CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Rocket Science]

Knew about it (and more) a few months ago. Opted not to report it.

Afraid it could get a lot worse on this story and for fear of this turning into a Lisa Nowak style thread I'm probably going to send you off to other sites if this dominates threads like this.

And as such, no, we're not having a splinter thread for those who'll want to keep it bumped on top. Have a think to yourselves and don't post unless it's absolutely required.

Thank you Chris for stopping this... I was uncomfortable where it was going this morning and I thought, “Let’s be the space site that doesn’t do this, we're not some tabloid rag”...

[yg1968]

There is a job posting for Ed Mango's replacement (if anyone is interested):
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/355429700

[savuporo]

A slightly amusing comparison of how fast CCiCAP is hitting the milestones, found on Parabolic Arc


http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASAROIReport_Dec2013_TAGGED.pdf

[Robotbeat]

That's amusing because it's easy to slant... The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty. Also, the scales are different. In the last one, they're all at 20, even though only Boeing has 20 milestones. The others have fewer, which doesn't mean they have less work to do. For instance, SpaceX's milestones include biggies like a pad abort and an in-flight abort, neither of which are in any of Boeing's milestones (but are things Boeing will probably need to demonstrate before putting crew on board).

You got to wonder if whoever made that graphic was intending to favor Boeing above the other two...

[dcporter]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.

[Robotbeat]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.

It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.

[Oli]

The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.

Right, as far as you can tell.

It may be misleading insofar as it suggests Boeing is ahead overall in commercial crew dev.

[Lar]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.

It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.

There may be some who are statistically illiterate at NASA, although I agree you'd expect a bit better on average..

In fact, I think a study showed that 98.4% of organizations had at least one employee who was statistically illiterate and that the average fraction of statistically illiterate employees was somewhere around 23.45% across all organizations. Within aerospace organizations this was 12.34% but within the media it was closer to 45.67%

( I just made all that up )

I think what's more important here is to understand who is doing well against their milestones and I'm not sure I have enough data to judge. But the SpaceX fan boy in me has to point out that SpaceX is awesome anyway.

[Robotbeat]

Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.

[guckyfan]

Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.

I did not see pad abort or maxQ-abort as milestones for the Boeing CST-100 capsule. Did I miss them or were they not regarded necessary? Or would they be part of the next phase with Boeing?

[ChrisWilson68]

Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.

I did not see pad abort or maxQ-abort as milestones for the Boeing CST-100 capsule. Did I miss them or were they not regarded necessary? Or would they be part of the next phase with Boeing?

No, those milestones aren't there on the CCiCap milestone list for CST-100.

SpaceX is clearly much farther along with crewed Dragon than either CST-100 or Dream Chaser.  These milestones reflect that.  If all three finish all their CCiCap milestones successfully, crewed Dragon will be essentially ready to carry crew while the other two will still require significantly more work.

Part of that is surely because SpaceX started out ahead, since crewed Dragon is an evolution of the cargo Dragon that was already developed and making operational orbital flights and reentries.

[Comga]

The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.

Right, as far as you can tell.

It may be misleading insofar as it suggests Boeing is ahead overall in commercial crew dev.

But there is a better way to compare than counting milestones.  It's the dollar value of completed milestones vs the total dollars.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.

It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.

Edward Tufte would have a thing or two to say about poor communications in graphics.  This one ranks with his example from Pravda.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The slant direction is correct but the amounts (percentages) are not. Actual percentag completions of number of milestones: Beoing 70%, SpaceX 65%, SNC 50%.

SNC completion of only 50% on a 50% budget compared to the other two plus their difficulty in completing the CCDev contract milestones has put them behind. They have a higher technical ramp to accomplish in a lifting body design than just a capsule design.

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

[Lar]

The slant direction is correct but the amounts (percentages) are not. Actual percentag completions of number of milestones: Beoing 70%, SpaceX 65%, SNC 50%.

SNC completion of only 50% on a 50% budget compared to the other two plus their difficulty in completing the CCDev contract milestones has put them behind. They have a higher technical ramp to accomplish in a lifting body design than just a capsule design.

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Agreed!   IMHO, this is partly because they are (or will be) completing milestones that matter and partly because they started ahead. 

If you ask me, huge props are due to SNC for how far they've gotten on only half budget.

[savuporo]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.

Note how someone has been literate enough in the first doc, and then lost all of it for the next version of the same graph.

[Oli]

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.

[BrightLight]

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.

The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?

[Lurker Steve]

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

Damn, they need to change the name of the spacecraft already.

The SpaceX crew vehicle is significantly different from the SpaceX cargo vehicle, and has NOT flown missions in space. This is the same problem people had with the differences between F9 V1.0 and F9 V1.1. They are completely different from below the ground, up.

Boeing has built spacecraft that have flown in space as well. Since their first spacecraft went to space before SpaceX, perhaps they are ahead ?? Never mind that it wasn't a CST-100.

SNC actually flew a vehicle that was the same shape as the spacecraft. Maybe they are ahead, except for the fact that their vehicle didn't actually get to space or have the engines integrated yet.

At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.

[ChrisWilson68]

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

Dragon will be doing both a pad abort and a max-Q abort test under CCiCap, which puts it significantly further along the development path than either CST-100 or Dream Chaser.

And yes, there does seem to be a lot of commonality between crew Dragon and cargo Dragon.  The heat shield is the same.  The Draco thrusters are the same.  Likely many more things are the same.

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.

Flawless performance isn't necessary for something to be considered "proven".  If a Falcon flight fails and then they find and fix the root cause, that shouldn't be considered grounds to give up on Falcon.  I think it extremely unlikely that a Falcon launch failure would make SpaceX lose CCtCap.

[ChrisWilson68]

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.

The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?

It's true that Falcon 9 should be considered somewhat more of a risk than Atlas V right now.

But, on the other hand, cargo Dragon has already flown several times, and that means Draon itself should be considered somewhat less of a risk than CST-100 and Dream Chaser.

Also, Falcon 9 looks to be on track to fly more than Atlas V per year going forward.  So, while the early flights of Falcon 9 will have less of a track record, eventually it will have more of a track record, so later flights should be considered safer than Atlas V.