-
#520
by
yg1968
on 15 Sep, 2022 01:33
-
But one of the things NASA was supposed to get for the $284 million that Boeing demanded in 2019 was "increased scheduling flexibility", or some such.
Actually, the same 2019 IG Report that describes this extra payment of $287M has an answer on your lead-time:
In addition, the contracts specify the contractors’ lead times—that is, the time needed to prepare a mission for launch—as 32 months for Boeing and 24 months for SpaceX.
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf
-
#521
by
DanClemmensen
on 15 Sep, 2022 04:24
-
But one of the things NASA was supposed to get for the $284 million that Boeing demanded in 2019 was "increased scheduling flexibility", or some such.
Actually, the same 2019 IG Report that describes this extra payment of $287M has an answer on your lead-time:
In addition, the contracts specify the contractors’ lead times—that is, the time needed to prepare a mission for launch—as 32 months for Boeing and 24 months for SpaceX.
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf
Ouch. We have a big disconnect here. On the one hand we speculate as to whether Crew-7 or Starliner-1 will launch in September 2023, and on the other hand we see that NASA must order the mission 24 months or 32 months in advance. Maybe NASA must commit to pay for the mission 32 or 24 months in advance of the earliest launch, but they can then actually schedule the mission later than that? Without access to the actual contracts, this is hard to evaluate.
-
#522
by
yg1968
on 15 Sep, 2022 12:36
-
But one of the things NASA was supposed to get for the $284 million that Boeing demanded in 2019 was "increased scheduling flexibility", or some such.
Actually, the same 2019 IG Report that describes this extra payment of $287M has an answer on your lead-time:
In addition, the contracts specify the contractors’ lead times—that is, the time needed to prepare a mission for launch—as 32 months for Boeing and 24 months for SpaceX.
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf
Ouch. We have a big disconnect here. On the one hand we speculate as to whether Crew-7 or Starliner-1 will launch in September 2023, and on the other hand we see that NASA must order the mission 24 months or 32 months in advance. Maybe NASA must commit to pay for the mission 32 or 24 months in advance of the earliest launch, but they can then actually schedule the mission later than that? Without access to the actual contracts, this is hard to evaluate.
We have access to the Boeing contract but it is redacted (see the link below). The lead-time for Boeing is 32 months (per the IG report) and the missions that haven't been authorized are PCM 4 to 6. PCM-4 should be in the 2026 or 2027 timeframe, so NASA still has time to authorize them. This isn't an issue.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap_Boeing_508.pdf
-
#523
by
Nomadd
on 16 Sep, 2022 00:41
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
-
#524
by
ThomasGadd
on 16 Sep, 2022 01:06
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
NASA has the right to buy as many SpaceX flights it needs to fill the schedule.
-
#525
by
DanClemmensen
on 16 Sep, 2022 01:10
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
If Boeing can manage to launch Starliner-1 before 2026, they will still have time to launch a mission a year to ISS. If they lag Starliner-1 into 2026, I hope they have the decency to withdraw from CCP. They are supposed to be there already to provide dissimilar redundancy. The other problem with the lag is that the ULA workforce will need to stay proficient with Atlas V all the way through Starliner-6, whenever that is.
Doubling up the Starliner missions would in some sense penalize SpaceX to make up for Boeing's shortcomings. SpaceX' personnel also need to keep up their Crew Dragon Proficiency and pay for their fixed costs.
If NASA is truly required to use all six Starliner missions even if Boeing is a decade late, then NASA could use them to send NASA astronauts to CLD, but that would prolong the agony.
-
#526
by
DanClemmensen
on 16 Sep, 2022 01:22
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
NASA has the right to buy as many SpaceX flights it needs to fill the schedule.
NASA has the right to negotiate with SpaceX for an additional extension to the Crew Dragon contract. I don't think SpaceX is obligated to provide that extension. NASA already has enough CCP flights (Starliner 1-6 and Crew Dragon 5-14) to service ISS until its end-of-life. NASA will only need but buy more Crew Dragon if Boeing cannot fulfil their contract. I think this is why Nomadd asked the question.
The Crew Dragon fleet of 4 capsules can fly a total of 20 times unless they extend the 5-flight life. That is Crew Dragon 1-14 plus OFT, Demo-1, AX-1, Inspiration4, and AX-2, and Polaris 1. I think SpaceX wants to shift to Starship instead of building more Crew Dragon or extending the lile of the four capsules.
-
#527
by
yg1968
on 16 Sep, 2022 01:24
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
NASA has the right to buy as many SpaceX flights it needs to fill the schedule.
They need both to get to the end of the ISS in 2030. SpaceX has 10 post-certification missions (PCM) left. Boeing has the CFT and 6 PCM.
-
#528
by
Nomadd
on 16 Sep, 2022 03:01
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
NASA has the right to buy as many SpaceX flights it needs to fill the schedule.
They need both to get to the end of the ISS in 2030. SpaceX has 10 post-certification missions (PCM) left. Boeing has the CFT and 6 PCM.
They want both. One of them could get the job done.
-
#529
by
yg1968
on 16 Sep, 2022 17:37
-
What happens to the 6 mission plan if Boeing can't get up to speed? Would they lose some or would they be assigned consecutive missions to give them their 6?
NASA has the right to buy as many SpaceX flights it needs to fill the schedule.
They need both to get to the end of the ISS in 2030. SpaceX has 10 post-certification missions (PCM) left. Boeing has the CFT and 6 PCM.
They want both. One of them could get the job done.
NASA has already awarded 6 post certification missions to Boeing in 2017. Besides I think that dissimilar redundancy is important, especially in this case since Boeing is the one that finished first at the time of the CCtCap awards in 2014.
-
#530
by
Vettedrmr
on 16 Sep, 2022 18:44
-
... especially in this case since Boeing is the one that finished first at the time of the CCtCap awards in 2014.
What does that have to do with dissimilar redundancy?
-
#531
by
kdhilliard
on 16 Sep, 2022 23:02
-
... especially in this case since Boeing is the one that finished first at the time of the CCtCap awards in 2014.
What does that have to do with dissimilar redundancy?
Also, in what way was Boeing first?
Just because they won the bigger award? (Awards were based on the amounts bid.)
Or because they were ranked higher in the source selection process? (I don't recall anything that detailed being released.)
-
#532
by
yg1968
on 16 Sep, 2022 23:46
-
... especially in this case since Boeing is the one that finished first at the time of the CCtCap awards in 2014.
What does that have to do with dissimilar redundancy?
Also, in what way was Boeing first?
Just because they won the bigger award? (Awards were based on the amounts bid.)
Or because they were ranked higher in the source selection process? (I don't recall anything that detailed being released.)
Yes, based on the source selection statement (linked below), if you add up the ratings, Boeing finished first. Lori Garver also mentions in her book that Boeing was NASA and Gesrt's (the selection officer) favorite at that time.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap-Source-Selection-Statement-508.pdfIf we only had one provider and it was Boeing, we would still be relying on Soyuz. Thus the importance of dissimilar redundancy.
-
#533
by
DanClemmensen
on 17 Sep, 2022 00:37
-
If we only had one provider and it was Boeing, we would still be relying on Soyuz. Thus the importance of dissimilar redundancy.
That's the importance of multiple development contract awards for dissimilar systems, which solves a different but related problem. Once you have proven demonstrated designs, you can choose to only pick one of them. The military often does this.
Or you can pick two to provide operational redundancy. In the current case, I think F9 now has enough history that we do not need an alternate booster. I think Dragon (Crew Dragon plus Cargo Dragon) also has enough history. NASA does not yet have operational redundancy. It's unclear that it has any value at this point in the CCP timeline. To me, the CCP history argues against it, not for it.
-
#534
by
Vettedrmr
on 17 Sep, 2022 00:43
-
... especially in this case since Boeing is the one that finished first at the time of the CCtCap awards in 2014.
What does that have to do with dissimilar redundancy?
Also, in what way was Boeing first?
Just because they won the bigger award? (Awards were based on the amounts bid.)
Or because they were ranked higher in the source selection process? (I don't recall anything that detailed being released.)
Yes, based on the source selection statement (linked below), if you add up the ratings, Boeing finished first. Lori Garver also mentions in her book that Boeing was NASA and Gesrt's (the selection officer) favorite at that time.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap-Source-Selection-Statement-508.pdf
If we only had one provider and it was Boeing, we would still be relying on Soyuz. Thus the importance of dissimilar redundancy.
Ah, I get it. Boeing was first in the competition, but the desire for dissimilar redundancy resulted in the award to another developer, and when Boeing stumbled, the other developer gave NASA/USA another chance at getting a useable system (which is what happened).
Sorry, I just misunderstood your original statement.
Have a good one,
Mike
-
#535
by
yg1968
on 17 Sep, 2022 00:58
-
If we only had one provider and it was Boeing, we would still be relying on Soyuz. Thus the importance of dissimilar redundancy.
That's the importance of multiple development contract awards for dissimilar systems, which solves a different but related problem. Once you have proven demonstrated designs, you can choose to only pick one of them. The military often does this.
Or you can pick two to provide operational redundancy. In the current case, I think F9 now has enough history that we do not need an alternate booster. I think Dragon (Crew Dragon plus Cargo Dragon) also has enough history. NASA does not yet have operational redundancy. It's unclear that it has any value at this point in the CCP timeline. To me, the CCP history argues against it, not for it.
I can't say that I agree. I think that NASA's plan to award six post-certification missions to Boeing in 2017 was a good one. However, I am also OK with NASA's current plans to alternate between Boeing and SpaceX for the reminder of the life of the Station. Boeing will only get 6 post-certification missions under CCtCap as a result of this but that is their own fault for being late.
-
#536
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Sep, 2022 01:19
-
I’m in favor of redundant operational crew access systems. A Falcon 9 failure would mean an automatic stand down of Dragon, probably for at least 6 months and possibly a year. That’s too long.
Sucks that the only other option is Starliner, but it’s better than nothing.
-
#537
by
DanClemmensen
on 17 Sep, 2022 02:48
-
I’m in favor of redundant operational crew access systems. A Falcon 9 failure would mean an automatic stand down of Dragon, probably for at least 6 months and possibly a year. That’s too long.
Sucks that the only other option is Starliner, but it’s better than nothing.
It's not clear that an F9 failure would or should force an automatic stand-down: it would depend on the failure mode. F9 is by some measures the most reliable launcher in the history of space flight and a single failure does not change this. Starliner is not yet operational, so standing down Crew Dragon-on-F9 would currently mean standing down CCP completely. A single Crew Dragon failure, or even a Cargo Dragon failure, might mean a Dragon stand-down, but an objective quantitative risk analysis might conclude that Dragon is safer than Starliner even in that case, based on the Starliner OFT results.
-
#538
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Sep, 2022 05:16
-
I’m in favor of redundant operational crew access systems. A Falcon 9 failure would mean an automatic stand down of Dragon, probably for at least 6 months and possibly a year. That’s too long.
Sucks that the only other option is Starliner, but it’s better than nothing.
It's not clear that an F9 failure would or should force an automatic stand-down: it would depend on the failure mode. F9 is by some measures the most reliable launcher in the history of space flight and a single failure does not change this. Starliner is not yet operational, so standing down Crew Dragon-on-F9 would currently mean standing down CCP completely. A single Crew Dragon failure, or even a Cargo Dragon failure, might mean a Dragon stand-down, but an objective quantitative risk analysis might conclude that Dragon is safer than Starliner even in that case, based on the Starliner OFT results.
Disagree. Atlas V is highly reliable, and the next flight of Starliner WILL be crewed. In such a contingency scenario, there's essentially no reason that Starliner couldn't do a longer mission (assuming no problems are found).
-
#539
by
DanClemmensen
on 17 Sep, 2022 14:25
-
I’m in favor of redundant operational crew access systems. A Falcon 9 failure would mean an automatic stand down of Dragon, probably for at least 6 months and possibly a year. That’s too long.
Sucks that the only other option is Starliner, but it’s better than nothing.
It's not clear that an F9 failure would or should force an automatic stand-down: it would depend on the failure mode. F9 is by some measures the most reliable launcher in the history of space flight and a single failure does not change this. Starliner is not yet operational, so standing down Crew Dragon-on-F9 would currently mean standing down CCP completely. A single Crew Dragon failure, or even a Cargo Dragon failure, might mean a Dragon stand-down, but an objective quantitative risk analysis might conclude that Dragon is safer than Starliner even in that case, based on the Starliner OFT results.
Disagree. Atlas V is highly reliable, and the next flight of Starliner WILL be crewed. In such a contingency scenario, there's essentially no reason that Starliner couldn't do a longer mission (assuming no problems are found).
Atlas V is an excellent and highly reliable LV and all seven of the remaining ones allocated to Starliner are highly likely to work perfectly. It has flown successfully about 85 times since its last failure in 2007. That has nothing to do with the reliability of F9, which has flown successfully about 155 times since its last failure in 2015.
A failure of a Dragon may or may not make it statistically less reliable than the current statistical reliability of Starliner. It will depend on the failure. Based on OFT and the two OFT-2 attempts Starliner is not a reliable spacecraft yet. It's not unreliable, but it's reliability is not yet sufficiently demonstrated.
If NASA really cared about enhanced reliability through dissimilar redundancy, they would have required both Crew Dragon and Starliner to be compatible with both F9 and Atlas V (or other human-rated LVs).