Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[savuporo]

Quick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?

More.

So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame
- Congress
- FAR
- space is hard

[erioladastra]

Quick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?

I was talking about the 6 months of Soyuz training vice 6 months in the more automated vehicles.

[erioladastra]

Eric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/

There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:

Among those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.

It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.

Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.

NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one.

The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months.

I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for.  Both have also proposed to dock.  That is their plan.  However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock.  Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork. 

[QuantumG]

So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame
- Congress
- FAR
- space is hard

Feature creep. Fake competition.

[yg1968]

Eric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/

There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:

Among those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.

It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.

Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.

NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one.

The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months.

I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for.  Both have also proposed to dock.  That is their plan.  However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock.  Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork.

Yes, I agree. But what I meant to say is that saying that SpaceX is likely to dock isn't false. The uncrewed flight doesn't have to dock for SpaceX or Boeing to be certified. Only a succesfull crewed flight that docks to the ISS is required.

[A_M_Swallow]

So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame
- Congress
- FAR
- space is hard

Feature creep. Fake competition.

Delaying the first manned flight cost both money and political capital. Can the feature be added at say the fifth manned flight?

[tdperk]

Quick check , is this program slipping about 6 months every 6 months?

More.

So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame
- Congress
- FAR
- space is hard

Need to add, -NASA approval delays.  I recall it being quoted from the OIG report that is taking 6 months to approve safety related changes where they are ostensibly required to get it done in 2 months.

[meberbs]

Eric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/

There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:

Among those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.

It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.

Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.

NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one.

The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months.

I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for.  Both have also proposed to dock.  That is their plan.  However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock.  Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork.

Yes, I agree. But what I meant to say is that saying that SpaceX is likely to dock isn't false. The uncrewed flight doesn't have to dock for SpaceX or Boeing to be certified. Only a succesfull crewed flight that docks to the ISS is required.

It only isn't false if you think 100% counts as "likely." They are going to dock with that mission, and if they somehow fail to dock, they would likely do another unmanned mission unless they were able to do a full checkout of almost all systems, and there is a simple fix for whatever failed. It is in their contracts that they will dock, so that flight and its goals are now required. When they use "likely" in the article it makes it sound like it isn't decided if they will dock. If they want to avoid "will" because the mission could possibly fail, they could just say "is planned to." And it isn't just there, it is throughout the whole article, phrasing makes it sound like the source had no real inside information. This is just a particular spot to pick on because it sounds like the source is also unaware of public information.

[muomega0]

Eric Berger has now written an article on what he thinks will be further delays, predicting no crew flight for either Starliner or Dragon before 2019. No real specifics in the article though:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/sources-neither-boeing-nor-spacex-likely-ready-to-fly-crews-until-2019/

There is a little too much use of "may", "likely", "probably" and "could" in that article. The give-away that this article is to be taken with several pinches of salt is the bolded part in the quote below:

Among those flights will be an uncrewed test flight of the Dragon V2 spacecraft, which will likely dock with the space station.

It is not "likely". It is in fact the plan.

Another clear mistake in Eric's article is the assumption that crews must be assigned 18 months prior to their flight because of the long preparation needed for their stay on the ISS. He overlooks the fact that the first CCP operational mission will have it's astro's on board ISS for just two (2) months, not the usual six (6). No 18 month prep period needed.

NASA did not require that the uncrewed flight dock to the ISS. Actually, NASA didn't require an uncrewed flight, the commercial crew companies decided to propose one.

The article says that 18 months would allow time for the astronauts to train. It doesn't say that the training would last 18 months.

I believe both providers have in their agreements an unmanned test mission - that is what they get paid for.  Both have also proposed to dock.  That is their plan.  However, that is not a done deal - a lot of hurdles have to be cleared before either can dock.  Demonstrations are required - some during the mission, others on the ground, some via paperwork.

Yes, I agree. But what I meant to say is that saying that SpaceX is likely to dock isn't false. The uncrewed flight doesn't have to dock for SpaceX or Boeing to be certified. Only a succesfull crewed flight that docks to the ISS is required.

It only isn't false if you think 100% counts as "likely." They are going to dock with that mission, and if they somehow fail to dock, they would likely do another unmanned mission unless they were able to do a full checkout of almost all systems, and there is a simple fix for whatever failed. It is in their contracts that they will dock, so that flight and its goals are now required. When they use "likely" in the article it makes it sound like it isn't decided if they will dock. If they want to avoid "will" because the mission could possibly fail, they could just say "is planned to." And it isn't just there, it is throughout the whole article, phrasing makes it sound like the source had no real inside information. This is just a particular spot to pick on because it sounds like the source is also unaware of public information.

Unless the requirements are changed, it would difficult to achieve the LOM requirements if no docking occurred.

It will be very unlikely to meet the 1:1000 LOC as well for Atlas 522.   

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

5.2.2 The CCTS shall safely execute the Loss of Crew (LOC) requirements specific to the NASA Design Reference Mission (DRM). The Programs shall determine and document the LOC risk when DRMs are specified. The
following are current:
a. The LOC probability distribution for the ascent phase of a 210 day ISS mission shall have a
mean value no greater than 1 in 1000
b. The LOC probability distribution for the entry phase of a 210 day ISS mission shall have a
mean value no greater than 1 in 1000
c. The LOC probability distribution for a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater
than 1 in 270

5.2.3 The CCTS shall limit the Loss of Mission (LOM) risk for the specified NASA DRMs. The Programs shall determine and document the LOM risk when DRMs are specified. The following are current:
a. The LOM probability distribution for a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no
greater than 1 in 55
b. A spacecraft failure that requires the vehicle to enter earlier than the pre-launch planned end
of mission timeframe shall be considered a loss of mission

[erioladastra]

Actually - to be very clear.  These contracts are with CCP.  The ISS program still has not agreed to any dockings yet on the uncrewed test flights.  Everyone is working to that but there still hurdles and veto opportunities ahead.

As to delaying features to later flights...yes that is an option.  Depends on the criticality of the change.  And geneal, if NASA wants it, NASA wants it now...

[yg1968]

It only isn't false if you think 100% counts as "likely." They are going to dock with that mission, and if they somehow fail to dock, they would likely do another unmanned mission unless they were able to do a full checkout of almost all systems, and there is a simple fix for whatever failed. It is in their contracts that they will dock, so that flight and its goals are now required. When they use "likely" in the article it makes it sound like it isn't decided if they will dock. If they want to avoid "will" because the mission could possibly fail, they could just say "is planned to." And it isn't just there, it is throughout the whole article, phrasing makes it sound like the source had no real inside information. This is just a particular spot to pick on because it sounds like the source is also unaware of public information.

An uncrewed flight wasn't required by NASA to begin with. So it is unlikely they would fly another uncrewed flight. 

[savuporo]

So I think there should be a poll for where to assign blame
- Congress
- FAR
- space is hard

Feature creep. Fake competition.

Notice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitions

[QuantumG]

Notice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitions

Feature creep is contractors screwing up. So is fake competition. Neither would be a problem if NASA was actually interested in actually flying astronauts any time soon with an efficient use of their available funds.

[woods170]

Notice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitions

Feature creep is contractors screwing up. So is fake competition. Neither would be a problem if NASA was actually interested in actually flying astronauts any time soon with an efficient use of their available funds.

The final phase of CCP is not about competition. The competition was prior to that. It was clear from the beginning of CCP that NASA wanted a redundant crew transportation system in place. That means having at least two systems. Those systems are being built right now. No further need for competition. The only "competition" that remains is: who goes to fly first?

About your feature creep statement: We don't know if there is, in fact, feature creep going on. The only mods to the original start-of-CCtCAP designs so far were necessary to remedy unknowns. Like the skirt on CST-100 to protect the DEC during launch, and the fourth parachute on Dragon 2 to limit a higher-than-expected landing impact.
Also, you have failed to mention this:

- Requirements creep

NASA is to blame for that. It already has caused multiple month delays for both contractors.
Additionally OIG and GAO have already warned that NASA itself is very much behind on reviewing the contractor-provided hazard reports and other stuff. Will likely cause more delays. Again: NASA to blame for that.

Is there blame on the contractors at all? H*ll yes. Both contractors have had screw-ups. For example: Boeing managed to wreck a lower dome of the pressure hull due to a tooling screw-up. SpaceX managed to wreck an early pressure hull prototype due to a manufacturing screw-up in the docking tunnel. And there were other mistakes as well.

But the delays that plague CCP right now are a mix of NASA-induced requirements creep, NASA not having it's act together, contractor-induced technical problems and plain old bad luck.

[erioladastra]

Notice how there is no blame for plain old contractors screwing up? Because that has never happened in history of aerospace acquisitions

Feature creep is contractors screwing up. So is fake competition. Neither would be a problem if NASA was actually interested in actually flying astronauts any time soon with an efficient use of their available funds.

No evidence of this yet.  So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.  There has been a lot of "well, we really meant that...".  You also have a class of approach - CCP wanting to do things leaner/meaner/newer and ISSP wanting things their usual way.

[QuantumG]

No evidence of this yet.  So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.

Huh? Dragon 2 is packed full of features that NASA never asked for...

[Sesquipedalian]

No evidence of this yet.  So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.

Huh? Dragon 2 is packed full of features that NASA never asked for...

How many of these features were added subsequent to the contract award?

[yg1968]

No evidence of this yet.  So far all the changes have been due to NASA changing requirements or adding new ones.

Huh? Dragon 2 is packed full of features that NASA never asked for...

Those aren't changes. They were planned since the beginning.

[QuantumG]

Those aren't changes. They were planned since the beginning.

Planned overengineering is still overengineering. There have been delays due to SpaceX's overreach and that has knocked into the need for requirements changes too. It's a double whammy caused by overambition.

Only a few more years to go - Elon Musk (May 24, 2014)

[woods170]

Those aren't changes. They were planned since the beginning.

Planned overengineering is still overengineering. There have been delays due to SpaceX's overreach and that has knocked into the need for requirements changes too. It's a double whammy caused by overambition.

Only a few more years to go - Elon Musk (May 24, 2014)

Overengineering does not equate to feature creep. Feature creep on Dragon 2 has not been proven. Every major feature that is present in the Dragon 2 design today, was also present on the day SpaceX signed the CCtCAP contract. The only added/modified features (fourth parachute, seaworthy service section, simplified interior) were a direct result of NASA-induced requirements creep/requirements changes.