideration of operational adjustments. Any potential inspections or other operational workarounds will be put aside and left for later consideration. Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks. While there will always be risk from MMOD, NASA wants the providers to do as well as they can in using the spacecraft design to provide primary prevention before looking at other ways to improve safety through secondary preventive techniques such as inspection. There is some evidence that this strategy will have a positive result.

See the post above on LOC ratio and MMOD risks for commercial crew.

It is from page 17 of this report:

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf
I can't help but think that's an overly conservative estimate. Maybe of the right order of magnitude, but still overly conservative. (Though I do think that Starliner and Dragon were very good choices.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 01/25/2016 07:42 am
I can't help but think that's an overly conservative estimate. Maybe of the right order of magnitude, but still overly conservative. (Though I do think that Starliner and Dragon were very good choices.)

I can't help but think the same. If the MMOD risk were that high the ISS should be perforated by now. The parts most at risk from MMOD hits would be the heat shields. Both Starliner and Dragon have their heatshields very well protected. Only a very small part at the rim would be even at risk to be hit.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/25/2016 04:50 pm
Quote from: ASAP 2015 Report
Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.

I wonder what kind of changes they are considering. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/25/2016 08:14 pm
Welcome to the age of "bubble-wrap spaceflight"...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 01/25/2016 08:57 pm
Quote from: ASAP 2015 Report
Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.

I wonder what kind of changes they are considering.

The biggest risk is probably on the heatshield. 95% (arbitrary number) are already protected by the trunk/service module. A simple fairing should be able to protect the rest. A hit might take out a single RCS engine but those are redundant.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: okan170 on 01/27/2016 04:56 pm
Welcome to the age of "bubble-wrap spaceflight"...

I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/27/2016 05:02 pm
I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 

Quite the opposite.  Aside from the TPS, the orbiter was rugged, especially compared to other spacecraft.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: okan170 on 01/27/2016 05:18 pm
I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 

Quite the opposite.  Aside from the TPS, the orbiter was rugged, especially compared to other spacecraft.

Apologies, I suppose I mean the TPS specifically since it was the area that was inspected and focused on the most and exposed to the launch environment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Antilope7724 on 01/30/2016 11:25 am
In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MattMason on 01/30/2016 12:53 pm
In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

My opinions are

(1) Orion astronauts will be dedicated to Orion missions only. Or, at least, as with past astronauts that transitioned from Mercury to Gemini and Apollo and even Space Shuttle, you may have some crews that are trained as pilots for only one or two of the three American spacecraft.

(2) I don't believe the Soyuz has a true pilot--and being a Russian spacecraft, the Americans onboard assist but certainly aren't the spacecraft commanders if politics has a say. I'm not certain here, however, so a correction is appreciated.

(3) It seems that NASA has probably answered your question in that the Commercial Crew's first four astronauts are currently training for both Starliner and Dragon. There's no mention of Orion, so this training may be a matter for other crews once that vehicle is closer to a manned launch.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 01/30/2016 02:22 pm
Not to mention, with the latest rumors of EM-2 going unmanned, Orion probably won't carry astronauts for another decade.  If SLS and Orion do manage to fly within the next 20 years, there should be plenty of time to worry about crew training for the small number of astronauts who will be assigned to those once every couple of years missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/30/2016 02:51 pm
In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

For the time being, the four astronauts that were selected for commercial crew are being trained for both the Boeing CST-100 and Dragon2.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/30/2016 09:34 pm
In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

There is no required commonality between the Orion, Starliner and Dragon.  Boeing has borrowed some things - for example they had a Space Act Agreement to obtain the code for the crew displays.  Both Orion and Starliner have evolved since that time frame but there will be some similar look and feel.  NASA is trying to encourage the partners to be similar to the ISS as much as possible (e.g., fire extinguisher, alarm system etc) but it is up tot he company to decide.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2016 11:38 am

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

The astronauts are more like passengers than pilots.  The vehicles can fly unmanned and don't really need crew interaction.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Antilope7724 on 01/31/2016 06:11 pm

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

The astronauts are more like passengers than pilots.  The vehicles can fly unmanned and don't really need crew interaction.

But they still have to learn emergency procedures and take over in the event of malfunctions.

I just wondered if the control panels of the various spacecraft hand any commonality. Since the U.S. spacecraft have mostly "glass cockpit" display panels it seems like the displays, or at least emergency displays should have some commonality.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/31/2016 07:32 pm

But they still have to learn emergency procedures and take over in the event of malfunctions.

I just wondered if the control panels of the various spacecraft hand any commonality. Since the U.S. spacecraft have mostly "glass cockpit" display panels it seems like the displays, or at least emergency displays should have some commonality.

No more than any aircraft from different companies.  The training would be no different than a pilot's.  Once one has the basic pilot's license or astronaut qualification, all it takes is to be "checked out" in each different aircraft or spacecraft.  Which means vehicle specific training.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 02/01/2016 01:46 pm
Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?
Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.
Not to get too bogged down in economics (and I'm somewhat out of my depth here) but:
 - from a NASA perspective, CCP is not necessarily beneficial from a crude comparison of prices compared to buying from the Russians
 - from a US macroeconomics perspective, the expenditure for CCP is much more likely to benefit the economy as a whole, whereas it is difficult to argue that money spent in "modern" Russia can somehow benefit American interests.

CCP only makes economic sense from the the nation's viewpoint.  It also makes indirect economic sense for NASA by ensuring a second or third crew transport provider, thus greatly reducing the risk of a costly de-crew scenario.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 02/01/2016 03:06 pm
- from a NASA perspective, CCP is not necessarily beneficial from a crude comparison of prices compared to buying from the Russians
 - from a US macroeconomics perspective, the expenditure for CCP is much more likely to benefit the economy as a whole, whereas it is difficult to argue that money spent in "modern" Russia can somehow benefit American interests.

CCP only makes economic sense from the the nation's viewpoint.  It also makes indirect economic sense for NASA by ensuring a second or third crew transport provider, thus greatly reducing the risk of a costly de-crew scenario.

If we attribute value to scientific research done at the ISS and increased value to more research, then the US crew vehicles are adding a lot value. IMO it has been consistently not been part of the calculation that they will allow one more crew member on the ISS and doubling the scientific work time. Presently two astronauts do maintenance, one does science. Increase by one astronaut will still have two doing maintenance but two doing science.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/07/2016 01:10 am
- from a NASA perspective, CCP is not necessarily beneficial from a crude comparison of prices compared to buying from the Russians
 - from a US macroeconomics perspective, the expenditure for CCP is much more likely to benefit the economy as a whole, whereas it is difficult to argue that money spent in "modern" Russia can somehow benefit American interests.
CCP only makes economic sense from the the nation's viewpoint.  It also makes indirect economic sense for NASA by ensuring a second or third crew transport provider, thus greatly reducing the risk of a costly de-crew scenario.
If we attribute value to scientific research done at the ISS and increased value to more research, then the US crew vehicles are adding a lot value. IMO it has been consistently not been part of the calculation that they will allow one more crew member on the ISS and doubling the scientific work time. Presently two astronauts do maintenance, one does science. Increase by one astronaut will still have two doing maintenance but two doing science.

That CCP cannot be justified purely on $/seat is evident.  Given current Soyuz seat prices, and assuming the current price trends hold, CCP payback is well beyond 2028 (somewhere in an ancient post I showed the plot/crossover, and it has moved right since then).

The added ISS research time-value has been previously discussed at some length.  For a rough attempt to quantify, see here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1400137#msg1400137).  If one considers added ISS research time-value, then (to quote myself):
Quote from: joek
...in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 02/07/2016 01:30 am
Even if US crew vehicles cost more, their value is in having additional ways to get crew to ISS. Right now, if something happened to ground Soyuz, ISS would have to be abandoned.

If ISS is temporarily abandoned, there is a chance that something could go wrong that would prevent crews from returning. Then we just threw away a $100 billion space station.

Don't be "penny wise and pound foolish."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/07/2016 10:00 pm
Then we just threw away a $100 billion space station.

.. a few years earlier than planned.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/17/2016 01:16 pm
Here is a recent NAC update by Phil McAlister:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/17/2016 01:33 pm
Slide 6 is interesting. It has the SpaceX in-flight abort test around March 2017.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 03/18/2016 12:41 pm
Couple interesting clips from the VP of Engineering (now former VP) at ULA concerning flying crew:

Quote
we’re flying Boeing’s CST-100, it's called the Starliner, we’re going to put six astronauts on top of an Atlas rocket, so 2017, we’ll fly it unmanned, in 2018, we’ll fly it as a manned flight.

Isn't this flight advertised as 2017?

Quote
We’re working on getting it certified, and so right now, with Boeing, per the contract, we’re going through the human spaceflight organisation and looking at all the single point failures, all the redundancy, how things work, modifying the launch rockets primarily to meet their needs. It’s also interesting because the Boeing design doesn’t have an escape tower, it basically has four thrusters on the bottom of their capsule or the service module that will eject them off if there’s a bad day. And so there’s different things that the backpressure will tear apart, the backpressure of those thrusters if you have the wrong structural load will cause it to impinge on the capsule at very high altitudes, damages the heat shield, that will cause it to have a problem on reentry,

Quote
Look, an achilles heel of the Atlas system right now is the Centaur upper stage.

Assume that this is the Centaur stage failing and damaging the heat shield...
Is this public knowledge? (Is now.)

Maybe they should do that in-flight abort demo (that analysis supposedly eliminated).

For transcript:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39180.msg1504420#msg1504420
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 05/25/2016 01:16 am
http://tass.ru/en/science/877803

Quote
Russia has no intention of concluding more contracts for delivering US astronauts to the International Space Station after 2018, the deputy chief of the state-run corporation Roscosmos, Sergey Saveliev, has told the media.

I assume this means no further seat purchases, but does it also mean no seat swaps?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rocx on 05/25/2016 08:23 am
Maybe this is just tough talk that doesn't cost them anything, because they expect commercial crew to finally be flying by then?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 05/25/2016 09:10 am
Most likely just no purchases, with seat swaps being a new normal.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 06/03/2016 08:51 pm
Try to stay on topic. Although Boeing tanker woes are related to Boeing, they are not really relevant to crew. Please don't argue this point, thanks.,
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 06/04/2016 07:44 am
The real concern here is not the tanker, but the reliability of Boeing management.
And this, unfortunately, will be relevant to Commercial Crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 06/04/2016 02:50 pm
The real concern here is not the tanker, but the reliability of Boeing management.
And this, unfortunately, will be relevant to Commercial Crew.

Different people run different areas of the company. Boeing is simply enormous and the actions of one set of management may not inherently apply to another, especially in fields without too many direct overlaps.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Marslauncher on 06/08/2016 02:23 am
Have we had any confirmation of actual flight hardware being put together at Spacex on the full version Dragon 2 capsule (taking reference from Boeing's CST) this is not meant to flame, just I almost typed Boring... We know Mcgregor has the shell version of the Dragon 2 for testing, however I would expect more testing to ramp up and thus play in to the design of the craft? We hear rumblings of FH hardware being produced also. Do we have any actual pictures of flight hardware being produced for the D2 and FH?

Thanks

John C

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 06/08/2016 02:37 pm
Latest public information on SpaceX CCtCAP progress can be seen here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39832.msg1538623#msg1538623.
Quote
We know Mcgregor has the shell version of the Dragon 2 for testing
That has, apparently, been retired.
Quote
We hear rumblings of FH hardware being produced also. Do we have any actual pictures of flight hardware being produced for the D2 and FH?
There are no public pictures of D2 flight hardware that I know of.  FH is off-topic for this thread, there are several threads in the SpaceX General forum that cover it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/08/2016 10:28 pm
According to the report accompanying the FY 2017 Budget NASA will be sending a quarterly report on the progress of Commercial Crew to Congress. I wonder if links to these documents will be appearing on this website?

Ref: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39540.0;attach=1335701;sess=7751 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39540.0;attach=1335701;sess=7751)

edit: add link
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Scylla on 06/10/2016 07:45 pm
Commercial Crew Manufacturing Gains Momentum Coast to Coast
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/commercial-crew-manufacturing-gains-momentum-coast-to-coast

By Steven Siceloff,
NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Manufacturing facilities are in operation on the east and west coasts to build the next generation of spacecraft to return human launch capability to American soil. Over the past six months, Boeing and SpaceX – the companies partnered with NASA to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station – each have begun producing the first in a series of spacecraft.

Rather than building one Boeing CST-100 Starliner or SpaceX Crew Dragon at a time, each company set out to produce several spacecraft in an assembly-line fashion while maintaining the careful attention to detail and inspections required of any spacecraft, particularly those that will carry astronauts into orbit.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program partners are building and testing components across the United States as prototype spacecraft and flight test vehicles are carefully assembled. Subsystems for the operational missions are coming together, as spacecraft and rocket assembly lines gear up for production.

In Florida, where Boeing is constructing Starliners, engineers have assembled the crew module of the Structural Test Article that will be shipped to Huntington Beach, California, where it will join the previously delivered service module for extensive testing under a host of exhaustive conditions. The two main elements of the first flight-like Starliner - the upper and lower pressure domes - inside the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida are undergoing early check outs and assembly before they are joined together for environmental qualification tests and the pad abort test.

SpaceX is welding the pressure vessels for four Crew Dragons, two test articles and two flight vehicles in the company's Hawthorne, California, factory. The next six months are expected to see each of the pressure vessels built up to different stages for structural and subsystem testing followed by uncrewed and crew flight tests known as Demo 1 and Demo 2 for "Demonstration Mission."

The launch facilities for both companies are deep into their modifications and construction. The Crew Access Tower on Space Launch Complex 41, at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, is in place and the Crew Access Arm astronauts will use to cross from the tower to the Starliner hatch will be transported to the pad for placement on the tower this summer. Additionally, about 25,000 lines of software code have been written for the rocket and launch site to communicate with all the new crew-specific hardware. All the work has been completed while still allowing launches of the United Launch Alliance Atlas V from the launch pad.

At historic Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy, where Apollo and space shuttle missions began, SpaceX is taking down the rotating service structure designed to handle shuttle payloads. They've also removed more than 500,000 pounds of steel from the fixed service structure and are building shielding around the tower to protect from the blast of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. Its Crew Access Arm also is under construction and is slated to be installed on the tower later this year.

Numerous readiness reviews, which assemble engineers from NASA and the respective company, will be held throughout development before the launch sites are used for the first time to launch astronauts.

Last Updated: June 10, 2016
Editor: Steven Siceloff
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 07/23/2016 10:51 pm
I was looking back today at the shuttle's launch history and saw that at its peak shuttle flew 9 flights in a year. The more steady cadence was 6 or 7 flights a year.

This got me thinking to the commercial crew vehicles. Once both the Starliner and Crew Dragon are certified how often do you think they will fly a year? Do you think the ISS could support upwards of 9 U.S. manned flights a year?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/23/2016 11:15 pm
I was looking back today at the shuttle's launch history and saw that at its peak shuttle flew 9 flights in a year. The more steady cadence was 6 or 7 flights a year.

This got me thinking to the commercial crew vehicles. Once both the Starliner and Crew Dragon are certified how often do you think they will fly a year? Do you think the ISS could support upwards of 9 U.S. manned flights a year?

Plan and budget is two flights/year with a rotation of 4 crew/flight (one crew of 4 rotation every 6 months).  More than that would require additional budget and additional ISS support; unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 07/23/2016 11:51 pm
Plan and budget is two flights/year with a rotation of 4 crew/flight (one crew of 4 rotation every 6 months).  More than that would require additional budget and additional ISS support; unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Ah, not surprised. I guess that is why you need somewhere else for crew to go besides the ISS. It seems like it will be awhile before U.S. manned spaceflight is as regular as it was during the shuttle era.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/23/2016 11:55 pm
Perhaps an actually commercial market?

There's people willing to pay good money to go up and down. Two orbit flights would sell too. Make it cheap enough and there's a real market there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/24/2016 06:39 pm
ISS can't have more than 7 permanent crew, and each docking and berthing operation uses 2 to 3 days of crew time, but also interrupts the microgravity environment.
It was already stated that they wanted no more than 5 CRS flt/yr, exactly because of that. Thus, increasing the crewed flights is not desirable. Not necessary.
Don't forget that Shuttle used crew on a lot of missions that didn't really required it. In fact, you should add CRS-1/2 to the total flight, if you are comparing Shuttle to ISS only. Else, you should add some F9 and EELVs, too.
Overall, there are more, cheaper flights with a lot more redundancy.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/24/2016 09:09 pm
ISS can't have more than 7 permanent crew, and each docking and berthing operation uses 2 to 3 days of crew time, but also interrupts the microgravity environment.
Program compromises.

Quote
It was already stated that they wanted no more than 5 CRS flt/yr, exactly because of that. Thus, increasing the crewed flights is not desirable. Not necessary.
For the current program, yes.

For a research lab utilization perspective, "NO!".

If we judged by earth bound lab standards, researchers would prefer to come and go on a weekly basis. And not as many stay for the length of a fraction of a day. (Some would help to install/refine/debug apparatus/experiment. Many more of these for an up/down "taxi" then bunking for even a day).

This is especially true for industrial purposes.

Quote
Don't forget that Shuttle used crew on a lot of missions that didn't really required it.
More got assembled/done when Shuttle was docked, because of the flux of people. Yet with its greater capability, little of this was exploited.

Both Bezos and Musk could exploit more of this. However, the compromises have lasting effects. Such is the awkwardness of "bootstrapping HSF".

Quote
In fact, you should add CRS-1/2 to the total flight, if you are comparing Shuttle to ISS only. Else, you should add some F9 and EELVs, too.
Overall, there are more, cheaper flights with a lot more redundancy.
Temporarily.

If one doesn't take advantage of access, say because one's limited definition about what HSF is about is elsewhere, then ISS will be under exploited and deemed a failure. Again another chicken/egg dilemma, where more access might be needed to justify the need for more access, or is that ... more waste? Eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 07/24/2016 09:34 pm
Somewhat to what Space Ghost is saying, the naive perspective that I was thinking from is likely the one that the media/Congress would consider. If there are lots of humans going to the ISS regularly that feels successful. So, maybe perception is more important than reality in extending the life of ISS or convincing Congress to allocate more $$ to NASA.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/25/2016 11:40 am
Wild speculation mode.

Maybe continue as planned with limited crew and microgravity science until 2024. But going for science that destroys good microgravity after that. Like testing the efficiency of vibration plates for microgravity mitigation. Like using centrifuges for animal tests in Mars and moon gravity.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/25/2016 01:34 pm
ISS is foremost a microgravity research lab. If you wanted production, tourism, or don't need good microgravity, then ISS is more like a step stone where you can learn a few thing before paying for whatever commercial endeavor comes next.
Yes, I understand the cost of an difficulties of having to train a crew for a six month worth of experiments AND ISS maintenace. This is why things have a two year lead time. But it's also true the the microgravity requires to work like this.
The future space station will probably have a man tended microgravity lab that docks each three months and can do all kind of sensitive and dangerous experiments while leaven the not so sensitive things to shorter stay crew.
And probably won't have a design where 75% of the total available crew has to be dedicated to maintenance.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/25/2016 02:16 pm
Wild speculation mode.

Maybe continue as planned with limited crew and microgravity science until 2024. But going for science that destroys good microgravity after that. Like testing the efficiency of vibration plates for microgravity mitigation. Like using centrifuges for animal tests in Mars and moon gravity.



That sort of research may have to be performed at a different spacestation. By 2020 you can probably ask Bigelow for a quote.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 07/25/2016 05:00 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578687453630464

Updated timeline of major commercial crew milestones. SpaceX certification review Oct 2017; Boeing in May 2018.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/25/2016 05:12 pm
Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/25/2016 07:03 pm
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc.
Jul 25, 2016
Aerojet Rocketdyne Successfully Completes Hot-Fire Tests on Engines Designed to Support New Era of Human Spaceflight for U.S.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 25, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), has successfully completed a series of hot-fire development tests on three Reaction Control System (RCS) engines for Boeing's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 Starliner service module propulsion system. Each RCS engine was tested up to 4,000 pulses and 1,600 seconds - the longest accumulated time ever conducted on a lightweight thruster with a composite chamber. The tests were performed at NASA's White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/2046eaef-20c9-4a8f-86b0-44763aad02c0

"The successful RCS engine tests demonstrated durability and long operational life capabilities meeting the Starliner requirements for composite thrust chambers, which are crucial to mission success and astronaut safety," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "We look forward to qualifying the engines and continuing our nation's legacy of delivering humans into space."

Starliner is designed to open a new era of spaceflight, one that will carry humans to the International Space Station once again from American soil. The RCS engines are part of the spacecraft's service module propulsion system, and are designed to provide on-orbit maneuvering functions, as well as re-boost capabilities for the space station.

Under its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract to Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne is completing the design, development, qualification, certification and initial production of the service module propulsion system. As part of that contract, Aerojet Rocketdyne will provide shipsets of service module propulsion system production hardware. Each shipset will include Launch Abort Engines (LAEs), Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control (OMAC) engines and RCS engines. Boeing will assemble hardware kits into the service module section of the Starliner spacecraft at its Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Aerojet Rocketdyne also provides propulsion hardware supporting the Starliner crew module and Atlas V launch vehicle. The Starliner is targeting the delivery of astronauts to the space station for NASA beginning in 2018.

The Starliner service module propulsion system provides launch abort capability on the pad and during ascent, along with all propulsion needs during a nominal flight—from launch vehicle separation, docking and undocking from the space station, and through separation of the crew and service modules when the spacecraft begins to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. During re-entry, the crew module propulsion is then provided by monopropellant thrusters built by Aerojet Rocketdyne.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.

Contact:

Glenn Mahone, Aerojet Rocketdyne, 202-302-9941

[email protected]

Carri Karuhn, Aerojet Rocketdyne, 818-586-4963

[email protected]

Aerojet Rocketdyne

Source: Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media

Photo Caption: One of three Reaction Control System engines for Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner recently completed hot-fire testing at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/25/2016 08:19 pm
Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be very closely derived from the ACES, it is being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

Depending on how close it is to ACES, they might not have to do much in the way of certification work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 07/25/2016 10:41 pm
I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/25/2016 10:46 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578687453630464

Updated timeline of major commercial crew milestones. SpaceX certification review Oct 2017; Boeing in May 2018.




So in the financial year 2018 budget NASA will be asking the new President and Congress for money to pay for manned flights to the ISS using American made spacecraft. Good news.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/28/2016 12:50 am
Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be very closely derived from the ACES, it is being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

Depending on how close it is to ACES, they might not have to do much in the way of certification work.

Unlike SpaceX, Boeing has no separate suit certification milestone (it rolls up into other milestones).  That, as you suggest, is likely indicative of the amount of risk/work required.  But again, careful about comparing SpaceX and Boeing milestones--they are difficult to compare as SpaceX and Boeing approaches are very different.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/28/2016 01:58 am
I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.

Nope.  It is part of the "ISS certification" gate--which is not really an official milestone for SpaceX, but rolls up other milestones.  Exactly which milestones and when is unclear.  But it means "you have passed everything necessary to dock with the ISS".  Sorry if that is not much help, but it is the best we have at the moment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2016 11:52 am
Perhaps an actually commercial market?

There's people willing to pay good money to go up and down. Two orbit flights would sell too. Make it cheap enough and there's a real market there.

That's where the commercial habitat attached to a commercial docking port fits in. For example, a B330 could be attached to a commercial port (where BEAM currently is). Space tourists and foreign astronauts could be transported to and from the commercial habitat (using commercial crew and IDA2 or IDA3).

See these threads for more info:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40798.0   

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818.180
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 07/28/2016 09:01 pm
New more detailed milestone summery and timeline found on the last page in this pdf from the July NAC meeting https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/28/2016 11:13 pm
New more detailed milestone summery and timeline found on the last page in this pdf from the July NAC meeting https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf)
No "Inflight Abort Test" ?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/29/2016 12:22 am
This was an item under SpaceX accomplishments:
Quote
– Completed all 3 demonstration flights needed for Range approval to
use Automated Flight Termination System
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/29/2016 12:27 am
I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.

Nope.  It is part of the "ISS certification" gate--which is not really an official milestone for SpaceX, but rolls up other milestones.  Exactly which milestones and when is unclear.  But it means "you have passed everything necessary to dock with the ISS".  Sorry if that is not much help, but it is the best we have at the moment.

The docking system qualification is shown as a completed milestone on the more detailed chart.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/29/2016 12:35 am
New more detailed milestone summery and timeline found on the last page in this pdf from the July NAC meeting https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf)
No "Inflight Abort Test" ?

It's not a CCTCap milestone.  It was still listed on this recent SpaceX presentation (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39832.msg1538623#msg1538623).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/02/2016 02:47 am
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf



From page 12 "Completed all three demonstration flights needed for Range approval to use automated flight termination system."
 Does anyone have more insight into this? How does the automated system work, unzipping the tanks, engine shut down or something else. What was done in the three demonstration flights to get Range approval?

SpaceX spacesuit is in fabrication....can't wait to see that.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 08/02/2016 03:38 am
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

From page 12 "Completed all three demonstration flights needed for Range approval to use automated flight termination system."

Does anyone have more insight into this? How does the automated system work, unzipping the tanks, engine shut down or something else. What was done in the three demonstration flights to get Range approval?
>

Tech Briefs... (http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/ntb/tech-briefs/machinery-and-automation/24084)

Quote
>
The AFTS can augment or replace the functions of the traditional humanin- the-loop system. Redundant AFTS processors evaluate data from onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) and inertial measurement unit (IMU) navigation sensors. Configurable rulebased algorithms are used to make flight termination decisions. The mission rules are developed by the local Range Safety Authorities using the inventory of rule types taken from current human-in-the-loop operational flight safety practices. The main benefit of the AFTS is to decrease the need for permanent ground-based range safety assets with a corresponding savings in operational costs, and to increase the number of potential launch sites and corridors. The ultimate goal of this project is to produce an autonomous flight safety reference design that may be commercialized for industry use.
>
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 08/02/2016 03:13 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf



From page 12 "Completed all three demonstration flights needed for Range approval to use automated flight termination system."
 Does anyone have more insight into this? How does the automated system work, unzipping the tanks, engine shut down or something else. What was done in the three demonstration flights to get Range approval?

SpaceX spacesuit is in fabrication....can't wait to see that.

Here's a graphic from a 2012 Air Force paper showing how it would work. "AFSS" is Automated Flight Safety System, aka Automated Flight Termination System (AFTS). Note that the "ROCC Lite" has no MFCO (missile flight  control officer) console, so there is no human in the loop sending a destruct command.

https://www.aiaa.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7550

I'd expect the F9 AFSS will function the same as now, ie shutting down the engines and unzipping the tanks. No reason to change that. The only difference is probably how the destruct signal is generated, ie onboard based on GPS and IMU inputs vs sent by the MFCO on ground.

Maybe the demo flights carried an avionics box that would generate the destruct signal and proved that the GPS and IMU inputs to it during ascent were correct.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/03/2016 05:07 pm
That's where the commercial habitat attached to a commercial docking port fits in. For example, a B330 could be attached to a commercial port (where BEAM currently is).

I don't think there's room anywhere on the ISS for a BA330. Where BEAM currently is has clearance issues with the partially-retracted solar arrays on Zarya and the Japanese Kibo module.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2016 08:46 pm
Here is an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-delays-could-lead-to-gap-in-iss-access-nasa-advisors-warn/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/04/2016 04:25 pm
That's where the commercial habitat attached to a commercial docking port fits in. For example, a B330 could be attached to a commercial port (where BEAM currently is).

I don't think there's room anywhere on the ISS for a BA330. Where BEAM currently is has clearance issues with the partially-retracted solar arrays on Zarya and the Japanese Kibo module.

About the only place you could fit one would be Node 2 Forward.  Current beam location would not fit with the radiators and with the FGB solar arrays.  Node 1 nadir would probably interfere with Russian docking.  Node 2 nadir... maybe.  It would interfere with any external earth observation payloads mounted on Columbus.  Node 2 zenith would interfere with the SGANT sight lines.

Furthermore, any of the currently open ports would violate the requirement to have redundant docking and berthing locations for cargo and crew vehicles.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/04/2016 06:53 pm
{snip}
Furthermore, any of the currently open ports would violate the requirement to have redundant docking and berthing locations for cargo and crew vehicles.

We have not tested it but the B330 has a docking/berthing port at both ends.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 08/05/2016 05:12 am
The docking system qualification is shown as a completed milestone on the more detailed chart.

Thanks; good catch.  Looks like they added another interim milestone to show progress or maybe they negotiated an additional payment milestone; impossible to tell.   In any case, was not explicitly stated in the original CCtCap milestones/contracts .  Trying to keep up with the changes is maddening,.  But likely we will see more of them as NASA and contractors tryi to demonstrate more granular progress by inserting additional milestones.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/08/2016 01:03 am
Here is an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-delays-could-lead-to-gap-in-iss-access-nasa-advisors-warn/

Notable:
Quote from: Jeff Foust
One example is Boeing, who earlier this year delayed its two test flights by several months because of technical problems, including acoustic loads on its spacecraft and Atlas 5 rocket during launch that McAlister said the company has largely resolved.

“They’re in the final stages of some wind tunnel testing. They think they have a good solution,” he said, which involves installing an extended skirt behind the capsule. “We think that’s a pretty good solution too, but we really want to see some of that final wind tunnel test data come through.”
It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/08/2016 07:00 pm
Here is an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-delays-could-lead-to-gap-in-iss-access-nasa-advisors-warn/

Notable:
Quote from: Jeff Foust
One example is Boeing, who earlier this year delayed its two test flights by several months because of technical problems, including acoustic loads on its spacecraft and Atlas 5 rocket during launch that McAlister said the company has largely resolved.

“They’re in the final stages of some wind tunnel testing. They think they have a good solution,” he said, which involves installing an extended skirt behind the capsule. “We think that’s a pretty good solution too, but we really want to see some of that final wind tunnel test data come through.”
It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.

I agree that it's a smart move. But one of the reasons that Boeing won an award under CCtCap was because it could carry more cargo (in addition to crew) than other spacecrafts. Well, so much for that...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/09/2016 01:00 am
But one of the reasons that Boeing won an award under CCtCap was because it could carry more cargo (in addition to crew) than other spacecrafts. Well, so much for that...

Was skeptical of that claim given the 2x SRB, now possibly 3x. Not just the direct cost but the operations cost in mounting them. At some point "dial a rocket" economics concerns against a rival who can do 0 SRBs and greater flight frequency/history.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 08/09/2016 05:35 pm
Here is an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-delays-could-lead-to-gap-in-iss-access-nasa-advisors-warn/

Notable:
Quote from: Jeff Foust
One example is Boeing, who earlier this year delayed its two test flights by several months because of technical problems, including acoustic loads on its spacecraft and Atlas 5 rocket during launch that McAlister said the company has largely resolved.

“They’re in the final stages of some wind tunnel testing. They think they have a good solution,” he said, which involves installing an extended skirt behind the capsule. “We think that’s a pretty good solution too, but we really want to see some of that final wind tunnel test data come through.”
It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.

I agree that it's a smart move. But one of the reasons that Boeing won an award under CCtCap was because it could carry more cargo (in addition to crew) than other spacecrafts. Well, so much for that...

Well if CST is struggling on Atlas 422, we can only imagine how bad of a bind DC would have been in.

In any case, I interpreted the cargo capacity comments as more about Boeing having a well developed stowage plan, not necessarily about raw mass numbers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/09/2016 09:05 pm
I am not aware of any DC weight issue. I was under the impression that crewed DC would have used a 412.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/10/2016 03:51 pm
I am not aware of any DC weight issue. I was under the impression that crewed DC would have used a 412.

Mass issues often don't show up until you get deep into detailed design.  Every fastener, every clip, every inch of wire, every drop of fluid in your propellant and cooling systems, every thousandth of an inch of wall thickness -- it all adds up.  When developing new projects, you try to project as well as you can, and you leave margin to account for design decisions that haven't been made, but there's always the risk that you end up with a surprise late in the design as each decision cascades into other decisions.

When you're in the early stages, how do you decide between one option and an alternative that, say, weighs thirty percent less than the other but costs a hundred times as much?  The info you have to drive mass/cost trades early in the design cycle isn't necessarily the info you have late in the design cycle, and the resulting decisions may be different.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/16/2016 06:30 pm
I am not aware of any DC weight issue. I was under the impression that crewed DC would have used a 412.

Mass issues often don't show up until you get deep into detailed design.  Every fastener, every clip, every inch of wire, every drop of fluid in your propellant and cooling systems, every thousandth of an inch of wall thickness -- it all adds up.  When developing new projects, you try to project as well as you can, and you leave margin to account for design decisions that haven't been made, but there's always the risk that you end up with a surprise late in the design as each decision cascades into other decisions.

When you're in the early stages, how do you decide between one option and an alternative that, say, weighs thirty percent less than the other but costs a hundred times as much?  The info you have to drive mass/cost trades early in the design cycle isn't necessarily the info you have late in the design cycle, and the resulting decisions may be different.

I agree.  And there's another point: SNC had very strong pressure to make the numbers they were quoting as optimistic as possible, and SNC has more of a history than any of the other CCtCap competitors of misleading hype.  SNC also has less experience building spacecraft than the other CCtCap competitors.

If they had won a CCtCap award and then the numbers turned out to be worse than anticipated, it's unlikely NASA would have cancelled the contract after most of the money was spent, and SNC knew that.  So, the incentives were set up to encourage them to be optimistic in their proposal even if it meant worse performance than projected in the end.

Whether consciously or unconsciously, it seems likely to me that the numbers they quoted were at the optimistic end of the range of the possible final numbers, and the range was wider than for other CCtCap competitors, due both to SNC's lack of experience and the fact that capsules have more heritage from which to extrapolate.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/16/2016 08:35 pm
I agree.  And there's another point: SNC had very strong pressure to make the numbers they were quoting as optimistic as possible, and SNC has more of a history than any of the other CCtCap competitors of misleading hype. 

It's not misleading hype, it's meaningless hype. SNC's MOUs are meaningless. The persons that are involved in the CCtCap selection already know this and aren't swayed by these agreements.

Edited to take into account woods170's comments.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/17/2016 09:39 am
I agree.  And there's another point: SNC had very strong pressure to make the numbers they were quoting as optimistic as possible, and SNC has more of a history than any of the other CCtCap competitors of misleading hype. 

It's not misleading hype, it's meaningless hype. MOUs are meaningless. The persons that are involved in the CCtCap selection already know this and aren't swayed by these type of agreements.
Emphasis mine.
Having witnessed great results of several space-related MOUs I take issue with your general statement regarding MOUs.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/17/2016 03:24 pm
I agree.  And there's another point: SNC had very strong pressure to make the numbers they were quoting as optimistic as possible, and SNC has more of a history than any of the other CCtCap competitors of misleading hype. 

It's not misleading hype, it's meaningless hype. MOUs are meaningless. The persons that are involved in the CCtCap selection already know this and aren't swayed by these type of agreements.
Emphasis mine.
Having witnessed great results of several space-related MOUs I take issue with your general statement regarding MOUs.

You are right. It is too broad a statement. I should have phrased it differently. I am skeptical about SNC's MOUs (and for that matter, those signed by Bigelow).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 09/16/2016 10:59 pm
Closer to a New Way Every Day

 
NASAKennedy

Published on Sep 16, 2016
Two years after selecting the next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station, engineers and spaceflight specialists across NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, Boeing and SpaceX are putting in place the elements required for successful missions.

https://youtu.be/cLKNzBzGiL4?gt=001

https://youtu.be/cLKNzBzGiL4
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/28/2016 04:35 pm
A presentation by Phil McAlister:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sigXVXxtr78
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/28/2016 09:38 pm
Here is a presentation by Gerst on commercializing LEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDg80oGjRyY
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/29/2016 09:50 pm
During the Q&A session (at 23m30s), one of the thing that Gerst mentionned is the possibility of having a guest researcher (i.e. a commercial research specialist) as an astronaut on board of a commercial crew flight. This guest astronaut would help with the commercial research experiment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/03/2017 09:02 pm
Mission Awards Secure Commercial Crew Transportation for Coming Years:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-years

Both SpaceX and Boeing get 4 more post-certification missions each which means that NASA is set for commercial crew until 2024.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/17/2017 04:46 pm
Ars Technica: As leadership departs, NASA quietly moves to buy more Soyuz seats (http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/nasa-formally-seeks-option-to-buy-additional-soyuz-seats-for-2019/)
Eric Berger wrote an article about NASA planning to buy more Soyuz seats for early 2019, as well as extra seats available in 2017 and 2018. 

He provides a link to the solicitation: PROCUREMENT OF CREW TRANSPORTATION AND RESCUE SERVICES FROM BOEING (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d4bd5c52373053a6dfb6acd03398978c&tab=core&_cview=0).  Apparently Boeing bought the rights to the available Soyuz seats and is going to resell them to NASA.

Here are some excerpts from the solicitation:
Quote
NASA is considering contracting with The Boeing Company (Boeing) for crew transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. This transportation would be for one crewmember in the Fall of 2017 and one crewmember in the Spring of 2018. NASA is considering purchasing these services from Boeing, without competition, because no other vehicles are currently capable of providing these services in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018. NASA has contracts with two U.S. commercial companies for crew transportation to the ISS. However, these vehicles are still in the developmental stage, and not expected to begin fully operational flights to the ISS until 2019. NASA also is considering an option to acquire crew transportation from Boeing for three crewmembers on the Soyuz in 2019, to ensure the availability of back-up transportation capability in the event the U.S. commercial contractor vehicles are delayed or to augment future ISS operations and research.
...
An agreement was recently reached between the Boeing Company and S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation, Energia ("RSC Energia"), who is the manufacturer of the Soyuz spacecraft and has the legal rights to sell the seats and associated services. As a part of this agreement, Energia agreed to provide to Boeing two specifically identified seats on the Soyuz spacecraft for long-duration travel to and from the ISS, one on a flight to occur in the Fall 2017 timeframe and another on a flight to occur in the Spring 2018 timeframe. Additionally, Energia provided Boeing three additional specifically identified seats in the Spring 2019 timeframe on two Soyuz spacecraft. Finally, Boeing and RSC Energia agreed that each of these five seats will include a launch of an individual to and from the ISS, including all services normally provided during launches to ISS. Boeing and RSC Energia have represented that Boeing has the full rights to these seats and can sell them to any third party.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/17/2017 04:54 pm
Any chance these are the same seats that Boeing received as payment for the Sea Launch obligations?



edited spelling
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2017 05:07 pm
Any chance these are the same seats that Boeing received as payment for the Sea Launch obligations?

If you have L2, see this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29664.msg1631561#msg1631561
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/17/2017 05:41 pm
Here are some excerpts from the solicitation:
Quote
NASA also is considering an option to acquire crew transportation from Boeing for three crewmembers on the Soyuz in 2019, to ensure the availability of back-up transportation capability in the event the U.S. commercial contractor vehicles are delayed or to augment future ISS operations and research.

I wonder if the text in bold above means that an astronaut would be replacing a cosmonaut for that period?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/17/2017 07:13 pm
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2017 12:26 am
More details can be found in this article on the extra Soyuz seats:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-considering-boeing-offer-for-additional-soyuz-seats/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2017 02:03 am
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jbenton on 01/19/2017 05:13 am
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.

Are the solids on Atlas V less dangerous than the SLS boosters? I was pretty sure that Starliner uses the 422 configuration.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/19/2017 06:23 am
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.

Are the solids on Atlas V less dangerous than the SLS boosters? I was pretty sure that Starliner uses the 422 configuration.
Theoretically the Atlas V solids should be less dangerous. Their cases are one-piece structures, as opposed to the segmented boosters on SLS. And yes, for Starliner Atlas V will have two SRB's and a dual-engine Centaur upper stage.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 01/19/2017 10:07 am
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.

Are the solids on Atlas V less dangerous than the SLS boosters? I was pretty sure that Starliner uses the 422 configuration.
Theoretically the Atlas V solids should be less dangerous. Their cases are one-piece structures, as opposed to the segmented boosters on SLS.

Empirical evidence backs up the theoretical conclusion:  according to the Futron reliability study (attachment to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30053.msg964361#msg964361)), small, monolithic solids (like those of the Atlas V, but unlike those of the Delta IV [which have TVC] or of the Titans, the Shuttle or SLS [TVC and segments]) have an excellent track record.  Out of 1260 such solids flown on US launches to orbit or beyond during the 20 years to September 2004, there was one failure (on a Delta II in 1997), excluding one case in which a solid burned properly but failed to separate.  I also would guess that the relatively small size of Atlas V's solids corresponds to a lesser explosive potential should something go catastrophically wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/19/2017 12:28 pm
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.

I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.

It is possible of course that it's just a compromise to enable a pusher LAS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2017 01:26 pm
This may have been asked before, but how does commercial crew "get away" with 6g launch abort while Apollo/Orion had/have 17/16g?
Orion's got a couple of huge SRBs nearby which can't be turned off. And if you have solids, it's not hard to be high thrust. With liquids, it's tougher to be high thrust.

I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid....
According to Jim (if I remember correctly), you definitely can for liquids.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/19/2017 03:04 pm
Let me add the fact that the 2 SRB will have a T/W<1 if the RD-180 shutdown, for most of its flight. I haven't played with the propellant depletion, but the two SRB have a thrust of 335tnf and the Atlas V422 (without the CST-100) weights 424 tonnes.
If mass loss is lineal, then there's a little window before SRB shutdown, where the SRB will give the rocket a T/W slightly higher than 1, peaking at 1.1. That's basically nothing for a capsule aborting at 6G. In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
As I understand it, even a catastrophic failure would not be worse than an RD-180 one. And is far enough from the capsule not to be such an issue. In any case everything would still be a deflagration and not an explosion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/19/2017 03:17 pm
Let me add the fact that the 2 SRB will have a T/W<1 if the RD-180 shutdown, for most of its flight. I haven't played with the propellant depletion, but the two SRB have a thrust of 335tnf and the Atlas V422 (without the CST-100) weights 424 tonnes.
If mass loss is lineal, then there's a little window before SRB shutdown, where the SRB will give the rocket a T/W slightly higher than 1, peaking at 1.1. That's basically nothing for a capsule aborting at 6G. In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
As I understand it, even a catastrophic failure would not be worse than an RD-180 one. And is fart enough from the capsule not to be such an issue. In any case everything would still be a deflagration and not an explosion.
Well, it would be an explosion if powered by methane...

(this - for those who may not have my sense of humor - is a joke based upon a rather unfortunate typo by Baldusi. So please don't go down the rabbit hole stating things such as the Atlas is not a methane powered rocket, or pointing out how it's a deflagration not an explosion, or...)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 01/19/2017 10:12 pm
I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.

Why?  Per the argument in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg681418#msg681418), it appears to me that engine shut-down was envisioned for Apollo-Saturn aborts.  Though I can't find it now, there is also a paper from circa 1968 suggesting that on of the Saturn V's engines might need to be kept running during an abort, because shutting down all engines could lead to break-up of the stack.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/20/2017 07:44 pm
Quote
NASA: 17 Commercial Crew Things to Track in 2017  (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/17-commercial-crew-things-to-track-in-2017)
By Steven Siceloff,
NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Throughout 2017, NASA and its commercial crew partners, Boeing and SpaceX, will make major steps touching every area of space system development and operations, from completing flight-worthy spacecraft and rockets to putting the finishing touches on launch pads to performing detailed countdown and flight rehearsals.

Here is a look at 17 things you should track for in 2017:

1.    Structural Test Article: Boeing begins 2017 with its CST-100 Starliner Structural Test Article at the company’s Huntington Beach, California, facility for testing that will push, pull and apply pressure to the spacecraft, qualifying that the design will be able to withstand the intense conditions encountered during spaceflights.
2.    Structural Qualification: SpaceX is on pace to complete structural qualification of the Crew Dragon capsule and trunk in early 2017. The company built the Crew Dragon Qualification Vehicle to prove its design will hold up to the rigors of spaceflight.
3.    Starliner Prototype: Boeing will wrap up assembly of its Starliner prototype, Spacecraft 1, which is slated to go through ground verification testing before flying in a pad abort test from White Sands, New Mexico. Production of two additional Starliners will ramp up in 2017 in preparation for two test flights – first without a crew to the International Space Station and then with one Boeing and one NASA astronaut on board. All three spacecraft are being manufactured in the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
4.    Complete Manufacturing: SpaceX also will complete manufacturing of three Crew Dragons that are currently in early phases of assembly. These spacecraft will perform Demonstration Mission 1, flight test without crew, Demonstration Mission 2, flight test with a crew aboard, and the company’s first crew rotation mission.
5.    Software Systems: Both companies' robust autonomous software systems will continue to be put to the test to ensure everything works exactly as planned throughout all phases of the mission.
6.    Starliner Thrusters: The Starliner thrusters – from small maneuvering jets to large engines that would fire in an emergency to push the spacecraft and astronauts out of danger – will be qualified and acceptance tested in the fall during the service module hot fire test.
7.    Draco and SuperDraco: The Draco and SuperDraco thrusters for SpaceX's Crew Dragon are on pace to complete static-fire qualification testing in the first few months of 2017. SpaceX produces both thrusters in-house. The smaller Draco thrusters maneuver the spacecraft while it's in orbit and provide small adjustments. The SuperDracos, which are 3D printed, are much larger and produce enough thrust to lift the Crew Dragon out of danger in case of an abort situation. The company expects to complete propulsion system validation testing by demonstrating capability in all phases of flight using a dedicated module by the second half of 2017.
8.    Parachute Tests: Boeing will start off 2017 with its parachute qualification test series in New Mexico and more advanced drop testing at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia. Boeing plans to place an instrument-laden human-like test dummy inside its mockup for drop tests that will verify that the Starliner's airbags will absorb enough of the force of landing to keep astronauts safe. The landing tests will be performed using a gantry that drops the mockup onto a dirt pad.
9.    Parachute Development: SpaceX plans to finish development testing of its Crew Dragon parachute systems in early 2017. The Crew Dragon will use a four-parachute configuration for landing in the water. The company plans to complete qualification testing of the parachutes after the summer.
10.    Spacesuits: Boeing and SpaceX each designed their own spacesuits for flight, based on the systems of their respective spacecraft and NASA’s stringent requirements. Throughout 2017, both companies will subject their suits to rigorous testing in multiple circumstances that might be encountered in space. SpaceX has completed spacesuit development testing and will build the training and flight suits for its crewed demonstration flight and first crew rotation mission after astronauts are assigned to missions. The spacesuits are not designed for spacewalking, but are meant to fill the role of the orange partial-pressure suits astronauts wore during space shuttle launches and returns. They are meant to keep air flowing to the astronaut in case of depressurization and meet a host of special capabilities.
11.    Starliner Factory: Boeing will add to its Starliner manufacturing complex at Kennedy early in 2017 when it opens a Hazardous Processing Facility that will allow for the safe fueling of Starliner spacecraft with maneuvering system propellants before the spacecraft is taken to the launch pad for liftoff.
12.    Crew Access Tower: Work is nearing completion on a new structure built specifically for the needs of astronauts climbing into Boeing's Starliner as it stands atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket at Space Launch Complex 41 in Florida. In 2017, the 200-foot-tall Crew Access Tower and Crew Access Arm will see installation and testing of emergency escape systems. ULA's complex is one of the most active on the Space Coast, and construction of the systems needed to support crew launches has taken place between launches.
13.    Launch Complex 39A: SpaceX has overhauled the historic Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy and built new support structures for the company's line of Falcon rockets. The Crew Access Arm, currently under construction, will be connected in the spring to provide a bridge from the fixed service structure to the Crew Dragon spacecraft so astronauts can board before launch. The launch pad will be put to the test when SpaceX launches its Falcon 9 from the pad in early 2017. It will mark the first flight off of Pad 39A since the final space shuttle mission in 2011.
14.    Atlas V Production: United Launch Alliance will continue production of the two Atlas V rockets that will lift Starliners into orbit on flight tests with and without crews aboard. Building its rockets at a plant in Decatur, Alabama, the company will begin building the boosters for operational Starliner missions, as well.
15.    Falcon 9 Production: SpaceX will build up the Falcon 9 rockets that will launch Crew Dragons into orbit for the flight tests of its systems. SpaceX builds its rockets, Merlin engines and Crew Dragon spacecraft at the company's factory and headquarters in Hawthorne, California.
16.    Flight Test: SpaceX is slated to make its first flight test – without a crew – in November 2017. Flying to the space station using its automated guidance and navigation systems, the Crew Dragon will dock there on its own and remain for a time before detaching and parachuting back to Earth and landing in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Cape Canaveral. The mission will be a dress rehearsal for a later flight test that will include astronauts.
17.    Space Station: The advances are not limited to Earth, either. Astronauts on the International Space Station will continue modifications in 2017 tailored for new vehicles, including commercial crew spacecraft.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/21/2017 05:17 pm
I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.

Why?  Per the argument in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg681418#msg681418), it appears to me that engine shut-down was envisioned for Apollo-Saturn aborts.  Though I can't find it now, there is also a paper from circa 1968 suggesting that on of the Saturn V's engines might need to be kept running during an abort, because shutting down all engines could lead to break-up of the stack.

I'm sure it was envisioned, but did the LAS rely on it? The question is, what is the worst case scenario the LAS is designed for?

As I said, it's ~17g for the Apollo LAS despite the lack of solids.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/21/2017 05:26 pm
With small solids, it's easy to get very high acceleration, so you might as well do it. And yes, it is reasonable to rely on cutting the engines, though 5-6 gees is still enough without that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 01/22/2017 07:09 pm
I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.

Why?  Per the argument in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg681418#msg681418), it appears to me that engine shut-down was envisioned for Apollo-Saturn aborts.  Though I can't find it now, there is also a paper from circa 1968 suggesting that on of the Saturn V's engines might need to be kept running during an abort, because shutting down all engines could lead to break-up of the stack.

I'm sure it was envisioned, but did the LAS rely on it? The question is, what is the worst case scenario the LAS is designed for?

As I said, it's ~17g for the Apollo LAS despite the lack of solids.

The analysis I refer to identifies the assumption that the launch vehicle flies on at constant velocity after the abort is triggered as a conservative assumption.  The assumption would not be conservative if the launch vehicle were expected to remain under power.  Shutting the engines down requires only closing a valve.  If that can't be taken for granted, then other aspects of the abort procedure are highly questionable.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/22/2017 09:07 pm
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/22/2017 10:09 pm
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
I don't think they would activate the FTS until the LAS activates and the capsule clears the conic volume of possible debris. In fact, the safest place for the solids to be until the capsule is safely away, it's probably to still be attached to the Atlas V stack.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/23/2017 12:35 am
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
I don't think they would activate the FTS until the LAS activates and the capsule clears the conic volume of possible debris. In fact, the safest place for the solids to be until the capsule is safely away, it's probably to still be attached to the Atlas V stack.
Agreed. However ...

If your LRE detonates and fractures the thrust structure, the solids rip free and become potential IP's of the capsule ...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/23/2017 06:42 am
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
Carefull there please.
Even the slightest suggestion that FTS would possibly not work will invoke the wrath of favourite concise-answer-man.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/23/2017 05:16 pm
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
Carefull there please.
Even the slightest suggestion that FTS would possibly not work will invoke the wrath of favourite concise-answer-man.
That is a Jim reference right??
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/23/2017 06:23 pm
I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.

Why?  Per the argument in this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22769.msg681418#msg681418), it appears to me that engine shut-down was envisioned for Apollo-Saturn aborts.  Though I can't find it now, there is also a paper from circa 1968 suggesting that on of the Saturn V's engines might need to be kept running during an abort, because shutting down all engines could lead to break-up of the stack.

I'm sure it was envisioned, but did the LAS rely on it? The question is, what is the worst case scenario the LAS is designed for?

As I said, it's ~17g for the Apollo LAS despite the lack of solids.

The analysis I refer to identifies the assumption that the launch vehicle flies on at constant velocity after the abort is triggered as a conservative assumption.  The assumption would not be conservative if the launch vehicle were expected to remain under power.  Shutting the engines down requires only closing a valve.  If that can't be taken for granted, then other aspects of the abort procedure are highly questionable.

Thanks, I did not notice the link in your previous post.

Still, does it matter? The time until the shockwave of the explosion hits the CM, which is the relevant parameter in the document you refer to, should be the same time regardless of whether the rocket behind it continues to accelerate.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 01/23/2017 07:29 pm
In practical terms the rocket is not that different for aborts from a non solid augmented one.
Presuming FTS works on the solids too BEFORE crew escape. Duh.

A liquid only vehicle does not have that critical dependency. And remember ... 2x for each solid (e.g. multiplicative not additive).
Carefull there please.
Even the slightest suggestion that FTS would possibly not work will invoke the wrath of favourite concise-answer-man.
That is a Jim reference right??
Of course it is.

But he's also as wary as anyone of any propulsion system that can't be shutdown. As anyone wise would be.

The two best things about Atlas solids are 1)limited burn time and 2)monolithic construction. So your risk is contained, but not eliminated.

My issue with the post that triggered this exchange was specifically the reference to "as a non solid augmented one". That was clearly going too far.

And before a red herring starts, yes you can thrust terminate a solid with ports, but that is not the same thing as a LRE - an LRE you have to work to keep running, withdraw that work and it'll stop (hopefully w/o additional surprise), while a solid will always "burn" regardless. That fact makes them endemically risky where the tender flesh of the H in HSF is concerned.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/02/2017 08:25 pm
Wall Street Journal: Congressional Investigators Warn of SpaceX Rocket Defects (https://www.wsj.com/articles/congressional-investigators-warn-of-spacex-rocket-defects-1486067874)
Quote
The Government Accountability Office’s preliminary findings reveal a pattern of problems with turbine blades that pump fuel into rocket engines, these officials said. The final GAO report, scheduled to be released in coming weeks, is slated to be the first public identification of one of the most serious defects affecting Falcon 9 rockets.
...
cracks continued to be found during tests as recently as September 2016, Robert Lightfoot, NASA’s acting administrator, confirmed in an interview with The Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

The article also mentions a few other red flags for the commercial crew schedule, such as frequent Falcon 9 changes and Boeing parachute testing.  Will be interesting to read the GAO report when it comes out.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/08/2017 02:44 am
From these numbers, you then get to $1.1B for SpaceX's 6 post-certification missions (excluding cargo) by adding $58M x 12 missions x 4 seats x $2.6B/$6.8B = $1.1B. So for SpaceX you would get a price of approximately $46M per seat ($1.1B /6 missions / 4 seats =$44M). An easier way to get to that price per seat number is through this equation: $58M x 2 seats (one for each of the providers) x $2.6B/$6.8B=$44M.

For Boeing, you would get $1.7B for six post-certification missions ($58M x 12 missions x 4 seats x $4.2B/$6.8B = $1.7B). You would then divide that $1.7B by 6 missions and by 4 seats which gives you approximately $72M per seat. An easier way to get to that price per seat number is through this equation: $58M x 2 seats x $4.2B/$6.8B=$72M.

P.S. These numbers assume that the ratio of the price of the post-certifications missions (without cargo) over the total value of the CCtCap contract is similar for both SpaceX and Boeing. This may not be the case.

It occured to me that we can figure out the price of the 4 optional post certification missions by subtracting the total value of the contract by the base value of the contract which was mentionned by the GAO in the context of the SNC protest:

http://www.gao.gov/press/pr_statement_sierra_nevada_bid_protest.htm

Quote from: GAO
Sierra Nevada’s price was $2.55 billion. [...]

Boeing’s price was $3.01 billion. [...]

SpaceX’s price was $1.75 billion.

Based on these numbers, SpaceX' post certification missions were ($2.6B less $1.75B) / 4 missions = $212.5M per mission.

Based on these numbers, Boeing's post certification missions were ($4.2B less $3.01B) / 4 missions = $297.5M per mission.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 02/08/2017 07:22 pm
Based on these numbers, SpaceX' post certification missions were ($2.6B less $1.75B) / 4 missions = $212.5M per mission.

Based on these numbers, Boeing's post certification missions were ($4.2B less $3.01B) / 4 missions = $297.5M per mission.

If each flight carries 4 passengers, that is $53.1M per person for SpaceX and $74.4M per person for Boeing.

If each flight carries 5 passengers (direct rotation + short-term experimenter or "spaceflight participant"), that is $42.5M per person for SpaceX and $59.5M per person for Boeing.  (This could explain why Boeing takes every opportunity to mention its ability to carry five people.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/23/2017 06:50 pm
Tweet from Stephen Clark (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/834850968542052354)
Quote
ASAP’s Frost: SpaceX agrees there will be seven flights in “frozen” configuration of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before crew flights.

edit: A couple other tweets phrased it as 7 flights before putting crew on rocket, so I think they could do DM-1 as part of the seven flights.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 02/24/2017 06:17 am
Quote
Crusan: looking at add’l Soyuz seats or Orion missions to ISS as contingency options only. Want comm’l crew to be successful.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/834927503043067904 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/834927503043067904)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 02/24/2017 01:39 pm
Quote
Crusan: looking at add’l Soyuz seats or Orion missions to ISS as contingency options only. Want comm’l crew to be successful.
::)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 02:53 pm
NASA quitely announced that it bought Soyuz seats for 2017 and 2018 from Boeing last week:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/additional-crew-flights-boost-space-station-science-and-research/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/27/2017 03:16 pm
NASA quitely announced that it bought Soyuz seats for 2017 and 2018 from Boeing last week:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/additional-crew-flights-boost-space-station-science-and-research/

Quote
The agreement is a contract action that modifies the space station's Vehicle Sustaining Engineering Contract, originally awarded in January 1995, and most recently extended in 2015. The modification provides crew transportation services for two U.S. crew members to and from the International Space Station (ISS) on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft – one each in the fall of 2017 and spring of 2018. The modification total value including the option is $373.5 million.

So this would be for 5 seats with the option?  Around $75 million per seat?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2017 03:38 pm
That sounds right based on the RFP which you previously linked. See below:

Ars Technica: As leadership departs, NASA quietly moves to buy more Soyuz seats (http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/nasa-formally-seeks-option-to-buy-additional-soyuz-seats-for-2019/)
Eric Berger wrote an article about NASA planning to buy more Soyuz seats for early 2019, as well as extra seats available in 2017 and 2018. 

He provides a link to the solicitation: PROCUREMENT OF CREW TRANSPORTATION AND RESCUE SERVICES FROM BOEING (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d4bd5c52373053a6dfb6acd03398978c&tab=core&_cview=0).  Apparently Boeing bought the rights to the available Soyuz seats and is going to resell them to NASA.

Here are some excerpts from the solicitation:
Quote
NASA is considering contracting with The Boeing Company (Boeing) for crew transportation services to and from the International Space Station (ISS) on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. This transportation would be for one crewmember in the Fall of 2017 and one crewmember in the Spring of 2018. NASA is considering purchasing these services from Boeing, without competition, because no other vehicles are currently capable of providing these services in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018. NASA has contracts with two U.S. commercial companies for crew transportation to the ISS. However, these vehicles are still in the developmental stage, and not expected to begin fully operational flights to the ISS until 2019. NASA also is considering an option to acquire crew transportation from Boeing for three crewmembers on the Soyuz in 2019, to ensure the availability of back-up transportation capability in the event the U.S. commercial contractor vehicles are delayed or to augment future ISS operations and research.
...
An agreement was recently reached between the Boeing Company and S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation, Energia ("RSC Energia"), who is the manufacturer of the Soyuz spacecraft and has the legal rights to sell the seats and associated services. As a part of this agreement, Energia agreed to provide to Boeing two specifically identified seats on the Soyuz spacecraft for long-duration travel to and from the ISS, one on a flight to occur in the Fall 2017 timeframe and another on a flight to occur in the Spring 2018 timeframe. Additionally, Energia provided Boeing three additional specifically identified seats in the Spring 2019 timeframe on two Soyuz spacecraft. Finally, Boeing and RSC Energia agreed that each of these five seats will include a launch of an individual to and from the ISS, including all services normally provided during launches to ISS. Boeing and RSC Energia have represented that Boeing has the full rights to these seats and can sell them to any third party.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 03/03/2017 10:39 pm
A Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the purchase of Soyuz seats from Boeing was posted today:

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=1907d288ae46bb83bfe83f192adef5ed (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=1907d288ae46bb83bfe83f192adef5ed)

[OCR'd copy attached]
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: brickmack on 03/04/2017 12:10 am
The Justification mentions "Spacedesign Corporation" put in a bid. Funny that a semi-defunct software company would bid on a crew delivery vehicle. I bet NASA was unamused.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: psloss on 03/05/2017 05:36 pm
FWIW, a revision of CCT-REQ-1130, "ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document" showed up on NTRS recently:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170001943

(Attached here, as well.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/06/2017 02:48 am
Loss of crew is now at 1 in 200 (but it includes orbital debris hazards while docked to the ISS):

Quote from: page 34 of Document CCT-REQ-1130
3.2.1 Crew Safety
3.2.1.1 Loss of Crew Risk

The CTS shall safely execute the objectives defined in Section 3.1 with the following Loss of
Crew (LOC) requirements for the various mission phases.

a. The overall LOC probability distribution for an ISS mission shall have a mean value no
greater than 1 in 200 without utilizing operational controls implemented by the ISS, such as
TPS inspections.

b. The LOC probability distribution for the combined ascent and entry phases of an ISS mission
shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 500. [R.CTS.030]

Rationale: The LOC requirement is consistent with NASA's defined goals and thresholds for
crewed vehicles. The LOC values are part of the overall certification process for the
commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft and establish a basis for decision making relative
to safety enhancing features in the design, including failure tolerance. The LOC requirement
represents a design robustness criteria to be managed by the commercial provider alone.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 03/06/2017 10:03 am
Loss of crew is now at 1 in 200 (but it includes orbital debris hazards while docked to the ISS):

Quote from: page 34 of Document CCT-REQ-1130
3.2.1 Crew Safety
3.2.1.1 Loss of Crew Risk

The CTS shall safely execute the objectives defined in Section 3.1 with the following Loss of
Crew (LOC) requirements for the various mission phases.

a. The overall LOC probability distribution for an ISS mission shall have a mean value no
greater than 1 in 200 without utilizing operational controls implemented by the ISS, such as
TPS inspections.

b. The LOC probability distribution for the combined ascent and entry phases of an ISS mission
shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 500. [R.CTS.030]

Rationale: The LOC requirement is consistent with NASA's defined goals and thresholds for
crewed vehicles. The LOC values are part of the overall certification process for the
commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft and establish a basis for decision making relative
to safety enhancing features in the design, including failure tolerance. The LOC requirement
represents a design robustness criteria to be managed by the commercial provider alone.

Revision: D-1 (March 23, 2015) has exactly the same text.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/06/2017 02:03 pm
The number recently changed. It was still 1 in 270 at the end of 2015 according to ASAP. NASA decided to reduce it to 1 in 200 in order to take into account MMOD damage while docked at the ISS. See the 2015 ASAP report for more on this:

Quote from: page 17 of the ASAP 2015 Report
The CCP has a requirement to achieve a LOC risk of no worse than 1 in 270 (1:270). Analysis of current designs indicates that they fall short of that limit. The primary risk contributor is MMOD damage. The strategy that is being taken to meet the LOC requirement is to back off to 1:200 for the spacecraft themselves, but to require that the design and vehicle capability be the sole means to achieve that level without consideration of operational adjustments. Any potential inspections or other operational workarounds will be put aside and left for later consideration. Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks. While there will always be risk from MMOD, NASA wants the providers to do as well as they can in using the spacecraft design to provide primary prevention before looking at other ways to improve safety through secondary preventive techniques such as inspection. There is some evidence that this strategy will have a positive result.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39380.msg1481015#msg1481015

See also the 2016 report on the same issue:

Quote from: page 8 of the ASAP 2016 Report
The ASAP was informed that the LOC goal of 1 in 270 may not be able to be met without additional spacecraft mitigations due to Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD)-associated risks, which are a dominant factor in the LOC calculation. Since the designs of proposed spacecraft systems are not fully mature and are still in a state of flux, it is impossible to determine what the final configurations will yield with respect to LOC. There may be a limit to what can be achieved by design considérations alone, and operational mitigations may be required to achieve the LOC goals. Also, we note that in considering LOC goals, we recognize that there is a fairly large uncertainty band around any calculated LOC number. This issue is currently under review and has the potential to impact budget, schedule, and crew safety.

https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2016_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/06/2017 02:34 pm
At some point putting a Kevlar cover around visiting vehicles becomes a viable option against MMOD damage. I suspect that Bigelow will be happy to sell more of his product.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 03/06/2017 04:54 pm
The number recently changed. It was still 1 in 270 at the end of 2015 according to ASAP. NASA decided to reduce it to 1 in 200 in order to take into account MMOD damage while docked at the ISS. See the 2015 ASAP report for more on this:

[...]

Clearly the Commercial Crew Program had already decided to change the number to 1 in 200 (before operational mitigations) by the time they issued Rev D-1 of the requirements document in March 2015.

[Document attached]
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/06/2017 07:08 pm
Thanks! ASAP may not have been aware that the requirements had already changed earlier in 2015.

As you say, it was changed in 2015. I didn't follow all of the changes but I know that back in 2011, it was originally 1 in 270. See below for the 2011 version:

Quote from: page 28 of 2011 version of CCT-REQ-1130
3.2.1.3 The CTS shall safely execute the objectives defined in Section 3.1 with the
following Loss of Crew (LOC) requirements for the various mission phases.
a. The overall LOC probability distribution for an ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 270.
b. The LOC probability distribution for the ascent phase of an ISS mission shall be no greater than 1 in 1000.
c. The LOC probability distribution for the entry phase of an ISS mission shall be no greater than 1 in 1000.

3.2.1.4 The CTS Loss of Mission (LOM) probability distribution for an ISS mission shall have a mean value of no greater than 1 in 55.
a. The overall LOC mission risk in 3.2.1.2 and the LOM risk in 3.2.2 assume docked mission duration of 210 days.
b. A spacecraft failure that requires the vehicle to enter earlier than the pre-launch planned EOM timeframe shall be considered a loss of mission.

Rationale: These LOC and LOM requirements are a direct flow down from the NASA ESMD Exploration Architecture Requirements Document (EARD) and are consistent with NASA‟s defined goals and thresholds for crewed vehicles. The overall LOC mission risk in 3.2.1.3 and the LOM risk in 3.2.1.4 assume docked mission duration of 210 days. A spacecraft failure that requires the vehicle to execute a deorbit/entry/landing earlier than the planned EOM timeframe is considered a loss of mission. Launch vehicle ascent cases that run out of fuel prior to achieving the orbit target are also considered a loss of mission. The LOC values are part of the overall certification process for the commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft and establish a basis for decision making relative to safety enhancing features in the design including failure tolerance.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.msg795150#msg795150
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/08/2017 04:01 pm
ECLSS Systems Put to the Test for Commercial Crew Missions:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/eclss-systems-put-to-the-test-for-commercial-crew-missions
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2017 05:28 pm
Update on commercial crew:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/commercial-crew-tight-achievable-timeline-2018/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/09/2017 06:03 pm
During the NAC meeting, there was a discussion between Wayne Hale and Kathy Lueders on the Shuttle LOC numbers. Lueders said that they were 1 in 90 but Wayne Hale corrected her and said that the actual numbers were 1 in 65. But I think that Wayne Hale misunderstood the numbers that Kathy Lueders was trying to quote during the NAC meeting. She was quoting the LOC probability risk assessment (PRA) numbers, not the actual numbers.

The Shuttle's LOC probability risk assessment numbers towards the end of the program were estimated at 1 in 90 according to a 2011 NASA risk report. See these links:
https://msquair.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nasashuttleriskreview-excerpt.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110004917.pdf
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-02-13-nasa-underestimated-risk_N.htm

Obviously and as Wayne Hale pointed out during the NAC meeting, the real numbers for the Shuttle were 1 in 65 but these weren't the PRA LOC numbers for each new Shuttle flight in 2011 (which were still estimated at 1 in 90).

For commercial crew, NASA decided that it needed to be 3 times as safe as Shuttle at 1 in 270 (90 x 3). So that's were that LOC number comes from:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/nasa-evaluating-commercial-loss-crew-mishap/

During the NAC meeting, Lueders indicated that NASA may allow NASA contractors to choose between the 1 in 270 (with a separate number for MMOD risks) and the 1 in 200 LOC numbers (which would include the MMOD risks).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 04/10/2017 07:48 pm
Update on commercial crew:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/commercial-crew-tight-achievable-timeline-2018/

This article just got picked up by the AIA dailyLead ( [email protected] ) for April 10
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/12/2017 06:07 am
By Jeff Foust:

Quote
COLORADO SPRINGS — One of the NASA astronauts training to fly on test flights of commercial crew vehicles said he expects the agency to make flight assignments for those missions as soon as this summer.

In a discussion with reporters here April 6 outside a simulator of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle, Robert Behnken said those upcoming crew assignments will allow astronauts who have been training on both the Starliner and SpaceX’s Dragon v2 to specialize on one vehicle.

http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-flight-assignments-could-come-this-summer/ (http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-flight-assignments-could-come-this-summer/)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 04/17/2017 02:46 pm
During the NAC meeting, there was a discussion between Wayne Hale and Kathy Lueders on the Shuttle LOC numbers. Lueders said that they were 1 in 90 but Wayne Hale corrected her and said that the actual numbers were 1 in 65. But I think that Wayne Hale misunderstood the numbers that Kathy Lueders was trying to quote during the NAC meeting. She was quoting the LOC probability risk assessment (PRA) numbers, not the actual numbers.

The Shuttle's LOC probability risk assessment numbers towards the end of the program were estimated at 1 in 90 according to a 2011 NASA risk report. See these links:
https://msquair.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nasashuttleriskreview-excerpt.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110004917.pdf
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-02-13-nasa-underestimated-risk_N.htm

Obviously and as Wayne Hale pointed out during the NAC meeting, the real numbers for the Shuttle were 1 in 65 but these weren't the PRA LOC numbers for each new Shuttle flight in 2011 (which were still estimated at 1 in 90).

For commercial crew, NASA decided that it needed to be 3 times as safe as Shuttle at 1 in 270 (90 x 3). So that's were that LOC number comes from:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/nasa-evaluating-commercial-loss-crew-mishap/

During the NAC meeting, Lueders indicated that NASA may allow NASA contractors to choose between the 1 in 270 (with a separate number for MMOD risks) and the 1 in 200 LOC numbers (which would include the MMOD risks).
Wow if Shuttles probability for a LOC event was 1 in 90 as the SSP was flying in 2011, I shudder to think of the numbers for the test missions for STS-1 through STS-4.  Perhaps STS-5 would have been the riskiest mission as the ejection seats and pressure suits were discarded and the original First Manned Orbital Flight engines ME-2005, ME-2006, ME-2007 were still being used as the Phase-1 SSME upgrades didn't come into effect until STS-6 through STS-51L?
(Phase-1 SSMEs Phase I engine offered increased service life and was certified for 104% RPL)?

Starting another thread as Shuttle discussion is off topic for this Commercial Crew Discussion thread.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42758.msg1667784#msg1667784
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/23/2017 05:45 pm
At 14m30s, Vern Thorp from ULA said that they were making modifications, this year, to the White Room for other customers in the future.

It's not clear what he meant by other customers. Presumably, he meant modifications for space tourist flights but he may have meant for other companies such as SNC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb0eLZISnxE
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 04/23/2017 05:56 pm
Thanks for the link. I am not sure how much is to be gained in speculating on what he meant at this time as it seemed to me he was just talking in purely hypothetical terms with nothing in his comment to extract any data from.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/23/2017 06:17 pm
He said other customers in the future. So he may have meant that ULA wants to be able to service other companies (other than Boeing) should the need ever arise. Technically, Boeing is ULA's customer for commercial crew (not NASA) since Boeing is the prime contractor and ULA is a subcontractor.

I wish that someone had asked a follow-up question on this.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 04/23/2017 07:05 pm
He said other customers in the future. So he may have meant that ULA wants to be able to service other companies (other than Boeing) should the need ever arise. Technically, Boeing is ULA's customer for commercial crew (not NASA) since Boeing is the prime contractor and ULA is a subcontractor.

I wish that someone had asked a follow-up question on this.

It's odd that no one did that when he came out with that kind of statement.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/23/2017 07:16 pm
He said other customers in the future. So he may have meant that ULA wants to be able to service other companies (other than Boeing) should the need ever arise. Technically, Boeing is ULA's customer for commercial crew (not NASA) since Boeing is the prime contractor and ULA is a subcontractor.

I wish that someone had asked a follow-up question on this.
:)
Maybe ULA & SX have reached an agreement to loft up each other's commercial crewed capsule for contingencies.
:)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tvg98 on 06/05/2017 05:29 pm
Crew Dragon Trainer Takes Shape at Kennedy

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2017/06/05/crew-dragon-trainer-takes-shape-at-kennedy/ (https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2017/06/05/crew-dragon-trainer-takes-shape-at-kennedy/)

Quote
NASA and SpaceX engineers are working together at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to build a full-scale Crew Dragon model, or Recovery Trainer, that will be used by the U.S. Air Force to perform flight-like rescue and recovery training exercises in the open ocean later this year.

The model, shown above with astronauts Dan Burbank and Victor Glover inside, is built to mimic the Crew Dragon spacecraft that SpaceX is developing with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program to fly astronauts to and from the International Space Station. In certain unusual recovery situations, SpaceX may need to work with the U.S. Air Force to send parajumpers to recover astronauts from the capsule. The Recovery Trainer will be used by the Air Force to prepare procedures and train for this contingency scenario. The trainer also has two working hatches and other simulated components similar to the ones astronauts and support teams will encounter in real missions.

Scott Colloredo, deputy director of Kennedy’s Engineering Directorate, said the engineers adapted SpaceX designs of internal elements to be compatible with the trainer and worked with Kennedy’s Prototype Development Lab to produce the parts quickly and install them inside the trainer. The Prototype Development Lab designs, fabricates and tests prototypes, test articles and test support equipment. The lab has a long history of providing fast solutions to complex operations problems. The lab’s teams of engineers use specialized equipment to produce exacting, one-of-a-kind items made from a range of materials depending on the design.

“We perform things that complement what the partners and programs provide,” Colloredo said. “The team delivered right to the minute.”

SpaceX is now finalizing modifications to the trainer to ensure it floats in water in the same way as the Crew Dragon spacecraft. Following those modifications, the trainer will enter service as the primary training vehicle for Crew Dragon astronaut recovery operations.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/01/2017 09:30 pm
Just listened to the Commercial Crew update from the recent NAC HEO meeting.  Thought it was interesting that they noted the fit of the SpaceX pressure suits are more customized for each crew member than the Boeing suits.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/02/2017 03:26 pm
They also noted that the first 4 Dragon2s will be brand new (qualification unit, uncrewed demo, demo, PCS1).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/04/2017 12:02 pm
Here is a link to the NAC presentation on commercial crew:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_nac_july24_2017.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/24/2017 07:58 pm
The latest ASAP meeting minutes are out:

Quote
Commercial Crew Program
Lt Gen Susan Helms reported on the Panel’s discussions with CCP management. She noted that the ASAP continues to be impressed by the Program Manager, Ms. Kathy Lueders. Lt Gen Helms commended the Program, noting that it is “doing a fabulous job” raising the bar of excellence on what is a challenging paradigm—two providers with a commercial-type contract, where “human-rating” is one of the most difficult design challenges. The closer they move toward implementation of this Program, the more impressive the team appears to be. The ASAP reviewed the CCP’s launch dates. The official dates, as reported at this meeting were: for SpaceX, April 2018 for an uncrewed, flight-demo mission to the ISS, and August 2018 for a crewed flight to the ISS; for Boeing, August 2018 for the uncrewed flight test, and November 2018 for a crewed flight test.

Lt Gen Helms addressed the safety discussions pertaining to both providers. The ASAP believes that NASA is judiciously continuing to address the risk drivers with the providers for the most serious scenarios through continued analysis, modeling, testing, and design development. It remains challenging. Nevertheless, the focus on worst case scenarios has driven positive design decisions for both providers, as well as other aspects such as increases in systems testing for some of the systems that carry notable risks. As reported at the last quarterly, micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) continues to be the prime risk driver for both providers by a significant margin. Lt Gen Helms emphasized that one should not put a disproportionate emphasis on exact numbers at this point in time. The modeling of MMOD is a very challenging analysis, and there are notable uncertainties in the calculation. NASA is continuing to work on the modeling problem through proposed MMOD sampling experiments on the International Space Station (ISS), which is an outstanding use of the vehicle for this type of analysis. The team is also working on some unique defect testing with the Dragon cargo mission to recover and study the Dragon after it returns to help reduce modeling uncertainties on MMOD damage. In other words, defects are being deliberately placed on Dragon to try to simulate some of the MMOD scenarios. The operational mitigations, such as on-orbit inspection, are obviously prudent to consider, and NASA is doing so. The focus is on better understanding the risks of the space environment in advance and the design of the provider vehicles in the face of those risks.

Lt Gen Helms discussed some other major risk drivers common to both vehicles that were highlighted in the CCP’s report. Both providers continue comprehensive parachute test plans to help refine the nature of parachute risks. Related to other prominent risk drivers for both vehicles, NASA will begin to adjudicate launch commit criteria for launch day weather and sea states in support of normal flight sequencing, especially abort modes. Given that the staging events of the vehicles have been evaluated to have a notable contribution to risk, launch day weather will be a fairly critical element of risk management. NASA is about to embark on developing criteria that will provide both mitigation to abort staging risks while still providing some reasonable time for launch opportunity. The Panel also had a discussion with NASA about authorities. The Panel has been very focused on the level at which risk is accepted and by whom. The ASAP was informed that the NASA Associate Administrator level or higher will make the decision on certification for both designs.

Lt Gen Helms continued with the status on the individual providers, beginning with SpaceX. She reported that there has been good progress on composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPV) analysis, resulting from the accident late last summer. There is a very cooperative SpaceX/NASA team pursuing additional analysis, testing, and investigating cause. The COPV 2.0 development continues. A subgroup of Panel members visited SpaceX last month and heard more about how the development is proceeding. NASA appears to be taking a prudent risk reduction step and a possible alternative parallel path—a different design—that would be a form of insurance. Lt Gen Helms noted that NASA is good at working additional options. Throughout the COPV work, the team has been pushing state-of-the-art of this COPV technology for everyone. This has been one of the positive outcomes of the accident, and everyone will benefit from this cooperative relationship between NASA and SpaceX. With regard to the parachutes, there has been great progress on the test program. Several more tests are coming up, focused on reducing the uncertainty in the parachute reliability analysis and also to help facilitate lessons learned in the design. Another special topic that was a “good news story” was the blade disk and engine improvements for the Merlin. The turbine wheel crack mitigation operational changes have been implemented and robust testing continues to support the validity of the improvements. Again, this will not only benefit the CCP, but all potential customers—both government and commercial—who intend to use the Falcon 9.

CAPT Christopher Saindon reported on the Boeing status. The Panel had a good discussion with Mr. Chris Gerace from CCP regarding Boeing’s path forward toward Flight Test Readiness Review for both the orbital flight test and eventual crewed flight test. Boeing and the CCP team have been conducting detailed probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) modeling with an eye toward reducing overall risk. This has been a primary focus area for Boeing, and the results of these ongoing risk analyses have influenced design, development, test, and evaluation (DDTE) activities significantly. As with Space-X, the greatest risk driver remains on-orbit MMOD vulnerability and recovery parachute systems performance and certification. The CCP did note that both partners had effectively
used the PSA analysis results to identify primary risk drivers. SpaceX and Boeing have used that data to develop focused mitigations including vehicle design and operational protocol changes. Nevertheless, at this point in the Program, there are only a few design changes that will likely result in substantial risk reductions.

In terms of operational changes, the CCP has identified additional opportunity to reduce risk. Specifically, this includes operational approaches to mitigate unacceptable abort weather criteria—primarily unacceptable recovery sea-states—through tailored launch commit criteria (launch rules) as well as strategies for on-orbit MMOD inspection. While more work still remains in both of these operational mitigation strategy areas, they represent solid, safety-focused, risk decisions being made collaboratively between CCP and the providers to improve the overall risk profile of the Program.

Mr. Gerace also discussed the CST-100 abort capability certification strategy. The CCP shared with the Panel how they have developed a stringent abort system performance requirement intended to ensure a continuous ascent abort capability. The requirement did not obligate the CCP providers to demonstrate a live, in-flight or pad abort test. However, Boeing has elected to conduct an actual pad abort test, and they will rely on extensive subscale wind tunnel testing for the in-flight regime testing. For the in-flight abort wind tunnel testing, Boeing has been working to validate abort performance working with the aero-skirt design to alleviate non-linear aerodynamic properties associated with the “hammerhead design” of the crew module/service module/launch vehicle interface.

Mr. Gerace led a discussion about the specifics of the CCP’s development of the Abort Certification Roadmap, which has been developed to identify key gaps that drive risk in abort system capability and certification. This effort identified some issues with integrated testing and eventually led to identification of potential gaps. To date, only two gaps remain, which Boeing is working diligently to resolve with additional testing, including high Mach parachute testing. Mr. Gerace also reviewed the ongoing structural test article (STA) shock testing related specifically to the recovery parachute deployment system. Again, there have been some unknowns discovered in that testing, and CCP and the provider are working to achieve an acceptable solution.

Mr. Justin Kerr discussed the details of the Boeing parachute testing plan being conducted at White Sands with a boilerplate model vehicle. Boeing added six parachute tests to ensure that there is sufficient hard data to define in-flight abort envelope. The test plan consists of three boilerplate static balloon drops, followed by three “lawn dart” tests (a more dynamic test of the parachute system).

Finally, Ms. Dayna Ise led a discussion with the Panel on the ongoing certification efforts for the RD-180 engine. In the Panel’s view, this was a good news story, since there has been a great deal of uncertainty regarding the path forward toward certification of that engine. While the CCP is still carrying certification of the RD-180 as a top-level programmatic risk, Ms. Ise highlighted some significant and promising forward progress in light of the challenges related to obtaining granular design and component level data from the engine designer.

Boeing is tracking numerous DDTE milestones as they work toward certification for flight. Quite a bit of work remains on verification and closure notices (VCNs), and the Panel reviewed the burn down chart and the plan to achieve critical milestones. Undoubtedly, it will be a challenge to work through all the VCNs and address any unknown unknowns that result from the ongoing test and evaluation program. It was clear to the Panel that Boeing, the CCP, and safety and mission assurance (SMA) were fairly well aligned on their assessment of top program and safety risks.

CAPT Saindon concluded his report with a brief mention of the Panel’s open recommendation regarding SpaceX and Boeing providing verifiable evidence of rigorous systems engineering and integration (SE&I) principles in support of the NASA certification and operation of Commercial Crew Transport (CCT) services to ISS. The Panel believes the NASA CCP Office and the providers are making good progress toward meeting the intent of the Panel’s recommendation, and the discussions regarding testing and resultant design changes are indicative of that progress.

Lt Gen Helms made a final comment regarding the schedule. The Panel appreciates the sheer volume of work by NASA’s Program team and the providers—under fairly unique circumstances—in getting two vehicles off the ground in the same timeframe. It is clear that NASA will be receiving a great quantity of provider products. The Panel has reviewed the schedules for the providers, and they are very ambitious to meet the official launch dates. Behind the provider schedules are the NASA schedules to assimilate, process, adjudicate, and approve the products and activities for the NASA readiness review. It is a lot of work. This process has begun and it will get more difficult as the team moves closer to the launch readiness dates. The Panel encouraged support of the CCP to ensure they have all the resources to accomplish the work judiciously and safely. Lt Gen Helms noted that this is an important ASAP “watch item.”

Dr. Donald McErlean, who has had extensive experience with propulsion items, commented on SpaceX’s remanufacture of a new “blisk,” which is a combination of a blade and disk in one single forging. The recent  insight visit to SpaceX provided an opportunity to examine that new device. This is an example of a “spin-off” that comes from NASA programs. This complex forging is unquestionably a state-of-the-art in manufacturing technology, and that technology is now contained within American industry. It was very gratifying to see the technology, which is encouraged by NASA’s programs, leading to a great step forward for SpaceX and its future customers, both government and commercial.

Mr. John Frost added emphasis to Dr. McErlean’s point on spin-offs. The NASA mission is to improve our knowledge of the universe. Many people think of that in terms of discoveries about other planets, and while that is certainly true, the technology that is developed in obtaining that goal is worth its weight in gold. For
example, the research being done on COPV to fully understand the physics of failure of that important technology is state-of-the-art. Mr. Frost observed that when applying the brightest minds to the most complex issues, the solutions and advances in technology can be remarkable. During the tour at JSC, the Panel also looked at the human performance work regarding eyesight degradation in low gravity, which is advancing the medical world. The public needs to understand that NASA spin-offs are more than Tang or Velco—there are important breakthroughs, and they are one of the major benefits from what NASA does.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 10/26/2017 02:41 pm
The latest ASAP meeting minutes are out:
I haven't really seen much from ASAP other than things on this program and SLS, but out of everything I have seen, this is the most positive "things are going well" message I have seen from them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 10/27/2017 05:58 pm
Post from Wayne Hale:
Quote
I made this prediction 7 years ago. We are about to find out if I was right to be worried.
https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/923909619654774784

Quote
The coming train wreck for Commercial Human Spaceflight

Quote
As with all good government bureaucracies, NASA believes that improved processes (read:  increased bureaucracy) is the answer to preventing future problems.  So NASA writes longer and longer specifications and requirements, and demands more and more documentation and proof.  Somewhere along the line, we have crossed over the optimum point to ensure safety and just added cost and delay.

Quote
Now NASA has released a draft (dated Oct. 8, 2010) of its requirements CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements.  I’d like for you to read it but it is behind NASA’s IT firewall and you must have an ID and password to access it.  I have read it and I’m disappointed.  The document runs a mind-numbing 260 pages of densely spaced requirements.  Most disappointing, on pages 7 to 11 is a table of 74 additional requirements documents which must be followed, in whole or in part.  Taken all together, there are thousands of requirement statements referenced in this document.

https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/27/2017 07:17 pm
From the ASAP meeting minutes, for SpaceX they only identify two areas of active concern, which are MMOD and vehicle risks related to aborts and landings (parachutes, weather criteria, etc.).

They do talk about the work related to COPV's, which indicates that between NASA and SpaceX some really great development is happening, but the issue of whether fueling the vehicle before crew is loaded or after crew is loaded is not mentioned.

Do we know if SpaceX and NASA have agreed on when the Falcon 9 launch vehicle should be fueled for a crew flight?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/27/2017 07:21 pm
Post from Wayne Hale:
Quote
I made this prediction 7 years ago. We are about to find out if I was right to be worried.
https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/923909619654774784
Not sure I understand a tweet (now) referencing the blog post from 2010.  The post was talking about increased cost and schedule creep due to over-burdensome regulation.  The risk ("the coming train wreck") clearly referred to that.  We've seen exactly that to be sure - and yet, here we are now in late 2017, and it seems the program is very close to achieving first flights in the coming year.  "We are about to find out if I was right to be worried" makes no sense at this juncture at all.  Is he worried about further changes to requirements slipping the program even further right than they are now?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 10/27/2017 07:22 pm
Quote
requirement statements referenced in this document.

https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/

It took more time, then originally plan, but  it gives Spacex time to learn and if they bring us to Mars in 10 years.
It will be similar to NASA plan in 60 to land in 80 on Mars, for 1% of original planned budget. Worth of any penny.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Wayne Hale on 10/30/2017 07:39 pm
My worry:  both providers are getting ready to have their Design Certification Review - that is the point at which the NASA independent technical authorities will give them approval or send them back to the showers for additional work.  If NASA has not changed, you can expect significant delay for the providers to have to do much more work (tests, analysis, maybe even redesign).  Watch what happens over the next couple of months.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/30/2017 07:52 pm
Thanks for coming by and clarifying what your concern is, Wayne.  I can only hope you're wrong; that would be terribly dispiriting.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/30/2017 09:59 pm
My worry:  both providers are getting ready to have their Design Certification Review - that is the point at which the NASA independent technical authorities will give them approval or send them back to the showers for additional work.  If NASA has not changed, you can expect significant delay for the providers to have to do much more work (tests, analysis, maybe even redesign).  Watch what happens over the next couple of months.


The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract was issued under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15 and is Firm Fixed Price (FFP). Can NASA impose more than a trivial amount of extra work without providing extra money? Is such money in the 2018 budget?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 06:16 am
My worry:  both providers are getting ready to have their Design Certification Review - that is the point at which the NASA independent technical authorities will give them approval or send them back to the showers for additional work.  If NASA has not changed, you can expect significant delay for the providers to have to do much more work (tests, analysis, maybe even redesign).  Watch what happens over the next couple of months.


The Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract was issued under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15 and is Firm Fixed Price (FFP). Can NASA impose more than a trivial amount of extra work without providing extra money? Is such money in the 2018 budget?
Firm Fixed Price contracts usually come with a "fixed" scope of work as well. However, the CCtCap contract does allow for a limited amount of additional work above-and-beyond the contracted scope. If and when NASA demands additional work outside the scope of the contract, than the contract will have to be re-negotiated.
When such a scenario plays out NASA will likely have to go back to US Congress for additional funding because the requested CCP funding levels are for the currently contracted scope of CCP work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 10/31/2017 03:45 pm
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:49 pm
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/02/2017 03:50 am
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

I understood that these LOC/LOM numbers would not be met while in-orbit because of the hard to quantify micro-meteorites and orbital debris hazards but the numbers still need to be met for other hazards.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 11/02/2017 03:25 pm
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf)

Edit/gongora:  Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports Server
Paper (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008895)
Presentation Slides (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008894)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 11/02/2017 04:19 pm
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf)

Thanks! Great material.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kang54 on 11/02/2017 06:24 pm
There's also this new article:
NASA Human Spaceflight Scenarios - Do All Our Models Still Say ‘No’?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008892.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008892.pdf)

I have only read the introduction so far, and I'm not quite sure if it fits in this thread, but there are some interesting mentions of furthering the public-private partnerships to beyond LEO.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/02/2017 11:22 pm
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

If lower LOC/LOM for capsules are genuinely important then damage when docked to a spacestation can be handled at a system level. Docking bays designed to protect visiting vehicles against debris can be added to the ISS (and DSG). A Kevlar or equivalent wall will do this. Air tight doors are not needed because spacecraft are happy to stay in vacuum providing they are heated.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 11/02/2017 11:33 pm
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

If lower LOC/LOM for capsules are genuinely important then damage when docked to a spacestation can be handled at a system level. Docking bays designed to protect visiting vehicles against debris can be added to the ISS (and DSG). A Kevlar or equivalent wall will do this. Air tight doors are not needed because spacecraft are happy to stay in vacuum providing they are heated.

The LOC/LOM targets are explicitly vehicle side only, without program/operations mitigation.  Which is not to say that there won't be such added, only that the vehicles were supposed to meet the stated target without such.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: toren on 11/02/2017 11:37 pm
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf)

Edit/gongora:  Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports Server
Paper (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008895)
Presentation Slides (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008894)

This is great stuff!  Real numbers and an understandable presentation.  Kudos to the author.  (I say that as someone with 20-plus years of experience in reading new venture and operational budgets and estimates.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/02/2017 11:49 pm
NASA can argue the safety standards set are not met and the contractor needs to fix whatever NASA points to at their own cost.
No, NASA won't.
NASA has already been priming ASAP and the HEO - NASA Advisory Committee to except the fact that the originally set LOC/LOM numbers will not be met. That is being done by putting doubt on NASA's own theoretical models for calculating LOC/LOM. Just carefully read the ASAP minutes and HEO - NAC presentations and one can clearly see what is going on: a waiver will eventually be granted for lower LOC/LOM capabilities.

If lower LOC/LOM for capsules are genuinely important then damage when docked to a spacestation can be handled at a system level. Docking bays designed to protect visiting vehicles against debris can be added to the ISS (and DSG). A Kevlar or equivalent wall will do this. Air tight doors are not needed because spacecraft are happy to stay in vacuum providing they are heated.

The LOC/LOM targets are explicitly vehicle side only, without program/operations mitigation.  Which is not to say that there won't be such added, only that the vehicles were supposed to meet the stated target without such.

Once a waiver exists the problem has to be solved somewhere else.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 11/03/2017 02:45 am
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf)

Edit/gongora:  Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports Server
Paper (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008895)
Presentation Slides (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170008894)

This deserves its own thread, it's too important to be buried under CCtCAP, besides ~50% of the paper is about COTS and CRS, has nothing to do with CCtCAP.

Edit/Lar: Here's the thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44180

Also LOL about the following, I wonder if the author visits NSF:
Quote
It’s worth noting that many an internet discussion about the cost of commercial cargo to the ISS have failed to draw the distinctions that make for rigorous analysis, or even trying to account for major factors. Common errors include using the Space Shuttle programs historical average cost per flightd to calculate costs per kg to the ISS at a low yearly flight rate as a multiple of that average, incorrectly treating the Shuttle’s per flight costs as if NASA could purchase those flights by the yard. To make matters worse, other common errors forget that Shuttle upgrades, though not a recurring yearly operational cost, were a large, ever present and continuous capital expense in every yearly budget. Operating a Shuttle meant continually funding Shuttle upgrades. Other typical errors include using the Shuttle’s maximum payload (not cargo) of about 27,500kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at 200km, then comparing against the commercial prices for ISS cargo (not payload) delivered to the actual, higher 400km ISS orbit. With errors like these such analysis are incorrect (though “not even wrong” might also apply.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 11/03/2017 11:04 am
Agree.  Too broad for this thread...

Examples:
PPP
Quote
Recommendation: We  propose  a  steady  transformation  of  NASA space  exploration  and  operations funding towards more, smaller commercial / public-private partnerships, favoring those with strong non-government business cases,  to increase  the  pace  of NASA achievements and avoid having  most funding in projects with goals forever a generation away.

Depots
Quote
A NASA team looked at propellant depot scenarios in 2011. The cost estimating approach for stages, tankers and the depot have since been refined.  Changes in assumptions are minor (for example, there is no assumption of cost commonality in manufacturing between propulsion stages and depots in the work here, a more conservative assumption).  Overall the new results confirm earlier findings that refueling scenarios are promising, with ample margin for error in cost estimation and for inevitable “unknown unknowns”.  Figure 16 shows an in-space refueling architecture used for lunar exploration where the SpaceX Falcon Heavy in development becomes NASA’s commercial heavy lift provider. The deep space spacecraft and lander are the same as in prior scenarios, also public private  partnerships. The new element is the propellant depot scaled for filling from tankers rendezvousing in low Earth orbit such that enough propellant is available to support 1 lunar mission per year.

Entrenchment
Quote
Reviews of cost over-runs in the US Department of Defense (DoD) note “the well-known bureaucratic power game of front-loading or buying-in.”  Once early funding is spent, this “in effect, gives the contractor permission to use public money to build his political protection network by systematically spreading subcontracts and production facilities to as many congressional districts as possible.”  Inevitably the low operational or per unit costs never materialize as their purpose was only to justify and entrench the early up-front costs.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/29/2017 05:19 pm
The slides from the NAC HEO Committee meeting are out.  No official change to dates (will be interesting to see if there are any comments about that during the presentation.)

( the presentations can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc )
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/29/2017 09:10 pm
The slides from the NAC HEO Committee meeting are out.  No official change to dates (will be interesting to see if there are any comments about that during the presentation.)

( the presentations can be found at https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc )

The dates on the schedule slide are from the beginning of September (the last publicly available update), they get updated about once a quarter.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 12/01/2017 07:25 pm
In the program and safety risks slides, they've left off "Ammonia Emergency Response" this time.  Doesn't necessarily mean that it was closed out, maybe just left off?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/04/2018 03:06 pm
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf) stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/04/2018 04:49 pm
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/04/2018 07:22 pm
A long update on what to expect from CC in 2018:

Quote
NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission in Sight for 2018

NASA and industry partners, Boeing and SpaceX, are targeting the return of human spaceflight from Florida’s Space Coast in 2018. Both companies are scheduled to begin flight tests to prove the space systems meet NASA’s requirements for certification in the coming year.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commercial-crew-program-mission-in-sight-for-2018 (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-commercial-crew-program-mission-in-sight-for-2018)

Edit to add:

Although the feature gives rough dates for SpaceX (Q2 & Q3 for demo flights 1 & 2), there’s no mention of timescales for Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/04/2018 07:35 pm
How many billions for commercial crew so far?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/04/2018 07:40 pm
Hmm... SpaceX dates fit with previous dates from NASA (April and August for DM1 and DM2). Seem to conflict with reports of DM1 slipping to August and DM2 to Jan 2019.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/04/2018 08:42 pm
Hmm... SpaceX dates fit with previous dates from NASA (April and August for DM1 and DM2). Seem to conflict with reports of DM1 slipping to August and DM2 to Jan 2019.

Do you have a link to those reports, perchance? I've been looking for that, I had a similar memory.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/04/2018 09:18 pm
The current ISS visiting vehicle schedule (which is highly subject to changes) has SPX DM-2 in 2019. All other NASA reports and articles are still saying 2018.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/05/2018 01:23 am
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D

How is this misleading?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/05/2018 01:25 am
If anything it was optimistic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 01/05/2018 01:37 am
Adjusted for inflation? Non-zero axis start?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: hplan on 01/05/2018 01:39 am
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2

What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! :D

How is this misleading?

With the bottom axis at $20 million, a brief glance that assumes the bottom is zero might conclude that the price per seat has risen by a factor of about 40, instead of "just" 4.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 01/05/2018 01:53 am
Adjusted for inflation? Non-zero axis start?

The latter.

With the bottom axis at $20 million, a brief glance that assumes the bottom is zero might conclude that the price per seat has risen by a factor of about 40, instead of "just" 4.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 01/05/2018 03:53 pm
How many billions for commercial crew so far?

So far? Hard to tell, as we don't have a running count of what's been paid. The estimated total non-recurring cost will be $5.912 billion. And the recurring per seat cost will be an estimated $50.6 million for SpaceX and $81.8 million for Boeing.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cppetrie on 01/05/2018 05:03 pm
I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/05/2018 05:09 pm
I would guess by the end of the demo flights they'll probably have paid out at least 2/3 of the money (maybe a bit more).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 01/05/2018 06:49 pm
I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

They are fixed price contracts, but both sides can negotiate changes. Some milestones won't be completed or paid for, like SpaceX's propulsive Dragon 2 landing related development and testing. So the exact cost is not known, but the $5.912 billion is close.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/05/2018 09:22 pm
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.
Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/05/2018 11:55 pm
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 01/06/2018 01:20 am
I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?
 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1767685#msg1767685) the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 01/06/2018 01:58 am
Right - much better to fund SLS to be the ISS delivery (once per annum) vehicle. Oh wait, no - SLS has a way better and brighter future - DSG, which will get us (US) _near_ the moon. So, will get us Apollo 8, something we did in 1968.

(Apologies for the off topic rant, but honestly this whole NASA manned space flight thing is such a disaster...)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 01/06/2018 02:19 am
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.

Why would they pay for Soyuz? I think the plan is to trade seats on CC vehicles to the Russians in exchange for seats on Soyuz, so that both US and Russian crew use all three vehicles.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/06/2018 02:28 am
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 01/06/2018 02:32 am
I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?
 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1767685#msg1767685) the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.

Still, for that 8.3 billion NASA got cheap access (in terms of recurring cost) to 3 cargo spacecraft, 2 crew spacecraft, and 2 launch vehicles. Plus they have access to FH and Atlas/Vulcan for no development cost. That's a pretty great bargain considering the historical development and recurring cost of NASA vehicles and spacecraft.

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.

CC vehicles add capabilities beyond what Soyuz can do, including some that Shuttle had and some it did not.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 01/06/2018 02:35 am
How many billions for commercial crew so far?

So far? Hard to tell, as we don't have a running count of what's been paid.

There is a running count in NASA's budget request, but it's delayed for a year, so we only have the cost up to FY16 for now (from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf, page 543).

If I used my calculator correctly total cost up to FY16 is $3.212B.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 01/06/2018 02:37 am
No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.
Two vehicles
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 01/06/2018 03:15 am
I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?
 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1767685#msg1767685) the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.

Still, for that 8.3 billion NASA got cheap access (in terms of recurring cost) to 3 cargo spacecraft, 2 crew spacecraft, and 2 launch vehicles. Plus they have access to FH and Atlas/Vulcan for no development cost. That's a pretty great bargain considering the historical development and recurring cost of NASA vehicles and spacecraft.

That 8.3 billion was just for Commercial Crew, it doesn't include Cargo (COTS and CRS).  So, for it they are getting ~two thirds of 1 cargo spacecraft (Dream Chaser), 2 crew spacecraft, the man-rating of 2 previously developed launchers (F9 and Atlas V), 12 crew rotation missions, and a small amount of work from Blue Origin and other assorted companies.  The work with Blue has since expanded and is continuing in an unfunded manner, which while it carries Program costs won't add to the 8.3B number. 

I agree, it's been a pretty darn good deal, even if it's not quite as good as what you listed.  But, adding in COTS funding would get all that, and it wasn't so much.  Plus, if Boeing and/or SpaceX can develop their capsule business to find regular non-NASA customers it's going to be a major additional win.  We'll see if SpaceX sells more circumlunar trips or Bigelow actually gets his space hotel going.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/06/2018 04:30 am
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.
Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.

The rockets for commercial crew and cargo are shared with other users. Only Antares has no other customers. This generates huge savings over the shuttle which had no other users.

The cost of the pads is paid for by the rocket company and split over users via launch prices. Space X leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one. ULA leases the pad from the Airforce and launches many Atlas flights from the same pad. With the shuttle NASA had to pay to keep it's pads operational and had no one else to split the cost with.


Having more than 1 capsule means that hopefully problems that affect one do not affect the other(i.e. The shuttle and it's 2 year shutdowns). This gives us greater redundancy and back up.  Also if there were only a single capsule then there would be a monopoly position. I rather doubt Orion would cost as much as it does if NASA could buy something equivalent from another vender. It gives both companies reasons to control their prices. 

Now there are some increased costs for having two vehicles in terms of training. but since NASA does not build or maintain either vehicle there is little to no savings by going with one. i.e. South West can fly a single type of plane  and generate savings, but they would never lower their prices if they were the ONLY airline you could fly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 01/06/2018 05:56 pm
SpaceX leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one.

SpaceX's lease only pays for Operations&Maintenance on the pad, there's no net revenue for NASA.  NASA benefits by not having to pay those costs, but that's in the nature of a savings only.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/18/2018 12:00 am
 
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.
Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.

The rockets for commercial crew and cargo are shared with other users. Only Antares has no other customers. This generates huge savings over the shuttle which had no other users.

The cost of the pads is paid for by the rocket company and split over users via launch prices. Space X leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one. ULA leases the pad from the Airforce and launches many Atlas flights from the same pad. With the shuttle NASA had to pay to keep it's pads operational and had no one else to split the cost with.


Air Force pad lease costs are on the order of a few dollars per year
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 01/21/2018 01:54 am
No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.
Two vehicles
Two American vehicles, dual American redundancy.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 01/21/2018 02:02 am
But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.
Why would they pay for Soyuz? I think the plan is to trade seats on CC vehicles to the Russians in exchange for seats on Soyuz, so that both US and Russian crew use all three vehicles.
Soyuz has always been a backup to the 2 American vehicles.  Paying with seats or paying with dollars, is still paying.  Similar to how Canada "pays" their 2.9% towards ISS costs, in return we get the odd CSA Astro to work on ISS, and once in a Blue Moon, get an ISS Command position.(that was great)



Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2018 03:08 pm
Air Force pad lease costs are on the order of a few dollars per year

But amortized cost (effectively the mortgage) on construction-improvements is undoubtedly much higher.  E.g., assuming $100M in pad construction-improvements with a straight line depreciation over 25 years yields $4M/yr, not accounting for the cost of money.  Spreading that cost across as many launches/customers as possible is beneficial.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/21/2018 03:50 pm
Been a while... Did we ever get a final decision as to whether CC will be the "rental car" or the "taxi" model for both vehicles?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/21/2018 05:10 pm
Been a while... Did we ever get a final decision as to whether CC will be the "rental car" or the "taxi" model for both vehicles?
Rental car for both Crew Dragon and Starliner.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 03/21/2018 06:16 pm
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 03/21/2018 06:18 pm
Been a while... Did we ever get a final decision as to whether CC will be the "rental car" or the "taxi" model for both vehicles?
Rental car for both Crew Dragon and Starliner.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that NASA will pay for any rides past the first 6 between them both for ISS
 Post CCtCAP; per life span of ISS being looking to being splashed down in mid 2020s?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/22/2018 07:51 am
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)

Wilma to Buck: "Do you have manual override capability?"
Buck to Wilma: "I sure have".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 03/22/2018 08:29 am
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)

Wilma to Buck: "Do you have manual override capability?"
Buck to Wilma: "I sure have".

DEORBIT NOW?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 03/22/2018 04:21 pm
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)

Wilma to Buck: "Do you have manual override capability?"
Buck to Wilma: "I sure have".

DEORBIT NOW?
I.E.  get us out of orbit immediately; do not wait for best time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/22/2018 04:29 pm
Does that last one say "Freak Out" ?? xD
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: schaban on 03/22/2018 06:39 pm
break out
unless that was rhetorical question.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/22/2018 07:56 pm
break out
unless that was rhetorical question.

Kinda fuzzy, hard to read.  :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 03/22/2018 09:27 pm
The other end says "Cabin Fire". Spooky. Just been reading about Apollo 1.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/30/2018 06:50 pm
[NASA, March 30 2018] Parachute Testing Lands Partners Closer to Crewed Flight Tests (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/parachute-testing-lands-partners-closer-to-crewed-flight-tests)
By Marie Lewis
NASA's John F. Kennedy Space Center

Crew safety is paramount in the return of human spaceflight launches from Florida’s Space Coast, and the latest round of parachute testing is providing valuable data to help industry partners Boeing and SpaceX meet NASA’s requirements for certification.

On March 4, SpaceX performed its 14th overall parachute test supporting Crew Dragon development. This exercise was the first of several planned parachute system qualification tests ahead of the spacecraft’s first crewed flight and resulted in the successful touchdown of Crew Dragon’s parachute system.

During this test, a C-130 aircraft transported the parachute test vehicle, designed to achieve the maximum speeds that Crew Dragon could experience on reentry, over the Mojave Desert in Southern California and dropped the spacecraft from an altitude of 25,000 feet. The test demonstrated an off-nominal, or abnormal, situation, deploying only one of the two drogue chutes and intentionally skipping a deployment stage on one of the four main parachutes, proving a safe landing in such a contingency scenario.

In February, the first in a series of reliability tests of the Boeing flight drogue and main parachute system was conducted by releasing a long, dart-shaped test vehicle from a C-17 aircraft over Yuma, Arizona.  Two more tests are planned using the dart module, as well as three similar reliability tests using a high fidelity capsule simulator designed to simulate the CST-100 Starliner capsule’s exact shape and mass. These three tests involve a giant helium-filled balloon that lifts the capsule over the desert before releasing it at altitudes above 30,000 feet to test parachute deployments and overall system performance.

In both the dart and capsule simulator tests, the test spacecraft are released at various altitudes to test the parachute system at different deployment speeds, aerodynamic loads, and or weight demands. Data collected from each test is fed into computer models to more accurately predict parachute performance and to verify consistency from test to test.

Mark Biesack, a lead NASA engineer at Kennedy Space Center overseeing parachute testing for the agency’s Commercial Crew Program said, “We test the parachutes at many different conditions for nominal entry, ascent abort conditions including a pad abort, and for contingencies, so that we know the chutes can safely deploy in flight and handle the loads.”

SpaceX will conduct its next parachute system test in the coming weeks in the California desert, again using a C-130 to drop the parachute test vehicle from about 25,000 feet. The test will be similar to the one conducted earlier this month, but with a different deployment configuration. The test will intentionally skip deployment of one drogue parachute and one main parachute to further demonstrate SpaceX’s ability to safely land the vehicle in an off-nominal situation. The ongoing testing verifies the safety of the parachute system for our astronauts.

Boeing is scheduled for its third of five planned qualification tests of its parachute system in May, using the same type of helium-filled balloon that will be used in the reliability tests. For the qualification test, the balloon lifts a full-size version of the Starliner spacecraft over the desert in New Mexico before releasing it. The balloon lifts the spacecraft at more than

1,000 feet per minute before it is dropped from an altitude of about 40,000 feet. A choreographed parachute deployment sequence initiates, involving three pilot, two drogue and three main chutes that slow the spacecraft’s descent permitting a safe touchdown.

Both Boeing and SpaceX’s parachute system qualification testing is scheduled to be completed by fall 2018. The partners are targeting the return of human spaceflight from Florida’s Space Coast this year, and are currently scheduled to begin flight tests late this summer.

“The partners are making great strides in testing their respective parachute systems, and the data they are collecting during every test is critical to demonstrating that their systems work as designed,” said Kathy Lueders, Commercial Crew Program Manager at Kennedy Space Center. “NASA is proud of their commitment to safely fly our crew members to the International Space Station and return them home safely.”

NASA’s Orion Program, which is nearing completion of its parachute tests to qualify the exploration-class spacecraft for missions with crew, has provided Commercial Crew Program partners with data and insight from its tests. NASA has matured computer modeling of how the system works in various scenarios and helped partner companies understand certain elements of parachute systems, such as seams and joints, for example. In some cases, NASA’s work has provided enough information for the partners to reduce the need for some developmental parachute tests.

The goal of the Commercial Crew Program is safe, reliable and cost-effective transportation to and from the space station from the United States through a public-private approach.

Image 1:
At left, Boeing conducted the first in a series of parachute reliability tests its Starliner flight drogue and main parachute system Feb. 22, 2018, over Yuma Arizona. Photo Credit: NASA. At right, SpaceX performed its fourteenth overall parachute test supporting Crew Dragon development March 4, 2018, over the Mojave Desert in Southern California. The test demonstrated an off-nominal, or abnormal, situation, deploying only one of the two drogue chutes and three of the four main parachutes. Photo credit: SpaceX

Image 2:
SpaceX performed its fourteenth overall parachute test supporting Crew Dragon Development March 4, 2018, over the Mojave Desert in Southern California. The test demonstrated an off-nominal, or abnormal, situation, deploying only one of the two drogue chutes and intentionally skipping a deployment stage on one of the four main parachutes. Photo credit: SpaceX

Image 3:
Boeing conducted the first in a series of reliability tests of its CST-100 Starliner flight drogue and main parachute system Feb. 22, 2018, over Yuma, Arizona. Photo credit: NASA
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/05/2018 09:49 pm
[NASA] NASA, Boeing May Evolve Flight Test Strategy (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-boeing-may-evolve-flight-test-strategy)
Quote
NASA has updated its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract with Boeing, which provides flexibility in its commercial flight tests. Boeing, one of the agency’s two commercial crew partners, approached NASA last year and proposed adding a third crew member on its Crew Flight Test (CFT) to the International Space Station.

The change includes the ability to extend Boeing’s CFT from roughly two weeks to up to six months as well as the training and mission support for a third crew member. Cargo capabilities for the uncrewed and crewed flight tests were also identified.

Exact details of how to best take advantage of the contract modification are under evaluation, but the changes could allow for additional microgravity research, maintenance, and other activities while Starliner is docked to station. Adding a third crew member on Boeing’s flight test could offer NASA an additional opportunity to ensure continued U.S. access to the orbital laboratory.

“This contract modification provides NASA with additional schedule margin if needed,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “We appreciate Boeing’s willingness to evolve its flight to ensure we have continued access to space for our astronauts. Commercial space transportation to low-Earth orbit from U.S. soil is critical for the agency and the nation.”

The current commercial crew flight schedules provide about six months of margin to begin regular, post-certification crew rotation missions to the International Space Station before NASA’s contracted flights on Soyuz flights end in fall 2019.

“Turning a test flight into more of an operational mission needs careful review by the technical community,” said Gerstenmaier. “For example, the spacecraft capability to support the additional time still needs to be reviewed. Modifying the contract now allows NASA and Boeing an opportunity to tailor the duration to balance the mission needs with vehicle and crew capabilities.”

This would not be the first time NASA has expanded the scope of test flights. NASA had SpaceX carry cargo on its commercial cargo demonstration flight to the International Space Station under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative in 2012, which was not part of the original agreement. As part of its normal operations planning, NASA has assessed multiple scenarios to ensure continued U.S. access to the space station. The agency is working closely with its commercial partners and is preparing for potential schedule adjustments normally experienced during spacecraft development.

“Our partners have made significant progress on the development of their spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground systems,” said Kathy Lueders, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manager at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “Their rigorous testing and analysis are verifying each system performs and reacts as planned as they prepare to safely carry our astronauts to and from the station.”

Boeing and SpaceX plan to fly test missions without crew to the space station this year prior to test flights with a crew onboard. After each company’s test flights, NASA will evaluate the in-flight performance in order to certify the systems and begin regular post-certification crew rotation missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: sierra tango on 04/06/2018 04:55 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/06/2018 05:56 pm
Oh for dumb. Not the best time to choose to paint America into a schedule corner, but "stupid from the top down" does like "stupid does" with trade wars.

Simple answer - fly what you have, gather test data on actual not modeled risk, and advance your risk closure process. E.g. typical sound engineering practice.

Ah, but this would have domestic consequences some might fear. A) more funds would go to less favored companies - eew, can't have any of that.

Even worse, B) with our other huge HSF indulgence "going slow" (hydrolox solids launch issues), we need to slow down CC not advance it, so we don't look bad having one happen too far ahead of the other. Fh already made it embarrassing.

How to unsnare out mixed agendas? Well ... one could just do nothing and let crap happen...

But this will likely be unacceptable to read as it's way too touchy for certain delicate feelings on calling out the long obvious direction this has been headed in, minus the nuances / details of navigating the inevitable issue list of any means to establish HSF launch recovery system from scratch as now.  ::) Snowflakes...

add:

A thought occurs - this nonsense has been known about internally by vehicle providers for at least a half year if not more. Against this tableau we've seen one back off of propulsive landing, a commercial lunar adventurer business using same vehicle, and another backfill on US launch abort protection as well as hesitate on new vehicle engine.

If both saw a "slow roll" of CC likely, perhaps those providers might act to mitigate financial risk (they aren't stupid about investing in things that won't happen) by withdrawing resources gradually, under the theory of a "head fake" shutdown of CC to let Orion resume its rightful place as the only American HSF vehicle, then close down ISS and deorbit? Some still have that wet dream.

Which would be nuts (cost/schedule/capability), but no more so than the continual parade of foolishness we've gotten this year, so perhaps fits the same mold? Hey America, didn't you want things "shook up"? Hello?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 04/06/2018 06:20 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2018 06:40 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

A delay to 2020 would be bad.  Hopefully both providers aren't going to miss the current dates by more than a year.

Skipping the CFT would be much too risky, better to go ahead and do the modified CFT that looks almost exactly like a PCM mission before actually starting the PCM missions  ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 04/06/2018 06:47 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

Remember the current CFT definition has a crew of:
1 Boeing test pilot
1 NASA Astronaut

I haven't read the text of the new contract but I don't know how the crew plan would be adjusted.

Carl
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 04/06/2018 06:55 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

Remember the current CFT definition has a crew of:
1 Boeing test pilot
1 NASA Astronaut

I haven't read the text of the new contract but I don't know how the crew plan would be adjusted.

Carl
Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 04/06/2018 06:58 pm
Has NASA finalized the certification criteria yet?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/06/2018 07:10 pm
Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 04/06/2018 07:46 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

Remember the current CFT definition has a crew of:
1 Boeing test pilot
1 NASA Astronaut

I haven't read the text of the new contract but I don't know how the crew plan would be adjusted.

Carl
Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The commercial crew test plan for both Boeing and SpaceX was
a) an unmanned flight
b) a manned test flight. The Boeing manned test flight was with a Boeing test pilot and 1 NASA astronaut
     while SpaceX planned to have 2 NASA astronauts and no SpaceX astronaut.

If I remember correctly the ISS FPIP for the middle of February still showed this as the plan.

Carl

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2018 11:30 pm
Here is an article by Jeff Foust (nothing new but it is a good summary):
http://spacenews.com/nasa-studies-extending-boeing-commercial-crew-test-flight-to-support-iss/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2018 11:33 pm
Another update:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 04/07/2018 02:20 am
If both saw a "slow roll" of CC likely, perhaps those providers might act to mitigate financial risk (they aren't stupid about investing in things that won't happen) by withdrawing resources gradually, under the theory of a "head fake" shutdown of CC to let Orion resume its rightful place as the only American HSF vehicle, then close down ISS and deorbit? Some still have that wet dream.

I don't see SpaceX sit back and let ISS fail, it's still a major revenue source for them. I expect SpaceX to take action if they think they're being deliberately slowed down, this is not the first time someone tried to pull the "slow certification" trick on them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/07/2018 07:11 pm
If both saw a "slow roll" of CC likely, perhaps those providers might act to mitigate financial risk (they aren't stupid about investing in things that won't happen) by withdrawing resources gradually, under the theory of a "head fake" shutdown of CC to let Orion resume its rightful place as the only American HSF vehicle, then close down ISS and deorbit? Some still have that wet dream.

I don't see SpaceX sit back and let ISS fail, it's still a major revenue source for them.
Then they narrowly support existing contracts (CRS 2 is starting up) and anticipate that it will run extra long because lack of execution by idiots obsessed with getting agendas right means they take 5x the time/resources to do what they said they could do.

Quote
I expect SpaceX to take action if they think they're being deliberately slowed down, this is not the first time someone tried to pull the "slow certification" trick on them.
Of course. Musk's Silicon Valley (and SOMA) roots means he's got the best legal on the planet, so no doubt he'll get as much as can be gotten, especially since those inciting the root of this nonsense are stupid beyond belief and easy pickings for a crafty attorney.

But these responses are subtle and often hidden (for best effect).

(Musk doesn't need  NASA/Dragon/Falcon directly for Mars. The most overt SX can do is to fast march BFS (better name might be Super Dragon) so as to make all other efforts seem comical by comparison. Then top it off with BFR. As the economics of Block 5 (along with the gradual erosion of small payload frequent microlaunch) erode the payload landscape leaving mostly rare large payloads spread across 2 other launchers which are hopelessly more expensive to fly, then the divergence of cost structures means you either have providers with or without volume, so perhaps a Super Dragon flies as cheap or cheaper than Dragon.)

E.g. restructure the market. So ... you can continue to play with obtuse agendas if desired, but the cost to do so eventually becomes the limiting factor to achieving any mission goal.

Self rights itself. Eventually.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RedLineTrain on 04/07/2018 07:35 pm
As I was reading Florida Today's article (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/04/06/launch-traffic-builds-enthusiasm/485563002/) about the unexpected interest in CRS-14, it occurred to me that unmanned launches can also be a mass public event and that interest in SpaceX may not translate into interest in a NASA/Boeing manned launch.

Perhaps what SpaceX is doing with Falcon Heavy, BFS, and BFR (and Musk's 21 million Twitter followers from around the world) will overshadow the projects pursued with much less urgency.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/07/2018 07:42 pm
As I was reading Florida Today's article (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2018/04/06/launch-traffic-builds-enthusiasm/485563002/) about the unexpected interest in CRS-14, it occurred to me that unmanned launches can also be a mass public event and that interest in SpaceX may not translate into interest in a NASA/Boeing manned launch.

That is an interesting theory. We do know that Musk and SpaceX have a lot of followers, for a number of reasons, and it remains to be seen if Boeing (and ULA as the launch provider) can attract as many people - or make sure they know a crew launch is happening.

Quote
Perhaps what SpaceX is doing with Falcon Heavy, BFS, and BFR (and Musk's 21 million Twitter followers from around the world) will overshadow the projects pursued with much less urgency.

I think Boeing has as much urgency as SpaceX does for Commercial Crew, but SpaceX seems to cater to a bigger crowd of followers that care about space stuff.

Hopefully we'll be able to test out this theory later this year...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 04/07/2018 07:58 pm
If BFS does an orbital flight test (without crew) before Dragon 2 flies crew, I'll eat my hat.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/09/2018 06:38 am
If BFS does an orbital flight test (without crew) before Dragon 2 flies crew, I'll eat my hat.

Here's a recipe in case you lose. :-)

http://www.instructables.com/id/edible-party-hat/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/09/2018 04:33 pm
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

I don't think the article is referring to a slip of the test flight to 2020. Certification is what may be delayed until 2020.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test/

Quote from: spacepolicyonline
Cristina Chaplain of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that GAO’s most recent review of the program concluded that Crew Dragon and CST-100 Starliner are not likely to be certified* until December 2019 and January 2020 respectively.


*emphasis added
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/10/2018 01:01 am
This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

Remember the current CFT definition has a crew of:
1 Boeing test pilot
1 NASA Astronaut

I haven't read the text of the new contract but I don't know how the crew plan would be adjusted.

Carl
Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The commercial crew test plan for both Boeing and SpaceX was
a) an unmanned flight
b) a manned test flight. The Boeing manned test flight was with a Boeing test pilot and 1 NASA astronaut
     while SpaceX planned to have 2 NASA astronauts and no SpaceX astronaut.

If I remember correctly the ISS FPIP for the middle of February still showed this as the plan.

Carl


This morning's Wall Street Journal is reporting this change to Boeing's contract as an indication of a potential slip of the CFT into 2020.
Quote
"Thursday’s disclosure by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggests a previously planned two-person flight, slated for November 2018,  is now likely to occur in 2019 or 2020"

Chicken and egg

Is Boeing potentially delayed until 2020 to add on a third member and stay for a full six month rotation, or

Does NASA need Boeing to make their CFT into a full six month operational mission with at least one additional crew member because they are delayed into 2020 and past the time when Soyuz rides can be obtained to staff the ISS?

Is there a difference between this and skipping the CFT to go straight to the first Boeing USCV missions with one empty seat?

Remember the current CFT definition has a crew of:
1 Boeing test pilot
1 NASA Astronaut

I haven't read the text of the new contract but I don't know how the crew plan would be adjusted.

Carl
Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The commercial crew test plan for both Boeing and SpaceX was
a) an unmanned flight
b) a manned test flight. The Boeing manned test flight was with a Boeing test pilot and 1 NASA astronaut
     while SpaceX planned to have 2 NASA astronauts and no SpaceX astronaut.

If I remember correctly the ISS FPIP for the middle of February still showed this as the plan.

Carl


Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/10/2018 04:50 am
Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/10/2018 10:14 am
{snip}

Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.

Unfortunately putting a third person on the CFT is the new plan.

From SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test (https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test)

NASA May Operationalize Boeing’s Commercial Crew Flight Test – UPDATED
By Marcia Smith | Posted: April 5

"NASA revealed today that it has modified its commercial crew contract with Boeing to provide “flexibility” to use the crew flight test of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner system essentially as an operational mission.  Instead of two crew members there could be three and a six-month mission instead of two weeks."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Joachim on 04/11/2018 09:04 am
I want to display the crew seating arrangement for Starliner.
I discovered the attached graphic. Is it larger available or is there a better graphic?
And most important: Were are the CDR and the PLT seating?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vp. on 04/11/2018 11:33 am
If NASA made the choice today, could astronauts be sent with Orion on ISS in 2019 (with a Delta launcher ?), to fill the delays of the Dragon and Starliner ships?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/11/2018 11:35 am
If NASA made the choice today, could astronauts be sent with Orion on ISS in 2019 (with a Delta launcher ?), to fill the delays of the Dragon and Starliner ships?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The Atlas vehicles for the first two Starliner missions have already been produced, vehicles have almost been built, the ground infrastructure is ready to support human Starliner missions.

It will take more efforts to prepare everything for a human mission to LEO aboard Orion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rliebman on 04/11/2018 12:03 pm
maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5.  my recollection was 6 was the design target.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/11/2018 01:01 pm
If NASA made the choice today, could astronauts be sent with Orion on ISS in 2019 (with a Delta launcher ?), to fill the delays of the Dragon and Starliner ships?

Orion is not ahead of the Commercial Crew vehicles, launcher is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 04/11/2018 01:35 pm
I want to display the crew seating arrangement for Starliner.
I discovered the attached graphic. Is it larger available or is there a better graphic?
And most important: Were are the CDR and the PLT seating?

There is no "CDR" and "PLT" designations.  The position with the control panel is the upper right seat.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 04/11/2018 02:55 pm
Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.
Emphasis mine.

There was a time when that distinction was unnecessary.  Unfortunately aversity to adversity has affected so many avenues of HSF.  From design, operations and funding, the STS-51-L mission in which the United States 1st civilian in space was killed during the "Teacher in Space" operation really hurt HSF efforts.  Another blow was dealt with STS-107 which occurred in a time where social media was in its fledgling stages.

If a Loss of Crew event were to occur in this age of social media, the repercussions will/would be far reaching and substantial.

I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there (edit: isn't) too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 04/11/2018 03:13 pm
Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.

How is the GAO able to make predictions like this if NASA hasn't finalized the certification criteria yet?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/11/2018 03:27 pm
maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5.  my recollection was 6 was the design target.

Both Dragon v2 and Starliner were baselined to have 7 seats. Both vehicles have removed seats for cargo storage areas.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 04/11/2018 03:39 pm
maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5.  my recollection was 6 was the design target.

The requirement is to transport 4 NASA astronauts. I don't know why both companies have 5 seats, my guess is the extra seat is for a possible space tourist.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 04/11/2018 05:00 pm
I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there is too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.
Probably a typo, as I suspect most of us hope there is NOT too much more slippage....

But if not, you got some 'splainin to do  :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/12/2018 12:39 am
I want to display the crew seating arrangement for Starliner.
I discovered the attached graphic. Is it larger available or is there a better graphic?
And most important: Were are the CDR and the PLT seating?

There is no "CDR" and "PLT" designations.  The position with the control panel is the upper right seat.

There will be a CDR and PLT on these flights - even though requirements are only one pilot is needed, NASA wanted to retain the two.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/12/2018 12:40 am
{snip}

Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.

Unfortunately putting a third person on the CFT is the new plan.

From SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test (https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test)

NASA May Operationalize Boeing’s Commercial Crew Flight Test – UPDATED
By Marcia Smith | Posted: April 5

"NASA revealed today that it has modified its commercial crew contract with Boeing to provide “flexibility” to use the crew flight test of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner system essentially as an operational mission.  Instead of two crew members there could be three and a six-month mission instead of two weeks."

Ahhh, the famous missing comma, I meant

No, third person will be on CFT.

Sheesh.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/12/2018 02:50 am
{snip}

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.

Unfortunately putting a third person on the CFT is the new plan.

Ahhh, the famous missing comma, I meant

No, third person will be on CFT.

Sheesh.

Which is the second flight :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/01/2018 02:08 pm
While taking a quick look through the SpaceX contracts I found a mention of them now getting the IMV coupling as government furnished equipment.  Then I had to Google what an IMV coupling is.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MaxTeranous on 05/02/2018 01:31 pm
Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.
Emphasis mine.

There was a time when that distinction was unnecessary.  Unfortunately aversity to adversity has affected so many avenues of HSF.  From design, operations and funding, the STS-51-L mission in which the United States 1st civilian in space was killed during the "Teacher in Space" operation really hurt HSF efforts.  Another blow was dealt with STS-107 which occurred in a time where social media was in its fledgling stages.

If a Loss of Crew event were to occur in this age of social media, the repercussions will/would be far reaching and substantial.

I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there (edit: isn't) too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.

You are right, but the there's risk both ways. NASA will be equally crucified if an American astronaut is lost on a Soyuz who was only on board a Russian craft if it could be implied that NASA dragged their feet certifying American made craft.

Not saying this is correct or accurate, but it is how both regular media and social media will spin it should such a tragedy happen.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 05/05/2018 09:11 am
GEDI now planned on SpX-16 instead of SpX-18.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/may-the-forest-be-with-you-gedi-to-launch-to-iss
Quote
The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation – or GEDI, pronounced like "Jedi," of Star Wars fame – instrument is undergoing final integration and testing this spring and summer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The instrument is expected to launch aboard SpaceX's 16th commercial resupply services mission, targeted for late 2018.
Quote
GEDI originally was scheduled to launch aboard a resupply mission in mid-2019, but the team at Goddard who is building and testing GEDI was always on track to deliver a finished instrument by the fall of this year

If GEDI moves up to CRS-16 (from CRS-18), then IDA #3 which had been the planned trunk cargo for that launch will be going up on a later mission (CRS-17? with further manifest rejiggering).  Has anyone heard anything about the IDA hardware being delayed?  Given the imminence of CCtCap launches, I would be surprised if NASA swapped the manifests without there being some problem with IDA.  Even if 2 docking ports aren't absolutely required to support those missions, I had always thought that NASA really wanted to have a back-up port in case of some unexpected contingency.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 05/06/2018 02:04 am
An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.7b6961856010

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

Quote
In a recent speech, Robert Lightfoot, the former acting NASA administrator, lamented in candid terms how the agency, with society as a whole, has become too risk-averse. He charged the agency with recapturing some of the youthful swagger that sent men to the moon during the Apollo era.

“I worry, to be perfectly honest, if we would have ever launched Apollo in our environment here today,” he said during a speech at the Space Symposium last month, “if Buzz [Aldrin] and Neil [Armstrong] would have ever been able to go to the moon in the risk environment we have today.”

NASA is requiring SpaceX and Boeing to meet a requirement that involves some complicated calculations: The chance of death can be no greater than 1 in every 270 flights.

One way to ensure that, as Lightfoot said during his speech, is to never fly: “The safest place to be is on the ground.”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/06/2018 02:07 am
Seems pretty well written and even-handed.

I agree.  I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this issue over the next year.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/06/2018 03:34 am
I predict there will be a lot of FUD through this year over Commercial Crew and SpaceX. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/06/2018 04:45 am
An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

Regarding what drives NASA ASAP to be so conservative, the last part of the article:

Quote
Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very different number.

The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.

I'm not an engineer, nor familiar with safety statistics, but when I see these two choices:

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.

Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/06/2018 05:33 pm
An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

Regarding what drives NASA ASAP to be so conservative, the last part of the article:

Quote
Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very different number.

The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.

I'm not an engineer, nor familiar with safety statistics, but when I see these two choices:

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.

Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.

Ron, from a logical standpoint, you are absolutely right.  In fact, if you look at it, LOC accidents, in the entire history of crewed launches, that have occurred while a crew has been strapped into a spacecraft attached to its booster rocket(s), have only happened either during flight (Challenger) or during a test when the rocket was not fueled (Apollo 1).  All other LOC accidents have happened after boost phase is done and/or the LAS has already been jettisoned.  (I believe all of the rest have been atmospheric entry accidents, IIRC.)

Considering the total number of LOC accidents in crewed space flight (counting only LOC accidents that happened while crew were in the spacecraft, not things like Bondarenko burning to death in a test chamber or the various pilots who have died in plane crashes), we're talking, what, well less than a one percent fatality rate?

It's hard to extract good statistical relationships from such a tiny percentage.  It's arguable that attempts to do so are inherently flawed and should not be considered valid.

I think it's worthwhile to note that the only time an LAS was used to save a crew from an LOC situation was the Soyuz launch anomaly in the 70's.  In fact, the Soyuz anomaly is, in the entire history of crewed launch attempts, the only one where an LAS was used in one of the earliest planned modes for an LAS -- to let the crew escape from an exploding booster.

Earliest thinking about the basic need for an LAS of some kind was the exploding booster scenario, and this is the only scenario to which the current "NASA objects to SpaceX processes" flap applies.  But, in the entire history of launching humans into space aboard rockets, this scenario has occurred only once.  And in the one case in which the scenario occurred, the crew survived.

In fact, it has been vanishingly rare for a rocket to explode on the pad since the early 1960's.  The mysteries of loading fuels onto a rocket without making it explode have all seemingly been thoroughly explored, and the likelihood of such an event seems inherently low.  Especially from a statistical standpoint, if you want to be married to statistics.

What gets in the way of an objective viewpoint on this is that one of the extremely few rockets that has exploded during fueling since the early 1960's was, indeed, an earlier version of the same Falcon 9 rocket over which this latest flap is occurring.

I think it comes down to, if you think the AMOS-6 issue has been resolved and will not happen again, then you shouldn't have a problem with fueling with crew aboard.  You should, in fact, assume it would be inherently safer.  If you don't believe the AMOS-6 instigating issue has been resolved, or even properly identified, then what in the world are you doing, certifying the rocket as human-rated in the first place?  Regardless of the order of crew boarding vs. fueling?

That's the true question.  Order of boarding vs. fueling is just a side issue based on that basic question.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: eric z on 05/06/2018 05:49 pm
 Just two unrelated things: I always considered STS-107 as a launch-related accident, since it was the foam-loss that caused the damage.
 Also curious as to why the tests of each companies abort systems is happening so relatively late in the process to first flights? {Please correct me if wrong!] Thanks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 05/06/2018 06:18 pm
Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.

Yes and no.  History based on X, provides facts based on X.  If you diverge into the unknown Y (non-X)  then the "facts" become hypothetical... actual based on historical evidence vs. hypothetical.  In short, simply means that those who advocate Y (new) vs. X (old) have a steeper hill to climb: known vs. unknown.

That said, is this is a potential show-stopper?  I doubt it.  If SpaceX can show some history and that assuages concerns, should not be a problem.  History and precedence carry significant weight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/06/2018 06:56 pm
Relying on LaS is inherently risk-laden.  An abort is no small deal. It is dangerous. And this assumes that your LAS will even be properly actuated, i.e. detect an abort situation appropriately and responsively, and i initiate correctly, and soon enough to have a chance to save the crew. It is not “automatic.”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/06/2018 07:47 pm
No, it is not just a matter of whether you think atmos-6 issue is rectified. Every incident, whether copv, or o-rings should serve as a reminder of all the “unknown unknowns” in this business.  It is the “what else have we missed?” moment that NASA has paid dearly for when not taking in the past. This is the reason for “overly cautious” analysis. Unplanned Fire and explosions rarely interact well with humans. It is logical to mitigate every possible scenario when dealing with elevated possibilities of them. Fueling is a big one.  iNtroducing humans into the middle of that warrants a long pause to ask if we have really thought that through as completely as possible.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/06/2018 08:06 pm
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation, then NASA would likely require, probably justifiably, 6 or 8 or 10 pad abort tests prior to operational use.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/06/2018 08:32 pm
No, it is not just a matter of whether you think atmos-6 issue is rectified. Every incident, whether copv, or o-rings should serve as a reminder of all the “unknown unknowns” in this business.  It is the “what else have we missed?” moment that NASA has paid dearly for when not taking in the past.

By perfecting reusable rockets, SpaceX is more aggressively reducing the amount of "unknown unknowns", just like humanity has done with every form of reusable transportation.

Quote
This is the reason for “overly cautious” analysis.

Quite honestly I'm not sure the objections being raised are purely based on engineering and analysis. I think there is some "Not Invented Here" syndrome that is part of it, since part of the argument being made is that "...in 50 years we've never done it this way."

Never having done something before in history is never a justification for what we shouldn't do something in the future. There has to be more specificity and comparisons, and I'm not sure we're hearing that.

Quote
Unplanned Fire and explosions rarely interact well with humans.

Of course not, which is why the SpaceX plan completely removes the possibility of humans being exposed - in an unprotected way - to a fueled rocket .

Quote
It is logical to mitigate every possible scenario when dealing with elevated possibilities of them. Fueling is a big one.  iNtroducing humans into the middle of that warrants a long pause to ask if we have really thought that through as completely as possible.

Luckily for SpaceX they have the ability to do testing on missions that don't carry humans, which is unique for a non-government launch organization.

And really this conversation is about risk, and in what way will be allow risk.

Considering that NASA and our political leadership was perfectly fine allowing humans to fly on the Space Shuttle even after two accidents, and knowing that there was no realistically effective LAS, I think those objecting to what SpaceX wants to do are being too cautious, especially considering that crew will be in a certified escape vehicle that can leave the area if needed - so the risk to human life is very low even in the event of an accident with a fueled stage.

NASA will ultimately make the call, and so far I've had confidence in decisions made by William H. Gerstenmaier - even when I don't agree with his decisions...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 05/06/2018 08:34 pm
Relying on LaS is inherently risk-laden.  An abort is no small deal. It is dangerous. And this assumes that your LAS will even be properly actuated, i.e. detect an abort situation appropriately and responsively, and i initiate correctly, and soon enough to have a chance to save the crew. It is not “automatic.”

Can we please stop forgetting the pad closeout crew on the pad?

I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts. (although how much that increase is continues to be debated) - But it does reduce risk for everyone else around the pad.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/06/2018 08:47 pm
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation

This is the very assumption people are questioning. Is it inherently safer to board crew onto a fueled rocket, which constitutes an irreconcilable "black zone"? The assumption is that the fueled rocket is "stable", but it is in fact an extremely unnatural state. A state that every law of thermodynamics wants to resolve into a big ball of fire.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/06/2018 10:17 pm
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation

This is the very assumption people are questioning. Is it inherently safer to board crew onto a fueled rocket, which constitutes an irreconcilable "black zone"? The assumption is that the fueled rocket is "stable", but it is in fact an extremely unnatural state. A state that every law of thermodynamics wants to resolve into a big ball of fire.

Is it safe to mow the grass around the fuel tanks on site?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 05/06/2018 10:32 pm
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:

1) Board astronauts
2) Start fuelling
3) Something goes wrong with fuelling, leads to RUD
4) LAS activates, giving crew a very decent chance of survival (pad crew is miles away in safety already)

Or an alternative scenario:

1) Fuel
2) Start boarding astronauts
3) Rocket undergoes RUD during boarding
4) Both astronauts and pad crew have zero chance of survival.

Unless you assume the chance of killing the crew in a LAS abort is bigger than the chance of killing them during a incident while boarding on top of a fuelled vehicle, or can give a 100% guarantee nothing can go wrong with a fuelled vehicle, boarding first seems to me to always be the better option. Bottom line: crew on board during fuelling: abort option available during entire fuelling process. Crew boarding after fuelling: significant period without any abort option. On balance, fuelling after boarding likely less risky for astronauts, infinitely less risky for pad crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/06/2018 11:25 pm
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:
Do.  Don't.  Uncertain.
But what we think doesn't matter, does it?
We know all these arguments and our inability (perhaps everyone's inability) to calculate the odds.

There does not seem to be a straightforward way out of this conflict.
What are the alternatives?

Supercooled, densified propellants give the Falcon 9 "extra margin" but it's already more than powerful enough for launching Dragon.  SpaceX ran the Merlin on "equilibrium temperature" propellants for many flights.
Could Space go back to undensified propellants for the NASA Crew flights?
Could they fly a dedicated mission before the Crew Demo flight to demonstrate launch under those conditions with the current Merlin 1D?
(They haven't changed the designation although they have incorporated upgrades including the blisk, have they?)
This could show up as an additional milestone.
NASA can then rely on Boeing (not just as the retailer of Soyuz seats) and their CST-100 to be the sole support for the ISS until such time that all the committees agree that SpaceX is no more risky.



How else? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 05/07/2018 12:17 am
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:
Do.  Don't.  Uncertain.
But what we think doesn't matter, does it?
We know all these arguments and our inability (perhaps everyone's inability) to calculate the odds.

There does not seem to be a straightforward way out of this conflict.
What are the alternatives?


Supercooled, densified propellants give the Falcon 9 "extra margin" but it's already more than powerful enough for launching Dragon.  SpaceX ran the Merlin on "equilibrium temperature" propellants for many flights.
Could Space go back to undensified propellants for the NASA Crew flights?
Could they fly a dedicated mission before the Crew Demo flight to demonstrate launch under those conditions with the current Merlin 1D?
(They haven't changed the designation although they have incorporated upgrades including the blisk, have they?)
This could show up as an additional milestone.
NASA can then rely on Boeing (not just as the retailer of Soyuz seats) and their CST-100 to be the sole support for the ISS until such time that all the committees agree that SpaceX is no more risky.

How else?

How else? How about looking at the safety of the current F9 ops until the first crew launches. Since Amos-6 (where SpaceX are now the premier COPV experts on the planet due to their investigation), have F9's and FH's experienced problems? Have they been blowing up? Have they had any tanking issues?

At some point "we are doing it this way because that's how it has always been" ceases to be an effective argument. There are obviously pros and cons about either approach, but perhaps we can judge them more fairly without historical bias?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 05/07/2018 01:14 am
Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 05/07/2018 06:01 am
Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.

At the very least, it reduces or eliminates the applicability of data/experience from the unmanned version.  Which decreases confidence even if it doesn't change the underlying risk.  Seems silly for NASA to insist on 7 flights of the Block 5 and then afterwards also insist that they run their launch ops in a very different manner.  Or are they going to insist those 7 flights are fueled without the load-and-go?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/07/2018 06:05 am
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation, then NASA would likely require, probably justifiably, 6 or 8 or 10 pad abort tests prior to operational use.

No. NASA required NO pad abort tests for CCP. In fact, both CCP providers (SpaceX and Boeing) voluntarily offered to perform pad abort tests to validate the required pad abort MODELS.
The in-flight abort test that SpaceX will be performing is voluntary in nature as well.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 05/07/2018 10:22 am
I can't find an answer for this, and it seems like an obvious question.

Was the sole reason for not flying crew on D1 the lack of a LAS - or were there other long poles?
Was the risk to crew formally studied officially, or was it just never considered because of the lack of the LAS?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/07/2018 01:03 pm
Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.

Crew launches ARE fundamentally different.

If SpaceX can't manage that disparity then perhaps Astronauts aren't a cargo they should be carrying.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 01:06 pm
Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.

Crew launches ARE fundamentally different.

If SpaceX can't manage that disparity then perhaps Astronauts aren't a cargo they should be carrying.

Only the crew capsule is different.

Everything below Dragon's trunk will have lots of flight history in that exact configuration. Throwing away that flight history to go with a unique configuration adds risks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 05/07/2018 01:35 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?

Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.

...

If SpaceX can't manage that disparity then perhaps Astronauts aren't a cargo they should be carrying.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/07/2018 02:16 pm
Oh, I agree with most of these responses.

A distinct version of Falcon 9 just for commercial crew would be an enormous complication that would not make things safer.
But all anyone has said is a reiteration that NASA will come around to SpaceX's method and agree to do it "their way".
That seems to go against what has happened to date.

SpaceX statements indicated that turbopump disk cracking was not surprising and acceptable.  They upgraded to a blisk to satisfy NASA's lower tolerance.
SpaceX has been launching for a year and a half with modified procedures and COPV's, including COTS flights for NASA , but will upgrade to "COPV 2" for CCtCAP.
SpaceX talked up propulsive landing, but converted to ocean landings to satisfy NASA.

And before Jim says that NASA didn't make SpaceX do anything, that's obviously true and not the point.
SpaceX doesn't have to go through with their largest single contract, while being paid for every change, but it's hard to imagine them NOT doing it, even if it diverges at a fairly large angle from the direction they were headed.

And to throw fuel on the fire, the WashPo article was wrong.  The odds of failure on STS-1 were not 1 in 12.   The post facto 1 in 12 number has as many problems as the 1 in 5000 number postulated before flight.  LOC calculations are not like interplanetary trajectories, which can be planned and executed with breathtaking precision.  They incorporate boatloads of estimations, most of which are not supported by adequate statistics.  Whether they meet or miss the curious 1 in 270 value is not an absolute answer.

So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/07/2018 02:25 pm
And before Jim says that NASA didn't make SpaceX do anything, that's obviously true and not the point.
SpaceX doesn't have to go through with their largest single contract, while being paid for every change, but it's hard to imagine them NOT doing it, even if it diverges at a fairly large angle from the direction they were headed.

[snip]

So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?

I think Comga is right. At the end of the day SpaceX, will do whatever NASA wants for Crew Dragon missions even if SpaceX's engineers think it is less safe. NASA will have to pay for it, but that doesn't look to be an issue for them. NASA will also pay the consequences if their is a failure from a design decision they required.

Now SpaceX has learned their lessons from NASA both in terms on knowledge transfer and enough to stay away from the bureaucracy. As a result, SpaceX won't allow NASA won't touch BFR until its built, tested, and flying. That will be the new day in human spaceflight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/07/2018 02:34 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?


The ability of the F9 and GSE to switch between densified and non-densified is a unknown.  Not sure if anyone has asked SpaceX directly this question.

Can you just switch off the GSE equipment that does the densification and upload different software into the F9 and it can work with non-densified propellant?  Or is the hardware changed in a fundamental way that the F9 can only use densified propellant. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 02:47 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?


The ability of the F9 and GSE to switch between densified and non-densified is a unknown.  Not sure if anyone has asked SpaceX directly this question.

Can you just switch off the GSE equipment that does the densification and upload different software into the F9 and it can work with non-densified propellant?  Or is the hardware changed in a fundamental way that the F9 can only use densified propellant.

There were reports from a SpaceX employee (on reddit IIRC) that they were tuning the engines differently for densified props. So there would appear to be hardware differences, which makes sense considering that turbopumps are sensitive to changes in density and viscosity.

Even if it's straightforward to make the changes, you're still introducing a new configuration that throws out 50+ flights worth of history and data (by the time crew flies), and you're only flying it twice a year. That increases risk, and there's no way around it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/07/2018 02:55 pm
There were reports from a SpaceX employee (on reddit IIRC) that they were tuning the engines differently for densified props. So there would appear to be hardware differences, which makes sense considering that turbopumps are sensitive to changes in density and viscosity.

Thanks for that. Memory said it was something like that. So much better to have the info!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/07/2018 03:23 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?


The ability of the F9 and GSE to switch between densified and non-densified is a unknown.  Not sure if anyone has asked SpaceX directly this question.

Can you just switch off the GSE equipment that does the densification and upload different software into the F9 and it can work with non-densified propellant?  Or is the hardware changed in a fundamental way that the F9 can only use densified propellant.

There were reports from a SpaceX employee (on reddit IIRC) that they were tuning the engines differently for densified props. So there would appear to be hardware differences, which makes sense considering that turbopumps are sensitive to changes in density and viscosity.

Even if it's straightforward to make the changes, you're still introducing a new configuration that throws out 50+ flights worth of history and data (by the time crew flies), and you're only flying it twice a year. That increases risk, and there's no way around it.

Just because a Merlin engine is tuned differently doesn't mean there has to be a change in hardware.  The tuning differences could be all software.  Car engines are a great example of how software can change the power output/emissions even the exhaust noise of a engine. 

I am not saying that it is a good idea.  I agree with you that changing the configuration for 1 to 2 launches a year introduces more risk. 

However if NASA still insists on propellant load before the astronauts board.  Can SpaceX simply accommodate them by changing the software configuration and GSE configuration for the crew launches? 

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 03:43 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?


The ability of the F9 and GSE to switch between densified and non-densified is a unknown.  Not sure if anyone has asked SpaceX directly this question.

Can you just switch off the GSE equipment that does the densification and upload different software into the F9 and it can work with non-densified propellant?  Or is the hardware changed in a fundamental way that the F9 can only use densified propellant.

There were reports from a SpaceX employee (on reddit IIRC) that they were tuning the engines differently for densified props. So there would appear to be hardware differences, which makes sense considering that turbopumps are sensitive to changes in density and viscosity.

Even if it's straightforward to make the changes, you're still introducing a new configuration that throws out 50+ flights worth of history and data (by the time crew flies), and you're only flying it twice a year. That increases risk, and there's no way around it.

Just because a Merlin engine is tuned differently doesn't mean there has to be a change in hardware.  The tuning differences could be all software.  Car engines are a great example of how software can change the power output/emissions even the exhaust noise of a engine. 

I am not saying that it is a good idea.  I agree with you that changing the configuration for 1 to 2 launches a year introduces more risk. 

However if NASA still insists on propellant load before the astronauts board.  Can SpaceX simply accommodate them by changing the software configuration and GSE configuration for the crew launches?

I'm pretty sure it was changes on each individual engine, so it couldn't be done at the pad, but I can't find the exact quote right now. However, crew are going to fly on new boosters assigned well in advance, like B1051 is already assigned to the first uncrewed test flight. So SpaceX could qualify it specifically for non-subcooled propellant, and create new GSE and operational sequences.

But that would make no sense at all. It only adds risk and cost, and delays the schedule further to do so.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 05/07/2018 04:15 pm

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.


As stated before

Risk management involves more than just outcomes or consequence.  The likelihood or probably of problem happening has a equal role.

Problems occurring during active propellant loading are much more likely to occur than during stable replenish.

And no, the LAS is not design to "safely" transport the crew away.  There is no guarantee that there will be 1005 or lack of injury.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/07/2018 04:22 pm
I can't find an answer for this, and it seems like an obvious question.

Was the sole reason for not flying crew on D1 the lack of a LAS - or were there other long poles?
Was the risk to crew formally studied officially, or was it just never considered because of the lack of the LAS?
Thanks.

Lack of a LAS, lack of life support systems, less redundancy, no seats, no crew controls, no docking system, etc.

Never considered.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 05/07/2018 04:58 pm
I can't find an answer for this, and it seems like an obvious question.

Was the sole reason for not flying crew on D1 the lack of a LAS - or were there other long poles?
Was the risk to crew formally studied officially, or was it just never considered because of the lack of the LAS?
Thanks.

Lack of a LAS, lack of life support systems, less redundancy, no seats, no crew controls, no docking system, etc.

Never considered.

It's the spacecraft equivalent of riding down the interstate in the back of a Uhaul truck.  Sure, you might be okay, but you can't bank on that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 05:29 pm

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.


As stated before

Risk management involves more than just outcomes or consequence.  The likelihood or probably of problem happening has a equal role.

Problems occurring during active propellant loading are much more likely to occur than during stable replenish.

And no, the LAS is not design to "safely" transport the crew away.  There is no guarantee that there will be 1005 or lack of injury.
What probability of failure and/or injury is the LAS designed to meet? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?

Also, injury is not the same as death. A risk analysis will combine both the probability of occurrence and the severity of the harm to determine the total overall risk.

A 10% chance of a harm that only results in injury may be more acceptable than a 0.1% chance of harm that results in death, depending on how the severity is weighted in the analysis.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 05/07/2018 05:46 pm
So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?

How about just keep doing what they're doing right now: keep the steamroller going and avoid RUD. If they keep the current launch rate, by the time they launch crew for the first time they would have completed ~100 tanking operations post AMOS-6, and by the time they start flying post certification mission it would be close to 140, similar to the # of successful Soyuz missions. I think this together with their LoC calculation should be enough to convince NASA the procedure is safe.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 05:51 pm
So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?

How about just keep doing what they're doing right now: keep the steamroller going and avoid RUD. If they keep the current launch rate, by the time they launch crew for the first time they would have completed ~100 tanking operations post AMOS-6, and by the time they start flying post certification mission it would be close to 140, similar to the # of successful Soyuz missions. I think this together with their LoC calculation should be enough to convince NASA the procedure is safe.

They also do a lot of tankings at McGregor: all the qualification testing and all the flight acceptance testing requires tanking each stage. They will probably have completed over 200 propellant load sequences post-AMOS before a crew ever flies.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: leetdan on 05/07/2018 06:04 pm
An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.7b6961856010

The only thing new or noteworthy in this article is a quote from a competing contract manager.  How is this anything but a hit piece?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:07 pm
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:

1) Board astronauts
2) Start fuelling
3) Something goes wrong with fuelling, leads to RUD
4) LAS activates, giving crew a very decent chance of survival (pad crew is miles away in safety already)

Or an alternative scenario:

1) Fuel
2) Start boarding astronauts
3) Rocket undergoes RUD during boarding
4) Both astronauts and pad crew have zero chance of survival.

Unless you assume the chance of killing the crew in a LAS abort is bigger than the chance of killing them during a incident while boarding on top of a fuelled vehicle, or can give a 100% guarantee nothing can go wrong with a fuelled vehicle, boarding first seems to me to always be the better option. Bottom line: crew on board during fuelling: abort option available during entire fuelling process. Crew boarding after fuelling: significant period without any abort option. On balance, fuelling after boarding likely less risky for astronauts, infinitely less risky for pad crew.

this and other posts make a huge mistake in establishing equivalency of the two scenarios. Besides the ease with which assumptions about safety are thrown around, the fact remains that current practice does have a 50 year process history of successful practice. The "new way" has zero experience (WITH CREW). While no one says that all things must remain unchanged forever, or that there is only one way to do things, the risks in allowing a change of this magnitude cannot be wished away or dismissed simply because the abort system is available. An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:15 pm
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:
Do.  Don't.  Uncertain.

 Since Amos-6 (where SpaceX are now the premier COPV experts on the planet due to their investigation), have F9's and FH's experienced problems? Have they been blowing up? Have they had any tanking issues?



Unfortunately, this appears to be the same as the assertion that after three shuttle flights, the orbiter could be certified as "operational" simply because they hadn't "been blowing up." Or that since the first few O-ring burnthroughs or foam strikes didn't result in disaster, that it should not be a concern. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:19 pm
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation, then NASA would likely require, probably justifiably, 6 or 8 or 10 pad abort tests prior to operational use.

No. NASA required NO pad abort tests for CCP. In fact, both CCP providers (SpaceX and Boeing) voluntarily offered to perform pad abort tests to validate the required pad abort MODELS.
The in-flight abort test that SpaceX will be performing is voluntary in nature as well.

...reduced interest in pad testing initially Because NASA assumed that the historic practice of "fuel-then astronauts" would remain in place. If we change this equation now to "count on LAS to provide our 'protection' against fire/explosion" suddenly, the need for more scrutiny and confidence in LAS becomes acute. Thus, a more robust testing regimen.
 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 05/07/2018 09:29 pm
this and other posts make a huge mistake in establishing equivalency of the two scenarios. Besides the ease with which assumptions about safety are thrown around, the fact remains that current practice does have a 50 year process history of successful practice. ...

OTOH, I would argue that the limited number of data points for that "50 year process history of successful practice" make the precedent dubious.  Given the limited number of data points, I challenge any conclusions.  I would also challenge "successful" in this context, given the loss of life based on that "successful practice".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:30 pm

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.


As stated before

Risk management involves more than just outcomes or consequence.  The likelihood or probably of problem happening has a equal role.

Problems occurring during active propellant loading are much more likely to occur than during stable replenish.

And no, the LAS is not design to "safely" transport the crew away.  There is no guarantee that there will be 1005 or lack of injury.
What probability of failure and/or injury is the LAS designed to meet? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?

Also, injury is not the same as death. A risk analysis will combine both the probability of occurrence and the severity of the harm to determine the total overall risk.

A 10% chance of a harm that only results in injury may be more acceptable than a 0.1% chance of harm that results in death, depending on how the severity is weighted in the analysis.

It's a crapshoot, more than not. every abort scenario would be different potentially. there is no way I am aware of to reliably model this, and thus my earlier comment that a steady regimen of pad abort tests would be needed, similar to the series of parachute tests done for all vehicles.  if you will rely on it often, you need to test in numerous potential scenarios.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 09:30 pm
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:

1) Board astronauts
2) Start fuelling
3) Something goes wrong with fuelling, leads to RUD
4) LAS activates, giving crew a very decent chance of survival (pad crew is miles away in safety already)

Or an alternative scenario:

1) Fuel
2) Start boarding astronauts
3) Rocket undergoes RUD during boarding
4) Both astronauts and pad crew have zero chance of survival.

Unless you assume the chance of killing the crew in a LAS abort is bigger than the chance of killing them during a incident while boarding on top of a fuelled vehicle, or can give a 100% guarantee nothing can go wrong with a fuelled vehicle, boarding first seems to me to always be the better option. Bottom line: crew on board during fuelling: abort option available during entire fuelling process. Crew boarding after fuelling: significant period without any abort option. On balance, fuelling after boarding likely less risky for astronauts, infinitely less risky for pad crew.

this and other posts make a huge mistake in establishing equivalency of the two scenarios. Besides the ease with which assumptions about safety are thrown around, the fact remains that current practice does have a 50 year process history of successful practice. The "new way" has zero experience. While no one says that all things must remain unchanged forever, or that there is only one way to do things, the risks in allowing a change of this magnitude cannot be wished away or dismissed simply because the abort system is available. An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
If NASA had boarded all those crews first, the record would be the same. That's basically just another way of saying "we've always done it this way", which is not a valid justification for anything.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 05/07/2018 09:38 pm
...reduced interest in pad testing initially Because NASA assumed that the historic practice of "fuel-then astronauts" would remain in place. If we change this equation now to "count on LAS to provide our 'protection' against fire/explosion" suddenly, the need for more scrutiny and confidence in LAS becomes acute. Thus, a more robust testing regimen.

Or maybe just more scrutiny-confidence-assurance for the fueling phase.  Or do you think it is impossible to provide more assurance for fueling than the LAS?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 05/07/2018 09:42 pm
this and other posts make a huge mistake in establishing equivalency of the two scenarios. Besides the ease with which assumptions about safety are thrown around, the fact remains that current practice does have a 50 year process history of successful practice. ...

OTOH, I would argue that the limited number of data points for that "50 year process history of successful practice" make the precedent dubious.  Given the limited number of data points, I challenge any conclusions.  I would also challenge "successful" in this context, given the loss of life based on that "successful practice".
You go with the data you have and add error bars. SX did a pretty good job of proving that loading fuel can be dangerous. I believe they fixed it but it's seems OK to require SX prove it to NASA beyond a reasonable doubt.

What loss of life occurred based on the current practice of boarding after fueling? Certainly not Apollo 1,  STS-51-L nor STS-107.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:52 pm
...reduced interest in pad testing initially Because NASA assumed that the historic practice of "fuel-then astronauts" would remain in place. If we change this equation now to "count on LAS to provide our 'protection' against fire/explosion" suddenly, the need for more scrutiny and confidence in LAS becomes acute. Thus, a more robust testing regimen.

Or maybe just more scrutiny-confidence-assurance for the fueling phase.  Or do you think it is impossible to provide more assurance for fueling than the LAS?  If not, why not?

if I am planning to jump out of an airplane, I will be more concerned about checking how my chute is packed, rather than whether the ground crew remembered to put gas in the plane. One has a lot more appropriateness to the question at hand.  If everyone who supports new fueling wants to cite reliance on the LAS as their guaranteed safety net, then we better spend a lot more effort on testing the safety net.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/07/2018 09:55 pm
envy887 pretty much hit the nail on the head. And I still don’t understand that if NASA has a problem with loading with crew onboard how they can justify fuel transfers in space. I know they are not the same but there is minimal historic data and it doesn’t appear to be a problem.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 09:57 pm
If NASA had boarded all those crews first, the record would be the same. That's basically just another way of saying "we've always done it this way", which is not a valid justification for anything.
[/quote]

uh, no, it really isn't saying that at all... there is a middle ground. continue testing densified fuels on uncrewed.

"fools rush in where angels fear to tread"
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 10:02 pm
envy887 pretty much hit the nail on the head. And I still don’t understand that if NASA has a problem with loading with crew onboard how they can justify fuel transfers in space. I know they are not the same but there is minimal historic data and it doesn’t appear to be a problem.

Specious logic.  Undoubtedly, NASA would be the first to state that transfers in space would need to be tested and re-tested to be considered reliable.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 05/07/2018 10:11 pm
...  If everyone who supports new fueling wants to cite reliance on the LAS as their guaranteed safety net, then we better spend a lot more effort on testing the safety net.

As opposed to what?  The fact that because the alternative has not resulted in fatalities means it is better?  That is about as screwed up a justification as I have ever heard.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 10:15 pm
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST Then you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 05/07/2018 10:20 pm
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST The you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.
Testing once, or even five times tells you little or nothing about failures that will happen once every ten flights.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 05/07/2018 10:24 pm
IIRC both Lightfoot and Gerst have said that NASA will let the data lead the way towards approval or lack thereof wrt fueling.

SpaceX had, what I would think, was a robust COPV 2.0 test campaign at McGregor. They'll need 7 successful Block-5 launches. They'll have all (most?) of those cores returned for further inspection and verification. And then a few of those probably re-flown, returned and inspected again with a total pre-crew launch campaign far greater than the original 7 needed for Block-5 Crew Certification.

Let the data lead the way. NASA seems to be willing to do just that. Sounds good to me.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 10:29 pm
...  If everyone who supports new fueling wants to cite reliance on the LAS as their guaranteed safety net, then we better spend a lot more effort on testing the safety net.

As opposed to what?  The fact that because the alternative has not resulted in fatalities means it is better?  That is about as screwed up a justification as I have ever heard.

the current method of record ("fuel first") has established a threshold of reliability for safety that any new practice should also have to prove it can attain.  So, to answer your question, YES, it is "better" until any new method can prove otherwise. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 10:33 pm
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST The you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.
Testing once, or even five times tells you little or nothing about failures that will happen once every ten flights.

just as Challenger and Columbia reminded us...but its fallibility it does not mean to throw caution to the wind. More testing equals a higher confidence level that you are achieving reliability (not perfection). Acceptable risk is vastly differen than blind risk.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/07/2018 10:34 pm
IIRC both Lightfoot and Gerst have said that NASA will let the data lead the way towards approval or lack thereof wrt fueling.

SpaceX had, what I would think, was a robust COPV 2.0 test campaign at McGregor. They'll need 7 successful Block-5 launches. They'll have all (most?) of those cores returned for further inspection and verification. And then a few of those probably re-flown, returned and inspected again with a total pre-crew launch campaign far greater than the original 7 needed for Block-5 Crew Certification.

Let the data lead the way. NASA seems to be willing to do just that. Sounds good to me.

wiser words never spoken (or posted).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/07/2018 10:40 pm
Jim keeps repeating that the fuel load period is inherently more dangerous than a "stable" replenishment period.

From a history and experience standpoint -- not your gut feeling "so many things are changing, it's so dynamic, it just HAS to be more dangerous" argument -- why?

How many rockets have had serious problems in the past (let's be generous) 25 years during fuel loading?  Versus how many have had serious problems after fuel loading, or after engine ignition?  Or, in most cases, have had no problems at all?

I can name one (count 'em, one) example of an incident during fueling -- AMOS 6.

What others?

Again, this comes down to whether it is inherently more dangerous to a fuel a rocket -- generically, *any* rocket -- after crew boards than before.

And again, if NASA is satisfied that the AMOS 6 incident has been properly identified and mitigated (meaning the Falcon ought to be MORE safe during fuel loading than other rockets, since it has gone through a multi-million-dollar, labor-intensive review of its hardware and its fuel loading processes to mitigate any such problems in the future), what beyond "we've always done it the other way" is a logical case against boarding and then fueling?

Jim?  What other examples of what could be a crew-endangering situation have happened during fuel loading in the past 25 years?

Any?  At all?

Where is the evidence that rockets are so much more likely to blow up during fueling that SpaceX must be forced into a far different process than they have repeatedly shown, after the AMOS 6 mitigation efforts, to be safe and effective?

Sounds just like the Apollo mode decision discussion --  and Jerry Weisner's "it just HAS to be more dangerous to go LOR.  It just FEELS more dangerous.  No, I don't have actual DATA that says so, just my gut feeling.  But that's enough for me to try and stop you from using a mode I just KNOW has to be more dangerous, even if I have no data to prove it."

And we know how that one turned out...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/07/2018 10:50 pm
So what are you saying - remove the densified propellents, change the gse, change the loading procedures all for how many flights per year  - 1/2?

Wouldn't that INCREASE the chance of something bad happens as you now have a configuration you don't regularly fly?

Saying that F9 with crew onboard should launch in a fundamentally different configuration than other F9 flights (ie nondensified propellants) potentially increases risk much more than it mitigates it.

...

If SpaceX can't manage that disparity then perhaps Astronauts aren't a cargo they should be carrying.
You edited out the context from my post.

The part you edited out said crew launches are fundamentally different.

With that context if they can't manage the fact that crewed launches are so inherently different than everything else then maybe they shouldn't be doing it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/07/2018 11:01 pm
"Let the data lead the way" sounds good but does not inspire confidence for me. Jim's comment seems (to me) reflect NASA's position (at least the decision makers there). Decision makers can ignore data that doesn't meet their position.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 11:24 pm
Quote from: envy887
If NASA had boarded all those crews first, the record would be the same. That's basically just another way of saying "we've always done it this way", which is not a valid justification for anything.

uh, no, it really isn't saying that at all... there is a middle ground. continue testing densified fuels on uncrewed.

"fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

Yes, it is saying exactly that. That particular data set does not invalidate the hypothesis that load and go is just as safe, because none of them had an issue that would have caused a failure with load and go.

And what do you think SpaceX is doing, other then testing on uncrewed launches? They will have around 200 load cycles and 50 flights after fixing the issues found in the AMOS anomaly, and before flying any crew.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/07/2018 11:26 pm
So Bezos pet attack dog is now promoting itas 'SpaceX is dangerous' narrative to the space media.

Classy, Jeff, real classy.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/993510596753666049?s=19

Quote
Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflight
It appears the Wash Post has decided to "cold call" space flight reporters to push their "SpaceX is dangerous!!" article (that isn't even new news). I didn't sign up to any of their mailing lists.

Check out the dramatics in the abstract.

PS It's SpaceX, not Space X 🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/xZVRMzYvfi

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/07/2018 11:31 pm
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST The you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.
Testing once, or even five times tells you little or nothing about failures that will happen once every ten flights.

just as Challenger and Columbia reminded us...but its fallibility it does not mean to throw caution to the wind. More testing equals a higher confidence level that you are achieving reliability (not perfection). Acceptable risk is vastly differen than blind risk.

RAther than simply testing a lot, it's far more important that your testing validates your design models so that you can accurately predict failure and know exactly how much safety margin you have.

Challenger and Columbia mostly showed that the Shuttle's failure modes were very poorly understood. NASA did not even get the foam shedding fixed properly post-Columbia, and experienced the same failure mode on the RTF though fortunately without LOCV.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/08/2018 12:04 am
So Bezos pet attack dog is now promoting itas 'SpaceX is dangerous' narrative to the space media.

Classy, Jeff, real classy.

That's...extremely silly.

Christian Davenport has been writing on space and defense for about 18 years, and although I wouldn't consider him to be deeply well-versed technically, he's still better informed than the vast majority of the people reporting on space.

The person who promo'd the story is pretty wet behind the ears. She graduated last year with a degree in communications, and I guess her job is basically pushing Post stories to anybody she can in order to get them more widely read.  In a newspaper, she's the modern equivalent of the mail girl.

Look...obviously the safest possible way to launch people would be *after* the rocket has already achieved orbit, if that could be done. Putting them on the rocket before it's propped is very obviously safer than after it's propped. If there's a loading accident and the crew is in a blockhouse, they're safe, from the rocket, anyway.  It's foolish to argue that they're not.

But that idea is nearly meaningless.

The question isn't whether they're safer, but how much safer. There's already been a lot of analysis done on SpaceX's launch loading system, probably tens of thousands of man-hours, if not more. There will be a great deal of hours spent analyzing Block 5 launches before humans fly aboard it. With the data available, it will be "safe enough" before humans get on board. And if there's an accident, then it will be something that was unforeseen despite extremely exhaustive study.

Now that I've restated the obvious, let's give it a rest. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 05/08/2018 12:13 am
So Bezos pet attack dog is now promoting itas 'SpaceX is dangerous' narrative to the space media.

Classy, Jeff, real classy.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/993510596753666049?s=19

Quote
Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflight
It appears the Wash Post has decided to "cold call" space flight reporters to push their "SpaceX is dangerous!!" article (that isn't even new news). I didn't sign up to any of their mailing lists.

Check out the dramatics in the abstract.

PS It's SpaceX, not Space X 🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/xZVRMzYvfi

If you really want to get mad and spit bile at somebody, spit it at the "NASA advisors".  :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 12:21 am
...
Putting them on the rocket before it's propped is very obviously safer than after it's propped.
...
That's not at all obvious.

Load and go mitigates some risks and increases other risks. The balance is in the details, which we don't have.

Quote
...
With the data available, it will be "safe enough" before humans get on board. And if there's an accident, then it will be something that was unforeseen despite extremely exhaustive study.
...

Absolutely.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yokem55 on 05/08/2018 03:14 am
The one idea that I haven't seen evaluated is the possibility of having a return feed at the top of the lox tanks that feeds back down through the lox tank to an exit port on the umbilical or TSM allowing a steady flow of sub-cooled lox back into the tank. This presumes that the lox will stratify as it warms, leaving the warmest lox at the top.

If that were to work, SpaceX could run a ' steady re-chill" of the vehicle that would relatively match the the "steady replenish" of boiling temp vehicles. That could potentially allow time to board after fueling.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/08/2018 04:49 am
So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?

How about just keep doing what they're doing right now: keep the steamroller going and avoid RUD. If they keep the current launch rate, by the time they launch crew for the first time they would have completed ~100 tanking operations post AMOS-6, and by the time they start flying post certification mission it would be close to 140, similar to the # of successful Soyuz missions. I think this together with their LoC calculation should be enough to convince NASA the procedure is safe.

They also do a lot of tankings at McGregor: all the qualification testing and all the flight acceptance testing requires tanking each stage. They will probably have completed over 200 propellant load sequences post-AMOS before a crew ever flies.

And yet SpaceX is going to “COPV 2.0”
Will they be more or less reliable and expensive than the “COPV 1.1” used successfully in all those tests and flights?
Or is this another perceived risk that NASA with their $3B/yr ISS budget & alternative launch provider feels they can afford to buy down and/or wait for?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 08:00 am
I think we all understand that doing it the SpaceX proposed way does increase risk for the astronauts.
Do we? I don't. Let's compare some scenarios, shall we:

1) Board astronauts
2) Start fuelling
3) Something goes wrong with fuelling, leads to RUD
4) LAS activates, giving crew a very decent chance of survival (pad crew is miles away in safety already)

Or an alternative scenario:

1) Fuel
2) Start boarding astronauts
3) Rocket undergoes RUD during boarding
4) Both astronauts and pad crew have zero chance of survival.

Unless you assume the chance of killing the crew in a LAS abort is bigger than the chance of killing them during a incident while boarding on top of a fuelled vehicle, or can give a 100% guarantee nothing can go wrong with a fuelled vehicle, boarding first seems to me to always be the better option. Bottom line: crew on board during fuelling: abort option available during entire fuelling process. Crew boarding after fuelling: significant period without any abort option. On balance, fuelling after boarding likely less risky for astronauts, infinitely less risky for pad crew.

this and other posts make a huge mistake in establishing equivalency of the two scenarios. Besides the ease with which assumptions about safety are thrown around, the fact remains that current practice does have a 50 year process history of successful practice. The "new way" has zero experience (WITH CREW). While no one says that all things must remain unchanged forever, or that there is only one way to do things, the risks in allowing a change of this magnitude cannot be wished away or dismissed simply because the abort system is available. An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew.

Emphasis mine.

Your statement is exactly the sort of assumption you chastised Welsh Dragon over.
There has ever been only one "real life" example of a crew riding the abort system: Soyuz T10-1.
Other than being badly bruised the crew lived to tell the tale and, most importantly, did NOT require medical attention after the abort.

So much for your "high likelihood of serious injury or death".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 08:09 am
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation, then NASA would likely require, probably justifiably, 6 or 8 or 10 pad abort tests prior to operational use.

No. NASA required NO pad abort tests for CCP. In fact, both CCP providers (SpaceX and Boeing) voluntarily offered to perform pad abort tests to validate the required pad abort MODELS.
The in-flight abort test that SpaceX will be performing is voluntary in nature as well.

...reduced interest in pad testing initially Because NASA assumed that the historic practice of "fuel-then astronauts" would remain in place. If we change this equation now to "count on LAS to provide our 'protection' against fire/explosion" suddenly, the need for more scrutiny and confidence in LAS becomes acute. Thus, a more robust testing regimen.
 

Incorrect.

NASA knew from the get-go that SpaceX wanted to fuel the rocket AFTER the crew had gone aboard. The "fuel-and-go" procedure was base-lined in SpaceX's CCP proposal. That didn't stop NASA from awarding SpaceX the CCtCAP contract.
This is similar to NASA awarding SpaceX the CCtCAP contract despite NASA knowing that SpaceX has base-lined propulsive landing for Crew Dragon.

It wasn't until after the contract had been awarded that NASA began to have serious doubts about propulsive landing and "fuel-and-go".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/08/2018 08:51 am
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST Then you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.

Well the only way to test Load and Go is with crew onboard during the test otherwise not much difference to all previous space flights with crew onboard. And if you are talking about the LAS how many tests have been conducted in the past? How many tests of the planned SpaceX or ULA LAS are there? It seems the LAS has minimal test data that it actually works.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 05/08/2018 09:27 am
An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
Extraordinary claims require ext ordinary evidence. Care to provide some?

I never said it was always safe. I said it was a decent chance of survival. Even a slim chance of survival is infinitely better than the guaranteed no chance of survival both astronauts and pad crew have when something happens during boarding.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/08/2018 09:41 am
>
And if you are talking about the LAS how many tests have been conducted in the past? How many tests of the planned SpaceX or ULA LAS are there? It seems the LAS has minimal test data that it actually works.

SpaceX performed a Crew Dragon pad abort test 3 years ago, which is spot on the situation under discussion. An in-flight abort test at MaxQ is to be performed after the DM-1 uncrewed mission to ISS.

Pad abort test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

Mashup of pad abort synched over the AMOS-6 failure. Do yourself a favor and turn off the audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9kovJ5SyjM
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 05/08/2018 01:07 pm
The one idea that I haven't seen evaluated is the possibility of having a return feed at the top of the lox tanks that feeds back down through the lox tank to an exit port on the umbilical or TSM allowing a steady flow of sub-cooled lox back into the tank. This presumes that the lox will stratify as it warms, leaving the warmest lox at the top.

If that were to work, SpaceX could run a ' steady re-chill" of the vehicle that would relatively match the the "steady replenish" of boiling temp vehicles. That could potentially allow time to board after fueling.
I believe this is exactly how the existing system works.  Nevertheless, the bulk temperature gradually increases over time, causing a steady loss of performance through the window. The replenish system just can't match the supercold temps straight from the chiller, although it can slow the temperature rise.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 05/08/2018 01:23 pm
Jim keeps repeating that the fuel load period is inherently more dangerous than a "stable" replenishment period.

From a history and experience standpoint -- not your gut feeling "so many things are changing, it's so dynamic, it just HAS to be more dangerous" argument -- why?

How many rockets have had serious problems in the past (let's be generous) 25 years during fuel loading?  Versus how many have had serious problems after fuel loading, or after engine ignition?  Or, in most cases, have had no problems at all?

I can name one (count 'em, one) example of an incident during fueling -- AMOS 6.

What others?

Again, this comes down to whether it is inherently more dangerous to a fuel a rocket -- generically, *any* rocket -- after crew boards than before.

And again, if NASA is satisfied that the AMOS 6 incident has been properly identified and mitigated (meaning the Falcon ought to be MORE safe during fuel loading than other rockets, since it has gone through a multi-million-dollar, labor-intensive review of its hardware and its fuel loading processes to mitigate any such problems in the future), what beyond "we've always done it the other way" is a logical case against boarding and then fueling?

Jim?  What other examples of what could be a crew-endangering situation have happened during fuel loading in the past 25 years?

Any?  At all?


Wrong. There have been many times propellant loading has been stopped and a launch scrubbed to fix a problem (leaks, valves sticking, etc)

And there is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 05/08/2018 01:26 pm
Oh, and

S-IVB-503 static fire.

On August 5, 1981, a Percheron suborbital test vehicle exploded on its launch pad on Matagorda Island, Texas, due to a liquid oxygen tank overpressurization problem.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/08/2018 01:40 pm
(Snip)
What loss of life occurred based on the current practice of boarding after fueling? Certainly not Apollo 1,  STS-51-L nor STS-107.

STS-51-L (Challenger) is not free and clear of the issue of fueling before crew loading.
The SRB and its O-rings chilled from both the cold ambient temperatures and the very cold wind shed by the External Tank filled with cryogens. We can’t say how much less effect there might have been if the ET was filled in the last half hour before launch (although such a procedure was impossible with the existing hardware.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/08/2018 01:54 pm
So -- nothing in the past 25 years, as I had challenged, eh?

Your most recent example happened 37 years ago.  People who worked on that vehicle are either all retired, or are on the cusp of retirement.  Do we limit people riding jet airliners because of the design issues faced by the BOAC Comet?

I don't think so.

And yet, the Comet killed people.

Aircraft designers *learned* from the Comet design issues and built safer jet airliners.  They didn't become risk-averse and refuse to consider flying people on jets just because someone had designed a dangerous airplane.  And now, decades later, the same issues that caused the Comet to kill people are no longer feared.

They exist -- the same laws of physics will still kill people if they are ignored -- but the designers have learned what to do to mitigate the possibilities of such failures.

So, again, I'm trying to point out that rocket designers have, for the most part, learned how to build boosters that are safe to fuel.  Nothing in the last generation of booster operations has caused a fueling-period LOV incident, except for AMOS 6.  And that failure is, at least supposedly, fully understood and fully mitigated.  No further mysteries hiding in the map-edges, waiting to kill you if you don't do things the Way They Have Always Been Done.

And the balloon Atlas collapsing more than 50 years ago?  Care to show me *any* current launch vehicles, especially being considered for man-rating, that will collapse of their own weight if not pressurized?

Didn't think so.  That one was just disingenuous.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/08/2018 02:06 pm


So, again, I'm trying to point out that rocket designers have, for the most part, learned how to build boosters that are safe to fuel. 

That is wrong.  AMOS-6 just happened, so what other AMOS-6s are still out there?
They safest thing is to never try.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:21 pm
"Let the data lead the way" sounds good but does not inspire confidence for me. Jim's comment seems (to me) reflect NASA's position (at least the decision makers there). Decision makers can ignore data that doesn't meet their position.

they can always ignore data, but the chances of a good decision are better if the data is available. the data also, is not the only criteria, therefore, yes, a decision could be reached based on the context of other factors, which one would hope are just as valid, but no guarantees exist.  Stating a preference for no data to be on hand, however is not a defensible position simply because it may not, on its own, sway the final decision in a predetermined direction.  NASA is imperfect, but has a long history of weighing decisions based on maximizing data and minimizing guesswork.  Not every decision is perfect, but until there is perfect information , i.e, all things are known (a condition that never exists) some decsions will be imperfect. it is the nature of decision making.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/08/2018 02:22 pm
Jim?  What other examples of what could be a crew-endangering situation have happened during fuel loading in the past 25 years?

Any?  At all?
Wrong. There have been many times propellant loading has been stopped and a launch scrubbed to fix a problem (leaks, valves sticking, etc)

And there is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY)

Thanks. That’s a great video. Remarkable every time I see it.
It’s almost anticlimactic that it just sags to its destruction.
But it is from a very very long time ago with an archaic technology (pressure stiffening “balloon” tank)
Your most recent example is a sounding rocket, which had a much looser MQA regime and still is more than a quarter century ago.

On the other hand, Amos-6 was an “unknown unknown”. All we have are a few dozen subsequent launches to show that others are not significant.  But SpaceX does have them, and will have a few dozen more before CFT-1.

PS to the-other-Doug. Please calm down. This is not new. “Take what you can and leave the rest”
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 02:25 pm
How is that different than the RTF after Challenger or Columbia? NASA saw many issues with o-rings, but kept pushing until they had a catastrophic failure. They redesigned the o-rings, and put crew on the next launch. Same for foam strikes, and they almost lost the RTF becasue the failure wasn't even corrected properly.

If it's disingenuous to say that a criticality-1 failure can be corrected and proven safe with a qualification campaign and 50 flights, then there should not have been crew on the Shuttle RTFs, or half of the Shuttle missions for that matter.

And a tanking failure isn't even crit-1.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:26 pm

How many rockets have had serious problems in the past (let's be generous) 25 years during fuel loading?  Versus how many have had serious problems after fuel loading, or after engine ignition?  Or, in most cases, have had no problems at all?

I can name one (count 'em, one) example of an incident during fueling -- AMOS 6.



So, the mode of observation is now to say, "let's just throw out that ONE inconvenient circumstance?"  the point remains that SPaceX did not KNOW the flaw with COPV until everything went BOOM. The design had not been tested enough. You cannot use the history of other designs being successfully fueld to validate a new design.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 02:29 pm

How many rockets have had serious problems in the past (let's be generous) 25 years during fuel loading?  Versus how many have had serious problems after fuel loading, or after engine ignition?  Or, in most cases, have had no problems at all?

I can name one (count 'em, one) example of an incident during fueling -- AMOS 6.



So, the mode of observation is now to say, "let's just throw out that ONE inconvenient circumstance?"  the point remains that SPaceX did not KNOW the flaw with COPV until everything went BOOM. The design had not been tested enough. You cannot use the history of other designs being successfully fueld to validate a new design.

This goes equally for the history of load-then-board as you tried to apply it to CC vehicles.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:33 pm
Quote from: envy887
If NASA had boarded all those crews first, the record would be the same. That's basically just another way of saying "we've always done it this way", which is not a valid justification for anything.

uh, no, it really isn't saying that at all... there is a middle ground. continue testing densified fuels on uncrewed.

"fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

Yes, it is saying exactly that. That particular data set does not invalidate the hypothesis that load and go is just as safe, because none of them had an issue that would have caused a failure with load and go.

And what do you think SpaceX is doing, other then testing on uncrewed launches? They will have around 200 load cycles and 50 flights after fixing the issues found in the AMOS anomaly, and before flying any crew.

Nope. you are engaged in what is called "motivational reasoning," a form of bias that is akin to rationalization.  Youand others here are ignoring all other facts put before you, and creating a strawman argument that everyone else is just "against the future." NASA does not have the luxury of such bias.  Until new designs prove themselves, you cannot attribute the positive attributes, such as a history of no explosions, to the new design. The posts stating that SpaceX is building a history is valid. But their practice still contradicts the baseline that the customer (NASA) has established for certification. It will be NASA's call ultimately whether that tanking/testing qualifies for certification. But SpaceX runs a huge risk if NASA decides it is not. SpaceX would do well in this circumstance to remember the old saying, "the customer is always right."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/08/2018 02:35 pm


So, again, I'm trying to point out that rocket designers have, for the most part, learned how to build boosters that are safe to fuel. 

That is wrong.  AMOS-6 just happened, so what other AMOS-6s are still out there?
They safest thing is to never try.

A meaningless point, nobody said don't launch

We cannot know everything; mistakes will happen.  The question has always been how much risk is acceptable.  From what you have said in the past all risk is unacceptable with regards to human spaceflight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 05/08/2018 02:37 pm
(Snip)
What loss of life occurred based on the current practice of boarding after fueling? Certainly not Apollo 1,  STS-51-L nor STS-107.

STS-51-L (Challenger) is not free and clear of the issue of fueling before crew loading.
The SRB and its O-rings chilled from both the cold ambient temperatures and the very cold wind shed by the External Tank filled with cryogens. We can’t say how much less effect there might have been if the ET was filled in the last half hour before launch (although such a procedure was impossible with the existing hardware.)
It was 36° when Challenger lifted off and the engineering recommendation was not to launch below 53°. I think it's pretty creative to try to blame the tanking and boarding procedure for that failure.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:42 pm
actually, you are just proving you have no idea what you are talking about. read the posts, dude.TEST TEST TEST Then you willl KNOW KNOW KNOW.  Denying the need to do so is the only thing that is "screwed up logic" here.

Well the only way to test Load and Go is with crew onboard during the test otherwise not much difference to all previous space flights with crew onboard. And if you are talking about the LAS how many tests have been conducted in the past? How many tests of the planned SpaceX or ULA LAS are there? It seems the LAS has minimal test data that it actually works.

it seems you are confirming my thesis, that greater reliance on LAS puts a premium on a more robust test regimen for LAS. Also, you can not use the experience of past LAS systems to validate the SpaceX system. To date, there was ONE pad abort test of the SpaceX LAS, and it was under static conditions.  That's pretty narrow.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:45 pm
An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
Extraordinary claims require ext ordinary evidence. Care to provide some?

I never said it was always safe. I said it was a decent chance of survival. Even a slim chance of survival is infinitely better than the guaranteed no chance of survival both astronauts and pad crew have when something happens during boarding.

it's not an extraordinary claim. A basic understanding of the dynamics of abort, even unscientific can tell you that it is a dangerous situation. Very dangerous.You cannot predict with reliability how an abort unfolds, at least not as neatly as the pad abort tests where no real emergency exists.  yes, a chance of survival is better than no chance, but it is vastly nsufficient to build your entire lauch operations sequence around.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 02:47 pm
>
And if you are talking about the LAS how many tests have been conducted in the past? How many tests of the planned SpaceX or ULA LAS are there? It seems the LAS has minimal test data that it actually works.

SpaceX performed a Crew Dragon pad abort test 3 years ago, which is spot on the situation under discussion. An in-flight abort test at MaxQ is to be performed after the DM-1 uncrewed mission to ISS.

Pad abort test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

Mashup of pad abort synched over the AMOS-6 failure. Do yourself a favor and turn off the audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9kovJ5SyjM

one pad abort from a standstill is not a robust testing regimen, and if the premise is now that LAS is the main means of "protection" of the crew, you are going to need aq lot more assurances that abort is better than  a "maybe."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/08/2018 02:50 pm
With all the scrutiny regarding the fueling before/after crew boarding in SpaceX's proposed transportation architecture, I wonder if anyone has considered Boeing not conducting an in-flight abort test to be problematic?  Every US manned system except for Gemini and the Space Shuttle (neither of which included a LAS) has had or will have a LAS in-flight abort test, except for CST-100.

I know that an in-flight abort was not a required milestone, and SpaceX chose to submit a proposal with one while Boeing did not.  Of course, SpaceX submitted a proposal with fueling after boarding and it was accepted...

Apparently ASAP is fine launching on a system that is only tested in the most benign regime (pad escape) which, ironically, is the least likely environment it will ever be used in, due to the fueling before boarding and the low likelihood of an issue on pad after fuel loading when in stable replenish.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 03:00 pm
The point about no launch abort for Boeing has been raised before, and on its surface seems to be a good question. So have we ever heard justification for why the CC milestones never included a launch abort requirement?  How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas V, or does the introduction of new flight dynamics with the crew capsule added to the stack constitute enough design change that abort scenarios are not sufficiently known?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 03:01 pm
An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
Extraordinary claims require ext ordinary evidence. Care to provide some?

I never said it was always safe. I said it was a decent chance of survival. Even a slim chance of survival is infinitely better than the guaranteed no chance of survival both astronauts and pad crew have when something happens during boarding.

it's not an extraordinary claim. A basic understanding of the dynamics of abort, even unscientific can tell you that it is a dangerous situation. Very dangerous.You cannot predict with reliability how an abort unfolds, at least not as neatly as the pad abort tests where no real emergency exists.  yes, a chance of survival is better than no chance, but it is vastly nsufficient to build your entire lauch operations sequence around.

Nobody is building the prop load operation sequence around the abort capability, just as nobody is building the in-flight sequence around the abort capability. Having to use the abort system means automatic loss of mission and a very bad day. It's a backup system and can't be used to justify lower design margins on the primary and secondary systems.

...
 if the premise is now that LAS is the main means of "protection" of the crew, you are going to need aq lot more assurances that abort is better than  a "maybe."

It's not.

The main means of protection is a well-qualified and thoroughly tested pre-launch operational sequence.


Nope. you are engaged in what is called "motivational reasoning," a form of bias that is akin to rationalization.  Youand others here are ignoring all other facts put before you, and creating a strawman argument that everyone else is just "against the future." NASA does not have the luxury of such bias.  Until new designs prove themselves, you cannot attribute the positive attributes, such as a history of no explosions, to the new design. The posts stating that SpaceX is building a history is valid. But their practice still contradicts the baseline that the customer (NASA) has established for certification. It will be NASA's call ultimately whether that tanking/testing qualifies for certification. But SpaceX runs a huge risk if NASA decides it is not. SpaceX would do well in this circumstance to remember the old saying, "the customer is always right."

You are the one doing exactly that by saying that because load-then-board has been baselined for 50 years, it should be used on CC vehicles. Historical data form other dissimilar vehicles is virtually useless for justifying risk decision.

The only relevant launch data to any risk analysis on CC is from Atlas V and Falcon 9. Everything else is anecdotal at best.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/08/2018 03:02 pm
it seems you are confirming my thesis, that greater reliance on LAS puts a premium on a more robust test regimen for LAS.

How much greater really? The LAS as currently tested is perfectly fine for flight apparently. A way more dynamic and dangerous phase than tanking as most would agree. Lasts about 20 minutes. Tanking is 30 minutes, about the same time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/08/2018 03:19 pm
Back on page 52 I asked why this issue and these potential abort tests were occurring so late in the game- is that an unfair assumption? Where's Little Joe?
Abort tests occurring late are fine, as long as they are before a crewed flight, which they are.  In fact, the later the better, because that means the systems are as close to ready as possible.

As for Little Joe, for SpaceX it makes sense to use an F9, which is even better than a proxy rocket.  Orion will use an Orbital-ATK provided rocket more along the lines of LJ.  Boeing, as mentioned previously, does not have an in-flight abort milestone.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/08/2018 03:22 pm
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas V
I don't see how flight history matters?  It is not possible to infer never needing the LAS in-flight no matter how successful the rocket is, or there wouldn't be a LAS at all.
Quote
or does the introduction of new flight dynamics with the crew capsule added to the stack constitute enough design change that abort scenarios are not sufficiently known?
Given that the program had to (expensively) modify the dynamics of the system with the addition of the "skirt" partway through development, I'd think they'd be more concerned about this.  I can only assume without any other data that ASAP is satisfied with the modeling and projections of the effectiveness of the LAS without an in-flight test.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 03:27 pm
.yes they are. the argument here has been that "even if fuel and go is more dangerous (and we don't know if it is or isn't) then the launch abort system will carry the astronauts away safely"...just read the previous posts.

That is not SpaceX's argument. They are saying that LAS is only part of the equation. Lower total exposure to risky events, and greater commonality with the well-tested F9 systems also make it safer than a modified F9.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 03:29 pm
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas V
I don't see how flight history matters?  It is not possible to infer never needing the LAS in-flight no matter how successful the rocket is, or there wouldn't be a LAS at all.
Quote
or does the introduction of new flight dynamics with the crew capsule added to the stack constitute enough design change that abort scenarios are not sufficiently known?
Given that the program had to (expensively) modify the dynamics of the system with the addition of the "skirt" partway through development, I'd think they'd be more concerned about this.  I can only assume without any other data that ASAP is satisfied with the modeling and projections of the effectiveness of the LAS without an in-flight test.

Last we heard the abort stability was still a concern:

Quote
Boeing is addressing a risk that its abort system may not meet the program’s requirement to have sufficient control of the vehicle through an abort.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691589.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 03:40 pm
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas V
I don't see how flight history matters?  It is not possible to infer never needing the LAS in-flight no matter how successful the rocket is, or there wouldn't be a LAS at all.
Quote
or does the introduction of new flight dynamics with the crew capsule added to the stack constitute enough design change that abort scenarios are not sufficiently known?
Given that the program had to (expensively) modify the dynamics of the system with the addition of the "skirt" partway through development, I'd think they'd be more concerned about this.  I can only assume without any other data that ASAP is satisfied with the modeling and projections of the effectiveness of the LAS without an in-flight test.

The skirt at least appears to be similar to the configuration used for their A-V satellite launches using the fairing. they may be seeing similar results from the simulations for Starliner?  ideally, flight testing would seem to be preferrable from a data standpoint.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/08/2018 03:43 pm
.yes they are. the argument here has been that "even if fuel and go is more dangerous (and we don't know if it is or isn't) then the launch abort system will carry the astronauts away safely"...just read the previous posts.

That is not SpaceX's argument. They are saying that LAS is only part of the equation. Lower total exposure to risky events, and greater commonality with the well-tested F9 systems also make it safer than a modified F9.

the SpaceX defense is that it simply isn't an issue (due to commonality). NASA says "maybe it is." Posters on this forum are the ones caiming that LAS is what makes it adequate, not SpaceX in any official capacity. My premise is that those claims are wrong because LAS is not a guarantee, in the manner they are describing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 04:00 pm

Nobody is building the prop load operation sequence around the abort capability, just as nobody is building the in-flight sequence around the abort capability. Having to use the abort system means automatic loss of mission and a very bad day. It's a backup system and can't be used to justify lower design margins on the primary and secondary systems.


i can't tell what you are talking about. The question has always been "how much do you want to count on a clean abort to balance off any added risk of a tanking problem?"  we know way too little about abort reliability to make such a trade.

Fix your quotes, please.

"We" aren't making the trade. NASA and SpaceX are, and they certainly have more data than we do.

However, the LAS is almost certainly not the primary justification for allowing load and go, since the probability of using the LAS has to be less than or equal to the acceptability of loss of mission and vehicle. Avoiding LOMV is highly desirable, almost as desirable as avoiding LOCV, so the primary justification will be the very high reliability of the qualified fueling systems and processes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/08/2018 04:24 pm
>
And if you are talking about the LAS how many tests have been conducted in the past? How many tests of the planned SpaceX or ULA LAS are there? It seems the LAS has minimal test data that it actually works.

SpaceX performed a Crew Dragon pad abort test 3 years ago, which is spot on the situation under discussion. An in-flight abort test at MaxQ is to be performed after the DM-1 uncrewed mission to ISS.


one pad abort from a standstill is not a robust testing regimen, and if the premise is now that LAS is the main means of "protection" of the crew, you are going to need aq lot more assurances that abort is better than  a "maybe."

Yes I know about the two aborts SpaceX has completed. My point is that with only 2 tests it is deemed safe and Boeing will have only 1 test. Why make such a big argument against Fuel and Go when so little testing has been performed for the LAS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2018 05:13 pm
Only brought here because Jim was showing he is the world champion at showing a lack of civility (again!) but is this all a rehash of the rehashed points made in the Washington Post?

I guess that worked for them, but it doesn't work for us. We locked that thread for a reason and it wasn't so it could spread on to this one.

Make your closing remarks and I'll start a new thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Eerie on 05/08/2018 05:22 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 05/08/2018 05:45 pm
An abort has a high likleihood of resulting in serious injury or even death of crew. There is no "easy" ejection, and no "easy" abort.  Employing the LAS is not just an alternative way of deboarding the craft. It brings its own (substantial) risks.
Extraordinary claims require ext ordinary evidence. Care to provide some?

I never said it was always safe. I said it was a decent chance of survival. Even a slim chance of survival is infinitely better than the guaranteed no chance of survival both astronauts and pad crew have when something happens during boarding.

it's not an extraordinary claim. A basic understanding of the dynamics of abort, even unscientific can tell you that it is a dangerous situation. Very dangerous.You cannot predict with reliability how an abort unfolds, at least not as neatly as the pad abort tests where no real emergency exists.  yes, a chance of survival is better than no chance, but it is vastly nsufficient to build your entire lauch operations sequence around.
I note your lack of evidence for your claim, and your appeal to the common sense fallacy.  Fact remains: there is no abort option during boarding after fuelling. Even a flawed abort option is better than none. Nobody is building any sequence around anything. But even if they were, you have a choice between building a sequence around an inherently survivable situation with no abort options or building a sequence around a option to abort (however potentially flawed) throughout. I'd pick the latter over the former any day. The bolded alone suggests you really agree with me, otherwise that statement would make no sense.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/08/2018 05:49 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is?

I think this is the core question, since NASA makes the final decision, and SpaceX has to know what that is well in advance in order to stay on schedule.

The ASAP is an advisory board, and Congress is full of politicians that can elevate issues into the public space, so it's not like NASA can dismiss concerns out of hand. But NASA is responsible for making the final decision.

Hard to know what NASA is telling SpaceX though, and it's not like we have good visibility into SpaceX either.

Quote
From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

I don't know if we have enough information to make informed guesses, but it's possible that SpaceX has designed their systems so that densified propellant is a requirement, not an option. And since densified propellant can't be kept cold enough on the pad while installing crew after fueling, that could mean that NASA is faced with a hard decision about SpaceX:

A. NASA continues to validate SpaceX designs, processes and procedures for 'fuel-n-go' so that they can justify their approval of this process.

B. NASA decides that 'fuel-n-go' is not going to be acceptable, and eliminates SpaceX as a crew transportation provider.

Am I missing an option if SpaceX can't do crew load after fueling with densified propellant?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 07:54 pm
The point about no launch abort for Boeing has been raised before, and on its surface seems to be a good question. So have we ever heard justification for why the CC milestones never included a launch abort requirement?  How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas V, or does the introduction of new flight dynamics with the crew capsule added to the stack constitute enough design change that abort scenarios are not sufficiently known?

Emphasis mine.
I see you managed to overlook my answer to that question entirely:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1818598#msg1818598

In short: NASA only required the pad abort and in-flight abort modes to be modeled. No actual test flights required. The pad abort tests from SpaceX and Boeing are entirely voluntary, as is the in-flight abort test from SpaceX.

NASA didn't require those abort tests because it deemed computer modeling of the aborts to be sufficient.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 07:59 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2018 08:01 pm
I don't know if we have enough information to make informed guesses, but it's possible that SpaceX has designed their systems so that densified propellant is a requirement, not an option. And since densified propellant can't be kept cold enough on the pad while installing crew after fueling, that could mean that NASA is faced with a hard decision about SpaceX:

A. NASA continues to validate SpaceX designs, processes and procedures for 'fuel-n-go' so that they can justify their approval of this process.

B. NASA decides that 'fuel-n-go' is not going to be acceptable, and eliminates SpaceX as a crew transportation provider.

Am I missing an option if SpaceX can't do crew load after fueling with densified propellant?

No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2018 09:45 pm
I don't know if we have enough information to make informed guesses, but it's possible that SpaceX has designed their systems so that densified propellant is a requirement, not an option. And since densified propellant can't be kept cold enough on the pad while installing crew after fueling, that could mean that NASA is faced with a hard decision about SpaceX:

A. NASA continues to validate SpaceX designs, processes and procedures for 'fuel-n-go' so that they can justify their approval of this process.

B. NASA decides that 'fuel-n-go' is not going to be acceptable, and eliminates SpaceX as a crew transportation provider.

Am I missing an option if SpaceX can't do crew load after fueling with densified propellant?

No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

NASA could shell out a whole bunch of money for SpaceX to modify a few F9s and requalify the Merlins with boiling props, and update the GSE and fueling procedures, and wait a year or so while that all gets done. And the resulting product IMO would be less safe as a result of the changes from the F9 baseline.

I think that's rather unlikely, although no less so than cutting Crew Dragon altogether. NASA needs 2 providers and is willing to pay for them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 05/08/2018 11:50 pm
A third option would be for NASA to come up with a set of additional tests NASA wants SpaceX to perform to validate the safety of their fueling procedure, or for NASA to require extra abort tests, etc.  The price (and time) of this additional "assurance" would determine whether SpaceX agreed to jump through the hoops or whether this effectively dropped SpaceX out of commercial crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: wolfpack on 05/09/2018 01:10 am
No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

We fuel airplanes with passengers aboard.

Guess we have to learn to do it with rockets, too.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/09/2018 02:07 am
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 05/09/2018 04:06 am
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants?

It must, especially the upper stage. Because the propellant doesn't stay deep cryo cooled for long when much of it has been used up. Deep cryo is mostly a way to pack in more propellant in the same space. It does change the viscosity of the fluids, but presumably the engines compensate for that towards the end of the burns.

Or am I way off here? I don't think the F9 propellants are deep cryo during the landing burn.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/09/2018 06:46 am
A third option would be for NASA to come up with a set of additional tests NASA wants SpaceX to perform to validate the safety of their fueling procedure, or for NASA to require extra abort tests, etc.  The price (and time) of this additional "assurance" would determine whether SpaceX agreed to jump through the hoops or whether this effectively dropped SpaceX out of commercial crew.

That is in fact not a third option but an extension of option A.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/09/2018 12:33 pm
I don't know if we have enough information to make informed guesses, but it's possible that SpaceX has designed their systems so that densified propellant is a requirement, not an option. And since densified propellant can't be kept cold enough on the pad while installing crew after fueling, that could mean that NASA is faced with a hard decision about SpaceX:

A. NASA continues to validate SpaceX designs, processes and procedures for 'fuel-n-go' so that they can justify their approval of this process.

B. NASA decides that 'fuel-n-go' is not going to be acceptable, and eliminates SpaceX as a crew transportation provider.

Am I missing an option if SpaceX can't do crew load after fueling with densified propellant?

No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

And I would put good odds on Option B, where NASA gets their crew transport from a familiar and competent supplier who can solve any technical problem in a comfortable manner, albeit at high cost. But for some that’s SEP (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_else%27s_problem). (Somebody Else’s Problem)

Except for ULA’s RD-180 supply and the switch to Vulcan.   Given that the planning horizon is only 6 years thru 2024, they seem to need less than a dozen flights and the ability to keep the Atlas V running in parallel with the Vulcan development. It may get pretty expensive on a per seat basis and hasten the “retirement” of the ISS, but every aspect makes some group happy. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 05/09/2018 01:45 pm
No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

We fuel airplanes with passengers aboard.

Guess we have to learn to do it with rockets, too.

Not at all a valid analogy.  Cryogens are not involved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 05/09/2018 01:57 pm
So no crewed CC flights in 2018?
If ISS is splashed in 2024, approx. 12 crew rotations would be required and if she is splashed in 2028 approx. 20 crew rotations would be required.

As the lifeclock of the ISS keeps on ticking regardless of CCDev slippage, the window for actual "ISS Crew Transportation Services" grows smaller and smaller. 

Will Boeing and Space Exploration Technologies Corporation make more money developing and certifying the CST-100 Starliner/Atlas-V and Dragon-2/Falcon-9 than from their actual utilization?

It will be a great day when one of these USA build vehicles finally is able to claim this patch left on ISS by the last USA human rated vehicle to visit the ISS, OV-104 Atlantis when she undocked from ISS on July 19, 2011. 
The "gap" currently stands at 2486 or 6 years, 9 months, 20 days. 

Coincidentally the beginning of the 70's gap began on the same date with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project undocking also on July 19 but in 1975.  STS-1 with OV-101 Columbia launched on April 12, 1981 for a gap of 2095 days or 5 years, 8 months, 25 days.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 02:19 pm
Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

And I would put good odds on Option B
...

I wouldn't, since the CC team doesn't consider load and go a significant schedule or budget risk.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 05/09/2018 02:47 pm
No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

We fuel airplanes with passengers aboard.

Guess we have to learn to do it with rockets, too.
Here's Jim giving a longer explanation in late 2016:

...  Once fueled and into replenishment, the vehicle is a stable, quiescent condition, unlike during the process of loading propellant.

Leaks occur during loading
pressure vessels have issues during loading
spills occur during loading
cryogenic shock occurs during loading

This argument is literally years old. Loading cryogenic fuel and oxidizer is not at all the same as loading a fuel at ambient temperatures. Especially in a design that submerges complex plumbing and pressure vessels in a cryogen.

That doesn't mean SpaceX won't convince NASA that they have designs and procedures to reduce the risks to acceptable levels, but we really should not just claim it's no big deal.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mn on 05/09/2018 04:28 pm
IIRC both Lightfoot and Gerst have said that NASA will let the data lead the way towards approval or lack thereof wrt fueling.

SpaceX had, what I would think, was a robust COPV 2.0 test campaign at McGregor. They'll need 7 successful Block-5 launches. They'll have all (most?) of those cores returned for further inspection and verification. And then a few of those probably re-flown, returned and inspected again with a total pre-crew launch campaign far greater than the original 7 needed for Block-5 Crew Certification.

Let the data lead the way. NASA seems to be willing to do just that. Sounds good to me.

Data does not usually lead the way.

Different people will look at the same data and reach vastly different conclusions. And that is even when trying your best to be 100% objective. (as we can see just be reading all the threads repeating this discussion over and over again)

Of course when the data is 100% one way and 0% the other way, then data will lead the way.

But in a case like this humans will have to make a decision without the benefit of overwhelming, clear, obvious data. And we can only hope it will turn out to be the right one.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mn on 05/09/2018 04:32 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants?

Though I don't recall them saying that, if they retained that option would we be going thru this discussion? Why would SpaceX insist on doing it their way if they can just as easily do it the NASA way?

Unless SpaceX is convinced that their way is much safer? (maybe they know something about the F9 that we don't and they don't consider stable replenish to be a safe state for any length of time ??)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 05:11 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants?

Though I don't recall them saying that, if they retained that option would we be going thru this discussion? Why would SpaceX insist on doing it their way if they can just as easily do it the NASA way?

Unless SpaceX is convinced that their way is much safer? (maybe they know something about the F9 that we don't and they don't consider stable replenish to be a safe state for any length of time ??)

Even if they can do it without hardware changes, it's still not simple. There would be software change, GSE changes, and procedural changes. They would still effectively be operating a whole different vehicle just for crew, with the associated testing, qualification, and operations efforts and loss of commonality and flight heritage from the rest of F9 flights.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/09/2018 05:13 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants?

Though I don't recall them saying that, if they retained that option would we be going thru this discussion? Why would SpaceX insist on doing it their way if they can just as easily do it the NASA way?

Unless SpaceX is convinced that their way is much safer? (maybe they know something about the F9 that we don't and they don't consider stable replenish to be a safe state for any length of time ??)


One of the key reasons for using deep cooled propellant was recovery of the booster by allowing additional performance increase.  Maybe using deep cooled propellant is necessary for booster recovery for the F9?  Maybe SpaceX doesn't want to have a different procedure for 1-2 commercial crew launches a year?

As far as I know, nobody from SpaceX has confirmed that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants.  I see a lot of speculation and assumptions on this thread that it doesn't retain this capability but I have yet to see confirmation from a reliable source that the F9 can only use deep cooled propellant now. 

To me if it was true that the F9 is only capable of using deep cooled propellant then I think this would have come out in the public space by now and the tone of the discussion would be different. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 05:20 pm
Do we know how critical the disagreement  between NASA and SpaceX really is? From a technical POV, can't SpaceX just do it the way NASA wants?

No, SpaceX can't without doing major mods to the launch procedures, fueling procedures, GSE and the vehicle and engines itself.

Switching to the deep cooled propellants was, for all practical intentions and purposes, a one-way trip. Going back to "regular-temperature" propellants has a very substantial price-tag. One that won't be covered by what SpaceX is getting for CCtCAP.

Has that been confirmed by SpaceX that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants?

Though I don't recall them saying that, if they retained that option would we be going thru this discussion? Why would SpaceX insist on doing it their way if they can just as easily do it the NASA way?

Unless SpaceX is convinced that their way is much safer? (maybe they know something about the F9 that we don't and they don't consider stable replenish to be a safe state for any length of time ??)


One of the key reasons for using deep cooled propellant was recovery of the booster by allowing additional performance increase.  Maybe using deep cooled propellant is necessary for booster recovery for the F9?  Maybe SpaceX doesn't want to have a different procedure for 1-2 commercial crew launches a year?

As far as I know, nobody from SpaceX has confirmed that the F9 doesn't retain the ability to use non deep cooled propellants.  I see a lot of speculation and assumptions on this thread that it doesn't retain this capability but I have yet to see confirmation from a reliable source that the F9 can only use deep cooled propellant now. 

To me if it was true that the F9 is only capable of using deep cooled propellant then I think this would have come out in the public space by now and the tone of the discussion would be different.

Unique new software and procedures for 1-2 flights per year actually increases risk compared to using the same F9 that has a long flight history and flies 30 times a year.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Spindog on 05/09/2018 05:26 pm
I'm not sure why loading fuel and then the crew is off the table. Seems like the crew could load after fueling in about a 15 minute window, then do some quick pressure checks (having already done full system checks before loading fuel). I'd bet this could be easily done and ground crew clear away for launch inside of 10 or 15 minutes. Might consider building a "close as possible" waiting bunker for the crew and ground staff to stay as close to the pad during fueling to reduce travel time. This isn't Apollo and there's no reason the astronauts would have to sit in the rocket for an hour plus of checks. Why wouldn't this work?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rliebman on 05/09/2018 05:32 pm
a thought: SX could select 1 - N upcoming flights and model the fuel / load / go approach and validate the KPIs / data associated.  a static fire opportunity might be a logical approach.  moreover, they could repeat this approach as part of the validation of the Block 5 reuse cycles.  it is not perfect, but.......
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 05:48 pm
a thought: SX could select 1 - N upcoming flights and model the fuel / load / go approach and validate the KPIs / data associated.  a static fire opportunity might be a logical approach.  moreover, they could repeat this approach as part of the validation of the Block 5 reuse cycles.  it is not perfect, but.......

This reduces the performance of the launch vehicle (which reduces margin and increases risk) and means that high performance launches have to go on a unique configuration (which reduces flight heritage and increases risk).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 05/09/2018 06:31 pm
I'm not sure why loading fuel and then the crew is off the table. Seems like the crew could load after fueling in about a 15 minute window, then do some quick pressure checks (having already done full system checks before loading fuel). I'd bet this could be easily done and ground crew clear away for launch inside of 10 or 15 minutes. Might consider building a "close as possible" waiting bunker for the crew and ground staff to stay as close to the pad during fueling to reduce travel time. This isn't Apollo and there's no reason the astronauts would have to sit in the rocket for an hour plus of checks. Why wouldn't this work?

It takes a lot longer that to get a) loaded up, b)strapped in, c) verify crew-hardware interfaces (comm checks, suit airflow, etc), d) close the hatch, e) perform a leak check to verify hatch seal integrity, and f) have the closeout crew retreat to a safe location.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/10/2018 11:24 am
If NASA decides that the current fuelling procedure is a no go for their astronauts and SpaceX decides that it is not worth the effort to satisfy NASA's requirement, could SpaceX still sell seats on Dragon 2 to other customers?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/10/2018 12:20 pm
If NASA decides that the current fuelling procedure is a no go for their astronauts and SpaceX decides that it is not worth the effort to satisfy NASA's requirement, could SpaceX still sell seats on Dragon 2 to other customers?

There's no law stopping them from flying passengers, even without NASA's approval. That's a strictly commercial activity and regulated by the FAA.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/10/2018 01:27 pm
There's no law stopping them from flying passengers, even without NASA's approval. That's a strictly commercial activity and regulated by the FAA.

To the ISS? Totally NASA's decision and last I heard the answer was "don't even ask". With a change of administration, let's hope that changes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/10/2018 01:42 pm
There's no law stopping them from flying passengers, even without NASA's approval. That's a strictly commercial activity and regulated by the FAA.

To the ISS? Totally NASA's decision and last I heard the answer was "don't even ask". With a change of administration, let's hope that changes.

I think orbital tourism for a couple of hours is the more likely possibility in the near future.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/10/2018 01:46 pm
I think orbital tourism for a couple of hours is the more likely possibility in the near future.

You think SpaceX is going to fly Dragon 2 on anyone else's dime but NASA's? I don't. If there's seats available, it'll be on a flight to the ISS, or nothing at all.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/10/2018 01:55 pm
If NASA tells SpaceX that they must change the loading procedure to be certified and SpaceX refuses to do it what is the result?   Or to put it legally, If NASA requests a contract modification and SpaceX chooses not to do it are there any penalties involved?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 05/10/2018 02:45 pm
If NASA tells SpaceX that they must change the loading procedure to be certified and SpaceX refuses to do it what is the result?   Or to put it legally, If NASA requests a contract modification and SpaceX chooses not to do it are there any penalties involved?

It would trigger contract default clauses and all the penalties associated therewith.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/10/2018 02:52 pm
If NASA decides that the current fuelling procedure is a no go for their astronauts and SpaceX decides that it is not worth the effort to satisfy NASA's requirement, could SpaceX still sell seats on Dragon 2 to other customers?

The answer is tied up in regulations. Earlier posts say NASA will nix any traffic to the ISS. So, is there a market for a trip around the block (orbit) again and again and then come back to Earth? If Yes, then the FAA seems likely to say Yes (IMHO).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MaxTeranous on 05/10/2018 02:57 pm
If NASA tells SpaceX that they must change the loading procedure to be certified and SpaceX refuses to do it what is the result?   Or to put it legally, If NASA requests a contract modification and SpaceX chooses not to do it are there any penalties involved?

It would trigger contract default clauses and all the penalties associated therewith.

Penalties for whom tho?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 05/10/2018 03:00 pm
The answer is tied up in regulations. Earlier posts say NASA will nix any traffic to the ISS. So, is there a market for a trip around the block (orbit) again and again and then come back to Earth? If Yes, then the FAA seems likely to say Yes (IMHO).

The question isn't whether there's a market for orbital flights... the question is whether Dragon 2 is a viable market to service that market and whether SpaceX has any interest in being in that market. I don't think either of those questions have an affirmative answer. Hope I'm wrong, of course.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 05/10/2018 03:03 pm
If NASA tells SpaceX that they must change the loading procedure to be certified and SpaceX refuses to do it what is the result?   Or to put it legally, If NASA requests a contract modification and SpaceX chooses not to do it are there any penalties involved?

It would trigger contract default clauses and all the penalties associated therewith.
Only if the original contract stipulated the new loading method. If the contact was agreed with the current loading then spacex could contract is no longer valid and walk away with no penalties
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/10/2018 05:26 pm


Unique new software and procedures for 1-2 flights per year actually increases risk compared to using the same F9 that has a long flight history and flies 30 times a year.

I agree.  However NASA is the customer and they have final say. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/10/2018 05:28 pm
There's no law stopping them from flying passengers, even without NASA's approval. That's a strictly commercial activity and regulated by the FAA.

To the ISS? Totally NASA's decision and last I heard the answer was "don't even ask". With a change of administration, let's hope that changes.

I was thinking just a few days in space, or maybe to a future private station. NASA would obviously have a say in flights to ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 05/10/2018 06:28 pm
If NASA tells SpaceX that they must change the loading procedure to be certified and SpaceX refuses to do it what is the result?   Or to put it legally, If NASA requests a contract modification and SpaceX chooses not to do it are there any penalties involved?

It would trigger contract default clauses and all the penalties associated therewith.
Only if the original contract stipulated the new loading method. If the contact was agreed with the current loading then spacex could contract is no longer valid and walk away with no penalties

The contracts don't have design details in them, they have requirements, among them being Loss of Crew requirements.  NASA has to sign off on whether the delivered hardware meets the requirements.  If a provider cannot provide data to support signing that particular verification closure, the hardware won't be accepted.  At that point, they can attempt to request waivers or variances, but that's at NASA's discretion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/10/2018 06:32 pm
The question isn't whether there's a market for orbital flights... the question is whether Dragon 2 is a viable market to service that market and whether SpaceX has any interest in being in that market. I don't think either of those questions have an affirmative answer. Hope I'm wrong, of course.
The answer to the question is BFS, not Dragon.  Without NASA, Dragon2 ceases to exist.

IMHO.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/10/2018 06:48 pm
Without NASA, Dragon2 ceases to exist.

IMHO.

Wasn't D2 Cargo and Crew? So maybe only D2 cargo.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mn on 05/10/2018 07:12 pm
Elon believes that this flight will count toward commercial crew (7 before crew).

Just a curious question: does 7 flights before crew require 7 new cores? or will NASA be satisfied with just a few cores doing 7 flights?

Considering that NASA will probably want a new core, they might want to see 7 new cores before crew?

Sorry if this has already been discussed 17 times, just point me in the right direction.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/10/2018 07:32 pm
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):
Quote
Musk on 'Load and Go" - The issue has been overblow. We can load the prop then load the astronauts.

Musk: Load and go is not a safety issue for astronauts. Can do before astros load. But this is an overblown issue. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/10/2018 08:08 pm
Without NASA, Dragon2 ceases to exist.

IMHO.

Wasn't D2 Cargo and Crew? So maybe only D2 cargo.
That's a great point.  That would be a really weird ending...

Sounds like Musk is not concerned, so this is all probably wasted thought exercises anyway.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 05/10/2018 08:21 pm
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):
Quote
Musk on 'Load and Go" - The issue has been overblow. We can load the prop then load the astronauts.

Musk: Load and go is not a safety issue for astronauts. Can do before astros load. But this is an overblown issue. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5

Nothing like a good old NSF forum "tempest in a teapot" based on incomplete information...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 05/10/2018 08:23 pm
We can load the prop then load the astronauts.
Six months later after a sign of relief from NASA, then
Quote
You meant you want to load the dragon 2 with astronauts propulsively on the rocket!?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/10/2018 08:24 pm
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):
Quote
Musk on 'Load and Go" - The issue has been overblow. We can load the prop then load the astronauts.

Musk: Load and go is not a safety issue for astronauts. Can do before astros load. But this is an overblown issue. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5

Nothing like a good old NSF forum "tempest in a teapot" based on incomplete information...

It was a lot more than that; the issue got a lot of mainstream media coverage.

But that negates the question of whether SpaceX would back out of CC if NASA insisted on fueling first.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: DigitalMan on 05/10/2018 08:30 pm
Isn't that the answer right there?  SpaceX is not going to back out they can do it the NASA way.  If NASA signs off on the SpaceX method however, great.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jak Kennedy on 05/11/2018 07:30 am
Elon Musk: “Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do.”

So not to start another tempest, someone could perhaps ask Elon if the propellants have to be sub cooled? Or just extra chilly is enough.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 05/11/2018 07:56 am
Elon Musk: “Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do.”

So not to start another tempest, someone could perhaps ask Elon if the propellants have to be sub cooled? Or just extra chilly is enough.

Sub-cooling is tied-in hard to the propellant loading GSE. By the time the crew has finally been loaded, and the rocket is ready to go, most, if not all, of the density advantage is gone. Which is probably fine for CCP missions given that the payload is only going to LEO. Propellant sub-cooling, followed by immediate launch, is primarily beneficial for heavy lift to GTO/GEO.

Reading between the lines of Elon's comment it is clear that 'Load-n-go' is still his preferred way of launching CCP missions. Note his use of the words "could" instead of "will".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mme on 05/11/2018 04:45 pm
Elon Musk: “Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do.”

So not to start another tempest, someone could perhaps ask Elon if the propellants have to be sub cooled? Or just extra chilly is enough.

Sub-cooling is tied-in hard to the propellant loading GSE. By the time the crew has finally been loaded, and the rocket is ready to go, most, if not all, of the density advantage is gone. Which is probably fine for CCP missions given that the payload is only going to LEO. Propellant sub-cooling, followed by immediate launch, is primarily beneficial for heavy lift to GTO/GEO.

Reading between the lines of Elon's comment it is clear that 'Load-n-go' is still his preferred way of launching CCP missions. Note his use of the words "could" in stead of "will".
I have a dumb question. As the LOX warms it'll vent, no big deal.  As the RP-1 warms and expands do they use the feed line to "vent" (like when draining after an abort), or is there a separate umbilical to capture overflow? I assume they don't run it down the side of the rocket. :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/11/2018 05:43 pm
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):
Quote
Musk on 'Load and Go" - The issue has been overblow. We can load the prop then load the astronauts.

Musk: Load and go is not a safety issue for astronauts. Can do before astros load. But this is an overblown issue. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5

Here's the whole transcript (https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e) of that question and answer
Quote
Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi Elon. Thanks for chatting with us before the launch. We know astronauts will one day be launching on the Block 5, and I understand NASA is still studying whether they're going to be comfortable with the Load and Go fueling process. And I know you and SpaceX have a different view of the risk in that operation. So do you think you can convince NASA of the safety of the Load and Go fueling process? And would you be willing to change or adjust that procedure for Commercial Crew if NASA requests it. Thanks.

Elon Musk: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do. But I don't think it's going to be necessary, anymore than passengers on an aircraft need to wait until the aircraft is fully fueled before boarding. I mean, that would be a crazy delay if everyone off of the aircraft and until it gets fueled, now you can't board. But no, it's normal to load propellant, to load fuel on an aircraft while boarding, or have the fuel fully loaded before boarding. It's not a fundamental risk. You know, we need to make sure about things like the COPVs. I'd say like, the only material risk I'm aware of is the COPV, and the amount of testing and research that's gone into COPV safety is gigantic. This is by far the most advanced pressure vessel ever developed by humanity. It's nuts. And I've personally gone over the test design, I've lost count how many times. But the top engineering minds at SpaceX have agonized over this. We've tested the living daylights out of it. We've been in deep, deep discussions with NASA about this. And I think we're in a good situation. We do have a contingency plan for the COPV, which I'd say would really be the only thing that represents a risk of any materiality. Which would be a switch from high-strength carbon fiber with aluminum liner to a, sort of like, an Inconel sphere. We have a contingency plan for that, if need be. But I think that is unlikely to be necessary. But that's really the only thing that I'd consider to be the most [legitimate?] of the risks. But yeah, this is really not something that should be needed. I mean, we obviously have competitors that are willing to make hay out of it, but I really do not see this as a risk representing any materiality. And worst case scenario, we've already demonstrated that Dragon is fully capable of a safe abort from zero velocity, zero altitude, and escaping whatever fireball that may occur on the pad, even in a worst case situation. So I really do not think this represents a safety issue for astronauts. But if, for any reason, NASA felt different, we can adjust our operational procedures to load propellant before the astronauts board. But I really think this is an overblown issue.

So potentially a "COPV 3.0" or "feul before crew" options.
It didn't seem that the COPVs were really the issue for "crew before load".
Rather it was Jim's points of stable vs dynamic conditions in general.
Musk's being so sanguine is fascinating.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cppetrie on 05/14/2018 11:13 pm
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):
Quote
Musk on 'Load and Go" - The issue has been overblow. We can load the prop then load the astronauts.

Musk: Load and go is not a safety issue for astronauts. Can do before astros load. But this is an overblown issue. #SpaceX #Falcon9 #Block5

Here's the whole transcript (https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/5ba82bd5f4099934fa0556b9d09c123e) of that question and answer
Quote
Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now: Hi Elon. Thanks for chatting with us before the launch. We know astronauts will one day be launching on the Block 5, and I understand NASA is still studying whether they're going to be comfortable with the Load and Go fueling process. And I know you and SpaceX have a different view of the risk in that operation. So do you think you can convince NASA of the safety of the Load and Go fueling process? And would you be willing to change or adjust that procedure for Commercial Crew if NASA requests it. Thanks.

Elon Musk: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. I think that issue's been somewhat overblown. We certainly could load the propellant and then have the astronauts board Dragon. That's certainly something we could do. But I don't think it's going to be necessary, anymore than passengers on an aircraft need to wait until the aircraft is fully fueled before boarding. I mean, that would be a crazy delay if everyone off of the aircraft and until it gets fueled, now you can't board. But no, it's normal to load propellant, to load fuel on an aircraft while boarding, or have the fuel fully loaded before boarding. It's not a fundamental risk. You know, we need to make sure about things like the COPVs. I'd say like, the only material risk I'm aware of is the COPV, and the amount of testing and research that's gone into COPV safety is gigantic. This is by far the most advanced pressure vessel ever developed by humanity. It's nuts. And I've personally gone over the test design, I've lost count how many times. But the top engineering minds at SpaceX have agonized over this. We've tested the living daylights out of it. We've been in deep, deep discussions with NASA about this. And I think we're in a good situation. We do have a contingency plan for the COPV, which I'd say would really be the only thing that represents a risk of any materiality. Which would be a switch from high-strength carbon fiber with aluminum liner to a, sort of like, an Inconel sphere. We have a contingency plan for that, if need be. But I think that is unlikely to be necessary. But that's really the only thing that I'd consider to be the most [legitimate?] of the risks. But yeah, this is really not something that should be needed. I mean, we obviously have competitors that are willing to make hay out of it, but I really do not see this as a risk representing any materiality. And worst case scenario, we've already demonstrated that Dragon is fully capable of a safe abort from zero velocity, zero altitude, and escaping whatever fireball that may occur on the pad, even in a worst case situation. So I really do not think this represents a safety issue for astronauts. But if, for any reason, NASA felt different, we can adjust our operational procedures to load propellant before the astronauts board. But I really think this is an overblown issue.

So potentially a "COPV 3.0" or "feul before crew" options.
It didn't seem that the COPVs were really the issue for "crew before load".
Rather it was Jim's points of stable vs dynamic conditions in general.
Musk's being so sanguine is fascinating.
If it’s an Inconel PV it isn’t really a COPV because it lacks the CO. So more just PV 3.0.  Unless I totally misunderstood what he was suggesting with the Inconel comment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 05/15/2018 10:54 am

If it’s an Inconel PV it isn’t really a COPV because it lacks the CO. So more just PV 3.0.  Unless I totally misunderstood what he was suggesting with the Inconel comment.
Without any knowledge of what they did, I could see using a thin Inconel shell in place of the Aluminum one.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 05/15/2018 12:55 pm

If it’s an Inconel PV it isn’t really a COPV because it lacks the CO. So more just PV 3.0.  Unless I totally misunderstood what he was suggesting with the Inconel comment.
Without any knowledge of what they did, I could see using a thin Inconel shell in place of the Aluminum one.

Which would help since Inconel has a lower Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion than aluminium. This would put less stress on the carbon part of the COPV.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/15/2018 01:58 pm
The Inconel pressure vessels are not COPVs
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/17/2018 03:22 pm
Listening to ASAP meeting, some discussion of CC program. 

The panel reviewed reports from NASA NESC on SpaceX's SE&I practices and on the potential risks of fueling the vehicle with crew on board.  They also met with NASA NESC this week.  NESC apparently has a very low opinion of the SE&I practices at SpaceX after doing a 16 month study.  The ASAP panel was pretty clear that they think resolving this issue is very important for the CC program.  Several members did speak about the need to allow SpaceX and other commercial partners to develop and use their own tools/processes to get the job done instead of just adopting NASA's practices, they just didn't seem convinced SpaceX is quite there yet.

Some ASAP members toured LC-39A, focusing on F9 launch ops.

There is still some concern about the COPVs on F9 but progress is being made in studying those issues, both SpaceX and NASA very focused on it.  The testing allows them to determine boundary conditions and set margins for the COPV usage.  Still some work to do there.

The discussion about Load and Go (fueling F9 with crew on board) was fairly neutral this time, a couple members who commented on the topic said it might be acceptable as long as controls are in place to address the potential hazards that have been identified.  They seemed more concerned about COPVs than Load and Go at this point.

Some discussion of the activities to potentially add a third member and lengthen the first Boeing test flight, panel seems to think it's a good idea as a contingency plan if the CC program schedule slips more.

They expect the schedule to slip from the current offical dates (which have crewed flights this year), said having both uncrewed demos in 2018 would probably be a good year for CC program.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ngilmore on 05/17/2018 10:34 pm
The Los Angeles Times' take on the ASAP meeting (paywall after article limit reached per month I think):

Quote
Several members of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said that as long as potential hazards can be controlled, loading crew before fueling is finished could be acceptable.

"My sense is that, assuming there are adequate, verifiable controls identified and implemented for the credible hazard causes, and those which could potentially result in an emergency situation … it appears load-and-go is a viable option for the program to consider," panel member Capt. Brent Jett Jr. (Ret.) said during Thursday's meeting.
...
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel said the NASA Commercial Crew program is expected to make a decision soon on the appropriate sequence for loading crew and fuel into SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-load-and-go-20180517-story.html

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 05/18/2018 03:10 am
Why do I have the feeling that Musk has just called NASA's bluff about the fueling procedure. 

By retaining the ability to fly the F9 without super-cooled propellant SpaceX has given NASA the choice.

#1- Either fly with the normal process of astronauts load and then the F9 is fueled.

#2- Or fly with the process of not using super-cooled propellant and the astronauts load after the rocket is fueled.

NASA's knows that option #2 isn't a good choice because they would be using a different fueling procedure than the rest of SpaceX's launches.  This introduces a whole new set of possibilities for things to go wrong because SpaceX would be dramatically changing a critical launch process for just 1-2 launches a year.  Despite all the noise made by certain groups about the fueling process, NASA knows the safest process is #1. 

It also looks like SpaceX really made a effort to prove to NASA that the design changes in block-5 for the COPV will prevent a repeat of AMOS-6.  SpaceX was also smart by not backing itself into the corner about using super-cooled propellant by retaining the option to not use super-cooled propellant.  Despite all the postings on this thread that SpaceX had backed itself into a corner about using super-cooled propellant.  This flexibility in fueling procedure was required to allow SpaceX to call NASA's bluff on the subject. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 05/20/2018 04:01 pm
No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.

We fuel airplanes with passengers aboard.

Guess we have to learn to do it with rockets, too.

Not at all a valid analogy.  Cryogens are not involved.

Jim, don’t bother them with facts. They will believe what they want to believe, and play word games just to say “i won.” I stopped responding to the ridiculous posts. They can’t argue for greater reliance on LAS as the solution to “fuel and go” potential risks, and then say nothing is different from how launches have always been conducted...but that is pretty much what has happened here.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 05/20/2018 05:17 pm
They can’t argue for greater reliance on LAS as the solution to “fuel and go” potential risks,
And you can't say the LAS is irrelevant to the probability of LOC calculation.

"The solution" to the risk is a thorough qualification and test flight program. That has to establish a LOM risk at a low and acceptable level, since a fueling anomaly would be LOM.

The LAS them further reduces the probability of LOC below the probability of LOM.

Quote
and then say nothing is different from how launches have always been conducted...but that is pretty much what has happened here.

What? Who said "nothing is different" with load and go?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2018 03:12 pm
These images of the commercial crew astronauts training have likely already been posted but, in case they haven't, here is a link to the images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/sets/72157655607394806

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1004351233845612544
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: wrvn on 06/06/2018 07:52 pm
These images of the commercial crew astronauts training have likely already been posted but, in case they haven't, here is a link to the images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/sets/72157655607394806

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1004351233845612544

Any ideas why the lack of SpaceX images of crew dragon and astronauts. All images we got are some weird angle barely showing anything. Are there even any images of final crew dragon interior? And what about space suit images? All we got are 2-3 highly photoshopped ones not showing much details.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/06/2018 10:02 pm
These images of the commercial crew astronauts training have likely already been posted but, in case they haven't, here is a link to the images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/sets/72157655607394806

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1004351233845612544

Any ideas why the lack of SpaceX images of crew dragon and astronauts. All images we got are some weird angle barely showing anything. Are there even any images of final crew dragon interior? And what about space suit images? All we got are 2-3 highly photoshopped ones not showing much details.

Of course they have images... They document everything thoroughly.

They'll blast out plenty of images when it suits them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: hkultala on 06/07/2018 03:44 am
I have a dumb question. As the LOX warms it'll vent, no big deal.  As the RP-1 warms and expands do they use the feed line to "vent" (like when draining after an abort), or is there a separate umbilical to capture overflow? I assume they don't run it down the side of the rocket. :)

Better to just not load too much of it in the first place.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/07/2018 07:01 am
These images of the commercial crew astronauts training have likely already been posted but, in case they haven't, here is a link to the images:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasakennedy/sets/72157655607394806

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1004351233845612544

Any ideas why the lack of SpaceX images of crew dragon and astronauts. All images we got are some weird angle barely showing anything. Are there even any images of final crew dragon interior? And what about space suit images? All we got are 2-3 highly photoshopped ones not showing much details.

I've explained this several times in multiple threads: the lack of clear images of Crew Dragon and its interior is per orders from top-level management at SpaceX. They will reveal the final look of Crew Dragon and its interior when they think the time is right.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 06/14/2018 06:20 am
I'm not sure if you read NASA's publication "between the lines".

Read the latest blog post of NASA about today's spacewalk.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/06/12/two-nasa-astronauts-set-to-go-on-their-third-spacewalk-this-year/

Do you see something interesting?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kasponaut on 06/14/2018 06:31 am
I'm not sure if you read NASA's publication "between the lines".

Read the latest blog post of NASA about today's spacewalk.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/06/12/two-nasa-astronauts-set-to-go-on-their-third-spacewalk-this-year/

Do you see something interesting?

No - what is it? ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/14/2018 07:55 am
I'm not sure if you read NASA's publication "between the lines".

Read the latest blog post of NASA about today's spacewalk.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/06/12/two-nasa-astronauts-set-to-go-on-their-third-spacewalk-this-year/

Do you see something interesting?

Do you mean?
" The first uncrewed test missions are planned to begin at the end of the year."
As distinct from August the published date.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 06/14/2018 08:01 am
Exactly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: theinternetftw on 06/14/2018 07:53 pm
" The first uncrewed test missions are planned to begin at the end of the year."

So much for that being an official position. (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1007310319935524864)

Quote from: Eric Berger
I'm told this was a "typo" by NASA's web guy. Agency's official position is still "later this year."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 06/14/2018 08:06 pm
NASA edited the problematic post. Still sticking to the dates announced earlier:

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/06/12/two-nasa-astronauts-set-to-go-on-their-third-spacewalk-this-year/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 06/17/2018 07:45 am
"Houston We Have a Podcast", the official podcast of the NASA Johnson Space Center, interviews Kathy Lueders, Manager of the Commercial Crew Program based at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida: https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/launch-america

Not much news except DM-1 goes to Plum Brook in 1.5 weeks, but worth listening to just for the unique perspective it provides.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: DigitalMan on 06/17/2018 05:47 pm
"Houston We Have a Podcast", the official podcast of the NASA Johnson Space Center, interviews Kathy Lueders, Manager of the Commercial Crew Program based at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida: https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/launch-america

Not much news except DM-1 goes to Plum Brook in 1.5 weeks, but worth listening to just for the unique perspective it provides.

That seems to be recorded on May 30, so DM-1 should be on it’s way
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/18/2018 04:32 am
She said the demo missions will not be licensed by FAA, but the post-certification missions will be licensed by FAA.

She also mentioned that one potential benefit of doing an extended crewed demo mission with Boeing would be giving them more time to check out and refurbish their uncrewed demo mission vehicle since they're planning to re-use it for their PCM-1 flight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 07/26/2018 07:11 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-name-astronauts-assigned-to-first-boeing-spacex-flights

Quote
NASA to Name Astronauts Assigned to First Boeing, SpaceX Flights

NASA will announce on Friday, Aug. 3, the astronauts assigned to crew the first flight tests and missions of the Boeing CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon, and begin a new era in American spaceflight. NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine will preside over the event, which will begin at 11 a.m. EDT on NASA Television and the agency’s website.

NASA will announce the crew assignments for the crew flight tests and the first post-certification mission for both Boeing and SpaceX. NASA partnered with Boeing and SpaceX to develop the Starliner spacecraft to launch atop a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket and the Crew Dragon launching atop the Falcon 9 rocket, respectively.

{...}

IMO I wish to put down Eric Boe & Sunita Williams for SpX DM-2 and Chris Ferguson, Douglas Hurley & Robert Behnken for Boeing CFT-1.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: DwightM on 07/26/2018 07:23 pm
Considering they're naming 4 crews it wouldn't surprise me to have one of each cadre crew per flight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 08/01/2018 12:32 pm
Irene Klotz - Space Editor, Aviation Week & Space Technology
‏@Free_Space

Quote
Boeing Starliner launch abort motor leak traced to faulty valves. Four of 8 stuck open following 1.5-sec hot-fire of service module test article June 2.  While repair underway, Boeing moving ahead w/ unmanned flight test in 5-6 mos, then launch abort & crew flight tests mid-2019

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1024480708792922114
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mgeagon on 08/01/2018 02:41 pm
Irene Klotz - Space Editor, Aviation Week & Space Technology
‏@Free_Space
Quote
Boeing Starliner launch abort motor leak traced to faulty valves. Four of 8 stuck open following 1.5-sec hot-fire of service module test article June 2.  While repair underway, Boeing moving ahead w/ unmanned flight test in 5-6 mos, then launch abort & crew flight tests mid-2019
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1024480708792922114

Interesting, is a 1.5 second test "full duration" as per Boeing's statement to Ars Technica? Can it be presumed that the uncrewed flight will not have the CAS installed on the service module or at least not have any bipropellant loaded for the flight? I was under the impression that the RCS used the same reservoir. Sorry, if this has been covered elsewhere.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 08/01/2018 05:25 pm
Interesting, is a 1.5 second test "full duration" as per Boeing's statement to Ars Technica?
Good question, that does seem short.  In the following video it looks like more of a ~3s burn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOv1ew1GPKc

In SpaceX's launch abort test of what is a relatively similar system it looks like their burn time runs somewhat over 4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHD9AmkxA0

Given that, 1.5s seems much too short to be called full duration.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/01/2018 05:31 pm
Test firings can be various lengths.  Full-duration for a particular test isn't necessarily full-duration for the intended use of the system.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mammutti on 08/02/2018 03:42 pm
IMO I wish to put down Eric Boe & Sunita Williams for SpX DM-2 and Chris Ferguson, Douglas Hurley & Robert Behnken for Boeing CFT-1.

And Chris Ferguson has now been confirmed to fly on the Starliner's first crewed mission next year.

Source: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/08/02/nasas-last-shuttle-commander-to-helm-test-flight-of-boeing-crew-capsule/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RandyP on 08/02/2018 07:18 pm
Why is NASA only naming 8 astronauts for the first 4 flights?
I see the two on DM-2 and two on CFT-1 plus Ferguson, but aren't the post certification flights part of crew rotation.  In which case I would expect 3 astronauts plus one Russian for each of the PCM flights?
So 10 astronauts?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/02/2018 07:33 pm
Why is NASA only naming 8 astronauts for the first 4 flights?
I see the two on DM-2 and two on CFT-1 plus Ferguson, but aren't the post certification flights part of crew rotation.  In which case I would expect 3 astronauts plus one Russian for each of the PCM flights?
So 10 astronauts?

Where are you getting 8 from?  It should be 2 on DM-2, 1 or 2 plus Ferguson on CFT (unless they exercise the extended mission option), and then 4 total (at least 2 from NASA) on each of the PCM flights.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/02/2018 08:13 pm
You would also have one Russian and one international astronauts on each of the PCM flight?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RandyP on 08/02/2018 08:29 pm
Why is NASA only naming 8 astronauts for the first 4 flights?
I see the two on DM-2 and two on CFT-1 plus Ferguson, but aren't the post certification flights part of crew rotation.  In which case I would expect 3 astronauts plus one Russian for each of the PCM flights?
So 10 astronauts?

Where are you getting 8 from?  It should be 2 on DM-2, 1 or 2 plus Ferguson on CFT (unless they exercise the extended mission option), and then 4 total (at least 2 from NASA) on each of the PCM flights.

I got the number 8 from a Business Insider article and it does say "at least 8"
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-commercial-crew-spacex-boeing-astronaut-selection-2018-7?amp%3Butm_medium=referral

So are these first PCM flights going to have a total crew of 4 (NASA, Russian, and International Partner)?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/03/2018 04:44 pm
You would also have one Russian and one international astronauts on each of the PCM flight?

To be negotiated...

and as always "it's complicated" in the case of the Russians.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RIB on 08/03/2018 04:50 pm
Well, so much for diversity...…….
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 08/03/2018 04:51 pm
NASA announces astronaut crews for first commercial vehicle flights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu13IPVFGp0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: DigitalMan on 08/03/2018 04:55 pm
There has been an AMA going on with the astronauts on reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 05:15 pm
Quote from: NASA
Additional crew members will be assigned by NASA’s international partners at a later date.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-assigns-crews-to-first-test-flights-missions-on-commercial-spacecraft
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/03/2018 05:19 pm
Well, so much for diversity...…….

Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 05:38 pm
Well, so much for diversity...…….

Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.

There is some logic in having military pilots on the first flights of a spacecraft.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 08/03/2018 06:16 pm
Well, so much for diversity...…….
Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.
There is some logic in having military pilots on the first flights of a spacecraft.

Yes, though it is presumably a bit of a coincidence that the four astronauts assigned to the Post Certification Missions are also military, just as it is a bit of a coincidence that all three NASA astronauts currently serving on the ISS as part of Expedition 56 are civilian.

And speaking of those PCMs, with Josh Cassada and Suni Williams assigned to the Boeing flight and Victor Glover and Mike Hopkins assigned to the SpaceX flight, that has effectively assigned them to the upcoming ISS Expeditions ... would it be 61/62 & 63/64?  When are we likely to find out which Expeditions the particular astronauts are assigned to (this should be clear from their training schedules, shouldn't it?) and thus know which PCM is scheduled first?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Yellowstone10 on 08/03/2018 06:31 pm
When are we likely to find out which Expeditions the particular astronauts are assigned to

I'm interested to see how they demarcate Expeditions going forwards, since there's no particular reason that Russian crew rotations would have to remain in sync with US/ESA/CSA/JAXA rotations.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 08/03/2018 08:30 pm
When are we likely to find out which Expeditions the particular astronauts are assigned to

I'm interested to see how they demarcate Expeditions going forwards, since there's no particular reason that Russian crew rotations would have to remain in sync with US/ESA/CSA/JAXA rotations.

My understanding is that even though the US plans to do overlapping hand-overs with its
6 monthly crew rotation the Russians still plan to do their  hand-overs as non-overlapping.
This means that to ensure that there is always at least 1 USOS and 1 Russian on the ISS
at all times in case of emergency, then there would be 1 Russian on each US crew launch and 1 USOS
member on each Soyuz launch. Consequently the increments would remain synchronized.
This is the pattern that will be used when the USOS crew goes to 4 members.

Carl
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 08:48 pm
Quote from: Hopper
Our background as test pilots and engineers was a consideration for this stage of these new vehicles. As far as other factors, you'll have to ask our boss! - Hopper

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jnds6/

Quote from: Doug
One of the reasons that we are in this position is because we have a background in flight test and space flying experience. We're able to adapt to a lot of different ways to operate a spacecraft. There is a significant collaboration between NASA and the companies to make these vehicles operate with relative ease. There is a constant feedback loop with regard to changes and improvements that might help in this goal. Each of us will specialize in one capsule before flying - Doug

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jnm7l/

Quote from: Suni
The the astronaut office asks us if we have a preference, and they take that into consideration, but there are other factors like what the mission will entail and the level of experience. -Suni

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jmegc/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 08/03/2018 10:40 pm
You would also have one Russian and one international astronauts on each of the PCM flight?

To be negotiated...

and as always "it's complicated" in the case of the Russians.

Are they balking at $82M per seat?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:05 pm
Quote from: Bob
The exact length for the first SpaceX flight is still being worked out. ISS is a busy place, so we have to make way for other traffic too. Right now we are expecting 2 weeks to 30 days. -Bob

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jmabh/


Quote from: Bob
Q: Is there a bathroom on the new commercial flights? dragon and starliner crew

A: For Dragon, yes. -Bob

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jnh3g/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:09 pm
You would also have one Russian and one international astronauts on each of the PCM flight?

To be negotiated...

and as always "it's complicated" in the case of the Russians.

Are they balking at $82M per seat?

It's barter. They get a seat on commercial crew in exchange for a Soyuz seat.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:11 pm
Quote from: Doug
I wouldn't say there are any major differences. It's more subtle. The way they are laid out and how they operate are slightly different. For example, the Starliner has three seats in row and one at the feet of the other three, while the Dragon has all four seats in a row. - Doug

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jmppi/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:21 pm
Quote from: Bob
Q: would you please explain does SpaceX'es helmet visor open?

A:
The visor does open. We normally have it open on our way to the pad, but closed for launch and for entry. -Bob

Quote from: Doug
Yes. There's two push buttons about where your chin is. They allow it to pop open whenever you need it to. - Doug

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jm7wq/

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jo8hq/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:35 pm
Quote from: Bob
Q:
To both the Starliner and Dragon crews. Will you be given the chance to fly the spacecrafts manually at some point during the missions or is it so heavily automated at this point that you wont get that opportunity? Congratulations and good luck on your missions!

A:
The details are still being worked out, but during the test flights, we expect to perform some checkout of all systems, including the manual flying! -Bob

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jml6x/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/03/2018 11:52 pm
Quote from: Doug
Q: I'm a tall person who would love to travel to space someday. Do you know the max height for Crew Dragon and the CST-100 Starliner?

A: My friend and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen is a pretty tall guy and he fits in both vehicles. - Doug

[For reference, Jeremy Hansen is about 6'2" (according to CBC).]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/94aqd7/were_going_to_be_the_first_us_astronauts_to/e3jovet/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2018 12:57 pm
Eric Berger mentioned on Off Nominal podcast (http://offnominal.space/11) that he heard Boeing will be charging NASA $110M if NASA chose to add a 3rd astronaut to CFT.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: eric z on 08/08/2018 01:34 pm
 I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?
 Calling these programs commercial is,IMHO, just inaccurate: maybe a new term needs to be invented!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 08/08/2018 01:40 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 08/08/2018 01:43 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?
 Calling these programs commercial is,IMHO, just inaccurate: maybe a new term needs to be invented!

IMO, This because Boeing would be selling a seat that they have from Roscosmos, providing Training, & Logistics for that Seat for a 6 month Rotation. Their cost goes up the CCtCAP goes up. "Commercial". Its not about the money. Its about getting Astronauts independently to ISS from U.S. on U.S. Rockets safe & timely manner. I am sure the Cosmonauts & U.S. Partner Astronauts are also eagerly waiting to fly on Commercial Crew Vehicles as well.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 08/08/2018 01:47 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at IIS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

I don't think so, Chris Ferguson is a trained Astronaut and their is plenty for him to do. He just might get paid more for it. :D
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/08/2018 02:05 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

I think that you are right, Chris Ferguson is no longer a NASA astronaut. If he stayed 6 months on the ISS, he would have to pay for his stay. Plus, if there is already 4 astronauts on the CST-100, there would be no need for a fifth one. But right now the plan is for a short stay at the ISS and only 2 NASA astronauts (plus Chris Ferguson).

Incidentally, SpaceX also had the option of having test pilots on its demo flight but declined to do so. Under the CCtCap request for proposals, the demo flight wasn't required to go to the ISS or even have NASA astronauts. But a number of people in Congress felt that if the demo flight was going to go the ISS, it had to have some NASA astronauts on board.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/08/2018 02:51 pm
Well, so much for diversity...…….

Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.
Which presents a challenge when crew diversity is a goal.
https://www.stripes.com/lifestyle/despite-recruitment-efforts-few-black-pilots-land-in-air-force-navy-cockpits-1.11138

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html

Given these statistics, and the apparent desire to use military pilots, I think NASA did well to put together this group.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/08/2018 05:21 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

No.  Boeing's crewed test flight always came with a Boeing astronaut.  SpaceX could have as well but chose not too.  In fact, originally NASA astronauts did not way to fly on uncertified vehicles until they realized that people other than them would be flying into space.  So NASA then fought that the second astronaut would be a NASA one even though the flight is uncertified.  But Ferguson will be going regardless.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/08/2018 05:22 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

I think that you are right, Chris Ferguson is no longer a NASA astronaut. If he stayed 6 months on the ISS, he would have to pay for his stay. Plus, if there is already 4 astronauts on the CST-100, there would be no need for a fifth one. But right now the plan is for a short stay at the ISS and only 2 NASA astronauts (plus Chris Ferguson).

Incidentally, SpaceX also had the option of having test pilots on its demo flight but declined to do so. Under the CCtCap request for proposals, the demo flight wasn't required to go to the ISS or even have NASA astronauts. But a number of people in Congress felt that if the demo flight was going to go the ISS, it had to have some NASA astronauts on board.

Not correct.  In fact, since a Boeing astronaut is part of the package it is more like Boeing selling his time.  It is NASA saying they want a longer flight so they have to provide the supplies etc.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/10/2018 04:24 am
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

I think that you are right, Chris Ferguson is no longer a NASA astronaut. If he stayed 6 months on the ISS, he would have to pay for his stay. Plus, if there is already 4 astronauts on the CST-100, there would be no need for a fifth one. But right now the plan is for a short stay at the ISS and only 2 NASA astronauts (plus Chris Ferguson).

Incidentally, SpaceX also had the option of having test pilots on its demo flight but declined to do so. Under the CCtCap request for proposals, the demo flight wasn't required to go to the ISS or even have NASA astronauts. But a number of people in Congress felt that if the demo flight was going to go the ISS, it had to have some NASA astronauts on board.

Not correct.  In fact, since a Boeing astronaut is part of the package it is more like Boeing selling his time.  It is NASA saying they want a longer flight so they have to provide the supplies etc.

OK, I stand corrected then but that would mean 5 astronauts on the CFT flight (assuming that the CFT is required for normal crew rotation). Although it is possible, 5 seems like a crowd (on the spacecraft and ISS).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 08/10/2018 04:27 pm

OK, I stand corrected then but that would mean 5 astronauts on the CFT flight (assuming that the CFT is required for normal crew rotation). Although it is possible, 5 seems like a crowd (on the spacecraft and ISS).

Starliner can handle 7 passengers like Crew Dragon, but wouldn't really need it, there was passenger transport concept showing they could handle 9 with retrofit.  ISS can handle 8 crew and with Commercial Crew they will from 6 to 7 crews, Russians might stick with 2 during that time so that would free up a bunk. so not really big deal other than logistics of getting their supplies up there for their mission if they go that route.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 08/22/2018 11:40 pm
 Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 08/23/2018 12:44 am
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 08/23/2018 12:56 am
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.
$85 million a seat sound fair?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 08/23/2018 01:01 am
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.
$85 million a seat sound fair?

NASA is prohibited from receiving payment for seats. Russia will have to provide "in kind contributions" for their seats :P

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/23/2018 07:02 am
NASA is prohibited from receiving payment for seats. Russia will have to provide "in kind contributions" for their seats :P

Soyuz (crew) and Progress (cargo) rides mostly.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 08/23/2018 01:25 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.
$85 million a seat sound fair?

NASA is prohibited from receiving payment for seats. Russia will have to provide "in kind contributions" for their seats :P

SpaceX and Boeing can take payment for seats or even for entire missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/23/2018 02:50 pm
This thread is starting to wander a bit.  The plans I've always heard are for a Russian to fly on CC vehicles and an American to continue flying on Soyuz, which would not require compensation in either direction.  Alternate possible seating arrangements and prices for non-NASA flights probably belong over in the Dragon 2 thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 08/23/2018 08:04 pm
This thread is starting to wander a bit.  The plans I've always heard are for a Russian to fly on CC vehicles and an American to continue flying on Soyuz, which would not require compensation in either direction.  Alternate possible seating arrangements and prices for non-NASA flights probably belong over in the Dragon 2 thread.
For normal operations what I've read agrees with what you've stated.

To non-answer the original question, I've never heard of any such contingency plan that was made public.  I imagine NASA might have something internally, but I can't really imagine them sharing it while we're in our whateverth year of depending on Soyuz to get to the station.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jbenton on 08/23/2018 09:22 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Hey guys, remember this:

http://aviationweek.com/blog/podcast-what-week-space
https://www.space.com/25718-russian-official-us-trampolines-space.html ?

(http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/05/Rogozin%27s%20trampoline.jpg)

That would be so ironic if Soyuz stops flying breifly while US Commercial is active.


Of course i hope that doesn't happen. The more the merrier; it'd be nice if the Russians could afford to launch 3 'nauts per Soyuz at sometime in the future
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 08/24/2018 08:38 am
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.

Yes, but as in a swap, Russians go up in Commercial Crew vehicles and Americans on Soyuz, one to one.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 08/25/2018 11:07 am
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.
$85 million a seat sound fair?
Wait until Soyuz capability is has to be stood down, then double the cost.  I remember there was a price increase for Soyuz seats on July 21, 2011.  I'm not sure why that day was chosen for a doubling of Soyuz seats?(sarc)

Did NASA actually send payments to Roskosmos for Western Astronaut Soyuz training/transportation to ISS?
I know that us Canadians have "bartered" hardware/services for Canadian ISS Commanders/Crewmembers and as part of our 2..  David St Jacques is due for launch on Expedition 58.  The last Canuck to ISS was Chris Hadfield in the position of Commander for Expedition 35, but that was almost 6 years ago now. Expedition 35 ended May 2013. The next Canadian to possibly be lofted to ISS in a new Commercial Crew Vehicle may be Jeremy Hansen.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 08/25/2018 02:49 pm
Let me guess. Seats will be provided free because Russians are needed to run the russian segment and services from there are still deemed required.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jbenton on 08/25/2018 06:20 pm
Let me guess. Seats will be provided free because Russians are needed to run the russian segment and services from there are still deemed required.

Wouldn't be surprised. I'm not saying that NASA doesn't need the money but America does not, whereas Roscosmos - and Russia generally - was kind of desperate. Mission designers would probably justify it by saying that they're going the high road.

On the other hand, there could be some Congressmembers who would fume at "wasted taxpayer dollars" and insist that NASA charge the Russians
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/25/2018 08:17 pm
Sorry if I missed this, but has there been any information on a deal for commercial to carry Russians and friends if there's a Soyuz standown for any reason?

Last I heard, the Russians are entitled to seats on Commercial Crew regardless of Soyuz future activity, same as the other partners.


You heard incorrectly.  The official plan was always just US (and non Russian IPs) astronauts but we always wanted a mix so that if any crew has to go home we have a mix of crew still on the ISS.  There have been complex negotiations ongoing for years over it - it was not a given or entitlement.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 08/27/2018 11:31 pm
"Balloon drop test?" 

"Landing legs"??

Michael Baylor@nextspaceflight
 The Crew Dragon capsule for the SpaceX DM-1 mission will be launch ready by the end of September.
5:38 PM - Aug 27, 2018

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1034193553491222528?s=19
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/27/2018 11:39 pm
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2018 06:49 am
"Balloon drop test?" 

Was mentioned before in public statements by NASA. The high-altitude balloon drop test is part of the on-going parachute qualification.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 08/28/2018 12:02 pm
As a Model X owner, I'm absurdly thrilled that the SpaceX astronauts are going to be driven to the pad in a Model X.  The falcon wing doors should be quite practical for astros in stiff suits.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 08/28/2018 12:20 pm
I'll offer to drive them in mine at no charge!  Great PR for Tesla but yes, the doors will make it really easy to get out.

As a Model X owner, I'm absurdly thrilled that the SpaceX astronauts are going to be driven to the pad in a Model X.  The falcon wing doors should be quite practical for astros in stiff suits.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/28/2018 03:59 pm
The different types of doors on automobiles is seriously off-topic for this thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/28/2018 05:04 pm
Some news from the NAC meeting:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-keeps-open-option-of-extended-commercial-crew-demo-flights/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 08/28/2018 05:58 pm
The different types of doors on automobiles is seriously off-topic for this thread.

Is astronaut transport to the pad covered under a different contract than CCtCAP?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: cscott on 08/28/2018 06:21 pm
The different types of doors on automobiles is seriously off-topic for this thread.

Is astronaut transport to the pad covered under a different contract than CCtCAP?
I'm curious to know Boeing's plans for pad transport as well.  Shuttle used a "modified 1983 Airstream Excella motorhome" and presumably it's still around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_transfer_van

I can guess that if a company asked nicely the Astrovan might be available as "NASA-supplied equipment".  What does the commerical crew contract say, if anything?

Another option would be to tow a trailer with the astronauts.  Model X is unique among EVs as having (manufacturer warranted) towing capacity, so that might even be the direction SpaceX is going.  That way you could build a legacy with the towed trailer without being stuck maintaining a 1983 engine indefinitely.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/ohmmans-airstream-adventures.83350/#post-1893314
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/28/2018 06:23 pm
The different types of doors on automobiles is seriously off-topic for this thread.

Is astronaut transport to the pad covered under a different contract than CCtCAP?
No. All part of the service NASA is paying for. So yes, that is IMO on-topic. But I’m not a mod.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/28/2018 06:47 pm
The post that prompted my warning went into a bit more detail on the history of car doors than was really necessary for this discussion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/29/2018 04:00 pm
I may be missing something, so sorry in advance!; but why should NASA pay extra to fly the Boeing test astronaut? [As much as I am thrilled CF is on the flight!- I called for the 2 providers to add their own crew-mwmbers from the start]. Or are they going to say the second NASA astro is the "Extra"?

I believe he was referring to the proposal that turns CFT into a crew rotation flight, 6 months stay at ISS. In which case I assume the Boeing test astronaut will be replaced by a NASA astronaut.

I think that you are right, Chris Ferguson is no longer a NASA astronaut. If he stayed 6 months on the ISS, he would have to pay for his stay. Plus, if there is already 4 astronauts on the CST-100, there would be no need for a fifth one. But right now the plan is for a short stay at the ISS and only 2 NASA astronauts (plus Chris Ferguson).

Incidentally, SpaceX also had the option of having test pilots on its demo flight but declined to do so. Under the CCtCap request for proposals, the demo flight wasn't required to go to the ISS or even have NASA astronauts. But a number of people in Congress felt that if the demo flight was going to go the ISS, it had to have some NASA astronauts on board.

Not correct.  In fact, since a Boeing astronaut is part of the package it is more like Boeing selling his time.  It is NASA saying they want a longer flight so they have to provide the supplies etc.

Not that a confirmation was actually needed but it is interesting to note that they had that the exact same discussion at the last NAC HEO meeting and they confirmed that Ferguson would then stay for an extended mission (if that option is exercised). They would not add any other astronauts to this mission even if it becomes an operational mission. Lueders mentionned that Fergusion had started ISS training in case this option is exercised. 

For more on this, see NSF's article on this:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46261.0
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 08/29/2018 05:06 pm
Would that make Ferguson the first commercial NASA astronaut?  He would still be paid by Boeing and a commercially employed astronaut but trained by NASA?

I know there have been other "citizens in space" but AFAIR those were all short-stay Shuttle trips or seats sold by the Russians to civilians.

The whole thing seems a little odd, although he is of course a former NASA astronaut.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: billh on 08/29/2018 10:43 pm
Would that make Ferguson the first commercial NASA astronaut?  He would still be paid by Boeing and a commercially employed astronaut but trained by NASA?

I know there have been other "citizens in space" but AFAIR those were all short-stay Shuttle trips or seats sold by the Russians to civilians.

The whole thing seems a little odd, although he is of course a former NASA astronaut.
In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 08/29/2018 10:55 pm
Would that make Ferguson the first commercial NASA astronaut?  He would still be paid by Boeing and a commercially employed astronaut but trained by NASA?

I know there have been other "citizens in space" but AFAIR those were all short-stay Shuttle trips or seats sold by the Russians to civilians.

The whole thing seems a little odd, although he is of course a former NASA astronaut.
In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
Right, those would have stayed only for the duration of the Shuttle mission, i.e. < two weeks.  Did any of them do a full six month tour?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jbenton on 08/30/2018 02:55 am
Would that make Ferguson the first commercial NASA astronaut?  He would still be paid by Boeing and a commercially employed astronaut but trained by NASA?

I know there have been other "citizens in space" but AFAIR those were all short-stay Shuttle trips or seats sold by the Russians to civilians.

The whole thing seems a little odd, although he is of course a former NASA astronaut.
In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
Right, those would have stayed only for the duration of the Shuttle mission, i.e. < two weeks.  Did any of them do a full six month tour?

Just checked Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_specialist#List_of_all_payload_specialists

Looks like none of them visited Mir, and only one flew during the ISS-era, STS-107 - which did not go to the ISS. The longest these sort of missions would last was 26 days, none of them did anything close to a six month tour. (At least, not according to Wikipedia)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/31/2018 02:18 am
Can someone unwrap this please?

 
Quote
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/31/2018 02:22 am
Can someone unwrap this please?

 
Quote
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,

The "suited simulations with cadre in buck" means astronauts wearing SpaceX suits running through simulations in the Crew Dragon mockup.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/31/2018 02:43 am
Can someone unwrap this please?

 
Quote
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,

The "suited simulations with cadre in buck" means astronauts wearing SpaceX suits running through simulations in the Crew Dragon mockup.
That's what I thought when I read it but "Suited" would suffice, why add "cadre in buck"? Just seemed odd. Looked up both words and now seems even odder but I'll leave it there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 08/31/2018 05:17 am
Typo for "buckled in"?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/31/2018 08:10 am
Can someone unwrap this please?

 
Quote
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,

The "suited simulations with cadre in buck" means astronauts wearing SpaceX suits running through simulations in the Crew Dragon mockup.
That's what I thought when I read it but "Suited" would suffice, why add "cadre in buck"? Just seemed odd. Looked up both words and now seems even odder but I'll leave it there.

"Cadre in buck" is a phrase coined by SpaceX. Buck is the term SpaceX uses for the Crew Dragon training mockup.
I once asked one of my SpaceX sources for the origin of the term and the explanation she came up with is rather funny. Not sure though if she was pulling my leg or was in fact serious: buck is another word for rattle, the kind of sound-making toy toddlers use to play with. The training mockup is similar in nature. It is what the "toddlers" (not-yet-trained-astronauts) use to discover and learn the basics of flying Crew Dragon.

From my dictionary I read that "Cadre" stands for: "a small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession." So clearly, "Cadre" refers to the astronauts.

It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.
Remember RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)? That's the SpaceX term for "Explosion".

Another example: a (Crew) Dragon pressure vessel is not referred to as such but is called a "Weldment".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 08/31/2018 01:09 pm
Can someone unwrap this please?

 
Quote
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,

The "suited simulations with cadre in buck" means astronauts wearing SpaceX suits running through simulations in the Crew Dragon mockup.
That's what I thought when I read it but "Suited" would suffice, why add "cadre in buck"? Just seemed odd. Looked up both words and now seems even odder but I'll leave it there.

"Cadre in buck" is a phrase coined by SpaceX. Buck is the term SpaceX uses for the Crew Dragon training mockup.
I once asked one of my SpaceX sources for the origin of the term and the explanation she came up with is rather funny. Not sure though if she was pulling my leg or was in fact serious: buck is another word for rattle, the kind of sound-making toy toddlers use to play with. The training mockup is similar in nature. It is what the "toddlers" (not-yet-trained-astronauts) use to discover and learn the basics of flying Crew Dragon.

From my dictionary I read that "Cadre" stands for: "a small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession." So clearly, "Cadre" refers to the astronauts.

It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.
Remember RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)? That's the SpaceX term for "Explosion".

Another example: a (Crew) Dragon pressure vessel is not referred to as such but is called a "Weldment".

"buck" is not a SpaceX-invented phrase. It's common jargon in the automotive (and perhaps others) industries for a mockup or display vehicle. SpaceX apparently borrowed it, to use in the same sense.

"cadre in buck" means "a group of people in the mockup vehicle".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: catdlr on 08/31/2018 05:53 pm
Commercial Crew: The Flight Tests


NASAKennedy
Published on Aug 31, 2018

Learn about the first flights of Boeing’s Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon with and without astronauts on board, and what they will accomplish for NASA and its commercial partner.

https://youtu.be/aoU5P2SSCho?t=001

https://youtu.be/aoU5P2SSCho
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/01/2018 09:34 pm
It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.
Remember RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)? That's the SpaceX term for "Explosion".
That's a fannish term, IIRC and it has been around forever I think.
Quote
Another example: a (Crew) Dragon pressure vessel is not referred to as such but is called a "Weldment".
I beleive a weldment is a term for anything primarily fabricated by welding and has a wider meaning than just the pressure vessel.

So no I don't think they are necessarily making up terms but they may be adopting whimsical ones deliberately in some cases.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 09/02/2018 12:42 pm
It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.
Remember RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)? That's the SpaceX term for "Explosion".
That's a fannish term, IIRC and it has been around forever I think.
Quote
Another example: a (Crew) Dragon pressure vessel is not referred to as such but is called a "Weldment".
I beleive a weldment is a term for anything primarily fabricated by welding and has a wider meaning than just the pressure vessel.

So no I don't think they are necessarily making up terms but they may be adopting whimsical ones deliberately in some cases.

Or just adopting terminology that may be more commonly used for like items/structures in non-aerospace fields.  Lots of their workforce has backgrounds outside of aerospace fields.  So, they may be bringing in terms that they were used to using from those fields in preference over the more usual aerospace jargon.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/02/2018 06:54 pm
Or just adopting terminology that may be more commonly used for like items/structures in non-aerospace fields.  Lots of their workforce has backgrounds outside of aerospace fields.  So, they may be bringing in terms that they were used to using from those fields in preference over the more usual aerospace jargon.
Yup. Some of each. RUD is fannish. Weldment is general.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/19/2018 09:52 am
Commercial crew providers believe they now meet NASA safety requirements

https://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-providers-believe-they-now-meet-nasa-safety-requirements/ (https://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-providers-believe-they-now-meet-nasa-safety-requirements/)

Quote from: Jeff Foust
“The number one safety-related concern for the program is the current situation with respect to the estimate of loss of crew,” Donald McErlean, a member of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, said at a meeting of the panel last year. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has also warned in reports that the companies were having problems meeting that loss-of-crew requirement.

However, during a panel discussion at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Space Forum here Sept. 18, executives of the two companies said they now believed their vehicles met that and related safety requirements.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: eric z on 09/19/2018 09:09 pm
 I thought immediately of "buck" in terms of Westerns - Buckskin! Cowboys or Indians, fringe, etc! When you are in your Buckskins you are ready for action...
 Always been a "Bonanza" fan, now I'm also digging "Laramie", "Wagon Train", "The Rifleman"; lots of stuff relevant in neat ways to space colonization. Also check the beginning and end of Heinlein's great "Tunnel in the Sky". 8)
 Slang from the old days reapplied to the new is a fascinating subject!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2018 12:37 am
2018 AIAA Space Forum: Commercial crew: The newest ride to LEO:
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/Space2018/videos/180468218
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 09/24/2018 09:44 pm
SpaceX Contract Mods:

Quote
MOD 52: The purpose of this modification is to revise CLIN 001 Milesonte 01B.5 Demo 1&2 Dragon Integration Checkpoint, update the New Technology Representative address and add GFP Radiation Arm Monitor and Tether (which were previously provided to the Contractor in advance of this mod because it was determined that no consideration was due in accordance with clause H.34
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 10/04/2018 11:33 am
Any idea what Eric Berger is talking about?

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304

Quote
There are some ugly things going on behind the scenes of the commercial crew competition. Will try to shine a bit of light on some of them this afternoon.

P.S.: https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047592486275878913
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 10/04/2018 11:39 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777

I wonder whether this is related:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/04/2018 11:53 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777

I wonder whether this is related:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304
"Ugly things".  Well; that has really got my attention! :(
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/04/2018 12:23 pm
A dirty tricks campaign of near-fake news... Well it's the era we're living in, eh? >:( :(
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/04/2018 12:24 pm
Any idea what Eric Berger is talking about?

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304

Quote
There are some ugly things going on behind the scenes of the commercial crew competition. Will try to shine a bit of light on some of them this afternoon.

P.S.: https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047592486275878913

A shadowy media cabal headed by Boeing is slandering SpaceX.

At least that's Eric Berger's theory.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/04/2018 12:26 pm
Here's the article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 10/04/2018 12:28 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

'did not submit' - if the original writer bothered to submit to two of six outlets, who submitted to the other four seems almost meaningless.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tuts36 on 10/04/2018 12:28 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guyw on 10/04/2018 12:36 pm
The piece in question was published on the editorial page of the New Hampshire Union Leader a week or so ago. I thought it was a bit suspect at the time when I read it.

Edit: Went back and found it. It was published in the Sept 21, 2018 edition.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 10/04/2018 01:01 pm
Ok so if not Boeing then who (or is it whom?). Boeing could get bragging rights if they are first to fly so there is an upside for them. Question is who else stands to gain from this? Some political group that wants jobs in certain states and SpaceX doesn't play nice.



https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/04/2018 01:16 pm
A shadowy media cabal headed by Boeing is slandering SpaceX.

At least that's Eric Berger's theory.

The Boeing part is theory, the shadowy media cabal slandering SpaceX part is definitely not a theory but a fact.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/04/2018 03:13 pm
Ok so if not Boeing then who (or is it whom?). Boeing could get bragging rights if they are first to fly so there is an upside for them. Question is who else stands to gain from this? Some political group that wants jobs in certain states and SpaceX doesn't play nice.
>

Aerospace Industries Association is a client of LMG, and according to their site SpaceX isn't a member of their club...

https://www.aia-aerospace.org/membership/our-members/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/04/2018 03:37 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?

Only 6 launches are guaranteed for each provider. There will be additional missions with additional funding that will be competed between SpaceX and Boeing. Boeing definitely stands to gain in that competition if SpaceX's safety can be questioned.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/04/2018 03:49 pm
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up in a future congressional hearing, I think there're more than one example in the past where fake news were quoted by congress to question SpaceX, Zuma being one.

Quote
I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?

Boeing is also the prime contractor for SLS, they would definitely benefit if commercial space in general and SpaceX in particular is being painted as unsafe.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/04/2018 04:21 pm
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2018 04:42 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/04/2018 04:43 pm
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

As much as they in public hype that 'a Boeing rocket will take the first astronaut to Mars', in private they are presumably very concerned about future space contracts and not being a prime mover in a very large future industry. This is about more than Commercial Crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tuts36 on 10/04/2018 04:56 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

No, but one hint is the geographical regions served by the publications that are publishing them.

*Edit: added the verb. Those are kindof important if you want a sentence to make sense...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/04/2018 05:36 pm
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 10/04/2018 06:22 pm

Only 6 launches are guaranteed for each provider. There will be additional missions with additional funding that will be competed between SpaceX and Boeing. Boeing definitely stands to gain in that competition if SpaceX's safety can be questioned.
Further to this, LOP-G is ramping up on funding, and delaying any serious questioning of that by even months could lead to tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of profit.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 10/04/2018 06:37 pm
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/04/2018 07:25 pm
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

It's not aimed at the selectors. It's aimed at the congresscritters with SpaceX competitor facilities in their districts, who also happen to hold the selectors leashes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/04/2018 07:52 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: groundbound on 10/04/2018 08:12 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.

At least in the US, "dark money" secret political expenses are very common and total many 100's of million dollars per year. In general, if the identity of the payer is disclosed it is because someone screwed up and broke confidentiality. There is no legal disclosure requirement, and quite a lot of infrastructure to obfuscate.

My own guess is that the payer is not Boeing. A lot of the motivations for this kind of stuff can be very obtuse. Boeing doing this would be overly obvious.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/04/2018 08:26 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.

At least in the US, "dark money" secret political expenses are very common and total many 100's of million dollars per year. In general, if the identity of the payer is disclosed it is because someone screwed up and broke confidentiality. There is no legal disclosure requirement, and quite a lot of infrastructure to obfuscate.

My own guess is that the payer is not Boeing. A lot of the motivations for this kind of stuff can be very obtuse. Boeing doing this would be overly obvious.

That’s my feeling as well that Boeing in this case is just too obvious an answer.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/04/2018 08:59 pm
It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/04/2018 11:28 pm
Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Point taken, but I don't think I would call a guaranteed 1/3 of the missions (minimum of 2 out of a maximum of 6) a "small fraction".  If ISS CCtCap demand extends ~+6 years after CCtCap IOC, both Boeing and SpaceX will max out their awards.  Only after that, or after issuance of another award in the interim (doubtful?), are we likely to see head-to-head CCtCap competition between Boeing and SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/04/2018 11:44 pm
Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 10/05/2018 12:02 am
Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.

Personally, I don't think this has much to do with CCtCap specifically but rather see it as more of a response to recent statements/comments/potential moves towards NASA embracing the use of commercial launchers (and most specifically SpaceX's offerings) instead of SLS for things like LOP-G supply.  That's got to be seen as just a stepping stone.  The goal being not to try to directly affect a specific program that's already been, more or less, awarded but rather to stop a potential change in NASA direction that would reduce the reliance on the program of record.  Stopping such a change in its tracks, at this point in time, would be made easier by "changing the narrative" around SpaceX (and other commercial upstarts).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 10/05/2018 03:47 am
The SLS defense theory?

(mod) some posts were moved here from another thread where they did not belong. If you think I moved one by mistake, report to mod...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 10/05/2018 06:46 am
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/05/2018 07:27 am
It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/05/2018 08:06 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

Okay, my answer goes like that: I (just like you) am an European. As an European, I belong to the Western part of the World, just like the USA. To me, it's very important the Western world to have independent transportation systems to sub-orbit (VG, BO), or to orbit (SX, Boe). As for interplanetary manned missions, ESA will already play a bigger role next decade with Orion.

This is not to say I don't admire Russian, Chinese, Indian or Japanese missions. It's just that it's closer for me to relate to Westen missions. It's not entirely rational. It's more like having a favorite sports team.

Part of my preference also comes from the argument of openness. If the USA (and ESA) are those who first send people to lunar orbit, the missions will be much more open. In democracy, public relations come first.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/05/2018 09:15 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/05/2018 09:22 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/05/2018 10:20 am
It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Well, it will have only taken 30 years since NASA first began looking at a separate crew return system for the space station. You can't expect miracles! :-) So why has it taken so long? Politics (turf fight with with Space Shuttle and lack of funding), the continual cancellation of one program after another (HL-20 PLS, ACRV, Lifeboat Alpha, X-38, OSP, Orion), bad design decisions (10 t Orion capsule and development of Ares I) and now NASA having to supervise three different capsules, putting a high workload on its plate.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jtrame on 10/05/2018 11:01 am
I'll counter with the possibility that Dragon 2 Crewed will have flown and that CST-100 crewed will be in the final stages of readiness on July 20, 2019.  It's possible.  It's capability.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/05/2018 11:27 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.


Two things:

- "All of mankind" includes China and Russia. Like it or not.
- Assuming that India is a democracy is far-fetched.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/05/2018 12:24 pm
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 10/05/2018 02:39 pm
It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.
You're right, they don't.  They contribute to think-tanks that do the dirty work for them.  I'm not pointing a finger at Boeing in this case.  But let's not be naive about how this game works, either.

The original op-ed and the later flurry of reprintings in various other cities look like spadework for possible future use in discrediting Musk and SpaceX.  Op-eds like this are written to lay the groundwork for later citation by a congressperson to throw shade behind a fig leaf of non-partisonship.  Congressional concern trolling at its finest.

And if it doesn't work?  Well you can always save it for later, or not.
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.
Op-Ed's aren't paid (much) for by the newspaper, sure.  That doesn't mean the author wasn't paid to write it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/05/2018 04:39 pm
... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/05/2018 04:44 pm
Trash talk is part of the business. SpaceX does it too.

Quote
"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-accuses-blue-origin-of-blocking-spacex-2013-9

Blue Origin didn't show up with a vehicle within 5 years, but neither did SpaceX.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 10/05/2018 04:49 pm
Trash talking is a little different than taking out full page advertisements.
Quote
Florida Today says the ads “have been running for about six weeks in Washington, D.C.-based political media outlets, directed toward policy makers in Congress and the Obama administration. The president’s proposed 2013 budget will be unveiled early next month.”
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/01/22/pratt-whitney-rocketdyne-takes-shot-at-spacex/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/05/2018 05:15 pm
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/05/2018 05:52 pm
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/05/2018 05:53 pm
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.

True, but if you are listed first... That implies it. Heavily.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Svetoslav on 10/05/2018 09:21 pm
Oh my, things are getting ugly. Read this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/05/2018 09:37 pm
Oh my, things are getting ugly. Read this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10

Yep, and this article provides the Boeing link. The author of the op-Ed says he only passed it to one person - a Boeing employee.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/05/2018 10:28 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1048319068581892098
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 10/05/2018 10:32 pm
I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.
True, but if you are listed first... That implies it. Heavily.

No, just means that the firm's marketing department wants to list prominent clients at the top.  If I have 999 ankle-biter clients and Apple is 1000th on the list by revenue-importance-whatever, what spot do you think they're going to get on my web page?  #1.

In any case, how did this thread get turned into discussion of low-brow-yellow-journalism-stupid-op-ed pieces?  This belongs in something more akin to a party section.  Or maybe an anti-party section.  Or stupid journalism section.  Or something.  Really not worth polluting this thread with such crap.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 10/05/2018 11:10 pm
In any case, how did this thread get turned into discussion of low-brow-yellow-journalism-stupid-op-ed pieces?  This belongs in something more akin to a party section.  Or maybe an anti-party section.  Or stupid journalism section.  Or something.  Really not worth polluting this thread with such crap.

What belongs in the party section? Eric Berger's story? The Business Insider follow-up piece? Or our discussion of it?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: deruch on 10/05/2018 11:24 pm
Trash talk is part of the business. SpaceX does it too.

Quote
"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-accuses-blue-origin-of-blocking-spacex-2013-9

Blue Origin didn't show up with a vehicle within 5 years, but neither did SpaceX.

Ok, technically true.  But SpaceX did use that pad for orbital launches with the same LV (more or less) which will be used as part of their crew transport system within the 5-year timeline.  In fact, they used it for multiple cargo supply missions to the ISS (as well as commercial launches).  And they're likely to fully meet all the conditions, i.e. crewed launch of qualified system to ISS, within ~6.5 years.  Which isn't horrific delay for such systems.  Maybe if BO had gotten the 39A lease they would have prioritized their launcher/capsule developments differently.  Who knows?  But even so, I highly doubt they would be anywhere close to where SpaceX is today on that metric. 

And, tying back into the article, those comments from Elon were in an entirely different business/competition context.  There was very clear and definite competition between the two companies at that time over the specific point in contention (BO had just filed their GAO protest against the selection of SpaceX for the 39A lease).  If Boeing was behind the current Op-Eds, it's not at all clear that there is any current direct and specific competition between the two companies.  And Elon's comments were explicitly official, not hidden PR.  In my opinion, the manner of using a paid, third-party Op-Ed in an attempt to mask the true source of the criticism is clearly different. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/05/2018 11:47 pm
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

Why do any of us care?! We believe in the future of Space, for all mankind. America is the largest player and in context gets our affection/attention.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/06/2018 04:56 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

Why do any of us care?! We believe in the future of Space, for all mankind. America is the largest player and in context gets our affection/attention.
We care because we are personally invested in the manned space program and it will be personally embarrassing if and when NASA makes a big hullabaloo about the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing while getting almost nothing done. As if they should take any credit for the accomplishments of their ancestors while touting their $20+B rocket and capsule that still haven’t launched (EFT-1 blah blah blah) Or found a purpose. Still getting rides in Soyuz, with the occasional drill hole in their pressure vessels, while they count how many killer micrometeoroid angels can dance in the heads of the ASAP. 
It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful.
[/rant]
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/08/2018 10:21 am
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

Why do any of us care?! We believe in the future of Space, for all mankind. America is the largest player and in context gets our affection/attention.
We care because we are personally invested in the manned space program and it will be personally embarrassing if and when NASA makes a big hullabaloo about the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing while getting almost nothing done. As if they should take any credit for the accomplishments of their ancestors while touting their $20+B rocket and capsule that still haven’t launched (EFT-1 blah blah blah) Or found a purpose. Still getting rides in Soyuz, with the occasional drill hole in their pressure vessels, while they count how many killer micrometeoroid angels can dance in the heads of the ASAP. 
It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful.
[/rant]

It’s not their rocket really though is it. More something imposed on them by politicians.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/08/2018 07:19 pm
We care because we are personally invested in the manned space program and it will be personally embarrassing if and when NASA makes a big hullabaloo about the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing while getting almost nothing done. As if they should take any credit for the accomplishments of their ancestors while touting their $20+B rocket and capsule that still haven’t launched (EFT-1 blah blah blah) Or found a purpose. Still getting rides in Soyuz, with the occasional drill hole in their pressure vessels, while they count how many killer micrometeoroid angels can dance in the heads of the ASAP. 
It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful.
[/rant]

There must be people in NASA HQ really hoping that Commercial Crew gets NASA astronauts back to the ISS and Lunar CATALYST gets robots to the Moon in 2019.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/11/2018 04:23 pm
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...

Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.

SpaceX:
COPV failure investigation still not closed.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.  Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed.  Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.

Boeing:
Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test.   A couple more tests still to do.
The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.
The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/12/2018 06:48 am
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...

Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.

SpaceX:
COPV failure investigation still not closed.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.  Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed.  Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.

Boeing:
Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test.   A couple more tests still to do.
The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.
The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.

I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour.  But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system. Nor did the behaviour negatively impact the overal function of the parachute system.
I've got one contact at SpaceX describing it as "ASAP making a big fuss over nothing".

Or, as we Dutch say: Making an elephant out of a mosquito.

Regulars around this forum know of my opinion about ASAP. ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. IMO they would call for re-design of the spacecraft if someone would accidently stick a NASA logo sticker upside-down on the F9 first stage.

They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.

Also, IMO, ASAP is biased. They have been very critical of CCP with, until recently, almost no critique on the POR (SLS and Orion). A fine example was in yesterday's ASAP meeting. When discussing CCP the ASAP members demanded issues to be solved; the phrase "has to be solved" was used several times. However, when discussing Orion the ASAP members only suggested that issues should be solved. The phrase "We urge NASA to reconsider the design" was used.

I find it very strange that ASAP is much more insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of the contractors, and ASAP being much less insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of NASA. That spells "bias" to me.

I find the reporting from OIG and GAO (which also pay attention to safety aspects) much more balanced and un-biased.
Finally, I can't help but feeling that ASAP does not understand that "better" is the enemy of "good enough".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 10/12/2018 12:23 pm
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...

Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.

SpaceX:
COPV failure investigation still not closed.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.  Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed.  Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.

Boeing:
Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test.   A couple more tests still to do.
The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.
The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.

I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour.  But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system. Nor did the behaviour negatively impact the overal function of the parachute system.
I've got one contact at SpaceX describing it as "ASAP making a big fuss over nothing".

Or, as we Dutch say: Making an elephant out of a mosquito.

Regulars around this forum know of my opinion about ASAP. ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. IMO they would call for re-design of the spacecraft if someone would accidently stick a NASA logo sticker upside-down on the F9 first stage.

They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.

Also, ASAP is biased. They have been very critical of CCP with, until recently, almost no critique on the POR (SLS and Orion). A fine example was in yesterday's ASAP meeting. When discussing CCP the ASAP members demanded issues to be solved; the phrase "must be solved" was used several times. However, when discussing Orion the ASAP members only suggested that issues should be solved. The phrase "We urge NASA to reconsider the design" was used.

I find it very strange that ASAP is much more insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of the contractors, and ASAP being much less insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of NASA. That spells "bias" to me.

I find the reporting from OIG and GAO (which also pay attention to safety aspects) much more balanced and un-biased.
Finally, I can't help but feeling that ASAP does not understand that "better" is the enemy of "good enough".

Something that impressed me from this meeting is how different the tone it was compared to the last meeting. On the last meeting it sounded like things were going better for both companies even if they had issues. This last one felt like they were seeing both companies were going through an apocalipse or something. How could that change in a matter of months?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/12/2018 12:55 pm
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...

Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.

SpaceX:
COPV failure investigation still not closed.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.  Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed.  Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.

Boeing:
Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test.   A couple more tests still to do.
The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.
The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.

I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour.  But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system. Nor did the behaviour negatively impact the overal function of the parachute system.
I've got one contact at SpaceX describing it as "ASAP making a big fuss over nothing".

Or, as we Dutch say: Making an elephant out of a mosquito.

Regulars around this forum know of my opinion about ASAP. ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. IMO they would call for re-design of the spacecraft if someone would accidently stick a NASA logo sticker upside-down on the F9 first stage.

They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.

Also, ASAP is biased. They have been very critical of CCP with, until recently, almost no critique on the POR (SLS and Orion). A fine example was in yesterday's ASAP meeting. When discussing CCP the ASAP members demanded issues to be solved; the phrase "must be solved" was used several times. However, when discussing Orion the ASAP members only suggested that issues should be solved. The phrase "We urge NASA to reconsider the design" was used.

I find it very strange that ASAP is much more insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of the contractors, and ASAP being much less insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of NASA. That spells "bias" to me.

I find the reporting from OIG and GAO (which also pay attention to safety aspects) much more balanced and un-biased.
Finally, I can't help but feeling that ASAP does not understand that "better" is the enemy of "good enough".

Something that impressed me from this meeting is how different the tone it was compared to the last meeting. On the last meeting it sounded like things were going better for both companies even if they had issues. This last one felt like they were seeing both companies were going through an apocalipse or something. How could that change in a matter of months?
Beats me. Unless the Soyuz MS-10 abort made a profound impression on them.


What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)
But h*ll no. They were only focused on some (minor btw) anomaly and didn't stop short from suggesting that Crew Dragon should not fly crew unless the (minor) issue with the CRS/Crew Dragon parachute system is fixed.


Sheesh. By that attitude the ASAP members probably wouldn't step into a taxi if it wasn't yellow.


One problem here is that ASAP is overlooking the fact that the ultimate form of testing is flying the system in an operational environment.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 10/12/2018 01:19 pm
What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)

Only 26 flights? The Shuttle TPS system worked on 111 flights with 100% success. That doesn't mean you ignore weird events like foam strikes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/12/2018 03:28 pm
What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)

Only 26 flights? The Shuttle TPS system worked on 111 flights with 100% success. That doesn't mean you ignore weird events like foam strikes.

To woods170 point though, before the Shuttle flew there were many concerns about whether the tiles would fall off during ascent or decent, and the only way to know was to fly the vehicle - with no backups.

That was NASA then - a risk taker, though a calculated risk taker.

Today SpaceX has a lot of flight history on their parachutes, so it's not like there is NO data. Which is why it seems like ASAP is being not just overly cautious, but out of their way cautious - especially when compared to the known issues with the Orion parachutes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/12/2018 04:17 pm
Have there been any changes to personnel on the ASAP board?  Or their immediate management?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: HarryM on 10/12/2018 04:26 pm
Maybe by NASA insisting that they add a 4th parachute they messed with what was already working fine with 3... ??? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/12/2018 06:31 pm
Down on the farm they had a saying; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" ASAP needs a good dose of Midwestern common sense.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rik ISS-fan on 10/12/2018 07:23 pm
I remember reading a couple of months back that SpaceX moved to another parachute system producer. There was one supplier providing the parachute system to all us providers. (Orion; Dragon 1 & 2 and Starliner). Only SpaceX had the resources/ flexibility to try to move to another provider. But that provider hasn't flight history.
So when a anomaly happens during a parachute system test, that's first and formost a good thing because that's the time to discover problems. Only time is required to improve the recovery system for Dragon 2.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2018 07:25 pm
I remember reading a couple of months back that SpaceX moved to another parachute system producer. There was one supplier providing the parachute system to all us providers. (Orion; Dragon 1 & 2 and Starliner). Only SpaceX had the resources/ flexibility to try to move to another provider. But that provider hasn't flight history.
So when a anomaly happens during a parachute system test, that's first and formost a good thing because that's the time to discover problems. Only time is required to improve the recovery system for Dragon 2.

That was just the reef line cutters, not the whole parachute system.  There was also nothing said about SpaceX being the only one to move to the new supplier, they were just trying to do it sooner.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/12/2018 07:29 pm
Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays, which are in turn related to ASAP itself. ASAP has consistently been an enemy of any launch vehicle system that is not Ares 1 since 2006, and this has not changed even with SLS.

Given the situation we now find ourselves, with the possibility of having to de-man ISS, and the ongoing problems with Russia that would still be unresolved even if they fix their QC, drastic action is needed.

If necessary the president should intervene with executive order to either mandate ASAP certify the vehicles or dissolve the ASAP entirely. I think the evidence speaks for itself that ASAP has gone far awry of its originally intended purpose. We need our vehicles back and we need them now, not two years from now RIGHT NOW.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2018 07:35 pm
Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays...

ASAP is not the certification authority for these vehicles.  They are an advisory group.  The final certification for the vehicles will be by Gerstenmaier or Bridenstine.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Dante80 on 10/12/2018 08:21 pm
 
Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays, which are in turn related to ASAP itself. ASAP has consistently been an enemy of any launch vehicle system that is not Ares 1 since 2006, and this has not changed even with SLS.
ASAP simply advises. And they are doing a pretty good job at it as far as CCP is concerned. When you find technical issues during the development, testing and qualification of new hardware, you have to find the root causes and fix them. Why on earth would they agree with sending people to space otherwise? Their job is to be a safety advisory board.

If you want to berate them for double standards, that is fine. In that case though, the inherent argument is that ASAP is not adhering to the same/equal/prudent safety standards on SLS/ORION, NOT that they are too whiny with CCP.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 10/12/2018 08:43 pm
You're right but I think we should put ourself in the "shoes" of them before judging. At the end, if something goes wrong, they will be inquired to explain why they haven't advert.
Personally, I would take a place in either Boeing or SpaceX Crew Capsule at the minute when both contractors will say "we are ready", but at the other hand I wouldn't have the courage to sign a document that certificate that I have no concerns. I think they have a particular though job to do as advisor, as well (and even more) the ones who will sign that both systems are ok.
Now, once this said, and even if I understand the 1/270 anomaly rating that they want that both providers reach, in practice it will never be achieved as to verify that, we will need at least 67 years of crew capsule launches at a rate of two crewed launches per year and providers, yet in the mean time, the boosters and the crew capsule will suffers numerous changes, and only if, there is still a space station or any other destination to send these capsules there...
For the last but not the least, I'm from a country which lost tens of ships at the end of the 15th century and in the 16th century, in exploring this world. In fact, for each expedition, there were an average rate of one ship lost for three that leaves Lisbon port, even during "regular" lines between Portugal and India (with each trip being a 6 months journey in each direction (remembering the 6 months trips to and from Mars...), sometimes even more), one third of each crew always died from diseases, accidents, pirates, etc...not counting with the ships which disappeared during storms.
So are we so much "shyer" than our ancestors? If so, I wonder how our older ancestors even had the courage to go out their caves, with so many dangers out there...Sure, a ASAP commission of their time will prefer to say to them to no go.
We are explorers, damned it!....Sorry, couldn't resist. :P
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/13/2018 03:02 am
Something that impressed me from this meeting is how different the tone it was compared to the last meeting. On the last meeting it sounded like things were going better for both companies even if they had issues. This last one felt like they were seeing both companies were going through an apocalipse or something. How could that change in a matter of months?

Maybe they're frakked off by SpaceX's "paperwork" comment  ;)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/13/2018 05:15 am
Something that impressed me from this meeting is how different the tone it was compared to the last meeting. On the last meeting it sounded like things were going better for both companies even if they had issues. This last one felt like they were seeing both companies were going through an apocalipse or something. How could that change in a matter of months?

Maybe they're frakked off by SpaceX's "paperwork" comment  ;)

IIRC, GAO was among the first to publicly say NASA was slow in approving milestones. SpaceX would simply be restating the bloody obvious.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/13/2018 07:45 am
This article has some quotes from the meeting: https://spacenews.com/safety-panel-fears-soyuz-failure-could-exacerbate-commercial-crew-safety-concerns/

The Boeing issues are easy to understand, but I'm confused by this quote with regard to COPV:
Quote
“Ultimately, there has to be the acceptance and certification of a configuration which is judged by both parties to be free of the demonstrated characteristics that caused the failure in question,” he said. “This remains an open technical item that the panel believes has to be firmly resolved before we can certainly proceed to crewed launches.”

What is the "configuration"? Is that the new COPV design? Is he basically saying NASA needs to sign off the new COPV design before the crewed mission? If so, it seems to be stating the obvious, I mean of course NASA needs to do this, I'm not sure why call this an "issue" while it's just one of the todo's on the list.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/13/2018 04:07 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/13/2018 04:16 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/13/2018 04:28 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously.

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.  They would be furious to here such talk.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/13/2018 04:34 pm
What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)

Only 26 flights? The Shuttle TPS system worked on 111 flights with 100% success. That doesn't mean you ignore weird events like foam strikes.

No, I think it worked about 50/50 with lots more near misses than LOC -- RE the foam shedding.  The agony of the thing is, foam shedding and foam strikes weren't weird, they were the continuance of the, "normalization of deviance".
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/13/2018 04:45 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

I think you'd have a point if ASAP were putting any numbers whatsoever towards their concerns, which justified them.  They aren't.

Certainly none which are being quoted.

No numbers or data at all.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/13/2018 04:54 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously.

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.  They would be furious to here such talk.

 - Ed Kyle

" People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously. "

Seriously, quote that.

I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.

If there is no data to back up their claims, then they are being competent only in providing nebulous excuses not to fly, to be seized on by political opponents of Commercial Crew, and not at being a scientifically based (data, numbers) panel providing advice or oversight of any sort, about how to engineer a sufficiently safe flight system for crew access to ISS and follow on structures.

Where are their numbers?!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: RedLineTrain on 10/13/2018 05:14 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight

I don't think you can call anything having to do with Commercial Crew a "rush to flight."  Decorating this Christmas tree is so slow it's maddening.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/13/2018 06:07 pm
I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.
...
Where are their numbers?!

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 10/13/2018 07:01 pm
I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.
...
Where are their numbers?!

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.

Precisely. Yet another example of individuals online thinking they are entitled to data that they aren’t.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: DigitalMan on 10/13/2018 08:51 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight

I don't think you can call anything having to do with Commercial Crew a "rush to flight."  Decorating this Christmas tree is so slow it's maddening.

I think it's interesting that ASAP said 'demonstrated characteristics' in regards to the COPVs.  If SpaceX did manage to duplicate the issue and used the same procedure the actual stage was using to load propellants, I think it would greatly increase the probability that SpaceX did indeed find the issue. 

If ASAP thinks it has other possible causes then why not do a test to destruction to prove it?  Perhaps tests were done, we don't know how much testing SpaceX did on this.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/13/2018 08:56 pm
I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.

I've worked with people that have been in plane crashes. I hope you see how irrelevant your comment is.

Quote
They would be furious to here such talk.

If they would be upset listening to a bunch of non-involved people chatting on the internet, then they would be upset for the wrong reasons.

Remember no one conversing on this forum about this topic is (or should be) ACTUALLY involved in deciding what ACTUALLY happens. So why would anyone be upset about speculation by people that have no say in the matter?

Which is why you throwing up that picture was so inappropriate. Boeing, NASA and SpaceX decide life and death issues, not us here on this thread topic.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Cremalera on 10/13/2018 09:19 pm
Quote
We need our vehicles back and we need them now, not two years from now RIGHT NOW.
Very good words.Honestly, I thought that our level of bureaucracy would be unsurpassed.But I think I was wrong.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/13/2018 09:34 pm
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...

Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.

SpaceX:
COPV failure investigation still not closed.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.  Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed.  Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.

Boeing:
Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test.   A couple more tests still to do.
The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.
The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.

I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour.  But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system.

And then:

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.
Precisely. Yet another example of individuals online thinking they are entitled to data that they aren’t.

The only thing which could possibly save a company which was a CC provider which had a LOC event, is that it was perfectly above board in addressing such concerns.  The idea information relating to such would stay proprietary is ridiculous -- it would no more stay proprietary data than would the increasing severity and likelihood of O-ring failure with decreasing temperature.  And unlike the people who made and went along with the statement, "take off your engineer hat and put on your management hat", they might face actual consequences.

We speak of data which if it exists, is as with that O-ring data then would have before that launch--and as with which no one would quibble now--would justify sneaking onto the pad and taking a sledgehammer to the vehicle prior to launch.  The goal for the LOC rate is 1 in 270.

Claiming such data as would justify ASAP's statements is proprietary is conclusory, and is explicable most easily as a way to shut down public debate and criticism.

The public is footing the bill for ASAP and Commercial Crew both.  "Proprietaryness" of data is no excuse at all for the cards not to be on the table, and them face up.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/02/09/roger_boisjoly_and_the_management_hat

When I am a counselor for the Engineering merit badge, I use hearing "take off your engineer hat and put on your management hat" an example of when it's at least past time to walk off the job and probably find an attorney, if not an attorney general.

What concerns ASAP has which they can not/have not quantified publicly, are nullities for all public purposes, including discussion here.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/14/2018 02:27 am
{snip}
The only thing which could possibly save a company which was a CC provider which had a LOC event, is that it was perfectly above board in addressing such concerns.  The idea information relating to such would stay proprietary is ridiculous -- it would no more stay proprietary data than would the increasing severity and likelihood of O-ring failure with decreasing temperature.  And unlike the people who made and went along with the statement, "take off your engineer hat and put on your management hat", they might face actual consequences.

{snip}

Managerially that one was simple to save money you order the Shuttle take off delayed for 1 day to allow the O-rings to warm up.

Cost alternatives:

a. cost of delaying launch for a day or two until the the O-rings return to specification -> fairly low cost.

b. cost of keeping the O-rings warm. Possibly by using hot water bottles attached with sealing wax and string -> low cost.

c. x% of the cost of (buying a new Space Shuttle + rejecting income from launches during the 32-month hiatus + investigation + laying off several thousand people + training their replacements + ...) -> a cost of $billions

The committee chose the high cost option which led to such a disgrace that we are still talking about it today.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 10/14/2018 02:34 am
I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.
...
Where are their numbers?!

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.

ASAP was able to describe Boeing's problems fairly clearly, enough so that a layman would understand the gist. The same is not true for their description of SpaceX's "problems", which is vague and unspecific.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 10/14/2018 06:35 am
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously.

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.  They would be furious to here such talk.

 - Ed Kyle

The cause wasn't rush. The cause was using pure oxygen in the cabin and we were lucky it had not killed any crews beforehand. The solution was to use oxygen/nitrogen during the launch phase and to design the craft for emergency escape on the pad if need be. Also they never did find what started the fire but simply redesigned the electoral system to get rid of probable causes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/14/2018 06:32 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Rushing to flight and being overly cautious are two very different things. You don't seem to understand that being downright reckless (Apollo 1) and overly cautious (CCP) are the two extreme ends of a very broad bandwidth.

The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/14/2018 06:35 pm
What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)

Only 26 flights? The Shuttle TPS system worked on 111 flights with 100% success. That doesn't mean you ignore weird events like foam strikes.

No, I think it worked about 50/50 with lots more near misses than LOC -- RE the foam shedding.  The agony of the thing is, foam shedding and foam strikes weren't weird, they were the continuance of the, "normalization of deviance".

Correct, it didn't work with 100% success. On most of those 111 shuttle missions there was substantial damage to the tiles. There was no single shuttle mission that never required any replacement of tiles. In fact, some parts of the shuttle TPS were damaged so often that it was replaced with an extension of the carbon-carbon nosecap. Quite literally, the design was changed to improve resistance to damage in the most affected places.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 10/14/2018 06:43 pm
ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. [...]

They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.
In my mind, ASAP has crossed the line from constructive criticism to concern trolling.   They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.   For example, they say SpaceX needs a final resolution on root cause of the COPV failure before they can fly.  While this would certainly be desirable, such precision is not always possible.  For example, the Apollo 1 fire never had a root cause firmly established - no ignition source was ever identified, though there were lots of suspects.

Needless to say, all of the stakeholders in the investigation were also in favor of finding a definite root cause.   So ASAP is demanding something that the combination of SpaceX, NASA, USAF, NTSB, and outside experts combined were unable to  determine.  Unless ASAP has some reason to think otherwise, they are just wishing for a pony.     In such a case, the sensible way forward is to fix every source anyone can think of, and test the crap out of the revised design.   That's what Apollo did, what SpaceX appears to be doing, and what ASAP should monitor.

Likewise, their calls for complete understanding before flying make me skeptical.   For example , the rocket flies through the atmosphere, including turbulence, an area where we certainly cannot claim to have complete understanding.  (In fact scientists have never even proved that solutions to the relevant equations even exist, much less behave as desired.)  But our understanding is good enough, a much more sensible criterium.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 10/14/2018 06:52 pm
ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. [...]

They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.
In my mind, ASAP has crossed the line from constructive criticism to concern trolling.   They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.   For example, they say SpaceX needs a final resolution on root cause of the COPV failure before they can fly.  While this would certainly be desirable, such precision is not always possible.  For example, the Apollo 1 fire never had a root cause firmly established - no ignition source was ever identified, though there were lots of suspects.

Needless to say, all of the stakeholders in the investigation were also in favor of finding a definite root cause.   So ASAP is demanding something that the combination of SpaceX, NASA, USAF, NTSB, and outside experts combined were unable to  determine.  Unless ASAP has some reason to think otherwise, they are just wishing for a pony.     In such a case, the sensible way forward is to fix every source anyone can think of, and test the crap out of the revised design.   That's what Apollo did, what SpaceX appears to be doing, and what ASAP should monitor.

Likewise, their calls for complete understanding before flying make me skeptical.   For example , the rocket flies through the atmosphere, including turbulence, an area where we certainly cannot claim to have complete understanding.  (In fact scientists have never even proved that solutions to the relevant equations even exist, much less behave as desired.)  But our understanding is good enough, a much more sensible criterium.

I have long since said and felt the same way. ASAP over the years has shown a considerable, and almost at times vitriolic, bias against any system that was not the stick. They spent years declaring that the stick was the safest vehicle ever and no commercial vehicle would ever work, when in fact the opposite was true and the stick was the most dangerous vehicle ever and would never work. They even persisted in doing this after aug com, after the truth was out, right up to CXP cancellation. And then they kept doing it after CXP, continuing to hinder commercial crew and at one point they were hindering SLS as well. ASAP spent a long time campaigning against an inline SDHLV as well. So I have never viewed them as an unbiased safety watchdog, instead they have always come across as a political instrument to me that ignores data and consistently tries to mess up any vehicle development that they don't like. And there are still some people on the ASAP who were absolute religious griffin/stick supporters, so I imagine they are still to this day bitter over CXP and it would not surprise me if some of what we are seeing is related to that.

In short, ASAP veered off of what it was chartered to do, what it was supposed to be, during the CXP era and it has never been put back on the path. It was supposed to be a safety watchdog not a political tool for certain factions/congressional factions, that are still bitter over losing the stick. I have yet to see ASAP say a single positive thing about any vehicle designed since CXP was cancelled.

Quote
What concerns ASAP has which they can not/have not quantified publicly, are nullities for all public purposes, including discussion here.
JohnQ public and the Congress are the ones paying for all this. We are also the ones who might lose the space station if it has to deman beause the Soyuz explodes again and these vehicles can't fly. If ASAP cannot quantify the problems publicly and all they have are handwaving then Congress should move them out of the way. Legislatively if necessary, or the POTUS could do the same with executive action. We really shouldn't have to go there but again, if they can't quantify the problem then they are obfuscating for the sake of themselves not to actually better the vehicles. And that is an unacceptable situation especially right now.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/14/2018 06:58 pm

In my mind, ASAP has crossed the line from constructive criticism to concern trolling.   They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.   For example, they say SpaceX needs a final resolution on root cause of the COPV failure before they can fly.  While this would certainly be desirable, such precision is not always possible.  For example, the Apollo 1 fire never had a root cause firmly established - no ignition source was ever identified, though there were lots of suspects.

Needless to say, all of the stakeholders in the investigation were also in favor of finding a definite root cause.   So ASAP is demanding something that the combination of SpaceX, NASA, USAF, NTSB, and outside experts combined were unable to  determine.  Unless ASAP has some reason to think otherwise, they are just wishing for a pony.     In such a case, the sensible way forward is to fix every source anyone can think of, and test the crap out of the revised design.   That's what Apollo did, what SpaceX appears to be doing, and what ASAP should monitor.

Likewise, their calls for complete understanding before flying make me skeptical.   For example , the rocket flies through the atmosphere, including turbulence, an area where we certainly cannot claim to have complete understanding.  (In fact scientists have never even proved that solutions to the relevant equations even exist, much less behave as desired.)  But our understanding is good enough, a much more sensible criterium.

Emphasis mine.

That is exactly what SpaceX has been doing for the past 1,5 years, in very close cooperation with NASA (as reported publically by both NASA and SpaceX).

But hell no, that's not enough for ASAP.

IMO, if ASAP had the authority to call the shots after Apollo 1 there never would have been a manned launch of an Apollo spaceship, ever.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 10/14/2018 07:52 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Rushing to flight and being overly cautious are two very different things. You don't seem to understand that being downright reckless (Apollo 1) and overly cautious (CCP) are the two extreme ends of a very broad bandwidth.

The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.

I agree. What is missing for the ASAP is a correcting force. They are in a loose-loose situation. If anything goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they didnt do their job properly. If nothing goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they are too strict and unreasonable. Also, since you never know 100% if something works unless you try it, ASAP is against all change since any change has the danger of going bad. There is no force for ASAP to balance their advice. In any engineering problem, the solution is a balance. If it is not, the solution goes to some extreme. For example, say, you want to build a bridge over a river and there are no restrictions, the obvious solution is a solid metal wall with a hole for the water to flow through. It cant break down and it will not kill people. Of course that is not practical. The ASAP is in exactly this type of situation. The way this is structured, they cant make it right and always will tend to the extreme.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/15/2018 12:52 pm
*snip*
I agree. What is missing for the ASAP is a correcting force. They are in a loose-loose situation. If anything goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they didnt do their job properly. If nothing goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they are too strict and unreasonable.
*snip*

The way out of their loose-loose situation for them is for them to show their work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 10/15/2018 02:20 pm
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

Rushing to flight and being overly cautious are two very different things. You don't seem to understand that being downright reckless (Apollo 1) and overly cautious (CCP) are the two extreme ends of a very broad bandwidth.

The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.

I agree. What is missing for the ASAP is a correcting force. They are in a loose-loose situation. If anything goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they didnt do their job properly. If nothing goes wrong, everyone is complaining that they are too strict and unreasonable. Also, since you never know 100% if something works unless you try it, ASAP is against all change since any change has the danger of going bad.

Yes to Semmel's comment, and as a thought experiment, it's worth wondering what ASAP would say/has said about Soyuz RTF so soon after the latest incident:

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-confident-soyuz-launches-will-resume-on-schedule/

A comment by user perilun after the article is, I think, worth reposting:

Quote
Double down! If it has a US failure we would have years of review before another try ... but since it will be the Russian's fault then what the hell ... give it another shot. At least NASA can say that the Russian's "failure" was a great and successful test of their escape system so it does not matter that the Soyuz booster failure rate continues to climb ... just build more and keep trying. I do think they should give the scheduled crew a respectful pass-on-this option and let the risk takers take the next ride. With this quick OK on another Russian attempt we see all the NASA/ASAP hand wringing is not a "safety issue" is a "will-we-get-blamed?" issue with NASA.

Last sentence bolding is mine, as I think it neatly summarizes the question.

It's not entirely fair to compare Soyuz RTF risk assessment with Commercial Crew risk assessment, since Soyuz is such a mature system with a good safety record, and it's reasonable for engineers to have confidence that the separation issue is not a design flaw but perhaps a relatively easily correctable QA issue, for example.

But it does highlight the fundamental issue that, of course, NASA doesn't want to get blamed for a Commercial Crew LOC incident, which would turn into a big political football.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/15/2018 09:32 pm

The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.

That's not ASAP's job, that's management's.

They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.   

ASAP is advisory (it's right in their name), they can't "demand" anything. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/16/2018 06:56 am

The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.

That's not ASAP's job, that's management's.
You parsed my post incorrectly. My point was this: ASAP, as it exists today, is thinking in extremes only and is IMO incapable of understanding that better is the enemy of good enough. That attitude is reflected in the safety advises given by ASAP: safety into the extreme. To the point that ASAP's safety advises are no longer practically applicable.
An advisory panel on safety would be well advised to not only focus on safety, but also on what is practically possible. It is this latter aspect that is quite often missing from ASAP advice.
A fine example is from their most recent meeting, where they discussed the parachute systems used by Boeing and SpaceX for the CCP vehicles. ASAP voiced a demand to not fly any CCP vehicles until recently observed parachute anomalies are solved, even going as far as to suggest that the parachute systems would have to be redesigned.
This demand from ASAP is completely unrealistic. ASAP failed to acknowledge that even operational parachute systems, that have been in use for multiple decades, exhibit anomalous behaviour every now and then. Second: ASAP completely overlooked the fact that most parachute systems contain a very wide performance margin, precisely because it is known that parachute systems sometimes have anomalies. The performance margin is there to compensate for any anomaly. Getting rid of even the last anomaly is simply not practically possible. And that goes for most systems. A good designer acknowledges this and makes d*mn sure the system has margin to compensate. But sadly this notion is lost on ASAP.


They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.   

ASAP is advisory (it's right in their name), they can't "demand" anything.

Emphasis mine.

Per their charter they can indeed NOT demand anything.
But that doesn't stop them from doing it anyway.
Just go listen to the audio recording from their most public meeting.

Also, when ASAP voices their "advice" in strong words (as a demand), NASA often complies with the advice demand.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tyrred on 10/17/2018 08:41 am
Maybe confusing it with Orion?
That was probably it.
My apologies.
Carry on

Overview of performed and planned abort tests, per vehicle:

Orion:
- Pad abort test (PA-1). Was performed on May 6, 2010.
- In-flight abort test (Ascent Abort test - AA-2). Planned for April, 2019

Crew Dragon:
- Pad abort test. Was performed on May 6, 2015. (Exactly 5 years to the day after Orion's PA-1)
- In-flight abort test. Planned for March/April 2019.

CST-100 Starliner
- Pad abort test. Was planned for June/July 2019. However, the vehicle's service module suffered a mishap during a hotfire-test (prior to the actual pad abort test), requiring re-design of abort propellant valves. New planning date TBD.
- No in-flight abort test will be performed for Starliner.

Post Soyuz MS-10, how does it make sense for Starliner not to have an in-flight abort test scheduled?  Is there such confidence in the industry that Starliner's abort capability has already been proven in that part of the flight regime? 

IANARS and must be missing something here, please correct me, but at face value it just doesn't look right. 

Orion, which has no scheduled ISS missions on the books, and Crew Dragon, which is a main contender for ISS crew missions, have both had pad abort tests. 

Crew Dragon test was performed before SpaceX even successfully landed their first booster.

Also, has there been any whisper of movement to the left of the Crew Dragon IFA test?  I can't find the original IFA test schedule, but from SpaceX before their Pad Abort test:

"Pending the outcome of the pad abort test, SpaceX will then conduct an in-flight abort test. With the in-flight abort, we will test the same launch abort system, however this time in mid-flight during an actual launch. Both the pad abort and in-flight abort will be challenging tests, but the data gathered here will be key to helping develop one of the safest, most reliable spacecraft ever flown."

https://www.spacex.com/news/2015/05/04/5-things-know-about-spacexs-pad-abort-test

3 years is an eternity when glued to these forums at NSf  :-\
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/17/2018 10:38 am
Post Soyuz MS-10, how does it make sense for Starliner not to have an in-flight abort test scheduled?  Is there such confidence in the industry that Starliner's abort capability has already been proven in that part of the flight regime?

It makes sense if you want to save money and have confidence in your simulations. As has often been proved in the past though, this could end up being a very bad decision. I'm disappointed that NASA did not make this test mandatory for certification. "Test what you fly and fly what you test."
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jcc on 10/17/2018 10:40 am
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

To make things more interesting, they are also planning to reuse the Dragon 2 from DM-1 with only a few months turnaround. This despite landing in the water, and NASA not certifying (yet) reuse of Dragon 2 for crew missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/17/2018 10:44 am
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

Yes, but it puts the test in the critical path. Any problems that are discovered could significantly delay the first crewed launch of Dragon 2.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2018 12:07 pm
Post Soyuz MS-10, how does it make sense for Starliner not to have an in-flight abort test scheduled?  Is there such confidence in the industry that Starliner's abort capability has already been proven in that part of the flight regime?

It makes sense if you want to save money and have confidence in your simulations. As has often been proved in the past though, this could end up being a very bad decision. I'm disappointed that NASA did not make this test mandatory for certification. "Test what you fly and fly what you test."

In fact, NO abort flight tests were mandatory for CCP.


Yes, you read that correctly.


Only computer modeling of the abort capabilities was required (mandatory) by NASA. No abort flight tests required.

The pad-abort test and ascent-abort test for Crew Dragon are voluntary abort flight tests that were added to the CCP contract by SpaceX.

The pad abort test for CST-100 Starliner is a voluntary abort flight test that was added to the CCP contract by Boeing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2018 12:17 pm
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

To make things more interesting, they are also planning to reuse the Dragon 2 from DM-1 with only a few months turnaround. This despite landing in the water, and NASA not certifying (yet) reuse of Dragon 2 for crew missions.

The Crew Dragon vehicle from DM-1 (which is an unmanned mission) will be reused for the (unmanned) ascent abort test (IFA). There is no need for NASA to certify reuse of Crew Dragon for crew missions because neither mission (DM-1 and IFA) is a crew mission. Certification of Crew Dragon reuse for uncrewed (demo) missions is outside of the scope of the CCP contract.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mn on 10/17/2018 03:04 pm
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.

I have no idea what anomalies they are referring to, but if the parachutes behaved in an unexpected way I would agree with the ASAP that it should be investigated until the behavior is understood. Only after you understand why the parachute behaved the way they did can you determine if that is safe or not.

The fact that despite the anomaly it still remained within prescribed bounds should not be satisfactory if it behaved in an unexpected way.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: WindnWar on 10/17/2018 03:26 pm
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.

I have no idea what anomalies they are referring to, but if the parachutes behaved in an unexpected way I would agree with the ASAP that it should be investigated until the behavior is understood. Only after you understand why the parachute behaved the way they did can you determine if that is safe or not.

The fact that despite the anomaly it still remained within prescribed bounds should not be satisfactory if it behaved in an unexpected way.

You've missed the point that parachute systems often experience anomalies but good design takes that into account. So long as it doesn't point to a larger problem that would cause a failure, your simply not going to be able to design out every possible variable in performance. It's how the entire system operates that is important. More concerning is the possibility of Starliners chutes being damaged by the door that must deploy for them to be released. That's an issue they will have to prove is not possible, as that's a much different risk.

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 10/17/2018 05:40 pm
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.

I have no idea what anomalies they are referring to, but if the parachutes behaved in an unexpected way I would agree with the ASAP that it should be investigated until the behavior is understood. Only after you understand why the parachute behaved the way they did can you determine if that is safe or not.

The fact that despite the anomaly it still remained within prescribed bounds should not be satisfactory if it behaved in an unexpected way.

The individual parachutes have margin to cover unexpected anomalies (within a certain range). The parachute system as a whole also has additional margin to cover catastrophic failure of a entire parachute. In the case of Crew Dragon, I believe the system has margin to cover catastrophic failure of two out of four parachutes and still land safely.

As long as SpaceX can show that the unspecified anomalous behavior is not likely (for some numeric level of "likely") to exceed the margin of an individual parachute, they should't have any problem getting sign-off on the design.

Each chute is not a potential criticality-1 failure because they are multi-fault tolerant.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Joffan on 10/17/2018 06:45 pm
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

To make things more interesting, they are also planning to reuse the Dragon 2 from DM-1 with only a few months turnaround. This despite landing in the water, and NASA not certifying (yet) reuse of Dragon 2 for crew missions.

The Crew Dragon vehicle from DM-1 (which is an unmanned mission) will be reused for the (unmanned) ascent abort test (IFA). There is no need for NASA to certify reuse of Crew Dragon for crew missions because neither mission (DM-1 and IFA) is a crew mission. Certification of Crew Dragon reuse for uncrewed (demo) missions is outside of the scope of the CCP contract.


Well... while both DM-1 and IFA are unmanned, they are more useful as tests if they are flown as if manned. But the fact of reuse doesn't need to interfere with that; in fact it may help the case of reusing water-landed Crew Dragons.

What seems very likely to me is that refurbishing the DM-1 capsule for use on IFA will involve making sure it could in principle support a crew through its entire flight profile, since no doubt the instrumentation will be recording exactly how well it does that. So anything "broken" (or otherwise stressed) by the water landing would need to be fixed to a standard where its performance in IFA could be accurately evaluated.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 10/17/2018 07:45 pm
I still wonder if propulsive landing using the Super Dracos is a feasible backup mode.  If it's remotely feasible, it seems like something worth pursuing to help make Crew Dragon the American Soyuz that we need - i.e. a robust and reliable crew transport system.  However, SpaceX seems to view it as a dead end as it shifts focus to BFR/BFS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tulse on 10/17/2018 07:49 pm
If NASA isn't requiring it, I can't see SpaceX spending any time or money on it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lemurion on 10/18/2018 12:54 am
My question is why is ASAP talking about SpaceX "closing the case" on COPVs instead of simply mentioning that the company has not yet completed the required test flights with the new design?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/18/2018 01:15 am
My question is why is ASAP talking about SpaceX "closing the case" on COPVs instead of simply mentioning that the company has not yet completed the required test flights with the new design?

Simply doing the test flights isn't enough.  All of the parts of the system still need to be approved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Jcc on 10/18/2018 01:21 am
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

To make things more interesting, they are also planning to reuse the Dragon 2 from DM-1 with only a few months turnaround. This despite landing in the water, and NASA not certifying (yet) reuse of Dragon 2 for crew missions.

The Crew Dragon vehicle from DM-1 (which is an unmanned mission) will be reused for the (unmanned) ascent abort test (IFA). There is no need for NASA to certify reuse of Crew Dragon for crew missions because neither mission (DM-1 and IFA) is a crew mission. Certification of Crew Dragon reuse for uncrewed (demo) missions is outside of the scope of the CCP contract.


Well... while both DM-1 and IFA are unmanned, they are more useful as tests if they are flown as if manned. But the fact of reuse doesn't need to interfere with that; in fact it may help the case of reusing water-landed Crew Dragons.

What seems very likely to me is that refurbishing the DM-1 capsule for use on IFA will involve making sure it could in principle support a crew through its entire flight profile, since no doubt the instrumentation will be recording exactly how well it does that. So anything "broken" (or otherwise stressed) by the water landing would need to be fixed to a standard where its performance in IFA could be accurately evaluated.

My only concern with the plan is risk to schedule, it's quite a bold move on SpaceX part, and shows confidence in their ability to refurbish Dragon-1 despite the generally accepted impossibility to reuse a capsule that landed in salt water. They have done it several times now for cargo. They might well convert reused crew Dragon-2 into cargo Dragon-2, or use them for private crew, or convince NASA to use them for Commercial Crew. But committing to fly one in less than 6 months from first flight is bold to say the least.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/18/2018 07:21 am
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1.  Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.

To make things more interesting, they are also planning to reuse the Dragon 2 from DM-1 with only a few months turnaround. This despite landing in the water, and NASA not certifying (yet) reuse of Dragon 2 for crew missions.

The Crew Dragon vehicle from DM-1 (which is an unmanned mission) will be reused for the (unmanned) ascent abort test (IFA). There is no need for NASA to certify reuse of Crew Dragon for crew missions because neither mission (DM-1 and IFA) is a crew mission. Certification of Crew Dragon reuse for uncrewed (demo) missions is outside of the scope of the CCP contract.


Well... while both DM-1 and IFA are unmanned, they are more useful as tests if they are flown as if manned. But the fact of reuse doesn't need to interfere with that; in fact it may help the case of reusing water-landed Crew Dragons.

What seems very likely to me is that refurbishing the DM-1 capsule for use on IFA will involve making sure it could in principle support a crew through its entire flight profile, since no doubt the instrumentation will be recording exactly how well it does that. So anything "broken" (or otherwise stressed) by the water landing would need to be fixed to a standard where its performance in IFA could be accurately evaluated.

My only concern with the plan is risk to schedule, it's quite a bold move on SpaceX part, and shows confidence in their ability to refurbish Dragon-1 despite the generally accepted impossibility to reuse a capsule that landed in salt water. They have done it several times now for cargo. They might well convert reused crew Dragon-2 into cargo Dragon-2, or use them for private crew, or convince NASA to use them for Commercial Crew. But committing to fly one in less than 6 months from first flight is bold to say the least.

Emphasis mine.

That is exactly the plan.
Reusing the DM-1 Crew Dragon for the IFA is a direct result of NASA having vetoed propulsive landing.
The result of that decision was that Crew Dragon landing in the ocean became the prime landing method. As such, SpaceX had to invest a lot of time (a full year) and money on improving the "seaworthyness" of Crew Dragon.
The side effect of that effort is that Crew Dragon is much more resistant to the effects of salt-water immersion than Cargo Dragon. And that in turn makes it a lot easier to refurbish an ocean-landed Crew Dragon for a next (unmanned) mission.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JonathanD on 10/18/2018 07:40 pm
If NASA isn't requiring it, I can't see SpaceX spending any time or money on it.

If it could save the lives of the crew, I could see them doing it.  You have the systems, you have the thrusters, you have the fuel.  It would be crazy to not have it as a "worst case scenario" option that could potentially prevent what would be a horrible tragedy for the country, the space program, and the company.  How foolish would one feel to have that capability but not use it in that terrible situation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tulse on 10/18/2018 07:59 pm
If it could save the lives of the crew, I could see them doing it.  You have the systems, you have the thrusters, you have the fuel.
Parachutes have been used with capsule landings successfully for quite a while, and it is not at all clear that qualifying the SuperDracos for propulsive landing would significantly reduce crew risk.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: tdperk on 10/18/2018 09:15 pm
If it could save the lives of the crew, I could see them doing it.  You have the systems, you have the thrusters, you have the fuel.
Parachutes have been used with capsule landings successfully for quite a while, and it is not at all clear that qualifying the SuperDracos for propulsive landing would significantly reduce crew risk.

Either they will be loaded with safe inert fluids instead of fuel, or, being able to run them in such an emergency reduces risk.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 10/18/2018 10:09 pm
If it could save the lives of the crew, I could see them doing it.  You have the systems, you have the thrusters, you have the fuel.
Parachutes have been used with capsule landings successfully for quite a while, and it is not at all clear that qualifying the SuperDracos for propulsive landing would significantly reduce crew risk.

Either they will be loaded with safe inert fluids instead of fuel, or, being able to run them in such an emergency reduces risk.
They can't be.
The fuel is used (or not) in the event of a launch emergency (and for orbital manoevering, I am unclear if there are separate tanks).

They can in principle nonpropulsively burn off the propellant before entry.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/19/2018 01:42 am
The cause wasn't rush. The cause was using pure oxygen in the cabin and we were lucky it had not killed any crews beforehand. The solution was to use oxygen/nitrogen during the launch phase and to design the craft for emergency escape on the pad if need be. Also they never did find what started the fire but simply redesigned the electoral system to get rid of probable causes.
One of the guys who crawled in and out of 204 thought it was rush.

Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Walter M. Schirra, Jr.
1 December 1998

"SCHIRRA: I was annoyed at the way what became Apollo 1 came out of the plant at [North American Aviation’s plant in] Downey [California].  It was not finished.  It was what they called a lot of uncompleted work or incomplete tests and work done on it.  So it was shipped to the Cape with a bunch of spare parts and things to finish it out.  And that, of course, caused this whole atmosphere of developing where I would almost call it a first case of bad “go” fever.  “Go” fever meaning that we’ve got to keep going, got to keep going, got to keep going!"

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/19/2018 06:58 am
The cause wasn't rush. The cause was using pure oxygen in the cabin and we were lucky it had not killed any crews beforehand. The solution was to use oxygen/nitrogen during the launch phase and to design the craft for emergency escape on the pad if need be. Also they never did find what started the fire but simply redesigned the electoral system to get rid of probable causes.
One of the guys who crawled in and out of 204 thought it was rush.

Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Walter M. Schirra, Jr.
1 December 1998

"SCHIRRA: I was annoyed at the way what became Apollo 1 came out of the plant at [North American Aviation’s plant in] Downey [California].  It was not finished.  It was what they called a lot of uncompleted work or incomplete tests and work done on it.  So it was shipped to the Cape with a bunch of spare parts and things to finish it out.  And that, of course, caused this whole atmosphere of developing where I would almost call it a first case of bad “go” fever.  “Go” fever meaning that we’ve got to keep going, got to keep going, got to keep going!"

 - Ed Kyle


Ed is correct on this one. It has been established officially (via testitmony given to the investigation Board and recognized as such in the official investigation report) and historically that NASA was in a rush to get Apollo into orbit. And although safety was never intentionally compromised, it was very clearly unintentionally compromised in the rush to get things done.

NASA was in a hurry to get to the Moon.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 10/19/2018 05:34 pm
The cause wasn't rush. The cause was using pure oxygen in the cabin and we were lucky it had not killed any crews beforehand. The solution was to use oxygen/nitrogen during the launch phase and to design the craft for emergency escape on the pad if need be. Also they never did find what started the fire but simply redesigned the electoral system to get rid of probable causes.
One of the guys who crawled in and out of 204 thought it was rush.

Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Walter M. Schirra, Jr.
1 December 1998

"SCHIRRA: I was annoyed at the way what became Apollo 1 came out of the plant at [North American Aviation’s plant in] Downey [California].  It was not finished.  It was what they called a lot of uncompleted work or incomplete tests and work done on it.  So it was shipped to the Cape with a bunch of spare parts and things to finish it out.  And that, of course, caused this whole atmosphere of developing where I would almost call it a first case of bad “go” fever.  “Go” fever meaning that we’ve got to keep going, got to keep going, got to keep going!"

 - Ed Kyle
I could be said that OV-101 Columbia was "airmailed" to the Cape on March 24, 1979 under similar conditions.

Pics of STS-102 during takeoff from Edwards AFB.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: alang on 10/20/2018 05:20 am
A number of negative comments about the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) on this forum.
I believe thst audio recording starts with a comment that statements from the public are invited but that none were received.
How does that work in the U.S. ? Can people without accreditation really take up time in that way or is that statement shorthand for something else?
I know that I don't know what I'm talking about in Engineering terms so I'd respect some of these comments more if I heard them made formally.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 10/20/2018 06:01 am
A number of negative comments about the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) on this forum.

Most would say they've earned it.

Quote
I believe thst audio recording starts with a comment that statements from the public are invited but that none were received.

How does that work in the U.S. ? Can people without accreditation really take up time in that way or is that statement shorthand for something else?
>

Public comment periods are very common at almost all levels of government and rule making. They can be in person at a public meeting or in writing, but in general everyone can have a say. Vox populi.

Examples: letters to members of Congress, which can literally kill legislation, or dozens of people  showing up at a public regulatory meeting and lining up at a microphone.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 10/23/2018 07:44 pm
Astronauts Practice Spacewalks Virtually

Marie Lewis Posted on October 23, 2018

Commercial crew astronauts are rehearsing their movements in space for when they launch on Boeing and SpaceX missions to the International Space Station. Astronauts Suni Williams (above) and Mike Hopkins (below left) recently practiced spacewalking in the Virtual Reality Lab at Johnson Space Center in Houston. The training is designed to be as realistic as possible, with real time graphics and motion simulators to replicate the space environment.

NASA uses virtual reality for spacewalk training. The astronauts see a virtual representation of the space station through their goggles and are able to practice moving around on its exterior, without the drag that they would experience from the water in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, NASA’s enormous swimming pool where astronauts practice spacewalking underwater. They can practice maneuvering safely back to the space station as well as plotting paths from worksite to worksite.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is working with Boeing and SpaceX to return human spaceflight launches to the United States in 2019. Williams is assigned to Boeing’s first operational mission after the company’s test flight with crew. Hopkins is assigned to SpaceX’s first operational mission after the company’s test flight with crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 10/25/2018 02:38 pm
Commercial Crew Teams Practice Triage and Medical Evacuation

Anna Heiney Posted on October 25, 2018
Commercial Crew Program, Kennedy

NASA and the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support (HSFS) Office have a long history in preparing for human spaceflight missions. As NASA’s Commercial Crew Program prepares to begin launching astronauts once again from American soil, it is vital teams prepare for launch day operations, including possible but unlikely emergency scenarios, and simulations are key to getting teams as ready as possible.

Today, teams from NASA, HSFS and SpaceX are conducting a joint medical triage and medical evacuation (medevac) training exercise at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This is the second of two emergency medical services simulations to be performed before commercial crew flight tests, which are scheduled for 2019. The first exercise was conducted at Space Launch Complex 41 and integrated teams from NASA, Boeing and United Launch Alliance.

“In the business of human spaceflight, we go to great lengths to design away or to control all the known hazards,” said Steve Payne, NASA Simulation Test Director and CCP Launch Integrator. “However, when the unexpected happens, we must be ready to respond. We develop and practice our procedures to handle the worst possible scenarios on launch day, but we hope we never have to use them. NASA is working closely with both our commercial partners and the Department of Defense to do everything possible to keep our flight crews and ground teams safe.”

For today’s exercise, teams are practicing a worst-case scenario, pad emergency and subsequent hypergolic fuel leak. Starting at the base of the egress system at Launch Complex 39A, volunteer ground crews are evacuating the pad perimeter using three Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles. Three helicopters, emergency services, and the triage team are meeting the evacuated crews at triage site 8, between Launch Pads 39A and B.

As part of this exercise, evacuated personnel are undergoing a toxic vapor check. Kennedy Fire/Rescue teams are treating the crews as if contamination were detected and are performing decontamination measures. Following the medical evaluations, the simulated patients are being stabilized and prepared for transport. Selected patients are being evacuated to several area hospitals in order to validate all emergency procedures.

This simulation is a recent example of how safety is being built into systems, processes and procedures. These simulations are designed to exercise various components of emergency procedures, as well as triage and medevac response during the unlikely event of an emergency during launch operations. It is standard practice to conduct these exercises, and was regularly done during the Space Shuttle Program.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 10/29/2018 09:20 pm
Full commercial crew (latest round up) update article.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/10/commercial-crew-training-prepares-flight-hardware/ - By Thomas Burghardt

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1056924799447064578
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/01/2018 02:35 pm
Thought I'd point out that with the release of the onboard video of the recent Soyuz failure, that it kind of reinforces what Elon Musk said about failure modes in rockets - that stage separation was one of those frequent failure modes, and that was why their design goals were to reduce the number of stage separation events.

Of course something else to point out is that the Soyuz escape system worked as designed, which should make NASA happy that both Boeing and SpaceX have abort capabilities from the launch pad to orbit - the Shuttle era of no reliable abort modes will truly be behind us.

Accepting risk as part of traveling to space is important, not only for the travelers but also for the transportation owners and funders. And while there are many reasons to not like what Russia does these days, they don't take long to do their investigations and implement fixes - which is something I hope we'll be able to do if we have a Commercial Crew launch failure. Because you can't have transportation redundancy if you only have one provider flying...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 11/01/2018 02:39 pm
Thought I'd point out that with the release of the onboard video of the recent Soyuz failure, that it kind of reinforces what Elon Musk said about failure modes in rockets - that stage separation was one of those frequent failure modes, and that was why their design goals were to reduce the number of stage separation events.

Of course something else to point out is that the Soyuz escape system worked as designed, which should make NASA happy that both Boeing and SpaceX have abort capabilities from the launch pad to orbit - the Shuttle era of no reliable abort modes will truly be behind us.

Accepting risk as part of traveling to space is important, not only for the travelers but also for the transportation owners and funders. And while there are many reasons to not like what Russia does these days, they don't take long to do their investigations and implement fixes - which is something I hope we'll be able to do if we have a Commercial Crew launch failure. Because you can't have transportation redundancy if you only have one provider flying...
Let's hope for two things, one that Soyuz has no more issues. And two that there are no further delay's to commercial crew. Fly already, let's see if these things work or not.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SciNews on 11/05/2018 08:08 pm
Commercial Crew Astronauts train in centrifuge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yV8RED7wiw
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 11/10/2018 04:47 am
Of course something else to point out is that the Soyuz escape system worked as designed, which should make NASA happy that both Boeing and SpaceX have abort capabilities from the launch pad to orbit - the Shuttle era of no reliable abort modes will truly be behind us.


Not if Musk has his way with the BFS. Passengers on airlines don't wear parachutes either. At some point abort modes become more complicated than they are worth. Both Shuttle disasters were  a result of over-eager managers who refused to listen to the recommendations of engineers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 11/10/2018 06:36 am
Of course something else to point out is that the Soyuz escape system worked as designed, which should make NASA happy that both Boeing and SpaceX have abort capabilities from the launch pad to orbit - the Shuttle era of no reliable abort modes will truly be behind us.

Not if Musk has his way with the BFS.
>

SpaceX hasn't discussed abort modes. All we have is WAGs.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/10/2018 01:15 pm
BFS abort modes are offtopic for this thread.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/18/2018 01:46 am
Boeing
Quote
MOD 72: The purpose of this modification is to change the maximum number of Post Mission Certifications (PCMs) that can be granted Authority to Proceed (ATP) prior to completion of the ISS Design Certification Review (ISS DCR) from two (2) to three (3). The contract value remains unchanged.
Quote
MOD 4: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to provide Authority to Proceed (ATP) for PCM-3 and provide incremental funding.
1. The task order is updated to identify the PCM-3 launch date, milestone review dates, docking date and landing date.
2. Incremental funding in the amount of $42,087,614 is added, increasing the funding amount from $0 to $42,087,614.

SpaceX
Quote
MOD 53:
1. The purpose of this modification is to change the maximum number of PCMs that can be granted Authority to Proceed (ATP) prior to completion of the ISS Design Certification Review (ISS DCR) from two (2) to three (3).
Quote
MOD 3:  The purpose of this modification is to provide Authority to Proceed (ATP) for Post Certification Mission (PCM) 3 and provide incremental funding. [$36.7M]

I guess someone wanted more money upfront?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/18/2018 03:11 pm
Boeing
Quote
MOD 72: The purpose of this modification is to change the maximum number of Post Mission Certifications (PCMs) that can be granted Authority to Proceed (ATP) prior to completion of the ISS Design Certification Review (ISS DCR) from two (2) to three (3). The contract value remains unchanged.
Quote
MOD 4: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to provide Authority to Proceed (ATP) for PCM-3 and provide incremental funding.
1. The task order is updated to identify the PCM-3 launch date, milestone review dates, docking date and landing date.
2. Incremental funding in the amount of $42,087,614 is added, increasing the funding amount from $0 to $42,087,614.

SpaceX
Quote
MOD 53:
1. The purpose of this modification is to change the maximum number of PCMs that can be granted Authority to Proceed (ATP) prior to completion of the ISS Design Certification Review (ISS DCR) from two (2) to three (3).
Quote
MOD 3:  The purpose of this modification is to provide Authority to Proceed (ATP) for Post Certification Mission (PCM) 3 and provide incremental funding. [$36.7M]

I guess someone wanted more money upfront?

That is an incorrect guess. What this means is that both Boeing and SpaceX have been asked by NASA to start working on their respectieve PCM-3 missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 11/20/2018 06:29 pm
https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1064956505047355392

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1064957134536888321

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1064962639430864898
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 11/20/2018 06:38 pm
What has Elon Musk smoking pot got to do with the safety of commercial crew? What a joke. Nasa you lose my respect with every wrong step you take.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 11/20/2018 10:29 pm
Wasting the work hours of hundreds or even thousands of engineers and technicians with stressful interviews while they are doing the work of returning the United States to space travel is completely idiotic.

Anyone who doesn't think these interviews will be stressful is delusional.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/20/2018 10:46 pm
Witch hunt, ass covering, dirty tricks. Pick your poison.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 11/21/2018 12:07 am
We have a dedicated thread to discuss the safety review:

NASA to launch safety review of SpaceX and Boeing after video of Elon Musk...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46837.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46837.0)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Rondaz on 11/21/2018 02:32 pm
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will return human spaceflight launches to U.S. soil, providing safe, reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit on systems that meet our safety and mission requirements.

To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demo-1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will carry out spacecraft abort tests to demonstrate their crew escape capability during an actual on-pad, or ascent emergency. The final test flights for each company will be crew flight tests to the space station prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation missions. The following target dates reflect the current schedule as of Tuesday, Nov. 20.

Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019

SpaceX also completed a pad abort test in 2015. Following the test flights, NASA will review the performance data and resolve issues as necessary to certify the systems for operational missions.  Boeing, SpaceX and the Commercial Crew Program are actively working to be ready for the operational missions; however, as with all human spaceflight development, learning from each test and adjusting as necessary to reduce risk to the crew may override planning dates.

Anticipated Readiness Dates for Operational Missions:
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2018/11/21/nasas-commercial-crew-program-target-test-flight-dates-5/
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JonathanD on 11/28/2018 06:34 pm
I would be surprised if they didn't put a full crew on DM-2 if all goes well with DM-1 and inflight abort.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 11/30/2018 06:27 pm
And we were under six weeks to launch.....

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

(snip)
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
(snip)
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

And now we have Bridenstine throwing major shade on the schedule only 8 days later:

Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/

So what changed in the last week?
We have known for some tme that the parachute reef cutters are coming from a new supplier without flight heritage.
This does put some finite added risk into the DM-1 flight.
The parachute system is significantly modified from the 3 chute Cargo Dragon version which has something like 16 for 16 successes.  However it has been tested ~10 times, although I don't know how many included the new reef cutter.

Why, again, did NASA insist of adding a 4th parachute?
And won't NASA let SpaceX assume the risk of a parachute failure on DM-1, at the potential cost of having to do it again, as they continue their certification for DM-2?

Does anyone else remember and feel like Charlie Brown truing to kick the football.?
Imagine Bridenstine in the role of Lucy.....
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/30/2018 06:39 pm
And we were under six weeks to launch.....

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

(snip)
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
(snip)
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

And now we have Bridenstine throwing major shade on the schedule only 8 days later:

Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/

So what changed in the last week?
We have known for some tme that the parachute reef cutters are coming from a new supplier without flight heritage.
This does put some finite added risk into the DM-1 flight.
The parachute system is significantly modified from the 3 chute Cargo Dragon version which has something like 16 for 16 successes.  However it has been tested ~10 times, although I don't know how many included the new reef cutter.

Why, again, did NASA insist of adding a 4th parachute?
And won't NASA let SpaceX assume the risk of a parachute failure on DM-1, at the potential cost of having to do it again, as they continue their certification for DM-2?

Does anyone else remember and feel like Charlie Brown truing to kick the football.?
Imagine Bridenstine in the role of Lucy.....

do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2018 06:53 pm
And we were under six weeks to launch.....

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

(snip)
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
(snip)
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

And now we have Bridenstine throwing major shade on the schedule only 8 days later:

Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/

So what changed in the last week?
We have known for some tme that the parachute reef cutters are coming from a new supplier without flight heritage.
This does put some finite added risk into the DM-1 flight.
The parachute system is significantly modified from the 3 chute Cargo Dragon version which has something like 16 for 16 successes.  However it has been tested ~10 times, although I don't know how many included the new reef cutter.

Why, again, did NASA insist of adding a 4th parachute?
And won't NASA let SpaceX assume the risk of a parachute failure on DM-1, at the potential cost of having to do it again, as they continue their certification for DM-2?

Does anyone else remember and feel like Charlie Brown truing to kick the football.?
Imagine Bridenstine in the role of Lucy.....

do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?

Do you grasp the cost of losing a crew on Soyuz in a political sense?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 12/01/2018 01:45 am
Do you grasp the cost of losing a crew on Soyuz in a political sense?

Not a lot?

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/01/2018 02:40 am
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?
Don’t make this personal
Don’t assume your perspective is superior
What says that this delay will make failure less likely?
The NASA people close to the work indicated things were acceptable for next month, although scheduling would push it out a bit.
The Administrator says they are months away but assures everyone that the delay will be less than a year.
Really?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: John-H on 12/01/2018 03:12 am
Do you grasp the cost of losing a crew on Soyuz in a political sense?

Not a lot?

What is the political cost _to NASA_  if one of the many Russian Soyuz launches fails?  How about if the first flight of the US  Commercial Crew fails?   

John
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 12/01/2018 03:15 am
What is the political cost _to NASA_  if one of the many Russian Soyuz launches fails?

Close to zero.

Quote from: John-H
How about if the first flight of the US  Commercial Crew fails?   

To NASA? Not as close to zero, but not by much.

NASA doesn't matter. No-one is going to change their vote because of another "national tragedy". They'll shed some tears, rewatch the explosion videos and then go back to complaining about whatever politician they don't like this week.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 12/01/2018 08:47 am
The pendulum has swung the other way. "no-go" fever, analysis paralysis, probably other terms have been coined for this phenomenon. NASA has obviously failed to execute on the big congressional mandates: SHLV and crewed launch capability for US. It absolutely is a cultural issue and requires an investigation and very serious thinking.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/01/2018 09:19 am
Do you grasp the cost of losing a crew on Soyuz in a political sense?

Not a lot?

What is the political cost _to NASA_  if one of the many Russian Soyuz launches fails?  How about if the first flight of the US  Commercial Crew fails?   

John

UNLESS Americans are killed none for Soyuz.  there are no American domestic forces in work with the Soyuz program...and its clear NASA has near zero authority over the Russian program...(or the Russians care to even treat NASA as a partner)

Commercial crew is in my view different.  there are probably differences if the accident is fatal or not...but if a vehicle is lost or even just fails to get the crew to the station...there are forces inside of NASA and in Congress (and in aerospace|) that do not care for the commercial contracting method of operations...they are very powerful (they keep SLS afloat) and they will react aggressively

I have no idea how the Trump administration will react.  But it will mean, at the least far more NASA oversight of the program.  in my view
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/01/2018 09:24 am
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?
Don’t make this personal
Don’t assume your perspective is superior
What says that this delay will make failure less likely?
The NASA people close to the work indicated things were acceptable for next month, although scheduling would push it out a bit.
The Administrator says they are months away but assures everyone that the delay will be less than a year.
Really?

it was not personal I asked a question.

"what says this delay will make failure less likey?"

it all DEPENDS on why the delay was taken ie what reasons prompted it...and if they were reasonable what action was done to correct or address them

AS I said, I initially thought the delay was completely unjustified.  I no longer think that.  that belief is based on what I have heard and been told by people very close to the NASA and contractor side.

So much so that as I said I pulled an op ed that was going to print this coming Sunday in a major Washington based  US newspaper.

Safety is thing...the most important aspect of it is listening to well voiced concerns raised by thoughtful people.  NASA has a history of not doing that.  I am tilting to the possibility that they did here :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/01/2018 09:27 am
And we were under six weeks to launch.....

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Test Flight Dates

Marie Lewis Posted on November 21, 2018

(snip)
Test Flight Planning Dates:
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): March 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: Between OFT and CFT
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): August 2019
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): January 7, 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: Between Demo-1 and Demo-2
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): June 2019
(snip)
First operational mission: August 2019
Second operational mission: December 2019

And now we have Bridenstine throwing major shade on the schedule only 8 days later:

Bridenstine says that "there is a very low probability" that DM-1 occurs in January.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/29/nasa-program-send-astronauts-space-station-facing-more-delays/2143813002/

So what changed in the last week?
We have known for some tme that the parachute reef cutters are coming from a new supplier without flight heritage.
This does put some finite added risk into the DM-1 flight.
The parachute system is significantly modified from the 3 chute Cargo Dragon version which has something like 16 for 16 successes.  However it has been tested ~10 times, although I don't know how many included the new reef cutter.

Why, again, did NASA insist of adding a 4th parachute?
And won't NASA let SpaceX assume the risk of a parachute failure on DM-1, at the potential cost of having to do it again, as they continue their certification for DM-2?

Does anyone else remember and feel like Charlie Brown truing to kick the football.?
Imagine Bridenstine in the role of Lucy.....

do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?

Do you grasp the cost of losing a crew on Soyuz in a political sense?

I think I have the possible metrics down well.  it all depends on how thenotion of the Russian space program "collapsing" plays out

soyuz is a mature system. the only reasons for a loss of crew is collapse or failure in production control.

that is not true of Dragon2 or CST
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/01/2018 02:01 pm
From my perspective, tests are good and partial failure in tests is better. You learn from tests. DM-1 is a test flight. I'd be way more interested in multiple test flights if there is a concern for safety, then continually pushing off the full-up tests.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: freddo411 on 12/01/2018 04:42 pm


AS I said, I initially thought the delay was completely unjustified.  I no longer think that.  that belief is based on what I have heard and been told by people very close to the NASA and contractor side.

So much so that as I said I pulled an op ed that was going to print this coming Sunday in a major Washington based  US newspaper.

Safety is thing...the most important aspect of it is listening to well voiced concerns raised by thoughtful people.  NASA has a history of not doing that.  I am tilting to the possibility that they did here :)

Whoa.  If you are going to say this, I'd appreciate it if you'd fill in just a bit of detail in L2

I think part of problem with this implied delay is that Bridenstine could have included a very brief explanation of any supposed issues.  Something like:  "We are still looking at the reef cutters because one of them did not work fully during launch $XYZ".  The fact that he did not leaves open the possibility that the delay is simply manufactured for other reasons.

I urge you to fill in some detail too, for the same reason.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 12/01/2018 05:32 pm
Interesting discussion on facebook in this comment thread (https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157124450066318/?comment_id=10157124845481318&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

Specially with this comment (https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157124450066318/?comment_id=10157124845481318&reply_comment_id=10157127266176318&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

Quote
the reason you haven’t seen anything on here/twitter about them doing parachute drop tests recently is because there was a chute failure and that test article no longer exists after a ballistic impact with the desert floor.

I wonder how legitimate is this statement but certainly would be one hint at those "issues". What I certainly don't like about this approach from Bridenstine is that he is only saying "no" but not saying why and when he is asked he only says that "there have been issues". The question is "What issues?!". If what this guy said on facebook is true, then hell, yeah, I'd say that's a good reason to stop a few months more and take a look at it but saying "there have been issues" without giving some perspective of how bad they are is useless.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Joffan on 12/01/2018 07:08 pm
Interesting discussion on facebook in this comment thread (https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157124450066318/?comment_id=10157124845481318&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

Specially with this comment (https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10157124450066318/?comment_id=10157124845481318&reply_comment_id=10157127266176318&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R2%22%7D)

Quote
the reason you haven’t seen anything on here/twitter about them doing parachute drop tests recently is because there was a chute failure and that test article no longer exists after a ballistic impact with the desert floor.

I wonder how legitimate is this statement but certainly would be one hint at those "issues". What I certainly don't like about this approach from Bridenstine is that he is only saying "no" but not saying why and when he is asked he only says that "there have been issues". The question is "What issues?!". If what this guy said on facebook is true, then hell, yeah, I'd say that's a good reason to stop a few months more and take a look at it but saying "there have been issues" without giving some perspective of how bad they are is useless.

I don't see any support whatsoever across the internet for that claim of a parachute failure so bad it resulted in destruction of the load. And I suspect that if any evidence does come forth to support Gregory Dean's coyly-worded statement, it will be of an entirely unrelated parachute test nothing to do with SpaceX.

(note that the Facebook group is application-only membership, so not everyone here will be able to look at the conversation).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/01/2018 07:30 pm


AS I said, I initially thought the delay was completely unjustified.  I no longer think that.  that belief is based on what I have heard and been told by people very close to the NASA and contractor side.

So much so that as I said I pulled an op ed that was going to print this coming Sunday in a major Washington based  US newspaper.

Safety is thing...the most important aspect of it is listening to well voiced concerns raised by thoughtful people.  NASA has a history of not doing that.  I am tilting to the possibility that they did here :)

Whoa.  If you are going to say this, I'd appreciate it if you'd fill in just a bit of detail in L2

I think part of problem with this implied delay is that Bridenstine could have included a very brief explanation of any supposed issues.  Something like:  "We are still looking at the reef cutters because one of them did not work fully during launch $XYZ".  The fact that he did not leaves open the possibility that the delay is simply manufactured for other reasons.

I urge you to fill in some detail too, for the same reason.

I dont have the full story from NASA's  perspective and I am to far away from Houston to get it as people are reluctant to say  some things in emails these days, even private ones. (I'll be back on the ranch in January but right now PBN certification and 77X stuff has got me stuck)     BUT as I always do with an op ed or an article or whatever that is going into professional print under "my name" I circulated it to people who I trust and who can tell me "yes or no" I am comfortable with how you used what I told you

and everything I got back from "the usual suspects" in Seattle, Houston and some blue suit friends I have who hang out at SpaceX told me "be careful with this one" and why and so I Pulled it

Safety is a hard thing....I am USN NAtops and FAA Safety trained, have been involved in many Aircraft investigations and the trick is that if reasonable people raise reasonable objections then as a manager you are a fool if you dont investigate them

Now dont take that as I have all that much "awe" for NASA safety culture.  its literally killed 14 astronauts and they have had some near misses at the station (including on EVA's).  the old line "anyone can stop a launch" that was thrown around during the CAIB is BS.   but the friends I have in commercial spaceflight at NASA I do take quite seriously and I always take the Seattle safety office of my former company... seriously

and I think that there are some serious people trying to raise some serious concerns...and this was one method of addressing them.

I know that two triggers for this (on each side) was that few at Boeing liked the results of the thruster test...nothing went as predicted or modeled and there are some worrisome issues with the chutes on the DRagon series performance.

I DONT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT EITHER ISSUE to make a judgment but people who I trust are concerned...and that one takes seriously

For what it is worth...I am told part of the issue at both companies is that in the past people have raised issues about things that eventually "bit" the company ...and were simply ignored.   

that is the thing that gets people's attention...aka when something is brought to safeties attention and its simply ignored...thats a red flag.

as an example...everything that my old employeer is finding at Lion air...has nothing to do with the airplane or the MCAPS but everything to do with massive safety violations and people who objected to what was happening being told to "go away" 

you cannot do that
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/01/2018 07:43 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 12/01/2018 08:17 pm
I just read the Facebook thread - there is nothing on there that actually has anything concrete about a chute failure. It's all just "maybe", "might have" etc. In fact it refers back to this site about an issue with the chute where is was within parameters but not perfect (Think Woods had the inside track on that).

There is just one person making statements without any backup or citation.

I call BS on this one.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 12/01/2018 08:54 pm
I call BS on this one.

Yeah, I think it is most likely BS. The writer of that statement is a former NASA intern but beyond that there is no credit to his words and a total parachute failiure would seem very bad to not have broken into the usual space news, specially from journalists that lean more to the side of SpaceX's competition. We all remember how their headlines were when that issue at the engine test stand in McGregor or with Zuma, imagine how tasty a total parachute failiure would look like to them...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 12/02/2018 03:57 am
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?

There in lies the problem. Politicians view themselves as being more important than anybody else and their views have more weight even if they are contrary to engineers, scientists, and people with common sense.

Edit: I guess I feel the need to expand on this. I believe that politicians should give NASA goals like explore the moon or asteroids etc. And then step back and let NASA do its job without trying to micro-manage NASA.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 12/02/2018 04:20 am
Everything I have read points to an extremely small issue being blown out of proportion regards the "parachute failure". But I have to give TrippleSeven his due, if there really is a serious issue, I wish NASA would make it public and quickly so this divisive debate can be put to bed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 12/02/2018 08:44 am
Everything I have read points to an extremely small issue being blown out of proportion regards the "parachute failure". But I have to give TrippleSeven his due, if there really is a serious issue, I wish NASA would make it public and quickly so this divisive debate can be put to bed.

If they had a serious issue, it would have been made public immediately. All they've got is innuendo.

Matthew
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/02/2018 05:57 pm
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?

There in lies the problem. Politicians view themselves as being more important than anybody else and their views have more weight even if they are contrary to engineers, scientists, and people with common sense.

Edit: I guess I feel the need to expand on this. I believe that politicians should give NASA goals like explore the moon or asteroids etc. And then step back and let NASA do its job without trying to micro-manage NASA.

Politicans good and bad are responsive to what the people want...more than engineers etc...because that is their life blood...and the people at least of the US "dont" have a reason to support human spaceflight period...much less programs that 1) kill people and 2) kill people for reasons that turn out to be "almost" carelessness.

Almost as many people are alive today who were alive when Apollo 11 happened as not...AND the "nots" dont seem to care much about space exploration other than the occassional robot.  And that seems to be world wide.

I think that can be reversed but politicans are quite sensitive to that...when there is disaster...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TripleSeven on 12/02/2018 06:01 pm
Everything I have read points to an extremely small issue being blown out of proportion regards the "parachute failure". But I have to give TrippleSeven his due, if there really is a serious issue, I wish NASA would make it public and quickly so this divisive debate can be put to bed.

I think that they will get it sorted out...its a learning process by both Boeing and SpaceX and NASA.  neither company has really built a human spaceflight vehicle as a product and NASA has never really overseen that effort and acted in largemeasure like the FAA does to aviation.

its not a role NASA is very good at...but it might be one of their future roles. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 12/03/2018 08:17 pm
Well...According to Hans during Today's CRS-16 briefing, DM-1 is still on the books for January and he believes they have any supposed "Parachute Issues" well understood and under control (paraphrasing).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 12/03/2018 08:22 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: speedevil on 12/03/2018 08:26 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

If there were humans in it.
The issue is as I understand it injurious G levels, not 'dragon falls apart'.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/03/2018 08:59 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 12/04/2018 01:08 am
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2018 06:34 am
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: envy887 on 12/04/2018 12:19 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648

I've seen those, but they don't answer my question about single or dual fault tolerance.

If Crew Dragon would have had dangerous impact speeds with a single chute failure, that seems like a good reason to add a 4th.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 12/04/2018 12:44 pm

I've seen those, but they don't answer my question about single or dual fault tolerance.

If Crew Dragon would have had dangerous impact speeds with a single chute failure, that seems like a good reason to add a 4th.

Doesn't this stim from Pad Abort using a modified Dragon 1, the SuperDracos underperformed. The test showed what need improved & 4 chutes give them margin they needed.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mgeagon on 12/04/2018 12:55 pm
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2018 01:59 pm
Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?

On a four chute system for Crew Dragon a single chute failure will not impact the human crew in the slightest. A dual chute failure is perfectly survivable with only non life-threatening injuries expected.


So, single fault redundant for no impact to the crew whatsoever.
Dual fault redundant for non-catastrophic damage to the crew.


If three of the four chutes fail, the crew is dead. And so will be the capsule.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/04/2018 06:23 pm
Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?

On a four chute system for Crew Dragon a single chute failure will not impact the human crew in the slightest. A dual chute failure is perfectly survivable with only non life-threatening injuries expected.

Does this take into account 6 months of microgravity? 12 months? 18 months? What kind of injuries are we talking about in each case? Multiple hip fractures? damaged spinal columns? Non-life threatening injuries runs the gambit from paper cuts to lifelong disability.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/04/2018 06:38 pm
Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?

On a four chute system for Crew Dragon a single chute failure will not impact the human crew in the slightest. A dual chute failure is perfectly survivable with only non life-threatening injuries expected.

Does this take into account 6 months of microgravity? 12 months? 18 months? What kind of injuries are we talking about in each case? Multiple hip fractures? damaged spinal columns? Non-life threatening injuries runs the gambit from paper cuts to lifelong disability.


NASA has a list of injury types it considers to be life-threatening. Damaged spinal column is considered life-threatening. So does damaged organs and severe grades of concussion and damaged arteries. As well as a host of other injuries including severe damage to the lungs.
Non life-threatening runs the gambit from small cuts, bruises, broken bones in extremeties to mild types of concussion, inner-ear damage and damaged eardrums.

Nominal crew duration for Crew Dragon is six months in microgravity under normal ISS exercise regime.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 12/07/2018 04:11 am
adding a 4th parachute?

Crew Dragon is significantly heavier than Cargo Dragon. If using a 3 parachute system and one failed, the water impact speed would be too high. 4th parachute allows one to fail and splashdown speed to remain within tolerance.

Are you saying that Cargo Dragon has no tolerance to a single chute failure? That doesn't sound right to me.

Cargo Dragon does.

Crew Dragon is heavier. It needs 4 chutes.

For single fault tolerance, or dual fault tolerance? Do you have a source for this?

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648

Thank you very much for all these links, I had not read any of this before and corrects my mis-conceptions.
One of the reasons given for the 4 chutes vs 3 for cargo Dragon was that the Crew Dragon was considerably heavier, largely due to the full prop load. Since base area is the same, wouldn't the higher mass mean the capsule would penetrate farther into the water, thus reducing g-forces? I guess not enough. And I don't understand the reference to "knofe" entry. Is the capsule tilted to reduce impact?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/07/2018 06:14 am

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)

Thank you very much for all these links, I had not read any of this before and corrects my mis-conceptions.
One of the reasons given for the 4 chutes vs 3 for cargo Dragon was that the Crew Dragon was considerably heavier, largely due to the full prop load. Since base area is the same, wouldn't the higher mass mean the capsule would penetrate farther into the water, thus reducing g-forces? I guess not enough. And I don't understand the reference to "knofe" entry. Is the capsule tilted to reduce impact?

Re: "Knife" impact/splash-down.

The Apollo capsule was suspended under its parachutes at such an angle that the "edge" between the primary heatshield and the backshell hit the water first. That particular edge had an angle of substantially less than 90 degrees. As such, going into the water "edge first" the capsule kinda "knifed" into the water, which makes for a more gentle deceleration.

On Crew Dragon the angle between the primary heathshield and the backshell is much closer to 90 degrees, making for a much more "blunt" edge. And although Crew Dragon is also hitting the water "edge first", the bluntness of its edge makes for a much more sudden deceleration. It is therefore necessary to kill off as much vertical velocity as possible prior to hitting the water. That requirement is one of the contributing factors to having four parachutes on Crew Dragon.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/09/2018 02:02 am
Some of the slides from the NAC meeting.  Hopefully NASA will post the entire presentation at some point.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2018 05:49 pm
Commercial crew slides from the NAC meeting are now available:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nac_ccp_status_dec_6_2018_non-sbu.pdf
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 12/10/2018 10:32 pm
Boeing hasn't begun shock testing on their docking adapter? Really?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/11/2018 07:16 am
Boeing hasn't begun shock testing on their docking adapter? Really?

In the 2012 - 2014 timeframe the NASA Docking System (NDS) adopted the SIMAC design. Which, by the way, is a Boeing design. SIMAC is what is used on Starliner. So, what Boeing is using on Starliner also happens to be the baseline system for NDS.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42614 (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42614)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009916.pdf (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009916.pdf)
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-8-26-Boeing-Continues-Progress-on-Improved-Space-Station-Docking-System#assets_117 (https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-8-26-Boeing-Continues-Progress-on-Improved-Space-Station-Docking-System#assets_117)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 12/20/2018 08:43 pm
Irene Klotz
@Free_Space
 SpaceX Falcon 9 that will launch GPS III is first to include COPV 2s on both first and second stage, the configuration needed for seven Commercial Crew certification flights. Previously two F9s flew with new COPVs on upper stage. published 12/19 http://Awin.aviationweek.com  (paywall)
10:38 AM - Dec 20, 2018

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1075777466323460103
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/20/2018 09:03 pm
I randomly ran across this in a search and I'm too lazy to look back through the site to see if it's been posted before, so sorry in advance if it's a duplicate.

[Feb. 2017] Astronauts Train With Air Force Survival School Instructors (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1083780/astronauts-train-with-air-force-survival-school-instructors/)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/21/2018 02:01 am
This is for SpaceX:
Quote
MOD 77: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to permit acceptance and partial payment for 66% ($60M) of SubCLIN 001A milestone 01A Design Certification Review (DCR) based on the Contracting Officer's unilateral assessment of the work completed. At the time payment, 66% of the associated performance-based financing payments for SubCLIN 001A will be liquidated. The following changes are made:

1. The following criteria is added to the OCR Acceptance Criteria in Attachment J-03, Appendix A:

"(g) Open items shall be completed in accordance with the burn down plan and incremental certification commitments added to the Milestone Review Plan (MRP), established in December 2018. The OCR milestone will remain open until the work identified in the burn down plan and MRP is completed."
2. As consideration for the changes described above, the Contractor shall provide early delivery of the OCR milestone data items and allow NASA access to the Validation Propulsion Module (VPM) Test Article for any IV&V at NASA's request for up to four months after completion of the testing complete milestone.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 12/21/2018 02:38 am
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 12/21/2018 02:58 am
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?

I'll take a stab at the 2nd part.  I think IV&V is Independent verification & validation.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/21/2018 04:43 am
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?

The Validation Propulsion Module might be a qualification model for SuperDraco.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/21/2018 06:52 am
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?

The Validation Propulsion Module might be a qualification model for SuperDraco.

The Validation Propulsion Module is a high-fidelity (flight-like) qualification module (single quadrant) of the Crew Dragon propulsion system. It contains both a full-set of Super Draco's as well as the associated Draco thrusters.

Two small images of the Validation Propulsion Module (both showing hotfire of the Super Dracos) were in the recent NAC HEO slides:
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/21/2018 06:57 am
This is for SpaceX:
Quote
MOD 77: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to permit acceptance and partial payment for 66% ($60M) of SubCLIN 001A milestone 01A Design Certification Review (DCR) based on the Contracting Officer's unilateral assessment of the work completed. At the time payment, 66% of the associated performance-based financing payments for SubCLIN 001A will be liquidated. The following changes are made:

1. The following criteria is added to the OCR Acceptance Criteria in Attachment J-03, Appendix A:

"(g) Open items shall be completed in accordance with the burn down plan and incremental certification commitments added to the Milestone Review Plan (MRP), established in December 2018. The OCR milestone will remain open until the work identified in the burn down plan and MRP is completed."
2. As consideration for the changes described above, the Contractor shall provide early delivery of the OCR milestone data items and allow NASA access to the Validation Propulsion Module (VPM) Test Article for any IV&V at NASA's request for up to four months after completion of the testing complete milestone.

This is a fine example of how CCtCAP having become very burdensome on both CCP contractors.

Their contracts are firm fixed price, but with a major caveat: NASA retained to right to ADD requirements and acceptance criteria even after contract signing. The above is a fine example of this. NASA has used this right to a much greater extent than both contractors had previously anticipated.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 12/21/2018 12:45 pm

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?

On a four chute system for Crew Dragon a single chute failure will not impact the human crew in the slightest. A dual chute failure is perfectly survivable with only non life-threatening injuries expected.


So, single fault redundant for no impact to the crew whatsoever.
Dual fault redundant for non-catastrophic damage to the crew.


If three of the four chutes fail, the crew is dead. And so will be the capsule.

Woods, thanks. I red all the posts you linked, but.. how the hell did you find that? Do you keep a private database for links on the topic?

Another question, if D2 were to approach the ground too fast for survival, for instance if it is hanging on 1 chute or if even none at all.. what argument is there to not use the superdracos to cushion the impact?  I understand that in a reentry scenario, the tanks are still full or are they vented prior to reentry?

Even if D2 would not have perfect attitude control, could not target a spot or would not be able to prevent tip-over and thrust into the ground in all cases.. if the astronauts are dead anyway, why not run the engines and attempt to safe them regardless? You cannot lose more than you already lost in this scenario. This of course cannot be a thing the system should rely on or should be designed for. Just.. run the engines instead of doing nothing.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 12/21/2018 01:03 pm
This is for SpaceX:
Quote
MOD 77: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to permit acceptance and partial payment for 66% ($60M) of SubCLIN 001A milestone 01A Design Certification Review (DCR) based on the Contracting Officer's unilateral assessment of the work completed. At the time payment, 66% of the associated performance-based financing payments for SubCLIN 001A will be liquidated. The following changes are made:

1. The following criteria is added to the OCR Acceptance Criteria in Attachment J-03, Appendix A:

"(g) Open items shall be completed in accordance with the burn down plan and incremental certification commitments added to the Milestone Review Plan (MRP), established in December 2018. The OCR milestone will remain open until the work identified in the burn down plan and MRP is completed."
2. As consideration for the changes described above, the Contractor shall provide early delivery of the OCR milestone data items and allow NASA access to the Validation Propulsion Module (VPM) Test Article for any IV&V at NASA's request for up to four months after completion of the testing complete milestone.

This is a fine example of how CCtCAP having become very burdensome on both CCP contractors.

Their contracts are firm fixed price, but with a major caveat: NASA retained to right to ADD requirements and acceptance criteria even after contract signing. The above is a fine example of this. NASA has used this right to a much greater extent than both contractors had previously anticipated.

How much negotiating power does each side have? Can NASA say "these are the requirements, X is what we will pay, you have no choice"? Can the contractor say "for those requirements, the price is Y, not X and if you don't pay Y, we won't do it"?

I have commercial experience and in that realm it's a negotiation. The scope change and the price are both negotiable.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/21/2018 02:12 pm
This is for SpaceX:
Quote
MOD 77: The purpose of this bilateral modification is to permit acceptance and partial payment for 66% ($60M) of SubCLIN 001A milestone 01A Design Certification Review (DCR) based on the Contracting Officer's unilateral assessment of the work completed. At the time payment, 66% of the associated performance-based financing payments for SubCLIN 001A will be liquidated. The following changes are made:

1. The following criteria is added to the OCR Acceptance Criteria in Attachment J-03, Appendix A:

"(g) Open items shall be completed in accordance with the burn down plan and incremental certification commitments added to the Milestone Review Plan (MRP), established in December 2018. The OCR milestone will remain open until the work identified in the burn down plan and MRP is completed."
2. As consideration for the changes described above, the Contractor shall provide early delivery of the OCR milestone data items and allow NASA access to the Validation Propulsion Module (VPM) Test Article for any IV&V at NASA's request for up to four months after completion of the testing complete milestone.

This is a fine example of how CCtCAP having become very burdensome on both CCP contractors.

Their contracts are firm fixed price, but with a major caveat: NASA retained to right to ADD requirements and acceptance criteria even after contract signing. The above is a fine example of this. NASA has used this right to a much greater extent than both contractors had previously anticipated.

How much negotiating power does each side have? Can NASA say "these are the requirements, X is what we will pay, you have no choice"? Can the contractor say "for those requirements, the price is Y, not X and if you don't pay Y, we won't do it"?

I have commercial experience and in that realm it's a negotiation. The scope change and the price are both negotiable.

Added requirements and cert criteria that clearly go outside the defined scope of the contract are extra work and require additional payment to the contractors.

However, the Prop Validation Module was a milestone in the original CCtCAP contract. NASA added additional requirements for this milestone, without making extra funding available. The reasoning is simple: NASA needs more insight into the test results to be able to determine if the milestone has been met to full satisfaction. Such extra work is within the scope of the contract and does not see any additional payments to SpaceX. But it does add extra effort for both SpaceX and NASA.

Both CCP contractors were fully aware that NASA retained the right to add additional requirments and criteria, within the scope of the contract.
What both CCP contractors failed to properly estimate is the extent of NASA exercising this right.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 12/21/2018 02:16 pm

I'm that source. A fourth chute was added to the Crew Dragon design because propulsive landing went out the window. The road to that decision and its consequences are all explained in these posts:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41018.msg1854726#msg1854726)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45594.msg1854724#msg1854724)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41016.msg1838743#msg1838743)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33596.msg1717648#msg1717648)
I take it from your sources that NASA didn’t trust SpaceX’ knife edge entry, though that was used successfully on every human capsule spaceflight in history? The agency required more redundancy, though Orion is in fact heavier, from much faster re-entry speeds? If so, it appears a single chute failier would not impact the human crew in the slightest and and dual failier might result in a higher than expected but not catastrophic crew injury. Am I intimating correctly?

On a four chute system for Crew Dragon a single chute failure will not impact the human crew in the slightest. A dual chute failure is perfectly survivable with only non life-threatening injuries expected.


So, single fault redundant for no impact to the crew whatsoever.
Dual fault redundant for non-catastrophic damage to the crew.


If three of the four chutes fail, the crew is dead. And so will be the capsule.

Woods, thanks. I red all the posts you linked, but.. how the hell did you find that? Do you keep a private database for links on the topic?

Another question, if D2 were to approach the ground too fast for survival, for instance if it is hanging on 1 chute or if even none at all.. what argument is there to not use the superdracos to cushion the impact?  I understand that in a reentry scenario, the tanks are still full or are they vented prior to reentry?

Even if D2 would not have perfect attitude control, could not target a spot or would not be able to prevent tip-over and thrust into the ground in all cases.. if the astronauts are dead anyway, why not run the engines and attempt to safe them regardless? You cannot lose more than you already lost in this scenario. This of course cannot be a thing the system should rely on or should be designed for. Just.. run the engines instead of doing nothing.

In such a scenario the SuperDracos are there, but the crew does not have a capability to manually activate them. Whether or not your scenario has been added to the on-board software, such that the on-board computer can activate the SuperDracos to safe the landing, is unknown to me.

The easier solution is making sure that the parachute system is so robust that a one-chute scenario never happens. And that is exactly what NASA and SpaceX are doing right now.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JonathanD on 12/21/2018 04:47 pm
The easier solution is making sure that the parachute system is so robust that a one-chute scenario never happens. And that is exactly what NASA and SpaceX are doing right now.

Still...after CRS-7 they learned it's a good idea to have software in place for unlikely scenarios.  We've seen a successful hover test after all...it's a tantalizingly close emergency option.  And what a shame to not be able to use if if God forbid the scenario ever arises.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 12/21/2018 04:59 pm

Still...after CRS-7 they learned it's a good idea to have software in place for unlikely scenarios.  We've seen a successful hover test after all...it's a tantalizingly close emergency option.  And what a shame to not be able to use if if God forbid the scenario ever arises.

My thought as well - unless it was found to be dynamically unstable and uncontrollable, the capability is inherent to the design with the integrated Super Dracos.  Why not include a Hail Mary option in the control system as a last ditch resort?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/21/2018 05:07 pm
Do we really need to rehash propulsive landing in two threads at the same time?  Maybe we could just keep it in the Dragon 2 thread since that's where it cropped up again first?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Semmel on 12/21/2018 07:34 pm
Do we really need to rehash propulsive landing in two threads at the same time?  Maybe we could just keep it in the Dragon 2 thread since that's where it cropped up again first?

You are correct, I didnt intent to discuss the merits or history of propulsive landing. My question was narrowly focussed on the above described scenario and Woods answered it as best he could. There is no need to discuss this any further.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 12/25/2018 02:54 pm
This has been mentioned already by a number of NSF Forum members but here is an article on it:

NASA Astronauts Will Still Ride Russian Rockets After US Craft Arrive

https://www.space.com/42781-nasa-astronauts-will-ride-soyuz-spacecraft.html

Quote
"Bill Gerstenmaier and senior NASA leadership have stated their intention to have U.S. crewmembers on Soyuz vehicles after 2019 and [to have] Russians on U.S. crew vehicles," Stephanie Schierholz, who works in public affairs at NASA Headquarters in Washington, told Space.com.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/25/2018 03:29 pm
Do we really need to rehash propulsive landing in two threads at the same time?  Maybe we could just keep it in the Dragon 2 thread since that's where it cropped up again first?

No news here
Except that a previous Space.com article (https://www.space.com/42592-nasa-astronaut-among-last-from-baikonur-cosmodrome.html) from last month said the opposite: “NASA astronaut among the last to launch from baikonur cosmodrome”

The FPIPs we used to see always had cosmonauts on American Commercial Crew spacecraft and American or partner astronauts on Soyuz as far ahead as the planning went. I thought these were direct exchanges, one for one trades with no money or credit being exchanged.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/03/2019 12:26 am
SpaceX CCP contract mod (Dec. 21, 2018):
Quote
MOD 55: The purpose of this modification is to add the requirement to integrate the Hatch Handle Tool for each crewed mission (Referenced in Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs 2.3.6 and 4.1.5) and add the Hatch Handle Tool (J-07 item #19), Half Cargo Transfer Bags (BHSEALS Table J-07-2 item #8.4) and NDE Test Specimens (Test and Return Table J-07- 4 item #2) as Government Furnished Property.  As a result, Attachment J-03 PWS pages 30, 54 and 54.1 and  Attachment J-07 page 3, 5 and 7 are replaced.

Some Boeing contract mods:
Quote
NNK17MA39T
MOD 4: (Dec. 2018) This bilateral modification is issued to extend the period of performance for Task 1, Parachute Compartment Development Test Vehicle (PCDTV) Lease, from 12/14/18 to 3/31/19. The task order value remains unchanged.
   
80KSC018F0280 (Aug. 2018)
For this task order, the contractor shall conduct a test to assess the impacts of the new NASA Docking System shock requirements on the CST-100.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: IntoTheVoid on 01/15/2019 04:31 pm
This is probably better here, than the DM-1 mission thread. (Unlike many, the article isn't just a rehash of the video. I thought both were worthwhile.)

New verge article and video with lots of good camera angles of the SpaceX crew simulator along with astronaut interviews. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/15/18182243/spacex-nasa-astronauts-human-crew-commercial-space-iss-tourism-bob-behnken-doug-hurley
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Scylla on 02/22/2019 05:35 pm
A description/comparison of Starliner, Dragon 2, Soyuz and Shuttle.

How SpaceX and Boeing will get Astronauts to the ISS
Everyday Astronaut
https://youtu.be/RqLNIBAroGY
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edzieba on 03/04/2019 04:31 pm
According to the timeline from the last NAC (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1886039#msg1886039), DM-2's Dragon should have had capsule completion yesterday, and be undergoing integration with the trunk today. Have there been any rumblings of delays to this timeline? I can't recall seeing any photos of that Dragon since August (prior to heatshield integration).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/04/2019 06:49 pm
According to the timeline from the last NAC (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1886039#msg1886039), DM-s's Dragon should have had capsule completion yesterday, and be undergoing integration with the trunk today. Have there been any rumblings of delays to this timeline? I can't recall seeing any photos of that Dragon since August (prior to heatshield integration).
Do you mean DM-2? 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 03/04/2019 06:55 pm
According to the timeline from the last NAC (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.msg1886039#msg1886039), DM-s's Dragon should have had capsule completion yesterday, and be undergoing integration with the trunk today. Have there been any rumblings of delays to this timeline? I can't recall seeing any photos of that Dragon since August (prior to heatshield integration).
Do you mean DM-2?

Yes. Original post is confusing as current Dragon is attached to ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/04/2019 11:54 pm
I meant, is there some meaning for -s that we're not aware of. This has to be at least 2 though.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 03/05/2019 12:34 pm
Poster was referring to DM-2, specifically screenshot 66 on the linked NAC presentation.

That presentation was in December (or earlier?) and had DM-1 (now at ISS) launching January 7th and DM-2 launching in June, so there have been significant delays since this presentation was put together.

I don't know if DM-2 has been integrated with the trunk yet, however.  I have not seen anything posted about that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 03/05/2019 12:54 pm
In one of the press conferences , they mentioned they had some changes to make to heaters on the dracos, life support etc. Wouldn't this delay the mating to the trunk until the changes are done and also keep the DM-2 in Hawthorne until completed? They may also find other issues as a result of the current (dm-1) flight.

Somehow I can't see DM-2 in Florida for a couple of months.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: edzieba on 03/05/2019 01:21 pm
Yep, I meant DM-2, that was a typo.

Was the prop line temperature issue only identified post launch, or already known about and simply flown with mitigation for DM-1 (by capping max pulse duration IIRC)? It may have already been fixed for DM-2 during initial build if it was discovered early enough.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/05/2019 01:25 pm
Yep, I meant DM-2, that was a typo.

Was the prop line temperature issue only identified post launch, or already known about and simply flown with mitigation for DM-1 (by capping max pulse duration IIRC)? It may have already been fixed for DM-2 during initial build if it was discovered early enough.

The temperature issue was disclosed in the pre-launch briefings.  It didn't sound like the issue was resolved yet.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joseph.a.navin on 03/05/2019 01:39 pm
Hello,
I am writing an article for my school newspaper and I mentioned the CCtCAP contracts. Am I correct in this paragraph about how the contracts work etc?

"SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is derived from their Dragon spacecraft which currently delivers cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract awarded to SpaceX along with Orbital ATK (which is now part of Northrop Grumman) by NASA. The first CRS mission (CRS-1) launched to the ISS in 2012. Crew Dragon was developed as a result of SpaceX along with Boeing being awarded with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts in 2014. The CCtCap contracts were given to the companies to build safe and low-cost spacecraft which could transport NASA astronauts from American soil to the ISS."


 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/05/2019 01:47 pm
Hello,
I am writing an article for my school newspaper and I mentioned the CCtCAP contracts. Am I correct in this paragraph about how the contracts work etc?

"SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is derived from their Dragon spacecraft which currently delivers cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract awarded to SpaceX along with Orbital ATK (which is now part of Northrop Grumman) by NASA. The first CRS mission (CRS-1) launched to the ISS in 2012. Crew Dragon was developed as a result of SpaceX along with Boeing being awarded with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts in 2014. The CCtCap contracts were given to the companies to build safe and low-cost spacecraft which could transport NASA astronauts from American soil to the ISS."

There were multiple rounds of contracts leading up to the CCtCap selection.  Crew Dragon was in development before that final contract was awarded.  Its development was completed as a result of SpaceX winning that final contract.  (Low-cost may have been an initial goal of the Commercial Crew Program but it didn't really turn out that way.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 03/05/2019 02:19 pm
Yep, I meant DM-2, that was a typo.

Was the prop line temperature issue only identified post launch, or already known about and simply flown with mitigation for DM-1 (by capping max pulse duration IIRC)? It may have already been fixed for DM-2 during initial build if it was discovered early enough.

The temperature issue was disclosed in the pre-launch briefings.  It didn't sound like the issue was resolved yet.

To me it did: someone asked Hans how much new findings/issues from dm-1 would affect the dm-2 schedule and he said something like 'if they're like the Draco heaters issue they'd be pretty straightforward to solve'.   
But everyone hears what they want to hear.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ChaseOne on 03/10/2019 08:58 pm
 I have a really basic question but no one has answered this question anywhere…  on commercial crew flights, what is the protocol for communicating with the spacecraft and controlling it after tower is cleared? Is Houston going to control the flights and use their Capcom  to make callouts and advise the crew like they did in previous missions or is there a different protocol for commercial crew? Also will there be a difference between controlling SpaceX flights as opposed to Starliner? I realize during unmanned missions space X and ULA, respectively control the missions. Thanks I hope somebody can answer this. thanks I hope somebody can answer this
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/10/2019 09:01 pm
SpaceX / Boeing will control the flight. NASA will talk to the crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 03/10/2019 09:18 pm
As QuantumG stated, crew communication is through CAPCOM.  Same as it has always been.  Long history there. Short version is that NASA wants a single point of contact-communication on the ground who has experience and understands what the Crew Up There are going through.  (Think that may have been relaxed recently?)  Note that  on the most recent mission, not even the NASA Flight Director communicated directly with the astronauts, although CAPCOM was sitting next to him.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/10/2019 09:36 pm
Launch control is done by each provider's launch provider (in case of SpaceX, SpaceX and in case of Boeing, it is ULA). SpaceX's launch control will be at KSC's firing room and I don't know where is ULA's launch control but it is somewhere on the cape I guess. Mission control is done by SpaceX at Hawthorne and by Boeing at NASA's JSC.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/12/2019 10:29 pm
Remember all those arguments about seat cost for commercial crew? Well, now we know! NASA has published a paper giving the separate costs for development and unit.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

E. Zapata, "An assessment of cost improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS program and implication for future NASA missions," AIAA Space 2017 Forum, Orlando FL, Sep. 2017.

Costs in millions of dollars.

            Development  Unit  Crew  Seat
Apollo CSM    $26,700    $716   3   $238.7
Apollo LM     $14,761    $732   2   $366.0
Orion         $19,466    $980   4   $245.0
Dragon 2       $2,201    $308   4    $77.0
CST-100        $3,271    $418   4   $104.5


For the crew number, I'm using the numbers that NASA will be flying. Only Dragon 2 is cheaper than Soyuz, which is $90M a seat. If we average Dragon 2 and CST-100, that works out to $90.75M a seat, pretty much equal to that of Soyuz.

Edit. Looking at the fine print, the Dragon 2 and CST-100 costs do not include the launcher cost, which will substantially increase the per seat cost.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/12/2019 11:30 pm
It's almost like they baked the numbers that way...

For example, there's virtually no chance that NASA will be paying $77M/seat for Dragon, they'll be paying the unit price and flying 2 or 3 seats. Worse for Starliner (why are they still using CST-100?)

Thankfully, few people ever took seriously the idea that spending $6B to develop two vehicles*, that will cost more for NASA to fly than just buying seats on Soyuz until the retirement of the ISS, was about cost saving. It's about national prestige and giving money to Boeing (with SpaceX along for the ride). Only recently has anyone been pushing the idea that Dragon/Starliner have a lifetime beyond the ISS - and it's really not that popular a viewpoint.

* Plus the rest of the funding that went into this program - notice how none of that got accounted.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/12/2019 11:34 pm
Remember all those arguments about seat cost for commercial crew? Well, now we know! NASA has published a paper giving the separate costs for development and unit.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

E. Zapata, "An assessment of cost improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS program and implication for future NASA missions," AIAA Space 2017 Forum, Orlando FL, Sep. 2017.

That was discussed in multiple threads here in 2017.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/12/2019 11:35 pm
That was discussed in multiple threads here in 2017.

Oh... that's why. I remember what year it is now  ::)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/12/2019 11:56 pm
Edit. Looking at the fine print, the Dragon 2 and CST-100 costs do not include the launcher cost, which will substantially increase the per seat cost.

Was about to mention this, but you beat me to it :)  Note also from the fine print that Orion doesn't include the cost of ops or ground support, but the CCP figures do. If I had to WAG it, the costs would be $90 for a NASA-friendly SpaceX F9 launch, bringing cost per head to $99.5M and $150M for an Atlas V N22, bringing the cost to $142M per head.  I wonder how much allowing both Dragon and F9 reuse would save.  (Edit: don't quote these numbers, see the immediately following post)

Edgar Zapata has a bunch of great papers and presentations (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Nm=123|Collection|NASA%20STI||17|Collection|NACA&Ns=Publication-Date|1&N=4294925174) in NTRS.  A few cool ones to highlight:

The Opportunity in Commercial Approaches for Future NASA Deep Space Exploration Elements (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008820.pdf) (presentation version)

Kickstarting a New Era of Lunar Industrialization via Campaign of Lunar COTS Missions (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170000827.pdf)

Do All Our Models Still Say ‘No’? (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008892.pdf) which starts off like this:
Quote
This paper’s essential idea is that when NASA’s space exploration ambitions and cost inflation exceed the rate of
NASA budget growth over the long term, the result is ever-larger scale programs that stretch increasing efforts
across longer time spans and this distribution of funding causes increasing NASA irrelevance. With distance to a
moving target increasing over time, hitting the target may be merely challenging today but impossibly difficult
tomorrow. Reducing ambitions, aiming for closer targets, merely reinforces the irrelevance the new plan tries to avoid
while creating unsustainable scenarios, programs stretched so far across time the low flight frequency calls into
question the ability to maintain competence and safety. Irrelevance is the likely loss of stakeholder interest as much
as a certainty of being overcome by events as planned results stretch beyond a generation. We propose a steady
transformation of NASA space exploration and operations funding towards more, smaller commercial / public-private
partnerships, favoring those with strong non-government business cases, to increase the pace of NASA achievements
and avoid having most funding in projects with goals forever a generation away. A stakeholder should be able to begin
and end at least one major program and see its goals achieved, and preferably more, within a single career, rather than
handing off incomplete tasks to another generation with those goals still a generation away.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/13/2019 12:05 am
The company supposed to allow people to go to Mars for peanuts increasing their prices by 50pct? Pretty significant.

Yep. They're now charging ~$230m for a cargo and ~$400m for a crewed flight (excluding launch), BFR will cost several times that much, everything else is wishful thinking.

I don't think that's accurate excluding launch. Launch (on a new booster every time) is part of the package, separate costs are not detailed anywhere that I know of.

Crew Dragon only has 2 flights per year. If BFR only flies twice per year, it will cost at least that much, but that rate is not sustainable - it will either fly much more (and lower cost per flight), or not at all.

Crew Dragon only has 1 flight per year, and it's more in the $200-230M range including launch if you look at the amount on the task orders for the flights.  The cost of passenger flights to Mars on BFR is unknown and irrelevant right now, that's far in the future.

The recurring price for crewed Dragon (including ops, excluding launch) is $308m, not $400m. My mistake. The source (page 10): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008893.pdf

The paper you linked is a bunch of estimates.  There is no such thing as a recurring price for crewed Dragon (or CST-100) excluding launch.  Those contracts are for launch and operation of the spacecraft.  That wording was in there because the chart also included other NASA vechicles where the spacecraft and launcher are procured separately.  Adding the cost of the launch to those numbers for Dragon and CST-100 would make them completely absurd. 

NASA has issued task orders for flights under the CCtCap program.  The task orders for the Boeing flights are $350M for each flight.  The task orders for SpaceX don't show a consistent price, starting at $200M for the first one and averaging about $220M for flights 3-6 (for both Boeing and SpaceX the first two flights were done separately, and flights 3-6 as a group.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/13/2019 12:57 am
I know digging up old posts is a pain, but thanks for taking the time.  I think it's an important response not just to my post but to QG's as well.

Also, I'm perhaps a little bit too entertained by the fact that even the NASA folks who seem to have the best handle on how much commercial can save still ended up significantly overestimating how much CCP acquisition was going to cost.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 03/13/2019 02:06 am
Remember all those arguments about seat cost for commercial crew? Well, now we know! NASA has published a paper giving the separate costs for development and unit.

And just to set the record straight, here's the actual delivery orders for Post Certification Missions (PCM) with their real prices:

SpaceX:
PCM-1: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma03t, $200,254,129
PCM-2: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma58t, $205,715,924
PCM-3 to 6: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk17ma01t, $885,952,220

Boeing:
PCM-1: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk15ma50t, $351,107,889
PCM-2: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk16ma04t, $351,107,889
PCM-3 to 6: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk17ma02t, $1,404,431,554

Average mission price for SpaceX: $215M
Average seat price for SpaceX (assuming 4 seats per flight): $53.75M
Average mission price for Boeing: $351M
Average seat price for Boeing (assuming 4 seats per flight): $87.75M
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/13/2019 07:25 am
Remember all those arguments about seat cost for commercial crew? Well, now we know! NASA has published a paper giving the separate costs for development and unit.

And just to set the record straight, here's the actual delivery orders for Post Certification Missions (PCM) with their real prices:

SpaceX:
PCM-1: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma03t, $200,254,129
PCM-2: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma58t, $205,715,924
PCM-3 to 6: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma74c-nnk17ma01t, $885,952,220

Boeing:
PCM-1: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk15ma50t, $351,107,889
PCM-2: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk16ma04t, $351,107,889
PCM-3 to 6: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-nnk14ma75c-nnk17ma02t, $1,404,431,554

Average mission price for SpaceX: $215M
Average seat price for SpaceX (assuming 4 seats per flight): $53.75M
Average mission price for Boeing: $351M
Average seat price for Boeing (assuming 4 seats per flight): $87.75M

Interesting this.

The SpaceX numbers come to a total of ~ $1.3B for their six PCM missions. Which is roughly half of the total SpaceX is getting under CCtCAP: $2.6B.

The Boeing numbers come to a total of ~ 2.1B for their six PCM missions. Which is again roughly half of the total Boeing is getting under CCtCAP: $4.2B.

This would suggest that the contracting structure for CCtCAP is very simple: half the money involved is for final development of the CCP systems, including the test flights (both unmanned and manned) and the other half of the money is for operational missions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/13/2019 07:51 am
Average seat price.. (assuming 4 seats per flight)

No idea why you're assuming that when NASA has already said they won't be using the 4th seat.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 03/13/2019 07:53 am
Average seat price.. (assuming 4 seats per flight)

No idea why you're assuming that when NASA has already said they won't be using the 4th seat.
Because you're wrong, and they will be using four seats?  They've gone on and on about how this will allow them to expand ISS science by adding a 7th crew member to the station since forever.  They've also talked about how there are two astros assigned to the first crewed flight, with two international partner astros to be named later.

(If you're counting only NASA astronauts here, then Soyuz doesn't fly three and Shuttle didn't fly seven, and your accounting system is broken).
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/13/2019 09:17 am
And just to set the record straight, here's the actual delivery orders for Post Certification Missions (PCM) with their real prices:

Wow! Thanks for that information. The author of the paper was estimating costs based on the FY2016 budget request. He estimated unit costs (including launch) of $405M and $654M for SpaceX and Orion, compared to $215M and $351M actual. That's an overestimate of 88% and 86%, respectively. In the 2016 budget, the crew and cargo budget increases from $1,606M in 2016 to $2,334M in 2020. Assuming $90M a seat on Soyuz, that gives a cost difference of 2334-1606+6*90 = $1268M. His estimate is 405+654 = $1059M, close to this value (estimate is 20% higher).

In this years budget, the actual crew and cargo cost is $1727M. Thus, the actual difference is 1727-1606+6*90 = $661M. Adding CST-100 and Dragon 2, that gives 215+351 = $566M, close to this difference (estimate is 17% higher). The extra 20% and 17% could be due in part to changes in prices for cargo and NASA overhead for the crewed launches.

I have to say that $215M for a crewed launch is an amazing price! With a full complement of 7 crew, that works out to only $31M per seat. I don't think Boeing will be able to compete outside of NASA on getting passengers if it is charging $351M.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 03/13/2019 04:21 pm
I have to say that $215M for a crewed launch is an amazing price! With a full complement of 7 crew, that works out to only $31M per seat. I don't think Boeing will be able to compete outside of NASA on getting passengers if it is charging $351M.
$350 million is still only $50 million/seat if flying seven.  I think it's unclear how interested SpaceX will be in flying commercial passengers on Dragon depending on how Starliner is going.  There could be a reasonably long window where Boeing would be the only game in town if they wanted to pursue it.

I think finding seven passengers who are willing to spend either amount all going up together might be a bigger challenge, though, and the pricing goes up dramatically as you subtract passengers...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/13/2019 04:51 pm
They payoff for commercial customers of the Commercial Crew Program will be when SpaceX's starship flies. Crewed starship would not be possible (in the same time frame) without SpaceX learning from NASA about how to fly crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: dubya on 03/21/2019 02:03 pm
It's almost like they baked the numbers that way...

For example, there's virtually no chance that NASA will be paying $77M/seat for Dragon, they'll be paying the unit price and flying 2 or 3 seats. Worse for Starliner (why are they still using CST-100?)

Thankfully, few people ever took seriously the idea that spending $6B to develop two vehicles*, that will cost more for NASA to fly than just buying seats on Soyuz until the retirement of the ISS, was about cost saving. It's about national prestige and giving money to Boeing (with SpaceX along for the ride). Only recently has anyone been pushing the idea that Dragon/Starliner have a lifetime beyond the ISS - and it's really not that popular a viewpoint.

* Plus the rest of the funding that went into this program - notice how none of that got accounted.

  Though I agree in principal with your cynicism, this may not be quite so bad. National pride is certainly a primary factor here but I don't think it is the only factor. In the long run the biggest effect of commercial crew will be the technology and experience gained by both Boeing and SpaceX. Although I can see Boeing doing exactly nothing with it, SpaceX is already welding junk in a field.
  Also, if all goes well, in the next 9 months there will be at least one privately owned, NASA approved, rocket and capsule that can do space tourism stuff. Which IMHO is the thin edge of the wedge.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 03/23/2019 10:53 am
Bob Behnken ✔ @AstroBehnken
 But even after all that, I'm super excited about what my future w/@NASA holds! Check out these cools shots @SpaceX shared with those of us scheduled to fly on #CrewDragon!
8:30 PM - Mar 22, 2019

https://twitter.com/AstroBehnken/status/1109250971757010945
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 03/23/2019 04:54 pm
That image makes me think of Keir Dullea in the movie 2001.  Just add a few more colored reflections on the helmet glass.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Prettz on 03/24/2019 01:22 am
Yeah they can't fool me, that's definitely from a sci-fi movie.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/24/2019 09:53 am
Bob Behnken ✔ @AstroBehnken
 But even after all that, I'm super excited about what my future w/@NASA holds! Check out these cools shots @SpaceX shared with those of us scheduled to fly on #CrewDragon!
8:30 PM - Mar 22, 2019

https://twitter.com/AstroBehnken/status/1109250971757010945 (https://twitter.com/AstroBehnken/status/1109250971757010945)

Darn! The photographer did a beautiful job in placing those softboxes. Their reflections in the visor are almost perfectly symmetrical and make Bob's face really pop out.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 03/24/2019 01:50 pm
Darn! The photographer did a beautiful job in placing those softboxes. Their reflections in the visor are almost perfectly symmetrical and make Bob's face really pop out.
I think the point of the suit is _prevent_ Bob’s face from really popping out...!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/24/2019 04:11 pm
Darn! The photographer did a beautiful job in placing those softboxes. Their reflections in the visor are almost perfectly symmetrical and make Bob's face really pop out.
I think the point of the suit is _prevent_ Bob’s face from really popping out...!

OK, that was another "spill my tea all over the keyboard" moment. Well done sir!
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/24/2019 10:34 pm
Because you're wrong, and they will be using four seats?  They've gone on and on about how this will allow them to expand ISS science by adding a 7th crew member to the station since forever.  They've also talked about how there are two astros assigned to the first crewed flight, with two international partner astros to be named later.

It's almost like you can't read between the lines.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/24/2019 10:35 pm
  Also, if all goes well, in the next 9 months there will be at least one privately owned, NASA approved, rocket and capsule that can do space tourism stuff. Which IMHO is the thin edge of the wedge.

... and neither provider has any intention of using that system to do "space tourism stuff". SpaceX is moving on to Starship. Boeing couldn't care less..
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/24/2019 11:06 pm
Because you're wrong, and they will be using four seats?  They've gone on and on about how this will allow them to expand ISS science by adding a 7th crew member to the station since forever.  They've also talked about how there are two astros assigned to the first crewed flight, with two international partner astros to be named later.

It's almost like you can't read between the lines.

Apparently I can't read between the lines either.  Could you be more explicit?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/24/2019 11:23 pm
Regarding the number of crew on a Commercial Crew flight, we know that the max on the ISS today is limited by them having two 3-seat Soyuz docked at the ISS.

With Commercial Crew, both Dragon 2 and Starliner, I have always heard that NASA wanted to fly in a 4-seat configuration, with 4 crew, with the intent being that they would be able to increase the ISS science output due to having that 7th crew person being able to focus on science and not station upkeep. Those 7 crew would be supported by the 3-seat Soyuz and 4-seat Dragon 2 or Starliner.

I do agree that no one has seriously mentioned flying NASA missions to the ISS with more than 4 crew, but both Dragon 2 and Starliner have the capability to hold up to 7 passengers and crew.

So do we have evidence that NASA no longer plans to fly 4 crew on the Commercial Crew flights? Or we good?  :o
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/25/2019 12:36 am
Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that. This would be done while another CCV is docked to the ISS and it's just a couple of weeks from departing the station. This way those three members could go down on that departing capsule. This would be great for times when they have three EVA's on a 17-day period like we have now with the battery upgrades they have at the ISS, it lets the expedition crew to focus on the science and rookie astronauts could take some experience on these short visits.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/25/2019 12:49 am
We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/25/2019 01:07 am
We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.

ISS crew will be at 7 once the russians go with three cosmonauts to the ISS and the US has full CCV availability, the US side is already working on 4 astros at this point and has been for quite a while and they indeed perform more science than ever. And I don't know why you bring up the shuttle, I'm talking about the past recent years. And btw, shuttle cancelation was decided in 2004, that's *15* years ago.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/25/2019 01:12 am
ISS crew will be at 7 once the russians go with three cosmonauts to the ISS and the US has full CCV availability, the US side is already working on 4 astros at this point and has been for quite a while and they indeed perform more science than ever. And I don't know why you bring up the shuttle, I'm talking about the past recent years. And btw, shuttle cancelation was decided in 2004, that's *15* years ago.

Still waiting for your reference. Come on folks, if I'm so wrong it should take you ten seconds to find a primary source that proves it. You haven't provided /anything/ to support your position.

I did a little searching around myself to see if there was any recent changes I was unaware of - the last time Mr Gerstenmaier even mentioned  seven crew members was 2012. His last statement was around May of last year (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/60906547-0251-4feb-9173-14f4b5b8aafc/C8EA8C3BC071C03E5E83203B4060F784.mr.-william-gerstenmaier-testimony.pdf) and there's nothing in there about it... in fact, if you read the testimony it's pretty clear that the instructions from the hill are to reduce the number of crew in anticipation of transitioning the ISS to be run commercially.

However, the key part of this activity is selling seats to foreign governments for national prestige purposes, so you'd certainly hope that eventually they'll ramp up to using all available seats. It's just unsupported to talk about it happening now, I feel.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/25/2019 01:36 am
The seven member crew assumes four on the US side and three on the Russian side.  The US side of the station has already been running at 4 crew on several of the recent expeditions (and is currently at 4).  Whether the Russians go back to three any time soon is questionable.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/25/2019 01:54 am
We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.

No, QG, “we” don’t know
We help others with whatever our expertise is and rely on our colleagues with specific knowledge to help us with issues like this.
Please Tell us.
Who invented it?
Who pushed it on the Hill and in what hearing?
Citations either way would help resolve this disagreement so it doesn’t keep popping up.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/25/2019 02:00 am
The seven member crew assumes four on the US side and three on the Russian side.  The US side of the station has already been running at 4 crew on several of the recent expeditions (and is currently at 4).  Whether the Russians go back to three any time soon is questionable.

That begs the question.
We don’t care how many are on the Russian side
NASA would have to pay for more seats to get the US side up to 4.
They can’t do it with no-funds-exchange barter with the Russians.
We were shown costs embedded in the Commercial Crew contracts but I don’t remember if it included incremental costs for extra passengers or just totals per capsule flight.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/25/2019 02:43 am
No, QG, “we” don’t know

People who pay attention to where talking points come from know.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 03/25/2019 03:01 am
Lesser mortals with less enthusiasm for dominance games would like to know, too.   :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/25/2019 03:53 am
Lesser mortals with less enthusiasm for dominance games would like to know, too.   :)

Eric Anderson dreamt it up. Jim Muncy pushed it up the hill.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/25/2019 08:02 am
I would like to know why you think the 7-memeber crew on the ISS is somehow "fake" or "invented". It almost looks like you're trolling us
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 03/25/2019 02:04 pm
Still waiting for your reference. Come on folks, if I'm so wrong it should take you ten seconds to [deleted because I'm sick of quoting this nonsense]
I figure late February of this year (https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/02/21/nasas-commercial-crew-program-on-the-verge-of-making-history/) should be fresh enough even for you:
Quote
CP will provide safe, reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit destinations, and it will end reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. As a result, the station’s current crew of six can grow, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.
Fair warning, I'm going to start flagging your posts for trolling if you keep up this alternative facts discussion.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/25/2019 02:45 pm
QuantumG must know more than NASA does then about how they plan on flying ISS.  Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 03/25/2019 04:24 pm
I am pretty sure Gerstenmeyer mentioned 4 US crew in the pre DM-1 press conference.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/25/2019 06:37 pm
Still waiting for your reference. Come on folks, if I'm so wrong it should take you ten seconds to [deleted because I'm sick of quoting this nonsense]
I figure late February of this year (https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/02/21/nasas-commercial-crew-program-on-the-verge-of-making-history/) should be fresh enough even for you:
Quote
CP will provide safe, reliable and cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit destinations, and it will end reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. As a result, the station’s current crew of six can grow, enabling more research aboard the unique microgravity laboratory.
(Snip)
Good. A quote from NASA
However, that’s “public facing” which can be “aspirational”
(Like statements on sending Crew to Mars😉)
On the other hand QG named two people, who are outside advocates, but a statement isn’t invalidated by people supporting it poorly.
Do you have a link to a NASA policy or planning response, QG?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/25/2019 10:25 pm
Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.

Great, can you show us?

You know the FPIPs are in L2.
Even the latest is years old, but it was shown as SWGlassPit said, and absense of proof is not proof of absence.
Where was it said that those plans are wrong, or changed, or obviated?
It hardly makes sense once NASA has a 4 seat lifeboat, particularly if the main cost is per flight.
You could be right, and your info is regularly valuable, but you are not giving us much to go on.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/26/2019 12:11 am
We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.

NASA has never asked for more than 4 crew on a commercial crew spacecraft. Recently, there has been talks at the NAC HEO meeting that NASA could allow a fifth seat to be used by commercial companies for spaceflight participants. But that hasn't yet been approved.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/26/2019 12:11 am
If NASA wants to keep four astronauts on the US side of the station, then I'd think they would use four seats on the US vehicles.  That way they can have 1 Russian on each US crew flight and one American on each Soyuz flight.  NASA wouldn't have to pay for extra Soyuz seats (which would be incredibly stupid if they were leaving one of their own seats empty.)  As a bonus for Russia, if they want to keep their crew at two for a while then they'd have a lot of flexibility to fly tourists/allied astronauts on short term missions using the otherwise empty Soyuz seat during the crew changeovers.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/26/2019 12:34 am
NASA wouldn't have to pay for extra Soyuz seats (which would be incredibly stupid if they were leaving one of their own seats empty.)

I hope that once NASA has bought all the Soyuz seats from Boeing (last I heard, they've bought two, are negotiating for two more, which leaves one unaccounted for) then no more funds will be changing hands - that said, NASA astronauts will still be flying on Soyuz, with Russian cosmonauts flying on commercial vehicles (although they apparently don't want to fly on Dragon). It's all politics.


Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Paul Howard on 03/26/2019 03:00 am
SWGlassPit and everyone else are completely correct and it doesn't need to take 10 "but I'm QG!" posts and subsequent replies to have to say it. It was said in public by Gerst. That's the end of it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/26/2019 07:46 am
NASA wouldn't have to pay for extra Soyuz seats (which would be incredibly stupid if they were leaving one of their own seats empty.)

I hope that once NASA has bought all the Soyuz seats from Boeing (last I heard, they've bought two, are negotiating for two more, which leaves one unaccounted for) then no more funds will be changing hands - that said, NASA astronauts will still be flying on Soyuz, with Russian cosmonauts flying on commercial vehicles (although they apparently don't want to fly on Dragon). It's all politics.

All Boeing seats were bought months ago. Last one is on Soyuz MS-13 and now NASA is looking at purchasing seats from Roscosmos on Soyuz MS-15 and MS-16.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/26/2019 12:49 pm
Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.

Great, can you show us?

You know the FPIPs are in L2.
Even the latest is years old, but it was shown as SWGlassPit said, and absense of proof is not proof of absence.
Where was it said that those plans are wrong, or changed, or obviated?
It hardly makes sense once NASA has a 4 seat lifeboat, particularly if the main cost is per flight.
You could be right, and your info is regularly valuable, but you are not giving us much to go on.

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/26/2019 10:04 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?



Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 03/27/2019 04:18 am
We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.

The ISS was designed to have 7 permanent crew and up to 14 in a surge capacity(i.e. When the shuttle docked carrying extra supplies(LIOH canisters for the increased crew size)). The normal CO2 scrubbers(which don't use LIOH or any consumable) can't support more than 7 but the backup system(which uses the LIOH canisters) allows the addition of extra crew(when running with the normal system). 

The limiting factor was the lack of an lifeboat. The original idea was to build a lifeboat craft for the ISS that could accommodate up to 7 people for evacuation as well as to have enough space to handle  injured or unconscious crew members. This craft would be launched by either the shuttle or an ELV but would be brought home for repair/inspection via the shuttle. The ISS went over budget and the Bush II administration canceled the crew return vehicle in favor of just purchasing an extra Soyuz. This limited the crew to 6 since Soyuz can only hold 3 each and the shuttle could not act as a lifeboat due to short duration on orbit(being fuel cell powered the shuttle can only stay in space about 2 weeks or so). Normally the ISS has 2 Soyuz docked on the russian side.

Nasa required that the Commercial Crew vehicles be capable of carrying at least 4 people and be capable of acting as a lifeboat.So that means being able to stay in space docked to the ISS at least 6 months as well as being able to undock with the ISS within a certain time frame and deorbit/land on autopilot. Dragon and CST-100 are capable of carrying 7 people. It would cost NASA very little to send up an extra crew member and both craft are capable of doing it.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/27/2019 03:06 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 03/29/2019 03:35 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rakaydos on 03/29/2019 05:10 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.
There's always FOIA Requests... :p
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/29/2019 06:12 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

What Confusador said
We assume that FPIPs posted here, even in L2, we’re allowed to be made public.
Chris B wouldn’t have it any other way and would pull them if asked.
It has never been clear that NASA incurred any disadvantage from letting us see them. They were very helpful to my semi-official planning, such as scheduling my travel for viewing the CRS-10 launch, at which I was a guest.
We hope someone in the ISS program can see the way to sharing them once again.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/29/2019 06:30 pm
(Snip)
Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.

So that answers the question
NASA still plans to use 4 seats on commercial crew vehicles and do overlapping direct handovers.
Interpretations are welcome but dispute without higher authority seems pointless
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/29/2019 08:27 pm
And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

What Confusador said
We assume that FPIPs posted here, even in L2, we’re allowed to be made public.
Chris B wouldn’t have it any other way and would pull them if asked.
It has never been clear that NASA incurred any disadvantage from letting us see them. They were very helpful to my semi-official planning, such as scheduling my travel for viewing the CRS-10 launch, at which I was a guest.
We hope someone in the ISS program can see the way to sharing them once again.

They're marked "Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only".

That means they aren't mine to release.  If NASA wants to release them, that's on them.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/29/2019 09:09 pm
I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

I've never worked for any government, but I have worked for U.S. Government contractors. Some of my roles and responsibilities included giving status updates to customers, and being responsible for the manufacturing side of program schedules.

My $0.02 are that it's meaningless and wasteful to release incremental updates to the public. Let's be real here, we are all space enthusiasts, but we have no control over what NASA and NASA contractors do, so there is literally no value in releasing incremental updates publicly. None. Nada. Zip. It's just forum fodder.

And if NASA were forced to release every single minor update publicly, NASA would be chasing its tail trying to explain to everyone in the world why line item 247 pushed out 1.5 days, while line item 365 didn't move to the left. That would be micro-management chaos.

Let's remember that SpaceX functions as well as it does because they give people responsibility and don't micro-manage them. Let's allow NASA to do the same and stay big picture here...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 04/03/2019 10:55 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 04/03/2019 10:56 pm
They're marked "Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only".

That means they aren't mine to release.  If NASA wants to release them, that's on them.

Does "pre-decisional" mean something different to you? That sounds /exactly what I've been saying for three pages/. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/03/2019 11:09 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase? Why reward the more expensive and late readiness vendor?

Early NASA references to the possibility of both Boeing and SpaceX turning their Demo-2 flights into extended stays. I've never heard definitively one way or the other from either NASA or SpaceX whether or not SpaceX is going to have an extended Demo-2 stay.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 04/06/2019 05:17 pm
I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

I've never worked for any government, but I have worked for U.S. Government contractors. Some of my roles and responsibilities included giving status updates to customers, and being responsible for the manufacturing side of program schedules.

My $0.02 are that it's meaningless and wasteful to release incremental updates to the public. Let's be real here, we are all space enthusiasts, but we have no control over what NASA and NASA contractors do, so there is literally no value in releasing incremental updates publicly. None. Nada. Zip. It's just forum fodder.

And if NASA were forced to release every single minor update publicly, NASA would be chasing its tail trying to explain to everyone in the world why line item 247 pushed out 1.5 days, while line item 365 didn't move to the left. That would be micro-management chaos.

Let's remember that SpaceX functions as well as it does because they give people responsibility and don't micro-manage them. Let's allow NASA to do the same and stay big picture here...

Disagree entirely
I had the opposite experience
A program used to be managed to a weekly task list
At one point it was sent to the customer, which was their right under the contract, but which resulted in a flood of questions on minute details.
Eventually, we asked it not to be sent to the customer, so that we could be frank among the team.
That's more what you said.

This is different.
No one has a contractual right to see the FPIPs, but we also don't have the ability to pester NASA with questions.
Our comments on schedule adjustments are not going to pressure them like NASA saw before the Challenger launch.
I can't see how posting the FPIP in L2 is any detriment to NASA.

Now we just have to find someone else who can get permission to post them in L2.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 04/07/2019 02:07 am
Enough Big Man on the Internet for now, ok? If you're not sure if I'm talking about you, I am. If you admit that someone ELSE might think I'm talking about you, I am.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Joffan on 04/10/2019 02:31 am
Could be some interesting updates at NASA Advisory Council's Human Exploration and Operations Committee meeting on 30 April/1 May (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/08/2019-06872/nasa-advisory-council-human-exploration-and-operations-committee-meeting) just announced.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/10/2019 05:25 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jarmumd on 04/10/2019 10:04 pm

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out.

Can you say specifically what those "huge" differences are, between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/11/2019 08:06 am
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

Emphasis mine.

You are quite mistaken. The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mgeagon on 04/11/2019 11:48 am
The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.
As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/11/2019 11:49 am
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: spacebleachers on 04/11/2019 01:11 pm
Let's keep it from getting personal.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/11/2019 01:45 pm
Let's keep it from getting personal.

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out personal biases in a discussion. I mean it's the point of having a discussion in the first place...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 04/11/2019 02:28 pm
Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.
I think this is likely true.
Quote
NASA still thinks that is the case.
Do they?  What makes you think this?
Quote
While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.
This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/11/2019 07:40 pm
Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.
I think this is likely true.
Quote
NASA still thinks that is the case.
Do they?  What makes you think this?
Quote
While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.
This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/11/2019 07:53 pm
The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.
As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.

All small changes. For example:
- Adding heaters to Draco fuel lines is no big deal. Modding fuel lines in this fashion, after the results of environmental testing has come in, is standard work in the aerospace industry. Has been for decades.
- Reef line cutters worked as advertised on DM-1. And I have that from direct sources. The chute ending up on top of Crew Dragon is a non-issue. Can happen to Starliner and Orion just as easily.
- Parachutes on DM-1 mission deployed well inside the allowed limits of the system. And again: I have that from direct sources. Further risk retirement is being done via the last few drop-test that will be performed prior to flying DM-2.
- COPV 2.0 risk is in the process of being retired. NASA is requiring seven flights of F9 to qualify and certify COPV 2.0 for use on manned F9. Demo-1 launch was a major part in risk retirement with regards to COPV 2.0. The only folks still really whining about COPV 2.0 are ASAP. But they are a non-factor in COPV 2.0 certification and qualification.
- In-flight abort test is the only major thing left before flying crew on Crew Dragon. But SpaceX is giving its very best to accomplish a succesful test.

In general the highly succesful nature of DM-1 did a huge amount of risk retirement and has strongly bolstered confidence, at both NASA and SpaceX, that Crew Dragon will be a safe and robust system for flying NASA astronauts to and from the ISS.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/11/2019 08:58 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

Emphasis mine.

You are quite mistaken. The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/11/2019 09:06 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/11/2019 09:08 pm
Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.
I think this is likely true.
Quote
NASA still thinks that is the case.
Do they?  What makes you think this?
Quote
While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.
This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 04/11/2019 10:08 pm
You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

Yet Boeing's path is ALL "the road forward" (not even flown the uncrewed demo yet), and you still under-emphasize Boeing difficulties and over-emphasize SpaceX difficulties. Which is why I assume the comment about your bias was made.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/11/2019 10:56 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.
There's OFT but also the pad Abort, that's what I'm referring to. Not to mention we have credible sources that it is a tricky one too, since there are various elements of risk in Strainer's LAS and abort profile.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/12/2019 03:48 am
Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.
I think this is likely true.
Quote
NASA still thinks that is the case.
Do they?  What makes you think this?
Quote
While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.
This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

It is also in line with what Bridenstine said before the DM-1 mission. He also said that it would be a lot closer than what people expect.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 04/12/2019 04:38 am
The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.
As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.

- Parachutes on DM-1 mission deployed well inside the allowed limits of the system. And again: I have that from direct sources. Further risk retirement is being done via the last few drop-test that will be performed prior to flying DM-2.

Can confirm. In fact, additional parachute testing (some of the very last qual drops) is ongoing this week. More still to come, but SpaceX isn't wasting time or resting on its DM-1 laurels before finishing up remaining qual work.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/12/2019 06:49 am
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

Emphasis mine.

You are quite mistaken. The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA

Moving the goalposts are you? Switching from "huge differences between vehicles" to "a lot of paperwork still to be reviewed by NASA"...
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/12/2019 06:55 am
Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.
I think this is likely true.
Quote
NASA still thinks that is the case.
Do they?  What makes you think this?
Quote
While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.
This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

Yes it is. You mention huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles. There are not huge differences, just small ones. Feel free to disagree.
But the fact is that you cannot retire risk for DM-2 with a DM-1 vehicle that, in your own words, is hugely different from the DM-2 vehicle.
In case you hadn't noticed, even ASAP, in its most recent meeting, acknowledged that the succesful DM-1 mission retired a huge (pun intended) amount of risk with regards to DM-2.

I suggest you put the differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles into their proper perspective. Because IMO you are clearly not doing so currently
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/12/2019 07:01 am
Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.
There's OFT but also the pad Abort, that's what I'm referring to. Not to mention we have credible sources that it is a tricky one too, since there are various elements of risk in Strainer's LAS and abort profile.

Yes, as mentioned by multiple public sources. Spacex - IMO - was the smarter company by coming up with the idea of "The Trailing Trunk", which made for a very (passively) stable ride uphill on the Pad abort test.
On the Starliner pad abort however the RCS pods are going to have a bit of a workout by firing the RCS thrusters to keep Starliners pointy end in the direction of flight. (in other words: to prevent it from tumbling). And that is on top of the corrugated ring - which Boeing added to the Starliner design fairly late in the process - to improve abort stability. It is this continued reliance on the RCS thruster pods, instead of being passively stable, that has ASAP worried.


Having said that I hope Boeing solves the troubles it has with Starliner and I hope they have a very succesful pad abort test. NASA needs both vehicles (Crew Dragon AND Starliner) flying.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: joncz on 04/12/2019 05:40 pm
- COPV 2.0 risk is in the process of being retired. NASA is requiring seven flights of F9 to qualify and certify COPV 2.0 for use on manned F9. Demo-1 launch was a major part in risk retirement with regards to COPV 2.0. The only folks still really whining about COPV 2.0 are ASAP. But they are a non-factor in COPV 2.0 certification and qualification.

Does yesterday's FH launch count in the seven F9 flights?  If so, as one, or three?  ;)

Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/12/2019 09:25 pm
Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

Emphasis mine.

You are quite mistaken. The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA

Moving the goalposts are you? Switching from "huge differences between vehicles" to "a lot of paperwork still to be reviewed by NASA"...

I will admit I could have chosen my words more carefully but I also did not expect folks to over analyze, and to be quite honest, carry in significant bias.    From a perspective of actually being operationally ready, SpaceX has more work to do because there are very important, very significant differences between DM-1 and DM-2.  Sorry, we can debate how large they are, but they exist.  SpaceX got a great deal of risk reduced with DM-1; Boeing still has a lot to go.  A successful OFT would (trying as best to compare apples and oranges because there really is no metric but stepping back and looking at the process status on both NASA and provider side, what are the risks, what has the NASA folks up at night, where is the safety review/where is the NASA review/size of the teams) in general engineering judgement is that Boeing would be ahead of where SpaceX is right after DM-1.  SpaceX is at a risk of more discovery between the two flights.  But SpaceX is moving fast.  They have a shot at flying DM-2 this fall but it is a success-oriented schedule (as is Boeing's).

And again I think people are reading my comments to imply that Boeing is ahead/better/cuter/whatever.  Never said that.  I think it is closer than some people think.  Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.  There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jjyach on 04/12/2019 09:54 pm
Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.

Well considering ULA only has 2 Atlas V's possibly launching this year, and one is OFT that claim is baseless.  Boeing is not even close to being ready to launch from their own fault with things not ULA and all they did was really upset folks at ULA by throwing them under the bus like that.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jamesh9000 on 04/12/2019 10:22 pm
FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:


Quote
Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/12/2019 10:34 pm
Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.
There's OFT but also the pad Abort, that's what I'm referring to. Not to mention we have credible sources that it is a tricky one too, since there are various elements of risk in Strainer's LAS and abort profile.

Yes, as mentioned by multiple public sources. Spacex - IMO - was the smarter company by coming up with the idea of "The Trailing Trunk", which made for a very (passively) stable ride uphill on the Pad abort test.
On the Starliner pad abort however the RCS pods are going to have a bit of a workout by firing the RCS thrusters to keep Starliners pointy end in the direction of flight. (in other words: to prevent it from tumbling). And that is on top of the corrugated ring - which Boeing added to the Starliner design fairly late in the process - to improve abort stability. It is this continued reliance on the RCS thruster pods, instead of being passively stable, that has ASAP worried.


Having said that I hope Boeing solves the troubles it has with Starliner and I hope they have a very succesful pad abort test. NASA needs both vehicles (Crew Dragon AND Starliner) flying.
Maybe they should talk to Blue. The NS capsule LAS seems to work fine. With NS  I don't know if SRB does steering or small thrusters.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/13/2019 11:25 pm
Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.

Well considering ULA only has 2 Atlas V's possibly launching this year, and one is OFT that claim is baseless.  Boeing is not even close to being ready to launch from their own fault with things not ULA and all they did was really upset folks at ULA by throwing them under the bus like that.

No, it is not baseless - you are just responding to what you think I said and not what I actually said.  :)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: mgeagon on 04/14/2019 03:27 am
Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.  There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.
Is the software issue prior to DM-1 related to the Russian objection during the FRR?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 04/14/2019 09:07 am
FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:


Quote
Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.

It’s more than just an opinion in his case it’s an informed opinion, and should be given the relative weight compared to others in this area.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 04/14/2019 09:35 am
FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:


Quote
Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.

It’s more than just an opinion in his case it’s an informed opinion, and should be given the relative weight compared to others in this area.

It's not an opinion, guys. It's quite literally a planning date from either Eric's NASA sources, SpaceX sources, ESA/Roscosmos sources, or some combo of all of the above.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/14/2019 12:42 pm
There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/14/2019 01:48 pm
I would like to ask one thing: If the "Dragon issues" are "propietary info", how come a someone not SpaceX knows about them? Either you know things you shouldn't know or you're basically inventing what you're saying. In both cases things don't look good... just saying
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/14/2019 03:49 pm
Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/14/2019 04:13 pm
Edited the thread a bit to stop the "but you work for", as one has to announce who they work for to allow that or else they can remain anonymous. Although granted it's a push when they claim to have seen proprietary information.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/14/2019 04:35 pm
There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.

Chris,

You are correct.  My intent was to use an educated opinion to try and caution folks that there is more at play or more than they realize; but I agree that is not helpful without specific data.  I am very aware what is in L2 and it is not always complete as wonderful as it is.  So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: meberbs on 04/14/2019 09:01 pm
So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.
Your final statement here is one that seems likely to be true, however what it truly implies is rather unfortunate for Boeing, though your wording seems to be an attempt to show that things aren't that bad.

The second half of this year is wide open on the Atlas V schedule. Missions to the ISS usually have a bit of schedule priority, since they also need to work within ISS schedules. Even more so for crewed missions. It is sometimes hard to compare this with DoD and classified payload priority, but the only missions that are guaranteed higher priority are ones where the constraint is orbital mechanics: interplanetary missions. If the CFT is delayed to next summer, then it certainly would get delayed further so Mars 2020 can go first. This unfortunately seems to be a plausible circumstance to come up. (I hope that OFT would at least have launched by then.)

People on this site know these things and can see through things like stating facts but turning the implications inside out. In the end it doesn't help your point, and reflects poorly when the full details come out (which is inevitable in this case, when OFT and CFT actually launch the dates will be known.)
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/15/2019 07:01 am
There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.

Chris,

You are correct.  My intent was to use an educated opinion to try and caution folks that there is more at play or more than they realize; but I agree that is not helpful without specific data.  I am very aware what is in L2 and it is not always complete as wonderful as it is.  So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.

Good thing that Boeing elected to choose a launch service provider which is well-known - and widely respected - for its stellar schedule performance.

How does that parse with your latest bit of (IMO dis-)information?
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: jarmumd on 04/15/2019 02:16 pm
Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.

But you have to be accurate with what you say.  If it was said: "there is a lot of work to be done, perhaps more than people realize", I would have completely agreed.  There is a lot of analysis and documentation that will need to be done before crew fly.  When it is said: "huge" differences .... to me a huge [insert: physical] difference, is between Dragon Cargo and Crew.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 04/15/2019 02:55 pm
  I've dealt with a few corporations, and the only acceptable way I see for divulging information from a company document or study, followed by a refusal to provide the source because its propriety would be with permission from the company. Not the kind of leaks I'd bet the farm on.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 04/15/2019 03:22 pm
Good thing that Boeing elected to choose a launch service provider which is well-known - and widely respected - for its stellar schedule performance.

How does that parse with your latest bit of (IMO dis-)information?

Sorry I don't want to keep flogging this thread, but I will say if you wish please review all my posts over the many years and let me know where you have ever found mis-information.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: ZChris13 on 04/15/2019 05:04 pm
Sorry I don't want to keep flogging this thread, but I will say if you wish please review all my posts over the many years and let me know where you have ever found mis-information.
dis-information and mis-information are different things
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/15/2019 05:27 pm
Yeah, we need to calm it down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion (and erioladastra opinion <---using that word to protect him) is more valuable than most people posting on here.

Might need a new thread as this one is very long and long threads get a bit this way.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/16/2019 01:31 am
Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.

But you have to be accurate with what you say.  If it was said: "there is a lot of work to be done, perhaps more than people realize", I would have completely agreed.  There is a lot of analysis and documentation that will need to be done before crew fly.  When it is said: "huge" differences .... to me a huge [insert: physical] difference, is between Dragon Cargo and Crew.

He nuanced it in a later post. There is a lot of papework involved in CCtCap and likely a lot more for the first crewed flight. If you look at erioladastra's posts over the years, there is a lot of informative posts in there.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: JonathanD on 04/16/2019 06:13 am
Yeah, we need to calm it down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion (and erioladastra opinion <---using that word to protect him) is more valuable than most people posting on here.

Might need a new thread as this one is very long and long threads get a bit this way.

Here here, and I'll say as space enthusiasts (we wouldn't be 81 pages deep into a thread like this if we weren't, amirite) it's certainly easy to get caught up in the vociferous activity surrounding these programs and the competitive and occasionally antagonistic opposing viewpoints that result.  During such times, I try to remind myself of 3 things:

1) NDA policy.  I'm not talking about disclosure agreements.  My NDA policy is No Dead Astronauts.  Whoever is "first" or grabs some symbolic flag or does anything with crew, key is just to bring it down to acceptable risk levels.  Can't eliminate it, but God forbid we let any notion of competition impede on NDA.

2) NASA is about to have more crew capability than ever before.  The idea that NASA will have access to two commercial space providers that can put crew in orbit along with SLS (not going there right now) will really be historic.  The sheer spectrum of options in terms of capability and price is something this space agency (or any other) has never had.  It is tremendously positive, and it's tremendously important that both these commercial providers succeed on the time tables in which they can do so safely.

3) I would like to think of this community as being respectful of each other, even in times of disagreement.  Usually it is, I would say.  As we live in a world where people get shot for nothing and 800 year old beloved landmarks can burn down in a day, I think everyone could take a step back and consider we probably have a lot more in common than not, and perhaps it's not too tough to make sure that level of respect is well maintained.
Title: Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/16/2019 03:15 pm
New thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47915.0