Jump to content

Talk:Development of the Commercial Crew Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commercial Crew Program

[edit]

NASA has told the U.S. House of Representatives that CCDev3 is becoming the Commercial Crew Program. Do we start a new Wiki page or modify this one? Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until these proposed plans actually happen. They might not bother to rename it after further discussion. Besides, CCP can be covered here for now. Maybe add a redirect for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial Crew Program is not new name, btw. This NASA web page: Commercial Crew Program was last updated in May 2011. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them.
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number of operation flights covered by the award

[edit]

Commercial Crew Development#Awards (subsection of "Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap)") currently references Jeff Foust's Sep. 19, 2014 Space News article, NASA Commercial Crew Awards Leave Unanswered Questions which says that, "The contracts also include at least two and as many as six operational flights per company to the ISS, each carrying four astronauts, once NASA certifies each company’s vehicle." and goes on to assume that the up to $6.8 billion includes up to 12 flights of four seats each at $70.7 million per seat for a total operation cost of up to $3.4 billion. I have not found any other source that make this assumption, and the NASA announcement is far from clear. From NASA:

The companies selected to provide this transportation capability and the maximum potential value of their FAR-based firm fixed-price contracts are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $4.2 billion
-- Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, $2.6 billion
The contracts include at least one crewed flight test per company with at least one NASA astronaut aboard to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, as well as validate all its systems perform as expected. Once each company’s test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station. These spacecraft also will serve as a lifeboat for astronauts aboard the station.

So the contract does cover one crewed test flight per company, but it is unclear if the up to $6.8 Billion of this award includes zero, four, of twelve operational flights, or if the operational flights are paid for separately. Unless someone can find an additional RS which agrees with Foust's interpretation, we should either remove the price breakdown or indicate that it was supposition by a single source, and await clarification when NASA finally releases details of the contracts to the public. -- ToE 13:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NASA published the press release on its webpage
[1]
September 16, 2014 RELEASE 14-256
NASA Chooses American Companies to Transport U.S. Astronauts to International Space Station Andrew Swallow (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is essentially the same link that I gave for release 14-256, quoted above. The question is whether, "Once each company’s test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station." implies that the cost of those operational flights are included in the $6.4 billion award. I'd like to think that it does, as that would indicate lower development costs, but I don't think that wording of NASA's release is clear one way or the other. And as far as I can tell, Foust is the only source who has made that conclusion. Additionally, he says that he is assuming $70.7 million per seat based on a "Sept. 18 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General on the ISS program".
NASA's Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024:
... much of the projected cost increase is attributable to higher transportation costs, and we found NASA’s estimate for transportation costs unrealistic. For example, NASA’s estimates for the cost of the commercial crew transportation services they expect to replace for the Russian Soyuz are based on the cost of a Soyuz seat in FY 2016 – $70.7 million per seat for a total cost of $283 million per mission for four astronauts. However, the Program’s independent government cost estimates project significantly higher costs when the Agency transitions to purchasing these seats from commercial companies.
Foust does go on to say that the NASA's budget, "requested $848.3 million for commercial crew in 2015, and a total of nearly $3.42 billion for the program from 2015 through 2019." which would certainly support the up to $6.8 billion including up to 12 operational flights, with those twelve flights costing half of the total sum. NASA FY 2015 Budget Estimates backs that up. That makes me less dubious about the breakdown, as I don't see how they could be awarding $6.8 billion for development without requesting equal funding. I'd be happier if I found someone in addition to Foust coming to that conclusion (nothing wrong with Foust, but everything else I've read has ponder why Boeing needs 60% more than SpaceX's $2.6 billion for development -- the conclusion is generally that it is because SpaceX is that much further along, and that Boeing needs the extra cash to catch up in time -- when if Foust is right, then Boeing really is receiving more than 2.75 times as much as SpaceX's $900 million to complete development), but I think that is good enough for me to take down the "dubious" tag I placed on this section. -- ToE 18:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I just originally added the statement as clarified by the Foust source you give. Although the statement in the article seems quite consistent with the other coverage I've read, I don't have any problem clarifying that the breakdown was given by a particular source, or news publication, if noone is able to locate another source for it. Foust is a long-time serious space journalist, who is usually one of the most reliable and careful journalists out there; and he has many sources in the various aerospace companies that might be expected to clarify his press release information when he is writing a story.
One more thought on your NASA source comment: generally speaking, reliable secondary sources are preferred by policy in Wikipedia to primary sources like NASA docs; however, both may be used, especially when there is inadequate secondary source coverage of a matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I think that we had an edit collision there.) No, looking at the budget numbers, I think that Foust's analysis does make sense, but is it true that this is consistent with any other coverage you have read? I've not found anybody else who has broken the up to $6.8 billion into up to $3.4 billion development and up to $3.4 billion operation. I'm not questioning the quality of Foust's work, (and quite to the contrary, I now think that his analysis makes a lot of sense that we should run with it even if he is the only one explaining it that way -- it's the budget numbers that convinced me), but I thought that it was strange that the breakdown was not picked up by any other source.
And I wasn't suggesting primary sources for the article, but was linking to them from the talk page in order to provide evidence with which we could evaluate the quality of the secondary source.
I'm now happy with the article as it stands. Thanks for responding, N2e -- ToE 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went to remove the "dubious" tag only to see that Andrew Swallow beat me to it, with a "The same information is in the NASA press release" comment. I don't want to flog this dead horse now that I understand and agree with Foust's analysis, but the NASA release does not contain the same information. It gives the up to $4.2 billion Boeing / up to $2.6 billion SpaceX numbers, but does not break it down into development and operational moneys, and as I said above, NASA's language is unclear about how many, if any, of the operational flights were covered by the up to $6.8 billion. It is Foust connecting the dots with the budget request and the OIG report that allowed him to break it down. -- ToE 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We will just have to wait for the contracts to be published. Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commercial Crew Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commercial Crew Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Commercial Crew Development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CST 100 pad abort test - Success or partial failure

[edit]

On Boeing CST-100 Starliner the pad abort test has been changed to show it as a 'partial failure' due to parachute issue but is shown as success here. I think it should be described the same way both there and here. Perhaps "success despite parachute issue" fits what happened better? crandles (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The abort parachute system is designed to work with less than 100% of the chutes deploying. So that by itself is not a criteria for the overall success or failure of the test. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of infobox

[edit]

I disagree with the reason for deleting this article's infobox, which is that all info in the box is better shown in the Commercial Crew Program article. That article focuses only on missions after SpaceX Crew 1, meaning that it does not provide a good replacement for the deleted box's info. The CCP article also does not appear to be a "parent" article, rather it is a continuation of this article. A possible alternative would be a re-merge of the two articles under the title Commercial Crew Program, as it is somewhat confusing to have test and service flights in two separate articles. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are templates meant to be used in multiple articles. I do not see a good reason the same infobox can't be used in both articles with appropriate content in each. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing changes I'll likely propose merging the two articles together under CCP, there's no reason to put a development program with comparatively little in the wiki and the missions that resulted from that program in two separate articles unlike programs like Shuttle where there was a long and complex development period with a lot in the wiki about it. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

Why is this article written in day month year format? The USA uses month day year. I am changing the dates to be month day year (e.g. June 5, 2024, not 5 June 2024). Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program&oldid=1234693239"