SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

[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