Culberson-schedule for cmrcl crew flights?Lighftoof -- both companies will have uncrewed flight tests before end of 2018. Will have to get back to you on when crewed flights are expected. I'm focused on the uncrewed flights now.
In January 2018, we found the contractors’ test flightshave slipped to 2018 and the final certification reviewshave slipped to early 2019.d This represents a delay of 17months for Boeing and 22 months for SpaceX from initialschedules. The Commercial Crew Program is trackingrisks that both contractors could experience additionalschedule delays and its schedule risk analysis indicatesthat certification is likely to slip until late 2019 for SpaceXand early 2020 for Boeing.
The GAO issues a report today on NASA's large projects.Sounds like both Crew test flights are still planned for 2018, but might slip to 2019.
The GAO issues a report today on NASA's large projects.Sounds like both Crew test flights are still planned for 2018, but might slip to 2019.Quote In January 2018, we found the contractors’ test flightshave slipped to 2018 and the final certification reviewshave slipped to early 2019.d This represents a delay of 17months for Boeing and 22 months for SpaceX from initialschedules. The Commercial Crew Program is trackingrisks that both contractors could experience additionalschedule delays and its schedule risk analysis indicatesthat certification is likely to slip until late 2019 for SpaceXand early 2020 for Boeing.Interestingly enough, the issue of loading propellants after crew are on board does not appear under "Other Issues to Be Monitored" or anywhere else.
Interestingly enough, the issue of loading propellants after crew are on board does not appear under "Other Issues to Be Monitored" or anywhere else.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/01/2018 08:50 pmInterestingly enough, the issue of loading propellants after crew are on board does not appear under "Other Issues to Be Monitored" or anywhere else.GAO mostly deals with schedules and budgets. Which would crew loading fall under?
I have the impression that the bigger amount of money available to Boeing ($ 4.2B versus $ 2.6B for SpaceX) is one of the reasons why Boeing slips less than SpaceX.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/02/2018 12:04 pmI have the impression that the bigger amount of money available to Boeing ($ 4.2B versus $ 2.6B for SpaceX) is one of the reasons why Boeing slips less than SpaceX.I wonder how much BFR plays in as well. With Dragon 2, SpaceX's internal goals and NASA's goals are no longer in alignment. So, the extra oomph to get things done a bit quicker may not be there. Not to mention that some of SpaceX's top talent has probably moved over to BFR already if they are as far along was they seem to indicate.
Interesting tidbit that results from comparing the 2017 edition of the GAO review to the 2018 edition of the GAO review.Original certification dates:- Boeing: 08/17- SpaceX: 04/172017:- Boeing was 14 months behind on certification. New target certification date was 10/18.- SpaceX was 15 months behind on certification. New target certification date was 07/18.2018:- Boeing is 17 months behind on certification. New target certification date is 01/19.- SpaceX is 22 months behind on cerfitication. New target certifcation date is 02/19.In other words:- In the past year Boeing slipped 3 months.- In the past year SpaceX slipped 7 months.Also of note: the past year was the second year in a row that SpaceX slipped more than Boeing. Whatever lead SpaceX had over Boeing is now completely gone. That corroborates with some of my NASA sources stating that Boeing's CFT mission will fly BEFORE SpaceX's Demo-2 mission.I have the impression that the bigger amount of money available to Boeing ($ 4.2B versus $ 2.6B for SpaceX) is one of the reasons why Boeing slips less than SpaceX.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 05/02/2018 01:09 amQuote from: envy887 on 05/01/2018 08:50 pmInterestingly enough, the issue of loading propellants after crew are on board does not appear under "Other Issues to Be Monitored" or anywhere else.GAO mostly deals with schedules and budgets. Which would crew loading fall under?Major schedule risk. The report covers several such risks, including an obscure Boeing parachute issue we have never heard of. So if the crew loading is a major issue that could impact schedule, it would be mentioned, assuming everyone is honest.
Nobody who's skills are best-in-class and critical to the success of the Dragon2 program is leaving before the job is done and verified. The best path to BFS, is through a successful Dragon2 program culminating with the splashdown of smiling and safe Astronauts. imo.While this NASA gauntlet may not be everything they were expecting, I'm certain they have learned many dozens of valuable lessons during the last couple years. Many that will greatly inform crew considerations on BFS.Until I hear SpaceX themselves loudly start to leak that they are absolutely ready but being held back for some arbitrary reasons or unfounded, last minute, unneeded, way over the top requirements, I'll assume it's heads down, rock and roll...
Quote from: su27k on 05/02/2018 04:20 amMajor schedule risk. The report covers several such risks, including an obscure Boeing parachute issue we have never heard of. So if the crew loading is a major issue that could impact schedule, it would be mentioned, assuming everyone is honest.Parachute development can run into roadblocks that require additional weeks testing. Crew loading shouldn't be a schedule risk unless they find it takes them 3 months to get the crew in through the hatch.
Major schedule risk. The report covers several such risks, including an obscure Boeing parachute issue we have never heard of. So if the crew loading is a major issue that could impact schedule, it would be mentioned, assuming everyone is honest.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/02/2018 12:04 pmInteresting tidbit that results from comparing the 2017 edition of the GAO review to the 2018 edition of the GAO review.Original certification dates:- Boeing: 08/17- SpaceX: 04/172017:- Boeing was 14 months behind on certification. New target certification date was 10/18.- SpaceX was 15 months behind on certification. New target certification date was 07/18.2018:- Boeing is 17 months behind on certification. New target certification date is 01/19.- SpaceX is 22 months behind on cerfitication. New target certifcation date is 02/19.In other words:- In the past year Boeing slipped 3 months.- In the past year SpaceX slipped 7 months.Also of note: the past year was the second year in a row that SpaceX slipped more than Boeing. Whatever lead SpaceX had over Boeing is now completely gone. That corroborates with some of my NASA sources stating that Boeing's CFT mission will fly BEFORE SpaceX's Demo-2 mission.I have the impression that the bigger amount of money available to Boeing ($ 4.2B versus $ 2.6B for SpaceX) is one of the reasons why Boeing slips less than SpaceX.Also the fact that 2 years ago Boeing's chosen rocket didn't have a catastrophic failure necessitating a standdown, investigation, redesign, and requalification might have something to do with it. Did the 2017 GAO report (which was written based on inquiry in 2016) already take into account SpaceX's delay from AMOS-6? Though maybe your sources are saying that Dragon would have been delayed this much on its own anyway?
Additionally, program officials told us that one of their greatest upcoming challenges will be to complete two oversight activities — conducting phased safety reviews and verifying that contractors meet requirements — concurrently.
Elon Musk ✔ @elonmuskSpaceX Crew Dragon ships to the Cape in about 3 months5:00 PM - May 2, 2018https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/991784449275670528?s=19
Quote from: docmordrid on 05/03/2018 05:19 amElon Musk ✔ @elonmuskSpaceX Crew Dragon ships to the Cape in about 3 months5:00 PM - May 2, 2018https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/991784449275670528?s=19About 3 months is August/September 2018. The Dragon 2 was due to launch in August so SpaceX may have slipped 1 month.
