NASA wouldn't be able to do this. Anything that flies through airspace is subject to the FAA.
Not true. Goverment managed launches like SLS or ICBMs are not managed by FAA licensing. The FAA is given notice for a need to close airspace.
Well, military is obviously a different thing altogether, but doesn't SLS and all other rocket launches still need a launch license?
No, not Government managed launches like SLS or ICBMs or Titan IVs
But government-purchased commercial launches (i.e. CRS and commercial-crew) do, correct?
Correct, Covered under RLO 20-007B (Rev 3)
I don't know how many people have read this from the 2nd quarter public meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Council on May 12, 2022. Lots of interesting information.
Commercial Crew Program
...
Mr. West stated that during some of the past week’s very productive and informative meetings, the
Panel learned a great deal about progress and recent accomplishments of the CPP. The Panel has come
away with some favorable impressions about improved communications and working relationships
between NASA and both CCP providers. However, Mr. West added, the Panel also has some significant
concerns, which he would discuss.
Boeing is pressing toward the launch of the second uncrewed OFT (OFT-2) of the Starliner spacecraft;
the launch could occur as early as May 19, a week from this ASAP Quarterly Public Meeting. The OFT-2
Flight Readiness Review (FRR) was held yesterday, Mr. West stated, and preliminary reports are that the
FRR successfully met its objectives, clearing the way for next week’s planned launch. Before the FRR,
previously identified hardware concerns involving service module oxidizer isolation valves were resolved
through remediation measures approved by the appropriate control boards. Flight rationale was also
approved for issues involving a high-pressure latch valve in the command module propulsion system.
Mr. West indicated that there remains some question as to whether a valve redesign will be required for
future flights, after OFT-2. Also, there is concern that the certification of Boeing parachutes is lagging
behind.
It is clear, he added, that there will be a tremendous amount of work to accomplish between OFT-2 and
the Starliner crewed flight test (CFT). In addition to the expected heavy task load required just to make
the jump from an uncrewed to a crewed flight, the resolving of all identified process escapes is on the
critical path to CFT. The Panel is pleased that from all indications, there is no sense of needing to rush to
CFT. The view consistently expressed is that the program will proceed to CFT when—and only when—
they are ready. Of course, the best path to CFT is a successful OFT-2, Mr. West emphasized.
He acknowledged that there is a significant programmatic concern with the limited and dwindling
number of Atlas V launch vehicles remaining. Any further delays with Starliner launches would
exacerbate this concern. Another factor is that the Vulcan launch vehicle, slated to replace the Atlas V
for Starliner launches, needs to be certified for human spaceflight. The process of getting that
certification could take years.
NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Meeting June 1, 2022
4
The concerns over workforce and retention of critical skills that were mentioned earlier have particular
significance in Boeing’s case. The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low.
The Panel will be monitoring this situation in the near future to see what impact, if any, this could have
on the existence or mitigation of any safety risks. Plus, while the Panel does not want to see any undue
rushing toward the CFT launch, Boeing should ensure all available resources are applied to meet a
reasonable schedule and avoid unnecessary delays.
Dr. Mark Sirangelo emphasized and called to note that the Panel is certainly behind the idea of not
launching until the program is ready to launch and all safety issues have been taken care of, but at the
same time, if the delays are caused by a lack of resources being applied to the program, that may have
significant effects on the NASA schedule for its return to the Moon and many other things that are going
to fan out from those delays. Dr. Sirangelo called attention to the need for a review and reassessment of
the resources that are being placed on the program, both to ensure safety and to ensure that the
schedule is delayed for the least amount of time as possible.
...
Emphasis is mine. From here:
https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/NASA_ASAP_2022_Second_Quarterly_Public_Meeting_Minutes-FINAL-Signed-lmh.pdfThe next meeting is on July 21, 2022. Here is a link to the FRN:
https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/FRN_ASAP_July_21_2022_Meeting.pdf
I don't know how many people have read this from the 2nd quarter public meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Council on May 12, 2022. Lots of interesting information.
Commercial Crew Program
...
The concerns over workforce and retention of critical skills that were mentioned earlier have particular
significance in Boeing’s case. The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low.
...
Boeing recently said that the new Air Force One is behind schedule due to inability to hire sufficient staff. Is this a Boeing problem or just these two programs at Boeing or is the aerospace industry as a whole having trouble with staffing?
I don't know how many people have read this from the 2nd quarter public meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Council on May 12, 2022. Lots of interesting information.
Commercial Crew Program
...
The concerns over workforce and retention of critical skills that were mentioned earlier have particular
significance in Boeing’s case. The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low.
...
Boeing recently said that the new Air Force One is behind schedule due to inability to hire sufficient staff. Is this a Boeing problem or just these two programs at Boeing or is the aerospace industry as a whole having trouble with staffing?
I posted before that it appears Boeing waited until OFT2 to post a job opening for a manager of crewed space flight operations whose job description reads something like hire everyone else. That job posting is no longer there so I assume they hired someone. I don't know what is really going on but it seems like Boeing didn't have the confidence to hire or maybe didn't have the cash flow to hire staff for crewed spaceflight. They've had a lot of cash flow problems at Boeing causing them to sell a good portion of their real estate holdings. NASA paid a lot of extra money to Boeing to insure that Boeing had the resources to get the job done. If I were the government, I'd want an audit.
By the way, just because Boeing hasn't been paid by NASA doesn't mean they can't access that money. Companies have a revolving line of credit with their bank. The amount of money they can borrow depends on a lot of factors including cash on hand, accounts receivables, contracts, total capitalization, projected sales, and other things. The unpaid portion of the NASA contract goes into that equation enlarging their line of credit. Boeing has always had access to the money before they are paid to complete CST-100. However, there is nothing restricting Boeing from using the borrowed money for something else including executive bonuses; of course, Boeing's executives would never think of doing that.
For example:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-credit/boeing-enters-into-5-28-billion-revolving-credit-agreement-idUSKBN2BE2Y5
I posted before that it appears Boeing waited until OFT2 to post a job opening for a manager of crewed space flight operations whose job description reads something like hire everyone else. That job posting is no longer there so I assume they hired someone. I don't know what is really going on but it seems like Boeing didn't have the confidence to hire or maybe didn't have the cash flow to hire staff for crewed spaceflight. They've had a lot of cash flow problems at Boeing causing them to sell a good portion of their real estate holdings. NASA paid a lot of extra money to Boeing to insure that Boeing had the resources to get the job done. If I were the government, I'd want an audit.
The answer is easy.
Yes, you don't know what is really is going on.
The more likely story is that the incumbent got promoted and they are looking for a replacement.
The government paid for a service, it doesn't get to perform audits.
I posted before that it appears Boeing waited until OFT2 to post a job opening for a manager of crewed space flight operations whose job description reads something like hire everyone else. That job posting is no longer there so I assume they hired someone. I don't know what is really going on but it seems like Boeing didn't have the confidence to hire or maybe didn't have the cash flow to hire staff for crewed spaceflight. They've had a lot of cash flow problems at Boeing causing them to sell a good portion of their real estate holdings. NASA paid a lot of extra money to Boeing to insure that Boeing had the resources to get the job done. If I were the government, I'd want an audit.
The answer is easy.
Yes, you don't know what is really is going on.
The more likely story is that the incumbent got promoted and they are looking for a replacement.
The government paid for a service, it doesn't get to perform audits.
You may be right that the government, in this case, cannot audit them; much as I wish they could. NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific. However, not having a person in place for this job, and having their job description as hiring the people who will be working for him or her is a serious problem.
However, not having a person in place for this job, and having their job description as hiring the people who will be working for him or her is a serious problem.
No, it isn't. Who says there hasn't been a person in place.
Again, you are seeing problems where there aren't any.
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
... from the 2nd quarter public meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Council on May 12, 2022. ...
Commercial Crew Program
...
Dr. Mark Sirangelo emphasized and called to note that the Panel is certainly behind the idea of not
launching until the program is ready to launch and all safety issues have been taken care of, but at the
same time, if the delays are caused by a lack of resources being applied to the program, that may have
significant effects on the NASA schedule for its return to the Moon and many other things that are going
to fan out from those delays.
...
...
How does CFT launch timing have *any* effect on NASA's schedule for its return to the Moon.
Are they saying that a lack of resources being applied to the Starliner program might imply a lack of resources being applied to other programs?
... from the 2nd quarter public meeting of NASA's Aerospace Safety Council on May 12, 2022. ...
Commercial Crew Program
...
Dr. Mark Sirangelo emphasized and called to note that the Panel is certainly behind the idea of not
launching until the program is ready to launch and all safety issues have been taken care of, but at the
same time, if the delays are caused by a lack of resources being applied to the program, that may have
significant effects on the NASA schedule for its return to the Moon and many other things that are going
to fan out from those delays.
...
...
How does CFT launch timing have *any* effect on NASA's schedule for its return to the Moon.
Are they saying that a lack of resources being applied to the Starliner program might imply a lack of resources being applied to other programs?
Likely implying that resources to bring Starliner fully online would have to come from somewhere... and Artemis is a big pot on the human spaceflight side from which such funds could be taken.
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
Likely implying that resources to bring Starliner fully online would have to come from somewhere... and Artemis is a big pot on the human spaceflight side from which such funds could be taken.
no, it is not that. NASA doesn't need to provide anymore funds. NASA has paid Boeing. It is fixed price. Any additional funds, if needed, come from Boeing.
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
It is generic to every NASA contractor and not just Boeing.
ASAP is not NASA.
Again, you have an axe to grind. You post nothing else but on CST-100 threads.
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
It is generic to every NASA contractor and not just Boeing.
ASAP is not NASA.
Again, you have an axe to grind. You post nothing else but on CST-100 threads.
"The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low."
The word "Especially" implies Boeing is different or is my understanding of English wrong?
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
It is generic to every NASA contractor and not just Boeing.
ASAP is not NASA.
Again, you have an axe to grind. You post nothing else but on CST-100 threads.
"The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low."
The word "Especially" implies Boeing is different or is my understanding of English wrong?
There is nothing wrong with your understanding of the English language. It is correct that ASAP noted "especially low".
That is: especially low when compared to that other CCP contractor.
Which is correct. Boeing's got less people working on Starliner right now than SpaceX had back when they were in between DM-1 and DM-2.
Back then ASAP was already worried about staffing levels at both NASA (specifically at the CCP office to deal with the firehose torrent of certification products coming in from SpaceX), as well as staffing levels at SpaceX, to ensure a timely push of DM-2 across the finish line. That latter "problem" was just one reason why Jim Bridenstine made his infamous tweet about the lack of perceived progress in CCP.
What ASAP is currently seeing is that Boeing has even less resources working on Starliner (relatively speaking) than SpaceX had originally working on DM-2.
Cross posting this.
Yet more bad news for the Starliner project.
Boeing disclosed a charge of $93 million in the second quarter for its Starliner astronaut capsule program, bringing the program’s overrun costs to nearly $700 million.
The aerospace giant said the latest charge was “primarily driven by launch manifest updates and additional costs associated with OFT-2,” or Orbital Flight Test 2. The second uncrewed flight of Starliner successfully completed a six-day-long mission in May, reaching a critical test objective – docking with the International Space Station – as Boeing prepares for the capsule to carry astronauts.
Boeing’s latest Starliner-related charge means the company has absorbed $688 million in costs from delays and additional work on the capsule to date.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/boeing-starliner-astronaut-capsule-charges-near-700-million.html
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
It is generic to every NASA contractor and not just Boeing.
ASAP is not NASA.
Again, you have an axe to grind. You post nothing else but on CST-100 threads.
"The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low."
The word "Especially" implies Boeing is different or is my understanding of English wrong?
There is nothing wrong with your understanding of the English language. It is correct that ASAP noted "especially low".
That is: especially low when compared to that other CCP contractor.
Where is it stated that this is true? That it was simply a head count comparison vs spaceX? Because this really doesn't seem like something NASA would say.
NASA says there is a hiring problem but they are not specific.
It is an industry wide problem.
Right no problems; that's why NASA is concerned especially about "Boeing's low levels"
It is generic to every NASA contractor and not just Boeing.
ASAP is not NASA.
Again, you have an axe to grind. You post nothing else but on CST-100 threads.
"The Panel has noted that Boeing’s staffing levels seem to be especially low."
The word "Especially" implies Boeing is different or is my understanding of English wrong?
There is nothing wrong with your understanding of the English language. It is correct that ASAP noted "especially low".
That is: especially low when compared to that other CCP contractor.
Where is it stated that this is true? That it was simply a head count comparison vs spaceX? Because this really doesn't seem like something NASA would say.
The ASAP is not NASA. The panel can only bring up concerns and offer advice to NASA, which it is free to accept or ignore.
Cross posting this.
Yet more bad news for the Starliner project.
Boeing disclosed a charge of $93 million in the second quarter for its Starliner astronaut capsule program, bringing the program’s overrun costs to nearly $700 million.
The aerospace giant said the latest charge was “primarily driven by launch manifest updates and additional costs associated with OFT-2,” or Orbital Flight Test 2. The second uncrewed flight of Starliner successfully completed a six-day-long mission in May, reaching a critical test objective – docking with the International Space Station – as Boeing prepares for the capsule to carry astronauts.
Boeing’s latest Starliner-related charge means the company has absorbed $688 million in costs from delays and additional work on the capsule to date.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/27/boeing-starliner-astronaut-capsule-charges-near-700-million.html
That may be "bad" news, but that statement by itself does not imply that the expected crewed flight test at the end of the year will be delayed yet again.