Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[jamesh9000]

FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:

Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.

[TrevorMonty]

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.

Maybe they should talk to Blue. The NS capsule LAS seems to work fine. With NS  I don't know if SRB does steering or small thrusters.

[erioladastra]

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.

No, it is not baseless - you are just responding to what you think I said and not what I actually said. 

[mgeagon]

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.

Is the software issue prior to DM-1 related to the Russian objection during the FRR?

[Star One]

FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:

Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.

It’s more than just an opinion in his case it’s an informed opinion, and should be given the relative weight compared to others in this area.

[vaporcobra]

FWIW on the r/spacex reddit, on the thread discussing Eric Berger's recent Ars Technica article on Commercial Crew, someone brings up his claim that currently DM-2 is NET October, and the following exchange happens:

Fizrock
39 points
4 days ago
DM-2 NET October, most likely, according to this article.

sowoky
10 points
4 days ago
yes but did he just make that up? I think it's reasonable but have seen no valid source that would verify that


erberger
Ars Technica Space Editor
92 points
4 days ago
I did not just make that up, but thank you for the confidence. These dates remain, at best, moving targets but this is about where it's at right now.

So that's one opinion. Eric has quite a good track record of being accurate, and he's obviously got his sources. I guess it's up to the reader to decide how much faith they will put into these rumours.

It’s more than just an opinion in his case it’s an informed opinion, and should be given the relative weight compared to others in this area.

It's not an opinion, guys. It's quite literally a planning date from either Eric's NASA sources, SpaceX sources, ESA/Roscosmos sources, or some combo of all of the above.

[Chris Bergin]

There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.

[Alexphysics]

I would like to ask one thing: If the "Dragon issues" are "propietary info", how come a someone not SpaceX knows about them? Either you know things you shouldn't know or you're basically inventing what you're saying. In both cases things don't look good... just saying

[yg1968]

Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.

[Chris Bergin]

Edited the thread a bit to stop the "but you work for", as one has to announce who they work for to allow that or else they can remain anonymous. Although granted it's a push when they claim to have seen proprietary information.

[erioladastra]

There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.

Chris,

You are correct.  My intent was to use an educated opinion to try and caution folks that there is more at play or more than they realize; but I agree that is not helpful without specific data.  I am very aware what is in L2 and it is not always complete as wonderful as it is.  So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.

[meberbs]

So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.

Your final statement here is one that seems likely to be true, however what it truly implies is rather unfortunate for Boeing, though your wording seems to be an attempt to show that things aren't that bad.

The second half of this year is wide open on the Atlas V schedule. Missions to the ISS usually have a bit of schedule priority, since they also need to work within ISS schedules. Even more so for crewed missions. It is sometimes hard to compare this with DoD and classified payload priority, but the only missions that are guaranteed higher priority are ones where the constraint is orbital mechanics: interplanetary missions. If the CFT is delayed to next summer, then it certainly would get delayed further so Mars 2020 can go first. This unfortunately seems to be a plausible circumstance to come up. (I hope that OFT would at least have launched by then.)

People on this site know these things and can see through things like stating facts but turning the implications inside out. In the end it doesn't help your point, and reflects poorly when the full details come out (which is inevitable in this case, when OFT and CFT actually launch the dates will be known.)

[woods170]

There are lots of things, proprietary, that doesn't make it into L2.  there are issues and bumps out there folks.

As much as you're not a L2 member, thus can't speak for L2, it is true, proprietary information doesn't make it into L2.

It's interesting that you appear to be claiming to be aware of such "major issues" with Dragon, given you appear to be citing proprietary information, which - if true - usually results in your post removed from this public thread on request from one of the relevant parties in a very short amount of time. But I'd question why no such request has been sent, which adds weight to questions about its validity.

It's also disingenuous to throw that "But Dragon problems" line in here knowing that people will ask you to expand on it/prove it, which of course you'll counter by saying "can't, it's proprietary".

To most people it will feel awfully like an "easy way out", where one can plant the seeds of misdirection from Starliner's woes and try and deflect it to unknown and certainly unprovable Dragon issues. I'm sure there will be work going on with Dragon, but they look likely to still be flying crew this year. Starliner has pretty much no chance. That should be more of a focus.

Boeing is probably going to be delayed for both flights due to ULA launch schedule.

And this post may provide more relevance, given Starliner's delays are due to major issues with Starliner, not ULA's schedule. This is a provable truth.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/curious-move-nasa-blame-ula-latest-starliner-delay/

And then the 101 articles on Starliner's issues. And the ones to come from some other sites. That latest press release backfired with a lot of space beat reporters.

I can appreciate Boeing is making a smoke and mirrors PR effort, but I'd expect better from long time members of this forum to join in with that PR exercise. It's such a shame as most of us are looking forward to Starliner flying, but hiding it's issues, issues we could all appreciate, and then blaming others and trying to throw mud on Dragon 2, is just so poor.

Chris,

You are correct.  My intent was to use an educated opinion to try and caution folks that there is more at play or more than they realize; but I agree that is not helpful without specific data.  I am very aware what is in L2 and it is not always complete as wonderful as it is.  So I will let it go since I am in an awkward spot except for one last comment - even with the most pessimistic Boeing schedules, ULA may end up in the critical path for when the flights go.

Good thing that Boeing elected to choose a launch service provider which is well-known - and widely respected - for its stellar schedule performance.

How does that parse with your latest bit of (IMO dis-)information?

[jarmumd]

Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.

But you have to be accurate with what you say.  If it was said: "there is a lot of work to be done, perhaps more than people realize", I would have completely agreed.  There is a lot of analysis and documentation that will need to be done before crew fly.  When it is said: "huge" differences .... to me a huge [insert: physical] difference, is between Dragon Cargo and Crew.

[Nomadd]

  I've dealt with a few corporations, and the only acceptable way I see for divulging information from a company document or study, followed by a refusal to provide the source because its propriety would be with permission from the company. Not the kind of leaks I'd bet the farm on.

[erioladastra]

Good thing that Boeing elected to choose a launch service provider which is well-known - and widely respected - for its stellar schedule performance.

How does that parse with your latest bit of (IMO dis-)information?

Sorry I don't want to keep flogging this thread, but I will say if you wish please review all my posts over the many years and let me know where you have ever found mis-information.

[ZChris13]

Sorry I don't want to keep flogging this thread, but I will say if you wish please review all my posts over the many years and let me know where you have ever found mis-information.

dis-information and mis-information are different things

[Chris Bergin]

Yeah, we need to calm it down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion (and erioladastra opinion <---using that word to protect him) is more valuable than most people posting on here.

Might need a new thread as this one is very long and long threads get a bit this way.

[yg1968]

Bridenstine said the same thing than what erioladastra said. It's annoying that every time that someone says the slightest thing that could potentially be perceived as negative towards SpaceX, that poster gets blasted by SpaceX fans.

P.S. I wasn't referring to Chris' post but to a post that has since been deleted.

But you have to be accurate with what you say.  If it was said: "there is a lot of work to be done, perhaps more than people realize", I would have completely agreed.  There is a lot of analysis and documentation that will need to be done before crew fly.  When it is said: "huge" differences .... to me a huge [insert: physical] difference, is between Dragon Cargo and Crew.

He nuanced it in a later post. There is a lot of papework involved in CCtCap and likely a lot more for the first crewed flight. If you look at erioladastra's posts over the years, there is a lot of informative posts in there.

[JonathanD]

Yeah, we need to calm it down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion (and erioladastra opinion <---using that word to protect him) is more valuable than most people posting on here.

Might need a new thread as this one is very long and long threads get a bit this way.

Here here, and I'll say as space enthusiasts (we wouldn't be 81 pages deep into a thread like this if we weren't, amirite) it's certainly easy to get caught up in the vociferous activity surrounding these programs and the competitive and occasionally antagonistic opposing viewpoints that result.  During such times, I try to remind myself of 3 things:

1) NDA policy.  I'm not talking about disclosure agreements.  My NDA policy is No Dead Astronauts.  Whoever is "first" or grabs some symbolic flag or does anything with crew, key is just to bring it down to acceptable risk levels.  Can't eliminate it, but God forbid we let any notion of competition impede on NDA.

2) NASA is about to have more crew capability than ever before.  The idea that NASA will have access to two commercial space providers that can put crew in orbit along with SLS (not going there right now) will really be historic.  The sheer spectrum of options in terms of capability and price is something this space agency (or any other) has never had.  It is tremendously positive, and it's tremendously important that both these commercial providers succeed on the time tables in which they can do so safely.

3) I would like to think of this community as being respectful of each other, even in times of disagreement.  Usually it is, I would say.  As we live in a world where people get shot for nothing and 800 year old beloved landmarks can burn down in a day, I think everyone could take a step back and consider we probably have a lot more in common than not, and perhaps it's not too tough to make sure that level of respect is well maintained.