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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
They're called "cracks". Slamming an object into the ocean at high speeds tends to make them.
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.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: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.
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.
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?
I believe that the protest by SNC will put a hold on CCtCap payments until the dispute is resolved.
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?
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?
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.
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
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?
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?
In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
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
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?
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?
In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
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.
Thanks for this post joek. Just want to be sure, did you mean to say "no work performed" or no money paid out?
In short, there will be no work performed under the CCtCap contract until SNC's protest is resolved.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.Seems to imply that if snc are successful in their protest, they would replace SpaceX rather than Boeing.
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.
That's only three crew, so doesn't look to meet requirements.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.
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.Seems to imply that if snc are successful in their protest, they would replace SpaceX rather than Boeing.
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 here it is: http://www.nasa.gov/content/boeing-spacex-race-to-station/#.VC0qXWd_sn4I 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.
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?
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) ;DThat's only three crew, so doesn't look to meet requirements.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.
Cheers, Martin
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.
Looks like source selection document is leaked to an anti-SpaceX reporter in WSJ, I wonder how did that happen.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:
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.
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.
THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.
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.
{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}
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."
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.THAT is the Boeing you're dealing with now, NASA.Again, incorrect. Not the same group at Boeing. CST-100 is mostly legacy Rockwell.
Of course SNC also got rated "high confidence".
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.
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."
So your argument that because past performance is a rating element that everyone does their rating colored by past performance is wrong.
{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.
{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.
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.
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.
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.
QuoteIn 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.
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.
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
Both are good. Neither are bad.
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.
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: SFNNASA 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.
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.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33739.0
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.
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.I thought SpaceX would send the first commercial crew to the ISS before the CCtCap awards, and that hasn't changed.
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.
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.
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.
If not Boeing hate it clearly still shows a very strong anti-Boeing bias.
I believe Gerst did what he thought was best for NASA.
Yes, it's an interesting question. I suspect if NASA had to do it over, they'd have worded things a bit differently.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"?
NASA just sent out return to work orders . . . .any public link to that?
NASA just sent out return to work orders . . . .
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.
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...All fine and good... but that doesn’t alter the complaint...If I understood it right, it actually increases the contract contingencies, right?
Perhaps...
A) NASA found a loop hole that allows them to keep working, or
B) The SNC protest has been pulled or denied early?
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.
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.Is this what just happened?
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.
... 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 ...
Perhaps...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.
A) NASA found a loop hole that allows them to keep working, or
B) The SNC protest has been pulled or denied early?
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?)
I wonder if they'll release the source selection document or list the milestones, ...
SNC doesn't t have a leg to stand on and they know it.
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.
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card. Tough one to counter.
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.
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.
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card. Tough one to counter.
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.
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.
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.
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)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)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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?No.
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERALNB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.
...
(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.
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 NNK14467515RM.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERALNB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.
...
(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.
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.
???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.
???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.
NASA itself stated that price would be given double value over all the other factors.
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL... or that Price is is approximately equal to ...
...
(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.
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR... plus ...
...
Mission Suitability Subfactors (Scored Elements) Weight (Points) Subfactor 1: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance 525 Subfactor 2: Management Approach 400 Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization 75 Total 1000
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.
QuoteM.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.
past performance skews the results against any new participants in the industry... So what was the point of a competition?
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 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.
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.
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...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?
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?
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...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.
However, asserting that Price is approximately twice the weight of the Mission Suitability total score is incorrect.
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.
I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...
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...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.
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.
I agree with you Jim but should it not include "on time and within budget"?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"?
Fair point Jim, unfortunately the sample size for human rated spacecraft is rather small.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Another article based on source selection document:Interesting article. Bill G sounds a lot like Jim in his assertions.
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"
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.
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...
Correct - I don't think NASA believes the 2016 date and you shouldn't either.
Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
They haven't - not in living memory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boeing doesn't deliver every project on time. Statistically it is far from assured.
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.
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.”
Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...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.
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.
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.
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.”
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:QuoteOf 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.
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.
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.”
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.
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:QuoteOf 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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...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.
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.
TBH I was shocked at the high amounts awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX,
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.
It's an almost certainty.
Boeing seems pretty cozy with Bigelow. I don't really know of any commercial customers SNC has lined up.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding.
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.
Actually, with those two statements, QuantumG is saying the same thing twice. He has not changed opinion IMO.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?
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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?
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
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.
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."
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.
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
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.(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.
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.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?
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.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?QuoteCommenting 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.
wov ULA complete victorySome 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.
amen
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.
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.
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.
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.”
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’.”
so.. just curious.. what do you think a deadline is?
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 will not find such project.
I found ten (maybe 12).
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.
wov ULA complete victory
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ... modified F18(not new airplane)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
TDRSYou will not find such project.
I found ten (maybe 12).
I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.
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.
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.
3/...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.
give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list a
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.
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 was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...
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.
Show me facts and save the word of condemnation.
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.
There is no aerospace project deliver on time.
There is no aerospace project deliver on time.
False, there are many on that list.
Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?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?There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...
Unsubstantiated
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...Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...
Unsubstantiated
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...
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...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 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.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.
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
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.
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.
Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.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.
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.
There is no aerospace project deliver on time.
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.
Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.
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.
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.
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
NASA has a leak?
wov ULA complete victory
Wrong, Boeing and Lockheed do not build launch vehicles.
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.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.
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.
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!
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!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.
That's what NASA's ISS/Commercial Crew integration leadership is doing by selecting Boeing: making their own job easier.
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.)
What letter of the word 'build' were you unable to parse?
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.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.
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.
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.good point
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.
Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.
If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.
Not really a HSF vehicle. More like Dragon or Cygnus - occupied on orbit after checks, unoccupied ascent/reentry.
Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.
Boeing did Spacehab on FFP
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.
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?
Hmmm...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.
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.Hmmm...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.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
(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.
Apollo 13 adapted some CO2 filters from one CO2 scrubber to other. Nothing different from jumping one battery to another.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.
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.
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.
The riskiness level is extracted from the articles regarding NASA's opinion.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.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?
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
>
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
>
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.
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.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
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.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
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.
Wasn't the spacex drop test vehicle a modified v1?
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.
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.
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).
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?Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm
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.
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).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).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.
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.
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?
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).QuoteThe levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm
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.
Edit: What arachnitect said.
As seen in Figure 1, the first protocol was monitored without any purification over 13.25 hourshttp://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
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.
For proving a subsystem - nothing. For addressing systems qualification - everything. Qualification feeds certification.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?Correct. Too bad Boeing didn't use that for their parachute drop tests.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If anything, Dragon 2 approaches your definition more than SNC’s Dream Chaser.Already highly tested (on the ground), and despite the 3D printing, they are pretty simple pressure fed engines.
Things like:
-Integrated and reusable LAS made possible by powerful and compact 3D printed engines.
-Precision land landings (ultimately).You said it yourself -- ultimately. not part of the proposal. The proposal has Dragon landing with chutes.
-High redundancy landing options (including abort modes).Wait, how does this increase technical risk?
-“Off the shelf” non rad-hardened polling/voting avionics with triple redundancyAlready demonstrated on cargo dragon.
-- snip --
They have never done a HSF vehicle that has launched/returned humans without overruns both in budget and time.You said it well enough on your own.
Do not underestimate how much things have changed in even the last decade.
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.
The CST-100 pressure vessel is just another component. So far Boeing hasn't integrated anything.
I'm a physicist doing a quick estimation, that's my excuse for PPMv=PPMm. ;)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).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.
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.
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.
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.
>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
If the CDR is a cakewalk with no real content, it does not reflect well on those companies to not have completed it yet.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Huh? I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?
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".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.)
Huh? I'm not trying to be mean, but do you not know what a CDR is?
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.
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.)
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 has been said multiple times on here, dismissing CDR as "just a powerpoint" shows a complete lack of knowledge of how engineering design works.snip...
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:
SpaceX is being paid $40M for their ICDR.
I believe that Boeing has yet to do their ICDR.
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.
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.
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.
The proposed hardware development testing will expedite design maturity, leading to an integrated critical design review (CDR) in March 2014.
Who said it was a cake walk?
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.
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).
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.>
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.
OK and MS project plan :)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.
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).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.
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.
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.
'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.
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:yes I think you clarify itLack 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.
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.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.
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.....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 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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the Sierra Nevada thread, but relevant here, and similar to recent discussion in this thread:yes I think you clarify itLack 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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).
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.
This integrated CDR will cover spacecraft, launch vehicle, and ground and mission operations systems.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
Getting OT but to clarify ...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. ...
In the expensive world of aeronautical research and development, the best test is extensive computer modeling before you begin building anything.
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.
Yeah, that statement is a joke. Real world tests are vastly more valuable. Computer tests are just easier and cheaper, absolutely not better.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.
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.
In any case, I think it is premature to say that "SpaceX is on the verge of completing its CDR".
Yeah, the Dragon 2 unveiling showed hardware integration, certainly more than Boeing has.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.It showed a spacecraft, not an integrated system. If it showed an integrated system, presumably SpaceX would be past CDR by now.
Yeah, the Dragon 2 unveiling showed hardware integration, certainly more than Boeing has.Don't play his goalpost moving game.
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.
“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.)
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.Wow! This is one of the best posts I have read on NSF. And I have read a lot of them.
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 ...
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.
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).
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.".
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
DC doesn't need as much delta V as SS2 so difficulties with SS2 may not have been directly transferable.
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.
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 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: PatchouliDC 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.
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: PatchouliDC 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.
SNC hasn't actually decided to change to liquid-fueled engines on Dream Chaser. They just started studying the option.
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.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/
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/
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.
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: docmordridNot 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.
Mark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview.There's some more discussion in that topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.QuoteGerstenmaier 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.
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.
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.From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.QuoteGerstenmaier 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.
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.From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:Yes, because it would invalidate having an evaluation board in the first place.QuoteGerstenmaier 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
3. Wrong. CST-100 can carry as much.
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.
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.
1. I find 2800kg
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 $$$$$ on NASA's part.
3. vDreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.
1. I find 2800kg
1. It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.
2. The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
Its intended payload capacity is a mere 2,800 pounds,
Another offhanded claim debunked.While not having your facts straight? ::)
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.
Or flying Cygnus on Atlas.
Point is, none of the crew vehicles can do what Cygnus does.
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:QuoteGerstenmaier 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.
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.
Most of the CRS cargo can fit through docking tunnelsThat 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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
Great news. That number should be enough to sustain the path for 2017 for both 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+.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...
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.
SpaceX performed two milestones, its Dragon Primary Structure Qualification and Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review, in November as part of its CCiCap agreement
In 2015, the company [SNC] will perform the second free-flight of its Dream Chaser test article at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center.
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.
U.S. GAO has denied Sierra Nevada bid protest of NASA's Commercial Crew contract awards to Boeing, SpaceX.
GAO "found no undue emphasis" on NASA’s consideration of proposed schedules or likelihood of meeting 2017 goal.
Link to GAO statement on SNC bid protest: http://1.usa.gov/17drs5q .
"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
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 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 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)
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.
From the press release (with my emphasis):QuoteThe 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?
Did SNC ever stand a chance once it was awarded the "half" award in the last round?
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?
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.
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.
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.
You do realize there are dedicated threads for both Dragon2 and CST-100? Most of the milestones are reported primarily in those dedicated threads.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.
At Parabolicarc they have extracted the milestones, but I'm unsure about what this forum policy about links to other sites is.
Well, apparently the redactions indicate order of magnitude.
;D
New commercial crew video:New being a relative term here. Nothing that we had not already seen.
<skip>
The Dream is Alive once more! (In a few years!)
The Dream is Alive once more! (In a few years!)Docking systems look great!
The Dream is Alive once more! (In a few years!)Docking systems look great!
fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.
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.
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.
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!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.
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.
That sounds like faulty logic.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.
Three years ago there wasn't a funded BEO program, and there still isn't today. So the SLS/Orion represent "excess capability".
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.
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.
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).
Not sure this is the right thread for this.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).
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!
It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding
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.
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.
..... There is no more Space Shuttle program hogging huge amounts of money.......
It would be so easy if Nasa played it the other way round:As long as it's Boeing...
Congress: Too expensive!
Nasa: Ok, I'll have to downselect to the cheapest provider.
Congress: OK, here's the money.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, within the frame of reference of ISS flights Orion is not a cooky but an unpalatable bowl of sprouts.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.
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.
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.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.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...
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.
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.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...
Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...
<SNIP>
What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.
John
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.
Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.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...
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
partially fund Boeing
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.
A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:
...
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.
The mistake, IMO, was selecting 2 vehicles. The competition should have ended with whoever could get to 2017 for the lowest price.
Yes, I posted that on another thread. I would love to see that. "Hey guys, here's 900Million for 2016. First come first serve."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.
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...
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?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...
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.
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?)
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...
Until CxP, Orion and Ares-1 was the goto vehicle in the early 2000's...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.
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...
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?
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.
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...
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...
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.
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?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...
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.
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.
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.
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}
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.
$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.
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.
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,
$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)
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.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.
As will CCP seats later. It's why the CCP budget is projected to be nearly zero in about 3 years.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?
(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
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.
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.Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.
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.
So NASA is likely to reschedule the work.Yes, if funds are not available to proceed with the previously agreed-upon schedule.QuoteIt 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.
I've heard people mentioning that the contracts might be re-negotiated. What exactly does this mean? Smaller payments? Certain milestones get shuffled around?
From safety point of view the boarding before fueling seems better, if any goes wrong the crew have LAS.
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.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.
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.
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.The uncrewed flight will last for 30 days, the crewed flight will last for 14 days.
John
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.The uncrewed flight will last for 30 days, the crewed flight will last for 14 days.
John
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/commercial-crew-demo-missions-dragon-cst-100/
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
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.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.
Unless people want to argue SpaceX should be copying old space, which would be just as ironic.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").
That math puts no value whatsoever for creating two redundant ways of getting people to LEO (upgrading from the current US capability of "none").
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.
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.
(Discussed many times on other threads, and the result was endless posts with no objective basis.)
My best WAG is that on a direct cost basis, CC might be more cost effective than Soyuz circa 2032
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. As I wrote over two years ago after discussing this with Chairman Lamar Smith: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.
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.
Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. ...
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...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...
Semantics...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?
They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...
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?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?
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.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.
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'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.No, it has not.
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:Quote06:17 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
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:Quote06:17 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
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.
Also on Monday 31 August 2015, David Livingston of The Space Show interviewed Kathy Lueders (NASA's Commercial Crew Program Manager).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 wonder if their lead time has more to do with securing the launch vehicle then being able to have the Starliner ready?
Presentation by Luders at the NAC on certification:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/6-Status_of_CCP.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?
Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)
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?
Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?
Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.
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?
I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?
Then you are not comparing Apples to Apples.
This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:Quote from: page 17 of the ASAP 2015 ReportThe 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.
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.)This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:Quote from: page 17 of the ASAP 2015 ReportThe 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.)
Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.
Quote from: ASAP 2015 ReportBoth companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.
I wonder what kind of changes they are considering.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Not to get too bogged down in economics (and I'm somewhat out of my depth here) but:Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.
- 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.
- 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.
...in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.
Then we just threw away a $100 billion space station.
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.
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,
Look, an achilles heel of the Atlas system right now is the Centaur upper stage.
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.
The real concern here is not the tanker, but the reliability of Boeing management.
And this, unfortunately, will be relevant to Commercial Crew.
We know Mcgregor has the shell version of the Dragon 2 for testingThat has, apparently, been retired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Temporarily.
Overall, there are more, cheaper flights with a lot more redundancy.
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.
Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578687453630464
Updated timeline of major commercial crew milestones. SpaceX certification review Oct 2017; Boeing in May 2018.
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.
I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.
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.
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" ?
– Completed all 3 demonstration flights needed for Range approval to
use Automated Flight Termination System
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.
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" ?
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?
>
>
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.
>
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.
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).
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.
{snip}
Furthermore, any of the currently open ports would violate the requirement to have redundant docking and berthing locations for cargo and crew vehicles.
The docking system qualification is shown as a completed milestone on the more detailed chart.
Here is an article on this topic:
http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-delays-could-lead-to-gap-in-iss-access-nasa-advisors-warn/
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.It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.
“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.”
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 FoustOne 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.It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.
“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.”
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...
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 FoustOne 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.It'll lower their payload but get them out of a bind. Smart.
“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.”
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...
I am not aware of any DC weight issue. I was under the impression that crewed DC would have used a 412.
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.
Emphasis mine.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.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.
Having witnessed great results of several space-related MOUs I take issue with your general statement regarding MOUs.
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.
Any chance these are the same seats that Boeing received as payment for the Sea Launch obligations?
Here are some excerpts from the solicitation:QuoteNASA 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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
According to Jim (if I remember correctly), you definitely can for liquids.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....
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.Well, it would be an explosion if powered by methane...
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.
I doubt the LAS can rely on the engines being properly shut down, solid or liquid. The Saturn V did not have solids anyway.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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).
Agreed. However ...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.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.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).
That is a Jim reference right??Carefull there please.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).
Even the slightest suggestion that FTS would possibly not work will invoke the wrath of favourite concise-answer-man.
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.
Of course it is.That is a Jim reference right??Carefull there please.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).
Even the slightest suggestion that FTS would possibly not work will invoke the wrath of favourite concise-answer-man.
Wall Street Journal: Congressional Investigators Warn of SpaceX Rocket Defects (https://www.wsj.com/articles/congressional-investigators-warn-of-spacex-rocket-defects-1486067874)QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
ASAP’s Frost: SpaceX agrees there will be seven flights in “frozen” configuration of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before crew flights.
Crusan: looking at add’l Soyuz seats or Orion missions to ISS as contingency options only. Want comm’l crew to be successful.
::)QuoteCrusan: looking at add’l Soyuz seats or Orion missions to ISS as contingency options only. Want comm’l crew to be successful.
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/
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.
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:QuoteNASA 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.
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.
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-11303.2.1 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.
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.
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.
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:
[...]
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.
Update on commercial crew:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/commercial-crew-tight-achievable-timeline-2018/
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.
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.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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The coming train wreck for Commercial Human Spaceflight
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.
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.
Post from Wayne Hale: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?QuoteI 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
requirement statements referenced in this document.
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.
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.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?
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 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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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.
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.
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.
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.
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2What 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)
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.
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.
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2What 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
As suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2What 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?
Adjusted for inflation? Non-zero axis start?
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.
How many billions for commercial crew so far?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.
SpaceX leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one.
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.
Two American vehicles, dual American redundancy.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
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)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.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.
Air Force pad lease costs are on the order of a few dollars per year
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.
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.
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)
Autonomously piloted rental car ;)
Wilma to Buck: "Do you have manual override capability?"
Buck to Wilma: "I sure have".
I.E. get us out of orbit immediately; do not wait for best time.Autonomously piloted rental car ;)
Wilma to Buck: "Do you have manual override capability?"
Buck to Wilma: "I sure have".
DEORBIT NOW?
break out
unless that was rhetorical question.
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.
"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"
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"
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?
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?
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.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.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.
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.
If BFS does an orbital flight test (without crew) before Dragon 2 flies crew, I'll eat my hat.
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"
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.
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.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"Thursdays 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
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.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"Thursdays 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
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.
{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.
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?
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?
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?
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.Emphasis mine.
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.
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.
maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5. my recollection was 6 was the design target.
maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5. my recollection was 6 was the design target.
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....
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.
{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 Boeings 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 Boeings 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."
{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.
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.Emphasis mine.
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.
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.
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-issQuoteThe 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.QuoteGEDI 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
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.”
Seems pretty well written and even-handed.
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.
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.
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:QuoteBefore 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.
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.
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.
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.”
If we were to formally depend on the LAS as our priMARY insurance policy against disaster from PAD incident, rather than risk mitigation
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.
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.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.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:
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What probability of failure and/or injury is the LAS designed to meet? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
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.
So what else can SpaceX do to convince NASA that their launches are adequately safe?
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.
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
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.
Do. Don't. Uncertain.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:
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.
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.
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. ...
What probability of failure and/or injury is the LAS designed to meet? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?
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.
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.
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.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.
...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.
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.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".
...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?
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.
... 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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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?You edited out the context from my post.
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.
Quote from: envy887If 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"
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
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.
So Bezos pet attack dog is now promoting itas 'SpaceX is dangerous' narrative to the space media.
Classy, Jeff, real classy.
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=19QuoteChris 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
...That's not at all obvious.
Putting them on the rocket before it's propped is very obviously safer than after it's propped.
...
...
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
(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.
They safest thing is to never try.
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?
"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.
Jim? What other examples of what could be a crew-endangering situation have happened during fuel loading in the past 25 years?Wrong. There have been many times propellant loading has been stopped and a launch scrubbed to fix a problem (leaks, valves sticking, etc)
Any? At all?
And there is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY)
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.
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.
Quote from: envy887If 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.
They safest thing is to never try.
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?
A meaningless point, nobody said don't launch
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.(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.)
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.
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.
>
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
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.
...
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."
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."
it seems you are confirming my thesis, that greater reliance on LAS puts a premium on a more robust test regimen for LAS.
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.
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas VI 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.
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.
.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.
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas VI 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.Quoteor 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.
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.
How much might this decision have depended on the flight history of Atlas VI 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.Quoteor 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.
.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.
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.
>
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."
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.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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
No. Those are the options. Either NASA certifies (or waivers) "fuel-n-go" or Crew Dragon won't be certified at all.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
...
Here's Jim giving a longer explanation in late 2016: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.
... 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
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.
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?
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 ??)
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 ??)
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.
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.......
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
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 penaltiesIf 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.
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.
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.
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 penaltiesIf 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.
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.
Without NASA, Dragon2 ceases to exist.
IMHO.
Elon believes that this flight will count toward commercial crew (7 before crew).
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
That's a great point. That would be a really weird ending...Without NASA, Dragon2 ceases to exist.
IMHO.
Wasn't D2 Cargo and Crew? So maybe only D2 cargo.
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):QuoteMusk 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
We can load the prop then load the astronauts.Six months later after a sign of relief from NASA, then
You meant you want to load the dragon 2 with astronauts propulsively on the rocket!?
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):QuoteMusk 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...
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.
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. :)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".
Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):QuoteMusk 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
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.
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.Tweets from Brendan Byrne (https://twitter.com/SpaceBrendan/status/994658018691375104):QuoteMusk 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 answerQuoteStephen 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.
Without any knowledge of what they did, I could see using a thin Inconel shell in place of the Aluminum one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
and then say nothing is different from how launches have always been conducted...but that is pretty much what has happened here.
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
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 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. :)
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'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?
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?
" The first uncrewed test missions are planned to begin at the end of the year."
I'm told this was a "typo" by NASA's web guy. Agency's official position is still "later this year."
"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.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-name-astronauts-assigned-to-first-boeing-spacex-flightsQuoteNASA 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.
{...}
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
Irene Klotz - Space Editor, Aviation Week & Space Technology
@Free_SpaceQuoteBoeing 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-2019https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1024480708792922114
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
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.
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?
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.
You would also have one Russian and one international astronauts on each of the PCM flight?
Additional crew members will be assigned by NASA’s international partners at a later date.
Well, so much for diversity...…….
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.Well, so much for diversity...…….Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.
When are we likely to find out which Expeditions the particular astronauts are assigned to
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Q: Is there a bathroom on the new commercial flights? dragon and starliner crew
A: For Dragon, yes. -Bob
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?
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
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
Yes. There's two push buttons about where your chin is. They allow it to pop open whenever you need it to. - Doug
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
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).]
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 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!
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 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.
Which presents a challenge when crew diversity is a goal.Well, so much for diversity...…….
Yeah, every one of them is a military pilot.
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 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.
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).
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?
$85 million a seat sound fair?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?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.
NASA is prohibited from receiving payment for seats. Russia will have to provide "in kind contributions" for their seats :P
$85 million a seat sound fair?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.
NASA is prohibited from receiving payment for seats. Russia will have to provide "in kind contributions" for their seats :P
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.
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?
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.
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)$85 million a seat sound fair?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.
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.
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.
"Balloon drop test?"
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.
The different types of doors on automobiles is seriously off-topic for this thread.
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.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.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 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.
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?In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
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.
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?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?In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
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.
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?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?In the Shuttle era there were a number of payload specialists who were not NASA astronauts.
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.
Completed Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,
Can someone unwrap this please?
QuoteCompleted Training Events 1, 2 and 3: suited simulations with cadre in buck,
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.Can someone unwrap this please?
QuoteCompleted 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.Can someone unwrap this please?
QuoteCompleted 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.Can someone unwrap this please?
QuoteCompleted 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.
"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".
It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.That's a fannish term, IIRC and it has been around forever I think.
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".I beleive a weldment is a term for anything primarily fabricated by welding and has a wider meaning than just the pressure vessel.
It's one of those situations where SpaceX invents a new term or phrase for things that already had a name.That's a fannish term, IIRC and it has been around forever I think.
Remember RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly)? That's the SpaceX term for "Explosion".QuoteAnother 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.Yup. Some of each. RUD is fannish. Weldment is general.
“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.
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
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.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777
"Ugly things". Well; that has really got my attention! :(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1047428050772811777
I wonder whether this is related:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304
Any idea what Eric Berger is talking about?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1047532523545186304QuoteThere 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
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/
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?
A shadowy media cabal headed by Boeing is slandering SpaceX.
At least that's Eric Berger's theory.
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?
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?
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.
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.
I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
Op-Ed's aren't paid (much) for by the newspaper, sure. That doesn't mean the author wasn't paid to write it.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.
... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.
"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
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/
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.
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.
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.
Oh my, things are getting ugly. Read this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10
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.
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.
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.
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.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".
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.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.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".
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.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.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".
It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful.
[/rant]
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]
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.
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".
Beats me. Unless the Soyuz MS-10 abort made a profound impression on them.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?
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)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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 ;)
“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.”
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.
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process. Seriously.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.
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.
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
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process. Seriously.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.
I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967. They would be furious to here such talk.
- Ed Kyle
My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight
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?!
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.
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 worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.
They would be furious to here such talk.
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.
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.
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.
{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}
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.
People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process. Seriously.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.
I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967. They would be furious to here such talk.
- Ed Kyle
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
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".
ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. [...]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.
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.
ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. [...]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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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*
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.
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.
The trick here is to find the golden path in the middle. ASAP is, IMO, not doing that.
They also demand things which may or may not even be possible.
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.
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.
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?
The SpaceX IFA was moved to be after DM-1. Probable reason was to make sure it used 100% final configuration.
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."
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.
There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
They can't be.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.
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.
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.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
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?
>
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
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.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.
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...
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.
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.
>
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.
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.
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).
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]
BoeingQuoteMOD 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.QuoteMOD 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.
SpaceXQuoteMOD 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).QuoteMOD 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?
NASAs 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
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/
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.....
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?
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?Don’t make this personal
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?
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
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?
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?
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 :)
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.
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)Quotethe 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.
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.
adding a 4th parachute?
I call BS on this one.
do you grasp the cost of failure in a political sense?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?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?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?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)
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.
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?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)
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.
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'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?
Boeing hasn't begun shock testing on their docking adapter? Really?
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.
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?
Can someone translate that? What's a Validation Propulsion Module, and what is IV&V?
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.
This is for SpaceX:QuoteMOD 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.
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?
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)
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.
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"?This is for SpaceX:QuoteMOD 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"?This is for SpaceX:QuoteMOD 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.
I have commercial experience and in that realm it's a negotiation. The scope change and the price are both negotiable.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
Average seat price.. (assuming 4 seats per flight)
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.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.
And just to set the record straight, here's the actual delivery orders for Post Certification Missions (PCM) with their real prices:
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.
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.
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.I think the point of the suit is _prevent_ Bob’s face from really popping out...!
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...!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
No, QG, “we” don’t know
Lesser mortals with less enthusiasm for dominance games would like to know, too. :)
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:
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.
Good. A quote from NASAStill 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:QuoteCP 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)
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?
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 wouldn't have to pay for extra Soyuz seats (which would be incredibly stupid if they were leaving one of their own seats empty.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
There's always FOIA Requests... :pAnd 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's keep it from getting personal.
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.
NASA still thinks that is the case.Do they? What makes you think this?
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?
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.QuoteNASA still thinks that is the case.Do they? What makes you think this?QuoteWhile 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.QuoteNASA still thinks that is the case.Do they? What makes you think this?QuoteWhile 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.
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.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.
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.QuoteNASA still thinks that is the case.Do they? What makes you think this?QuoteWhile 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.
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.
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
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.QuoteNASA still thinks that is the case.Do they? What makes you think this?QuoteWhile 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.
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.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.
- 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.
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"...
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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?
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:QuoteFizrock
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.
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:QuoteFizrock
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.
There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2. there are issues and bumps out there folks.
Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.dis-information and mis-information are different things
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.
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.