Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[Hog]

Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.

Emphasis mine.

There was a time when that distinction was unnecessary.  Unfortunately aversity to adversity has affected so many avenues of HSF.  From design, operations and funding, the STS-51-L mission in which the United States 1st civilian in space was killed during the "Teacher in Space" operation really hurt HSF efforts.  Another blow was dealt with STS-107 which occurred in a time where social media was in its fledgling stages.

If a Loss of Crew event were to occur in this age of social media, the repercussions will/would be far reaching and substantial.

I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there (edit: isn't) too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.

[butters]

Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.

How is the GAO able to make predictions like this if NASA hasn't finalized the certification criteria yet?

[whitelancer64]

maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5.  my recollection was 6 was the design target.

Both Dragon v2 and Starliner were baselined to have 7 seats. Both vehicles have removed seats for cargo storage areas.

[su27k]

maybe i am missing something here - i only count seating for 5.  my recollection was 6 was the design target.

The requirement is to transport 4 NASA astronauts. I don't know why both companies have 5 seats, my guess is the extra seat is for a possible space tourist.

[Lar]

I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there is too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.

Probably a typo, as I suspect most of us hope there is NOT too much more slippage....

But if not, you got some 'splainin to do 

[erioladastra]

I want to display the crew seating arrangement for Starliner.
I discovered the attached graphic. Is it larger available or is there a better graphic?
And most important: Were are the CDR and the PLT seating?

There is no "CDR" and "PLT" designations.  The position with the control panel is the upper right seat.

There will be a CDR and PLT on these flights - even though requirements are only one pilot is needed, NASA wanted to retain the two.

[erioladastra]

{snip}

Really? Is that true of SX too? My recollection was that SX did not plan to have their own astronaut on board and I assumed it was the same for Boeing.

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.

Unfortunately putting a third person on the CFT is the new plan.

From SPACEPOLICYONLINE.COM
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-may-operationalize-boeings-commercial-crew-flight-test

NASA May Operationalize Boeing’s Commercial Crew Flight Test – UPDATED
By Marcia Smith | Posted: April 5

"NASA revealed today that it has modified its commercial crew contract with Boeing to provide “flexibility” to use the crew flight test of Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner system essentially as an operational mission.  Instead of two crew members there could be three and a six-month mission instead of two weeks."

Ahhh, the famous missing comma, I meant

No, third person will be on CFT.

Sheesh.

[gongora]

{snip}

The plan was for first test flights to be unmanned. The second flights are due to have test pilots. I assume the third guy will be on the second flight of the Starliner.

No third person would be on CFT.

Unfortunately putting a third person on the CFT is the new plan.

Ahhh, the famous missing comma, I meant

No, third person will be on CFT.

Sheesh.

Which is the second flight

[gongora]

While taking a quick look through the SpaceX contracts I found a mention of them now getting the IMV coupling as government furnished equipment.  Then I had to Google what an IMV coupling is.

[MaxTeranous]

Space is hard and HSF even harder.  Orion is not alone when it comes to schedule slips both Dragon 2 and Starliner also suffer same problems.


Boeing and SpaceX aimed to fly their first human-rated spacecraft to the International Space Station in late 2016 and early 2017, with a goal of having both vehicles ready for operational missions by the end of 2017. But budget shortfalls from Congress, combined with technical hurdles encountered by both companies, delayed the test flights.

“In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program’s own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing,” said Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, during a congressional hearing in January.

Emphasis mine.

There was a time when that distinction was unnecessary.  Unfortunately aversity to adversity has affected so many avenues of HSF.  From design, operations and funding, the STS-51-L mission in which the United States 1st civilian in space was killed during the "Teacher in Space" operation really hurt HSF efforts.  Another blow was dealt with STS-107 which occurred in a time where social media was in its fledgling stages.

If a Loss of Crew event were to occur in this age of social media, the repercussions will/would be far reaching and substantial.

I'm excited to see some Commercial Crew flights.  I hope there (edit: isn't) too much more slippage, there's only a few more years of ISS operations left.

You are right, but the there's risk both ways. NASA will be equally crucified if an American astronaut is lost on a Soyuz who was only on board a Russian craft if it could be implied that NASA dragged their feet certifying American made craft.

Not saying this is correct or accurate, but it is how both regular media and social media will spin it should such a tragedy happen.

[deruch]

GEDI now planned on SpX-16 instead of SpX-18.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/may-the-forest-be-with-you-gedi-to-launch-to-iss

The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation – or GEDI, pronounced like "Jedi," of Star Wars fame – instrument is undergoing final integration and testing this spring and summer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The instrument is expected to launch aboard SpaceX's 16th commercial resupply services mission, targeted for late 2018.

GEDI originally was scheduled to launch aboard a resupply mission in mid-2019, but the team at Goddard who is building and testing GEDI was always on track to deliver a finished instrument by the fall of this year

If GEDI moves up to CRS-16 (from CRS-18), then IDA #3 which had been the planned trunk cargo for that launch will be going up on a later mission (CRS-17? with further manifest rejiggering).  Has anyone heard anything about the IDA hardware being delayed?  Given the imminence of CCtCap launches, I would be surprised if NASA swapped the manifests without there being some problem with IDA.  Even if 2 docking ports aren't absolutely required to support those missions, I had always thought that NASA really wanted to have a back-up port in case of some unexpected contingency.

[Kabloona]

An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html?utm_term=.7b6961856010

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

In a recent speech, Robert Lightfoot, the former acting NASA administrator, lamented in candid terms how the agency, with society as a whole, has become too risk-averse. He charged the agency with recapturing some of the youthful swagger that sent men to the moon during the Apollo era.

“I worry, to be perfectly honest, if we would have ever launched Apollo in our environment here today,” he said during a speech at the Space Symposium last month, “if Buzz [Aldrin] and Neil [Armstrong] would have ever been able to go to the moon in the risk environment we have today.”

NASA is requiring SpaceX and Boeing to meet a requirement that involves some complicated calculations: The chance of death can be no greater than 1 in every 270 flights.

One way to ensure that, as Lightfoot said during his speech, is to never fly: “The safest place to be is on the ground.”

[gongora]

Seems pretty well written and even-handed.

I agree.  I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this issue over the next year.

[Brovane]

I predict there will be a lot of FUD through this year over Commercial Crew and SpaceX. 

[Coastal Ron]

An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

Regarding what drives NASA ASAP to be so conservative, the last part of the article:

Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very different number.

The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.

I'm not an engineer, nor familiar with safety statistics, but when I see these two choices:

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.

Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.

[the_other_Doug]

An article from the Washington Post about NASA's reluctance to allow SpaceX to fuel F9 with astros aboard:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-space-x-is-using-a-powerful-rocket-technology-nasa-advisers-say-it-could-put-lives-at-risk/2018/05/05/f810b182-3cec-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html

Seems pretty well written and even-handed. FWIW, most of the readers' comments seem to side with SpaceX and ding NASA for being too risk-averse.

Regarding what drives NASA ASAP to be so conservative, the last part of the article:

Before the very first shuttle flight, NASA estimated that the chance of death was between 1 in 500 and 1 in 5,000. Later, after the agency had compiled data from shuttle flights, it went back and came up with a very different number.

The chance of death was actually 1 in 12.

I'm not an engineer, nor familiar with safety statistics, but when I see these two choices:

A. Fuel a rocket, then have people working around the fueled rocket installing the crew.

B. Install the crew without fuel in the rocket, turn on the Launch Abort System (LAS) so that it is ready to remove the crew from the rocket if needed, then fuel the rocket in preparation for launch.

To me "B" sounds inherently safer, especially since the LAS is designed to safely transport crew away from a rocket sitting on the launch pad.

Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.

Ron, from a logical standpoint, you are absolutely right.  In fact, if you look at it, LOC accidents, in the entire history of crewed launches, that have occurred while a crew has been strapped into a spacecraft attached to its booster rocket(s), have only happened either during flight (Challenger) or during a test when the rocket was not fueled (Apollo 1).  All other LOC accidents have happened after boost phase is done and/or the LAS has already been jettisoned.  (I believe all of the rest have been atmospheric entry accidents, IIRC.)

Considering the total number of LOC accidents in crewed space flight (counting only LOC accidents that happened while crew were in the spacecraft, not things like Bondarenko burning to death in a test chamber or the various pilots who have died in plane crashes), we're talking, what, well less than a one percent fatality rate?

It's hard to extract good statistical relationships from such a tiny percentage.  It's arguable that attempts to do so are inherently flawed and should not be considered valid.

I think it's worthwhile to note that the only time an LAS was used to save a crew from an LOC situation was the Soyuz launch anomaly in the 70's.  In fact, the Soyuz anomaly is, in the entire history of crewed launch attempts, the only one where an LAS was used in one of the earliest planned modes for an LAS -- to let the crew escape from an exploding booster.

Earliest thinking about the basic need for an LAS of some kind was the exploding booster scenario, and this is the only scenario to which the current "NASA objects to SpaceX processes" flap applies.  But, in the entire history of launching humans into space aboard rockets, this scenario has occurred only once.  And in the one case in which the scenario occurred, the crew survived.

In fact, it has been vanishingly rare for a rocket to explode on the pad since the early 1960's.  The mysteries of loading fuels onto a rocket without making it explode have all seemingly been thoroughly explored, and the likelihood of such an event seems inherently low.  Especially from a statistical standpoint, if you want to be married to statistics.

What gets in the way of an objective viewpoint on this is that one of the extremely few rockets that has exploded during fueling since the early 1960's was, indeed, an earlier version of the same Falcon 9 rocket over which this latest flap is occurring.

I think it comes down to, if you think the AMOS-6 issue has been resolved and will not happen again, then you shouldn't have a problem with fueling with crew aboard.  You should, in fact, assume it would be inherently safer.  If you don't believe the AMOS-6 instigating issue has been resolved, or even properly identified, then what in the world are you doing, certifying the rocket as human-rated in the first place?  Regardless of the order of crew boarding vs. fueling?

That's the true question.  Order of boarding vs. fueling is just a side issue based on that basic question.

[eric z]

 Just two unrelated things: I always considered STS-107 as a launch-related accident, since it was the foam-loss that caused the damage.
 Also curious as to why the tests of each companies abort systems is happening so relatively late in the process to first flights? {Please correct me if wrong!] Thanks.

[joek]

Arguments that advocate "we've never done it that way" don't argue facts, just history. And if history has taught us anything is that it can't predict the future - only tell us if we're repeating it.

Yes and no.  History based on X, provides facts based on X.  If you diverge into the unknown Y (non-X)  then the "facts" become hypothetical... actual based on historical evidence vs. hypothetical.  In short, simply means that those who advocate Y (new) vs. X (old) have a steeper hill to climb: known vs. unknown.

That said, is this is a potential show-stopper?  I doubt it.  If SpaceX can show some history and that assuages concerns, should not be a problem.  History and precedence carry significant weight.

[Ike17055]

Relying on LaS is inherently risk-laden.  An abort is no small deal. It is dangerous. And this assumes that your LAS will even be properly actuated, i.e. detect an abort situation appropriately and responsively, and i initiate correctly, and soon enough to have a chance to save the crew. It is not “automatic.”

[Ike17055]

No, it is not just a matter of whether you think atmos-6 issue is rectified. Every incident, whether copv, or o-rings should serve as a reminder of all the “unknown unknowns” in this business.  It is the “what else have we missed?” moment that NASA has paid dearly for when not taking in the past. This is the reason for “overly cautious” analysis. Unplanned Fire and explosions rarely interact well with humans. It is logical to mitigate every possible scenario when dealing with elevated possibilities of them. Fueling is a big one.  iNtroducing humans into the middle of that warrants a long pause to ask if we have really thought that through as completely as possible.