Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[getitdoneinspace]

I noticed the second NASA order for a Boeing Crew Mission to the International Space Station yesterday.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/12/18/nasa-orders-boeing-crew-mission-international-space-station/

I have been wondering the exact reason why NASA has been ordering these mission from Boeing sooner than SpaceX and guessed it was due to a longer lead time Boeing requires to execute the order. I discovered today, and would like to share with fellow NSFers, that the required lead time for ordering was specified in Boeing's bid for CCtCAP.

The below was extracted from Boeing bid which you can find here:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... (Look at page 9)

B.4 POST CERTIFICATION MISSIONS (IDIQ) (CLIN 002)
...
Post Certification Missions require at least xxx months prior to launch to account for lead times.
...
The xxx I added since the redacted highlight did not copy/paste.

[yg1968]

Kathy Lueders also mentionned that Boeing got the task order first because Boeing required longer lead time. She also said that each company will get at least two PCMs. So SpaceX is sure to get at least another one too.

[rcoppola]

I wonder if their lead time has more to do with securing the launch vehicle then being able to have the Starliner ready?

[SWGlassPit]

I wonder if their lead time has more to do with securing the launch vehicle then being able to have the Starliner ready?

It could be many things.  It could be components for that particular spacecraft.  I'm not as familiar with the specific wording of the contract, but it would not surprise me if they were basically not allowed to spend any money on mission-specific hardware until ATP is granted.  If particular spacecraft components are long-lead items and are on the critical path for assembly, that would necessitate an early ATP.

[yg1968]

Presentation by Luders at the NAC on certification:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/6-Status_of_CCP.pdf

The minutes of the NAC meeting have now been released. There is some interesting points that were made regarding commercial crew certification.

There was a question on flight directors which was interesting:

Mr. Lopez-Alegria asked who the flight director would be during the rendezvous phase. Ms. Lueders answered that ISS FD will lead operations during ISS rendezvous and docked phases which are "joint operations" phases. CCP vehicle Flight Directors will be lead for the CCP vehicles operations during all other phases.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/HEOC_Minutes_November_4-5_2015_final_121815.pdf

[arachnitect]

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-astronauts-to-continue-flying-on-soyuz-post-commercial-crew

NASA astronauts will continue flying on Russia's Soyuz spacecraft even after U.S. commercial crew systems come on line and Russian cosmonauts will fly on the U.S. systems according to NASA astronaut Jeff Williams.

This keeps going back and forth, but it looks like "seat swapping" is still baselined. No exchange of funds.

[QuantumG]

Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

[Sesquipedalian]

Don't let rhetoric get in the way of reality either.

1) Without Commercial Crew, loss of Soyuz would require the ISS to be de-crewed and possibly even splashed.
2) Without Commercial Crew, the maximum number of full-time crew is six.

[abaddon]

*Yawn*

Did I feel a breeze in here just now?

[yg1968]

Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

Being solely dependent on Russia is a problem in the current political climate.

I doubt that the Russians are making NASA pay for the development costs of Soyuz through their agreements. 

[dglow]

Being solely dependent on Russia is a problem in the current political climate.

Being solely dependent on Russia a single launch provider is a problem in the current political any climate.

[Robotbeat]

Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

[NovaSilisko]

Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?

[QuantumG]

Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.

[yg1968]

Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.

Then you are not comparing apples to apples.

[okan170]

Yup. Don't let reality get in the way of the rhetoric used to justify the program.

Commercial Crew will be cheaper than Soyuz! (if you don't count development funds.)

I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?

Why obviously its time to cancel everything if it doesn't fit an arbitrary metric of "cheapness" or "commercial-ness"!  I'd wager that Commercial Crew has lots of value beyond the price it has cost to develop, and it would seem that the US Government agrees with that now.

As a US taxpayer, I'm glad that a tiny fraction of my contribution can help programs like this, and if it costs a little more to have domestic crew capability, well then thats worth it.

[QuantumG]

I am curious as to what exactly you would want to happen. What is your ideal progression of this program?

COTS was pretty good. Milestones that are hardware, not paperwork. Contractors required to show instead of tell. Some sort of incentive for the contractors to keep schedule - just one more guaranteed flight as a prize, for example. Published requirements and open bidding (remember that?). Space Act agreements instead of FAR.

[QuantumG]

Then you are not comparing Apples to Apples.

I was comparing dollars to doughnuts.

[Dante80]

QuantumG does have a point regarding the SAA acquisition process as well as the milestones.

But, a big difference for this program is that it..

a. Has to carry people, thus forcing NASA to do a lot more qualification and certification work than what COTS needed. You cannot simply set requirements and let the companies to do as they please (or at least, that is the justification for the much bigger oversight the program has over COTS).

b. The schedule is very dependent on funding for the milestones. This holds very true, especially for the first years of the program. NASA had some funding problems there, which may not have jacked up the price of the program - directly, but indeed stretched the schedule a lot more than justified.



For reference. 

[Dante80]

And an article on that.

NASA ASAP Concerned About Commercial Crew Safety