Oh my, things are getting ugly. Read this:https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10
Quote from: Star One on 10/05/2018 05:52 pmI don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.True, but if you are listed first... That implies it. Heavily.
I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.
In any case, how did this thread get turned into discussion of low-brow-yellow-journalism-stupid-op-ed pieces? This belongs in something more akin to a party section. Or maybe an anti-party section. Or stupid journalism section. Or something. Really not worth polluting this thread with such crap.
Trash talk is part of the business. SpaceX does it too.Quote"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct." https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-accuses-blue-origin-of-blocking-spacex-2013-9Blue Origin didn't show up with a vehicle within 5 years, but neither did SpaceX.
"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
Quote from: Svetoslav on 10/05/2018 08:06 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 07:27 amGiven that you are not from the USA, what do you care?Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".
Quote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 07:27 amGiven that you are not from the USA, what do you care?Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?
Quote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 09:15 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 10/05/2018 08:06 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 07:27 amGiven that you are not from the USA, what do you care?Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".Why do any of us care?! We believe in the future of Space, for all mankind. America is the largest player and in context gets our affection/attention.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 10/05/2018 11:47 pmQuote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 09:15 amQuote from: Svetoslav on 10/05/2018 08:06 amQuote from: woods170 on 10/05/2018 07:27 amGiven that you are not from the USA, what do you care?Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".Why do any of us care?! We believe in the future of Space, for all mankind. America is the largest player and in context gets our affection/attention.We care because we are personally invested in the manned space program and it will be personally embarrassing if and when NASA makes a big hullabaloo about the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing while getting almost nothing done. As if they should take any credit for the accomplishments of their ancestors while touting their $20+B rocket and capsule that still haven’t launched (EFT-1 blah blah blah) Or found a purpose. Still getting rides in Soyuz, with the occasional drill hole in their pressure vessels, while they count how many killer micrometeoroid angels can dance in the heads of the ASAP. It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful. [/rant]
We care because we are personally invested in the manned space program and it will be personally embarrassing if and when NASA makes a big hullabaloo about the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing while getting almost nothing done. As if they should take any credit for the accomplishments of their ancestors while touting their $20+B rocket and capsule that still haven’t launched (EFT-1 blah blah blah) Or found a purpose. Still getting rides in Soyuz, with the occasional drill hole in their pressure vessels, while they count how many killer micrometeoroid angels can dance in the heads of the ASAP. It’s shameful. We understand why but it’s still shameful. [/rant]
Commercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.SpaceX:COPV failure investigation still not closed.There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes. Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed. Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.Boeing:Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test. A couple more tests still to do.The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.
Quote from: gongora on 10/11/2018 04:23 pmCommercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.SpaceX:COPV failure investigation still not closed.There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes. Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed. Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.Boeing:Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test. A couple more tests still to do.The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour. But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system. Nor did the behaviour negatively impact the overal function of the parachute system.I've got one contact at SpaceX describing it as "ASAP making a big fuss over nothing".Or, as we Dutch say: Making an elephant out of a mosquito.Regulars around this forum know of my opinion about ASAP. ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. IMO they would call for re-design of the spacecraft if someone would accidently stick a NASA logo sticker upside-down on the F9 first stage.They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.Also, ASAP is biased. They have been very critical of CCP with, until recently, almost no critique on the POR (SLS and Orion). A fine example was in yesterday's ASAP meeting. When discussing CCP the ASAP members demanded issues to be solved; the phrase "must be solved" was used several times. However, when discussing Orion the ASAP members only suggested that issues should be solved. The phrase "We urge NASA to reconsider the design" was used.I find it very strange that ASAP is much more insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of the contractors, and ASAP being much less insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of NASA. That spells "bias" to me.I find the reporting from OIG and GAO (which also pay attention to safety aspects) much more balanced and un-biased.Finally, I can't help but feeling that ASAP does not understand that "better" is the enemy of "good enough".
Quote from: woods170 on 10/12/2018 06:48 amQuote from: gongora on 10/11/2018 04:23 pmCommercial Crew discussion at ASAP meeting...Still lots of verification work to be finished with both contractors.SpaceX:COPV failure investigation still not closed.There have been unspecified anomalies observed with parachute testing and CRS parachutes. Don't know how serious or if any design changes would be needed. Stressed they think this should be resolved before uncrewed flight.Boeing:Parachute testing continues, some sort of anomaly on last test. A couple more tests still to do.The pyro assemblies for separating crew module from service module have had unexpected fractures in testing, successfully performed their function but created some FOD.The problem with the launch abort system was described as a harmonic resonance creating a water hammer effect, still working on fixes.I have a bit more on the SpaceX parachute "anomalies". They are described as "not-previously observed" behaviour. But the more important thing is that the behaviour was well within the allowed limits of the parachute system. Nor did the behaviour negatively impact the overal function of the parachute system.I've got one contact at SpaceX describing it as "ASAP making a big fuss over nothing".Or, as we Dutch say: Making an elephant out of a mosquito.Regulars around this forum know of my opinion about ASAP. ASAP is TOO cautious in my opinion. IMO they would call for re-design of the spacecraft if someone would accidently stick a NASA logo sticker upside-down on the F9 first stage.They also continue making problems of things that have long since been determined to be no problems. For example: at the recent ASAP meeting it was mentioned that Load-N-Go was still considered to be a safety issue. Well, it looks like ASAP didn't get the memo that NASA has approved Load-N-Go for CCP missions, after exhaustive investigation of the proprosed procedure. ASAP still considering Load-N-Go to be a safety issue is also contradictive to their own opening statement, saying that they haven't observed any decision making by NASA that would increase safety risks for CCP.Also, ASAP is biased. They have been very critical of CCP with, until recently, almost no critique on the POR (SLS and Orion). A fine example was in yesterday's ASAP meeting. When discussing CCP the ASAP members demanded issues to be solved; the phrase "must be solved" was used several times. However, when discussing Orion the ASAP members only suggested that issues should be solved. The phrase "We urge NASA to reconsider the design" was used.I find it very strange that ASAP is much more insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of the contractors, and ASAP being much less insistent when addressing issues being the responsibility of NASA. That spells "bias" to me.I find the reporting from OIG and GAO (which also pay attention to safety aspects) much more balanced and un-biased.Finally, I can't help but feeling that ASAP does not understand that "better" is the enemy of "good enough".Something that impressed me from this meeting is how different the tone it was compared to the last meeting. On the last meeting it sounded like things were going better for both companies even if they had issues. This last one felt like they were seeing both companies were going through an apocalipse or something. How could that change in a matter of months?
What really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)
Quote from: woods170 on 10/12/2018 12:55 pmWhat really irked me, with regards to the comments made about the Crew Dragon parachute system, is that ASAP dragged in the Cargo Dragon parachute system. They managed to completely overlook the fact that that particular system has a 100% reliability score (14 for 14 for operational missions, 2 for 2 for demo missions and 10 for 10 for development tests)Only 26 flights? The Shuttle TPS system worked on 111 flights with 100% success. That doesn't mean you ignore weird events like foam strikes.
