“While they are training, we will be looking at the different options for flights and select the most suitable for us going forward,” he said [Salem AlMarri, the head of the UAE astronaut program], That could include flights on Russian Soyuz spacecraft as well as SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner. “We plan through next year to look at trying to get different opportunities to secure a seat for one of our astronauts.”
NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.html
Interesting dynamic emerging in this NASA advisory committee meeting. Boeing's failure on Starliner is being used as an example to favor cost-plus rather than commercial contracts. I.e. NASA would have caught it under traditional contract.
Of course the counter-argument to this is that maybe some traditional companies just can't thrive in the new world of competitive spaceflight. Maybe you shouldn't punish companies that can handle fixed price contracts because others can't.
To be clear this is a fairly common viewpoint among the older guard of aerospace. There's still a mistrust about "commercial" because they've heard about it for so long. A successful Demo-2 flight should go a long way toward dispelling some of these beliefs, I suspect.
[Eric Berger]Boeing's failure on Starliner is being used as an example to favor cost-plus rather than commercial contracts. I.e. NASA would have caught it under traditional contract.
In a similar vein:twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1260638187640193024Quote NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.html
And yet ...twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1260592638878797825Quote Interesting dynamic emerging in this NASA advisory committee meeting. Boeing's failure on Starliner is being used as an example to favor cost-plus rather than commercial contracts. I.e. NASA would have caught it under traditional contract.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/13/2020 08:56 pmIn a similar vein:twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1260638187640193024Quote NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.htmlNote that this was for a six person Lunar capable spacecraft with over 1 km/s delta-V and an all new launch vehicle. NASA could have developed a smaller vehicle with limited delta-V and used a commercial launch vehicle. Oh wait. They were doing that and then cancelled it in favour of Orion/Ares-I. It was called OSP. That would have cost from $11B to $13B. Still a lot more expensive than commercial, but it would have been ready by 2012.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3541478/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/changing-shape-spacecraft-come/
It is worth pointing out that Orion was developed regardless. So, you didn't really save much in terms of development especially if you just plop Orion onto Atlas V or whatever. Most of Ares I was developed as well, including the Ares 1 test flight, Ares 1 mobile launcher, J-2X upper stage engine and 5 segment solid booster.And the Augustine estimate for Ares 1 + Orion seems pretty close to the result for Orion + SLS. So, not sure how credible that is.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 05/14/2020 06:46 pmIt is worth pointing out that Orion was developed regardless. So, you didn't really save much in terms of development especially if you just plop Orion onto Atlas V or whatever. Most of Ares I was developed as well, including the Ares 1 test flight, Ares 1 mobile launcher, J-2X upper stage engine and 5 segment solid booster.And the Augustine estimate for Ares 1 + Orion seems pretty close to the result for Orion + SLS. So, not sure how credible that is.Ares I was not "developed".Ares 1X was a mockup, with a 4 segment solid rocket made to look like a 5 segment a featureless, engineless second stage shaped tube, and mocked up capsule and launch abort system. Nothing here is any refutation of the conclusion about the thread's topic, Commercial Crew, that it would have been many times more expensive to have it done with traditional cost plus contracting.
Quote from: Comga on 05/14/2020 07:28 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 05/14/2020 06:46 pmIt is worth pointing out that Orion was developed regardless. So, you didn't really save much in terms of development especially if you just plop Orion onto Atlas V or whatever. Most of Ares I was developed as well, including the Ares 1 test flight, Ares 1 mobile launcher, J-2X upper stage engine and 5 segment solid booster.And the Augustine estimate for Ares 1 + Orion seems pretty close to the result for Orion + SLS. So, not sure how credible that is.Ares I was not "developed".Ares 1X was a mockup, with a 4 segment solid rocket made to look like a 5 segment a featureless, engineless second stage shaped tube, and mocked up capsule and launch abort system. Nothing here is any refutation of the conclusion about the thread's topic, Commercial Crew, that it would have been many times more expensive to have it done with traditional cost plus contracting.The problem with this thesis is that both contractors have had moments that give you pause and make you question what short cuts were taken to come in many times less expensive (ignoring the LEO vs lunar aspect and that the contractors ate the cost overruns). Are said "moments" over and done with and put behind us? We won't know tell much later. But both providers have been given a soft ball. They have 6 flights each manifested. Even with a LOC rate much worse than 1/270, they probably should skate by no problem.
The problem with this thesis is that both contractors have had moments that give you pause...
...give you pause and make you question what short cuts were taken to come in many times less expensive...
Are said "moments" over and done with and put behind us?
We won't know till much later.
But both providers have been given a soft ball.
Even with a LOC rate much worse than 1/270, they probably should skate by no problem.
ISTM that schedule pressure was a significant contributing factor to Starliner issues (not testing with the right hardware as it was needed elsewhere at the same time).
Quote Interesting dynamic emerging in this NASA advisory committee meeting. Boeing's failure on Starliner is being used as an example to favor cost-plus rather than commercial contracts. I.e. NASA would have caught it under traditional contract.Um....so because of Boeing's failure on Starliner.....we should of used a contract where that failure would of cost more...um...what?? If that is the case...SpaceX doing better for much less means what then?Woods is correct...NASA signed off on their testing...no contract difference would of mattered. Whoever signed off from NASA is the one they need to talk to. QuoteISTM that schedule pressure was a significant contributing factor to Starliner issues (not testing with the right hardware as it was needed elsewhere at the same time).No, Boeing not being able to EVER hit a schedule the last few decades was part of the factor...the other part was $$$.But everyone remember...Boeing was selected because they were the safer/known choice.....
Quote from: ulm_atms on 05/14/2020 08:05 pmQuote Interesting dynamic emerging in this NASA advisory committee meeting. Boeing's failure on Starliner is being used as an example to favor cost-plus rather than commercial contracts. I.e. NASA would have caught it under traditional contract.Um....so because of Boeing's failure on Starliner.....we should of used a contract where that failure would of cost more...um...what?? If that is the case...SpaceX doing better for much less means what then?Woods is correct...NASA signed off on their testing...no contract difference would of mattered. Whoever signed off from NASA is the one they need to talk to. QuoteISTM that schedule pressure was a significant contributing factor to Starliner issues (not testing with the right hardware as it was needed elsewhere at the same time).No, Boeing not being able to EVER hit a schedule the last few decades was part of the factor...the other part was $$$.But everyone remember...Boeing was selected because they were the safer/known choice..... Yes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.
Yes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/14/2020 08:58 pmYes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.
Quote from: dglow on 05/14/2020 09:19 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/14/2020 08:58 pmYes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.SNC / DreamChaser shot itself in the foot by making the (IMO, very wise and prudent) decision to switch its primary propulsion from a hybrid system to all liquid fuel. While this was probably a really good move long-term (looking at how Virgin Galactic / SpaceShip Two is going), in the immediate term (in 2014) it put them at least a year behind Boeing and SpaceX in terms of schedule. Keep in mind NASA was at that point looking to start commercial crew rotations in 2017. With the benefit of hindsight, thanks to multiple and varying delays to both SpaceX and Boeing for various reasons, SNC may have been able to catch up to the other (which likely would have been Boeing anyway) by now and we'd probably still be about where we are now.
