Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[gongora]

I remember reading a couple of months back that SpaceX moved to another parachute system producer. There was one supplier providing the parachute system to all us providers. (Orion; Dragon 1 & 2 and Starliner). Only SpaceX had the resources/ flexibility to try to move to another provider. But that provider hasn't flight history.
So when a anomaly happens during a parachute system test, that's first and formost a good thing because that's the time to discover problems. Only time is required to improve the recovery system for Dragon 2.

That was just the reef line cutters, not the whole parachute system.  There was also nothing said about SpaceX being the only one to move to the new supplier, they were just trying to do it sooner.

[FinalFrontier]

Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays, which are in turn related to ASAP itself. ASAP has consistently been an enemy of any launch vehicle system that is not Ares 1 since 2006, and this has not changed even with SLS.

Given the situation we now find ourselves, with the possibility of having to de-man ISS, and the ongoing problems with Russia that would still be unresolved even if they fix their QC, drastic action is needed.

If necessary the president should intervene with executive order to either mandate ASAP certify the vehicles or dissolve the ASAP entirely. I think the evidence speaks for itself that ASAP has gone far awry of its originally intended purpose. We need our vehicles back and we need them now, not two years from now RIGHT NOW.

[gongora]

Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays...

ASAP is not the certification authority for these vehicles.  They are an advisory group.  The final certification for the vehicles will be by Gerstenmaier or Bridenstine.

[Dante80]

 

Becoming more and more clear to me that what is needed is congressional or presidential intervention. The remaining delays to manned flights are due entirely to ASAP related certification delays, which are in turn related to ASAP itself. ASAP has consistently been an enemy of any launch vehicle system that is not Ares 1 since 2006, and this has not changed even with SLS.

ASAP simply advises. And they are doing a pretty good job at it as far as CCP is concerned. When you find technical issues during the development, testing and qualification of new hardware, you have to find the root causes and fix them. Why on earth would they agree with sending people to space otherwise? Their job is to be a safety advisory board.

If you want to berate them for double standards, that is fine. In that case though, the inherent argument is that ASAP is not adhering to the same/equal/prudent safety standards on SLS/ORION, NOT that they are too whiny with CCP.

[Mangala]

You're right but I think we should put ourself in the "shoes" of them before judging. At the end, if something goes wrong, they will be inquired to explain why they haven't advert.
Personally, I would take a place in either Boeing or SpaceX Crew Capsule at the minute when both contractors will say "we are ready", but at the other hand I wouldn't have the courage to sign a document that certificate that I have no concerns. I think they have a particular though job to do as advisor, as well (and even more) the ones who will sign that both systems are ok.
Now, once this said, and even if I understand the 1/270 anomaly rating that they want that both providers reach, in practice it will never be achieved as to verify that, we will need at least 67 years of crew capsule launches at a rate of two crewed launches per year and providers, yet in the mean time, the boosters and the crew capsule will suffers numerous changes, and only if, there is still a space station or any other destination to send these capsules there...
For the last but not the least, I'm from a country which lost tens of ships at the end of the 15th century and in the 16th century, in exploring this world. In fact, for each expedition, there were an average rate of one ship lost for three that leaves Lisbon port, even during "regular" lines between Portugal and India (with each trip being a 6 months journey in each direction (remembering the 6 months trips to and from Mars...), sometimes even more), one third of each crew always died from diseases, accidents, pirates, etc...not counting with the ships which disappeared during storms.
So are we so much "shyer" than our ancestors? If so, I wonder how our older ancestors even had the courage to go out their caves, with so many dangers out there...Sure, a ASAP commission of their time will prefer to say to them to no go.
We are explorers, damned it!....Sorry, couldn't resist.

[su27k]

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?

Maybe they're frakked off by SpaceX's "paperwork" comment 

[docmordrid]

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?

Maybe they're frakked off by SpaceX's "paperwork" comment 

IIRC, GAO was among the first to publicly say NASA was slow in approving milestones. SpaceX would simply be restating the bloody obvious.

[su27k]

This article has some quotes from the meeting: https://spacenews.com/safety-panel-fears-soyuz-failure-could-exacerbate-commercial-crew-safety-concerns/

The Boeing issues are easy to understand, but I'm confused by this quote with regard to COPV:

“Ultimately, there has to be the acceptance and certification of a configuration which is judged by both parties to be free of the demonstrated characteristics that caused the failure in question,” he said. “This remains an open technical item that the panel believes has to be firmly resolved before we can certainly proceed to crewed launches.”

What is the "configuration"? Is that the new COPV design? Is he basically saying NASA needs to sign off the new COPV design before the crewed mission? If so, it seems to be stating the obvious, I mean of course NASA needs to do this, I'm not sure why call this an "issue" while it's just one of the todo's on the list.

[edkyle99]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

[Coastal Ron]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.

[edkyle99]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.

People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously.

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.  They would be furious to here such talk.

 - Ed Kyle

[tdperk]

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)

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.

No, I think it worked about 50/50 with lots more near misses than LOC -- RE the foam shedding.  The agony of the thing is, foam shedding and foam strikes weren't weird, they were the continuance of the, "normalization of deviance".

[tdperk]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

 - Ed Kyle

I think you'd have a point if ASAP were putting any numbers whatsoever towards their concerns, which justified them.  They aren't.

Certainly none which are being quoted.

No numbers or data at all.

[tdperk]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight aren't remembering the brutal lessons taught the last time the U.S. rushed just such a thing.

You knew when you posted that image that you would get pushback...

Yes, it was over the top, and unwarranted. And not relevant AT ALL to the current discussion.

People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously.

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.  They would be furious to here such talk.

 - Ed Kyle

" People on this very thread are calling for bypassing the certification process.  Seriously. "

Seriously, quote that.

I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.

If there is no data to back up their claims, then they are being competent only in providing nebulous excuses not to fly, to be seized on by political opponents of Commercial Crew, and not at being a scientifically based (data, numbers) panel providing advice or oversight of any sort, about how to engineer a sufficiently safe flight system for crew access to ISS and follow on structures.

Where are their numbers?!

[RedLineTrain]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight

I don't think you can call anything having to do with Commercial Crew a "rush to flight."  Decorating this Christmas tree is so slow it's maddening.

[gongora]

I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.
...
Where are their numbers?!

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.

[Star One]

I only see people objecting to ASAP being unable to provide any data showing there are any unaddressed concerns RE either load-and-go, COPVs, or D2 parachutes.
...
Where are their numbers?!

That information would be considered proprietary to SpaceX and Boeing, and is unlikely to be publicly released.

Precisely. Yet another example of individuals online thinking they are entitled to data that they aren’t.

[DigitalMan]

My guess is that people calling for a rush to flight

I don't think you can call anything having to do with Commercial Crew a "rush to flight."  Decorating this Christmas tree is so slow it's maddening.

I think it's interesting that ASAP said 'demonstrated characteristics' in regards to the COPVs.  If SpaceX did manage to duplicate the issue and used the same procedure the actual stage was using to load propellants, I think it would greatly increase the probability that SpaceX did indeed find the issue. 

If ASAP thinks it has other possible causes then why not do a test to destruction to prove it?  Perhaps tests were done, we don't know how much testing SpaceX did on this.

[Coastal Ron]

I worked with engineers who were in the 34 blockhouse on January 27, 1967.

I've worked with people that have been in plane crashes. I hope you see how irrelevant your comment is.

They would be furious to here such talk.

If they would be upset listening to a bunch of non-involved people chatting on the internet, then they would be upset for the wrong reasons.

Remember no one conversing on this forum about this topic is (or should be) ACTUALLY involved in deciding what ACTUALLY happens. So why would anyone be upset about speculation by people that have no say in the matter?

Which is why you throwing up that picture was so inappropriate. Boeing, NASA and SpaceX decide life and death issues, not us here on this thread topic.

[Cremalera]

We need our vehicles back and we need them now, not two years from now RIGHT NOW.

Very good words.Honestly, I thought that our level of bureaucracy would be unsurpassed.But I think I was wrong.