Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[mgeagon]

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

As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.

[AbuSimbel]

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.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

[spacebleachers]

Let's keep it from getting personal.

[AbuSimbel]

Let's keep it from getting personal.

I don't see anything wrong with pointing out personal biases in a discussion. I mean it's the point of having a discussion in the first place...

[abaddon]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.

I think this is likely true.

NASA still thinks that is the case.

Do they?  What makes you think this?

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.

This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

[woods170]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.

I think this is likely true.

NASA still thinks that is the case.

Do they?  What makes you think this?

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.

This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

[woods170]

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

As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.

All small changes. For example:
- Adding heaters to Draco fuel lines is no big deal. Modding fuel lines in this fashion, after the results of environmental testing has come in, is standard work in the aerospace industry. Has been for decades.
- Reef line cutters worked as advertised on DM-1. And I have that from direct sources. The chute ending up on top of Crew Dragon is a non-issue. Can happen to Starliner and Orion just as easily.
- Parachutes on DM-1 mission deployed well inside the allowed limits of the system. And again: I have that from direct sources. Further risk retirement is being done via the last few drop-test that will be performed prior to flying DM-2.
- COPV 2.0 risk is in the process of being retired. NASA is requiring seven flights of F9 to qualify and certify COPV 2.0 for use on manned F9. Demo-1 launch was a major part in risk retirement with regards to COPV 2.0. The only folks still really whining about COPV 2.0 are ASAP. But they are a non-factor in COPV 2.0 certification and qualification.
- In-flight abort test is the only major thing left before flying crew on Crew Dragon. But SpaceX is giving its very best to accomplish a succesful test.

In general the highly succesful nature of DM-1 did a huge amount of risk retirement and has strongly bolstered confidence, at both NASA and SpaceX, that Crew Dragon will be a safe and robust system for flying NASA astronauts to and from the ISS.

[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. 

Emphasis mine.

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

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA

[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.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.

[erioladastra]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.

I think this is likely true.

NASA still thinks that is the case.

Do they?  What makes you think this?

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.

This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

[Lars-J]

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

Yet Boeing's path is ALL "the road forward" (not even flown the uncrewed demo yet), and you still under-emphasize Boeing difficulties and over-emphasize SpaceX difficulties. Which is why I assume the comment about your bias was made.

[AbuSimbel]

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.

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.

There's OFT but also the pad Abort, that's what I'm referring to. Not to mention we have credible sources that it is a tricky one too, since there are various elements of risk in Strainer's LAS and abort profile.

[yg1968]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.

I think this is likely true.

NASA still thinks that is the case.

Do they?  What makes you think this?

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.

This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

It is also in line with what Bridenstine said before the DM-1 mission. He also said that it would be a lot closer than what people expect.

[vaporcobra]

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

As cautious as NASA is, small differences could still mean many months of slippage right. Qualifications still needed include the inflight abort test, more robust temperature control for the draco hypergols, and the parachute system, correct? Further, do we know if the new reef cutters worked correctly? Did the one parachute that draped the dragon after splashdown act nominally? Also, has the COPV 2.0 risk been retired? Even with a number of successful launches, NASA may still have reservations, I suppose.

Conversely, it appears that Boeing has many more questions to answer at this point, not the least of which is an end to end test of the LAS and its ECLSS. Until OFT finally launches, it is very premature to suggest that Boeing has an easier path to HSF.

Edit to add: I am simply thinking critically with respect to when DM-2 may actually take NASA astronauts to the ISS. I firmly believe that will happen months if not a year before CFT.

- Parachutes on DM-1 mission deployed well inside the allowed limits of the system. And again: I have that from direct sources. Further risk retirement is being done via the last few drop-test that will be performed prior to flying DM-2.

Can confirm. In fact, additional parachute testing (some of the very last qual drops) is ongoing this week. More still to come, but SpaceX isn't wasting time or resting on its DM-1 laurels before finishing up remaining qual work.

[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.

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA

Moving the goalposts are you? Switching from "huge differences between vehicles" to "a lot of paperwork still to be reviewed by NASA"...

[woods170]

Because on paper NASA had confidence that Boeing would be in a better position first.  Nothing to do with money flow.

I think this is likely true.

NASA still thinks that is the case.

Do they?  What makes you think this?

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.

This appears to be a gross misrepresentation completely not backed up by anything.  Can you support these assertions with any evidence?

Erioladastra won't be able to support his assertions with any evidence.

Without getting into details there are multiple mentions, by good sources, in L2 that DM1 was pretty much flawless, setting up for a smooth flow for DM-2. That in itself is in direct contradiction to erioladastra's assertions.

You are confusing the great success of DM-1 with the road forward.  That is not a contradiction.

Yes it is. You mention huge differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles. There are not huge differences, just small ones. Feel free to disagree.
But the fact is that you cannot retire risk for DM-2 with a DM-1 vehicle that, in your own words, is hugely different from the DM-2 vehicle.
In case you hadn't noticed, even ASAP, in its most recent meeting, acknowledged that the succesful DM-1 mission retired a huge (pun intended) amount of risk with regards to DM-2.

I suggest you put the differences between the DM-1 and DM-2 vehicles into their proper perspective. Because IMO you are clearly not doing so currently

[woods170]

Really? Still falling for the Boeing superiority complex after all the events?

Aside from the fact that you misrepresent the changes from DM-1 Dragon and the DM-2 one (as woods has pointed out), 'Virtually identical' means that you assume no issues whatsoever are found in the TWO tests Boeing still has to conduct before flying crew.
Reality clashes with this assumption, and it shows a bias where you see Boeing executing flawlessly whereas only SpaceX can have issues.

We all (should?) know that reality is far from that.

No, not falling for anything and not trying to say SpaceX won't beat Boeing.  Woods is not correct.  Sorry I can't give proprietary data but I can clearly see both.  I also never said anything about the impact of OFT on CFT because that is obvious that if it does not go per plan that is a (potentially) huge hit to Boeing.  You are incorrect that Boeing has to fly TWO flights before flying crew; CFT is crewed and is a 6-month increment mission.  Not sure what you are trying to refer to.

Methinks you show you own bias - I never said anything about Boeing performing flawlessly.  Or who would be first or who should be first.  I only said it will be close.  Right now, it is close enough that NASA is not entertaining making DM-2 a 6 month mission.  Maybe that is flawed or logical but that is the facts where we are at.

There's OFT but also the pad Abort, that's what I'm referring to. Not to mention we have credible sources that it is a tricky one too, since there are various elements of risk in Strainer's LAS and abort profile.

Yes, as mentioned by multiple public sources. Spacex - IMO - was the smarter company by coming up with the idea of "The Trailing Trunk", which made for a very (passively) stable ride uphill on the Pad abort test.
On the Starliner pad abort however the RCS pods are going to have a bit of a workout by firing the RCS thrusters to keep Starliners pointy end in the direction of flight. (in other words: to prevent it from tumbling). And that is on top of the corrugated ring - which Boeing added to the Starliner design fairly late in the process - to improve abort stability. It is this continued reliance on the RCS thruster pods, instead of being passively stable, that has ASAP worried.


Having said that I hope Boeing solves the troubles it has with Starliner and I hope they have a very succesful pad abort test. NASA needs both vehicles (Crew Dragon AND Starliner) flying.

[joncz]

- COPV 2.0 risk is in the process of being retired. NASA is requiring seven flights of F9 to qualify and certify COPV 2.0 for use on manned F9. Demo-1 launch was a major part in risk retirement with regards to COPV 2.0. The only folks still really whining about COPV 2.0 are ASAP. But they are a non-factor in COPV 2.0 certification and qualification.

Does yesterday's FH launch count in the seven F9 flights?  If so, as one, or three? 

[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. 

Emphasis mine.

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

Limited but not insignificant.  Not my opinion.  Another factor is that even if the providers are ready there is a lot of paperwork that has yet to be reviewed by NASA

Moving the goalposts are you? Switching from "huge differences between vehicles" to "a lot of paperwork still to be reviewed by NASA"...

I will admit I could have chosen my words more carefully but I also did not expect folks to over analyze, and to be quite honest, carry in significant bias.    From a perspective of actually being operationally ready, SpaceX has more work to do because there are very important, very significant differences between DM-1 and DM-2.  Sorry, we can debate how large they are, but they exist.  SpaceX got a great deal of risk reduced with DM-1; Boeing still has a lot to go.  A successful OFT would (trying as best to compare apples and oranges because there really is no metric but stepping back and looking at the process status on both NASA and provider side, what are the risks, what has the NASA folks up at night, where is the safety review/where is the NASA review/size of the teams) in general engineering judgement is that Boeing would be ahead of where SpaceX is right after DM-1.  SpaceX is at a risk of more discovery between the two flights.  But SpaceX is moving fast.  They have a shot at flying DM-2 this fall but it is a success-oriented schedule (as is Boeing's).

And again I think people are reading my comments to imply that Boeing is ahead/better/cuter/whatever.  Never said that.  I think it is closer than some people think.  Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.  There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

[jjyach]

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.  Folks are not aware with the huge (yes huge or significant, whatever) software issue before DM-1.

Well considering ULA only has 2 Atlas V's possibly launching this year, and one is OFT that claim is baseless.  Boeing is not even close to being ready to launch from their own fault with things not ULA and all they did was really upset folks at ULA by throwing them under the bus like that.