Jim Bridenstine, NASA's administrator, said in an interview on Monday that he is not confident in that timeline. The space agency will likely have to purchase more seats aboard Russian-made spacecraft in 2020, he said ...Bridenstine referred to Crew Dragon's explosion as a "catastrophic failure," and said one of the reasons he's skeptical of the idea that Crew Dragon will be ready in the near future is because the updated emergency abort system "has not been qualified" and has not been tested....Bridentine said Boeing is experiencing "similar challenges" with testing the spacecraft and he expects its first flight is "months away."
Boeing, Lockheed, and SpaceX are some of the best aerospace companies in the world, and all three are years behind schedule on contracts to develop crew capsules under the oversight of NASA. This is a systemic problem with NASA procurement, and for NASA to complain that all of their contractors are dropping the ball demonstrates a lack of accountability for NASA's role in managing these programs. This isn't about SpaceX or Boeing or Lockheed being a bad apple. They're all rotting on the same tree, maybe it has some kind of disease.
Or is it the fact that aerospace companies seem to always underdeliver on time? It's a big problem in many fields of engineering.
They have redesigned their launch-abort system, and with that redesign, [the system] has to be qualified. We are lucky that the explosion happened … during a test. If that wouldn’t have happened, we would be taking a lot more risk that we would not be aware of right now. But now that we have a new design, it needs to be tested; it needs to be qualified.And that’s not the hardest problem. The hardest problem is the parachutes. We do not have the margin of safety [that NASA requires] in the parachutes, and that’s going to take probably more time to resolve than the launch-abort system.
Bridenstine is more and more getting into SpaceX bashing.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/elon-musk-jim-bridenstine-starship-commercial-crew/599218/QuoteThey have redesigned their launch-abort system, and with that redesign, [the system] has to be qualified. We are lucky that the explosion happened … during a test. If that wouldn’t have happened, we would be taking a lot more risk that we would not be aware of right now. But now that we have a new design, it needs to be tested; it needs to be qualified.And that’s not the hardest problem. The hardest problem is the parachutes. We do not have the margin of safety [that NASA requires] in the parachutes, and that’s going to take probably more time to resolve than the launch-abort system.Sure, he is right about the technical issues and understandibly frustated, because he had publicly promised that "American astronauts will launch from American soil" in 2019, based on what Boeing and SpaceX told him. But this reaction - exposing and spilling pessimism over your business partner - this is unwise; it will not improve anything. This could have been said differently, expressing confidence in SpaceX's capabilities instead of sowing doubt.This new tone came up in the exact moment when Starship materialzied in Boca Chica. Which is going to disrupt not only the launch business like Falcon 9, but also NASA's human spaceflight business. NASA getting nervous about that?
I gotta imagine they hoped they would make money off of the launches, but it still seems likely that most of those will go to Boeing, and every delay just pushes us closer to the end of the line for Station anyways.
The best option might be to just buy a failing coal mine somewhere then spin it off into a new company along with the CCDEV assets and any other toxic assets you want to get rid of and let it quietly go bankrupt a year later.
Bridenstine should consider that SpaceX has been to ISS with Dragon 2.The explosion would be a reuse problem after a trip through salt water upon landing.If he wants to buy ... he could buy new each time he thinks of Soyuz and have no worries with a new SpaceX Dragon 2. There is no reuse if it is new each time.
The Crew Dragon anomaly didn't have anything to do with salt water.
wasn't it an issue with reuse, the pressurizing of the SuperDracos in a system where the Dracos had been fired?
Evidence shows that a leaking component allowed liquid oxidizer – nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) – to enter high-pressure helium tubes during ground processing. A slug of this NTO was driven through a helium check valve at high speed during rapid initialization of the launch escape system, resulting in structural failure within the check valve. The failure of the titanium component in a high-pressure NTO environment was sufficient to cause ignition of the check valve and led to an explosion.
The Commercial Crew Program will provide $6 billion over the next five years to support the development of commercial crew transportation providers to whom NASA could competitively award a crew transportation services contract analogous to the Cargo Resupply Services contract for ISS.These funds will be competed through COTS-like, fixed-price, milestone-based Space Act Agreements thatsupport the development, testing, and demonstration of multiple commercial crew systems. As with the COTS cargo program, some amount of private investment capital will be included as part of any Space Act Agreement and NASA will use this funding to support a range of higher- and lower-programmatic risk systems.
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is a multi-phased effort that began in 2010. Across the five phases, NASA has engaged several companies using both agreements and contract vehicles to develop and demonstrate crew transportation capabilities. As the program has passed through these phases, NASA has generally narrowed down the number of participants. The early phases of the program were under Space Act agreements, which is NASA’s other transaction authority.6 These types of agreements are generally not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and allow the government and its contractors greater flexibility in many areas. Under these Space Act agreements, NASA relied on the commercial companies to propose specifics related to their crew transportation systems, including their design, the capabilities they would provide, and the level of private investment. In these phases, NASA provided technical support and determined if the contractors met certain technical milestones. In most cases, NASA also provided funding.For the final two phases of the program, NASA awarded FAR-based contracts. By using FAR-based contracts, NASA gained the ability to levy specific requirements on the contractors and procure missions to the ISS, while continuing to provide technical expertise and funding to the contractors. Under these contracts, NASA will also evaluate whether contractors have met its requirements and certify their final systems for use.
Quote from: watermod on 10/02/2019 03:49 amBridenstine should consider that SpaceX has been to ISS with Dragon 2.The explosion would be a reuse problem after a trip through salt water upon landing.If he wants to buy ... he could buy new each time he thinks of Soyuz and have no worries with a new SpaceX Dragon 2. There is no reuse if it is new each time.Quote from: gongora on 10/02/2019 03:54 amThe Crew Dragon anomaly didn't have anything to do with salt water.watermod is indeed incorrect in asserting that it was the salt water immersion, but wasn't it an issue with reuse, the pressurizing of the SuperDracos in a system where the Dracos had been fired? This would not be the case for a launch abort on a new Dragon.
