Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[Wargrim]

Boeing is working really hard to make their business and communication attitude look bad, when their (Commercial Crew Space) - tech mostly looks solid.

[Tulse]

How much investigation do you think it takes to confirm that a pin was not correctly inserted into a loop? It's not exactly a complex problem.

Arguably the simplicity of the mistake makes it much more disturbing that it happened.  Failure to be able to predict complex parachute interactions is, to me at least, far more understandable than processes that don't ensure a critical pin is inserted correctly. It suggests a culture of practice that is not particularly detail-oriented, and I certainly would have preferred to hear more about this than just "eh, no biggie, we'll ensure that that one particularly thing is looked after more closely in future".

[gongora]

There has been more than enough discussion on the Boeing parachute issue on the pad abort already.  Nothing new is being added at this point.  Give it a rest.

[Comga]

"We never had a parachute test failure".

Forgetting to pin one of your chutes on a test has exactly the same result as a chute or line failing. I don't care what you call it.

in the short term (the chute did not deploy) yes, in the long term no.  a parachute failure would require some understanding of why it failed, if it is design or manufacturing flaw extensive rework and more testing. 

this requires neither.

You are correct in that it is neither of those, but it a process failure, and the amount of investigation into that has been, um, cursory. At least as to what was reported, and how quickly it was resolved.

How much investigation do you think it takes to confirm that a pin was not correctly inserted into a loop? It's not exactly a complex problem.

This response is inconsistent with your previous, well written post about the failure of “the system of systems”.

“Don’t forget any of the three pins.” doesn’t cover why a relatively simple step, which must be captured in a procedure, can be skipped without being caught.  Is someone coming back from a bathroom break and just initialing a bunch of steps that may or may not have happened?  Are steps being combined so that someone has to keep count in his or her head?  If this step got skipped, which others are vulnerable to a similar lack of checking?

[gongora]

Seriously.  You can go back a few days and find this exact same conversation, probably by the same people.  Enough already.

[RoboGoofers]

"-- Boeing started development much later but attempted to achieve the same schedule, which is a more expensive development approach."

I disagree with this strongly. They had worked on capsules for the Orion program and the Bigelow program. If anything, they had already started Starliner before Commercial Crew began.

SpaceX developed Dragon for CRS but also invested a lot of its own money. saying Boeing should be paid more because it wouldn't invest any of its own money on development is like showing up for a test you haven't studied for and then saying you should get extra points because everyone else studied.

Maybe their argument would make sense to bring new entrants into the market, but this is the market leader who is also saying that their experience merits a bonus, and that their experience shows they can meet the schedule.

[cebri]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/18/boeing-faced-only-limited-safety-review-nasa-while-spacex-got-full-examination/

25 million for performing an audit. How is it possible that the cost of the audit hasn't been defined in the contract? Can they ask for any number they want?

Imagine if Spacex had asked for 50 million.

[Rocket Science]

Dragon had her incident and now Starliner is in the midst of her off-nominal flight. In about  24 hours or so we'll find out her fate. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish we had a down-select to three with Dream Chaser. Some will stumble and some will fall, "space is a harsh mistress"... Good luck to all the teams.

[ugordan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish we had a down-select to three with Dream Chaser.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this site who wouldn't have liked the idea of 3 providers, unfortunately the reality is that all 3 would then have been underfunded even more and likely neither of them would have been even close to flying today.

Not that it would guarantee that Dream Chaser wouldn't run into its own set of issues in flight...

[Rocket Science]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish we had a down-select to three with Dream Chaser.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this site who wouldn't have liked the idea of 3 providers, unfortunately the reality is that all 3 would then have been underfunded even more and likely neither of them would have been even close to flying today.

Not that it would guarantee that Dream Chaser wouldn't run into its own set of issues in flight...

The sad part is that money suddenly becomes available and is spent when "those with the purse" feel like it. Three different vehicles "might of spread the risk"...

[abaddon]

...or maybe SNC wins a contract, but loses a vehicle in an accident and can't fund to replace it.  (They were planning on building only two vehicles IIRC).  Or more likely, they have similar issues and have to deal with them but push through to eventual success.

I know SNC is a favorite sacred cow of some folks around here, and I would have liked to see them have a shot at the brass ring myself, but imaging SNC sails smoothly through all of the obstacles the chosen providers have had to deal with is fanciful in my mind.  It's far more likely they too would have had problems along the way.  I agree that a downselect to three would have been a mistake.

I'd prefer to at this point look forward to their cargo vehicle and see how that goes, and hope the two selected Commercial Crew providers can work through their issues and safely return astros to space using US vehicles.

[Rocket Science]

Just make DC the first spacecraft in the new "Space force" and watch it get funded IMHO...

[Rocket Science]

...or maybe SNC wins a contract, but loses a vehicle in an accident and can't fund to replace it.  (They were planning on building only two vehicles IIRC).  Or more likely, they have similar issues and have to deal with them but push through to eventual success.

I know SNC is a favorite sacred cow of some folks around here, and I would have liked to see them have a shot at the brass ring myself, but imaging SNC sails smoothly through all of the obstacles the chosen providers have had to deal with is fanciful in my mind.  It's far more likely they too would have had problems along the way.  I agree that a downselect to three would have been a mistake.

I'd prefer to at this point look forward to their cargo vehicle and see how that goes, and hope the two selected Commercial Crew providers can work through their issues and safely return astros to space using US vehicles.

"Every vehicle will have its development issues" which is why always I believed in spreading the risk especially in the new industry of commercial spaceflight...I stated years ago with the down-select to two that we would end up buying more seats on Soyuz and sometimes I just hate being proven right...

[abaddon]

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

[Rocket Science]

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

So you don't believe in spreading risk, that's fine...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Follow-up in today’s Starliner OFT conference call, relating to OIG claim that Boeing said they’d pull out of CC without more funding:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1208477098786074624

I asked Jim Chilton if Boeing would reconsider its participation in commercial crew if NASA requires a second uncrewed test flight, and if Boeing has to pay for it. Reply: "We're in. Simple as that."

My sense is if the landing goes well, NASA is leaning against a second test.

[TrevorMonty]

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

So you don't believe in spreading risk, that's fine...

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

If it was three, then they would all receive less annual funding, slowing development down. Two is enough to provide reliable crew service to ISS and there is still Soyzu giving 3rd option.

[Chris Bergin]

Seriously.  You can go back a few days and find this exact same conversation, probably by the same people.  Enough already.

All heed this. Had some other mods saying there's problem people on here. Don't make me come back here with "the big stick".

[Rocket Science]

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

So you don't believe in spreading risk, that's fine...

I just hate being proven right...

Luckily for you, you weren't proven right.  You have absolutely no proof that the downselect to two providers is why we are where we are today.  Downselecting to three providers very well might have us further behind the eight ball.

In any case, everyone has opinions, I'm done expressing mine.

If it was three, then they would all receive less annual funding, slowing development down. Two is enough to provide reliable crew service to ISS and there is still Soyzu giving 3rd option.

Ok, so my post got deleted which is fine. "As of July 2019, NASA had purchased 70 Soyuz seats worth $3.9 billion to ferry 70 U.S. and partner astronauts to and from the Station." I would have rather see US tax dollars, subsidizing American industry and creating American jobs. So money magically appears... Soyuz is not part of the Commercial Crew program and does not meet crew safety requirements as written. Not looking to argue but facts are facts.
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf

Mods: feel free to delete but read the report...

[Rik ISS-fan]

Pease people calm down a litle.
I agree that risks have been spread by selecting two providers. Both required over 2e9 dollar to develop a human launch capability. Ideologically risks could have been spread further by funding the third, but there is a available budget that has to be considered.
Rocket Science states that 70 Soyuz seats have cost the USA 3,9 billion. Didn't the full develoment of Starliner cost roughly the same?
I expect the full development of SNC DreamChacer would also have cost >3 Billion.
So the total cost to develop two commercial crew resupply vehicles is more, than the total cost of all the seats flown on soyuz in 2011-2019. I even expect that when NASA would have continued buying soyuz seats for 2020-2024 (40x 75mln = 3billion) would have saved a lot of US tax dollars.

But indeed these investments have been made in the US. Thus a lot of it returns to US taxes. These investments have a multiplier effect. There is high quality employment. It betters the technological outlook of the USA.
And possibly it enables crewed flight.

Now lets look back at 2011 at the decicion to retire the Space Shuttles, develop Orion and two ARES Launch vehicles and do the commercial cargo development.
AFAIK the cost to us taxpayers of all beyond LEO human launch capabilities is well over 20 billion in the 2011-2019 period. (ARES, Orion, SLS)
There was also the shuttle Direct concept that would have involved several more shuttle flights to bridge the development time for the Direct launch vehicle.
There were also back than concepts to use EELV launchers to launch orion.

AFAIK, the commercial crew program was introduced becouse the cargo program was so succesfull and the Orion couldn't be developed in time for ISS resupply. Considering all, the Commercial crew program is still going very well if you compare it to other NASA projects.

I think the road SpaceX followed is about the best to develop a crew launch capability.
First develop a launcher and cargo supply and return capability. Perform 10 to 20 cargo resupply missions. After five, start the development of crew launch vehicle out of the cargo vehicle.

I hope SNC Dreamchacer can  follow this path as well.
The Boeing Starliner (and Orion SLS) approach is fast, directly to manned orbital. But therefore with high risk. To tackle that, it costs quite a lot.
Do others share the thought that ~300mln for a second uncrewed Starliner launch is well worth the risk reduction that comes with two succesfull launches and landings of the crew vehicle?