Author Topic: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 237339 times)

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1328
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #320 on: 04/10/2018 10:07 am »
The problem is that the customer doesn't want to buy astronaut seats, but to buy whole spacecraft specially designed according to its guidelines.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8849
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5942
  • Likes Given: 2006
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #321 on: 04/10/2018 10:47 am »
The problem is that the customer doesn't want to buy astronaut seats, but to buy whole spacecraft specially designed according to its guidelines.

Not quite. The customer is only renting the spacecraft, but requires the spacecraft manufacturer to have the spacecraft adhere to high- and mid-level requirement, which are set by the customer.
The CCP spacecraft do NOT become the property of NASA. Similar to CRS.

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #322 on: 04/10/2018 05:43 pm »
The customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.

That is true but when given a choice a vendor will avoid an obstreperous customer in the future.

If that vendor achieves a compelling enough competitive posture then that problem customer will
have a lot more reason to deal on the vendor's terms than vice versa.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1045
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #323 on: 04/10/2018 08:53 pm »
The customer is always right, especially when they are paying for it.

That is true but when given a choice a vendor will avoid an obstreperous customer in the future.

If that vendor achieves a compelling enough competitive posture then that problem customer will
have a lot more reason to deal on the vendor's terms than vice versa.
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1152
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #324 on: 04/10/2018 09:07 pm »
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.

If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget.
However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear. 
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Yeknom-Ecaps

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline obi-wan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 286
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #326 on: 04/11/2018 01:25 am »
Ok fair enough but that doesn't cut the mustard with me. It's like saying you'll re-use a truck after every delivery but actually scrapping everything but the chassis.  So much time, effort and cost goes into building these things and chucking them away just gets me. 

And that's the other thing - Years have gone by since this program was started and we're still what a year or best part of, before either flies.

Just kind of lost it's spark for me.

That is what you get when NASA is in charge. Remember, both CCP spacecraft are being constructed based on high- and mid-level requirements coming from NASA.

And although it was SpaceX that formally decided to do away with propulsive landing on Crew Dragon it was NASA which demanded that initial Crew Dragon missions should land under parachute, into the ocean. And NASA followed-up on that by setting very burdensome requirements for propulsive landing, the result of which was that SpaceX came to the conclusion that propulsive landing on Crew Dragon was no longer worth the effort.

This Crew Dragon is not the one originally intended by SpaceX:
- Four (4) parachutes in stead of three (3).
- Ocean landings under parachute in stead of propulsive land landings.
- Interior re-designed not once, but twice because NASA vetoed both the original design and the first re-design.

All courtesy of NASA.

But I digress.

Are there any references to NASA vetoing two interior designs? Specifically, are there any available documents or photos showing the two design iterations? It would be fascinating to see what SpaceX proposed, and why NASA vetoed them. This is the first I've heard of it.

Offline ReturnTrajectory

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Houston, TX
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #327 on: 04/11/2018 02:22 am »
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything.  It's a joint venture essentially.  We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward.  But these are not "NASA" spaceships. 

But on another note, why does SpaceX once again creep in to a CST-100 thread?

And CST-100 will be first to ISS.  :-)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8849
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5942
  • Likes Given: 2006
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #328 on: 04/11/2018 08:07 am »
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything.  It's a joint venture essentially.  We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward.  But these are not "NASA" spaceships. 


The first iterations of the interior were thought - by SpaceX - to meet the NASA requirements. Until NASA said they didn't. "Vetoed" may have been the wrong word to use but effectively it means the same. In that NASA directed the contractor to go back to the drawing board and try again.

The seats have gone through multiple iterations to get NASA approval.
Trouble with high- to mid-level requirements is that they are often open to multiple interpretations. And that has happened on plenty of things regarding Crew Dragon, including the interior, the seats and the instrument panel. The interior and seats are now pretty much set, but NASA and SpaceX are still working on the instrument panel.

For contrast: the design of the instrument panel of CST-100 was set - and approved by NASA - quite a while ago.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2018 08:09 am by woods170 »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7281
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7609
  • Likes Given: 2550
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #329 on: 04/11/2018 09:03 am »
Quote
Things are really 🌟 coming together 🌟 for the #BoeingSpace team!
Coming up, we'll test fire 🔥🔥🔥🔥 this vehicle's @AerojetRdyne engines with partner @ULALaunch to prove #Starliner can swiftly carry astronauts to safety in the unlikely event of a launch vehicle emergency.

https://twitter.com/boeingdefense/status/983819515602636800

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10092
  • UK
  • Liked: 1991
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #330 on: 04/11/2018 04:08 pm »
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.

If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget.
However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear.

Were you just intending to insult public sector workers as a whole with this post, as speaking from the public sector in the U.K. I assure you we get plenty done in spite of commentary from those who actually know nothing about we do and just believe the media.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2018 04:09 pm by Star One »

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1152
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #331 on: 04/11/2018 06:48 pm »
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.

If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget.
However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear.

Were you just intending to insult public sector workers as a whole with this post, as speaking from the public sector in the U.K. I assure you we get plenty done in spite of commentary from those who actually know nothing about we do and just believe the media.

Hell no. I'm talking about the way NASA does business. Just look at the record. EVERY project NASA has done for decades has come in way over budget, far behind schedule or both. More than just a few spent hundreds of millions if not billions and then were cancelled. Most government bureaucracies have similar records. It's not the public sector workers at all. AFAIK they're great. It's the way their employers do business. It's the very definition of inefficiency.

My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2018 06:50 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10092
  • UK
  • Liked: 1991
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #332 on: 04/11/2018 07:30 pm »
There's no lack of vendors willing to sell NASA whatever NASA wants.

If their goal is to get financially rewarded then they will be very happy. Being a government bureaucracy the agency pays well and is *extremely* liberal in its requirements to produce on time and on budget.
However if your goal is to actually get something done, better to steer clear.

Were you just intending to insult public sector workers as a whole with this post, as speaking from the public sector in the U.K. I assure you we get plenty done in spite of commentary from those who actually know nothing about we do and just believe the media.

Hell no. I'm talking about the way NASA does business. Just look at the record. EVERY project NASA has done for decades has come in way over budget, far behind schedule or both. More than just a few spent hundreds of millions if not billions and then were cancelled. Most government bureaucracies have similar records. It's not the public sector workers at all. AFAIK they're great. It's the way their employers do business. It's the very definition of inefficiency.

My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.

Fair enough. Honestly it wasn’t clear from your OP.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 1246
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #333 on: 04/11/2018 09:07 pm »
My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.

I agree, working on facilities for NASA and DOD projects.  It's not the employees.  Its congress (both parties) not carrying if anything gets done as long as money is flowing into the right hands.

NASP, X-33, Constellation, just name one.

The length of time it's taking to make SLS is simply embarrassing. 
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4953
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1338
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #334 on: 04/11/2018 09:12 pm »
My experience is not from the outside looking in. It's putting up with it on the inside.

I agree, working on facilities for NASA and DOD projects.  It's not the employees.  Its congress (both parties) not carrying if anything gets done as long as money is flowing into the right hands.

NASP, X-33, Constellation, just name one.

The length of time it's taking to make SLS is simply embarrassing.
Who says that it is just Congress, besides this is not a political thread so let's try not to stray from the actual topic at hand.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Liked: 1232
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #335 on: 04/11/2018 10:42 pm »
EVERY project NASA has done for decades has come in way over budget, far behind schedule or both.
New Horizons didn't.  I'm sure there are others.

Maybe dial back the rhetoric just a notch?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #336 on: 04/12/2018 12:43 am »
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything.  It's a joint venture essentially.  We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward.  But these are not "NASA" spaceships. 

But on another note, why does SpaceX once again creep in to a CST-100 thread?

And CST-100 will be first to ISS.  :-)

Well it's not that simple.  NASA provided requirements, the partners provided designs and have to complete design Verification Closure Notices.  Through that, and other mechanism, NASA can "veto" anything by saying "we won't sign that".  Now, there are mechanism to resolve differences if say the partner fights andsays "well it IS meeting requirements...".  But if NASA really, really doesn't want something it has many ways to not approve it.

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #337 on: 04/12/2018 03:46 pm »
While I appreciate the excitement on this website for what Space X is accomplshing, I am somewhat baffled that there isn’t more excitement (or more postings) for this Boeing entry.

This particular spacecraft configuration/architecture was pretty exciting... 50 years ago.

Its almost the same as the other spacecraft.  People are more excited for a certain company's hype.

Maybe it is because I grew up watching Apollo, but to me, Starliner is something akin to what we may have seen Apollo evolve into, at least for LEO taxi service, had we remained with its incredibly robust and practical configuration, probably guaranteeing easier and reliable regular access to LEO without the huge involvement required for an Orbiter launch.  Shuttle was an incredible vehicle, but its much higher than expected costs, and safety concerns limited its practical applications to high-cost, high-profile undertakings.

This design is being returned to because it works and is practical in its relative simplicity. The ease of access to orbit, and the possibility of Boeing evolving the core vehicle for more intensive needs, is an exciting prospect. Why is it some folks think because it was used (very successfully) decades ago, but then abandoned, that it no longer has validity as an excellent design.  This is like looking at the B2 bomber and saying “ya know, the old B49 already did the flying wing configuration, and you know, it wasnt the best thing in the sky — and we moved on decades ago — so the B2 will likewise be worthless...”.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4881
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #338 on: 04/12/2018 03:51 pm »
NASA does not have "veto" capability over anything.  It's a joint venture essentially.  We are meeting the requirements NASA put forward.  But these are not "NASA" spaceships. 

But on another note, why does SpaceX once again creep in to a CST-100 thread?

And CST-100 will be first to ISS.  :-)

Well it's not that simple.  NASA provided requirements, the partners provided designs and have to complete design Verification Closure Notices.  Through that, and other mechanism, NASA can "veto" anything by saying "we won't sign that".  Now, there are mechanism to resolve differences if say the partner fights andsays "well it IS meeting requirements...".  But if NASA really, really doesn't want something it has many ways to not approve it.

In addition to the contracting rules allowing them to buy future operational missions and thereby avoid the timeline misalignment that COTS-->CRS experienced, this specific issue (i.e. allowing NASA to set those requirements and enforce changes they wanted that the partner didn't) was the other major reason for switching from using OTA to traditional FAR contracts for CCtCap. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Boeing's CST-100 - Master Updates and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #339 on: 04/12/2018 03:55 pm »
For me, Boeing isn't flying any version of the Starliner and the other guys are flying a version of theirs.

On the other hand, it has been fun watching Boeing lose on the Orion competition, builds from that and work with Bigelow to come to the Starliner and may will fly before Orion.

Tags: