Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 2

[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?