SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

[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).