jump to navigation

Open Lines, 3-8-15 March 9, 2015

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

Open Lines, 3-8-15

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2429-BWB-2015-03-08.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Open Lines with Dr. David Livingston. Topics: A variety of space related discussion topics and news items per numerous callers to the program. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

Welcome to this Open Lines program in which many space topics were discussed by those emailing and calling today’s show. During the first segment of our very long 2 hour 37 minute program, I suggested several topics for discussion including Gliese 581d, topics suggested by listener Kirk in a before the show email, the SpaceX vs. Blue Origin patent litigation, and the recently held Pioneering Space National Summit with space settlement and cheap access to space as the consensus goals of the summit. To begin the program I read an email from a Portland listener wanting information about Mars One. Our first caller was Michael Listner who explained in some detail the ruling recently handed down by the court regarding the SpaceX vs. Blue Origin patent challenge regarding landing a first stage on a floating barge and restarting the rocket engine. Michael did a great job in walking us through the decision, what it means and what to expect next so don’t miss what he had to say about this important case. Blue Origin was granted the patent in 2013. Marshall called to talk about this being the year of the Dwarf Planet with Dawn and Ceres plus later on New Horizons reaching Pluto. Jon from NJ called and we talked about communicating over interstellar space given the story I reported on regarding Gliese 581d 22 light years from earth. We lamented the amount of time it would take to send signals back and forth were it an inhabited planet. Jon thought there might be faster ways of communicating using packets of data. He also suggested a themed Open Lines show, “Confessions of a Space Cadet.”

In the second segment, Kelly Starks called and was extremely controversial. First, let me say that Kelly’s statements, perspectives and views are not those of The Space Show, One Giant Leap Foundation, or me, David Livingston. They represent only Kelly and nobody else. The controversy came when Kelly compared working for old space as compared to New Space companies and then accused NewSpace companies of cutting corners for safety, compromising designs, etc. I strongly disagreed with Kelly through the length of his call and at times cautioned him in making unfounded accusations against his former employer. He said he could back up his accusations but as you will hear, I was very skeptical of his ability to do that and told him so. Toward the end of his comments, he mentioned his old ArcJet space plane project which died for lack of funding, interest, and support. He called back before the end of the show getting in the last call of the show to tell us more about ArcJet plus I told him if he had any material on it that was handy, I would upload it to the blog. For those of you interested in Kelly’s ArcJet project, I have uploaded two of his papers to the blog for this specific show so you can download them as you please. John from Ft. Worth called in to give a different “spin” and take to Kelly’s comments but I was not really accepting of John’s take on what Kelly had to say. Doug called to also talk about dwarf planets and suggested we might be in a golden era of planetary science. He said the Ceres white spot might prove to be very interesting if its water. Doug and I also talked about his concept of going directly to the Moon. At first I misunderstood what he was talking about but in the end we were both on the same page as to what he had to say about the issue and I thanked him for clearing up my confusion over his comments. I asked him for his views on what Kelly had to say but for the most part he just said it was not something he was interested in.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog. For those of you wanting to take issue or support what Kelly had to say, civility is required when posting on the blog. Ideas can be held up to the light of day and are fair game. Any posts lacking civility will be removed from the blog.

                                          Sub_orbital_Biz_jet_proposal_11-30-08

                                            ArcJet project history

Comments»

1. jimjxr - March 24, 2015

Additional evidence that Dream Chaser never reached CDR, the design is not yet finished: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/nasa-agrees-dream-chaser-development-cdr/

2. Mark - March 10, 2015

It really surprised me that Dr. Space misinterpreted the Gliese exoplanet article that badly. But I know where the source of the
confusion lay. In THE SIGNAL. Alas, that’s the standard way the astronomers talk about discovering exoplanets. First team
thought they had the signal that this exoplanet exists, then others called it noise (in the data) , now they think they have a strong
SIGNAL (indication) the exoplanet is there. By SIGNAL they mean only data on the possible exoplanet not
EXTRATERRESTRIAL RADIO MESSAGE like in SETI.
By the way, I must say that after getting heavily into astrophysics and astronomy, going through lots of SETI TALKS on
youtube, and tons of other lectures, articles, etc. and generally being fascinated, bullshit is rampant in those subjects. They
claim so much more than can be certain that an engineer wouldn’t trust them as far as could throw them. They believe fantasy
computer models on everything, invent data, feed into a model, and presto! Superb theory. No-one can really disprove it/no
real data/facts. It must have been an impact! That exoplanet has suchj and such atmosphere, for sure. We’ll surely detect life on
an exoplanet fifty light years away by biomarkers in the spectrum on Tuesday, June 5th, 2046 after local sundown. Tons and
tons of BS predictions about the future discoveries.
And Drake’s equation is a prime example of BS. We have an equation, so it’s SCIENCE. It’s not, it’s a bunch of guesstimated
hooey. They can’t even fill in the first term correctly. Nobody knows he number of stars in the Milky Way. 200 billion? 300?
400 billion? Off by a couple of billions, who cares. The rest of the “equation” is the same. Good PR BS, zero science, zero
facts. Either thare is/are civilizations out there or not. And that is all anybody knows right now.

Scientists can get away with this BS because there are no consequences to what they say.

Engineers can’t afford to fantasize about the data because the machine might exolde or somebody might die, or both.

Good summary here.

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol84/iss1/2/

Look for pdf download button.

Enjoy.

LocalFluff - March 11, 2015

Either way, the question can only have an interesting answer. Either we have company, or we are unique. Both options are very strange. Very strange! Something has to yield, I don’t know what.

In this link to a talk, Ted Peters brutally kicks the butt of our convenient myth about ET evolution. The whole concept is the same ol’ story all over again:

And since you mention it, AFAIK the ambiguous data about the number of stars in the Milky Way is not a fundamental uncertainty, but rather depends on the definition of stars, red/brown dwarfs stuff. You might’ve heard the joke:

“- How many stars are there in our galaxy? I’ve seen numbers ranging from 100 to 400 billion.”

“- [Astronomer] Yeah, that sounds about right,”

“- No, ehrm. I want to know whether there are one OR four hundred billion stars in the galaxy.”

“- [Astronomer] What do you want me to do about it? Count them?”

3. Kelly Starks - March 9, 2015

>…I strongly disagreed with Kelly through the length of his call and
> at times cautioned him in making unfounded accusations…

Its hard to be a unfounded accusation, when its their stated business plan, and listed strength of their proposal.

4. jimjxr - March 9, 2015

Sometimes there’s only a thin line between cutting corners and taking a calculated risk. Regarding the exact accusation leveled by Kelly, he didn’t tell us how much time the astronauts would have if there’s a coolant leak, and how is this deadline compared to the time needed for Dream Chaser to execute an emergency landing. I’m sure there’re other factors that I can’t think of since I’m not in the aerospace industry, but this is the sort of information we’ll need to make a decision.

Also it’s interesting the safety discussion veered into car industry, what didn’t get mentioned is Elon Musk’s other company is building a car with the highest safety ratings. I would think he knows a thing or two about keeping people safe, and it’s pretty insulting to imply they would “kill somebody” without giving extraordinary evidence.

Kelly Starks - March 9, 2015

>..he didn’t tell us how much time the astronauts would have
> if there’s a coolant leak, and how is this deadline compared
> to the time needed for Dream Chaser to execute an
> emergency landing. …

No attempt was made to calculate how quickly A rupture could drain the system. I suppose in a worst case scenario a couple minutes. They rate of heat build up in the cabin would vary with what the craft was doing.

As to how long it would take to reenter. Likely a couple hours, but thats a guess.

>..what didn’t get mentioned is Elon Musk’s other company
> is building a car with the highest safety ratings…

But also known for high failure rates, as our his space craft.

>… it’s pretty insulting to imply they would “kill somebody”
> without giving extraordinary evidence…

As I tried to explain repeatedly to Dave, folks doing this don’t think they are going to kill anyone. They just think all the reliability and quality work everyone else does (everyone in most any major industrial dev programs, not just space) is laughable overkill, that’s completely unnecessary. They often continue to believe that until, or even after, folks get killed – or in better cases, they go broke because customers refuse to buy their substandard gear.

In one case a company, even when told by the aircraft builder they weer suplying a major system for, that the aircraft couldn’t be certified without that type of work being done, laughed at them. A VP, being raked over the coals in the builders facilities i a international telecom, responded with “Look you ca rubber hose me all you like, but I’m not going to do anymore when I leave here then I was going to do when I came here.”.

jimjxr - March 10, 2015

“No attempt was made to calculate how quickly A rupture could drain the system.”: And you’re sure they’re eliminating the analysis and tests forever, not merely postponing it? Remember CCiCAP is not for designing and building a finished manned spacecraft, it’s for maturing the needed technology. Given SNC only got half of the CCiCAP award, is it not possible they’re postponing some non-critical tests to later phase, and only elect to do them if they actually won CCtCAP?

“But also known for high failure rates, as our his space craft”: I think you’ll need to provide some numbers to back that up. I’m not aware of any life threaten failures of Tesla, and Falcon 9/Dragon system has not failed once in their primary mission.

“They just think all the reliability and quality work everyone else does (everyone in most any major industrial dev programs, not just space) is laughable overkill, that’s completely unnecessary.”: It looks to me in case of SpaceX, they’re doing much more reliability and quality work than everyone else. They test fire every engine they produced, then test fire every stage they produced, and also do a static fire test on pad, nobody else in the industry does testing to this extend. For Dragon V2, they’re doing both pad abort test and in-flight abort test, while Boeing elects to do pad abort only.

Kelly Starks - March 10, 2015

>.. And you’re sure they’re eliminating the analysis and
> tests forever, not merely postponing it? —

I’m sure. Though presumably NASA could have ordered them to consider it. After we put it in, we were told to remove it all references to a cross leak performance requirement

Remember, this was the engineering specifications of the craft which were to be used as the reference of what the craft needed to be tested against, and show NASA the design had covered all issues and requirements necessary for the craft to be a acceptable usable vehicle.

>… Given SNC only got half of the CCiCAP award, is it
> not possible they’re postponing some non-critical tests…

Test, or at least analysis, of a possible fatal scenario is non critiocal?

Ignoring that, even if they were postponing tests, they had to list the tests, and list what the tests needed to show the craft and its systems could successfully. Instead their was no listing in the specifications that it was a issue they intended to consider.

So no, it was not something they weer putting off. It was, as I was told, not a issue they considered worth worry about – so we weer ordered to delete it from the requirements. I.E. delete it as something the craft needed to be able to do.

>> “But also known for high failure rates, as our his
>> space craft”:

> I think you’ll need to provide some numbers to back
> that up. I’m not aware of any life threaten failures of
> Tesla, …

Tearing up transmissions, batter packs bursting on fire, some other lessor quality complaints.

>..and Falcon 9/Dragon system has not failed once in their primary mission.

??
If delivering and returning cargo isn’t a “primary mission” what is?

>> “They just think all the reliability and quality work
>> everyone else does (everyone in most any major
>> industrial dev programs, not just space) is laughable
>> overkill, that’s completely unnecessary.”:

> It looks to me in case of SpaceX, they’re doing much
> more reliability and quality work than everyone else.
> They test fire every engine they produced, then test
> fire every stage they produced, and also do a static
> fire test on pad, ..

Thats not uncommon in the industry, but its defiantly not l even a fraction of what is normal reliability and quality work. its more of a bandaid.

Thats why the mil certification is dragging on so long on the Falcons. They never did the work, so its like auditing a company that doesn’t believe in accounting, but talks about how they check the checking account ballence daily.

>… For Dragon V2, they’re doing both pad abort test and in-flight abort test, …

On the other hand, to my knowledge they still havent done the Dragon 2 basic design work.

> .. while Boeing elects to do pad abort only.

They don’t need to, since they did the reliability and quality work SpaceX laughs off.

jimjxr - March 10, 2015

“Ignoring that, even if they were postponing tests, they had to list the tests, and list what the tests needed to show the craft and its systems could successfully. Instead their was no listing in the specifications that it was a issue they intended to consider.

So no, it was not something they weer putting off. It was, as I was told, not a issue they considered worth worry about – so we weer ordered to delete it from the requirements. I.E. delete it as something the craft needed to be able to do.”:

But is the specification and requirement final? How do you know it is final? I don’t think SNC has a milestone in CCiCAP for completing the CDR, so the design is never finished.

“Tearing up transmissions”: Not a safety issue, also it’s not clear that the frequency this issue appears is above norm.

“batter packs bursting on fire”: The feds cleared them: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/tesla-feds-armor/, and nobody got hurt.

“some other lessor quality complaints.”: Every car company has these, the owners are very satisfied: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/owner-satisfaction/index.htm

“If delivering and returning cargo isn’t a “primary mission” what is? “: You don’t know what you’re talking about, Dragon never failed to deliver and return cargo. You’re confusing SpaceX with Orbital’s Antares accident last year. (This is the biggest beef I have with SpaceX’s detractors, if you want to criticize a company, at least try to read about them)

“Thats not uncommon in the industry”: Then tell me who else does all of these.

“but its defiantly not l even a fraction of what is normal reliability and quality work. its more of a bandaid.”: You have no proof that it is just a bandaid, you also have no proof that the other work is not being done. Given they’re willing to do the extra work that nobody else does, I think it’s reasonable to assume they’re also doing the other things.

“Thats why the mil certification is dragging on so long on the Falcons. They never did the work”: You have no proof of this. Also there’s no reason to believe the certification timeline is unusually long, since ULA said their NGLV will take 3 to 4 yeas to be certified: http://spacenews.com/timing-of-russian-engine-ban-puts-ula-air-force-in-a-bind/

“On the other hand, to my knowledge they still havent done the Dragon 2 basic design work.”: They already completed CDR (CCiCAP milestone #13).

“They don’t need to, since they did the reliability and quality work SpaceX laughs off.”: Or Boeing is cutting corners by skipping tests, you don’t know which is which without insight which you don’t have. I don’t see any difference between this and your accusation against SNC.

Kelly Starks - March 11, 2015

>..
> But is the specification and requirement final?
> How do you know it is final? ..

They were to be delivered as such last sep. With the understanding the companies would upon award start design and construction for a first flight pretty soon after.

They were due last Sep for review and consideration by NASA to judge who to award the contract to. So they damn well had to be pretty close. Thou given they weer given a s\6 month extension to finish them when they failed to meet the delivery date – you could argue they wernt finished, but missing something so basic (one of many such things NASA noted.

>> “Tearing up transmissions”:
> Not a safety issue, ..

That depends on when they break.

>> “batter packs bursting on fire”:
>The feds cleared them: ..

I’m sure that makes the owners feel much better.

>> “If delivering and returning cargo isn’t a
>> “primary mission” what is? “:

> You don’t know what you’re talking about,
> Dragon never failed to deliver and return cargo.

Actually it did fail in its initial tests, and they had a seem split open on a later one. Obviously more problems with Falcons.

>> “Thats not uncommon in the industry”:

> Then tell me who else does all of these.

Most all engines get a test burn before deliveries and installation. Shutle engines were tested on the craft. etc. You right that testing them on every booster is unusual – and not

>> “but its defiantly not l even a fraction of what is
>> normal reliability and quality work. its more of a
>> bandaid.”:

> You have no proof that it is just a bandaid,..

I’ve been in the busness for over a third of a century, adn get hired by firm to help them set up or improve their quality and design process to cut costs and improve safty. So yes I really do know.

>.. you also have no proof that the other work is not being done. ..

Yes, that was reported multiple times by various investigations from AF to Wall Street Journal, as well as by people I know personally who have looked into it, and reports from SpaceX personel. So yeah, I know that to.

>….Given they’re willing to do the extra work that
> nobody else does, ..

Not doing the basics, and trying to bandaid over the gaps with generally unnecessary – and potentially harmful – tests.

>> “Thats why the mil certification is dragging on
>> so long on the Falcons. They never did the work”:

>You have no proof of this. Also there’s no reason
> to believe the certification timeline is unusually long, ..

Again, reports from the AF, new investigations, complaints by Musk and SpaceX personnel….

……..

>> “On the other hand, to my knowledge they still
>> havent done the Dragon 2 basic design work.”:

> They already completed CDR (CCiCAP milestone #13).

Ah, yeah I just looked it up, they got CDR in last month.

>> “They don’t need to, since they did the reliability
>> and quality work SpaceX laughs off.”:

> Or Boeing is cutting corners by skipping tests, you
> don’t know which is which without insight which
> you don’t have. ..

Insight I do have, and as I stated the Orbitek folks who worked on both SNC and Boeing’s bids frequently (and disparagingly) remarked on how much more quality and detail focused Boeing was. They considered that a major failure on Boeing’s part in the bid, and a edge they had over them. with their “good enough” philosophy. SNC also stated that in their protest of the award to Boeing’s CST, in that NASA gave unwarranted weight to quality in the award, which gave Boeing a unfair advantage.

jimjxr - March 11, 2015

“They were due last Sep for review and consideration by NASA to judge who to award the contract to. So they damn well had to be pretty close. Thou given they weer given a s\6 month extension to finish them when they failed to meet the delivery date – you could argue they wernt finished, but missing something so basic (one of many such things NASA noted.”: So basically just like what I said, you’re judging them by an unfinished product, and try to spread FUD about new space based on it. I also remember you called in before CCtCAP award and insists NASA would choose SNC over SpaceX since SpaceX is bad, how interesting things have changed. Maybe you should clarify who your clients are right now to avoid a conflict of interest.

“I’m sure that makes the owners feel much better.”: I think they do, consider they run the car into some nasty obstacles that cut right throw the bottom of the car.

“Actually it did fail in its initial tests”: What tests? Please be more specific.

“and they had a seem split open on a later one. Obviously more problems with Falcons.”: Everyone has problems, old space is full of them, both Atlas V and Delta IV dropped satellites in the wrong orbit once, and I lost count how many times ISS had anomalies. This goes all the way back to Saturn V, the system engineering marvel you so admired, both Apollo 6 and 13 suffered 2nd stage engine failures.

“Most all engines get a test burn before deliveries and installation.”: Actually I don’t think this is the case, please show proof if you disagree. Also the test burn probably won’t be full duration.

“Shutle engines were tested on the craft. etc.”: Shuttle is an exception since it’s reusable, just like what SpaceX is trying to do.

“You right that testing them on every booster is unusual”: Good to see at least you’re willing to admit your mistakes, it does call into question your credibility on the matter, if you have been in the industry for 30 years, how can you make such rudimentary mistakes?

“I’ve been in the busness for over a third of a century, adn get hired by firm to help them set up or improve their quality and design process to cut costs and improve safty. So yes I really do know.”: Then I suggest you gather your knowledge and send them to the proper authorities. Given you think SpaceX is about to “kill somebody”, I think it is your civic duty to do this. Since you claim to be in the industry I think you’ll know who to contact, but if not I have some suggestions. I look forward to see your accusation in print or on C-SPAN.

“Yes, that was reported multiple times by various investigations from AF to Wall Street Journal”: Show the report then.

“Not doing the basics, and trying to bandaid over the gaps with generally unnecessary – and potentially harmful – tests.”: Again, if you think so, tell this to NASA, USAF and their commercial customers.

“Again, reports from the AF, new investigations, complaints by Musk and SpaceX personnel”: Show the report that says SpaceX is not doing any certification work and basically un-certifiable.

“Ah, yeah I just looked it up, they got CDR in last month.”: Interesting that you claim to know everything yet fail to recognize basic facts like this. Also they completed CDR last year, not last month: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141222b.html

“SNC also stated that in their protest of the award to Boeing’s CST, in that NASA gave unwarranted weight to quality in the award, which gave Boeing a unfair advantage.”: No they didn’t. The main complaint is about the emphasis on the 2017 deadline which SNC has trouble to meet: http://spacenews.com/gao-denies-sierra-nevada-protest-of-commercial-crew-contract/. SNC and SpaceX’s score on Mission Suitability is very close to Boeing’s, about 80 and 60 points out of 1000, the fact that the score is so close is the reason SNC wants to protest in the first place.

BTW I suggest you spend some time reading CCtCAP Source Selection Statement, NASA thinks SpaceX and SNC are very good at quality management and safety.

Kelly Starks - March 12, 2015

>> “They were due last Sep for review and consideration by
>>NASA to judge who to award the contract to. So they damn
>> well had to be pretty close. Thou given they weer given a s\6
>> month extension to finish them when they failed to meet the
>> delivery date – you could argue they wernt finished, but
>> missing something so basic (one of many such things NASA noted.”:

> So basically just like what I said, you’re judging them by an
> unfinished product, and try to spread FUD about new space based on it. …

No, the submissions weer supposed to be finished as far as SNC and SpaceX were concerned — but they found they wern’t acceptable — hence the extension.
You’re claim that perhaps they intended in some other draft, to add in corrections to this deficiencies all along – is really streching it, both because thats a rather self destructive way to propose it – and because the explicitly said there was no reason to worry about such things. Not, oh we have that covered. Not we needto remember to consider that. A we dont need to consider that.

> I also remember you called in before CCtCAP award and
> insists NASA would choose SNC over SpaceX since SpaceX is bad, ..

Dont remember saying that, I was also statting Dream Chaser had serious problems, you might be abit confused on that one.

==
>>> You don’t know what you’re talking about,
>>> Dragon never failed to deliver and return cargo.

>>“Actually it did fail in its initial tests”:

>What tests? Please be more specific.

First test flights, to the the ISS, The return flight Real lab cargo would have been damaged destroyed – over heating if I remember.

>>“and they had a seem split open on a later one.
>>Obviously more problems with Falcons.”:

> Everyone has problems, old space is full of them, both
> Atlas V and Delta IV dropped satellites in the wrong orbit once,

Yeah, but the A5 and D4 had paying customers on all launches, and successfully delivered all the cargos to orbit Falcons have blown up in mid air a few times. Dropped a few other cargos in to the Ocean. Control drop out. going into “death rolls” etc.

>.. This goes all the way back to Saturn V, ..

Again all flights successfully delivered to orbit. A huge improvement over proceeding dev programs.

>> “Most all engines get a test burn before deliveries and
>>installation.”:

>Actually I don’t think this is the case, please show proof if you
> disagree. Also the test burn probably won’t be full duration.

>> “Shutle engines were tested on the craft. etc.”: Shuttle is
>> an exception since it’s reusable,

What dif would that make here?

>> “I’ve been in the busness for over a third of a century,
>> adn get hired by firm to help them set up or improve their
>> quality and design process to cut costs and improve safty.
>>So yes I really do know.”:

>Then I suggest you gather your knowledge and send them
> to the proper authorities. ..

Given the gov authorities already found these, and several other issues in their reviews, and criticized both SpaceX and SNC for them, its not necessary.

I gather both SpaceX and SNC had more then a few deer in the headlight moments in the reviews.

More puzzling to me were cases where they unofficially told NASA of the redesigns they had intended to solve some of them, had discused these with Orbitek and others, but officially denyed this, never confirmed a contract to buy the new stuff (like the Liquid rocket engines to replace the hybrids) and insisted for moths we continued toward CDR with the faulty configuration. Made no sence. NASA would get upset enough when they missed some single point failures – but knowing of, but not correcting one they did know about??

>> “Yes, that was reported multiple times by various
>> investigations from AF to Wall Street Journal”:

>Show the report then.

What the articles in magazines and papers nearly 6 months back? Not tonight

>> “Ah, yeah I just looked it up, they got CDR in last month.”:

> Interesting that you claim to know everything yet fail
> to recognize basic facts like this.

Been of the program for 4 month and busy, must have missed the headline.

> Also they completed CDR last year, not last month:

No, they weer supposed to complet CDR last year, but SNC and SpaceX couldnt deliver so they split up CDR. You specificly mentioned CCiCap Milestone 13 , which is the Integrated Critical Design Review (ICDR), which SpaceX delivered in April.

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=65123

And today the article listing the milestones delivery date isn’t coming up. ..

>> “SNC also stated that in their protest of the award to Boeing’s
>> CST, in that NASA gave unwarranted weight to quality in
>> the award, which gave Boeing a unfair advantage.”:

>No they didn’t. The main complaint is about the emphasis
> on the 2017 deadline which SNC has trouble to meet: ..

They were starting to look iffy on 2017,especially given their indesision oficialy on replacingthe hybrids. Concern over their managment abilitieswas remarked a few times. The main complaint was that the weighting factors were suposed to be heavily toward cost, with comparatively small weighting on quality (which NASA crypticly listed as”mission sutability).

… hummm.. looking up some articles I got complains that complaints and responces had been redacted??

Arg
interesting but not exactly on point article in here. FYI
http://innerspace.net/category/cotscommercial-crew/

http://innerspace.net/tag/sierra-nevada/

>>The CCtCap decision was based on a points awarded basis which weighed price against a combination of “mission suitability” and past performance. Some clarity may be useful where the former is concerned. Mission suitability does not refer, as the term might be inferred to mean, that one spacecraft was considered to be capable of doing a better job than another. Rather, NASA used it as an assessment of each vendor’s understanding of the requirements and ability to perform. <… SNC and SpaceX’s score on Mission Suitability is very close to Boeing’s, …

Yeah that, and their comments about SC and SpaceX being very good at technical management are extreamly suspect given the relative performance — and real lack of experence in managing something like this. I.E. when your privatly geting chewed out for missing things adn giving a 6 month slip on your delivery schedule the other guy finished months early with high marks …. how exactly are you rated so close?

Getting late, Packing it in .

jimjxr - March 13, 2015

“Dont remember saying that, I was also statting Dream Chaser had serious problems, you might be abit confused on that one.”

No, I’m not confused. https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/open-lines-sunday-9-14-14/, “Kelly favored Boeing and SNC.”, listen to it yourself. You didn’t mention any of the coolant problems, you did say you’re a “loyal mercenary”, which begs the question who is paying you now…

“First test flights, to the the ISS, The return flight Real lab cargo would have been damaged destroyed – over heating if I remember.”: NASA’s official report for COTS Demo C2+ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SpaceXC2_Summary_NAC_20120724_508.pdf:
“All systems performed as expected or better”
“All SAA demonstration flight objectives met (C1, C2, and C3)”

“Yeah, but the A5 and D4 had paying customers on all launches, and successfully delivered all the cargos to orbit”: They delivered satellites to the wrong orbit, that is a problem.

“Falcons have blown up in mid air a few times. Dropped a few other cargos in to the Ocean. Control drop out. going into “death rolls” etc.”: You’re talking about Falcon 1, which had 3 failures, but then 2 successes. Falcon 9 has no failures. Mixing these two completely different launch vehicle models are disingenuous at best.

And talking about blowing up or dropping cargo into the ocean, are you sure you really want to go there? How about this one:

Or this one:

Where is your old space quality assurance and system engineering?

“Again all flights successfully delivered to orbit. A huge improvement over proceeding dev programs.”: All Falcon 9 flights are also successful, a huge improvement over proceeding Falcon 1 program.

“Given the gov authorities already found these, and several other issues in their reviews, and criticized both SpaceX and SNC for them, its not necessary.”: NASA gave SpaceX the CCtCAP contract and is about to certify them for Launch Service Program, so clearly NASA doesn’t agree with you in assessing SpaceX’s safety and quality management skills.

“No, they weer supposed to complet CDR last year, but SNC and SpaceX couldnt deliver so they split up CDR. You specificly mentioned CCiCap Milestone 13 , which is the Integrated Critical Design Review (ICDR), which SpaceX delivered in April.”: No, by Milestone 13, I meant all the A/B/C/D ones. These are all completed by the end of year 2014. Read the NASA press release http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20141222b.html: “SpaceX performed two milestones, its Dragon Primary Structure Qualification and Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review, in November as part of its CCiCap agreement. Under that agreement, SpaceX also performed other critical design reviews of its systems and operations this year.”

” The main complaint was that the weighting factors were suposed to be heavily toward cost, with comparatively small weighting on quality (which NASA crypticly listed as”mission sutability).”: Read the article I gave you: http://spacenews.com/gao-denies-sierra-nevada-protest-of-commercial-crew-contract/, it stated very clearly: “Sierra Nevada argued that NASA had improperly deviated from the CCtCap selection criteria by “significantly elevating” the goal of having a crew system certified to carry astronauts by the end of 2017, and not communicating that goal to the bidding companies.”

“Yeah that, and their comments about SC and SpaceX being very good at technical management are extreamly suspect”: Well maybe you should give William Gerstenmaier a call, he wrote the Source Selection Statement. Here’s what he has to say about SpaceX’s quality management:

“I also agreed with the program management strengths, particularly the quality management which enhances mission assurance by ensuring the consistency of manufacturing, assembly, integration and testing operations.”

The document also confirms that SNC’s proposed design is not finished:

“The SEB’s difficulty determining the value of these features
reflects the maturity level of the proposed design; there is still a lot of detailed design work needed.”

And SNC’s risk management skills are very good:

“I also agreed with the significant strength for SNC’s highly effective program management, which integrates risk management, mission assurance, quality management, supply chain management, and proactive stafling. SNC’s program management baseline integrates cost, technical, and schedule performance and establishes systematic controls, which enables SNC to make well-informed risk trades. The risk management approach, including mitigation plans with resource allocations, enhances decision-making that will not compromise crew safety.”

Yeah, Mr. Gerstenmaier doesn’t agree with you at all.

5. Michael J. Listner (@ponder68) - March 9, 2015

I will reiterate and give a shout out to Andrew Rush who took time out of his schedule to explain the patent decision to me so that I could come on the Show and explain it to the listeners.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: