Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[meberbs]

SpaceX isn't going to back out of a NASA contract. NASA provides the majority of their revenue, and I don't think they have a viable business without the commercial crew contract.

As long as they can prove the vehicle and spacecraft design and operating procedures meet qualification standards, it will fly.

While I agree, it is going to fly, SpaceX is well past the point of needing its NASA contracts to be a viable company. They had a dozen non-USG launches last year and will have more this year. NASA is simply not the majority of its revenue anymore even with Dragon development.

Once again, wrong.  COTS was only good for Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It was never good enough for anything else.  So, it was not "proven", it was only good for high risk items.

Wrong. COTS carries much more valuable things than Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper. It has carried science experiments, BEAM, IDAs etc. Yes, it wasn't certified for the highest risk category payloads, but ignoring the actual expensive hardware that has flown is wrong.

[envy887]

This is the crux of the issue.  NASA is taking a program that had potential to innovate and reduce costs (using proven* COTS model) and remaking it in their own image.  (What the USAF was yanked back from doing in Falcon certification.)

If NASA had chosen the winning bidders, Spacex/Dragon 2 and AtlasV/Dream Chaser, and operated the program using the COTS model -- allowing innovation and new ways of analyzing tests/producing results -- we'd already be delivering astros to the ISS and landing them on land with at least one of the programs, and the second wouldn't be far behind.

Instead, we are regressing in technology, delaying without end, and running up a huge tab (especially with additional Russian seats being purchased).  In the end, SpaceX for one will abandon the Dragon 2/land-in-the-ocean technology except for expensive NASA 'missions' to the ISS.  Boeing will not likely sell commercial flights either, so NASA will bear the full inflated cost burden of this transportation system.

Once again, wrong.  COTS was only good for Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper.  It was never good enough for anything else.  So, it was not "proven", it was only good for high risk items.

Falcon 9 was still not good enough to launch NASA or DOD spacecraft after COTS.  Falcon 9 had to certified for Jason-3 and it is being recertified for TESS and still will have to go through some more certification for the next NASA launch when ever that is.

Were't the constant certifications due to the constant changes? Jason-3 was v1.1, TESS is v1.2 but not Block 5, the next launch will be Block 5 (or later).

[Jim]

Wrong. COTS carries much more valuable things than Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper. It has carried science experiments, BEAM, IDAs etc. Yes, it wasn't certified for the highest risk category payloads, but ignoring the actual expensive hardware that has flown is wrong.

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

[meberbs]

Wrong. COTS carries much more valuable things than Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper. It has carried science experiments, BEAM, IDAs etc. Yes, it wasn't certified for the highest risk category payloads, but ignoring the actual expensive hardware that has flown is wrong.

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

I figured you would mention that, but that does not prove anything. First, it is the equivalent of anecdotal evidence, second an imperfect safety record (regardless of which launch it occurred on) only shows that the lack of certification for the highest risk category was correct at the time, and third it is simply a fact that you misrepresented the value of the payloads carried by COTS.

[Kansan52]

Jim's right.

This is about contracts and how they are worded. NASA makes the decisions. It's been this way on everything NASA has ever done.

That would imply, but not guarantee, some version of the Falcon and some version of the Dragon 2 will be certified by NASA sometime in the future.

If memory serves, Boeing is currently going through the same process.

My guess, NASA wants this and will accomplish it.

[AncientU]

Falcon 9 had to certified for Jason-3 and it is being recertified for TESS and still will have to go through some more certification for the next NASA launch when ever that is.

late 2020, I'm sure they will need an updated certification by then

So what if NASA is having to redo certification.  The US is getting a huge gain in commercial launch services business and reports are that NASA has already saved much more than spent on Falcon. 

Think of re-certification as a jobs program... that seems to justify NASA spending billions each year.

[Jim]

So what if NASA is having to redo certification.  The US is getting a huge gain in commercial launch services business and reports are that NASA has already saved much more than spent on Falcon. 

not really

[joek]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

[Jim]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

[Space Ghost 1962]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

Can we not use the same criterion to cast shade on another given OA-6's near miss given the MRCV anomaly on the RD-180?

[woods170]

Wrong. COTS carries much more valuable things than Tang, t-shirts and toilet paper. It has carried science experiments, BEAM, IDAs etc. Yes, it wasn't certified for the highest risk category payloads, but ignoring the actual expensive hardware that has flown is wrong.

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

Funny how you are very selective in what you consider "proven".

You dismiss COTS as "proof" for a new (and more cost-efficient) way of doing things, despite the fact that COTS has been a resounding success via the follow-on programs CRS-1 and CRS-2.

On the other hand you consider a single lost high-value item as "proof" that COTS should be for high-risk tolerance missions (in your words: Tang, T-shirts and toilet paper) only.

You completely disregard that several other high-value items have been successfully launched on COTS vehicles. You also completely disregard that NASA apparantly has no problem with flying such high-value items on COTS vehicles.
And finally you disregard that NASA has extended the use of the COTS vehicle with a very significant number of follow-on missions (CRS-2), a good number of which will fly high-value items.

Like it or not Jim, but your logic with regards to dismissing COTS as suited for flying high-value items is flawed IMO. The single biggest piece of evidence to support my opinion on this is that NASA flew IDA-2 on the very same vehicle as IDA-1, despite the loss. So what you call "proof" in reality isn't. Otherwise NASA would have flown the next IDA on a different cargo vehicle (HTV).

[BrianNH]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

Using this criteria, Apollo, Shuttle and Soyuz were proven to not be qualified to carry crew or low risk items.  Our last qualified crew vehicle would be Gemini.

[RotoSequence]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

Is that spoken with respect to then needed corrective measures at SpaceX?

[gongora]

We're wandering a bit from Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[Jim]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

Using this criteria, Apollo, Shuttle and Soyuz were proven to not be qualified to carry crew or low risk items.  Our last qualified crew vehicle would be Gemini.

No, different procurement and insight processes are involved.

[Jim]

and was proven wrong with the lost IDA

What was proven?  That a flight failed?  Yes.  That a cargo was lost?  Yes.  That CRS/SpaceX is not qualified to  carry such cargo?  No.

yes, it was proven that CRS was not qualified to carry low risk items.

Can we not use the same criterion to cast shade on another given OA-6's near miss given the MRCV anomaly on the RD-180?

No, because Atlas V was fully certified vehicle.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing now on commercial crew:

Cristina Chaplain: both contractors continue to slip schedules -- commercial crew program's own analysis suggest certification for SpaceX Dragon2 will slip to December 2019 and Boeing to January 2020.

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/953653156470185984

Edit to add:

Correction: Boeing Starliner certification likely to slip to February 2020.

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/953653898769649664

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX view:

Hans Koenigsmann of SpaceX going through recent milestones in the development of its Crew Dragon system; have completed nearly all technical development needed for vehicle.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/953652236793581569

SpaceX's Koenigsmann: will do uncrewed test in August, crewed test with 2 NASA astronauts in December. Then operational flights w/4 NASA astronauts. Safely and reliably.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/953652758997028865

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Ouch:

Gerst: we have Soyuz flights through fall of 2019, but not possible to build additional Soyuz vehicles in time if more flights need. Brainstorming ideas of how to find additional schedule if needed.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/953649905192591362

[gongora]

Hans:  "This is a much closer relationship than I envisioned."