Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[woods170]

Right. @Lar: can we now please go back to the regularly scheduled program? Thank you.

(fan) Sounded about right to me. Except for the "ridiculous" part.

What IS the regularly scheduled program?

See the thread title.

Which, in my book, does not include discussing conspiracy theories.

[SWGlassPit]

Not sure what to make of this:

https://twitter.com/jodigralnick/status/1096069444697128961

Just because @SpaceX is slated to test its crewed vehicle before @BoeingSpace, doesn’t necessarily mean it will fly the first manned mission for @NASA... (1 of 2)

https://twitter.com/jodigralnick/status/1096069538527928320

.@NASA @JimBridenstine tells @CNBC: “I think there is going to be less time between the un-crewed vehicle for @Boeing and the crewed vehicle for $BA and longer time between @SpaceX which means whoever gets to fly that first crew, um, we don’t know right now” (2 of 2)

Once again Bridenstine's public statement about CC schedule doesn't seem to align with other info from NASA (such as the dates in the previous post above!).

(fan) Pretty simple really. SpaceX has been ready to go  with DM-1 since December but something is holding them back. Bridenstine just hinted that he's aware of it. Or doing it.  The optics of SpaceX winning this race are really really bad for Boeing so.. they won't win.  They won't be allowed to. Watch Boeing crow about being first in their PR (remember, they bragged that they would get to Mars first), mark my words.  That's my view.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Despite your assertions to the contrary, NASA and the contractors don't particularly care who goes first -- certainly not to the degree of pulling shenanigans of questionable legality over a meaningless boast for a contract that is already awarded as you are suggesting.

Come. On. 

[Lars-J]

Until the rationale for these new delays are explained (why keep them a mystery??), this is all I have to say:

[Lar]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Despite your assertions to the contrary, NASA and the contractors don't particularly care who goes first -- certainly not to the degree of pulling shenanigans of questionable legality over a meaningless boast for a contract that is already awarded as you are suggesting.

Come. On. 

(fan) I think we all would prefer that everything be on the up and up. I think that's especially true for the employees at all the various concerns, who want to be proud that their company's winning fair and square. And, contrary to your view, that most of them actually do care who wins technically, and who wins in the court of public opinion. Because who doesn't want to be proud of their company? And, because this is very much about the upstart versus the other players.

Winning fair and square would be best. Most everyone wants that.

But that's not always the way to bet. Even my own employer, long regarded as the white knight of our industry, does have occasional lapses. And our CEOs have in the past indulged some unnecessary braggadocio akin to the "we'll be on Mars first". They  meant well no doubt, but have had to walk back words eventually.

But real life isn't always as we would wish it to be. My view, as a fan, is that something funny is going on here. It just feels like it. There is precedent for companies, including Boeing, sad to say, pulling dirty tricks of various sorts. (Why does ULA exist in the first place if not due to Boeing's industrial espionage? More recently,why did Boeing so transparently fund those hit pieces against SpaceX? There are other examples too)

I don't have to prove anything to have my feelings.  I wish it weren't so, but Boeing just doesn't feel lily white to me. I can totally understand why Boeing employees and others might not like that pointed out. So I'm sorry to have brought it up, but it was a necessary thing to mention. Because this is schedule analysis, after all. How are we supposed to make accurate predictions of, or have fruitful discussion of, the schedule, if it's not totally clear that the schedule is based on purely technical considerations.

I prefer to think it is. We'll see.

[Comga]

Just a reminder that JB said he couldn't say with certainty which crew would go first. For all the obvious reasons he's completely right. Nor should he weight the probability of anyone going first. He's just managing expectations as he should. Honestly, he knows SpaceX well enough now to know if they were ready to go first and were being deliberately held back for Boeing to go first, they wouldn't be keeping it to themselves. I don't think he wants the headache from the shit-storm that would result from Congressional and Public questioning/outcries if that was publicly disseminated during what should be a hugely positive accomplishment for the Agency.

my 1.9934 cents.

I think you overvalued that post.
And Bridenstine has only sandbagged SpaceX.  This is not "managing expectations".  Given that he has some authority over the process, he is weighing in on what will happen.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Despite your assertions to the contrary, NASA and the contractors don't particularly care who goes first -- certainly not to the degree of pulling shenanigans of questionable legality over a meaningless boast for a contract that is already awarded as you are suggesting.

Come. On. 

That's just silly.  Of course they care.  It's a matter of great pride and political importance.
Plus they just want to be done with the fixed price part of the contract.

I agree with Lar. That's not a ridiculous conspiracy theory.  But it is a conspiracy theory.  It is without evidence, but makes sense.

And I agree with Lars-J's cartoon

Then there's the thread alexterrell linked to.  NASA would rather pay the Russians than push to get these American craft flying.  The delays in these programs exceed the time between the Apollo 1 fire and the Apollo 7 flight (<20 months) without anywhere near the level of failure seen there.  A stuck valve on an abort system.  Parachute "anomalies".  Processes to review.

If NASA was so worried about the risk of SpaceX relying on the DM-1 capsule for the IFA, they could have added to the contract for the build of an additional capsule specifically for that flight.  Probably cheaper than a seat on Soyuz, although the article says we may never see that price.

So for our "regularly scheduled program" of Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis, we can expect a lot more delays, right into 2020 before both DM-2 and CFT fly. 

[Rocket Science]

What would prevent SpaceX from flying a private crewed mission at "their" own expense... Just sayin'...

[ulm_atms]

What would prevent SpaceX from flying a private crewed mission at "their" own expense... Just sayin'...

Well...I meant to hit the quote button...but anyways...

My feeling at this point is that NASA would say, "We didn't have anything to do with it so it doesn't count towards anything." So they would still be in the same spot but now needing a new crew capsule/launcher since they all need to be new via contract.

[Rocket Science]

What would prevent SpaceX from flying a private crewed mission at "their" own expense... Just sayin'...

Well...I meant to hit the quote button...but anyways...

My feeling at this point is that NASA would say, "We didn't have anything to do with it so it doesn't count towards anything." So they would still be in the same spot but now needing a new crew capsule/launcher since they all need to be new via contract.

I agree they would probably say that to save face but the history books would record the first private commercial crewed orbital spaceflight to SpaceX for posterity and no "thumb on the scale" could erase that... Dragon/Falcon would be rated to SpaceX "flight proven" crew standards ASAP notwithstanding...

[Semmel]

How are we supposed to make accurate predictions of, or have fruitful discussion of, the schedule, if it's not totally clear that the schedule is based on purely technical considerations.

I prefer to think it is. We'll see.

If there were fishy things going on in the background, here would be at least circumstantial evidence. I am sure someone would dig it out and make it public. Which would be even worse than not doing it in the first place. I am reasonably sure there are valid reasons for the delay. And also that Boeing would experience similar delays as SpaceX experiences now, its just not talked about as openly as for SpaceX. Whatever the reason is in the end.

[testguy]

“Where there is a WlLL there is a way”. The apparent lack of WILL is astonishing and a national embarrassment.

[QuantumG]

“Where there is a WIlLL there is a way”. The apparent lack of WILL is astonishing and a national embarrassment.

How much will can ya honestly expect for a boondoggle?

[yg1968]

Conspiracy theory or not, this is the second time that Bridenstine has made some puzzling comments about the commercial crew schedule.

Now that I have watch the entire clip, Bridenstine wasn't predicting that Boeing would be first to carry crew to the ISS, he was simply stating that we don't know yet who will be first (since Boeing needs less time in between demo missions than SpaceX does) but that one of the two companies should be launching humans in 2019 (which is a fair prediction).

[QuantumG]

one of the two companies should be launching humans in 2019 (which is a fair prediction).

Wanna bet? 

[Roy_H]

one of the two companies should be launching humans in 2019 (which is a fair prediction).

Wanna bet? 

Not sure what you are betting on, neither or both? I think both companies will launch their crew capsules before the end of the year and I think they will be within 1 month of each other.

[QuantumG]

Not sure what you are betting on, neither or both? I think both companies will launch their crew capsules before the end of the year and I think they will be within 1 month of each other.

With crew aboard?

I think that will slip to 2020.

[Rondaz]

Exclusive: SpaceX, Boeing design risks threaten new delays for U.S. space program

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 / 10:08 PM / UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO

By Eric M. Johnson 8 MIN READ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-boeing-exclusive/exclusive-spacex-boeing-design-risks-threaten-new-delays-for-u-s-space-program-idUSKCN1QA0GU?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com

[butters]

Exclusive: SpaceX, Boeing design risks threaten new delays for U.S. space program

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 / 10:08 PM / UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO

By Eric M. Johnson 8 MIN READ

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-boeing-exclusive/exclusive-spacex-boeing-design-risks-threaten-new-delays-for-u-s-space-program-idUSKCN1QA0GU?il=0&utm_source=reddit.com

Nothing new. Same stuff as last fall. ASAP is still, apparently, complaining about heatshield debris for Boeing, COPVs/load-and-go for SpaceX, and parachute systems for both providers.

[punder]

17 chute tests so far, and still this issue? Were there problems with any of the tests? And 10 more tests to go?

I understand there are significant differences, but has a chute ever failed on a Dragon returning from ISS?

[cuddihy]

TLDR; Both SpaceX and Boeing have identified risk areas that will be discussed w/ mitigations at their agency FRR’s. This article has nothing specific that is new to add, but had to be published prior to tomorrow to beat the FRR for DM-1.

[programmerdan]

Reading the ASAP report, I'd suspect some of the ongoing concerns, are held open because the answer cannot be found via static or dynamic analysis, only by "real" testing.

I suspect, but obviously have no inside information to this end, that the flight tests of flight hardware will either address or amplify the stated sets of concerns. They are unlikely to have no impact, and in fact many of the issues may have resolution contingent on flight.

Just my expectation; def in my arena I can spend weeks running simulations / use case analysis and the like, or I can put it in front of customers (let it get used) and get valuable, actionable answers to areas of concern in minutes.