NASA to launch safety review of SpaceX and Boeing after video of Elon Musk...

[programmerdan]

At last, a real answer:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1068328906313342977

My hot take? Standard "New Boss Review". He mentions in the interview that he was considering this culture review from before his confirmation, while getting up to speed on the prior NASA failures.

[woods170]

At last, a real answer:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1068328906313342977

My hot take? Standard "New Boss Review". He mentions in the interview that he was considering this culture review from before his confirmation, while getting up to speed on the prior NASA failures.

Bridenstine is technically correct when he states that this review was his decision. But, I'm still getting signals from sources that political entities leaned on Bridenstine for this review to actually happen.
My personal opinion on Bridenstine's explanation for the review is: Cover story.

[ugordan]

At last, a real answer:

It would be a "real" answer if this decision extended to the very recent experiences with the Russian partners flying U.S. astronauts. This still smells like a rationalization of a politically-driven decision, but maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Woods by several seconds...

[Rocket Science]

At last, a real answer:

It would be a "real" answer if this decision extended to the very recent experiences with the Russian partners flying U.S. astronauts. This still smells like a rationalization of a politically-driven decision, but maybe that's just me.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Woods by several seconds...

No, it not just you...

[programmerdan]

As real as anything we are going to get until someone outs these shadowy, whispering sources... (that said, totes agree.)

[Rocket Science]

As real as anything we are going to get until someone outs these shadowy, whispering sources... (that said, totes agree.)

I haven't ruled out a combination of both. His past congressional record, pressure from above but overlook the obvious partner in terms of safety for NASA astronauts...

[dglow]

As real as anything we are going to get until someone outs these shadowy, whispering sources... (that said, totes agree.)

I haven't ruled out a combination of both. His past congressional record, pressure from above but overlook the obvious partner in terms of safety for NASA astronauts...

This. There's no reason to set up individual reasons as mutually exclusive when many, or all, are complementary.

[JonathanD]

There was absolutely no safety-related reason to announce it in the Washington Post, period.  Someone wanted a damaging headline out there.

[TripleSeven]

There was absolutely no safety-related reason to announce it in the Washington Post, period.  Someone wanted a damaging headline out there.

where it was announced didnt matter...as I hve said here...both companies have underperformed

[woods170]

There was absolutely no safety-related reason to announce it in the Washington Post, period.  Someone wanted a damaging headline out there.

where it was announced didnt matter...as I hve said here...both companies have underperformed

As has NASA. Or have you forgotten about both OIG and ASAP warning that NASA ain't ready to deal with a bow-wave of certification products coming NASA's way?

[woods170]

the failure that boeing had in the last test was also a little scary to the folks at safety in the commercial crew office and also to Boeing safety...  it was to some extent "scary" for me that this was missed in development by very experienced people at Boeing.

They missed it alright. But that's because they relied a little too much on computational fluid dynamics modeling.

As it turns out, their software model of propellant flow during pad abort didn't quite match reality.

And that's the very reason why certain other companies didn't wait so incredibly long to test their abort systems in "all-up" configurations.

[TripleSeven]

the failure that boeing had in the last test was also a little scary to the folks at safety in the commercial crew office and also to Boeing safety...  it was to some extent "scary" for me that this was missed in development by very experienced people at Boeing.

They missed it alright. But that's because they relied a little too much on computational fluid dynamics modeling.

As it turns out, their software model of propellant flow during pad abort didn't quite match reality.

And that's the very reason why certain other companies didn't wait so incredibly long to test their abort systems in "all-up" configurations.

I dont agree with that analysis...on either what occurred or the reason for the failuremode.  BUT both companies in my view have their strengths and weakness in terms of testing.  No one has really tested it in an all up mode yet...ie on a rocket going up.

we need "Little JOE"

Edit I would add this.  both companies, as I have said earlier, have under performed.  I THINK I know the reason Boeing has because I know the culture there pretty well but can only guess at why SpaceX has

I still stand by my note that SpaceX will probably get a crew to the station first...but I predict BOeing will.

[Coastal Ron]

Edit I would add this.  both companies, as I have said earlier, have under performed.  I THINK I know the reason Boeing has because I know the culture there pretty well but can only guess at why SpaceX has

Why do you think Boeing has under-performed?

In what way has SpaceX under-performed?

[abaddon]

we need "Little JOE"

Well, Boeing does.  SpaceX will have the closest-to-real abort test in the history of manned spaceflight, as far as I am aware.

[Hauerg]

At last, a real answer:

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1068328906313342977

My hot take? Standard "New Boss Review". He mentions in the interview that he was considering this culture review from before his confirmation, while getting up to speed on the prior NASA failures.

Bridenstine is technically correct when he states that this review was his decision. But, I'm still getting signals from sources that political entities leaned on Bridenstine for this review to actually happen.
My personal opinion on Bridenstine's explanation for the review is: Cover story.

there are two explanations for it...and is hard to knowwhich one is accurate...my initial "thought" was that it was a cover for SLS problems

BUT its also completely possible that it is a standard "cover your buns" effort by a guy new on the job...who is worried about "where this is going"

More than any other program in this century...there is an enormous amount on the line here

IF either or both fail, particularly if the failure is catastrophic and either astronauts would be lost or are lost...or simply the mission just fails

it is hard for me to imagine the political blowback that will occur...

A lot of money has been spent with both companies...and to some extent both are "under performing" ...while I think the episode on pod cast had something to do with it...the failure that boeing had in the last test was also a little scary to the folks at safety in the commercial crew office and also to Boeing safety...  it was to some extent "scary" for me that this was missed in development by very experienced people at Boeing.

this program has to succeed or the basis of the US Space effort will change and not for the better.

but we just dont have enough evidence to know.  I had an op ed that was going to be published in a major US news paper that took the line that it was SLS oriented...and pulled it because I got some more information that caused me to wonder.

The money spent on CC is neglectable in the bigger scheme of things.

[AS-503]

So why did you say that "we" needed a "Little Joe" then? That's basically an in-flight abort, which SpaceX is doing and Boeing is not.

because in my opinion an inflight max Q abort should be tested...and that is why a "Little Joe" would come in handy.

as I say in another post a ground abort is not a good indicator of how things will go at MaxQ on the other hand a Max Q abort means more or less it works.

You should take the lack of such a test as a direct criticism by me of anyone who does not do it

and that is why I said it.

On a pure performance level, your argument of being able to do max q abort should equate to meeting requirements for pad abort seems plausible.
However, what about factors like altitude and down range capability with the pad abort?
At the cape in a pad abort scenario with a high easterly crosswind, flying farther down range will be required to guarantee water landing. Wouldn't this imply needing greater performance than just surviving max q?
One could imagine a scenario where your abort design can meet max q requirements but would be limited to a small range of easterly crosswinds if not designed with enough margin.
IIRC the Dragon 2 abort was blown pretty close to shore during the pad abort test, and Apollo 7 was at the limit for that wind with the old block one couches.

[spacenut]

At what point would SpaceX do an in flight abort?  Max Q?  And/or would they need a second stage to test this?   Also, could a first stage be shut down and land after the abort test, so it can be reused? 

[abaddon]

At what point would SpaceX do an in flight abort?  Max Q?  And/or would they need a second stage to test this?   Also, could a first stage be shut down and land after the abort test, so it can be reused?

You are speaking in hypotheticals, but we already know the facts here.  Check the appropriate mission thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45279.0 in the SpaceX Missions section.

The short answer is:
-Abort is at or close to Max Q (booster is traveling at Mach 1)
-F9 booster will terminate thrust and shut down
-Dragon will detect this, separate, fire abort motors (note: motors don't need to fire as long as pad abort)
-Booster and stage 2 will both be expended
-Stage 2 will not have an MVac but is otherwise normal

[ChrisWilson68]

In what way has SpaceX under-performed?

SpaceX.  they have been flying a "Dragon" for a long time now for the same customer and 1) misread badly what the Customer wanted (NASA did not want propulsive landings and all the time spent on that as well as the design adaptions made..was wasted)

That is NASA's failure, not SpaceX's failure.  Saying it's SpaceX's fault for not anticipating that NASA would make a bad decision is blaming the victim.  Saying that it's SpaceX's fault for trying to convince NASA to make the right decision is really horrible.

I'm personally glad that SpaceX is there trying to get NASA to change their way of thinking and embrace new ways of doing things, even if sometimes they fail to do that.  The attitude of some in NASA that we should do things the way we've always done them has been holding our space program back, and making it less safe, not safer.

This is not an example of SpaceX underperforming.  This is an example of SpaceX overperforming.  They fought the good fight and lost to try to get NASA to do something in a better way.

and 2) have missed some "potential" failure modes like the chutes...that they should have known the customer would have been concerned with

That is not underperformance.  That is part of the normal development process.

When developing a complex system, there will be things that are problems that are discovered in testing.  The chutes never completely failed.  They had some things that didn't work right, so some redundancy was lost, that's all.

It's all perfectly normal.  Things are discovered in testing and in operational missions, and improvements are made.

Expecting nothing to go wrong ever and marking anything discovered to have gone wrong as "underperformance" is grossly misleading and unhelpful.

and 3) dont have a clue how the aerospace industry works.

Nonsense.

SpaceX obviously knows a lot about how the aerospace industry works.  They've been hugely successful in it.

What you really mean here is that they do things differently than the traditional aerospace industry.

That's not underperformance.  That's overperformance.

they are a software company

That's nonsense.  They are a company that can do both hardware and software.  That's not the same as a software company.

so their software IV and V AND most importantly their knowledge of how software impacts hardware is far far far better than Boeing ...but their aerospace is far far (OK to equal it out one more "far")  worse.

That's ridiculous.  Their aerospace is not "far far worse" than Boeing's.

They're farther along than Boeing on commercial crew.  They've had fewer serious issues when testing than Boeing on commercial crew.

SpaceX has built a launch vehicle that is far better and cheaper than anything Boeing has built in the past (Delta, Space Shuttle) or than anything Boeing is building now (SLS).

All the evidence shows that SpaceX is better at aerospace than Boeing.  Claiming they are "far far worse" is laughable.

After a lot of Dragon flights and a near failure (where the thrusters did not work) to fly a vehicle to the ISS

Having some problems along the way is normal.  Boeing's vehicles that flew to the ISS had many "near failures" and some actual failures that killed people.

that does not test everything...is well bizarre.  thats a software company not an aerospace company talking.

SpaceX does far more testing than Boeing.  What's bizarre is to claim, contrary to all evidence, that SpaceX is somehow "not an aerospace company" because they are not incompetent at software like some aerospace companies.

they both have underperformed.  neither has much to be proud of

I couldn't disagree more.  SpaceX has a stunning amount to be proud of.

Boeing also has a lot to be proud of.  They haven't done as well as SpaceX on commercial crew, and they've spent more to do it.  But both companies have a lot to be proud of.

[envy887]

Boeing is so great at hardware, they delivered the SLS core right on schedule and budget.