SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

[Roy_H]

Some time back we had a discussion going about SpaceX CCtCAP milestones and it wandered off into a political discussion and the mods decided to move the whole thing to Space Politics. I can't even find it there.

Boeing has been very public about its milestones but SpaceX has been silent. NASA has stated that things are progressing but nothing definitive. Some of the milestones should be easy to observe like #6) Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete. Wouldn't someone see this at McGregor?

No.	Milestone	Target Date	New Target	Completed Date
1	Certification Baseline Review (CBR)	December 2014	.	December 2014
2	Initial Propulsion Module Testing Complete	April 2015	.	November 2015
3	Avionics Test Bed Activation	May 2015	.	June 2015
4	Delta Critical Design Review (dCDR)	June 2015	.	December 2015
5	Docking System Qualification Testing Complete	August 2015	.	December 2015
6	Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete	September 2015	August 2017	Cancelled
7	Launch Site Operational Readiness Review	November 2015	.	November 2015
8	Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR)	December 2015	March 2018	.
9	ECLSS Integrated Test Complete	February 2016	July 2016	November 2016
10	Flight to ISS Without Crew	March 2016	August 2018	.
11	Parachute Qualification Complete	April 2016	March 2018	.
12	Space Suit Qualification Testing Complete	May 2016	September 2016	November 2016
13	Launch Site Operational Readiness Review for Crew	June 2016	.	November 2016
14	Design Certification Review (DCR)	July 2016	May 2018	.
15	Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR)	September 2016	November 2018	.
16	Flight to ISS with Crew	October 2016	December 2018	.
17	Operations Readiness Review (ORR)	January 2017	January 2019	.
18	Certification Review (CR)	April 2017	Febuary 2019	.

1. Certification Baseline Review (CBR) Interim Milestone

Objective: At a NASA and Contractor co-chaired Certification Baseline Review (CBR) completed
within ninety (90) days of contract start, the Contractor shall:
(a) Identify the Baseline requirements, including the allocation to the Elements and Subsystems
of the CTS, incorporating the results of NASA’s guidance provided under Certification
Products Contract (CPC) (if applicable), which meet NASA’s requirements defined in CCTREQ-
1130, ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document and SSP 50808,
International Space Station (ISS) to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)
Interface Requirements Document.
(b) Identify the current Crew Transportation System (CTS) design baseline.
(c) Document management plans and products incorporating the results of NASA’s disposition
provided under Certification Products Contract (CPC) (if applicable), to meet requirements
in the CCT-PLN-1120, Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes.
(d) Define the plan and schedule to complete Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(DDTE) and certification for the CTS design, production, and operations.
(e) Define top safety, technical, cost and schedule risks based on most current CTS design.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
The Contractor has completed the following and provided to NASA:
(a) The requirements, including the allocation to the Elements and Subsystems of the CTS, incorporating the results of NASA’s disposition under CPC (if applicable) which meet NASA’s requirements defined in CCT-REQ-1130 and SSP 50808 including but not limited to:
      (1) Documentation of previously approved variances and alternate standards incorporated or tailored in requirements
      (2) Provide joint ISS integration products (Interface Control Documents (ICDs), Joint Integrated Verification Test Plan (JiVTP), Bi-lateral Data Exchange Agreement List and Schedule (BDEALS), Bi-lateral Hardware Software Exchange Agreement List and Schedule (BHSEALS)) identified in SSP 50964, Visiting Vehicle ISS Integration Plan.
(b) Documentation of the current CTS design baseline as defined in DRD 102 Certification Baseline Review (CBR) Data Package.
(c) The management plans and products as defined in DRD 102 Certification Baseline Review (CBR) Data Package.
(d) The DRD 108 Verification and Validation (V&V) Plan.
(e) TheDRD 107 Certification Plan.
(f) The DRD 002 Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule for CTS Certification activities.
(g) An assessment of the top safety, technical, cost, and schedule risks to CTS Certification, and documentation of the approach to manage and accept risk with CTS Certification.
(h) DRD 001 Insight Implementation Plan and documentation of the organizational interaction and personnel interfaces to achieve the objectives of the Insight Implementation Plan and Insight Clause.
(i) DRD 101 Milestone Review Plan.
(j) DRD 109 Flight Test Plan.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Requirements are baselined and controlled. The allocation of requirements to the CTS design baseline is complete.
     (1) Requirements are traceable to CCT-REQ-1130 and SSP 50808.
     (2) Variances and alternate standards have been incorporated and appropriately tailored into the Contractor’s requirements.
     (3) Technical coordination is complete for joint ISS integration products (ICDs, JiVTP, BDEALS, BHSEALS) identified in SSP 50964, and products are ready for ISS to baseline post CBR review.
     (4) The Concept of Operations has been baselined.
(b) The CTS design definition products identified in the DRD 102 Certification Baseline Review (CBR) Data Package identify the current design baseline.
(c) Integrated vehicle performance and design margin is appropriate and supports completion of development.
(d) Management plans and products identified in the DRD 102 Certification Baseline Review (CBR) Data Package are in place, controlled and are being implemented. The plans and products identified in the CBR Data Package as type 2 have been approved.
(e) The DRD 108 V&V Plan has been Baselined.
(f) The DRD 107 Certification Plan has been Baselined.
(g) An DRD 002 Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMP/IMS) has been approved.
(h) The top safety, technical, cost and schedule risks are identified, assessed, and clearly communicated. Plans, processes, and appropriate resources necessary to effectively manage the risks are in place.
(i) DRD 001 Insight Implementation Plan has been approved. The organizational interaction
and personnel interfaces to achieve the objectives of the Insight Implementation Plan and
Insight Clause have been documented.
(j) DRD 101 Milestone Review Plan in accordance with the Data Requirement List (DRL)
and DRD has been approved.
(k) DRD 109 Flight Test Plan in accordance with the DRL and DRD has been approved.
(l) A plan and schedule have been defined for the resolution of all actions and open items
resulting from the CBR. All To be Determined (TBD) and To be Resolved (TBR) items are
clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition.

2. Initial Propulsion Module Testing Complete

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided:
Propulsion Module Test Plan, quick-look test report.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  Propulsion module test plan delivered to NASA at least 30 days before the start of the test campaign. The test plan will contain, at a minimum:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Key differences between the test article and flight propulsion system.
     (3) Test conditions and environment.
     (4) Test matrix.
     (5) Instrumentation list.
(b) All applicable components acceptance-tested.
(c)  Assembly of the propulsion module test article completed.
(d) Non-reactive testing of the propulsion module completed, including:
     (1) Propulsion system leak checks and functional tests.
     (2) Avionics checkouts.
(e)  Propulsion module test readiness review (TRR) completed before starting the test campaign.
(f)  All action items from the test readiness review (if any) are answered or dispositioned.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Demonstrate a high-altitude abort profile requiring both SuperDraco and Draco firings with
abort bottles.
(b) Demonstrate representative rendezvous and docking thruster firing sequences.
(c) Demonstrate a propulsive-assisted landing thrust profile using SuperDraco engines with
Draco thrusters for roll control.
(d) Obtain data for FDIR threshold determination.
(e) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives and support the certification plan, or a
process is in place to disposition any open items.
(f) Quick-look test report delivered to NASA within 10 days of test completion.

3. Avionics Test Bed Activation

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: HITL test bed schematics, HITL
test bed initial power up and data checkout procedure, quick-look test report.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  Delivery of flight-like flight computer box to HITL test bed.
(b) Delivery of power box to HITL test bed.
(c)  Delivery of vehicle remote-IO box to HITL test bed.
(d) Harnessing between flight computer box, power box, and vehicle remote-IO box delivered and installed on the test bed.
(e)  Sufficient electrical ground support infrastructure to support power-up and box control.
(f)  Flight software booting on flight computer box, power box, and vehicle remote-IO box.
(g) Flight software able to control powered loads on the power box and establish bi-directional network communication from the flight computer box to the power box and vehicle remote-IO box.
(h) Telemetry defined to demonstrate voltage being applied to individual powered loads.
(i) Telemetry defined to demonstrate bi-directional network communication.
(j) SpaceX has completed the following and delivered to NASA no later than 30 days before the activation:
     a. HITL test bed schematics.
     b. HITL test bed initial power up and data checkout procedure.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Demonstrate ability to power-up test bed.
(b) Demonstrate ability to control individual powered loads on the power box.
(c) Demonstrate end-to-end bi-directional network communication between flight computer and
power box.
(d) Demonstrate end-to-end bi-directional network communication capability between flight
computer and vehicle remote-IO box.
(e) Quick-look test report, showing test bed hardware and telemetry collected from
demonstrations above, delivered to NASA within 10 days of test completion.

4. Delta Critical Design Review (dCDR)

Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
SpaceX has completed the following and provided it to NASA at least 30 days before the review:
(a)  Final concept of operations document, detailing all concepts of operations from ground processing through post-landing.
(b) Detailed trajectory analysis for the Dragon-Falcon 9 ascent phase.
(c)  Detailed GNC analysis for ascent aborts, rendezvous and proximity operations, and entry.
(d) Initial set of crew and ground electronic procedures (eProcs).
(e)  Complete crew and ground operator display dictionary.
(f)  Detailed thermal analysis.
(g) Detailed environmental control and life support analysis.
(h) Detailed loads, environments and structural analysis.
(i)  Detailed wind tunnel and CFD aerodynamic reports.
(j)  Drawings for Dragon and Falcon 9
(k) DRD 205 CAD model for Dragon and Falcon 9.
(l)  Schematics for all Dragon, Falcon 9 and launch pad systems.
(m) DRD 107 Verification and Validation Plan
(n) DRD 108 Certification Plan
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Critical designs for all relevant Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle and launch pad systems and
subsystems presented to sufficient level of detail.
(b) Comprehensive design presented at sufficient maturity level to show that system
requirements will be met and that the program is ready to proceed with fabrication,
assembly, integration, and test of all articles required for the optional period milestones.
(c) Testing approach is comprehensive and planning for system assembly integration, test, and
launch site and mission operations is sufficient to progress into the next phase.
(d) Updated Integrated Master Schedule presented.
(e) Adequate technical and programmatic margins and resources exist to complete the
development within budget, schedule and risk constraints.
(f) Updates to risk assessments and mitigation strategies presented.
(g) Risks to mission success are understood and plans and resources exist to effectively manage
them.
(h) NASA approval obtained to proceed with fabrication, assembly, integration, and test
activities to support verification and validation.

5. Docking System Qualification Testing Complete

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: Docking adapter qualification
plan, qualification docking adapter manufacturing work orders, quick-look test report(s).
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  All docking system action items from the dCDR are answered or dispositioned.
(b) Fabrication and assembly of the qualification units completed.
(c)  Fabrication and checkout of SpaceX 6-DOF HITL test bed.
(d) Docking adapter qualification plan delivered to NASA at least 30 days before starting the test campaign. The test plan will include:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Key differences (if any) between the test article and the flight docking adapter.
     (3) Test conditions and environment.
     (4) Test matrix.
     (5) Instrumentation list.
(e)  Docking adapter qualification test readiness review (TRR) completed before beginning the test campaign.
(f)  Qualification docking adapter manufacturing work order delivered to NASA no later than 30 days before starting the test campaign.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Demonstrate high probability of successful soft capture through a range of expected initial
conditions using the dynamic analysis model that has been anchored by testing with the JSC
6-DOF test bed.
(b) Qualification test results satisfy primary test plan objectives and support the certification
plan, or a process is in place to disposition any open items.
(c) Quick-look test report(s) delivered to NASA within 10 days of test completion.

6. Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete

Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  Final Propulsive Land Landing Test Plan delivered to NASA at least 30 days before the test.
The test plan will include:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Configuration of the test unit.
     (3) Key differences between test unit and flight unit.
     (4) Instrumentation plan.
     (5) Pretest performance predications based on GNC simulations.
     (6) Test conditions and environment.
(b) Test operation procedures released at least 15 days before the test.
(c)  Propulsive landing test dry runs/simulations completed.
(d) All applicable components acceptance-tested.
(e)  HITL testing of flight software performed.
(f)  Assembly of the propulsive landing test article completed.
(g) Non-reactive testing of the propulsive landing test article completed, including:
     (1) Structural load testing.
     (2) Propulsion system leak checks and functional tests.
     (3) Avionics checkouts.
(h) Test readiness review completed at least 7 days before test.
(i) All action items from the test readiness review (if any) answered or dispositioned.
(j) FAA, Range Safety, and/or other applicable government approvals for the test demonstration received.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Propulsive landing test conducted.
(b) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives and support the certification plan, or a
process is in place to disposition any open items.
(c) Telemetry including propulsion, GNC, and avionics sensors recorded or transmitted.
(d) Environmental data for landing acoustics, induced random vibration, and landing dynamics
recorded.
(e) Quick-look test report delivered to NASA within 10 days of test completion.

7. Launch Site Operational Readiness Review

Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  Successful completion of prerequisite SpaceX internal design reviews and hardware build for:
     (1) Lightning protection system.
     (2) Launch complex service structure.
     (3) Pad transportation and handling ground support equipment, including the transporter-erector.
     (4) Launch site fluids system,
     (5) Launch pad communications systems.
     (6) Emergency subsystems, including fire-suppression system and emergency breathing gas.
(b) System safety approval for pad operations.
     (1) Pad operations hazard analysis completed and delivered to NASA no later than 30 days prior to the review.
(c)  Internal design review documentation delivered to NASA no later than 30 days prior to the review.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Pad integrity test complete.
(b) Propellant and gas flow test complete.
(c) Transporter-erector demonstration complete.
(d) Functionality of overall system successfully demonstrated.
(e) Quick look test report delivered to NASA within 10 days of test completion.

8. Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR)

Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
SpaceX has completed the following and provided NASA with all data products 45 days before FTCR:
(a)  Successful completion of ISS Post Qualification Review (PQR) including:
(a) Delivery of applicable hardware and software items in SSP 50964 (Visiting Vehicle ISS Integration Plan), Appendix G with:
     (1) Path forward for open items jointly agreed to between SpaceX and NASA.
     (2) Delivery and closure of applicable SSP 50808 Verification & Validation products (all requirements less standard open items).
     (3) Path forward for open items jointly agreed to between SpaceX and NASA.
     (4) Delivery and closure of applicable ISS integration hazard reports and completion of the Phase III Safety Review Panel associated with SSP 50808.
     (5) Approval from the ISS Program and PQR Board to approach and dock to the ISS.
(b) SpaceX has completed the following and provided it to NASA at least 45 days before the review:
     (1) Preliminary flight data package (PFDP) tailored for Falcon 9
     (2) Orbital debris assessment report (ODAR)
     (3) End of mission plans (EOMP)
     (4) Reentry data package
     (5) Reentry trajectory data
     (6) Accident investigation plan
     (7) Dragon first responders guide
     (8 )Dragon reentry flight rules
     (9) Recovery operations summary
     (10) Applicable CCT-REQ-1130 hazard reports in accordance with DRD 110 Hazard Reports
     (11) Applicable CCT-REQ-1130 VCNs in accordance with DRD 111 Verification Closure Notices (VCN)
     (12) DRD 113 Range Safety Data Documentation
     (13) DRD 114 CTS Data Input for NASA Integration and Independent Verification and Validation
(c)  Delivery of all items needed for the flight operations review.
(d) Completion of applicable flight hardware component acceptance testing.
(e) Completion of applicable hardware qualification testing.
(f)  Most vehicle integrated system testing and as-built inspections completed.
(g) Initial flight test plan submitted to NASA.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Approval from the Commercial Crew Program to ensure appropriate safety risk of the flight
test to the ISS without crew has been satisfied based on the VCN and Hazard Report
closures.
(b) Open items reviewed with NASA.
(c) Risks associated with the uncrewed missions to the ISS reviewed with NASA.
(d) NASA and SpaceX management jointly provide authority to proceed for Flight to ISS
without Crew milestone.

9. ECLSS Integrated Test Complete

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: ECLSS Module Integrated Test
Plan, ECLSS module and GSE schematics, test operation procedures, quick-look test report
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  ECLSS module test unit completed, including all required ECLSS subsystems, such as:
     (1) CO2 scrubbing system and fans.
     (2) Oxygen delivery system.
     (3) Dehumidifier system.
(b) ECLSS module GSE completed.
     (1) Flight-like avionics interfaces.
     (2) GSE thermal control systems.
     (3) GSE oxygen consumables.
     (4) GSE vacuum system.
(c) Checkout testing of the ECLSS module completed, including:
     (1) Leak checks of the pressure section, oxygen system and TCS.
     (2) Avionics checkouts.
(d) Final test plan completed and submitted to NASA at least 30 days before the test. The test plan will contain:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Configuration of the test unit.
     (3) Key differences between test unit and flight unit.
     (4) Instrumentation plan.
(e) Test operation procedures released at least 15 days before the test.
(f) Test readiness review completed at least 7 days before the test.
(g) ECLSS module and GSE schematics delivered to NASA no later than 30 days prior to the test.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives, or a process is in place to disposition any
open items.
(b) Quick-look report provided to NASA within 10 days of the test, including the following
information:
     (1) Plots of predicted versus measured performance of all applicable ECLSS subsystems.
     (2) Description of major anomalies.
     (3) Photographic coverage.

10. Flight to ISS without Crew

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: DRD 109 Flight to ISS without
Crew Final Test Plan, DRD 209 Postflight Assessment Report.
Objective: SpaceX will conduct a flight test of the Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle without crew
after completion of ISS Integration and before Crew Dragon certification. The mission
configuration will closely match that of the subsequent Flight to ISS with Crew milestone, which
will be the first crewed mission to the ISS. The purpose of this test flight without crew is to provide
an early demonstration and risk reduction of the Dragon-Falcon 9, ground segment, and mission
operations elements. We will use the data from this flight test to support Crew System certification
products, providing mature deliverables informed by flight data.
The key risks mitigated by objectives of this flight test are related to the following:
  Proximity operations.
  Gathering engineering data.
  Design validation.
Demonstrate propulsive-assisted land landing concept of operations.
Demonstrate nosecone mechanism.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
SpaceX has completed the following:
(a)  Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR) completed.
(b) Open issues from FTCR successfully closed.
(c)  Final Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle HITL and integrated system testing completed.
(d) Vehicle level thermal vacuum and acoustic testing of Dragon successfully completed
(e)  All preflight preparations successfully completed.
(f)  DRD 109 Flight to ISS without Crew Final Test Plan submitted to NASA at least 30 days before the launch.
(g) Flight readiness review (FRR) held no later than 7 days before the test.
(h) All action items from the flight test readiness review (if any) answered or dispositioned.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Successful launch and on-orbit deployment of the Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle.
(b) Successful docking of Crew Dragon to the ISS.
(c) Successful departure, entry and landing of Crew Dragon.
(d) All mission anomalies identified (if any).
(e) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives and support the certification plan, or a
process is in place to disposition any open items.
(f) DRD 209 Postflight Assessment Report initially delivered to NASA within 14 days of
landing, with the final report delivered within 30 days after landing.
(g) A plan and schedule have been defined for the resolution of all actions and open items
resulting from the postflight findings. All to be determined and to be resolved items are
clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition. All open items to
be closed by the design certification review (DCR).

11. Parachute Qualification Complete

Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided: Parachute Qualification Test
Plans, quick-look test reports.
Objective: SpaceX will conduct a series of tests on the parachute system in nominal and offnominal
configurations, enveloping conditions for abort and nominal entry scenarios. As described
in DRD 108 Verification and Validation Plan, these tests will demonstrate that the design and build
of the Crew Dragon parachute system meets the intent of Section 4 of JSC-65985, Requirements for
Human Spaceflight for the Trailing Deployable Aerodynamic Decelerator (TDAD) System.
Complete human-rating of the parachute system will leverage these tests along with additional
analysis, inspection and lessons learned from the pad and in-flight abort tests conducted during
CCiCap. The Parachute Qualification milestone will be completed after the Flight to ISS without
Crew milestone because the latter does not require this level of human-rating for a flight without
crew, and any in-flight observations from that test flight can be used to inform the test plan for
parachute qualification.
The Dragon parachute system is critical to the safety of crew members during all missions. Its
purpose is to stabilize and decelerate the vehicle to an appropriate descent rate for a safe land
landing for all mission cases. The system must not only decelerate the Dragon from the extreme
velocities of orbital entry, but must also be able to quickly establish aerodynamic control of the
vehicle for aborted launches, the strictest of these scenarios being an emergency event at the launch
pad. The parachutes make up a sophisticated system subject to many failure modes both known and
unknown, high and potentially uncertain loads, and a wide range of initial conditions. As such,
multiple tests in a full scale and flight-like configuration are required to demonstrate and observe
aspects such as redundancy effectiveness, performance dispersions, and structural integrity.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  NASA approval of Crew Dragon Verification Plan, including testing in support of certification of the Dragon parachute system.
(b) Full-scale test unit(s) prepared with relevant characteristics (e.g., mass, moment of inertia, and outer mold line) as similar to the flight configuration as possible.
(c)  Any needed approvals for use of air/land space to run each test.
(d) Test plans completed and submitted to NASA at least 30 days before test. Test plans will contain:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Configuration of the test unit.
     (3) Key differences between test unit and flight unit.
     (4) Instrumentation plan.
     (5) Test conditions and environment.
(e) Test readiness reviews (TRR) completed no later than 7 days before the test.
(f) All action items from the test reviews (if any) answered or dispositioned.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Complete each physical test of the Dragon parachute system as outlined in the Crew Dragon
Verification Plan.
(b) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives.
(c) Quick-look test reports provided to NASA within 10 days of test completion, including the
following:
     (1) Description of major anomalies.
     (2) Plots of acceleration and angular rates.
     (3) Photographic and video coverage.

12. Space Suit Qualification Testing Complete

Testing will include:
1.   Structural pressure testing to verify the ability of the suit to maintain structural integrity with
appropriate factors of safety.
2.   Leakage testing to verify the suit leak rate.
3.   CITL vacuum chamber testing for the full cabin depressurization duration.
4.   Performance testing to verify the suit’s ability to washout carbon dioxide from the suited
subject’s oral nasal region.
5.   Pressurized and unpressurized mobility testing with a suited subject to demonstrate that the
crew can perform required tasks in-flight.
6.   Suit donning testing to verify the crew can don their suits without assistance and within the
time required to support the SpaceX concept of operations, in a representative 1-g
environment.
7.   Acoustic testing to verify the acoustic attenuation of the suit helmet.
8.   Interface testing to verify the suit interfaces properly with other Dragon hardware, including
seats, restraints, and umbilical connections.
Details of the testing will be defined in the Space Suit Qualification Test Plan. In any instances where evaluations include pressurized suit testing or for any testing that would
pose safety hazards to NASA personnel, SpaceX shall submit test plans, procedures and hazard
analyses to NASA for approval before the start of testing.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)Qualification suit build completed, including:
     (1) All suit elements, such as pressure garment, helmet, gloves and boots.
     (2) Representative suit pressure control hardware.
(b) Test readiness review held with NASA no less than 7 days before the start of qualification
testing. The purpose of the meeting is to determine readiness to begin qualification testing.
(c) Qualification test plan(s) completed and submitted to NASA at least 30 days before the test
readiness review. The test plan(s) will include:
     (1) Primary and secondary (if any) test objectives.
     (2) Test description, including test levels and durations (if applicable).
     (3) Configuration of the suit qualification article.
     (4) Key differences between the qualification suit and the flight suit.
     (5) Safety assessments of test setup for all pressurized suit testing or any testing that would pose safety hazards to NASA personnel
(d) All action items from the test readiness review answered or dispositioned.
(e) NASA approval to proceed with testing on a test-by-test basis, such that testing can begin for tests NASA has approved.
(f) Qualification space suit manufacturing work orders delivered to NASA no later than 30 days prior to the test.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) All tests identified in the Space Suit Qualification Test Plan completed.
(b) Test results satisfy primary test plan objectives and support the human certification plan, or a process is in place to disposition any open items.
(c) Quick-look test report provided to NASA within 10 days of test completion, including the following:
     (1) Description of major anomalies.
(d) Summary of test results showing that the design and performance of the suit meets all relevant requirements.

13. Launch Site Operational Readiness Review for Crew

Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
(a)  Demonstration test plan developed and submitted to NASA for review at least 30 days
before the crew ingress/egress demonstration. This plan will outline the operations to be
simulated, the procedures to be used, and the overall timeline of the demonstration.
(b) Crew ingress/egress demonstration test readiness review completed at least 7 days before
test.
(c)  All action items from the demonstration test readiness review (if any) answered or
dispositioned.
(d) Electronic copy of the following technical products made available for NASA review at
least 15 days before the review:
     (1) Updated concept of operations for ground operations, if applicable.
     (2) Launch complex blast damage area assessment.
     (3) Blast pressure wave analysis and survivability assessment.
(e)  Successful completion of prerequisite SpaceX internal design reviews and hardware build for:
     (i) Lightning protection system.
     (ii) Launch complex service structure, including tower, elevator, Crew Dragon access arm and white room.
     (iii) Crew emergency egress system.
     (iv) Pad transportation and handling ground support equipment, including transporter-erector.
     (v) Launch pad communications systems.
     (vi) Launch control center.
     (vii) Emergency subsystems, including fire-suppression system and emergency breathing gas.
(f) Delivery of internal design review documentation to NASA at least 15 days before the review.
(g) System safety approval for pad operations.
     (i) Pad operations hazard analysis completed and delivered to NASA 15 days before the review.
     (ii) System safety requirements verification (for ingress/egress ground systems, only) completed and delivered to NASA 15 days before the review.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Crew ingress and egress operations demonstrated to be safe and effective. Emergency pad
egress shown to meet all relevant NASA and SpaceX requirements.
(b) Human factors assessment performed by NASA and/or SpaceX experts.
(c) Ground system designs for ingress/egress meet requirements at an acceptable level of risk.
(d) Functionality of overall system successfully verified via demonstration (when available), or otherwise by analysis, test or inspection.
(e) Operational concept is technically sound and human factors included (where appropriate).
(f) Certification objectives have been met or a process is in place to disposition any open items.
(g) Demonstration test report generated and delivered to NASA.

14. Design Certification Review (DCR) Milestone

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr):
July 2016
Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided:
DRD 002, DRD 103, DRD 109,
DRD 110, DRD 111, DRD 112, DRD 113, DRD 203
Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr):
NLT 45 days before milestone reference
DRD 101 Milestone
Review Plan
Objective:
DCR acceptance criteria shall be met before any crewed test flights.
At a NASA and Contractor co-chaired DCR, the Contractor shall:
(a)  Demonstrate that the Crew Transportation System (CTS) and operations meet all applicable
requirements (exceptions must be preapproved by the Commercial Crew Program/ISS Program (CCP/ISSP)), as defined in CCT-REQ-1130, ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document,
and SSP 50808, ISS to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Interface Requirements Document (IRD) in order to meet the ISS Design Reference Mission (DRM) within CCT-DRM-1110, CTS DRM.
(b) Provide evidence that it has met all applicable requirements (exceptions must be preapproved by the CCP/ISSP) through the implementation of its baselined management and certification plans and processes required in CCT-PLN-1120, Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes.
(c)  Demonstrate schedule performance in accordance with the DRD 002 Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule.
(d) Define top safety, technical, cost, and schedule risks. Upon meeting the DCR Acceptance Criteria defined below, NASA will permit the Contractor to proceed to a Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR).
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
The Contractor has completed the following and provided to NASA:
(a)  The DRD 103 Design Certification Review Data Package.
(b) The DRD 112 Certification Data Package including but not limited to:
     (1) All DRD 111 Verification Closure Notices (VCNs) demonstrating that the CTS requirements have been met. (All VCNs shall be closed unless exceptions are preapproved by the CCP/ISSP).
     (2) The hazard analysis and DRD 110 Hazard Reports have been approved by NASA.
(c) All management and certification plans and processes required in CCT-PLN-1120 have been completed.
(d) ISS Integration per SSP 50964, Visiting Vehicle ISS Integration Plan, including the Flight
Operations Review and the ISS Phase III Safety Review have been completed. Forward work is scheduled and approved by NASA.
(e) The DRD 002 Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule.
(f) The DRD 113 Range Safety Data Documentation.
(g) The DRD 203 Vehicle Interface Definition Document (IDD).
(h) An assessment of the top safety risks and documentation of the management and acceptance of risk including, but not limited to:
     (1) Most recent results of the Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) that identify the integrated safety and mission assurance risk of the baseline design, and individually identifies top risk contributors.
     (2) An assessment of crew survival capability of the baseline design in accordance with CCT-PLN-1120.
(i) The top programmatic risks have been identified and assessed.
(j) Documentation substantiating all Review Item Dispositions (RIDs) and actions from design reviews, verification reviews, and Certification Baseline Review (CBR) are closed.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) The DRD 112 Certification Data Package has been approved by NASA.
     (1) All applicable DRD 111 VCNs have been approved by NASA. (All VCNs relevant to crewed flight test will be approved by NASA with acceptable open work).
     (2) The design provides crew survival capability.
     (3) Operational limits and constraints have been implemented and verified.
     (4) Operational roles and procedures have been defined for crew, mission team and mission management.
(b) An DRD 002 Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule has been approved.
(c) The top safety risks are identified, assessed, and clearly communicated. Plans, processes, and appropriate resources necessary to effectively manage the risks are in place.
     (1) Major risks to crew safety and mission success have been identified, quantified, and integrated in a PSA.
     (2) Risk mitigation strategies associated with the CTS design baseline, cost and schedule have been identified and agreed upon by NASA.
(d) The top programmatic risks have been identified. Plans, processes, and appropriate resources necessary to effectively manage the risks are in place.
(e) All RIDs and actions from design reviews, verification reviews and CBR are closed. All To be Determined (TBD) and To be Resolved (TBR) items are clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition and have been submitted.
(f) A plan and schedule have been defined for the resolution of all actions and open items resulting from the DCR. All TBD and TBR items are clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition.

15. Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR) Interim Milestone

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr): September 2016
Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided:
DRD 104, DRD 110, DRD 111, DRD 112, Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr): NLT 45 days before milestone reference DRD 101 Milestone Review Plan
Objective:
For each crewed flight test(s), the Contractor shall conduct an FTRR that demonstrates readiness to conduct a crewed flight test and defines a risk baseline for crewed flight test activities.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
The Contractor has completed the following and provided to NASA:
(a)  All data and documentation identified in CCT-PLN-1120, Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes, CTS FRR Milestone Data, as the DRD 104 FTRR Data Package.
     (1) Approval of any new, open or changes to applicable DRD 111 Verification Closure Notices (VCNs), DRD 110 Hazard Reports, and DRD 112 Certification Data Package.
     (2) Documentation that all acceptance, checkout and integration testing has been completed.
     (3) Documentation of flight specific products.
     (4) Documentation that the launch site, Range, recovery and tracking and data support resources have committed to launch.
     (5) Documentation that landing site recovery support and resources have committed to landing.
     (6) Documentation that all operational supporting and enabling capabilities (e.g., facilities, equipment, documents, updated databases) necessary for nominal and contingency operations have been tested and delivered/installed at the site(s) necessary to support operations.
     (7) Documentation that plans, processes, procedures and training for nominal and contingency operations for the Crew Transportation System (CTS) have been completed to support operations.
     (8 )Documentation that systems hardware, software, personnel, processes and procedures are in place to support operations.
(b) The Contractor, its subcontractors, suppliers and team members have provided flight readiness endorsements demonstrating that they have met requirements in accordance with the Contractor’s management processes.
(c) International Space Station (ISS) Stage Operational Readiness Review (SORR) has been completed and the ISS is ready to accept the Visiting Vehicle and crew for flight tests to ISS.
     (1) Documentation of residual mission risks and related analyses for acceptance.
(d) All open actions from Design Certification review (DCR) and SORR have been closed.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) The DRD 104 FTRR Data Package has been presented and accepted by NASA.
(b) All changes, modifications and anomalies since DCR have been resolved and resolutions have been accepted by NASA.
(c) Mission management team, crew, and mission support team have been identified, have been trained, and are in place.
(d) The plan and schedule of preplanned forward work has been accepted by NASA.
(e) Any open work or constraints to launch are identified and closeout plans and schedules are in place and supportable.
(f) NASA has accepted the flight specific products.
(g) Launch Site, Range, and recovery support organizations have committed to launch.
(h) Landing site support and resources have committed to landing.
(i) NASA has accepted residual flight test risks.

16. Flight to ISS with Crew

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr): October 2016
Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided:
DRD 109 Flight to ISS with Crew Final Test Plan, DRD 209 Postflight Assessment Report
Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr): NLT 30 days before milestone (except as noted below)
Objective:
As the final validation test before proceeding with the Crew Vehicle Operations Readiness Review (ORR), SpaceX will conduct a second test flight of the Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew System, this time with crew, after NASA approval of the Design Certification Review and Flight Test Readiness Review. The purpose of this test is to provide an early demonstration and risk reduction of the Dragon-Falcon 9 System for operational missions. We will use the data from this flight to support the creation of mature Crew Dragon certification products and to demonstrate readiness for post-certification missions. This flight test will be a short-duration mission of approximately 14 days.
The key risks mitigated by this flight test are related to the following CITL operations:
Proximity operations.
  o Proximity operations with the new Dragon-to-ISS communications system.
  o Autonomous V-bar approach and rendezvous.
  o Crew monitoring capability during autonomous docking operations.
  o Crew ingress and egress to ISS.
Gathering engineering data gathering.
  o Additional data for thermal model validation.
  o Additional aerodynamic data for modified Dragon OML during entry and landing.
  o Additional flight data for loads and dynamic environments.
  o Data for ECLSS performance with crew onboard during all phases of flight.
Design validation.
  o Crew manual control of vehicle attitude and translation.
  o Nominal operation of spacesuits.
  o The ability of the crew to adequately monitor vehicle performance and command vehicle systems.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
SpaceX has met the following criteria:
(a) Design Certification Review (DCR) completed.
(b) Open issues from the Flight Test Readiness Review successfully closed.
(c) Received  FAA,  Range  Safety  and/or  other  applicable  government  approvals  for  the  test demonstration.
(d) Final Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle HITL and integrated system testing completed.
(e) All preflight preparations successfully completed.
(f) All crew and ground operator training completed and all personnel certified for flight.
(g) DRD 109 final flight test plan submitted to NASA at least 30 days before the launch. NASA comments on the test plan provided to SpaceX no less that 15 days before launch.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) Successful launch and on-orbit deployment of the Dragon-Falcon 9 Crew Vehicle.
(b) Successful docking of the Crew Dragon system to the ISS.
(c) Successful ingress of the crew to ISS.
(d) Successful departure, entry and landing of Crew Dragon.
(e) Successful  demonstration  of  crew  manual  flight  control,  crew  commanding  and  crew monitoring functions.
(f) Safe return of crew to Earth.
(g) All mission anomalies identified (if any).
(h) Test  results  satisfy  primary  test  plan  objectives  and  support  the  certification  plan,  or  a process is in place to disposition any open items.
(i) DRD 209 Postflight Assessment Report delivered to NASA within 14 days of landing, the final report delivered within 30 days after landing.
(j) A plan and schedule have been defined for the resolution of all actions and open items resulting from the postflight findings. All to be determined and to be resolved items are clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition. All open items to be closed by the Operational Readiness Review (ORR).

17. Operations Readiness Review (ORR) Interim Milestone

Planned Start Date and Completion Date (mo/yr): January 2017
Data/Data Requirement Deliverables (DRDs) to be provided:
DRD 105, DRD 110, DRD 111, DRD 112, Delivery of Data/DRDs (mo/yr): NLT 45 days before milestone reference DRD 101 Milestone Review Plan
Objective:
At a NASA and Contractor co-chaired Operations Readiness Review (ORR), the Contractor shall demonstrate that the actual Crew Transportation System (CTS) system characteristics and the procedures used in operations reflect the deployed state of the CTS. The ORR evaluates all project and support (flight and ground) hardware, software, personnel, and procedures to ensure flight and associated ground systems are in compliance with program requirements and constraints.
An ORR occurs upon successful completion of the crewed test flight to International Space Station (ISS). Upon meeting the ORR Acceptance Criteria defined below, NASA will accept operations readiness of the system for Post Certification Missions (PCMs).
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
The Contractor has completed the following and provided to NASA:
(a)  The DRD 105 Operations Readiness Review (ORR) Data Package.
(b) Any updates to the DRD 112 Certification Data Package.
(c)  Any new, open or changed DRD 111 Verification Closure Notices (VCNs) and DRD 110 Hazard Reports.
(d) Approval of closure of action items from Flight Test Readiness Review(s) (FTRR(s)), Design Certification Review(s) (DCR(s)) and previous reviews.
(e)  Documentation substantiating that all validation testing has been completed.
(f)  Documentation providing evidence that failures and anomalies have been resolved and the results incorporated.
(g) Documentation that all operational supporting and enabling capabilities (e.g., facilities, equipment, documents, updated databases) necessary for nominal and contingency operations have been tested and delivered/installed at the site(s) necessary to support recurring operations.
(h) Documentation that plans, procedures and training for nominal and contingency operations for the CTS have been completed to support recurring operations.
(i) Documentation that systems hardware, software, personnel, and procedures are in place to support recurring operations.
(j) An assessment of the top safety risks and documentation of the management and acceptance of risk including but not limited to:
     (1) Most recent results of the Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) that identify the integrated safety and mission assurance risk of the baseline design, and individually identifies top risk contributors.
     (2) An assessment of crew survival capability of the baseline design in accordance with CCT-PLN-1120,
Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes.
(k) The top programmatic risks have been identified and assessed.
(l) Documentation substantiating all Review Item Dispositions (RIDs) and actions from design reviews, verification reviews, DCR(s), and FTRR(s) are closed.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) The CTS, including any enabling products, is determined to be ready to be placed in a
recurring operations status.
(1) NASA has approved the updated DRD 112 Certification Data Package including any
remaining open DRD 111 Verification Closure Notices and DRD 110 Hazard
Reports.
(2) NASA has approved closure of action items from DCR and previous reviews.
(3) NASA has accepted documentation as evidence that all validation testing has been
completed.
(4) NASA has accepted documentation as evidence that failures and anomalies have been
resolved and the results incorporated.
(5) NASA has accepted documentation that all operational supporting and enabling
capabilities (e.g., facilities, equipment, documents, updated databases) necessary for
nominal and contingency operations have been tested and delivered/installed at the
site(s) necessary to support sustaining operations.
(6) NASA has accepted documentation that all plans, procedures and training for nominal
and contingency operations for the CTS have been completed to support sustaining
operations.
(b) NASA has accepted documentation that systems hardware, software, personnel, and
procedures are in place to support operations.
(c) The top safety risks for Post Certification Missions are identified, assessed, and clearly
communicated. Plans, processes, and appropriate resources necessary to effectively manage
the risks are in place.
(1) Major risks to crew safety and mission success have been identified, quantified, and
integrated in a PSA.
(2) Risk mitigation strategies associated with the CTS design baseline, cost and schedule
have been identified and agreed upon by NASA.
(d) The top programmatic risks have been identified. Plans, processes, and appropriate
resources necessary to effectively manage the risks are in place.
(e) A plan and schedule have been defined for the resolution of all actions and open items
resulting from the ORR. All To be Determined (TBD) and To be Resolved (TBR) items are
clearly identified with acceptable plans and schedules for their disposition.

18. Certification Review (CR) Milestone

Objective: At a NASA chaired review, the Contractor shall provide evidence that the CTS has met
all NASA requirements identified in Attachment J-01, Integrated Crew Transportation System
(CTS) Requirements. The Contractor shall also provide documentation of the crew safety and
mission assurance risks associated with the CTS.
Indicators of Milestone Readiness:
The Contractor has completed the following and provided to NASA:
(a) The DRD 106 Certification Review Milestone Data Package
(b) The DRD 112 Certification Data Package.
(c) Documentation of results from all flight tests, Operations Readiness Review (ORR),
production acceptance testing and closure of any open requirements from Design
Certification Review(s) (DCR(s)).
(d) An assessment of the top safety risks and documentation of the management and acceptance
of risk including but not limited to:
    (1) Most recent results of the Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) that identify the integrated
    safety and mission assurance risk of the baseline design, and individually identifies top
    risk contributors.
    (2) An assessment of crew survival capability of the baseline design.
(e) The top programmatic risks have been identified and assessed.
(f) Documentation substantiating all Review Item Dispositions (RIDs) and actions from design
reviews, verification reviews, DCR(s), Flight Test Readiness Review(s) (FTRR(s)) and
ORR are closed.
Acceptance Criteria:
(a) CTS Certification recommendation has been approved including DRD 112 Certification
Data Package.
(b) Results from risk assessment have been accepted by NASA.
(c) Closure of all open actions from previous reviews have been approved by NASA.

Above descriptions from: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap_SpaceX_508.pdf

[Chris Bergin]

I like this kind of thread!

This recent NAC slide (which covers all, but also SpaceX) may also help with the path:

[rockets4life97]

The graphic Chris posted shows:
2. in Nov 2015
3. in June 2015
7. in June 2015

Also have CDR in Oct 2015 which doesn't appear to be on your list.

Since then, I think I remember Shotwell (or someone) saying they completed the Delta CDR (4) at the end of 2015.

The other milestones are listed as planned for completion in:
5. Dec 2015
6. Dec 2015 (Propulsive Descent Test Complete or April 2016 (Validation Propulsive Module Testing Complete)
8. Sept 2016
9. July 2016
10. Dec 2016
11. Jan 2017
12. Sept 2016
13. June 2016
14. Jan 2017
15. March 2017
16. April 2017
17. July 2017
18. Oct 2017

Edit: started with the completed ones (grey) and decided why not do them all.

[The man in the can]

I posted this on and other thread but I think it would help here.

Here is the text on the slide 12 of the recent NAC presentation
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

Significant progress made over the last quarter:

Completed two Critical Design Reviews
– Dragon, F9, ground systems, and operations
– SpaceX in the process of addressing all NASA comments to satisfaction

Propulsion System Testing
– Began Initial propulsive landing tests (Pad abort vehicle)
– Propulsion system testing (SuperDraco Module)

Activated 39A launch site

Good progress on space suit and helmet design

Crew Module seats being modified to maximize crew
safety

Flew upgraded F9 that will carry crew

Completed first 4-parachute test

Qualification and production on key components
– Dragon vehicle structures are in production
– Conducted Qualification testing of several F9 Systems and development testing of stage separation system to human standards
– Completed Docking System Qualification

Approved alternate standards
– Software alternate standard approved
– Avionics environmental testing alternate standard approved

My understanding is that 1,2,3,4,5 and 7 of your list are completed.

[AnalogMan]

Here's another very recent NAC chart that lists completed milestones (no dates though)

[Roy_H]

So I guess we can take Chris's NAC chart as definitive up to end of November 2015. So I see rockets4life items 2 & 3 but 7 is in November. And I will create a new column for adjusted target dates. As for The Man In A Can's post, only 3 items are clearly stated as completed, a second CDR (4), Docking System Qualification (5) and Parachute test which I will take to be item 11. I guess I won't, see leaflion's post below.

[rockets4life97]

I missed one: initial propulsion landing complete (November 2015).

I think this is the initial Dragonfly tests. They've clearly started, but we don't have word that they completed the tests. AnalogMan's post points to this milestone not yet being complete.

Also, AnalogMan's post indicates that the CDR and dCDR are not complete. From the NAC slide posted by The man in the can, it looks like SpaceX is responding to comments and should be closing these out soon (but maybe not yet officially complete). Hard to say as it somewhat contradicts the picture Chris posted from the same presentation.

[A_M_Swallow]

Some time back we had a discussion going about SpaceX CCtCAP milestones and it wandered off into a political discussion and the mods decided to move the whole thing to Space Politics. I can't even find it there.

Boeing has been very public about its milestones but SpaceX has been silent. NASA has stated that things are progressing but nothing definitive. Some of the milestones should be easy to observe like #6) Propulsive Land Landing Test Complete. Wouldn't someone see this at McGregor?

Which milestones are known to be complete?

{snip}

I miss the 3 monthly Return on Investment (ROI) reports that COTS used to publish.

[leaflion]

So I guess we can take Chris's NAC chart as definitive up to end of November 2015. So I see rockets4life items 2 & 3 but 7 is in November. And I will create a new column for adjusted target dates. As for The Man In A Can's post, only 3 items are clearly stated as completed, a second CDR (4), Docking System Qualification (5) and Parachute test which I will take to be item 11.

First 4 parachute drop test is not item 11 "parachute qualification complete".  Qualification will take many tests.  The test reported may or may not be the start of parachute qualification, or more likely the end of parachute development testing.  Usually once you finish development you built a flight set of parachutes using the processes and QC that you would for flight units and test them some number of times at different edges of nominal conditions for qual testing.

[Roy_H]

I've been trying to find the original list of milestones from NASA, because I want to add descriptions. Can someone provide me with the link?

[AnalogMan]

I've been trying to find the original list of milestones from NASA, because I want to add descriptions. Can someone provide me with the link?

Contract (redacted) can be found at the following link (milestones are in Attachment J-03, Appendix A):

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap_SpaceX_508.pdf


Edit:

Separate sets of CCtCAP contract documents can be found here:

http://www.nasa.gov/content/electronic-library-spacex-commercial-crew-transportation-capability-contract-cctcap

http://www.nasa.gov/content/electronic-library-boeing-commercial-crew-transportation-capability-contract-cctcap

[The man in the can]

Here is the milestones chart as of march 2016 posted on twitter by Jeff Foust and reported by Sesquipedalian on the commercial crew schedule thread.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115

EDIT : Corrected a mistake about who posted it

[woods170]

Here is the milestones chart as of march 2016 posted on twitter by Jeff Foust and reported by Sesquipedalian on the commercial crew schedule thread.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115

EDIT : Corrected a mistake about who posted it

And as expected the uncrewed mission of Dragon 2 to the ISS has shifted some five months to the right and is now thoroughly in 2017. There will be no Dragon 2 launching this year.  Compared to what was reported last November the crewed demo mission shifted no less than eight months to the right, to august 2017.
The interval between the unmanned flight and the in-flight abort test is IMO unrealistically tight (just two months), so I expect the in-flight abort test to shift to the right. Which means the crewed demo mission will also shift to the right (again). I fully expect for it to eventually shift into 2018.

I also expect similar shifts to happen for CST-100. IMO their first crewed mission will also go into 2018.

[jimhillhouse]

Here is the milestones chart as of march 2016 posted on twitter by Jeff Foust and reported by Sesquipedalian on the commercial crew schedule thread.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115

EDIT : Corrected a mistake about who posted it

And as expected the uncrewed mission of Dragon 2 to the ISS has shifted some five months to the right and is now thoroughly in 2017. There will be no Dragon 2 launching this year.  Compared to what was reported last November the crewed demo mission shifted no less than eight months to the right, to august 2017.
The interval between the unmanned flight and the in-flight abort test is IMO unrealistically tight (just two months), so I expect the in-flight abort test to shift to the right. Which means the crewed demo mission will also shift to the right (again). I fully expect for it to eventually shift into 2018.

I also expect similar shifts to happen for CST-100. IMO their first crewed mission will also go into 2018.

Oh things have slipped, indeed. But far worse than 5 months. If you talk to engineers actually doing CCtCap work, they all say add another 17 months for Boeing and 19-20 for SpaceX, that Boeing flies in 12/2017 followed by SpaceX.

Does anyone actually have a CCtCap milestone update? The last I have is McAlister's July 2015 Commercial Crew Status. Back then, Boeing had completed only 4/23 of its CCtCap milestones and SpaceX only 1/18.

I note above graphic that shows Boeing and SpaceX have plans to complete a great many milestones throughout 2016. But then SpaceX said it would complete the CCiCap inflight abort test by December. Here we are, in May, and SpaceX is now officially over two years behind on CCiCap Milestone 14. Maybe the third anniversary will be the charm? In any case, after the delays of COTS, CRS, and CCiCap, what the CCP companies want to do, and what they in fact do don't match-up very well, at least for SpaceX.

[woods170]

Here is the milestones chart as of march 2016 posted on twitter by Jeff Foust and reported by Sesquipedalian on the commercial crew schedule thread.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/715552131323994115

EDIT : Corrected a mistake about who posted it

And as expected the uncrewed mission of Dragon 2 to the ISS has shifted some five months to the right and is now thoroughly in 2017. There will be no Dragon 2 launching this year.  Compared to what was reported last November the crewed demo mission shifted no less than eight months to the right, to august 2017.
The interval between the unmanned flight and the in-flight abort test is IMO unrealistically tight (just two months), so I expect the in-flight abort test to shift to the right. Which means the crewed demo mission will also shift to the right (again). I fully expect for it to eventually shift into 2018.

I also expect similar shifts to happen for CST-100. IMO their first crewed mission will also go into 2018.

Oh things have slipped, indeed. But far worse than 5 months. If you talk to engineers actually doing CCtCap work, they all say add another 17 months for Boeing and 19-20 for SpaceX, that Boeing flies in 12/2017 followed by SpaceX.

Does anyone actually have a CCtCap milestone update? The last I have is McAlister's July 2015 Commercial Crew Status. Back then, Boeing had completed only 4/23 of its CCtCap milestones and SpaceX only 1/18.

I note above graphic that shows Boeing and SpaceX have plans to complete a great many milestones throughout 2016. But then SpaceX said it would complete the CCiCap inflight abort test by December. Here we are, in May, and SpaceX is now officially over two years behind on CCiCap Milestone 14. Maybe the third anniversary will be the charm? In any case, after the delays of COTS, CRS, and CCiCap, what the CCP companies want to do, and what they in fact do don't match-up very well, at least for SpaceX.

It has been expected by several folks that Boeing will fly before SpaceX and I think the same. The compressed SpaceX schedule always seemed unrealistic. Also not surprised to see that Boeing is also well into delays.

[WBY1984]

^ This is very frustrating to learn, but I'm glad some reality has been injected into the conversations around here to counter the hype. I really wish SpaceX would be realistic about their product delivery dates, it has knock-on effects for Red Dragon and their long term goals. Why even mention 2018 as a possibility if the are so far behind on getting Dragon 2 in any configuration off the ground?

[rockets4life97]

Red Dragon is arguably easier than Crew Dragon (both v2) because it doesn't need to be human rated and have life support.

[cuddihy]

Oh things have slipped, indeed. But far worse than 5 months. If you talk to engineers actually doing CCtCap work, they all say add another 17 months for Boeing and 19-20 for SpaceX, that Boeing flies in 12/2017 followed by SpaceX.

Does anyone actually have a CCtCap milestone update? The last I have is McAlister's July 2015 Commercial Crew Status. Back then, Boeing had completed only 4/23 of its CCtCap milestones and SpaceX only 1/18.

I note above graphic that shows Boeing and SpaceX have plans to complete a great many milestones throughout 2016. But then SpaceX said it would complete the CCiCap inflight abort test by December. Here we are, in May, and SpaceX is now officially over two years behind on CCiCap Milestone 14. Maybe the third anniversary will be the charm? In any case, after the delays of COTS, CRS, and CCiCap, what the CCP companies want to do, and what they in fact do don't match-up very well, at least for SpaceX.

Jim, hopefully your current source is more reliable than the one that assured you CRS-7 failure was most likely due to LOX tank dome cracking from stress caused by insulation liner... [/grainofsalt]

I've been jaded by SpaceX time dilation before, but given recent performance I think I'll wait for another significant slip before I press the I believe button on an additional 1 year slip from here.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

^ This is very frustrating to learn, but I'm glad some reality has been injected into the conversations around here to counter the hype. I really wish SpaceX would be realistic about their product delivery dates, it has knock-on effects for Red Dragon and their long term goals. Why even mention 2018 as a possibility if the are so far behind on getting Dragon 2 in any configuration off the ground?

No harm in trying. What even are realistic dates in this industry?

[rcoppola]

They don't know, what they don't know. Spacesuits, ECLSS, integrated human flight control systems, etc...So much of what they are doing, they've never done before. Hell, very few people on this entire planet have done what they and Boeing are doing. These are not just NASA contractors. They are fully privately owned and operated vehicles from design, to build, to test, to launch, to loiter, to return. No private company has ever taken the responsibilities for the entirety of this process.

And specifically with SpaceX, they designed their own Docking Adapter to the IDA specs/requirements, a never before integrated abort and landing system, new trunk with integrated Solar panels, retractable nose cone, their own unique, "has to look as cool as it works" Spacesuit, etc.. Oh and lest we forget...they'v never done any of these things before. (forget cargo Dragon, this vehicle is so far beyond that you may as well compare Apollo to Mercury.

Are the dates moving right frustrating? Only insofar as I'm excited as hell to see these vehicles fly and bring crew launches back to FL. I wouldn't be surprised to see both crewed test-fights move into early to mid 2018. Maybe not, but they will eventually fly. And that's important and what keeps me kinda-maybe-sorta patient.

[BobHk]

Red Dragon is arguably easier than Crew Dragon (both v2) because it doesn't need to be human rated and have life support.

Unless you want to have life support for say, a box of plants to grow.

[rockets4life97]

Jeff Foust reported in this article that SpaceX has completed 8 milestones so far.

Looks like we only have 6 completed on the list in the first post. I wonder what other 2 have been completed?

[wannamoonbase]

Jeff Foust reported in this article that SpaceX has completed 8 milestones so far.

Launch abort test October 2017
Uncrewed orbital test flight of the spacecraft in December 2017
A crewed flight scheduled for February 2018

That's a tight cadence for being 18 months out. 

Schedule compression 18 months out is not a rosey indicator.

[WizZifnab]

Launch abort test October 2017
Uncrewed orbital test flight of the spacecraft in December 2017
A crewed flight scheduled for February 2018

To be clear, those are the Boeing Starliner dates quoted from the March NAC slide per the article.  The article also refers to that same March NAC slide still having the SpaceX dates with the uncrewed test flight in Dec 2016.   Apparently the CCP Major Partners Milestone, also from March, may be the most updated with SpaceX uncrewed test flight of May 2017 as woods170 noted.

And as expected the uncrewed mission of Dragon 2 to the ISS has shifted some five months to the right and is now thoroughly in 2017. There will be no Dragon 2 launching this year.  Compared to what was reported last November the crewed demo mission shifted no less than eight months to the right, to august 2017.
The interval between the unmanned flight and the in-flight abort test is IMO unrealistically tight (just two months), so I expect the in-flight abort test to shift to the right. Which means the crewed demo mission will also shift to the right (again). I fully expect for it to eventually shift into 2018.

I also expect similar shifts to happen for CST-100. IMO their first crewed mission will also go into 2018.

Looking back on the milestone dates I've seen, it seems that 2 months has consistently been the interval between either uncrewed and crewed for Boeing and uncrewed, in flight abort (once they decided to use the flight test capsule), and crewed for SpaceX.  I think these obviously assume all goes well and are spaced for the requisite processing time between each.  I think its a fair, if tight, interval if all goes well.  However, even if things go well, I could imagine outside factors could also cause a delay.

[woods170]

Launch abort test October 2017
Uncrewed orbital test flight of the spacecraft in December 2017
A crewed flight scheduled for February 2018

To be clear, those are the Boeing Starliner dates quoted from the March NAC slide per the article.  The article also refers to that same March NAC slide still having the SpaceX dates with the uncrewed test flight in Dec 2016.   Apparently the CCP Major Partners Milestone, also from March, may be the most updated with SpaceX uncrewed test flight of May 2017 as woods170 noted.

And as expected the uncrewed mission of Dragon 2 to the ISS has shifted some five months to the right and is now thoroughly in 2017. There will be no Dragon 2 launching this year.  Compared to what was reported last November the crewed demo mission shifted no less than eight months to the right, to august 2017.
The interval between the unmanned flight and the in-flight abort test is IMO unrealistically tight (just two months), so I expect the in-flight abort test to shift to the right. Which means the crewed demo mission will also shift to the right (again). I fully expect for it to eventually shift into 2018.

I also expect similar shifts to happen for CST-100. IMO their first crewed mission will also go into 2018.

Looking back on the milestone dates I've seen, it seems that 2 months has consistently been the interval between either uncrewed and crewed for Boeing and uncrewed, in flight abort (once they decided to use the flight test capsule), and crewed for SpaceX.  I think these obviously assume all goes well and are spaced for the requisite processing time between each.  I think its a fair, if tight, interval if all goes well.  However, even if things go well, I could imagine outside factors could also cause a delay.

There is only one constant in manned spaceflight: delay, delay, delay.

[deruch]

Jeff Foust reported in this article that SpaceX has completed 8 milestones so far.

Looks like we only have 6 completed on the list in the first post. I wonder what other 2 have been completed?

Maybe an inclusion of 2 CCiCap milestones that were recently completed in 2015 year-end time frame.  They were the Primary Structures Qual.-Open Hatch test and the finally complete CCiCap CDR.  The CDR was the milestone that was split out into like 4 sub-milestones, 13A, 13B....  IIRC, they were still waiting on the final piece of that and it was completed in November or December I thought.  Technically, those were CCiCap milestones and not CCtCap ones.  So, like the Inflight Abort, they weren't included in the original list for this thread.

[A_M_Swallow]

There is only one constant in manned spaceflight: delay, delay, delay.

Hopefully the additional delay decays to less than a day.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If you look at things historically the risk to schedule increase the closer you get to the end date. This is because the builtin cushions have less capability to absorb unforeseen events affecting task completions.

[meekGee]

If you look at things historically the risk to schedule increase the closer you get to the end date. This is because the builtin cushions have less capability to absorb unforeseen events affecting task completions.

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

Lying to yourself is how people motivate themselves to get stuff done a lot of the time. Heck, set a realistic end target for somebody within a certain amount of time, and people will instinctively plop all the real hard work right at the end of that timeframe, because work is hard. The same applies to organisations along with individuals.

It's always more productive to demand the extreme from yourself (which you won't fulfil) rather than gun for a conservative realism and then end up stretching those timeframes out as well.

[meekGee]

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

Lying to yourself is how people motivate themselves to get stuff done a lot of the time. Heck, set a realistic end target for somebody within a certain amount of time, and people will instinctively plop all the real hard work right at the end of that timeframe, because work is hard. The same applies to organisations along with individuals.

It's always more productive to demand the extreme from yourself (which you won't fulfil) rather than gun for a conservative realism and then end up stretching those timeframes out as well.

Oh, for sure...

If you relax the schedule, you'll be even more late, no doubt...

[llanitedave]

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

Lying to yourself is how people motivate themselves to get stuff done a lot of the time. Heck, set a realistic end target for somebody within a certain amount of time, and people will instinctively plop all the real hard work right at the end of that timeframe, because work is hard. The same applies to organisations along with individuals.

It's always more productive to demand the extreme from yourself (which you won't fulfil) rather than gun for a conservative realism and then end up stretching those timeframes out as well.

The way I've seen it put best is to make your long-term goals grand, ambitious, and aspirational, make your short-term goals realistic and practical, but always a step in the direction of the grand long-term goals.

[the_other_Doug]

Very, very few new development projects come in both on time and on budget.  Those that do are generally either small, iterative changes/upgrades to robust existing products (in which all of the elements are very well known), or they are hugely lucky.

In most cases, the time/cost trade-off ends up being driven by the relative importance of on-time vs. on-budget.  You can almost always make up schedule deficits by throwing more resources at the project, and this is what happens in most cases.  Note, though, that missing your deadlines and moving your schedule milestones to the right can only maintain costs to budget for a limited time.  If you indeed intend to complete your project and need to miss milestones because of lack of funding, you will always end up spending more money down the road in completing those milestones later, after there is any funding still allocated for doing so.

In other words,  you can reduce funding in a given period and stretch out your development timeframes, but the overall impact on the project will be to increase the cost over the life of the development.

If you can take a longer-look approach, it's always better to apply the resources needed to complete the project on time.  This way, you at least achieve on-time, if not on-budget.  If you take the route of extending the timeframes and pushing everything out to the right, you fail in both on-time and on-budget.

So, if you're going to fail on-budget anyway, why not fail all at once and at least achieve on-time?  Unfortunately, most entities which fund big development projects are so institutionally short-sighted that they simply can't see this logic.

And things don't get done.  Or worse, have a ton of money and resources spent on them that mostly gets wasted when the projects are canceled prior to completion.

 

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

I reckon SpaceX will be alright. Probably some minor slips but nothing significant beyond this point.

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX has a bigger team working on Dragon 2 than Boeing has on CST-100, dreamliner-in-space, or whatever it's called.

[Jim]

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

Lying to yourself is how people motivate themselves to get stuff done a lot of the time. Heck, set a realistic end target for somebody within a certain amount of time, and people will instinctively plop all the real hard work right at the end of that timeframe, because work is hard. The same applies to organisations along with individuals.

It's always more productive to demand the extreme from yourself (which you won't fulfil) rather than gun for a conservative realism and then end up stretching those timeframes out as well.

That Elon's MO.  Set an impossible deadline.

[meekGee]

What a beautiful way of saying that towards the end, the ability of people to lie to themselves is overcome by their desire not to be the last ones saying they are still on time...

Lying to yourself is how people motivate themselves to get stuff done a lot of the time. Heck, set a realistic end target for somebody within a certain amount of time, and people will instinctively plop all the real hard work right at the end of that timeframe, because work is hard. The same applies to organisations along with individuals.

It's always more productive to demand the extreme from yourself (which you won't fulfil) rather than gun for a conservative realism and then end up stretching those timeframes out as well.

The way I've seen it put best is to make your long-term goals grand, ambitious, and aspirational, make your short-term goals realistic and practical, but always a step in the direction of the grand long-term goals.

My experience had more to do with budgets and politics.

We were doing this project, managed by a NASA center.  Flight hardware.

Dialog went something like this:

"How long until we reach milestone A"?
"6 months"
"That's too long, they'll cancel us. Can you do this and that in parallel?"
"Yes, but it might not work together later"
"ok do that, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it".
... a bunch of other unrealistic ideas follow, and at the end the schedule estimate on paper is down to 3 months ...
"ok - so are you confident it can be done in 3 months?"
sigh.

But that's what happens - you operate in a world that is not entirely technical. There are irrelevant external constraints that are all too real.

You have to under-estimate in order to get the project.  You have to put up a plausible show of surprise and contrition when you invariably go over budget.

As a small subcontractor, I just watched it in amazement.  But once I've seen it up close, I could identify it in almost every government procurement instance out there.

Cough SLS cough.

I think similar processes occur within large companies even without government intervention... It's just that when a company reaches a certain size, and its divisions are so independent that the corporate identity is mostly in the name, it's basically a mini government in and of itself.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Yeah, right.  Just like FH.

I have been wondering whether SpaceX deliberately held back FH development while they were working out the kinks in F9 and especially F9 reuse. It would make sense to me to do that, since FH is largely based on F9.
Also, it seems like the payload increases in F9 have made FH less urgently needed compared to F9 1.0.

[DigitalMan]

Yeah, right.  Just like FH.

I have been wondering whether SpaceX deliberately held back FH development while they were working out the kinks in F9 and especially F9 reuse. It would make sense to me to do that, since FH is largely based on F9.
Also, it seems like the payload increases in F9 have made FH less urgently needed compared to F9 1.0.

No need to be wondering, Gwynne testified in congress that it had been put on the back burner quite a while ago.

[TomH]

Yeah, right.  Just like FH.

No. More like returning a first stage and landing it flying backwards-something virtually everyone said was not possible. And doing it in a matter of months, then doing it in the middle of the ocean on a tiny barge, then doing it with a brief three-engine burst and slam landing perfectly in the middle of a bullseye.

Yea, they got distracted......distracted by a total game changer that will make the tri-core far more efficient. I really don't have a problem with that. I call it being innovative and smart. Something old space not only isn't capable of, but has vested interests against doing anyway.

[launchwatcher]

I think similar processes occur within large companies even without government intervention...

I've seen it happen. 

[srtreadgold]

Yeah, right.  Just like FH.

No. More like returning a first stage and landing it flying backwards-something virtually everyone said was not possible.

Who said that was not possible? I doubt anyone ever said that. Very difficult but extremely possible.

[Jim]

1.  No. More like returning a first stage and landing it flying backwards-something virtually everyone said was not possible. And doing it in a matter of months, then doing it in the middle of the ocean on a tiny barge, then doing it with a brief three-engine burst and slam landing perfectly in the middle of a bullseye.

2. sipin
 Something old space not only isn't capable of,
snip

1.  Wrong.  Dragon is separate from Falcon.  There are separate teams.

2.  Unsupported opinion not based on any relevant data.

[envy887]

1.  Wrong.  Dragon is separate from Falcon.  There are separate teams.

Which is why Dragon isn't "just like Falcon Heavy". The Falcon team has more pressing matters at hand than flying Heavy.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

1.  Wrong.  Dragon is separate from Falcon.  There are separate teams.

Which is why Dragon isn't "just like Falcon Heavy". The Falcon team has more pressing matters at hand than flying Heavy.

Your mixing operations teams with development teams. Even there are some probable sharing of personnel these teams have independent tasks and goals. This goes for F9/FH teams as well as Dragon/Dragon2 teams.
F9 operations team
FH development team
Dragon operations team
Dragon2 development team

So nothing happening with the other teams has a significant impact on what the Dragon2 development team is doing.

Different team makeups have different skills and experience.

[envy887]

RTF and F9 recovery have probably significantly reduced the development resources available to get Heavy flying. F9 seems to be constantly in development.

[deruch]

That Elon's MO.  Set an impossible deadline.

You're right.  Elon's schedules seem to be based on the idea that everything works exactly as currently imagined and that everyone on the project goes full-bore, kamikaze effort to get it done on that timeline.  So, adjusting for the real world, it's essentially an impossible deadline.  But....

Next June (2017) it will have been 15 years since the founding of SpaceX.  In those 15 years, assuming that FH flies before then, they'll have designed, developed, tested, evaluated, and fielded 3.5 launch vehicles--1 small, 1.5 medium-intermediate, and 1 heavy (I'm giving half credit for the upgrades from F9v1.0 through to current version).  They've done the same for 6+ different engines--Merlins 1A/C/D/Vac, Kestrel, Draco, SuperDraco, and partial credit for M1B and whatever of Raptor they've finished by then.  Assuming Dragon 2 flies uncrewed by then, they'll have done the same for most of 2 different (though related) space capsules.  Both capable of reentry and 1 fully capable of carrying crews.  They'll have built up 3 working launch pads (plus however many revisions you want to count for partial credit here) and be on their way to a fourth.  Though, they had the benefit of starting with lots of prior infrastructure in place.  Plus, as a bonus, they'll have developed all the reuse tech and the test vehicles they needed to get them there. 

So, sure.  Elon's MO is to set impossible deadlines.  And none of those programs I listed above were actually done when he originally projected them to be finished.  But taken on the macro level, and considering the above, are people (not counting their customers whose revenue depends on timeliness) really complaining that SpaceX misses their development schedules?   

(Jim, I'm not saying that your comment was an example of that complaining.  Given your terse style, and the normal deficiencies of text based communication, it's hard to decipher what tone your comment had.  It could have just been simple observation.  But, I've seen enough people complaining on NSF and other platforms about the difference between when Elon has promised something and when he actually delivers it, to want to use it as a springboard.)


To bring this back to CCtCap (this thread's subject), the nice thing about the Fixed Price contracting is that schedule delays don't increase the program's cost to government.  Though, I guess, NASA being forced to buy additional seats on the Soyuz because the capsules aren't ready in time could be considered as a potential additional cost to government.  Though only for the difference in the price of a seat on a Dragon vs a seat on a Soyuz, so not all that much in the grand scheme of things.

[nadreck]

That Elon's MO.  Set an impossible deadline.

You're right.  Elon's schedules seem to be based on the idea that everything works exactly as currently imagined and that everyone on the project goes full-bore, kamikaze effort to get it done on that timeline.  So, adjusting for the real world, it's essentially an impossible deadline.  But....

If I create a schedule for a project and align everything to all the critical path items and don't leave room for any slippage of those critical path items then, in rocketry or software development or anything else, the schedule is unrealistically optimistic. But if I create a schedule, pad all the critical path items with a realistic buffer, and work to that schedule, then there will be many times that I use the buffer but didn't really need to, or I let non critical path items languish since the schedule didn't make them critical for far longer than they would have been.

Another way to express Musk's schedule management style is: "Plan for excellence, when we slip we slip and we own it, but we don't plan for slipping."  It actually comes down to whether you are playing the duffers game or the winners game.

[woods170]

Excuse me folks. This thread is about CCtCAP milestones and not about silly discussions about FH, Elon Musk and other unrelated subjects. So please, get back on-topic. Thank you.

[rockets4life97]

Anybody have an idea when we'll get to see an updated milestone chart? Do any of the commercial crew administrators giving presentations in the near future?

[alang]

That Elon's MO.  Set an impossible deadline.

You're right.  Elon's schedules seem to be based on the idea that everything works exactly as currently imagined and that everyone on the project goes full-bore, kamikaze effort to get it done on that timeline.  So, adjusting for the real world, it's essentially an impossible deadline.  But....

If I create a schedule for a project and align everything to all the critical path items and don't leave room for any slippage of those critical path items then, in rocketry or software development or anything else, the schedule is unrealistically optimistic. But if I create a schedule, pad all the critical path items with a realistic buffer, and work to that schedule, then there will be many times that I use the buffer but didn't really need to, or I let non critical path items languish since the schedule didn't make them critical for far longer than they would have been.

Another way to express Musk's schedule management style is: "Plan for excellence, when we slip we slip and we own it, but we don't plan for slipping."  It actually comes down to whether you are playing the duffers game or the winners game.

Other management techniques:
Give work to busy people so they'll get it out of the way so they can focus on other things.
Don't give people priorities. That way everything is a priority.

[rockets4life97]

New information from a presentation by Benjamin Reed courtesy of Stephen Clark on twitter.

[abaddon]

Text from the slide:

Program Milestones & Status

Recent completions
- Certification Baseline Review
- Pad Abort Test
- Avionics Test Bed Activation
- Initial Propulsion Module Testing
- Docking system qualification
- Critical Design Review
- Launch Site Operational Readiness (LSORR)
- Propulsive Descent Testing
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review
- Delta Critical Design Review
Major Upcoming Milestones
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2)
- LSORR for Crew
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing
- Space Suit Qualification
- Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR)
- Demo 1 autonomous flight to ISS
- Parachute Qualification Complete
- In-Flight Abort Test
- Design Certification Review (DCR)
- Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR)
- Demo 2 crewed flight to ISS
- Operations Readiness Review (ORR)
- Certification Review (R)
- Post Certification Missions

Not sure what the different colors in the future milestones are supposed to denote.  Lavender seems to be the default color, but there are also white and light blue lines of text.

[rockets4life97]

Milestone 6. Propulsive Land Testing Complete appears to have been split into 2 pieces:

A. Propulsive Descent Testing (Complete)
B. Validation Propulsion Module Testing (Incomplete)

Edit: 2 pieces, initial propulsion module testing was milestone 2.

[guckyfan]

C. Validation Propulsion Module Testing (Incomplete)

Sounds like something NASA will do using the data provided by SpaceX?

[woods170]

According to Benjamin Reed, director of SpaceX’s commercial crew program, SpaceX is 'on track' to launch astronauts in 2017. Crew access arm and other crew related systems to be installed at LC-39A this summer.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/25/spacex-on-track-to-launch-astronauts-in-late-2017/

[deruch]

Not sure what the different colors in the future milestones are supposed to denote.  Lavender seems to be the default color, but there are also white and light blue lines of text.

The light blue color seems to be for actual launches.  Both demonstration missions, the inflight abort, and any post certification missions.

[whitelancer64]

Not sure what the different colors in the future milestones are supposed to denote.  Lavender seems to be the default color, but there are also white and light blue lines of text.

I can explain the mystery of the colors. The light colored (possibly white?) are NASA required milestones - the dCDR2, FTCR, ORR, and CR. The lavender are SpaceX milestones. The light blue are flight tests.

[abaddon]

It's almost identical with added dates for completed milestones.  A couple of items are shuffled presumably by out-of-order completion.  "Critical Design Review" was moved up after "Avionics Test Bed Activation" and "Docking system qualification" now comes after "Propulsive Descent Testing".  This one also omits "Post Certification Missions".  There are no other differences that I can see.

[yg1968]

According to Benjamin Reed, director of SpaceX’s commercial crew program, SpaceX is 'on track' to launch astronauts in 2017. Crew access arm and other crew related systems to be installed at LC-39A this summer.

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/05/25/spacex-on-track-to-launch-astronauts-in-late-2017/

From the article:

Reed said SpaceX hopes to certify the Crew Dragon’s propulsive landing capability, which will allow for helicopter-like touchdowns on a landing pad, some time after spacecraft begins flying astronauts. “That’s certainly the plan, and we’ll work closely with NASA to decide the right time to introduce propulsive landing,” Reed said. [...] “We’re still working (on propulsive landing) right now, but the first thing is to make sure were certified to get the crew up and bring them back safely,” he said.

[whitelancer64]

A very similar slide was shown at the Space Tech Expo this week by Garrett Reisman, Director of Space Operations.

I decided to reproduce the information in the document for the record. Similar to the above, rearranged a bit to chronological order of completion and (I assume) anticipated order for completion of the upcoming milestones.

Program Milestones & Certification

Recent completions:
- Certification Baseline Review (Dec 2014)
- Pad Abort Test (May 2015)
- Avionics Test Bed Activation (June 2015)
- Critical Design Review (Oct 2015)
- Initial Propulsion Module Testing (Nov 2015)
- Launch Site Operational Readiness (LSORR) (Nov 2015)
- Propulsive Descent Testing (Dec 2015)
- Docking system qualification (Dec 2015)
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review (Dec 2015)
- Delta Critical Design Review (Dec 2015)

Major Upcoming Milestones:
- LSORR for Crew
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2)
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing
- Space Suit Qualification
- Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR)
- Demo 1 autonomous flight to ISS
- Parachute Qualification Complete
- In-Flight Abort Test
- Design Certification Review (DCR)
- Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR)
- Demo 2 crewed flight to ISS
- Operations Readiness Review (ORR)
- Certification Review (R)
- Post Certification Missions

[wannamoonbase]

Are the space suits an internal SpaceX goal or required by contract?

I had assumed that NASA would want to use their own suits.

[starsilk]

Are the space suits an internal SpaceX goal or required by contract?

I had assumed that NASA would want to use their own suits.

suits are matched to the capsule, same for Starliner. they are purpose built to match up with seats, ECLS etc.

[meberbs]

If I remember right, from the source selection documentation, the spacesuits are part of the contract formed out of SpaceX's proposal, but NASA didn't particularly like that SpaceX included them in their bid, and this was listed as a detriment to their proposal. Since it was an integral part of the bid though, NASA's only other option would have been to not select SpaceX.

In other words, they are not originally a NASA imposed requirement, but they are now required to be done, since SpaceX isn't integrating the Dragon 2 with NASA suits per the contract.

[the_other_Doug]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

I know, from several interviews, that Elon is personally involved in the suit design process.  I think he sees the suit design as something that will be a big part of the SpaceX crewed spaceflight "brand," and wants it to represent his vision.

It will be quite interesting to see what SpaceX actually comes up with for final suit design.  I guarantee you that, if Musk has any say in the matter (and he does), it will not feature that "carrying a load in my diaper" look that the Russian Sokol launch/entry suits have.  Musk has spoken repeatedly and specifically to that point...

[mme]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

I know, from several interviews, that Elon is personally involved in the suit design process.  I think he sees the suit design as something that will be a big part of the SpaceX crewed spaceflight "brand," and wants it to represent his vision.

It will be quite interesting to see what SpaceX actually comes up with for final suit design.  I guarantee you that, if Musk has any say in the matter (and he does), it will not feature that "carrying a load in my diaper" look that the Russian Sokol launch/entry suits have.  Musk has spoken repeatedly and specifically to that point...

I think it's more than just branding for his vision.  SpaceX wants to send humans other places than the ISS for NASA.  They'll need spacesuits so they better learn how to make them.

[whitelancer64]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

<snip>

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be closely derived from the ACES, it's being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

[joek]

There is CCiCap-CCtCap mix-and-match in that presentation, and a couple new milestones not previously seen...

CCiCap milestones; should not be listed as CCtCap:
- Pad Abort Test (complete May-2015)
- In-Flight Abort Test (milestone date?)

New CCtCap milestones since last report:
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review (complete Dec-2015)
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2) (milestone date?)

I have not included dCDR2 in the chart as I don't have any dates for it.

[joek]

I can explain the mystery of the colors. The light colored (possibly white?) are NASA required milestones - the dCDR2, FTCR, ORR, and CR. The lavender are SpaceX milestones. The light blue are flight tests.

Careful.  They are all required milestones as jointly agreed to by the provider and NASA and to which both are contractually obligated.

NASA explicitly required only three milestones per the CCtCap RFP: Certification Baseline Review (CBR); Design Certification Review (DCR); and "one or more interim milestones...representing work culminating in a significant design review between CBR and the first DCR...".  All of those roll up into one contract line item (CLIN) DDTE/Certification CLIN-001 (if you don't fulfill that CLIN, you don't get certified).

Those "one or more interim milestones" were required by the RFP to be proposed by the provider as part of the performance work statement (PWS).  If NASA felt the vendor's proposal was insufficient, NASA may have pushed back and said "we want something more between X and Y".

In short, instead of NASA specifying and requiring a laundry list of CCtCap milestones, NASA defined a couple anchor milestones and left it up to the providers to fill in the rest.  Which IMHO was good as it allowed the greatest possible freedom to providers in their approach and plan.  Which is also why the SpaceX and Boeing milestones are so different and difficult to compare.

edit: Ah, I see where you probably got "required"; those others appear to be associated with the crew test flight post-DCR.  I should annotate those in the chart to distinguish between the three types of milestones.  Now I gotta go back and reconcile them again.  But thanks for pointing it out.

[deruch]

There is CCiCap-CCtCap mix-and-match in that presentation, and a couple new milestones not previously seen...

CCiCap milestones; should not be listed as CCtCap:
- Pad Abort Test (complete May-2015)
- In-Flight Abort Test (milestone date?)

New CCtCap milestones since last report:
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review (complete Dec-2015)
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2) (milestone date?)

I have not included dCDR2 in the chart as I don't have any dates for it.

Nice chart.  SpaceX's Critical Design Review that you have listed as added, is actually left over from CCiCap.  That was the milestone that they had split into like 5 different pieces (13-A,B,C,...).  They had one last part outstanding and finally finished it.  That's why it doesn't show up in the original CCtCap list.  It isn't a new milestone, but an old one. 

[joek]

Nice chart.  SpaceX's Critical Design Review that you have listed as added, is actually left over from CCiCap.  That was the milestone that they had split into like 5 different pieces (13-A,B,C,...).  They had one last part outstanding and finally finished it.  That's why it doesn't show up in the original CCtCap list.  It isn't a new milestone, but an old one.

Thanks.  That info is from Gerstenmaier's McCallister's NAC presentation; he (unlike some others) is usually precise and careful to not mix CCtCap, CCiCap, etc.  If you have a credible reference that this refers to a CCiCap milestone, thanks in advance and I'll remove it.

edit: On second thought, should probably simply note that milestone as a possible CCiCap leftover (potentially referenced accidentally in CCtCap presentations), pending clarification from a credible source.

[yg1968]

Joek,

I think that you are right. Delta CDR in this context is a CCtCap milestone. A CCiCap milestone (13-e) with a somewhat similar name was completed on December 15, 2015. But it has a slightly different name. It's called "Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review" (not Delta CDR).

See pages 5 and 6 of this NAC Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

[joek]

Joek,

I think that you are right. Delta CDR in this context is a CCtCap milestone. A CCiCap milestone (13-e) with a similar name was completed on December 15, 2015. But it has a slightly different name. It's called "Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review" (not Delta CDR).

See pages 5 and 6 of this NAC Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

Thanks.  Oooh... just noticed some other dates that should be updated.  Why oh why can't NASA produce consistent and comparable reports on a regular basis in an automation-friendly form?  (Never mind, rhetorical question, I know the answer, just me grumbling.)  And [grumble] Keeping track of this and divining dates and milestones from those charts makes my head hurt. [/grumble]

[Roy_H]

Great chart, joek, thanks for the contribution and updates. 

[rockets4life97]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

[yg1968]

Some SpaceX news on CCtCap:

McAlister: expect to formally award 2nd post-certification comm’l crew mission to SpaceX “real soon” (1st awarded last Nov; Boeing has 2)

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757945934168719360

McAlister: surprised SpaceX decided to develop their own spacesuits in-house, but they’ve done a real good job, on 3rd or 4th prototype now.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757946881724944390

McAlister: the crewed test flights Boeing and SpaceX will fly will dock to the ISS for an unspecified period, likely “some number of weeks”.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757947789632339968

McAlister: when SpaceX completed delta CDR 2 in Aug or early Sept, will be “turning the corner” in locking down design.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757953578472398848

McAlister: we’re getting more comfortable with SpaceX’s use of densified propellants on F9, but not there yet.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757956481551433728

[enzo]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing? And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

[Comga]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing?
And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

(my emphasis)
The "large volume of hydrazine" HAS TO "be permitted at ISS" because every mission that gets to the ISS will, by definition, not have aborted, and the fuel for the abort will still be on board Dragon 2.  That's the "magic" of powered landings.  The fuel is loaded in any case.  The only "cost" is carrying it from the upper limit of the abort range to orbit. 

[Lars-J]

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing? And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Shuttle probably carried far more of it than Dragon 2 ever would. And all visiting vehicles to ISS carry some load of storable propellant.

[GabrielP]

The "several tests" are likely to include (possibly consist mainly of) powered splashdowns at sea, similar to how the F9 first stage experimental landings started, perhaps parachute-assisted as well.

Of course there's still some risk of something going awry resulting in the capsule taking a bigger hit than the usual parachute splashdown, but would that be low enough for NASA to accept with their cargo (or even astronauts) on board?

[JamesH65]

The "several tests" are likely to include (possibly consist mainly of) powered splashdowns at sea, similar to how the F9 first stage experimental landings started, perhaps parachute-assisted as well.

Of course there's still some risk of something going awry resulting in the capsule taking a bigger hit than the usual parachute splashdown, but would that be low enough for NASA to accept with their cargo (or even astronauts) on board?

They have a barge they could use, if the early test dragons don't have legs, they could just put a big crush zone to absorb any landing speed. Assuming their accuracy is good enough, which I presume it will be.

[rds100]

Why splashdown at sea and deal with salt water? Why not splashdown in an artificial lake or even in a pool?

[guckyfan]

Why splashdown at sea and deal with salt water? Why not splashdown in an artificial lake or even in a pool?

Much better still, do powered landings on land. Initially parachutes with engine assist. then fully powered landing. NASA should have a few missions where there is no highly valuable downmass.

[rds100]

Yes, but landing on a firm land will probably require some sort of legs, which we haven't seen yet. Although the Soyuz doesn't have any legs, so obviously there is a way.
On the other hand a powered splashdown in a pool could be done without legs.

[IainMcClatchie]

They are pretty accurate at landing that first stage, and the capsule should have even better lift and so more manoeverability.  Maybe they can land it on a crushable bed with no legs.

They'll want legs for Mars, so they're going that way anyway.  And they've shown mock-ups of the capsule with legs.

[docmordrid]

Yes, but landing on a firm land will probably require some sort of legs, which we haven't seen yet.
>

They've probably evolved since, but the legs were photographed by Helodriver(?) at the Dragon v2 introduction and they've changed little in SpaceX artwork since. Maybe a tad longer.

[dglow]

I don't think we know the Falcon Heavy demo flight's payload... if Dragon 2, the demo could a dress rehearsal for Mars 2018 and a propulsive landing test.

The FH Demo is effectively a 'free' flight. Won't NASA mandate parachutes+water landings for all Commercial Crew flights through 2018 (at least)?

[starsilk]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing?
And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

(my emphasis)
The "large volume of hydrazine" HAS TO "be permitted at ISS" because every mission that gets to the ISS will, by definition, not have aborted, and the fuel for the abort will still be on board Dragon 2.  That's the "magic" of powered landings.  The fuel is loaded in any case.  The only "cost" is carrying it from the upper limit of the abort range to orbit.

not true.. NASA *could* insist the majority of it is burned off before approaching the ISS, as a 'third stage'.

doing so would of course mean that Dragon would have to do a parachute landing, which is going to be the case for the first few flights anyway.

[llanitedave]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing?
And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

(my emphasis)
The "large volume of hydrazine" HAS TO "be permitted at ISS" because every mission that gets to the ISS will, by definition, not have aborted, and the fuel for the abort will still be on board Dragon 2.  That's the "magic" of powered landings.  The fuel is loaded in any case.  The only "cost" is carrying it from the upper limit of the abort range to orbit.

not true.. NASA *could* insist the majority of it is burned off before approaching the ISS, as a 'third stage'.

doing so would of course mean that Dragon would have to do a parachute landing, which is going to be the case for the first few flights anyway.

And NASA *could* insist that all future astronauts to the ISS wear blue face paint and shave their heads.  But there's no reason to expect they *would* do such a thing.  Why do you expect them to suddenly panic at the thought of hydrazine?

[starsilk]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing?
And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

(my emphasis)
The "large volume of hydrazine" HAS TO "be permitted at ISS" because every mission that gets to the ISS will, by definition, not have aborted, and the fuel for the abort will still be on board Dragon 2.  That's the "magic" of powered landings.  The fuel is loaded in any case.  The only "cost" is carrying it from the upper limit of the abort range to orbit.

not true.. NASA *could* insist the majority of it is burned off before approaching the ISS, as a 'third stage'.

doing so would of course mean that Dragon would have to do a parachute landing, which is going to be the case for the first few flights anyway.

And NASA *could* insist that all future astronauts to the ISS wear blue face paint and shave their heads.  But there's no reason to expect they *would* do such a thing.  Why do you expect them to suddenly panic at the thought of hydrazine?

I didn't say I expected them to do that. I was just pointing out the fallacy of Comga's argument that NASA 'HAS TO' accept it. no they don't.

[abaddon]

I didn't say I expected them to do that. I was just pointing out the fallacy of Comga's argument that NASA 'HAS TO' accept it. no they don't.

It's more accurate to say NASA has accepted it... because they have.  To argue "has to" versus "has" seems a bit pedantic to me.

[BrianNH]

Musk could have been thinking about high altitude drops from a helicopter.  The intent being to test the propulsive landing rather than the TPS system.  Much more cost effective than a launch.  Still, Mars' thinner atmosphere can't realistically be replicated on Earth.

[AS-503]

With regard to the large-ish amount of hydrazine on board the Dragon 2 capsule being permitted at the ISS....
What about the equally large or larger amount of hydrazine in the Shuttles' OMS pods and RCS system?
Hasn't that presumably large quantity of hydrazine already been at the ISS on every Shuttle mission?

[JamesH65]

Musk could have been thinking about high altitude drops from a helicopter.  The intent being to test the propulsive landing rather than the TPS system.  Much more cost effective than a launch.  Still, Mars' thinner atmosphere can't realistically be replicated on Earth.

Is a Dragon small enough to drop out the back of a C17 GlobemasterIII ? I suspect so since they can carry battletanks.

That might be a cheap option for test from higher altitudes than a helicopter. If they can borrow/hire one more cheaply than using a reused F9.

[dglow]

Musk could have been thinking about high altitude drops from a helicopter.  The intent being to test the propulsive landing rather than the TPS system.  Much more cost effective than a launch.  Still, Mars' thinner atmosphere can't realistically be replicated on Earth.

There is a thin portion of Earth's upper atmosphere which mimics that of Mars. The HIAD team makes use of this when testing their design, which is intended for Mars EDL.

[enzo]

Alright I started this so I will try to conclude it. Question answered—yes, it is feasible to bring the Dragon 2 back down from ISS to propulsive landing test, and the downmass cargo is not likely to be an issue, but if it is then water landing may appease the faint of heart.
(As for parachutes, of course they will use parachutes at first for crew return, but I was talking about the uncrewed test.)

[dglow]

(As for parachutes, of course they will use parachutes at first for crew return, but I was talking about the uncrewed test.)

Understood, however: if that 'uncrewed test' is part of the Commercial Crew program then it's more than likely that NASA will demand a non-propulsive water landing.

This is how the first crews will land... test like you fly.

[enzo]

(As for parachutes, of course they will use parachutes at first for crew return, but I was talking about the uncrewed test.)

Understood, however: if that 'uncrewed test' is part of the Commercial Crew program then it's more than likely that NASA will demand a non-propulsive water landing.

This is how the first crews will land... test like you fly.

Not disputing your logic, but there is a parachute drop test(s) prior to crew.
But the more parachute tests the better, you say.
Sure, so why not do this: multiple parachute-only drop tests, and one SuperDraco-only landing test (uncrewed ISS mission) prior to crew return — this enables redundancy for landing, whereas testing only parachute-dependent landings (albeit one using SuperDraco "padded" landing) leaves no redundancy for the crew.

[joek]

Progression expected:
1. Parachutes on water -- stated as the baseline.
2. Parachutes + propulsive on water  (conjecture) -- to prove propulsive terminal capabilities.
3. Parachutes + propulsive on ground -- probably for cargo.
4. Propulsive on ground -- possibly for cargo; possibly never for crew.
Cargo would lead crew.
Remember we are talking about CCtCap here (crew), not cargo.

[joek]

With regard to the large-ish amount of hydrazine on board the Dragon 2 capsule being permitted at the ISS....
What about the equally large or larger amount of hydrazine in the Shuttles' OMS pods and RCS system?
Hasn't that presumably large quantity of hydrazine already been at the ISS on every Shuttle mission?

Correct that quantities of hyperbolics should not be an issue.  Boeing also as a similar issue, and has also mumbled about CST-100's potential ability to help with ISS reboost--although they seem to have gone mum on that subject.

[guckyfan]

[quote author=AS-503 link=topic=39832.msg1564072#msg1564072
Correct that quantities of hyperbolics should not be an issue.  Boeing also as a similar issue, and has also mumbled about CST-100's potential ability to help with ISS reboost--although they seem to have gone mum on that subject.

There has always been a lot of hyperbole around the Shuttle. 

I do wonder about reboost. It has been said that the ports are in the wrong position. But the Shuttle did reboosts, right? The Shuttle docking port is one of the ports for CC vehicles so why not? Is it about reorientation of the ISS?

[joek]

There has always been a lot of hyperbole around the Shuttle. 

Glad someone caught that .  Seriously, any of these vehicles may be capable of ISS re-boost.  Question is how much is it worth vs. just continuing with the status quo?  Likely answer: not much.

[guckyfan]

Seriously, any of these vehicles may be capable of ISS re-boost.  Question is how much is it worth vs. just continuing with the status quo?  Likely answer: not much.

I agree, there is no need as long as the cooperation with Russia continues. What I slightly object to is the argument it cannot be done.

Edit: Fixed quote.

[Comga]

(snip)
I do wonder about reboost. It has been said that the ports are in the wrong position. But the Shuttle did reboosts, right? The Shuttle docking port is one of the ports for CC vehicles so why not? Is it about reorientation of the ISS?

The Shuttle had ACS thrusters well away from the docking port.
These include the ones on the OMS pods, which we well below the ISS when docked.
Even the ones by the nose are pretty far from the central axis.
Does anyone here know which Shuttle thrusters were used?
For Dragon to do a reboost might require rotating the entire ISS to put it in the rear.  That can be done, but it's a major undertaking for a half million kilogram satellite.

But this is not a CCtCAP milestone, so I will stop here.

[Targeteer]

July 29, 2016 
RELEASE 16-080
NASA Orders Second SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station
 <http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/16-080.jpg>
This artist's concept shows a SpaceX Crew Dragon docking with the International Space Station, as it will during a mission for NASA's Commercial Crew Program. NASA is partnering with Boeing and SpaceX to build a new generation of human-rated spacecraft capable of taking astronauts to the station and back to Earth, thereby expanding research opportunities in orbit.


NASA took another important step Friday in returning U.S. astronaut launches from U.S. soil with the order of a second post-certification mission from commercial provider SpaceX in Hawthorne, California. Commercial crew flights from Florida’s Space Coast to the International Space Station will restore America’s human spaceflight launch capability and increase the time U.S. crews can dedicate to scientific research, which is helping prepare astronauts for deep space missions, including the Journey to Mars.

"The order of a second crew rotation mission from SpaceX, paired with the two ordered from Boeing will help ensure reliable access to the station on American spacecraft and rockets," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "These systems will ensure reliable U.S. crew rotation services to the station, and will serve as a lifeboat for the space station for up to seven months."

This is the fourth and final guaranteed order NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. Boeing received its two orders in May <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/commercial-crew-milestones-met-partners-on-track-for-missions-in-2017>  and December <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-second-boeing-crew-mission-to-international-space-station>  of 2015, and SpaceX received its first order in November <http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-orders-spacex-crew-mission-to-international-space-station>  2015. Both companies have started planning for, building and testing the necessary hardware and assets to carry out their first flight tests, and ultimately missions for the agency.

At a later time, NASA will identify which company will fly the first post-certification mission to the space station. Each provider’s contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions.

SpaceX met the criteria for this latest award after it successfully completed interim developmental milestones and internal design reviews for its Crew Dragon spacecraft, Falcon 9 rocket and associated ground systems.

"We’re making great progress with Crew Dragon, with qualification of our docking adapter and initial acceptance testing of the pressure vessel qualification unit completed" said Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX president and chief operating officer. “We appreciate the trust NASA has placed in SpaceX with the order of another crew mission and look forward to flying astronauts from American soil next year."

SpaceX is building four Crew Dragon spacecraft at its Hawthorne facility -- two for qualification testing and two for flight tests next year. The company also is in the process of modifying Launch Pad 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, from which the company will launch future crewed missions to the space station.

A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry as many as four crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo, and remain at the station for as long as 210 days, available as an emergency lifeboat during that time.

“With the commercial crew vehicles from Boeing and SpaceX, we will soon add a seventh crew member to space station missions, which will significantly increase the amount of crew time to conduct research,” said Julie Robinson, NASA’s International Space Station chief scientist. “Given the number of investigations waiting for the crew to be able to complete their research, having more crew members will enable NASA and our partners to significantly increase the important research being done every day for the benefit of all humanity.”

Orders under the CCtCap contracts are made two to three years prior to actual mission dates in order to provide time for each company to manufacture and assemble the launch vehicle and spacecraft. Each company also must successfully complete a certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manages the CCtCap contracts and is working with each company to ensure commercial transportation system designs and post-certification missions will meet the agency’s safety requirements. Activities that follow the award of missions include a series of mission-related reviews and approvals leading to launch. The program also will be involved in all operational phases of missions.

For more information about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew <http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew>

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew

[the_other_Doug]

Any chance the Max-Q flight abort test could involve a test of propulsive landing?  There would be no downmass, and the flight abort test is supposed to now be using a "real" Dragon 2 vehicle.  You could have parachute backup if propulsion failed early on to make sure you save the vehicle, but could do a propulsive landing into the ocean, or even onto OCSISLY.

Then again, would the abort itself use up too much fuel for there to be enough left for a propulsive landing, even from the lower speed and altitude from which the Dragon would be starting out?

[John Alan]

The abort is going to use a lot of on board prop in a very short time to outrun a speeding rocket on it's azz... 
My guess is the tanks will run dry in short order... 

My other guess is SpX will use simulated landings at first during Dragon 2 actual flights later... 
Pick a safe (say 10K feet) height and try to stop midair at that point... then resume free fall and pop the chutes.
If you can hit X/Y gps location at Z altitude and 0 velocity... you landed it... in a way... 

They could use a cargo plane to get above this point repeatably I guess... if they wanted more testing...
As long at it drops it high enough to reach terminal velocity AND steady state controlled flight...
(heat shield down and under controlled flight)
C-17 at 35K feet... maybe 

Point is... they can test it on every reentry of the D2... till everyone is comfortable with it...
Then reset it to ground level and go for it on the next flight... 

[deruch]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

Foust only tweeted out the "Major Milestones" chart.  There was a more complete one at the end of the presentation that it came from.  The full slides can be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

Attaching the 2 most relevant ones for this thread, including the fuller milestones chart.

[deruch]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

Foust only tweeted out the "Major Milestones" chart.  There was a more complete one at the end of the presentation that it came from.  The full slides can be found at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

Attaching the 2 most relevant ones for this thread, including the fuller milestones chart.

By the way, what the heck is "Gz Studies"?

[TrueBlueWitt]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?
Is it required due Margin shortfall with increased mass of Dragon 2 over Cargo Dragon?

Personally I think I'd feel safer on the base S1 design that's flown a bunch of times.

[AncientU]

Does this get them closer to qualifying the FH as well as F9 for crew?

[Mike_1179]

By the way, what the heck is "Gz Studies"?

Guessing here, but evaluating the impact of acceleration along the head-to-foot (or head-to-posterior) axis during launch and re-entry. Acceleration along the Gz axis is the one that pulls blood away from your brain and can lead to passing out. Launch and re-entry profile can impact the peak and sustained acceleration along each axis, so they are looking at how changes to OML, center of mass / center of pressure, energy management during descent (how you rotate the capsule to change where the lift vector points) impact these accelerations.

[Jim]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?

Doesn't say it is the core for the FH, it likely is the strap on

[Jim]

Does this get them closer to qualifying the FH as well as F9 for crew?

Not as it relates to NASA. 

[DanielW]

One note I hadn't realized, and maybe just because I haven't paid enough attention?

"Common First Stage w/Falcon Heavy Design"

They chose the beefier FH S1 design to add margin for Crew Rating?

Doesn't say it is the core for the FH, it likely is the strap on

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

[Jim]

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

If it isn't for NASA, then there is no need for this exercise or any of these paths.

[Nomadd]

Would it make sense to use the core for leo becuase dragon would presumably use FH for beo? I would assume NASA would not care since they are not ordering BEO missions, but spacex may be interested in a single qualification path so they can sell higher energy manned missions to whomever.

If it isn't for NASA, then there is no need for this exercise or any of these paths.

The possibilty of NASA being one of the customers in the future sort of means it is for them. They wouldn't want to have to make serious hardware changes after it's flying to meet NASA standards. I take it that DanielW incldes NASA in "whomever"

[gongora]

I think ya'll are reading too much into a PowerPoint bullet. I doubt it means that they are actually using FH cores, or even FH side boosters.

[Space Ghost 1962]

FWIW, think the comment just is meant to imply that accumulating flight history on FH/F9 boosters for what it means to crew program, is the same, in maturing/reducing risk of the vehicle.

[BruceM]

Not sure if everyone saw the recent delays in Boeing's milestones from SpaceNews.com:

Under the revised schedule, a pad abort test of the CST-100, previously scheduled for October 2017, is now planned for January 2018. An uncrewed CST-100 flight, called the Orbital Flight Test, has shifted from December 2017 to June 2018.

A crewed flight test of the CST-100 to the International Space Station, carrying a NASA astronaut and Boeing test pilot, has been delayed from February to August 2018. If that schedule holds, Being anticipates flying its first operational, or “post-certification,” CST-100 mission to the ISS in December 2018.

Not really a big fan of Boeing but would much prefer seeing them carrying astronauts than the Russians so hope they can stay on the new schedule.

Wonder to what extent SpaceX might be helped or hindered by the current down time.  Any thoughts?

[OnWithTheShow]

I would imagine Dragon development is probably continuing unabated.

[BruceM]

Wonder to what extent SpaceX might be helped or hindered by the current down time.  Any thoughts?

Thank you for your good thoughts, OnWithTheShow.  Here are a few factors that seemed maybe relevant:

Possibly contributing to a delay:
1. The 'all hands on deck' approach to RTF might take resources or at least management attention away from the CCtCAP effort.
2. IIRC the in-filght abort test was scheduled to use SLC-39A sometime during the last month or two of this year.  SpaceX now seems to be targeting RTF for December of this year and has said they would resume by using SLC-39A.  Once RTF happens it would seem there will be much pressure on SpaceX to catch back up on its launch manifest which might make test time on SLC-39A hard to come by.

Possibly favoring CCtCAP development:
1. Last year when SX had down time waiting for RTF it seemed they used that time well.  At RTF their first launch was their first Falcon v1.1 full thrust with subcooled oxygen and cooled RP-1 among many other enhancements.  Interestingly, that first flight was also their first successful recovery of a first stage on land.  Could this all have been coincidence or were they somehow able to refocus resources?
2. Would it be possible for SX to use operational or other resources (such as assigning one or more new hires) originally targeted to other areas to the CCtCAP effort?

Or maybe OnWithTheShow nailed it and and there will be no net effect.

[gongora]

2. IIRC the in-filght abort test was scheduled to use SLC-39A sometime during the last month or two of this year.  SpaceX now seems to be targeting RTF for December of this year and has said they would resume by using SLC-39A.  Once RTF happens it would seem there will be much pressure on SpaceX to catch back up on its launch manifest which might make test time on SLC-39A hard to come by.

The in-flight abort slipped out of 2016 a long time ago.  We shouldn't be surprised if it happens in early 2018 now.

1. Last year when SX had down time waiting for RTF it seemed they used that time well.  At RTF their first launch was their first Falcon v1.1 full thrust with subcooled oxygen and cooled RP-1 among many other enhancements.  Interestingly, that first flight was also their first successful recovery of a first stage on land.  Could this all have been coincidence or were they somehow able to refocus resources?

This actually did seem to be coincidence based on the timing of their accident.

[AbuSimbel]

1. Last year when SX had down time waiting for RTF it seemed they used that time well.  At RTF their first launch was their first Falcon v1.1 full thrust with subcooled oxygen and cooled RP-1 among many other enhancements.  Interestingly, that first flight was also their first successful recovery of a first stage on land.  Could this all have been coincidence or were they somehow able to refocus resources?

This actually did seem to be coincidence based on the timing of their accident.

I don't think it's a coincidence: I've seen comments from SpaceX employees on Reddit that said they were able to work faster on other projects while F9 production line was halted in 2015.

[BruceM]

Very interesting.
-
Wonder if that might have implications for RTF this time as well and, if so, what they might be.

[rockets4life97]

Some updates:

10  Flight to ISS Without Crew: now November 2017
16  Flight to ISS with Crew: now May 2018

8  Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR): was 3 months before uncrewed flight, so likely Aug 2017
14  Design Certification Review (DCR): was 1 month after uncrewed flight, so likely Dec 2017
15  Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR): was 1 month before crewed flight, so likely April 2018
17  Operations Readiness Review (ORR): was 3 months after crewed flight, so likely Aug 2018
18  Certification Review (CR): was 3 months after ORR, so likely November 2018


9   ECLSS Integrated Test Complete: probably Q1 2017 (see below)
11  Parachute Qualification Complete: may be on track for this month, but likely Q1 2017 (see below)
12  Space Suit Qualification Testing Complete: probably Q1 2017 (see below)
13  Launch Site Operational Readiness Review for Crew: probably Q2 2017 (see below)

A few SpaceX notes from listening to the presentation by Kathy Lueders at the NAC HEO Committee meeting yesterday (you can find the recordings here).

The first round of structural tests on Crew Dragon are done, continuing with further testing.
They should do the space suit qualification next quarter.
They have their 5th parachute test scheduled for this coming Saturday.
The crew access arm is at LC-39A, they are waiting until Spring to install it so SpaceX can get the pad up and running for their other launches.
They have been doing unit testing on the ECLSS systems and are getting ready for integrated testing.

[DOCinCT]

Some updates:

10  Flight to ISS Without Crew: now November 2017
16  Flight to ISS with Crew: now May 2018

8  Flight Test without Crew Certification Review (FTCR): was 3 months before uncrewed flight, so likely Aug 2017
14  Design Certification Review (DCR): was 1 month after unscrewed flight, so likely Dec 2017
15  Flight Test Readiness Review (FTRR): was 1 month before crewed flight, so likely April 2018
17  Operations Readiness Review (ORR): was 3 months after crewed flight, so likely Aug 2018
18  Certification Review (CR): was 3 months after ORR, so likely November 2018


9   ECLSS Integrated Test Complete: probably Q1 2017 (see below)
11  Parachute Qualification Complete: may be on track for this month, but likely Q1 2017 (see below)
12  Space Suit Qualification Testing Complete: probably Q1 2017 (see below)
13  Launch Site Operational Readiness Review for Crew: probably Q2 2017 (see below)

A few SpaceX notes from listening to the presentation by Kathy Lueders at the NAC HEO Committee meeting yesterday (you can find the recordings here).

The first round of structural tests on Crew Dragon are done, continuing with further testing.
They should do the space suit qualification next quarter.
They have their 5th parachute test scheduled for this coming Saturday.
The crew access arm is at LC-39A, they are waiting until Spring to install it so SpaceX can get the pad up and running for their other launches.
They have been doing unit testing on the ECLSS systems and are getting ready for integrated testing.

So where will the in-flight abort test be?

[rockets4life97]

So where will the in-flight abort test be?

It is after the uncrewed flight and before the crewed flight. So, probably something like February 2018. It isn't on this list because it isn't technically a CCtCAP milestone. SpaceX proposed the the pad abort and inflight abort tests under the previous development contract leading up to the CCtCAP.

[DOCinCT]

So where will the in-flight abort test be?

It is after the uncrewed flight and before the crewed flight. So, probably something like February 2018. It isn't on this list because it isn't technically a CCtCAP milestone. SpaceX proposed the the pad abort and inflight abort tests under the previous development contract leading up to the CCtCAP.

I would think you would want to know the abort system works before being asked to fly a mission.

[rockets4life97]

Boeing won't be doing an inflight abort. The pad abort will be considered enough.

[envy887]

So where will the in-flight abort test be?

It is after the uncrewed flight and before the crewed flight. So, probably something like February 2018. It isn't on this list because it isn't technically a CCtCAP milestone. SpaceX proposed the the pad abort and inflight abort tests under the previous development contract leading up to the CCtCAP.

I would think you would want to know the abort system works before being asked to fly a mission.

It's already been tested. And it's not exactly needed for the uncrewed flight.

[deruch]

10  Flight to ISS Without Crew: now November 2017
<snip>

11  Parachute Qualification Complete: may be on track for this month, but likely Q1 2017 (see below)

The Parachute Qualification won't be complete until after DM-1 (non-crew flight).  They'll use data from that flight as part of the qualification.  See the calendar in the bottom attachment of this comment.  They are planning on more than 5 tests.  A whole slew of them.  Here's part of NASA's statement after the fourth(?) test last August:

The parachute test is just one of an evaluation regimen that is expected to include many additional parachute drops of increasing complexity. (emphasis added)

 
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2016/08/19/spacex-conducts-successful-crew-dragon-parachute-system-test/

[rockets4life97]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/eclss-put-to-the-test-for-commercial-crew-missions

I wonder if this is a signal that the "ECLSS Integrated Test Complete" milestone is finished or getting close.

[whitelancer64]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/eclss-put-to-the-test-for-commercial-crew-missions

I wonder if this is a signal that the "ECLSS Integrated Test Complete" milestone is finished or getting close.

Nice to see (what are presumably very close to) the flight windows!

Also the pictures linked in the NASA article are enormous. Tons of details in there. I must say, I do like the lift with "DRAGON R&D" painted on it

[Lars-J]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/eclss-put-to-the-test-for-commercial-crew-missions

I wonder if this is a signal that the "ECLSS Integrated Test Complete" milestone is finished or getting close.

And here are the images:

[Roy_H]

Chart from March 28, 2017 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37802.380
Also updated listing on first page.

[woods170]

Chart from November 2017.

[Roy_H]

Thanks, woods170 for posting this. I have updated dates on my first post list, but it is not complete as there are now many more milestones than originally listed. I'm not planning on adding these new milestones into the list at this time, so your post will be the only record of them here.


Edit: There are now 16 milestones on this chart still to go. The original list was 18 milestones. I think this partially explains why schedule has been pushed out 2 years from original estimates.

[gongora]

80KSC018F0039
Effective Date 12/15/2017, Completion Date 04/16/2018  $10,134,469.00

Performance of this Task Order is in accordance with the terms&conditions of the base contract NNK14MA74C. The purpose of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from low Earth orbit (LEO) including the International Space Station. 

In accordance with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract NNK14MA74C, the Contractor shall complete the design, development, test, evaluation, and certification of an integrated CTS capable of transporting NASA crew to and from the ISS, in accordance with the design reference missions and the certification standards and requirements specified in this contract.

In accordance with Attachment J-03, Contract Performance Work Statement (PWS), the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contractor shall perform special studies, test and analyses, as initiated by written direction from the Contracting Officer.  IDIQ tasks may include performing technical, cost, schedule and risk assessments for potential new or changes to existing requirements, as identified by the Government, for their impact on the Contractor's design, schedule and cost/price as it relates to CCtCap or life cycle activities; performing additional analyses, modeling, and/or tests of hardware or software to provide further confidence and understanding of robustness of design and advance planning, feasibility or trade studies for development or certification activities.

In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles.  The feasibility report includes manufacturing R&D activities performed, results; and detailed information regarding the Spin-forming Process.

The task order also includes Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand development and build; ground fluid system and supporting infrastructure development in order to collect information regarding the pressurized tanks used in the CTS.

[gongora]

80KSC018F0024
Nov 30, 2017

The Government is unilaterally ordering Special Studies Services in accordance with the following contract clauses for the Augmented Parachute Study:
(1) B. 5 Special Studies (IDIQ) (CLIN 003)
(2) H.7 Special Studies Task Ordering Procedures (Applicable to CLIN 003 Only), and
(3) I.7  FAR 52-216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995)  (Applicable to CLINs 002 and 003 of the contract).

Period of Performance of this Task Order is:
1 year after completion of the SpaceX Parachute system qualification program.

Performance of this Task Order is in accordance with the terms&conditions of the base contract NNK14MA74C.
The Contractor shall conduct a Augmented Parachute Testing Study for NASA to collect reliability data on the contractor's parachute deployment system in addition to the contract requirements and additional system-level testing in accordance with the attached Statement of Work.

Task Order Value and Funding:
Total Fixed Priced IDIQ Task Order Value is $34,066,143.
CLIN 001 Total is $25,364,064
CLIN 002 (1 Capsule build) Total is $5,309,195
CLIN 003 (1 PTV build) $3,392,884

Task Order Invoices:
Invoices submitted against task orders shall describe the name of the study and the associated CLIN (CLIN 003) and shall reference the task order number.

Authority to Proceed:
Award of this task order represents the Authority to Proceed (ATP) for CLIN 001 only.
CLIN 002 and CLIN 003 NASA may grant ATP  at  a future date and within the Statement of Work.
At NASAs discretion it may cancel  tests 4th, 5th, and/or 6th.  Reference the discounted Final Milestone Payments in the Statement of Work.

In consideration of the modification agreed to herein as complete equitable adjustment for changes described above, the Contractor hereby releases the Government from any and all liability under this contract for further equitable adjustments attributable to such facts or circumstances giving rise to the proposed adjustment.

[Coastal Ron]

80KSC018F0039
Effective Date 12/15/2017, Completion Date 04/16/2018  $10,134,469.00
...
In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles.  The feasibility report includes manufacturing R&D activities performed, results; and detailed information regarding the Spin-forming Process.

The task order also includes Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand development and build; ground fluid system and supporting infrastructure development in order to collect information regarding the pressurized tanks used in the CTS.

OK, so NASA is willing to pay SpaceX to investigate an Inconel version of the current Falcon 9 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV)?

Or, is this NASA directing SpaceX to investigate using an Inconel version of the COPV?

There are already different versions of the Falcon launcher first stage due to structural differences between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy core and boosters, and this could introduce additional versions that are different between human-rated Falcon 9's and non-human-rated Falcon 9's. That's a lot of variants to keep track of.

All the more reason to replace them with the BFR/BFS... 

[rcoppola]

I suspect whichever material they build the Helium Tanks with, they'll make standard across their Block-5 F9 & FHcore fleet since they'd probably have to update the struts, etc.. as well. Since Block 5 is supposed to be their highly efficient design for re-use, they may be able to take the hit for the more expensive  design.

[gongora]

80KSC018F0039
Effective Date 12/15/2017, Completion Date 04/16/2018  $10,134,469.00
...
In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles.  The feasibility report includes manufacturing R&D activities performed, results; and detailed information regarding the Spin-forming Process.

The task order also includes Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand development and build; ground fluid system and supporting infrastructure development in order to collect information regarding the pressurized tanks used in the CTS.

OK, so NASA is willing to pay SpaceX to investigate an Inconel version of the current Falcon 9 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV)?

Or, is this NASA directing SpaceX to investigate using an Inconel version of the COPV?

I would guess NASA asked SpaceX to look at an alternative and SpaceX came up with Inconel.

(I'm not sure what thread is best for this tank stuff, it may get moved later.)

[Johnnyhinbos]

Would this be at all related to the construction work on the incomplete flame trench area over at McGregor?

[Roy_H]

Would this be at all related to the construction work on the incomplete flame trench area over at McGregor?

I don't see a connection, I've assumed that flame trench is for Raptor testing.

[JBF]

Would this be at all related to the construction work on the incomplete flame trench area over at McGregor?

I don't see a connection, I've assumed that flame trench is for Raptor testing.

No it's going to be for 2nd stage testing.  Someone mentioned that it is being completed now because SpaceX is running into scheduling conflicts having the current stage 2 testing and Merlin testing in close proximity.

[jpo234]

Would this be at all related to the construction work on the incomplete flame trench area over at McGregor?

Hopefully they don't need a flame trench to test He bottles.

[joek]

OK, so NASA is willing to pay SpaceX to investigate an Inconel version of the current Falcon 9 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV)?

Maybe.  I would not jump to the conclusion that this is related to the COPV's used for S1 and S2 as the language is ambiguous; might only apply to the tanks for Dragon and trunk.

[gongora]

OK, so NASA is willing to pay SpaceX to investigate an Inconel version of the current Falcon 9 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV)?

Maybe.  I would not jump to the conclusion that this is related to the COPV's used for S1 and S2 as the language is ambiguous; might only apply to the tanks for Dragon and trunk.

I agree the language in that contract document I found is ambiguous, but it does fit really well with the other information we've gotten recently about them studying a non-COPV design for helium tanks.

[Coastal Ron]

OK, so NASA is willing to pay SpaceX to investigate an Inconel version of the current Falcon 9 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV)?

Maybe.  I would not jump to the conclusion that this is related to the COPV's used for S1 and S2 as the language is ambiguous; might only apply to the tanks for Dragon and trunk.

Then why also pay to develop and build a Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand? Sure sounds like it's for the COPV issue.

[abaddon]

It’s clearly for the potential COPV replacement development.  Nice find.

That said, before anyone gets excited, this is s fallback if the COPV redesign effort fails, so it’s not guaranteed to ever get used.

[Zucal]

80KSC018F0039
Effective Date 12/15/2017, Completion Date 04/16/2018  $10,134,469.00

...

In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles.  The feasibility report includes manufacturing R&D activities performed, results; and detailed information regarding the Spin-forming Process.

The task order also includes Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand development and build; ground fluid system and supporting infrastructure development in order to collect information regarding the pressurized tanks used in the CTS.

Would like to cross-post this to r/SpaceX. Is there a direct link somewhere so I can avoid stressing the server?

[gongora]

80KSC018F0039
Effective Date 12/15/2017, Completion Date 04/16/2018  $10,134,469.00

...

In accordance with this task order statement of work, the Contractor shall perform an Inconel tank feasibility study and submit a cost proposal to implement follow-on Inconel development and initial cost information regarding full transition to Inconel tanks for crewed vehicles.  The feasibility report includes manufacturing R&D activities performed, results; and detailed information regarding the Spin-forming Process.

The task order also includes Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand development and build; ground fluid system and supporting infrastructure development in order to collect information regarding the pressurized tanks used in the CTS.

Would like to cross-post this to r/SpaceX. Is there a direct link somewhere so I can avoid stressing the server?

I don't think you'd stress the server that much 

I found it on fpds.gov, which requires registration to look at it (and is kind of a pain in the rear to use, but it's free.)  You might be able to find it on one of the other government contract aggregation sites.

[joek]

Then why also pay to develop and build a Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand? Sure sounds like it's for the COPV issue.

Not sure.  Because SOx is potentially a much higher risk with current COPV design if used in Dragon vs. S1 or S2?

In any case, NASA's own studies indicate AL COPV's are as good or better than Inconel COPV's at cryo temps.  (AL requires more over-wrap but in the end performs better with lower mass than Inconel).  Although NASA may be revisiting their conclusions given the potential presence of SOx, and thus why they are willing to pay SpaceX significant $ to investigate--which could as easily apply to S1, S2 and other applications.

[gongora]

Then why also pay to develop and build a Solid Oxygen (SOx) test stand? Sure sounds like it's for the COPV issue.

Not sure.  Because SOx is potentially a much higher risk with current COPV design if used in Dragon vs. S1 or S2?

In any case, NASA's own studies indicate AL COPV's are as good or better than Inconel COPV's at cryo temps.  (AL requires more over-wrap but in the end performs better with lower mass than Inconel).  Although NASA may be revisiting their conclusions given the potential presence of SOx, and thus why they are willing to pay SpaceX significant $ to investigate--which could as easily apply to S1, S2 and other applications.

The SOx is only a problem on Falcon, not Dragon.  Dragon doesn't have any COPV submerged in LOx.  The alternative tanks would not be COPV.

edit: from the recently released ASAP annual report: "It also should be noted that NASA and SpaceX are working on an alternative helium tank design should the COPV certification efforts fail. However, the heavier weight of the alternative design could require significant modifications to the supporting structure to handle the additional loads."

[AncientU]

Accepting the unintended consequences of installing a new, heavier design to replace one that has been pressurized and flown dozens of times since the procedure was changed is insanity.

Can't wait for the tell-all book that describes this whole process from the inside...

[deruch]

Accepting the unintended consequences of installing a new, heavier design to replace one that has been pressurized and flown dozens of times since the procedure was changed is insanity.

Can't wait for the tell-all book that describes this whole process from the inside...

Which one is it? 

SpaceX is great because they use agile development.  They're not afraid to make changes.  They don't get stuck being wedded to a method just because that's the way things have worked in the past. 

-OR- 

Changing things once they have built up a flight history is insane!  Once something works you shouldn't change it anymore.

[kevinof]

Well if Block 5 is the last in the line for the F9, why put in the effort of changing out the copv and all the testing it would require. 

Accepting the unintended consequences of installing a new, heavier design to replace one that has been pressurized and flown dozens of times since the procedure was changed is insanity.

Can't wait for the tell-all book that describes this whole process from the inside...

Which one is it? 

SpaceX is great because they use agile development.  They're not afraid to make changes.  They don't get stuck being wedded to a method just because that's the way things have worked in the past. 

-OR- 

Changing things once they have built up a flight history is insane!  Once something works you shouldn't change it anymore.

[AncientU]

Accepting the unintended consequences of installing a new, heavier design to replace one that has been pressurized and flown dozens of times since the procedure was changed is insanity.

Can't wait for the tell-all book that describes this whole process from the inside...

Which one is it? 

SpaceX is great because they use agile development.  They're not afraid to make changes.  They don't get stuck being wedded to a method just because that's the way things have worked in the past. 

-OR- 

Changing things once they have built up a flight history is insane!  Once something works you shouldn't change it anymore.

It's not a dualism.

They have found that LiAl tankage work great... indefinite number of flights possible per EM.  Agile development doesn't apply here for Falcon any more.  But they are moving on to carbon composite skins for BFR... agile development for next quantum leap in technology.  Same with the M1-Ds -- at an endpoint in how far they can develop that technology which they advanced over the last ten years by agile development.  Now they are moving on to Raptors.   The entire Falcon line has been pushed to the point of diminishing returns (with FH), so they are fixing it at Block 5 and moving on.

This is much different than finding an entire set of technologies that comprise a great rocket -- like AtlasV, for instance, or the shuttle-derived tech -- and stopping development -- period.

For NASA to be demanding that they change COPVs, or M1-Ds, or sub-cooled propellant fueling just before launch with or without astros on board is bureaucratic excess (a.k.a. B.S.).  Why doesn't NASA change from use of solid boosters because they once killed a crew of seven?

[deruch]

It's not a dualism.  They have found that LiAl tankage work great... indefinite number of flights possible per EM. 

No, I think it's confirmation bias.  When SpaceX makes changes to their system that drops flight heritage it's great vs NASA potentially forcing them to do the same for their missions is insane.  And I would make the same point to those who argue that SpaceX is reckless for making such changes but refuse to recognize NASA is potentially forcing it here.  Specifically to the issue of swapping COPVs, we don't know what sort of testing results SpaceX/NASA have been seeing.  Are failures predictable and ongoing performance well characterized with their current tanks/procedures?  Sure, they have been successful so far but is that success reliable?  Without knowing what they have been finding, it's hard to criticize NASA (who does know) for pushing for a change if they feel it is warranted.  To my mind, any gain from the switch would have to be pretty significant before I felt giving up the flight heritage was worth it.  Of course, SpaceX clearly feels differently and they certainly have seen the same results. 

Why doesn't NASA change from use of solid boosters because they once killed a crew of seven?

They did.  The design of the SRB joints was altered to eliminate the cause of the Challenger disaster. 

[Roy_H]

It's not a dualism.  They have found that LiAl tankage work great... indefinite number of flights possible per EM. 

No, I think it's confirmation bias.  When SpaceX makes changes to their system that drops flight heritage it's great vs NASA potentially forcing them to do the same for their missions is insane.  And I would make the same point to those who argue that SpaceX is reckless for making such changes but refuse to recognize NASA is potentially forcing it here.  Specifically to the issue of swapping COPVs, we don't know what sort of testing results SpaceX/NASA have been seeing.  Are failures predictable and ongoing performance well characterized with their current tanks/procedures?  Sure, they have been successful so far but is that success reliable?  Without knowing what they have been finding, it's hard to criticize NASA (who does know) for pushing for a change if they feel it is warranted.  To my mind, any gain from the switch would have to be pretty significant before I felt giving up the flight heritage was worth it.  Of course, SpaceX clearly feels differently and they certainly have seen the same results. 

Why doesn't NASA change from use of solid boosters because they once killed a crew of seven?

They did.  The design of the SRB joints was altered to eliminate the cause of the Challenger disaster.

I think you just confirmed the argument here. How is that different from SpaceX changing charging procedure or re-designing the COPV vs replacing with all metal? In one case you fix the problem, in the other you change the system. The analogy in the Shuttle case would be to change to liquid boosters.

[AncientU]

Confirmation bias works both ways. 

Those who are status quo adherents cannot see anyone but NASA having knowledge about rocketry and human space flight.  I believe the opposite is true.  NASA has proven that they cannot build a rocket and that their management structure, 'processes', and pseudo-risk aversion are fundamentally flawed.  This is demonstrated by their incredibly bad management decisions that resulted in loss of crews and their inability to get their act together enough to fly anything.  They are dictating the rules because they have the checkbook.

[Roy_H]

AncientU, overly harsh, but I do agree strongly with your statement " This is demonstrated by their incredibly bad management decisions that resulted in loss of crews". Aversion to repeat that mistake has resulted in ASAP's 1:270 LOM. I think this is an attempt to take political decision making out of the loop, and is a good thing.

[envy887]

It's not a dualism.  They have found that LiAl tankage work great... indefinite number of flights possible per EM. 

No, I think it's confirmation bias.  When SpaceX makes changes to their system that drops flight heritage it's great vs NASA potentially forcing them to do the same for their missions is insane...

AIUI the alternative tank design is only needed if the COPVs can't be proven safe. If Block 5 flies 7 time before crewed flights, that would be around 150 stage and COPV fillings, which should prove it safe. The Amos-6 incident was a new fueling procedure that (AIUI) had never been flown and so was not proven safe.

Changing a known safe, performant design to something less proven, less performant, and possibly more expensive, would be crazy.

[Lar]

Changing a known safe, performant design to something less proven, less performant, and possibly more expensive, would be crazy.

Not if NASA does it or forces it. That makes it OK.

[AncientU]

AncientU, overly harsh, but I do agree strongly with your statement " This is demonstrated by their incredibly bad management decisions that resulted in loss of crews". Aversion to repeat that mistake has resulted in ASAP's 1:270 LOM. I think this is an attempt to take political decision making out of the loop, and is a good thing.

Shuttle had a LOM risk of about 1:90, yet it flew out its last years with ops procedural changes.
What was the LOM criterion for Ares 1?
What was the LOM risk for placing crew on EM-1 which was rejected because of insufficient funding (instead of out of hand because of safety)?
What is the LOM criterion for EM-2 flying cis-Lunar?
If they are all greater than or equal to 270:1, then that is likely a reasonable number.  (But they are not.)

The problem is that political decision making is not taken out of the loop. 
NASA gets a bye because of their 'expertise' -- which is a political conjuring.

[Jim]

Confirmation bias works both ways. 

Those who are status quo adherents cannot see anyone but NASA having knowledge about rocketry and human space flight.  I believe the opposite is true.  NASA has proven that they cannot build a rocket and that their management structure, 'processes', and pseudo-risk aversion are fundamentally flawed.  This is demonstrated by their incredibly bad management decisions that resulted in loss of crews and their inability to get their act together enough to fly anything.  They are dictating the rules because they have the checkbook.

Proof of the bias.  Much like a flat earther, it isn't based on reality. 

The problem is that you are biased and it permeates through out your posts.  Every post is has a predetermined slant.  You can not make any objective judgement about anything non Spacex related.
 

[QuantumG]

Actually, all opinions are welcome.

 

[speedevil]

Actually, all opinions are welcome.

No they're not.

_{edit: To be clear, this was both a python reference, and that I like paradoxes.}

[Lar]

all well reasoned opinions are, here. As long as presented collegially. Be excellent to each other.

[mlindner]

Changing a known safe, performant design to something less proven, less performant, and possibly more expensive, would be crazy.

Not if NASA does it or forces it. That makes it OK.

Am I correct in assuming this is sarcasm?

[Roy_H]

March 26, 2018 update:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_presentation_for_nac_public_session.pdf

[woods170]

Changing a known safe, performant design to something less proven, less performant, and possibly more expensive, would be crazy.

Not if NASA does it or forces it. That makes it OK.

Am I correct in assuming this is sarcasm?

No, it is reality.

[Nomadd]

Actually, all opinions are welcome.

No they're not.

T. J. Would be proud.
 There's a difference between welcome and allowed.

[the_other_Doug]

March 26, 2018 update:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_presentation_for_nac_public_session.pdf

I am confused by the following SpaceX milestone, listed for April of 2018:

Flt Test w/o
Crew CR Part 2

Is this just a critical review of the status of the DM-1 spacecraft and launch vehicle?

There aren't any actual flight tests of Dragon 2 equipment coming up, are there?  Or does this milestone refer to the first flight of the man-rated Block 5 version of the Falcon 9?  This chart, at least, makes no other reference to Block 5 development.

[deruch]

March 26, 2018 update:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ccp_presentation_for_nac_public_session.pdf

I am confused by the following SpaceX milestone, listed for April of 2018:

Flt Test w/o
Crew CR Part 2

Is this just a critical review of the status of the DM-1 spacecraft and launch vehicle?

There aren't any actual flight tests of Dragon 2 equipment coming up, are there?  Or does this milestone refer to the first flight of the man-rated Block 5 version of the Falcon 9?  This chart, at least, makes no other reference to Block 5 development.

The important part of that milestone is the CR, which stands for Critical Review.  It's the big pre-launch review by all the teams (including NASA) on whether they are prepared and going to meet all the requirements for the DM-1 mission.  If you look to the right, the next milestone in that row is the actual launch, "Flt to ISS w/o Crew (Demo-1)".  And if you look to the left, the previous milestone in that same row is, "Flt Test w/o Crew CR Part 1" which was completed in December 2016.

What happened was that prior to the AMOS-6 mishap, they had planned a single Critical Review for DM-1 which would take place in Feb. 2017 (~3 months ahead of the launch which was planned for May 2017).  After the mishap they decided to split the milestone into 2 parts.  The first would contain the review of all the parts that were ready and wouldn't change in the aftermath of the mishap.  This review part was actually moved forward a few months and occurred before the original planned review date (December 2016 vs February 2017).  Everything else, all the Falcon 9 stuff and whatever wasn't finalized yet with Dragon, would get pushed to a review part at a later date.  You can see this happening by looking at the schedule slides from the CCP presentations to the NAC-HEO committee from the meeting prior to and after the mishap (NB: the meeting from November of 2016 [less than a month post mishap] didn't include such a slide, so I've attached the one from Feb. 2017).