Quote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:49 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 10/31/2017 03:45 pmNASA 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.
Quote from: guckyfan on 10/31/2017 03:45 pmNASA 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.
An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA MissionsEdit/gongora: Links to the entries on NASA Technical Reports ServerPaperPresentation Slides
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 11/02/2017 11:22 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/31/2017 05:49 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 10/31/2017 03:45 pmNASA 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.
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 thedevelopment 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-purposecrew 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 2Quote from: Hog on 01/03/2018 03:33 pmWhat 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:
NASA Commercial Crew Program Mission in Sight for 2018NASA 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/04/2018 03:06 pmAs suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2Quote from: Hog on 01/03/2018 03:33 pmWhat 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:I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college!
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/04/2018 04:49 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 01/04/2018 03:06 pmAs suggested by oldAtlas_Eguy, cross posted from the SLS General Discussion Thread 2Quote from: Hog on 01/03/2018 03:33 pmWhat 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:I see someone at Business Insider took the "Misleading with charts 101" class in college! 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.