Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[QuantumG]

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.

False, there are many on that list.

Is there a relevant one? Is it animal or mineral?

[Rocket Science]

There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated

Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?

[QuantumG]

There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated

Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?

They came very close to pricing themselves out of the competition. Practically, they probably have. We'll have to wait and see how Congress responds.

[raketa]

Have only just 30-40 additional years on the Earth to see landing on Mars. Spacex is only hope my dream to get fulfilled. Boeing/Lockheed.... didn't do any step foward to make it possible in last 45 years I was able to witness and react. If you are working for these companies and you think there is hope let me know and what can I do to help you.

[Rocket Science]

There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated

Perhaps Jim, but could ever envision them losing with all their spacecraft legacy and on the reliable Atlas V?

They came very close to pricing themselves out of the competition. Practically, they probably have. We'll have to wait and see how Congress responds.

Boeing knows how much the market will bear... Sure we’ll have see what Congress will do and they could just decide to fund one...

[QuantumG]

Boeing knows how much the market will bear...

What market?

You mean they know how to get inside info on what the cutoffs are.. yeah, they do. They also managed to make the whole not-enough-skin-in-the-game problem go away.

[Rocket Science]

Boeing knows how much the market will bear...

What market?

You mean they know how to get inside info on what the cutoffs are.. yeah, they do. They also managed to make the whole not-enough-skin-in-the-game problem go away.

It’s just an expression as that they know their customers well be it NASA or DoD... I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse them of wrong doing...

[Space Ghost 1962]

I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Actually no. I know the people who did it. They've made no secret of the fact that it was just a mockup. Boeing has yet to build an integrated vehicle. I keep asking for people who think Boeing has done more than component level testing to show us some evidence but they haven't so far. They certainly haven't been paid for any such work yet under a NASA contract.

It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used. This is edging on to serious territory.

It might imply a "too cozy" relationship between vendor and agency. When this has been found to have happened before (at least with the AF), heads rolled, contracts changed/lost, and the reporters filed juicy stories for a few years.

One of the advantages of long relationships with industry contractors is that they know what an agency needs and how to supply it, so its a selection that makes life easy at an agency, because of such "impedance matches". It's a lot harder when you have to train a vendor, get them up to speed, and deal with the misses along the way as additional schedule/program risk.

The disadvantages might be that one tends to presume too much in the too easy relationship sometimes.

[QuantumG]

It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used.

What? When did NASA assume anything about it? The only drop tests of CST-100 that I'm aware of are the component level parachute tests. They could have used a stack of bricks and it would have been just as valid.

[Prober]

brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:

NASA has a leak?

[Space Ghost 1962]

It would be quite damning for NASA to have assumed a boilerplate capsule representation when a plywood and foam was actually used.

What? When did NASA assume anything about it? The only drop tests of CST-100 that I'm aware of are the component level parachute tests. They could have used a stack of bricks and it would have been just as valid.

The answer is - it depends on the representations to the agency and how they were expressed in internal reports and publications. We're not talking contracts here, but the workings of institutions and their own "administrative" law, so to speak.

Not like companies.

[Brovane]

What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?

There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges. 

[Robotbeat]

What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?

There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.

Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

[LouScheffer]

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.

A good fraction of the interplanetary missions are delivered on time (since missing the launch window requires a long wait).   For the latest example, see MAVEN, selected in 2008 ( http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/maven_20080915.html ) for launch in the 2013 Mars window, which it hit.  See also MOM from India, same window.

[Brovane]

No-one is making this claim about SpaceX or SNC. They are making the claim about Boeing, as the primary reason why they were chosen over SNC. Apparently it's even non-controversial enough to be written into an official NASA document intended for public consumption. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for a relevant example or two. That list of projects is, as I've already said, not even something Boeing with agree with, let alone relevant. If the Delta IV is anything to go by, and it's probably the most relevant example here as the same subcontractor/subsidiary is involved, we can expect a double blowout in budget, significant schedule slip and perhaps a corporate espionage case.

That is fairly hard because of how govt cost plus contracting works.  If I have a project to deliver first production examples of say a Fighter to the USAF by X-date.  If Congress decides to cut the budget and the USAF stretches out the delivery time from  so the project is now delivery time is stretched out by three more years, whose fault is that?  I would hold it against the contracted company.  Of if USAF decides I need to change the design and this stretches out the date.   

This is the problem with the murky world of cost-plus because nobody is really held accountable when dates are missed or cost overruns.  That being said NASA has experience with Boeing's project management abilities.  The successful development of a aerospace equipment fighter, bomber, airliner, launch vehicle or space capsule is more about project management abilities than anything else.  You can have the best engineers in the world but if you don't have effective project management they will be wasted.  The most challenging task of the  Apollo program was more about project management of Billion dollar projects than anything else.  Judging by some of the language in the documents that have been leaked to the press.  NASA has high marks for Boeing's project management ability to manage multi-billion dollar projects to develop aerospace vehicles.   

 

[Brovane]

Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

To me it really doesn't because that has been the preferred style of NASA and most govt contracts for that matter, cost-plus.  Especially when you are developing a new vehicle. 

[QuantumG]

So you admit there's no example and therefore the subjective bias of certain people at NASA to prefer Boeing's project management over others is unsubstantiated. On the other hand, I bet ya can't even name an SNC project, let alone one that was affected by poor project management. I know the goal here is to cast SNC as a hip new company that throws out traditional project management and flies by the seat of it's metaphorical pants, but the fact is SNC is a boring government contractor just like Boeing, with all the same waterfall/spiral/eight-layers-of-management baggage that is a prerequisite of getting contracts to make systems to guide bombs and soldiers into war zones. While it's true that Boeing is 50 years older than SNC, it's the 50 years before Yuri Gagarin flew.. but don't worry, I'm sure someone will be by to point out why the 247, 314 and B-17 are totally relevant examples of Boeing's superiority over SNC.

[Robotbeat]

Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.

To me it really doesn't because that has been the preferred style of NASA and most govt contracts for that matter, cost-plus.  Especially when you are developing a new vehicle.

Right. But that also kind of defeats the whole purpose of the word "commercial" in commercial crew. It's not SUPPOSED to be the same contracting style, the same lack of skin in the game, the same lack of any other market, the same old management style, etc.

[sdsds]

brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:

NASA has a leak?

Hah! A sieve has holes?

Seriously I said nothing about the source of the leak. Only that a media reporter has a document which has not been made available to the public. The relevant quote from that document asserted Boeing has, "very comprehensive and integrated program management."

I'm not sure all participants in this discussion have the same understanding of the term, "program management." In addition to being a job title, it is a term of art. Rather like economics, put three program managers in a room together and you'll get four definitions of the job. (But for young engineers: if you have never had an opportunity to work on a project with a really good program manager, seek one out! The difference is like night and day.)

Also, if you're managing a project that has to have an external dependency on one or another program in development, choose to depend on the one that has the best program management. It will make your job so much easier!

That's what NASA's ISS/Commercial Crew integration leadership is doing by selecting Boeing: making their own job easier.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, there's no doubt that there's more culture clash with SpaceX (or probably SNC) than Boeing, but that's hardly a good reason to pick Boeing over SNC or SpaceX.