Commercial Crew Program

[mikegarrison]

The US Congress held a hearing today on the Commercial Crew Program.

They had two messages:

1) No compromises must be allowed on safety

2) No compromises will be allowed on schedule and cost

Um ... OK, these are fine "leadership messages" I guess, in the great tradition of Dilbert management, but which one did you really mean?

(There was also a query to SpaceX about Zuma, and they reiterated that their rocket had "performed very well".)

[tater]

They talked about certification being a problem for both contractors, even after they fly test missions with crew this year. Cert taking over a year, in fact.

Hans from SpaceX said that the primary stumbling block on achieving the required safety level is in fact the on-orbit time since the abort modes are pretty robust, but they have a simple risk estimate per day in orbit (orbital debris) in terms of critical systems that might be impacted. The solutions to that are armor, or more redundant systems (both end up being added mass).

My personal take is that both contractors should cooperate to keep a spare craft docked at ISS at all times. Both vehicles can accommodate an entire ISS crew (even if upped to 7). The spare can be used for a cargo mission, then rotated out as required. The goal here is to keep the on-orbit time below whatever the threshold is that triggers the risk problem to make the bean counters happy. Ie: if the vessel is safe enough on orbit for 6 months, then rotate a crew vessel out every 6 months, even if it's like a COTS return for SpaceX.

SpaceX has already said that their future COTS flights will in fact be D2s anyway. If they offered to do this, this would be a service to Boeing as well (they are in the same boat here) since there would always be a D2 lifeboat in case the crew vehicle shows evidence of a problem (sensors detect something not working).

[DerekL1963]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

My personal take is that both contractors should cooperate to keep a spare craft docked at ISS at all times.

So, they should spend their own money to perform a function not required by the contract?  (Even presuming they're given permission to occupy a port.)
 

7 minutes ago, tater said:

Both vehicles can accommodate an entire ISS crew (even if upped to 7). The spare can be used for a cargo mission,

0.o  So...  who pays?  Especially given that a crew version is a) more expensive than a cargo version, and b) less cargo capable than a cargo version.

[mikegarrison]

I should have added that Congress expressed the resolve that the US taxpayer won't pay for extra costs, but I suppose they are fine if the companies themselves have to eat extra costs in order to meet schedule and still provide safety. The question is whether they will do so.

[James Kerman]

Elon is happy to put a car in earth/mars orbit, why not a lifeboat in LEO?

[Racescort666]

SFN article on the subject: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/01/17/lawmakers-question-safety-schedule-for-boeing-spacex-commercial-crew-ships/

I found this passage of particular interest:

Quote

She (Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office) said it’s not unusual for advanced technology programs to experience delays, especially in a program that requires new human-rated spacecraft to operate with safety margins significantly higher than the space shuttle’s.

Not surprising that they want a better safety margin than STS considering that STS had LOC times with no abort modes. The impression I get is that there are no flight data to back up any of the predicted safety level. 

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

a spare craft docked at ISS at all times.

An orbital trailer park. D-rv2 for rent.

4 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

to occupy a port

Space pay station

 

 

[tater]

7 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

So, they should spend their own money to perform a function not required by the contract?  (Even presuming they're given permission to occupy a port.)
 

In order to achieve the goal of the contract. Or we can send crew up on Soyuz, instead, because Soyuz is safer in orbit?

7 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

0.o  So...  who pays?  Especially given that a crew version is a) more expensive than a cargo version, and b) less cargo capable than a cargo version.

SpaceX has already said that they are going to use D2 for cargo flights. NASA is requiring SpaceX to make a new D2 for each crew mission because of water landings, so they will have an extra one, literally after the first test mission.

Is a single D2 (used once) cheaper than delaying crew missions by a year?