Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 145344 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
On page 41 of S.3729, Section 403(b)(1) says:
Quote
HUMAN RATING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements to guide the design of commercially-developed crew transportation capabilities, which requirements shall be at least equivalent to proven requirements for crew transportation in use as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

Can anyone knowledgeably expand on what those guidelines will likely include?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline jryodabobs

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Houston
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
On page 41 of S.3729, Section 403(b)(1) says:
Quote
HUMAN RATING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements to guide the design of commercially-developed crew transportation capabilities, which requirements shall be at least equivalent to proven requirements for crew transportation in use as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
Can anyone knowledgeably expand on what those guidelines will likely include?
Not sure what knowledgeable means in this context, since those who actually know aren't allowed to say. However, there is public information that there are about 30 technical requirements contained in the document. That is about the same number as are in the most recent version used to govern NASA spacecraft development (and which was used for Constellation). Logic says that NASA's commercial requirements for carrying NASA crew won't be much different from those in NPR 8705.2 rev B. But we all know that logic doesn't always apply in this real world.

I'm anxious to see what they actually say.

Bob S.



Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.

That's because, right now, they are all in the crtical path. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.

That's because, right now, they are all in the crtical path. 



Yeap but then again cxp was once on the critical path and keeping the shuttle is not a viable option in the long term.  And in the short term the money needed to keep it and develop replacements is greater than the politically viable budget. So yeap they are on the critical path.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
CxP was never really in the "critical path".  COTS was still in that critical path even then.

While I said nothing about shuttle, I guess we can talk about it again for those of you who insist on trying to frame it as bad and something that must be eliminated to usher in the glorious new era. 

If we keep a CR this year or even get an appropriation, it's probably not possible to spend all the money at this point.  It is not possible for RFIs, RFP, contract awards, etc and spend the amount allocated.

If CxP is to be "re-framed" somewhat then the Authorization bill could set the framework for that.  Shuttle could be stretched to provide a bit of cushion to ISS until commercial is running and there is some confidence behind it. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
... Shuttle could be stretched to provide a bit of cushion to ISS until commercial is running and there is some confidence behind it. 
How do you stretch Shuttle when you do not have the ETs needed to fly?
Shuttle is history. (And, no, it was not Obama who killed it.)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
... Shuttle could be stretched to provide a bit of cushion to ISS until commercial is running and there is some confidence behind it. 
How do you stretch Shuttle when you do not have the ETs needed to fly?
Shuttle is history. (And, no, it was not Obama who killed it.)

Well, we have 3 more flights buddy....

And yes, he was.  He was the one that allowed shuttle to cross the "tipping point", which happened well into his presidency, without any concrete alternatives.  Hence, the GAO report and the ranking the STS program received during the transition. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.

That's because, right now, they are all in the crtical path. 

Sure, but with commercial crew it's an OR boolean function rather than an AND.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.

That's because, right now, they are all in the crtical path. 

Sure, but with commercial crew it's an OR boolean function rather than an AND.

Yes and no and it depends on how you slice it. 

"Cargo" is in the critical path and will be until someone makes it there with some confidence. 

"Crew" is in another critical path and will be until someone makes it there with some conficence.

Now, once you have one player for each category, will "cargo" be sufficient, and launch frequently enough, to sustain ISS with a six person crew and perform the capabilities Station was intended and fill the void of Shuttle or will more than one provider be required for that?

Same thing with "crew", and depending on depending on other markets, will it be cheaper than Russia?

So, in other words, I think we're selling the more complex issues a little short with statements like this and what the DA suggested. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8

Yes and no and it depends on how you slice it. 

"Cargo" is in the critical path and will be until someone makes it there with some confidence. 

"Crew" is in another critical path and will be until someone makes it there with some conficence.

Now, once you have one player for each category, will "cargo" be sufficient, and launch frequently enough, to sustain ISS with a six person crew and perform the capabilities Station was intended and fill the void of Shuttle or will more than one provider be required for that?

Same thing with "crew", and depending on depending on other markets, will it be cheaper than Russia?

So, in other words, I think we're selling the more complex issues a little short with statements like this and what the DA suggested. 


There is an old saying about two guys being chased by a bear...

In the case of crew it only needs to be cheaper than Orion.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What?  That has zero relevence on the conversation. 

Orion is not meant to go to ISS unless absolutely necessary as a back-up. 
« Last Edit: 11/09/2010 08:33 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
What?  That has zero relevence on the conversation. 

Orion is not meant to go to ISS unless absolutely necessary as a back-up. 

LEO destinations such as the ISS are the only places the Orion can go until the Ares V (or equivalent) flies.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/491544main_orion_book_web.pdf

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What?  That has zero relevence on the conversation. 

Orion is not meant to go to ISS unless absolutely necessary as a back-up. 

LEO destinations such as the ISS are the only places the Orion can go until the Ares V (or equivalent) flies.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/491544main_orion_book_web.pdf

Come on.  I recognize your username as well as certain others above.  I know you, and certain others, have been coming to this site for sometime. 

Because of that, I realize that you, and certain others, should very well know it will not take Ares V or equivalent to lift Orion. 

Most importantly I also realize that you, and others, should very well know what is called out, and how, in the 2010 Authorization Act. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Come on.  I recognize your username as well as certain others above.  I know you, and certain others, have been coming to this site for sometime. 

Because of that, I realize that you, and certain others, should very well know it will not take Ares V or equivalent to lift Orion. 

Most importantly I also realize that you, and others, should very well know what is called out, and how, in the 2010 Authorization Act. 

The J-130 will only get the Orion to LEO.

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
I'm willing to wager that that will not happen... ever.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428

The J-130 will only get the Orion to LEO.

And what does the J-130 have to do with anything.  J-130 is not in the 2010 Authorization Act.  It is not a NASA vehicle.  J-130 nor Direct does not equate to SLS. SLS is unknown at this time.
« Last Edit: 11/10/2010 11:15 am by Jim »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1