Author Topic: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis  (Read 398145 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #120 on: 05/22/2016 01:24 am »
The problem is not the amount of money (beyond a certain point) but the stability and predictability of income. The second is far more important when attempting to create an accurate schedule. The second has not been forthcoming. Basic economic reality is that people cannot stick to a preplanned economic calculus when you keep jimmying the inputs, inevitable and concurrent engineering realities aside.

All the alternatives are either more expensive and/or less predictable. Orion? More expensive. Soyuz? Less predictable. Commercial crew has been a widely successful program so far for being able to make progress under the conditions both NASA and the providers have been handed.

Please keep Orion, Soyuz, etc. out of this discussion.  By all indications NASA and Congress are committed to CCtCap.  The operative question is whether CCtCap can deliver. 

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #121 on: 05/22/2016 01:38 am »
It's been obvious for a while that commercial crew is now overfunded. It's probably not a ploy by Congress to demonstrate that the claim that funding was the schedule limitation was false.. they're not smart enough for that.. but it may work out that way if they continue to slip.

Money left over this financial year. Has the International Docking Adaptor lost on CRS-7 been replaced?
NASA may be able to claim that a replacement logically forms part of Commercial Crew.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 01:39 am by A_M_Swallow »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #122 on: 05/22/2016 01:39 am »
Nope. Again, there's been no point where the partners have been ahead of the funding. The claim that somehow the funding hasn't been sufficient is the argument of a politician to other politicians.

For the rest of us, it's much more obvious that Boeing has a lack of commitment and SpaceX is suffering from feature creepage.

This is a milestone-based contract with performance-based payments.  Why would the partners be ahead of the funding?  Why would they want to do so?  For the betterment of mankind?   Because they trust NASA or the USG to make good when the funding is pulled?  Sorry, do not get it.  What seems to be obvious "for the rest of us" is not intuitive or clear.  Please elaborate.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #123 on: 05/22/2016 02:28 am »


Please keep Orion, Soyuz, etc. out of this discussion.  By all indications NASA and Congress are committed to CCtCap.  The operative question is whether CCtCap can deliver.


It's relevant because the commitment is comparatively new, and whilst that commitment was not in place, frugal funding pushed execution to the right. Soyuz and Orion were presented as alternatives by various parties involved during the period of instability - they are relevant, but that's the limit of their involvement in this discussion.

Nope. Again, there's been no point where the partners have been ahead of the funding. The claim that somehow the funding hasn't been sufficient is the argument of a politician to other politicians.

For the rest of us, it's much more obvious that Boeing has a lack of commitment and SpaceX is suffering from feature creepage.

The funding would have been sufficient if the funding was consistent. Consistent is the critical word. Not a linear consistency, but predictable. Underfunding inevitably slows the program, yes, but overruns can be more easily margined for if there's an awareness of what is coming when. Removing the political element from the funding of any NASA program is chimerical when that's the actual state of events.

Boeing having a "lack of commitment"? Boeing is a major aerospace concern that wants to maintain its primacy and keep its customer happy. Commercial crew is a high profile program with considerable political clout. Boeing has no incentive to make itself look unreliable.

As for feature creep, I'd need clarification as to what you're referring to. Are you implying that com crew should have no new capabilities, as the the mission itself is not a revolutionary one?


I'm curious as to what others from "the rest of us" might have to say on the matter, as well.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 02:35 am by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #124 on: 05/22/2016 02:33 am »
Boeing's lack of commitment is matter of public record. They've threatened to pull out numerous times. As for the funding, it's a milestone based program and there's more than enough funding to cover the milestones. If you need clarification of SpaceX on-going feature creepism, you're obviously not paying attention.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #125 on: 05/22/2016 02:38 am »
Boeing's lack of commitment is matter of public record. They've threatened to pull out numerous times. As for the funding, it's a milestone based program and there's more than enough funding to cover the milestones. If you need clarification of SpaceX on-going feature creepism, you're obviously not paying attention.

There's a difference between ongoing hardware development and feature creep. How have features of D2 changed since the capsule's selection? "Not paying attention" is handwaving if you don't back it up with evidence, or, at minimum, a discussion point, as to how I'm not paying attention. If I'm in the wrong, explain why.

Edit: I agree that SpaceX does make design modifications fluidly, and sometimes contrary to their own forecasts, but those done to D2 have been mostly evolving towards a final product, rather than adding fresh capabilities. Retropropulsion for example has been a given concept of crew dragon for a number of years.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 02:50 am by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #126 on: 05/22/2016 02:52 am »
Boeing's lack of commitment is matter of public record. They've threatened to pull out numerous times. As for the funding, it's a milestone based program and there's more than enough funding to cover the milestones. If you need clarification of SpaceX on-going feature creepism, you're obviously not paying attention.

Boeing threatened to pull out once or twice, but not since they signed CCtCap that I can tell.  Did I miss something?  And how can you tell that "there is more than enough funding to cover the milestones" unless you are privy to the changes since the original CCtCap contracts were published?  If you have credible evidence of such, then please present.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 03:40 am by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #127 on: 05/22/2016 02:58 am »
It's relevant because the commitment is comparatively new, and whilst that commitment was not in place, frugal funding pushed execution to the right. Soyuz and Orion were presented as alternatives by various parties involved during the period of instability - they are relevant, but that's the limit of their involvement in this discussion.

Then discuss in the appropriate threads--of which there are many in which this subject has been hashed and rehashed numerous times.  We do not need to derail this thread into another such digression.  Please.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 03:00 am by joek »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #128 on: 05/22/2016 06:19 am »
This is a milestone-based contract with performance-based payments.  Why would the partners be ahead of the funding?  Why would they want to do so?  ..
They should definitely not want to be behind the milestones ( which they are ) , as poorly performing delayed programs will tend to get scrutinized, criticized and sometimes canned, resulting it loss of contract and future services revenue - and also standing.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18199
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #129 on: 05/22/2016 03:15 pm »
It's been obvious for a while that commercial crew is now overfunded. It's probably not a ploy by Congress to demonstrate that the claim that funding was the schedule limitation was false.. they're not smart enough for that.. but it may work out that way if they continue to slip.
Evidence please. Thank you.


Nope. Again, there's been no point where the partners have been ahead of the funding. The claim that somehow the funding hasn't been sufficient is the argument of a politician to other politicians.

For the rest of us, it's much more obvious that Boeing has a lack of commitment and SpaceX is suffering from feature creepage.
First of all, I voice my own opinion. I don't need you to speak for me thank you very much. I suggest you refrain from any further use of sentences like "For the rest of us,....". The only one you are speaking for is yourself Trent. Keep it that way please.
Second: there is no point in being ahead of the funding. You might just do work ahead of the funding only to find out that NASA didn't get the funding for the work performed. You just don't do that, not even when your name is Elon Musk.
Third: there is plenty of commitment from Boeing. They threatened to pull out when US Congress was not forthcoming with the NASA-requested funding. Commitment does not translate into "I'll pay the checks that US Congress refuses to pay". Boeing has invested millions of dollars of it's own money in CCtCAP and prior commercial crew phases, all in line with the agreements made with NASA for said phases of the commercial crew program.
Fourth: SpaceX is suffering from feature creepage? Evindence please. Because Dragon 2 was presented to NASA originally as an ISS crew vehicle for max. 7 astronauts, capable of doing pad-abort/in-flight abort and parachute landing or propulsive landing. None of that has changed in recent years. The recent changes to the seats, instrument panel, SuperDracos and software were all mandated by NASA and are by no means SpaceX-induced feature creepage.


Boeing's lack of commitment is matter of public record. They've threatened to pull out numerous times. As for the funding, it's a milestone based program and there's more than enough funding to cover the milestones. If you need clarification of SpaceX on-going feature creepism, you're obviously not paying attention.
Lot's of handwaving in this post. You either come up with evidence to support your claims or you best don't make those claims as they, IMO, will be picked apart here. Particularly the one about commercial crew supposedly now being over-funded.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #130 on: 05/22/2016 06:33 pm »
Even under the Soviet Union the hardware manufacturers profited from their labour. You can't expect a company to embark upon a piece of work they've been assigned on a philanthropic basis when cost overruns occur. The companies are putting in their own money, but there's a tipping point between saving money for the taxpayer and actively cheating the private sector.

There is no reality similar to ours where the companies shoulder the majority of the financial risk associated with Commercial Crew.

Considering that the providers have been financed less than requested for a number of years, I'm wondering at what height you're setting the "overrun" bar?
« Last Edit: 05/22/2016 06:34 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #131 on: 05/22/2016 07:59 pm »
Corrected a couple errors and added some annotations to help decipher.  I went back to double check some dates and to my surprise discovered the Boeing CCtCap contract does not contain a crewed flight test milestone.  That and a few other "new" milestones have original dates inferred; corrections appreciated.

Probably no surprise to anyone, but looking at the slips... the spacecraft is the obvious area of concern.  For Boeing, there have been significant delays in the structural test article.  For SpaceX, it appears to  be integrating the parts (?), although F9v1.2 may be a contributing factor.  Hard to make apples-to-apples comparison given the differences between Boeing's and SpaceX's approach and hardware.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #132 on: 05/22/2016 09:15 pm »
...
Considering that the providers have been financed less than requested for a number of years, I'm wondering at what height you're setting the "overrun" bar?

Good point, and we should agree on when the clock starts for gauging CCtCap (CTS) contractor performance...
- FY2014 funding was 85% ($821M requested, $696M appropriated).
- FY2015 funding was 95% ($848M requested, $805M appropriated).
- FY2016 funding was 100% ($1.24B requested, $1.24B appropriated).
... however those numbers also include other non-CTS efforts (e.g.,lingering CCDev).  NASA statements concerning FY2015 funding were also qualified, and it is unclear if the appropirated amounts were sufficient to sustain the expected schedule or the minimial to sustain the effort.

Of note, the FY2014-2015 amounts were considered by Congress (sorry can't find the link the committee reports at the moment) to be able to support one provider (help please yg1968, might have been 2015 not 2014).  NASA continued to pursue a dual-provider approach.  Whether that was appropriate is water under the bridge.

So where should we start the clock?  I'd argue that FY2016 is an appropriate point, and that slippage since is unlikely due to funding shortfalls (assuming FY2017 and beyond are sufficient).  But given the sparse data, it's very difficult to determine.

We have two credible data points: (a) the original CCtCap contract dates Sep-2014; and (b) the NAC dates Nov-2015.  Not a lot to go on.  I look forward to another credible CCtCap milestone update, which should give us more insight.

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • France
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #133 on: 05/24/2016 10:00 am »
Gemini was underfunded, and once SpaceX and Boeing actually fly a similar number of flights we'll have a chance to compare the costs.
Seriously? Gemini underfunded? Comparing CCtCap with Gemini? The expression "apples-to-oranges" would be an understatement here.

NASA's budget, as a percentage of GDP, reached its peak during Gemini. Sure, some folks at the time probably wanted more money, but saying it was underfunded and then saying CCtCap is overfunded, and somehow trying to compare both programs takes the biscuit on so many levels.

Here's my shot at an apples-to-apples comparison that we can do right now without waiting for the end of CCtCap:
In 1963, project Mercury was finishing and project Gemini was in development. NASA's budget was roughly 2.3% of GDP. I think it's safe to assume that much of that budget went to the manned space program, and therefore quite a lot went to Gemini. I tried to find exact numbers, but my Google-foo came to a dead end.

US GDP in 2015 was approx $18 trillion ($18,000 billion). In 2015, $805 million was budgeted for commercial crew, which equates to 0.0045% of GDP.

Even if we assume that only 1% of GDP was allocated to Gemini in 1963, that's still more than 200 times greater than CCtCap is getting now.

Percentages of GDP mightn't be a perfect reference frame, but they give us general ballpark order of magnitudes so that we can compare budgets from two completely different cost-of-living periods.
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #134 on: 05/24/2016 10:07 am »
Well yeah, obviously Commercial Crew needs a few percent of the US GDP to get to completion... perhaps it'll even happen this decade, then.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • France
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #135 on: 05/24/2016 11:01 am »
Well yeah, obviously Commercial Crew needs a few percent of the US GDP to get to completion... perhaps it'll even happen this decade, then.
It would easily get to completion in 6 years with similar funding. Your earlier comment completely sidestepped that reality.

Yeah, it's only been 6 years. You can't expect to build and fly a crew vehicle in that little time. Let alone a whole program.
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #136 on: 05/24/2016 11:05 am »
While inventing the technology? There was one thing they had back then that we don't have today and it really set the pace - will.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline rocx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • NL
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #137 on: 05/24/2016 11:08 am »
Gemini was underfunded, and once SpaceX and Boeing actually fly a similar number of flights we'll have a chance to compare the costs.
Seriously? Gemini underfunded? Comparing CCtCap with Gemini? The expression "apples-to-oranges" would be an understatement here.

NASA's budget, as a percentage of GDP, reached its peak during Gemini. Sure, some folks at the time probably wanted more money, but saying it was underfunded and then saying CCtCap is overfunded, and somehow trying to compare both programs takes the biscuit on so many levels.

Here's my shot at an apples-to-apples comparison that we can do right now without waiting for the end of CCtCap:
In 1963, project Mercury was finishing and project Gemini was in development. NASA's budget was roughly 2.3% of GDP. I think it's safe to assume that much of that budget went to the manned space program, and therefore quite a lot went to Gemini. I tried to find exact numbers, but my Google-foo came to a dead end.

US GDP in 2015 was approx $18 trillion ($18,000 billion). In 2015, $805 million was budgeted for commercial crew, which equates to 0.0045% of GDP.

Even if we assume that only 1% of GDP was allocated to Gemini in 1963, that's still more than 200 times greater than CCtCap is getting now.

Percentages of GDP mightn't be a perfect reference frame, but they give us general ballpark order of magnitudes so that we can compare budgets from two completely different cost-of-living periods.

Better to look at Wikipedia than make order-of-magnitude guesses:

The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Gemini from 1962 to 1967 as $1.3 billion in 1967 inflation-adjusted dollars, or $7.3 billion in 2010 dollars.

For commercial crew, Wikipedia gives $8.37 billion, most of which is CCtCap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development#Funding_summary.
So they may not be comparable in many ways, but the funding level is.
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #138 on: 05/24/2016 03:31 pm »
While inventing the technology? There was one thing they had back then that we don't have today and it really set the pace - will.

Erhm.

I'm not sure there's any data inferring 21st century humans are more deficient in willpower than they were in the early sixties. In fact, I think you might have made that up.

There's a lack of political direction in space, but there's also a lack of ICBMs pointing at each other. I know which status quo I prefer - inferring that we need the threat of mutually assured destruction to journey into space is a rather bleak vision of the future, don't you think?

I'm sure the engineers at Boeing love the fact that they're working on designing America's next ride into space. They probably tell their kids and spouses about it all the time. As for SpaceX lacking will, pshaw.

I don't think you have an argument, QG.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
« Reply #139 on: 05/24/2016 03:58 pm »
So they may not be comparable in many ways, but the funding level is.
While that is technically correct, CCrew is building two complete systems (and part of a third, with the DreamChaser work now benefiting CRS-2) for that funding level.  I know there are those who disagree with that decision and would have preferred to do a downselect to one provider.  I'm not going to argue that here.  However, that isn't what happened, and that's actually a really significant difference.

 

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