Aero loads they could get from CAD software, and subscale wind tunnel tests. Integrating subsystems earlier means you get a working avionics testbed on a table long ahead of vehicle integration,
Generating a huge pile of documents that say you can do it, then waiting to the last minute to write the software and find that the structure doesn't handle the loads, or (you didn't add ) is overweight is spectacularly poor management and execution by any sized company, no matter how arrogant.
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.
Note that much of this was known as a threat for some time so "sounding the alarm" is incorrect and hyperbole.
We will have this debate multiple times over the coming years as the schedule keep changing - for both partners.
Both companies are having their challenges, and triumphs, you just don't know them all.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/16/2016 11:03 pmAero loads they could get from CAD software, and subscale wind tunnel tests. Integrating subsystems earlier means you get a working avionics testbed on a table long ahead of vehicle integration, But this is pretty much what Boeing and ULA have been doing, and I don't recall people clamoring for more "subscale tests and CAD models;" people were clamoring for things that looked like full size spaceships and disparaged Boeing's wind tunnel models and simulators.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/16/2016 11:03 pmGenerating a huge pile of documents that say you can do it, then waiting to the last minute to write the software and find that the structure doesn't handle the loads, or (you didn't add ) is overweight is spectacularly poor management and execution by any sized company, no matter how arrogant.Find me an aerospace project that isn't overweight. The most celebrated and legendary American spacecraft were fighting mass bloat every step of the way.
I'm not trying to exonerate Boeing. I'm surprised aero loads are still an open issue at this point; how did that happen? But I fully reject the idea that rushing into production would have made this situation any better.
I remember a statement by Boeing that SpaceX work "build a little, test a little". Boeing does not need that because everybody knows, when Boeing builds something it will work. And they gave, of all possible examples, the Dreamliner which did fly the first time it was built. Years and years of delays and technical problems with the Dreamliner notwithstanding.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/17/2016 01:50 amYeah, 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.And The amount of money made available doesn't influence that calendar at all, now, does it? (Sarcasm)
And how long ago was it this same writer was telling SpaceX to "just stick a few seats into (cargo) Dragon and go"... Although I haven't seen anymore if that nonsense since the Falcon 9 blew up a flight or two later.
Message from crew Dream Chaser..."Do you miss me now?"
From the article:QuoteA spokesman for SpaceX told Ars Wednesday night that the company remains on track for crewed missions in 2017.
A spokesman for SpaceX told Ars Wednesday night that the company remains on track for crewed missions in 2017.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 05/14/2016 01:50 pmMessage from crew Dream Chaser..."Do you miss me now?"Which DreamChaser? You mean the one that's 3-1/2 years late finishing its CC*i*Cap milestones? That DreamChaser?I think the lesson involving motes, beams, and eyes might be appropriate here.
Quote from: erioladastra on 05/17/2016 01:08 amNote that much of this was known as a threat for some time so "sounding the alarm" is incorrect and hyperbole. Is it? Not because Boeing has such a cozy relationship that they can pass a pile of paper off as the first year of a program, without putting in the "catchup" to meet SNC/SX current level as a comparable vendor?QuoteWe will have this debate multiple times over the coming years as the schedule keep changing - for both partners. Sure the schedule changes, as they both hit issues. But to the degree that a current "pathfinder" exists for 2 of the 3 vendors, and one that was chosen didn't, counts for a lot more than is hand waved over.My respectful counter claim to your one of "hyperbole".QuoteBoth companies are having their challenges, and triumphs, you just don't know them all.Never claimed. How is it relevant to this?Quote from: arachnitect on 05/17/2016 03:35 amNot sure I understand your first comment on catchup. First of all, don't see how SNC comes into this discussion at all - no way to really compare to SpaceX or Boeing but if you did they are so far behind (much due to their own and some due to funding/choices by NASA). My point is that from CCDev2 and iCAP Boeing was aware of threats on the aero. All the programs identify threats, develop mitigation plans and some times those work out and sometimes they don't. Boeing will fix their weight problem. Others will come. For both partners.it is relevant because folks make judgements based on very incomplete facts. Not that I blame anyone - can only go off the data at hand. If you guys saw both programs totally open I think you would have some very different perspectives.
Not sure I understand your first comment on catchup. First of all, don't see how SNC comes into this discussion at all - no way to really compare to SpaceX or Boeing but if you did they are so far behind (much due to their own and some due to funding/choices by NASA). My point is that from CCDev2 and iCAP Boeing was aware of threats on the aero. All the programs identify threats, develop mitigation plans and some times those work out and sometimes they don't. Boeing will fix their weight problem. Others will come. For both partners.it is relevant because folks make judgements based on very incomplete facts. Not that I blame anyone - can only go off the data at hand. If you guys saw both programs totally open I think you would have some very different perspectives.
Quote from: arachnitect on 05/16/2016 09:27 pmPrimary drivers of the latest delay are aero loads and software. What "metal" should Boeing have produced to uncover these issues earlier?Making/flying components/systems/vehicles discovers program schedule risks and voids, duh.Aero loads they could get from CAD software, and subscale wind tunnel tests. Integrating subsystems earlier means you get a working avionics testbed on a table long ahead of vehicle integration, so you can accurately schedule software design and test.Generating a huge pile of documents that say you can do it, then waiting to the last minute to write the software and find that the structure doesn't handle the loads, or (you didn't add ) is overweight is spectacularly poor management and execution by any sized company, no matter how arrogant.That's how.
Primary drivers of the latest delay are aero loads and software. What "metal" should Boeing have produced to uncover these issues earlier?
And don't forget the 747...
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/17/2016 06:37 amQuote from: erioladastra on 05/17/2016 01:08 amNote that much of this was known as a threat for some time so "sounding the alarm" is incorrect and hyperbole. Is it? Not because Boeing has such a cozy relationship that they can pass a pile of paper off as the first year of a program, without putting in the "catchup" to meet SNC/SX current level as a comparable vendor?QuoteWe will have this debate multiple times over the coming years as the schedule keep changing - for both partners. Sure the schedule changes, as they both hit issues. But to the degree that a current "pathfinder" exists for 2 of the 3 vendors, and one that was chosen didn't, counts for a lot more than is hand waved over.My respectful counter claim to your one of "hyperbole".QuoteBoth companies are having their challenges, and triumphs, you just don't know them all.Never claimed. How is it relevant to this?Not sure I understand your first comment on catchup.
Quote from: erioladastra on 05/17/2016 01:08 amNote that much of this was known as a threat for some time so "sounding the alarm" is incorrect and hyperbole. Is it? Not because Boeing has such a cozy relationship that they can pass a pile of paper off as the first year of a program, without putting in the "catchup" to meet SNC/SX current level as a comparable vendor?QuoteWe will have this debate multiple times over the coming years as the schedule keep changing - for both partners. Sure the schedule changes, as they both hit issues. But to the degree that a current "pathfinder" exists for 2 of the 3 vendors, and one that was chosen didn't, counts for a lot more than is hand waved over.My respectful counter claim to your one of "hyperbole".QuoteBoth companies are having their challenges, and triumphs, you just don't know them all.Never claimed. How is it relevant to this?
First of all, don't see how SNC comes into this discussion at all - no way to really compare to SpaceX or Boeing but if you did they are so far behind (much due to their own and some due to funding/choices by NASA).
My point is that from CCDev2 and iCAP Boeing was aware of threats on the aero.
All the programs identify threats, develop mitigation plans and some times those work out and sometimes they don't. Boeing will fix their weight problem. Others will come. For both partners.
it is relevant because folks make judgements based on very incomplete facts. Not that I blame anyone - can only go off the data at hand. If you guys saw both programs totally open I think you would have some very different perspectives.
So now a two-month slip is proof that Boeing doesn't have CAD software, wind tunnel tests, integrated subsystems, an avionics testbed, or software? Just a "pile of paper"? I sense arrogance here, and it's not Boeing.
Boeing completed its CDR all the way back in 2014.
Their CAD models were >90% done at the time. Their integrated stack wind tunnel testing was completed three years ago.
They've been performing integrated software releases since at least January of 2013. Their Avionics Software Integration Lab has been up and running since at least late 2013 (SpaceX didn't meet a similar milestone until 2015).
Boeing's been conducting pilot-in-the-loop hardware and software testing for at least that long.
All of this is known just from their publicly released milestones.If you're not familiar with them, you might want to acquaint yourself with them before accusing the company of arrogance.
"Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years." has been on the SpaceX website since 2013. I wonder if they'll ever update it.