Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Not sure this is the right thread for this.

Can anyone explain why it's going to take almost another 2 years before we see the first crewed flight of CST or Dragon? I know there is some engineering to be done but in this day and age, with all our great modelling, prior experience etc, it should be possible to get a vehicle flying sooner than 2 years (April 2017 I think is the planned date).

Is it primarily down to cost? If Nasa released more $$, would this happen sooner? I realize there are some engineering bits to be done but it's not like we're starting from scratch - We understand heat shields, chutes, life support, abort systems. Why 2 (ish) years?

#frustrated!

From the standpoint of project management, there are independent tasks and dependent tasks that have to be executed in a specific order. Many of the remaining tasks are of the second type while most of the paperwork engineering reviews are of the independent type (human flight cert).

Because the tasks have a specific order of completion it causes time to pass because it is physically impossible to complete the tasks much faster no matter how much manpower you have. A good task dependency analysis can greatly reduce the scheduled completion date for a project. A baddly done one can cause tremendous amont of delays.

[rcoppola]

In responce to spacenut concerning accelerated CC wrt recent Russian failures:

Currently Congress approved less funding in their most recent budget. While still needing to be reconciled with the Senate, it seems SLS continues to get priority.

But as these most recent events work their way through Congressional consciousness, they may alter their thinking. Or not. At least they are funding to somewhat acceptable levels.

What may actually happen is NASA may take stock as to where Boeing and SpaceX are in their development, who needs the least amount of time and money to make it through certification and select accordingly with full funding for that system.  While that may delay one of the providers from entering service in 2017, it will assure that we at least have one domestic assured access to ISS.

[A_M_Swallow]

To finish quickly at this stage of a project the project manager needs to worry about morale and perform chase off. Providing his people are working away they can be left to work.

People working late nights and weekends to crack difficult problems can get demoralised. Investors, customers and board members can get impatient. Such impatience can lead to meddling - which will delay the project, increase costs and reduce quality. Stick to the plan and reassure the outsiders.

Having chased off the meddling outsiders there are other people who need chasing off. For instance other project managers will want to take take your people, money, machines, work areas and other resources for their own projects.

[AnalogMan]

Came across this recently published CCtCap Combined Milestone chart compiled by NASA (dated Feb 2, 2015) from SpaceX and Boeing FY15Q1 sources (so early on in the contract).

Acronym list for this chart:

CBR     Certification Baseline Review
CDR     Critical Design Review
CFT     Crewed Flight Test
CPWSR   Configuration Performance and Weight Status Report
CR      Certification Review
DCR     Design Certification Review
DM-x    Demonstration Mission x
ECLSS   Environmental Control Life Support System
FSW     Flight Software
FTRR    Flight Test Readiness Review
ICDR    Integrated Critical Design Review
IRR     Integration Readiness Review
MCC     Mission Control Center
OFT     Orbital Flight Test
ORR     Operational Readiness Review
PAT     Pad Abort Test
PQR     Post Qualification Review
PRR     Production Readiness Review
QTV     Qualification Test Vehicle
SAR     System Acceptance Review
SM      Service Module
STA     Structural Test Article
STRB    Safety Technical Review Board
TRR     Test Readiness Review

[deruch]

Commercial Crew Program status brief to NASA Advisory Committee (Apr. 2015):
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1-CSD_Brief_to_NAC_Apr_2015_TAGGED.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

Unfortunately, I am not surprised
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-administrator-statement-on-senate-appropriations-subcommittee-vote-on-commercial

[Grandpa to Two]

It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.   

[QuantumG]

It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.

[woods170]

It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.

Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.

[JBF]

It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding

They provided more funding this year than last year.

What's happening here is that the administration is asking for almost double what they were given last year and whenever Congress asks Bolden as to why they need so much more money they get not very compelling answers. When asked why NASA was funding Sierra Nevada Corporation to build the Dreamchaser, when NASA had already determined that they wouldn't be going on to the next round, Bolden answered that he would fund them to fly if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. When asked why NASA was funding both Boeing and SpaceX and had yet to make a decision on which would be selected, Bolden said he would keep both providers if he could - i.e., he completely failed to answer the question. It's pretty obvious what the result of not answering these questions is going to be - the appropriation is going to conclude that NASA can do with less and so they will not be awarded the total request. That's exactly what is happening.

Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy in human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

[sanman]

I'm not American, but it seems to me that the United States would benefit from having more than one choice for getting astronauts to orbit/ISS. The private sector providers, both old and new, are providing a newer generation of solutions which improve over their previous capabilities. There is no more Space Shuttle program hogging huge amounts of money, and these private sector providers are much cheaper by comparison. So how much more of an argument do you need beyond that?

To the eyes of a layman, it looks like the US Congress is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[Rebel44]

..... There is no more Space Shuttle program hogging huge amounts of money.......

That role (hogging huge amounts of money) was taken over by SLS.

[Hauerg]

It would be so easy if Nasa played it the other way round:

Congress: Too expensive!
Nasa: Ok, I'll have to downselect to the cheapest provider.
Congress: OK, here's the money.

[Rocket Science]

It would be so easy if Nasa played it the other way round:

Congress: Too expensive!
Nasa: Ok, I'll have to downselect to the cheapest provider.
Congress: OK, here's the money.

As long as it's Boeing...

[kevinof]

Wonder how far away SpaceX are from a working Crewed Dragon? - ie one that could fly/orbit and return in 6/10 months from now.  I'm thinking take away all the Nasa milestones and paperwork and get something operational, send it up (uncrewed) and splash it down. This would be on their dime, not Nasa. It's SpaceX just validating their design!

Would put them in a very strong position but also stick it to congress - Nasa either selects the cheapest/closet to working or you fund both.

Personally I want to see both. Besides bringing redundancy, it generates competition and pushes everyone forward.

[QuantumG]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

[Bob Shaw]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

[Elmar Moelzer]

It seems to me that the House and Senate are arranging to slow down the Commercial Crew program with less funding and speeding up the SLS by increasing that programs budget with the aim of SLS and Orion launching crew before either Boeing or SpaceX.

I agree and it was totally predictable that they would do that.

[Elmar Moelzer]

They provided more funding this year than last year.

And it was too little back then too, causing further delays in the commercial crew program.

[woods170]

Baloney, it's a lot more simple than that:

NASA (child): I want two cookies!
US Congress (mother): No, you only get one.

End of discussion.

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy in human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No, within the frame of reference of ISS flights Orion is not a cooky but an unpalatable bowl of sprouts.