Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[Alexphysics]

NASA wouldn't have to pay for extra Soyuz seats (which would be incredibly stupid if they were leaving one of their own seats empty.)

I hope that once NASA has bought all the Soyuz seats from Boeing (last I heard, they've bought two, are negotiating for two more, which leaves one unaccounted for) then no more funds will be changing hands - that said, NASA astronauts will still be flying on Soyuz, with Russian cosmonauts flying on commercial vehicles (although they apparently don't want to fly on Dragon). It's all politics.

All Boeing seats were bought months ago. Last one is on Soyuz MS-13 and now NASA is looking at purchasing seats from Roscosmos on Soyuz MS-15 and MS-16.

[SWGlassPit]

Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.

Great, can you show us?

You know the FPIPs are in L2.
Even the latest is years old, but it was shown as SWGlassPit said, and absense of proof is not proof of absence.
Where was it said that those plans are wrong, or changed, or obviated?
It hardly makes sense once NASA has a 4 seat lifeboat, particularly if the main cost is per flight.
You could be right, and your info is regularly valuable, but you are not giving us much to go on.

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

[QuantumG]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

[pathfinder_01]

We personally know who invented the "if we could have 7 crew on ISS, we could do more work!" talking point. We know who pushed it on the hill. We know how it got to NASA and I know what their response was. If you care to look at the few times it has been brought up in hearings, you can hear the sanitised version of NASA's response. The crew size of ISS is /not/ going up.

Actually, NASA was considering not so long ago carrying *sometimes* a 7-member crew on a CCV where four would just go to the ISS as expedition crews and 3 of them would go just on a short visit to perform maintenance tasks such as EVA's and all of that.

Who? When? Where? You mean pre-shuttle cancellation? I mean, on a geological scale that's not so long ago.

The ISS was designed to have 7 permanent crew and up to 14 in a surge capacity(i.e. When the shuttle docked carrying extra supplies(LIOH canisters for the increased crew size)). The normal CO2 scrubbers(which don't use LIOH or any consumable) can't support more than 7 but the backup system(which uses the LIOH canisters) allows the addition of extra crew(when running with the normal system). 

The limiting factor was the lack of an lifeboat. The original idea was to build a lifeboat craft for the ISS that could accommodate up to 7 people for evacuation as well as to have enough space to handle  injured or unconscious crew members. This craft would be launched by either the shuttle or an ELV but would be brought home for repair/inspection via the shuttle. The ISS went over budget and the Bush II administration canceled the crew return vehicle in favor of just purchasing an extra Soyuz. This limited the crew to 6 since Soyuz can only hold 3 each and the shuttle could not act as a lifeboat due to short duration on orbit(being fuel cell powered the shuttle can only stay in space about 2 weeks or so). Normally the ISS has 2 Soyuz docked on the russian side.

Nasa required that the Commercial Crew vehicles be capable of carrying at least 4 people and be capable of acting as a lifeboat.So that means being able to stay in space docked to the ISS at least 6 months as well as being able to undock with the ISS within a certain time frame and deorbit/land on autopilot. Dragon and CST-100 are capable of carrying 7 people. It would cost NASA very little to send up an extra crew member and both craft are capable of doing it.

[SWGlassPit]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

[Confusador]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

[rakaydos]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

There's always FOIA Requests... :p

[Comga]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

What Confusador said
We assume that FPIPs posted here, even in L2, we’re allowed to be made public.
Chris B wouldn’t have it any other way and would pull them if asked.
It has never been clear that NASA incurred any disadvantage from letting us see them. They were very helpful to my semi-official planning, such as scheduling my travel for viewing the CRS-10 launch, at which I was a guest.
We hope someone in the ISS program can see the way to sharing them once again.

[Comga]

(Snip)
Internal FPIP charts show 7 crew with hot handovers (meaning spikes as high as 10 or 11) beginning basically in 2020 and persisting indefinitely.

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.

So that answers the question
NASA still plans to use 4 seats on commercial crew vehicles and do overlapping direct handovers.
Interpretations are welcome but dispute without higher authority seems pointless

[SWGlassPit]

And in this case, the info was from FPIP charts dated yesterday.  NASA still produces them two to four times a month.

Sounds good. Where'd ya see them? Can I see them?

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

What Confusador said
We assume that FPIPs posted here, even in L2, we’re allowed to be made public.
Chris B wouldn’t have it any other way and would pull them if asked.
It has never been clear that NASA incurred any disadvantage from letting us see them. They were very helpful to my semi-official planning, such as scheduling my travel for viewing the CRS-10 launch, at which I was a guest.
We hope someone in the ISS program can see the way to sharing them once again.

They're marked "Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only".

That means they aren't mine to release.  If NASA wants to release them, that's on them.

[Coastal Ron]

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

I've never worked for any government, but I have worked for U.S. Government contractors. Some of my roles and responsibilities included giving status updates to customers, and being responsible for the manufacturing side of program schedules.

My $0.02 are that it's meaningless and wasteful to release incremental updates to the public. Let's be real here, we are all space enthusiasts, but we have no control over what NASA and NASA contractors do, so there is literally no value in releasing incremental updates publicly. None. Nada. Zip. It's just forum fodder.

And if NASA were forced to release every single minor update publicly, NASA would be chasing its tail trying to explain to everyone in the world why line item 247 pushed out 1.5 days, while line item 365 didn't move to the left. That would be micro-management chaos.

Let's remember that SpaceX functions as well as it does because they give people responsibility and don't micro-manage them. Let's allow NASA to do the same and stay big picture here...

[rcoppola]

Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

[QuantumG]

They're marked "Pre-decisional, For Internal Use, For Reference Only".

That means they aren't mine to release.  If NASA wants to release them, that's on them.

Does "pre-decisional" mean something different to you? That sounds /exactly what I've been saying for three pages/. Sheesh.

[whitelancer64]

Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase? Why reward the more expensive and late readiness vendor?

Early NASA references to the possibility of both Boeing and SpaceX turning their Demo-2 flights into extended stays. I've never heard definitively one way or the other from either NASA or SpaceX whether or not SpaceX is going to have an extended Demo-2 stay.

[Comga]

I work on the ISS program.

No, I won't leak internal documents.

You were never asked to leak anything.  The question was whether they are publicly available anywhere.  As NASA is a public agency, many things are.  It's a shame that these are not.

I've never worked for any government, but I have worked for U.S. Government contractors. Some of my roles and responsibilities included giving status updates to customers, and being responsible for the manufacturing side of program schedules.

My $0.02 are that it's meaningless and wasteful to release incremental updates to the public. Let's be real here, we are all space enthusiasts, but we have no control over what NASA and NASA contractors do, so there is literally no value in releasing incremental updates publicly. None. Nada. Zip. It's just forum fodder.

And if NASA were forced to release every single minor update publicly, NASA would be chasing its tail trying to explain to everyone in the world why line item 247 pushed out 1.5 days, while line item 365 didn't move to the left. That would be micro-management chaos.

Let's remember that SpaceX functions as well as it does because they give people responsibility and don't micro-manage them. Let's allow NASA to do the same and stay big picture here...

Disagree entirely
I had the opposite experience
A program used to be managed to a weekly task list
At one point it was sent to the customer, which was their right under the contract, but which resulted in a flood of questions on minute details.
Eventually, we asked it not to be sent to the customer, so that we could be frank among the team.
That's more what you said.

This is different.
No one has a contractual right to see the FPIPs, but we also don't have the ability to pester NASA with questions.
Our comments on schedule adjustments are not going to pressure them like NASA saw before the Challenger launch.
I can't see how posting the FPIP in L2 is any detriment to NASA.

Now we just have to find someone else who can get permission to post them in L2.

[Lar]

Enough Big Man on the Internet for now, ok? If you're not sure if I'm talking about you, I am. If you admit that someone ELSE might think I'm talking about you, I am.

[Joffan]

Could be some interesting updates at NASA Advisory Council's Human Exploration and Operations Committee meeting on 30 April/1 May just announced.

[erioladastra]

Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

[jarmumd]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out.

Can you say specifically what those "huge" differences are, between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle?

[woods170]

Has there ever been a reason given as to why Boeing/Starliner was tasked with turning their first crewed test into an extended ISS stay over Spacex/Dreagon? Just curious what the rationale for this decision was. Considering this is something Boeing will get paid extra for, shouldn't that have been bid out? I mean...it's in the name of the program..."Commercial".

This is the only mention of late that I've read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/boeing-officially-delays-starliner-test-flight-to-august/

"Sources have indicated that this may also be one way to funnel more money to Boeing above its fixed price contract value in the commercial crew program, as NASA may in effect purchase these seats as part of an operational mission."

Again, If that's the case, shouldn't NASA bid out this purchase?

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.  NASA still thinks that is the case.  While DM-1 occurred recently and DM-2 is "scheduled" soon, no one believes it.  There are huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicle whereas Boeing's two test vehicles are virtually identical.    Now SpaceX is more nimble and Boeing more plodding.  Really, not unlike the tortoise and the hare.  Now it is also quite possible (don't know) that OFT flies successfully in August and Boeing is ready in say December vice November and has to wait again for a launch opportunity - definitely one advantage of having your launch vehicle provider in house.  Will be real interesting to see how this all plays out. 

Emphasis mine.

You are quite mistaken. The number of differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles is very limited.