Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 2

[Chris Bergin]

New thread for discussion of the Commercial Crew vehicles.

Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.0

Resources:

Commercial Crew News:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon+2/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/starliner/

L2 SpaceX - Covering Dragon:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0

L2 Commercial Crew and Cargo - Covering Starliner:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0


Discussion thread, but remember to be civil, respectful and on topic.

[Rondaz]

NASA’s Commercial Crew, DoD Teams Conduct Crew Rescue Exercise

Linda Herridge Posted on April 17, 2019

NASA and the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support (HSFS) Office Rescue Division are conducting a search and rescue training exercise over the next several days at the Army Warf on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the first at-sea exercise with the Boeing CST-100 Starliner training capsule, known as Boiler Plate 3, ahead of the commercial crew flight test with astronauts targeted for later this year.

The HSFS teams have supported all NASA human spaceflight programs and will be on standby for both NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and Orion launches and landings. The team is responsible for quickly and safely rescuing astronauts in the unlikely event of an emergency during ascent, free flight or landing. This multi-day exercise consists of ground- and water- based training to prepare the DoD pararescue team for an emergency situation on ascent. The HSFS teams will rehearse locating the Starliner spacecraft, sending out rescue teams to extract DoD team members, acting as astronauts, from the capsule and providing immediate medical treatment.  The HSFS team will arrange for pickup, transport and follow-on medical care.

At the conclusion of this exercise, HSFS will complete a full mission profile to validate best practices for configuring and air-dropping U.S. Air Force Pararescue team members from a C-17 aircraft with their associated watercraft, specialized rescue equipment and advanced medical capabilities. HSFS conducted a similar exercise with SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft in early December 2018.

This simulation is another example of how safety is being built into systems, processes and procedures for commercial crew missions. It is standard practice to conduct these exercises, and was regularly done during the Space Shuttle Program.

During normal return scenarios, Boeing’s Starliner will land on land in a safe zone of about 15 square miles in the Western United States. Throughout the commercial crew development phases with NASA, Boeing has performed dozens of qualification tests on its parachute and airbag systems simulating conditions on land and in the water.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/04/17/nasas-commercial-crew-dod-teams-conduct-crew-rescue-exercise/

[Joffan]

I thought I'd move an aspect of the SpaceX 20 April test failure implication over to this thread, to discuss what our perceptions of the relative state of readiness and likely mission times are.

I didn't (and still don't) see Boeing's Starliner being ready this year for crew flight, and I'm not certain about their uncrewed flight either - that might perhaps be achieved in 2019 but I don't expect it before Q4, due to poorly-explained delays in dates so far. Following that flight I would guess at a 4-6 month gap to the crew flight. Whether the ISS schedule continues to push this towards being a long mission is beyond my guessing.

Before SpaceX's test failure, my expectation was to see the first crew carried to ISS (on DM-2) in Q3 of this year. It's obviously really hard to know how much that will change but I would see everything pushed back by at least one Crew Dragon production cycle, about 3-4 months. Possibly more, but I would expect the delay to be 8-9 months maximum. Less than a year, so first half of 2020.  Perhaps the delay will turn this one into a full-length mission too.

So right now the coin is definitely in the air for which provider is most likely to make the first crew flight to ISS. My bet is still slightly on SpaceX first.

[Steve G]

The SpaceX schedule is contingent on a lot of things. If they are going to continue with an in-flight abort, and based on the anomaly prepping for the IFA, I assume so. They would have to get a vehicle for it. Whether it is the flight vehicle planned for the first manned demo, or another prototype, should they have one good enough, remains to be seen.

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

All this speculation is based on no tangible facts, of course.

[speedevil]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

Is it plausible to fly D1 cargo on D2?
This would somewhat help with revenue, at least by whatever the launch cost of D1 is.

[yg1968]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

Is it plausible to fly D1 cargo on D2?
This would somewhat help with revenue, at least by whatever the launch cost of D1 is.

It is possible since SpaceX's CRS2 contract will be using (cargo) Dragons 2 capsules.

[Roy_H]

I don't see any rational for NASA to want a repeat of DM1. It was successful. This explosion is a mystery and if unresolved could bring the whole Crew Dragon program to a permanent halt. But assuming it is resolved the fix could be proven on the IFA, if a flight is required at all to prove the fix.

[gongora]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

I don't think it's plausible to require a reflight of DM-1, and the revenue starts flowing long before the flight actually happens.  The providers are starting to get money for the third post-certification missions, which are several years from now.

[erioladastra]

I thought I'd move an aspect of the SpaceX 20 April test failure implication over to this thread, to discuss what our perceptions of the relative state of readiness and likely mission times are.

I didn't (and still don't) see Boeing's Starliner being ready this year for crew flight, and I'm not certain about their uncrewed flight either - that might perhaps be achieved in 2019 but I don't expect it before Q4, due to poorly-explained delays in dates so far. Following that flight I would guess at a 4-6 month gap to the crew flight. Whether the ISS schedule continues to push this towards being a long mission is beyond my guessing.

Before SpaceX's test failure, my expectation was to see the first crew carried to ISS (on DM-2) in Q3 of this year. It's obviously really hard to know how much that will change but I would see everything pushed back by at least one Crew Dragon production cycle, about 3-4 months. Possibly more, but I would expect the delay to be 8-9 months maximum. Less than a year, so first half of 2020.  Perhaps the delay will turn this one into a full-length mission too.

So right now the coin is definitely in the air for which provider is most likely to make the first crew flight to ISS. My bet is still slightly on SpaceX first.

Boeing's OFT will definitely fly this year barring a major issue - possible but low risk.  DM-2 was unlikely to have been able to make it this year before the anomaly.  But now paperwork, training etc will likely be able to catch up - cause of the anomaly and recovery will be the key factors.   They still can't even get to the hardware yet.  But definitely still a coin flip.

[Rondaz]

Crew Safety A Top Priority

Stephanie Martin Posted on May 15, 2019

For our commercial crew flights, we plan for any scenario that may arise, including unlikely emergencies, such as a spacecraft abort and subsequent splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. Recently, two NASA astronauts as well as a team from the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support Office Rescue Division practiced what they will do in that very scenario. The DoD team is responsible for quickly and safely rescuing astronauts in the unlikely event of an emergency during ascent, free flight or landing. To learn more about both team’s practices, check out our crew rescue feature.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/05/15/crew-safety-a-top-priority/

[Steven Pietrobon]

The video in that link.

[whitelancer64]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

[DigitalMan]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

according to this: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf

Orion landing mass is 20,500 lbs.  From the looks of that page I expect it is mass without crew.

[DigitalMan]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

The only number I could find for Dragon is 26,577 mass of DM-1 (probably at docking, but could be launch mass).  Landed mass will be quite different since trunk will detach and excluding weight of return cargo.

[hkultala]

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Wrong, it's about 11 tonnes. More than Dragon v2 empty.

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Wrong. Much less.

From the pad abort test:

"The overall weight of the stack will be in excess of 21,000 pounds (9,525 kg), plus around 3,500 pounds (1,590 kg) of propellant.

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

Fuel is only 1.6 tonnes.

And the superdracoes don't weight very much, they are very simple engines with very small nozzles.

[whitelancer64]

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Wrong, it's about 11 tonnes. More than Dragon v2 empty.

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Wrong. Much less.

From the pad abort test:

"The overall weight of the stack will be in excess of 21,000 pounds (9,525 kg), plus around 3,500 pounds (1,590 kg) of propellant.

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

Fuel is only 1.6 tonnes.

And the superdracoes don't weight very much, they are very simple engines with very small nozzles.

Yay, more numbers!

Part of the confusion is that mass numbers are often not clarified as to whether it is the total, the capsule alone, or with SM / trunk, or dry / wet. And they are often rounded. There are conflicting numbers as it is, and really, I'm looking for something else altogether :p It's probably a fool's errand.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1141346182867890176

[SWGlassPit]

GAO report is out: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-504

EDIT: My take having breezed through it really quickly: nothing really earth shaking in this one -- nothing not really already well-known in this community.

[Comga]

[cynicism]
This report was composed by THE Masters of the Bleeding Obvious
Boeing and SpaceX are behind schedule because they have delayed it many times
NASA has a hard time reviewing all the reports but they’re working real hard
After SpaceX destroyed a capsule they had to get another to take its place.
Stuff the Starliner sheds can recontact it and do damage
Flying DM-1 retired risk much faster than continued studies and subsystem tests.
Despite years of safely loading sub-cooled propellants in the hour or so before static fire and launch, only two of these loading “count” and GAO remains worried.
SpaceX thought they would have 30% of their reports to complete after the uncrewed test but will have 50%. Boeing thought 40% but will have 70% to do.
Despite almost a thousand engine flights since the last in-flight engine failure, which did not preclude mission success, NASA wants a new process which SpaceX didn’t think was necessary.
On ISS crew sufficiency, GAO reserves the right to say “I told you so!”
[/cynicism]
If only it was that easy to turn off
But all this was known

[gongora]

But all this was known

It's a periodic audit of a development program that's been going on for years.  Most of its contents should be known already.

[su27k]

With Gerstenmaier gone, decision to fly NASA astronauts may be more contentious

There will almost certainly be some sort of controversy with the first commercial crew flights, given the overall stakes with humans on board and the more purely commercial nature of the contracts. Moreover, both SpaceX and Boeing have had accidents just before, during, or after hot-fire tests of the thrusters to be used during a launch abort emergency.

"Somebody is going to be unhappy," Hale said of the Flight Readiness Reviews for the first crewed flights of the new vehicles. "I guarantee it. If it’s not one thing it will be another. There will be a contentious meeting and somebody is going to have to say, 'Well, I heard the story and I think we ought to go ahead.'"

"It’s potentially going to be ugly, and they wouldn’t have done that with Bill," Hale said. "If Bill were there and said 'I heard you, and I think the risk is acceptable,' the NASA workforce would have gone along. Now, they’ve lost that."

[ddspaceman]

Posted by Stephanie Martin, Aug 8,2019

SpaceX recently held a training event at its facility in Hawthorne, California for prelaunch operations with NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley and ground operators for the company’s Demo-2 mission to the International Space Station as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The training provided an opportunity for the integrated team to dry run all of the activities, procedures and communication that will be exercised on launch day when a Crew Dragon spacecraft launches on a Falcon 9 rocket from Launch Complex 39A in Florida.

The astronauts performed suit-up procedures alongside the SpaceX ground closeout team and suit engineers using the same ground support equipment, such as the seats and suit leak check boxes, that will be used on launch day. Following crew suit-up, the teams performed a simulated launch countdown with the astronauts inside a Crew Dragon simulator and performed several emergency egress, or exit, scenarios.

The training exercise is one of several that NASA astronauts have participated in with our commercial crew partners, Boeing and SpaceX, in preparation for crew flight tests. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program continues to place astronaut safety at the forefront of preparations for human spaceflight.
 




https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/

[ddspaceman]

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1161712193618030597

[Tomness]

From flight crew assignment thread

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=516097&lang=RU
Google translation

The first Soyuz with a fully Russian crew will arrive on the ISS next fall, Pavel Vlasov, head of the Cosmonaut Training Center, told Interfax.
"The crew of the spacecraft launching to the ISS in the fall of 2020 may consist entirely of Russian cosmonauts. This is due to the fact that at present there is no agreement between Roscosmos and NASA on whether there will be an American astronaut in this crew," Vlasov said on the sidelines aerospace salon MAKS.
According to Vlasov, at the moment there is a possibility that an agreement on the formation of an international crew will nevertheless be reached.
"American colleagues, due to delays in their ships, can prepare an appeal to Roscosmos with proposals for the formation of an international crew. Then plans to send only Russian cosmonauts can be replayed," said the head of the CPC.

Well Comercial Crew is on the horizon. Money running dry(opinion). They don't want to mix the crews in a barter system. Two can fit 4-7 crew, the other 3 crew.

[gongora]

Not much new discussed at the ASAP meeting today.  A few notes:

Parachute testing remains a challenge.  The mathematical models don't seem to be predicting the correct amount of margin, especially with asymmetric loading.  More testing needed.

One of the suppliers had a problem where a component they procured made it through component qual testing but was found to be out of spec when it went to integrated testing.

SpaceX almost finished going through the fault tree for the Dragon anomaly.

Extensive analysis and testing of the COPV's has continued.

Load and Go fueling making progress, still some work to be done.  Will use dry runs and static fires of the In-Flight Abort and DM-2 missions (and the IFA launch) for further analysis.

[spacebleachers]

I didn't get to listen in yesterday. Was the parachute issue with both contractors or just SpaceX? I thought Boeing had declared success with their Parachute testing.

[gongora]

They seemed to be saying the modeling problems affected everyone.  That doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop flying until the entire industry gets better at parachute modeling.  We'll see if they say anything about it at the next NAC meeting.

[Robotbeat]

They seemed to be saying the modeling problems affected everyone.  That doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop flying until the entire industry gets better at parachute modeling.  We'll see if they say anything about it at the next NAC meeting.

yeah, it effects Orion, too.

[Lars-J]

They seemed to be saying the modeling problems affected everyone.  That doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop flying until the entire industry gets better at parachute modeling.  We'll see if they say anything about it at the next NAC meeting.

yeah, it effects Orion, too.

Maybe... just maybe, the standard practice of ASAP to "just add more parachutes!" is actually reducing safety instead of increasing it.

One example of this being that the 4th parachute that was added was getting tangled/moving in unpredictable ways, if I recall... just like a three-legged stool always being stable, the behavior of three parachutes is easier to model. Four is another ballgame.

[DigitalMan]

Just so I'm clear, is it that the models are not predicting behavior as expected?  As in there are unknown effects that NASA wants to understand?

It makes me wonder, perhaps in hindsight it would have been easier to ensure full-redundant propulsive landing and perhaps it would have been more understood and controllable.  Parachutes have been used for many decades, who would have thought?

[Robotbeat]

From what I understand of the research, current/now-obsolete models said that (or just kind of assumed that) loads were fairly equally distributed among the parachutes' lines. The new research shows that's really not the case.

So yeah, it impacts Orion, too.

[speedevil]

They seemed to be saying the modeling problems affected everyone.  That doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop flying until the entire industry gets better at parachute modeling.  We'll see if they say anything about it at the next NAC meeting.

yeah, it effects Orion, too.

Maybe... just maybe, the standard practice of ASAP to "just add more parachutes!" is actually reducing safety instead of increasing it.

One example of this being that the 4th parachute that was added was getting tangled/moving in unpredictable ways, if I recall... just like a three-legged stool always being stable, the behavior of three parachutes is easier to model. Four is another ballgame.

Five will clearly fix it.

[gongora]

ASAP doesn't set the number of parachutes.  The spacecraft manufacturer and the Commercial Crew office set the number of parachutes.

[meekGee]

They seemed to be saying the modeling problems affected everyone.  That doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop flying until the entire industry gets better at parachute modeling.  We'll see if they say anything about it at the next NAC meeting.

yeah, it effects Orion, too.

Maybe... just maybe, the standard practice of ASAP to "just add more parachutes!" is actually reducing safety instead of increasing it.

One example of this being that the 4th parachute that was added was getting tangled/moving in unpredictable ways, if I recall... just like a three-legged stool always being stable, the behavior of three parachutes is easier to model. Four is another ballgame.

That one was sad to watch.

Put three pennies on a flat surface and you can see that behavior.  There's no reasons why the N-S state would be more or less preferable to the E-W state.

3 pennies. By Grabthar's hammer, what a saving.

[Ken the Bin]

NASA, Boeing Perform Landing and Recovery Rehearsals in New Mexico

First paragraph:

Boeing, NASA and the U.S. Army conducted exercises, known as mission dress rehearsals, for Boeing’s upcoming CST-100 Starliner missions to the International Space Station. This series of rehearsals at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico focused on the landing and recovery aspect of Starliner’s mission, and was one of three of Boeing’s formal dress rehearsals that took place over the last couple of weeks as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

[Roy_H]

ASAP doesn't set the number of parachutes.  The spacecraft manufacturer and the Commercial Crew office set the number of parachutes.

It is my understanding that increases the number of parachutes increases the safety rating. NASA does not require 4 parachutes, but they did design the criteria for safety rating vs LOM. Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to get every point they can to get to 140. If they go to 3 parachutes they will have to find some other item to improve to gain back the lost point. So yes, the 4 parachute system is driven by NASA.

[whitelancer64]

ASAP doesn't set the number of parachutes.  The spacecraft manufacturer and the Commercial Crew office set the number of parachutes.

It is my understanding that increases the number of parachutes increases the safety rating. NASA does not require 4 parachutes, but they did design the criteria for safety rating vs LOM. Boeing and SpaceX are struggling to get every point they can to get to 140. If they go to 3 parachutes they will have to find some other item to improve to gain back the lost point. So yes, the 4 parachute system is driven by NASA.

Where does this 140 number come from?

[Ken the Bin]

Posted today by NASA:

NASA, SpaceX Test Pad Emergency Egress System

NASA and SpaceX conducted a formal verification of the company’s emergency escape, or egress, system at Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A in Florida on Sept. 18, 2019. NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Shannon Walker participated in the exercise to verify the crew can safely and swiftly evacuate from the launch pad in the unlikely event of an emergency before liftoff of SpaceX’s first crewed flight test, called Demo-2.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

[cppetrie]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

Wow. Just wow. Pot meet kettle. How is SLS doing on that schedule thing? Oh yeah. And at least half the reason for delays in commercial crew are due NASA itself. Again, just wow.

[envy887]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

That's just.... wow. Really?

[lonestriker]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

That's just.... wow. Really?

Why in the world would you piss all over SpaceX's monumental achievement?  This could be the inflection point in history where space travel becomes more routine and accessible to the masses.  If history bears this out, Jim will have an ignominious black mark on his name and tenure as NASA administrator.

Stay classy Jim.

[b0objunior]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

[RobW]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

These words may be coming from Jim, but I doubt he wrote them or particularly wants to be associated with them. His hands are tied by the Golden Rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules. In this case, the flow of gold is largely controlled by a senator from Alabama, who sees Starship and pretty much everything SpaceX does as a threat to his empire.

[Edited for typo]

[cppetrie]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

I think that qualifies as a massive oversimplification. It is not as if NASA has not been a major factor in the delays. While SpaceX has not fulfilled the contract yet, they have worked diligently to do so. SS efforts have not contributed to Dragon2 delays. NASA is as responsible for those delays as anyone else. Not to mention that the other experienced player in the commercial crew program isn’t any further along.

[Orbiter]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

By that metric so has Boeing. Why was SpaceX thrown under the bus?

[su27k]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

[PM3]

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

That's completely sick, a slap into the face of all engineers doing their best for Crew Dragon. Won't exactly help to speed up CCDev.

[Comga]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

Ha!
I was thinking about NASA while watching the SpaceX Boca Chica crew hoist the front end of Starship onto the lower end with workers inside it. NASA could never tolerate the perceived risk. 
Enthusiasm?  Enthusiasm is frowned on in the world of checklists and reviews and reviews.
Elon was enthusiastic about propulsive landing.
If Bridenstine let Musk set an “enthusiastic” schedule the Dragon would be at the ISS safely in a month.
I can only imagine the Administrator’s snark if (when) Starship makes it to orbit before SLS.

[ncb1397]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

[su27k]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

So, they haven't done anything up to this point?

https://twitter.com/Alejandro_DebH/status/1177713578280964097

[ncb1397]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

So, they haven't done anything up to this point?

There have been zero crew rotations to the ISS or even test flights with people aboard. I think that might be the "deliver" part that Jim is referring to.

[thirtyone]

If you read this literally, I kind of figured this might also be intended as a bit of a shot at Boeing...they're equally (if not more) behind at this point, after all.

[su27k]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

So, they haven't done anything up to this point?

There have been zero crew rotations to the ISS or even test flights with people aboard. I think that might be the "deliver" part that Jim is referring to.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not replying to Jim (I hope this is just him under the gun of Shelby, not speaking out of his own volition), I'm replying to b0objunior who said SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, that's not the case.

[ncb1397]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

So, they haven't done anything up to this point?

There have been zero crew rotations to the ISS or even test flights with people aboard. I think that might be the "deliver" part that Jim is referring to.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not replying to Jim (I hope this is just him under the gun of Shelby, not speaking out of his own volition), I'm replying to b0objunior who said SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, that's not the case.

let me quote SpaceX's contract...

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 (ISS)
no later than 2017. Once the capability is matured and available, NASA intends to purchase
commercial crew transportation services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return needs.

...

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. Certification of the CTS shall be determined by NASA. The Contractor shall provide
special studies for risk reduction and other purposes related to its CTS, to the extent ordered under
CLIN 003 of this contract. The Contractor shall also provide complete, initial Post Certification
Missions to and from ISS including ground, launch, on-orbit, return and recovery operations, as
ordered by IDIQ tasks under this contract.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NNK14MA74C-SpaceX-CCtCap-Contract.pdf

SpaceX isn't being paid for doing some review or something like that. That just spreads out the payments ahead of time because payment on delivery (i.e. live crew member arrival on ISS, live crew member return to Earth) would be too burdensome financially and risky for the contractors. As such, the government takes on the risk that one or both vehicles never will successfully or safely rotate crews through the ISS or do so late which might mean less operational rotations would occur (the cost per flight then would be greater).

[jadebenn]

By that metric so has Boeing. Why was SpaceX thrown under the bus?

Because Boeing isn't promising to build the greatest rocket ever when they've still yet to launch a single crewed vehicle

[su27k]

By that metric so has Boeing. Why was SpaceX thrown under the bus?

Because Boeing isn't promising to build the greatest rocket ever when they've still yet to launch a single crewed vehicle

Of course boeing is promising to build the greatest rocket ever:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1027978115631349761

[su27k]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

So, they haven't done anything up to this point?

There have been zero crew rotations to the ISS or even test flights with people aboard. I think that might be the "deliver" part that Jim is referring to.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not replying to Jim (I hope this is just him under the gun of Shelby, not speaking out of his own volition), I'm replying to b0objunior who said SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, that's not the case.

let me quote SpaceX's contract...

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 (ISS)
no later than 2017. Once the capability is matured and available, NASA intends to purchase
commercial crew transportation services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return needs.

...

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. Certification of the CTS shall be determined by NASA. The Contractor shall provide
special studies for risk reduction and other purposes related to its CTS, to the extent ordered under
CLIN 003 of this contract. The Contractor shall also provide complete, initial Post Certification
Missions to and from ISS including ground, launch, on-orbit, return and recovery operations, as
ordered by IDIQ tasks under this contract.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NNK14MA74C-SpaceX-CCtCap-Contract.pdf

SpaceX isn't being paid for doing some review or something like that. That just spreads out the payments ahead of time because payment on delivery (i.e. live crew member arrival on ISS, live crew member return to Earth) would be too burdensome financially and risky for the contractors. As such, the government takes on the risk that one or both vehicles never will successfully or safely rotate crews through the ISS or do so late which might mean less operational rotations would occur (the cost per flight then would be greater).

If you interpret contract this way, then any contractor who hasn't delivered the final product also "failed at what they were paid to do", this include Boeing, twice (SLS core stage and Starliner) and Lockheed Martin (Orion), plus whoever the contractor is for the SLS GSE, plus Northrop Grumman (JWST), and many many others.

[jak Kennedy]

Bridenstine is going to have a lot of answering to do after Starship plus SH flies.

[jadebenn]

If you interpret contract this way, then any contractor who hasn't delivered the final product also "failed at what they were paid to do", this include Boeing, twice (SLS core stage and Starliner) and Lockheed Martin (Orion), plus whoever the contractor is for the SLS GSE, plus Northrop Grumman (JWST), and many many others.

Why not both? All are true statements.

[ncb1397]

If you interpret contract this way, then any contractor who hasn't delivered the final product also "failed at what they were paid to do", this include Boeing, twice (SLS core stage and Starliner) and Lockheed Martin (Orion), plus whoever the contractor is for the SLS GSE, plus Northrop Grumman (JWST), and many many others.

Yep, they all have not delivered the product they have been paid in advance to provide. All of them are more or less at the point where they have to deliver. That means no screws shaking off, no exploding capsules, no misaligned floors...none of that nonsense.

[su27k]

If you interpret contract this way, then any contractor who hasn't delivered the final product also "failed at what they were paid to do", this include Boeing, twice (SLS core stage and Starliner) and Lockheed Martin (Orion), plus whoever the contractor is for the SLS GSE, plus Northrop Grumman (JWST), and many many others.

Why not both? All are true statements.

Because it paints a black and white picture without going into important details, including:
1. It singles out SpaceX who is actually ahead of the rest (already flown near completed hardware)
2. It failed to distinguish the difference between a fixed cost, milestone based contract SpaceX is under with the cost-plus contract SLS is under.
3. It doesn't take into account the impact of Congress' early underfunding of Commercial Crew
4. It doesn't take into account NASA's role in the schedule delay.

[watermod]

At this point can SpaceX trust Jim Bridenstine to be a fair player with the FAA when they attempt to get launch permits for Starship?

 

[CJ]

Unless SpaceX has created Dragon 2 delays due to its Starship/SH program, Bridenstien's tweet is outrageous. Also, last time I looked, SpaceX wasn't exactly the only commercial crew provider.

Are there similar tweets calling out other NASA contractors by name in this manner? If not, I think an explanation should be demanded.

If, however, SpaceX has caused Dragon2 delays due to Starship/SH, then IMHO he has a valid point - provided he actually makes that point, instead of innuendo as currently.

This smells of sour grapes. 

[Lars-J]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

No, they haven't. This is a milestone payment contract, they only get paid if they have done it (i.e. finished the milestone). They don't get paid if they haven't finished doing it.

So, they haven't been paid a dime up to this point?

Milestone payments. Look it up. If you were unaware of such a concept.

Either that or were you... trolling? Nah. I should not assume that.

[DistantTemple]

If you read this literally, I kind of figured this might also be intended as a bit of a shot at Boeing...they're equally (if not more) behind at this point, after all.

Its easy to get carried away. Others will too. However:

Jim Bridenstein re tweeted this:
Edit: attempting to NOT embed tweet!

I would not read this as a shot to SpaceX, but rather a reflection of Jim's desire to see all NASA contractors meet their deadlines for government contracts.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1177711302296395776

[rokan2003]

If you read this literally, I kind of figured this might also be intended as a bit of a shot at Boeing...they're equally (if not more) behind at this point, after all.

Its easy to get carried away. Others will too. However:

Jim Bridenstein re tweeted this:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I would not read this as a shot to SpaceX, but rather a reflection of Jim's desire to see all NASA contractors meet their deadlines for government contracts. https://t.co/WNMod2wW3T</p>— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) September 27, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Being charitable is nice, but I fear slightly naive in this instance. He likely only retweeted it in an attempt to walk back his original tweet after seeing the backlash it had caused.

There is no way his first tweet wasn't squarely aimed at SpaceX - he only @'s SpaceX, afterall.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

[DistantTemple]

If you read this literally, I kind of figured this might also be intended as a bit of a shot at Boeing...they're equally (if not more) behind at this point, after all.

Its easy to get carried away. Others will too. However:

Jim Bridenstein re tweeted this:

I would not read this as a shot to SpaceX, but rather a reflection of Jim's desire to see all NASA contractors meet their deadlines for government contracts.

Being charitable is nice, but I fear slightly naive in this instance. He likely only retweeted it in an attempt to walk back his original tweet after seeing the backlash it had caused.

There is no way his first tweet wasn't squarely aimed at SpaceX - he only @'s SpaceX, afterall.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

Possibly  he "only @'s SpaceX" because SX is the current big event!
He normally seems good at politics, but I think he just screwed up and only saw it as EB says.

But maybe he's smarter than it appears, and he is laying the ground for criticism to switch back to SLS soon, once SX launches Demo 1. Which other gov space contracts will be behind schedule, and not delivering?

He can't slate SLS, but that is the elephant in the room.

[cebri]

Bridestine has fired shots at SpaceX before. Remember when he accused them of not being transparent enough in relation to the Demo-1 capsule incident.

I'm still waiting to hear the same from him in relation to the incident Boeing had with the starliner during the abort test.

Clearly there is some shady politics behind this statement. RT E.Berger is just an attemp to backtrack. A NASA administrator shouldn't be making these kind of statements on twitter. Which are shady and not very well intentioned.

If he thinks SpaceX is not paying enough attention to the CCP, then say so and prove it with objetive data.

[eeergo]

While arguing who is to blame, and the percentages of that blame, for the delays is a valid discussion - why is it so urticant for some to call out a very obvious cognitive dissonance?

Crew Dragon was promised to be flying its first demonstration crew in 2017, back in 2014 when they won the contract. It won't be doing so earlier than Q1 2020 now, more than 2 years behind schedule (let's pause for a second and reminisce on how the initial goal was to have those missions by 2015-16, but never mind): a 75% increase in schedule, best case.

Starship has been publicized for a year now to be having its first (crewed, circumlunar!) flight in 2023, while presumably having some shakedown crewed missions first: so in less than 4 years. That's equivalent to the initial Crew Dragon schedule, while having none of the heritage technology of the latter (Dragon-1, F9...)

We can argue how these are aspirational schedules,
or how SS/SH's schedule will be *so much better*(TM) because of the great fact Big Government isn't meddling with its development,
or just because its extraordinary retrofuturistic design is the ultimate delay burner while keeping functionality and safety intact, far above other alternatives.

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

(I) goes against all of Musk's PR within the last year.
(II) reflects the Administrator's concerns reflected in today's tweet.

And maybe Brindestine has a datapoint or two more than commentators here.

[speedevil]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

That is not a fact.
Neglecting  'c) Much of the development comes in as scheduled on existing revenue.' turns it into opinion.

[eeergo]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

That is not a fact.
Neglecting  'c) Much of the development comes in as scheduled on existing revenue.' turns it into opinion.

Didn't SpaceX also have external revenue since 2014, that in fact it said it was partly investing in D2-related development?

Do you believe adequate levels of funding for SS/SH will, first, be secured in such a short timescale to make the 2023 schedule doable? This is opinion too, incidentally. Unless by "existing" you're saying just the current F9-derived revenue is sufficient, which I think we all agree isn't.

What would those levels of funding be, by the way (keeping in mind D2's were ~$2.6B, and mostly didn't include booster or basic capsule development)?

Do you also believe, or in other words, is it your opinion that revenue $$ are all that's needed to make development go on as currently scheduled, in a much smoother way than what was possible for D2 -- and that we're not talking about my option (II)?

[su27k]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

(I) goes against all of Musk's PR within the last year.
(II) reflects the Administrator's concerns reflected in today's tweet.

And maybe Brindestine has a datapoint or two more than commentators here.

(I) NASA is saying they'll land human on the Moon in 2024, which is much much harder than DearMoon, nobody is calling out this cognitive dissonance either

(II) There is nothing for Administrator to be concerned about, since D2 is already near completion, once it's completed the resources used on it can be redirected to Starship, so more manpower to Starship (later) and attention to D2 (now) is not mutually exclusive.

(III) You're ignoring the huge amount of knowledge and hardware they can port from D2 directly to Starship, ECLSS and suits for starters. For DearMoon, they can even bolt a few D2 capsules directly inside the Starship cargo bay.

(IV) You're also ignoring the fact that for DearMoon SpaceX wouldn't need the tons of NASA paperwork, they only need informed consent and FAA approval.

(V) There's also the fact that Starship has much more payload capability to play with, which means they can trade mass for complexity/cost of the life support system.

(VI) Additionally, Starship - the spacecraft - would fly many unmanned missions before having people aboard, unlike D2 which only has one test flight before bringing people onboard. This changes the risk calculation and mitigation strategy significantly.

[woods170]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

By that metric so has Boeing. Why was SpaceX thrown under the bus?

Because SuperHeavy and StarShip are direct threats to SLS and Orion.

That's why.

[woods170]

Unless SpaceX has created Dragon 2 delays due to its Starship/SH program, Bridenstien's tweet is outrageous. Also, last time I looked, SpaceX wasn't exactly the only commercial crew provider.

Are there similar tweets calling out other NASA contractors by name in this manner? If not, I think an explanation should be demanded.

If, however, SpaceX has caused Dragon2 delays due to Starship/SH, then IMHO he has a valid point - provided he actually makes that point, instead of innuendo as currently.

This smells of sour grapes. 

Emphasis mine.

Yes. Exactly this. Sour grapes.

[eeergo]

(I) NASA is saying they'll land human on the Moon in 2024, which is much much harder than DearMoon, nobody is calling out this cognitive dissonance either

Oh, plenty of people (rightfully) are. But we're not whatabouting here, are we?

(II) There is nothing for Administrator to be concerned about, since D2 is already near completion, once it's completed the resources used on it can be redirected to Starship, so more manpower to Starship (later) and attention to D2 (now) is not mutually exclusive.

How can manpower from a project that is much less ambitious (= simpler+more already-developed heritage = less people) help much in SS/SH's development? Of course, I gather you're not talking about money, since most of D2's development funding is coming from the public sector and that cannot be redirected / will be gone once D2's development ends.

(III) You're ignoring the huge amount of knowledge and hardware they can port from D2 directly to Starship, ECLSS and suits for starters. For DearMoon, they can even bolt a few D2 capsules directly inside the Starship cargo bay.

Can they? They couldn't do it between the far more similar and interconnected D1 and D2: Musk himself said they're quite different spacecraft in spite of similar moldlines. Certainly it's no trivial task to port a 6-person capable ECLSS designed for a "small" capsule to a long-duration one capable of supporting dozens of crew in a huge ship (as ISS has been proving for a few years now). Suits are not part of SS.

It's clear you're completely misjudging the HUGE differences between D2/F9 and SS/SH.

(IV) You're also ignoring the fact that for DearMoon SpaceX wouldn't need the tons of NASA paperwork, they only need informed consent and FAA approval.

I'm not, that's why I said earlier on "how SS/SH's schedule will be *so much better*(TM) because of the great fact Big Government isn't meddling with its development" (sarcastically, but that's independent of my argumentation).

(V) There's also the fact that Starship has much more payload capability to play with, which means they can trade mass for complexity/cost of the life support system.

That's part of (II), payload capability doesn't come for free, you need a system around it to support it. By the way, a more massive ECLSS will have more failure points - its complexity doesn't come about for being small.

(VI) Additionally, Starship - the spacecraft - would fly many unmanned missions before having people aboard, unlike D2 which only has one test flight before bringing people onboard. This changes the risk calculation and mitigation strategy significantly.

D1 would have more in common with D2 (passive ECLSS, crew space once docked, man-rated for orbital use, equivalent propulsion system...)  than a crew-module-less SS, essentially a reusable upper stage, would have with a crewed SS. Just arriving to an operational payload-only SS with enough margin to develop the crewed version for 2023 would get us into (II) territory.

[ZChris13]

-Snip: this post made me go cool down over breakfast because I believe arguments that don't follow my opinions are lots of aggressive nonsense. Please stand by while I regain good manners. Thank you-ZChris13

The most important transferable between the Crew Starship and Dragon 1/2 programs is institutional experience and trained engineers, which is going to help a lot. They've already designed two capsules, if the timeline says they can develop another (integrated into the as-yet-unproven Starship upper stage) in a few years, then I believe them, although of course Elon time should be applied.

[john smith 19]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before. I only come occasionally to this section.

Here's the thing I don't get.

Boeing won the other contract because they were perceived (I think it's fair to say) as a safe experienced pair of hands. They know what to do because they've already done it. AFAIK Mercury, Gemini, parts of Apollo and Shuttle were all built by successor companies to Boeing.

So logically (despite not having built a human carrying vehicle since Shuttle) they should be romping home, well ahead of SX.  I mean literally years ahead of SX with what they (are presumed to) know about the task.

Yet SX has been delivering cargo to ISS for 7 years now.

So docking <> berthing. I get that. But Boeing had no design to re-design. It could start from scratch with an optimal design for docking from day one. On the flip side that makes Cargo Dragon look like a death trap if it needs 7 years (and counting) to make it fit for human transport. It would be amazing if one of them hadn't failed already while berthed to the ISS (and yet none of them have).

I will note (correct me if I'm wrong) but no funding request for CC has ever been paid in full by Congress. My impression is they have released 50% (or less) of the funds asked for every time.  To then complain about failure to execute (while giving SLS more than NASA ask for) seems pretty unfair.

[ulm_atms]

Guys...the tweet was political...nothing more...move on.

[spacebleachers]

I will note (correct me if I'm wrong) but no funding request for CC has ever been paid in full by Congress. My impression is they have released 50% (or less) of the funds asked for every time.  To then complain about failure to execute (while giving SLS more than NASA ask for) seems pretty unfair.

Incorrect. Congress has fully funded CC since 2017.

[spacebleachers]

I too think this was largely political, but while it is fun to bash our least favorite Alabama senator, I think it more likely the pressure to tweet this came from his bosses (VP Pence and President Trump). This has Trump phrasing written all over it. Most specifically the get it done part at the end.

[speedevil]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

That is not a fact.
Neglecting  'c) Much of the development comes in as scheduled on existing revenue.' turns it into opinion.

Didn't SpaceX also have external revenue since 2014, that in fact it said it was partly investing in D2-related development?

I did not enumerate all possible options missing.
To expand - it is your opinion that SpaceX cannot deliver on SS/SH crew in 2024.

This does not make it a fact that you can then go on to leave out as a possibility for the future.

[eeergo]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

That is not a fact.
Neglecting  'c) Much of the development comes in as scheduled on existing revenue.' turns it into opinion.

Didn't SpaceX also have external revenue since 2014, that in fact it said it was partly investing in D2-related development?

I did not enumerate all possible options missing.
To expand - it is your opinion that SpaceX cannot deliver on SS/SH crew in 2024.

This does not make it a fact that you can then go on to leave out as a possibility for the future.

I'm not sure I follow. I list two concerns that, according to D2's development history and SS/SH's obvious greater complexity, are either separately or concurrently inevitable (to summarize, 2024 is substantially delayed, more attention is being/will be given to SS/SH than CC, or both).

You object I didn't take into account revenue permitting to circumvent both. I reply existing revenue was also used beyond the $2.6B public money award for the simpler D2, and yet... I also asked you some stuff about foreseeable revenues you chose to ignore in your new post, while not addressing my initial arguments or my rebuttal to your "revenue" idea.

[speedevil]

The fact remains: either (I) these schedules will balloon beyond 2026, best case (which so far hasn't been admitted), or (II) the attention (= money = manpower) devoted to this far more complex project, compared to D2's initial crewed capability, needs to be much, much larger than that given to Commercial Crew in the last 5 years. Or both.

That is not a fact.
Neglecting  'c) Much of the development comes in as scheduled on existing revenue.' turns it into opinion.

Didn't SpaceX also have external revenue since 2014, that in fact it said it was partly investing in D2-related development?

I did not enumerate all possible options missing.
To expand - it is your opinion that SpaceX cannot deliver on SS/SH crew in 2024.

This does not make it a fact that you can then go on to leave out as a possibility for the future.

I'm not sure I follow. I list two concerns that, according to D2's development history and SS/SH's obvious greater complexity, are either separately or concurrently inevitable (to summarize, 2024 is substantially delayed, more attention is being/will be given to SS/SH than CC, or both).

You object I didn't take into account revenue permitting to circumvent both. I reply existing revenue was also used beyond the $2.6B public money award for the simpler D2, and yet... I also asked you some stuff about foreseeable revenues you chose to ignore in your new post, while not addressing my initial arguments or my rebuttal to your "revenue" idea.

As one example of an alternative you exclude by your assumption - SS/SH is developed with a comparable effort to D2, due to higher systemic margins, and better ability to iterate on inexpensive hardware.
I was attempting to keep it brief as it's somewhat off-topic, as SS/SH is not in the current round of CC vehicles.

[eeergo]

I'm not sure I follow. I list two concerns that, according to D2's development history and SS/SH's obvious greater complexity, are either separately or concurrently inevitable (to summarize, 2024 is substantially delayed, more attention is being/will be given to SS/SH than CC, or both).

You object I didn't take into account revenue permitting to circumvent both. I reply existing revenue was also used beyond the $2.6B public money award for the simpler D2, and yet... I also asked you some stuff about foreseeable revenues you chose to ignore in your new post, while not addressing my initial arguments or my rebuttal to your "revenue" idea.

As one example of an alternative you exclude by your assumption - SS/SH is developed with a comparable effort to D2, due to higher systemic margins, and better ability to iterate on inexpensive hardware.

Still not addressing the many questions left behind in previous posts.

In any case, if you believe the development of a limited ferry craft for a few astronauts and independent missions of a few days, whose carrier rocket and direct predecessor spacecraft was operational at the start of development, is gonna be easier and cheaper without the need for much more attention and resources devoted to it (or at all) than a whole new unprecedented superrocket and BEO crewed craft/tug/tanker/lander - then I guess we can drop the discussion here.

[jak Kennedy]

Ha, well, Jim's not all wrong here. SpaceX failed at what they were paid to do, the end. Now they need to make up for it by actually doing it.

Kinda a dumb statement. Failing is when you stop trying. You would label Edison a failure while he was trying to perfect his lightbulb.

[Rocket Science]

I guess the administrator doesn't know that the excitement is about a prototype interplanetary ship for the masses and not taxi rides to LEO for a few select civil servants... Someone should explain the difference to him...

[GWH]

And maybe Brindestine has a datapoint or two more than commentators here.

This is the big question.  Is there something we don't know about D2 and another looming schedule slip?

[GWR64]

I think the NASA administration is getting nervous.
At least until undocking of Soyuz MS 15 should have a new long-term crew with Dragon 2 or Starliner on the ISS arrived. That's on March 30, 2020.

[Wudizzle]

Oh, plenty of people (rightfully) are. But we're not whatabouting here, are we?

Interesting take given that the quote you're choosing to vehemently defend is nothing but whataboutism.

[butters]

The thing that astonishes and baffles me the most about the Commercial Crew development schedule for Dragon is that the pad abort test took place all the way back in May 2015, and DM-1 didn't happen until almost four years later! I hope somebody writes a book someday so I can finally understand where those four years went.

[Catbiscuits]

Maybe he did it to take eyes off the $2.7 billion they just threw at Orion, which still has not flown in any meaningful way?

[TrevorMonty]

While can understand Bridenstine comment its not all SpaceX and Boeing fault. Project has been slowed by reduced NASA funding, design requirements that needed to worked out between NASA and two companies. There also the usual unseen failures discovered during testing eg exploding D2 and Starliners service module. The D2 failure was actually bonus as it highlight design issue whole industry needs to be aware of.

The use of pusher abort systems has made both vehicle more complex but long term benefits are worth effort.

Bridenstine should be more critical of LM and Boeing for Orion/SLS development. In case of SLS they had SRBs, US and engines why has it taken Boeing so long to build a large expendable booster. In same time frame with lot less money Space has built F9R, FHR and refined reuseable boosters.

[DigitalMan]

I think if NASA wanted either Boeing or SpaceX to be on time it should not have been changing requirements. 

[capoman]

I think this is just frustration from Bridenstine. I do think he did use poor timing and wording which was very vague and could be interpreted in many different ways. Generally, I've been a supporter of him, the best NASA admin they've had in a long time. I was very disappointed by this tweet initially, but also saw his retweet, and think it was genuine. I wouldn't want his job, as he is being bullied by politicians, and trying to deal with many contractors that are behind schedule. He may have been reminding SpaceX to keep the eye on the ball, but I do think this was frustration with everyone, and to be honest, as much as we want to see Starship fly,  and with SpaceX considering F9 obsolete, SpaceX does still have to honor their contracts to the best of their abilities.

[Mandella]

I imagine SpaceX would have been happy to have developed Crew Dragon out in a field using water tank welders if NASA would have let them...

 

[M.E.T.]

A lot I want to say about this ill judged tweet.  I will content myself for now by noting that, if I understand twitter’s workings correctly, Elon follows 81 twitter accounts, and if you click on that list Jim Bridenstine appears in it. However, curiously, under each of the 81 accounts it states: “Followed by Elon Musk” Except for Jim, where the status reads: “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning, Elon has apparently stopped following him. And rightly so, if that is indeed the case.

[rokan2003]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

[Navier–Stokes]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1178001517753835521

[M.E.T.]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

[rokan2003]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

You can see who someone is following on Twitter by clicking on the person's profile and then on 'following'. Elon follows 81 accounts, and Bridenstine appears in this list, so I believe he's still following him. Not sure why what you're describing is happening.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

[thirtyone]

Okay, again, general reply here - everyone keeps on focusing on SpaceX here because that's the apparent context of this tweet, but there are two commercial crew partners. Boeing asked for almost twice as much as SpaceX, and they are equally delayed. If there is someone you'd want to blame first in commercial crew, maybe it's Boeing.

Now, if we're worried about project focus here - remember, SpaceX is not a small company anymore. There are different divisions. There are thousands of employees. From what I've heard commercial crew is very much run separately from other parts of the company (certainly launch vehicle) and just because they're publicly working on Starship does not mean that they are somehow allocating fewer people to commercial crew. Based on NASA press releases and SpaceX retweets it sounds like they're actively doing work on commercial crew right now.

I mean, Boeing got a new contract for the MQ25 drone a year ago - does that mean they're somehow not focusing manpower on Starliner because they're busy with some lucrative defense contract? SLS is actually a better analogy here, because that's also another program that's supposed to bring humans into space, and I could say hey, Boeing, I'm glad you're making all this progress on getting people to space with your fancy new SLS, but commercial crew was due two years ago. Of course, that gets weird, because SLS is also a terribly late NASA contract and all...

Anyway, again, probably just a political tweet - worded carefully enough it sounds like it's bad for SpaceX, but also not really. You probably which congressman this was for.

[M.E.T.]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

You can see who someone is following on Twitter by clicking on the person's profile and then on 'following'. Elon follows 81 accounts, and Bridenstine appears in this list, so I believe he's still following him. Not sure why what you're describing is happening.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

I know that. That is the path I followed. He follows 81 accounts. Bridenstine’s is one of them. Go one step further and click on any of those 81 accounts and it will have a tagline showing which accounts that you follow are also followers of that account. For any of the other 80 accounts that tagline displays that Elon follows that account. Except in the case of Bridenstine, where it does not. Try it and you will see.

Maybe when you unfollow someone they still appear in your followed list for a while, but the tagline below is updated immediately?

[tater]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

You can see who someone is following on Twitter by clicking on the person's profile and then on 'following'. Elon follows 81 accounts, and Bridenstine appears in this list, so I believe he's still following him. Not sure why what you're describing is happening.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

I just checked, and I see NASA, but not Bridenstine on that list of 81.

[rokan2003]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

You can see who someone is following on Twitter by clicking on the person's profile and then on 'following'. Elon follows 81 accounts, and Bridenstine appears in this list, so I believe he's still following him. Not sure why what you're describing is happening.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

I just checked, and I see NASA, but not Bridenstine on that list of 81.

You're correct -- was there 5 min ago, but not on mine anymore either. I stand corrected.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

[thirtyone]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

Actually curious about the exact numbers. I recall the original funding being something like up to 2 billion for SpaceX, and 4 billion for Boeing. Has that been reduced? Or is the yearly funding different because they all ended up being late on their milestones and got paid less for it?

[M.E.T.]

Elon still follows him. It's right there when you click on Elon's Twitter profile and then click on 'following'

(Corrected a typo)

Yes, but if you follow Elon then under every one of the accounts in that list it will say “Followed by Elon Musk”. Under Jim’s account the message I get is “Followed by no one you are following”. Meaning Elon no longer follows him?

You can see who someone is following on Twitter by clicking on the person's profile and then on 'following'. Elon follows 81 accounts, and Bridenstine appears in this list, so I believe he's still following him. Not sure why what you're describing is happening.

Sent from my BBF100-6 using Tapatalk

I just checked, and I see NASA, but not Bridenstine on that list of 81.

I still see him there but under his name it says “not followed by anyone you are following”. Since I follow Elon it implies Elon no longer follows him. I’m guessing the 81 is yet to update to 80, so his name still appears there even though he has been unfollowed.

[akgunkel]

Guys, can we remember for a minute that Jim Bridenstine is a real human being who has been regularly grilled/roasted by Congress, the press, the President, the Russians and whoever else since he started his job because the USA doesn't have an operational crew launch capability. I read his tweet more as "Sure starship is awesome, I just wish they could finally get crew to ISS so all these jerks will stop busting my balls."  His tweet rubbed me wrong too and seemed unfair/undiplomatic, but it's an understandable sentiment from where he sits.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[AC in NC]

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

Some thoughts (some no-doubt already said various ways but some not yet covered):

(1)  Intent notwithstanding, this statement is objectively horrible.  It's horrible on the level of standing up at your daughter's engagement party and whatabouting her on that abortion she got in high school.

(2)  It would be surprising if this were a professionally crafted statement.  It should've been run-by professionals.  If this is a result of doing that, someone needs better professionals.

(3)  If these words are something Bridenstein does not agree with, he should have threatened to resign.  They are ridiculous.

(4)  50% funding through the contracted goal date pretty much eliminates any concept of "behind schedule".  You breached the contract right out of the gate so ST*U.

(5)  Enthusiasm, unless a poorly chosen word for SpaceX's execution diligence w.r.t. CCP, is an organic outgrowth of the way your frame your investments.  If there's no (or less than desired) enthusiasm for American Taxpayer's investments, that's 100% on NASA Jim.  Sorry but what SpaceX is doing in Boca is like watching the top-team in Premier League Soccer and watching NASA's other investments is more like watching wheelchair soccer (admirable though it may be).

(6)  But it really does feel more like Enthusiasm is a poorly chosen word for something about SpaceX.  See (2) above.

(7)  This is something like what the statement should have been:

“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow.  NASA is excited being partners with private companies furthering the goal of making human endeavours in space more accessible. Together we can move expeditiously toward return to domestic crewed spaceflight and a permanent presence at the moon and beyond.”

How hard was that, Jim?  I'm a software engineer not a PR professional.

[Rocket Science]

Guys, can we remember for a minute that Jim Bridenstine is a real human being who has been regularly grilled/roasted by Congress, the press, the President, the Russians and whoever else since he started his job because the USA doesn't have an operational crew launch capability. I read his tweet more as "Sure starship is awesome, I just wish they could finally get crew to ISS so all these jerks will stop busting my balls."  His tweet rubbed me wrong too and seemed unfair/undiplomatic, but it's an understandable sentiment from where he sits.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Remember he was "one of them"...

[Lemurion]

Apart from the generally classless phrasing of the statement it’s also telling that SpaceX is further ahead on commercial crew than Boeing but only SpaceX was tagged in the tweet. If Bridenstine was aiming it at all space contractors, he should have tagged them.

SpaceX has at least sent a Crew Dragon test article to the ISS.

[butters]

"Enthusiasm" is the key word of the tweet. While Bridenstine seems to be scolding SpaceX like the frustrated parent of an unruly child, what really has him upset is that the public is much more enthusiastic about Starship than Commercial Crew or Artemis.

[ncb1397]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1178001517753835521

Lori is wrong on that...

edit: previous totals didn't include FY 2018...now do

[Lemurion]

"Enthusiasm" is the key word of the tweet. While Bridenstine seems to be scolding SpaceX like the frustrated parent of an unruly child, what really has him upset is that the public is much more enthusiastic about Starship than Commercial Crew or Artemis.

If that’s the case he’s got a tough slog ahead of him. Commercial Crew is basically replicating 1960’s space capsules without the excitement of going to the Moon. Starship is recreating yesterday’s dreams in 50 meters of stainless steel. Of course people are going to be more enthusiastic  about the more exciting option. And that’s even ignoring Starship’s balls to the wall pace compared to NASA’s history of bureaucratic slowdowns.

[A_M_Swallow]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1178001517753835521

Lori is wrong on that...

She is thinking of FY2012
Request 850 / 2 = 425 got 392

[ncb1397]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1178001517753835521

Lori is wrong on that...

She is thinking of FY2012
Request 850 / 2 = 425 got 392

Her error is in extrapolating <50% funding for 2 years to 5 years.

[Khadgars]

Apart from the generally classless phrasing of the statement it’s also telling that SpaceX is further ahead on commercial crew than Boeing but only SpaceX was tagged in the tweet. If Bridenstine was aiming it at all space contractors, he should have tagged them.

SpaceX has at least sent a Crew Dragon test article to the ISS.

I completely agree with his statement though.  When the last time SpaceX made any mention of Crew Dragon?  I know when a part time employee who cleans the bathrooms is hired at Boca Chica before I know any progress on Crew Dragon.

[punder]

Her error is in extrapolating <50% funding for 2 years to 5 years.

Technically correct but pointless quibble. Garver's true point is valid and obvious.

[Navier–Stokes]

I completely agree with his statement though.  When the last time SpaceX made any mention of Crew Dragon?  I know when a part time employee who cleans the bathrooms is hired at Boca Chica before I know any progress on Crew Dragon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1166448459085316096
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1167234510796263425
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1172215126344122368
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1174406494839824385
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/1177649919131303937

[Lemurion]

Apart from the generally classless phrasing of the statement it’s also telling that SpaceX is further ahead on commercial crew than Boeing but only SpaceX was tagged in the tweet. If Bridenstine was aiming it at all space contractors, he should have tagged them.

SpaceX has at least sent a Crew Dragon test article to the ISS.

I completely agree with his statement though.  When the last time SpaceX made any mention of Crew Dragon?  I know when a part time employee who cleans the bathrooms is hired at Boca Chica before I know any progress on Crew Dragon.

SpaceX mentions Crew Dragon progress regularly; it doesn't mention it as often as Elon tweets about Starship because it's not progressing as fast. Commercial Crew has a lot more factors acting to slow it down than Starship, and that's reflected in the number of announcements we get.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/timfernholz/status/1178044118389399555

Update from Bridenstine spokesperson: No further comment is expected explaining the NASA administrator’s tweet about today’s Starship presentation or what specifically he would like to see SpaceX do to hurry commercial crew.

[TrevorMonty]

Apart from the generally classless phrasing of the statement it’s also telling that SpaceX is further ahead on commercial crew than Boeing but only SpaceX was tagged in the tweet. If Bridenstine was aiming it at all space contractors, he should have tagged them.

SpaceX has at least sent a Crew Dragon test article to the ISS.

I completely agree with his statement though.  When the last time SpaceX made any mention of Crew Dragon?  I know when a part time employee who cleans the bathrooms is hired at Boca Chica before I know any progress on Crew Dragon.

SpaceX mentions Crew Dragon progress regularly; it doesn't mention it as often as Elon tweets about Starship because it's not progressing as fast. Commercial Crew has a lot more factors acting to slow it down than Starship, and that's reflected in the number of announcements we get.

At present Starship its a big SS flying water tank thats not going to be carrying any precious cargo in near future. When Starship needs to fly passengers, then progress will slow.

[dglow]

The pushback against and removal of propulsive landing eliminated Crew Dragon as a component of SpaceX's Mars and moon plans. Did this also diminish some aspect of 'enthusiasm'? Yes, probably.

With Red Dragon off the table, SpaceX accelerated alternatives. One of these is standing 50m tall and reflecting the Texas sky.

[marsbase]

The pushback against and removal of propulsive landing eliminated Crew Dragon as a component of SpaceX's Mars and moon plans. Did this also diminish some aspect of 'enthusiasm'? Yes, probably.

With Red Dragon off the table, SpaceX accelerated alternatives. One of these is standing 50m tall and reflecting the Texas sky.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  If NASA rewarded "enthusiasm" there would be no SLS.

[DigitalMan]

Starhopper at least was built by a water tower company.  If NASA wanted those resources contributing to Crew Dragon I don't see how it would have been approved by NASA acceptance personnel.

Unclear what could be done to improve Crew Dragon engineering or schedule.

[docmordrid]

>
Unclear what could be done to improve Crew Dragon engineering or schedule.

Act on the NASA IG's implied suggestion that certain congress-critters (and surrogates) should stop interfering with vehicle decisions?

Ars Technica...

NASA's Inspector General has apparently had enough of meddling by Congress

On Tuesday, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin wrote a rather extraordinary letter to the US senators who determine the budget for the space agency. In effect, the independent NASA official asked Congress to kindly not meddle in decisions that concern actual rocket science.
>

[thirtyone]

Apart from the generally classless phrasing of the statement it’s also telling that SpaceX is further ahead on commercial crew than Boeing but only SpaceX was tagged in the tweet. If Bridenstine was aiming it at all space contractors, he should have tagged them.

SpaceX has at least sent a Crew Dragon test article to the ISS.

I completely agree with his statement though.  When the last time SpaceX made any mention of Crew Dragon?  I know when a part time employee who cleans the bathrooms is hired at Boca Chica before I know any progress on Crew Dragon.

I think the bias comes from the interest on forums like NSF, and Elon's personal enthusiasm. It would certainly feels that way as well, and I understand. But I've been actively keeping up with official releases and I actually think may be more official PR on crew dragon than there is on Starship (from NASA and SpaceX directly).

[thirtyone]

Friendly reminder that Congress cut commercial crew funding by more than 50% for the first 5 years!  ($500M became $230M, $800M became $400M etc.) Meanwhile, SLS/Orion requests of $3-4B got $100M's added by Congress.  Not all schedule slips should be created equal.

https://twitter.com/Lori_Garver/status/1178001517753835521

Lori is wrong on that...

edit: previous totals didn't include FY 2018...now do

Where do those numbers come from? I totally believe you, btw, just interested in knowing where I can find these numbers myself for future reference. Would also be useful to break down spending between Boeing and SpaceX (just curious if the original 2:1 cost ratio still applies after all the changes). Would I be correct to think that payment is made entirely by milestones, so there is very little wiggle room in the final amount paid, provided both contractors succeed? (So not cost plus in any way whatsoever)

[I14R10]

This really feels like NASA is jealous of SpaceX for getting most of the attention these days.

[OTV Booster]

https://twitter.com/jimbridenstine/status/1177711106300747777

My statement on @SpaceX's announcement tomorrow:
“I am looking forward to the SpaceX announcement tomorrow. In the meantime, Commercial Crew is years behind schedule. NASA expects to see the same level of enthusiasm focused on the investments of the American taxpayer. It’s time to deliver.”

That's just.... wow. Really?

Why in the world would you piss all over SpaceX's monumental achievement?  This could be the inflection point in history where space travel becomes more routine and accessible to the masses.  If history bears this out, Jim will have an ignominious black mark on his name and tenure as NASA administrator.

Stay classy Jim.

Bsides mostly venting, we are veering into space policy, but here goes anyhow.

SX in the process of kicking the historically necessary props out from under government sponsored space flight. Over he next several decades NASA will probably become as relevant as the Federal Rural Electrification Commission or what ever it’s called.

NASA (and Alabama) are scared.

Phil

[HeartofGold2030]

There’s a lot of laughable bias and assumptions floating around this thread, the cold light of reality will soon set in dispelling fantastical delusions.

[OTV Booster]

By that metric so has Boeing. Why was SpaceX thrown under the bus?

Because Boeing isn't promising to build the greatest rocket ever when they've still yet to launch a single crewed vehicle

Some jobs go no faster or at best only slightly faster even with massive resources thrown at them. I would be very surprised if the pad anomaly didn’t draw resources that would have otherwise gone to SS. I would be equally surprised if things would have gone much faster with a doubling of the resource available to crew dragon since the inception of hopper.

Phil

[DigitalMan]

This really feels like NASA is jealous of SpaceX for getting most of the attention these days.

If that's how they feel now, how are they going to feel when the Starship human missions begin?

[Chris Bergin]

This thread is in pain. Time to put it out of its misery. We'll start a new one on Sunday.