Author Topic: Draft CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements  (Read 25666 times)

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 165
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/

Doesn't look very promising if commercial was looking for reduced requirements and reduced paperwork costs!

(Note, post the direct link only, not every other blog site that points to the same original link).
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 12:31 AM by Andy USA »
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/

Doesn't look very promising if commercial was looking for reduced requirements and reduced paperwork costs!

Sigh. Is NASA -intentionally- trying to destroy its future?
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 12:31 AM by Andy USA »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5441
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 635
Sigh. Is NASA -intentionally- trying to destroy its future?

Or maybe to guarantee that the "back-up" capability of Orion/SLS to carry crew to the ISS will be "needed."

EDIT:  Added missing "to."
« Last Edit: 11/15/2010 09:55 AM by Proponent »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4312
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1102
  • Likes Given: 2096
Sounds more plausible.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1716
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 408
  • Likes Given: 90
Lets not assume malice when none is needed to explain these requirements. Here is a quote from Mr. Hale's blog:
Quote
As with all good government bureaucracies, NASA believes that improved processes (read:  increased bureaucracy) is the answer to preventing future problems.  So NASA writes longer and longer specifications and requirements, and demands more and more documentation and proof.  Somewhere along the line, we have crossed over the optimum point to ensure safety and just added cost and delay
I think that this is much more likely an explanation then someone actively scheming to kill commercial spaceflight from within NASA.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
The majority of it is not malice, that seems certain. But make no mistake - from the flak commercial crew efforts get in congress and from other places - there are elements out there (most of them with their hands in the CxP contracts) that do NOT want it to succeed.

Who else do you think is out there talking about commercial crew as "bailouts" and "unsafe"?

It is a minority for sure, but those elements should not be ignored.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2010 05:42 AM by Lars_J »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1731
  • Likes Given: 379
For a while I've had a feeling NASA "commercial crew" would be more trouble than its worth to the likes of SpaceX et al. This doesn't help dispel that feeling.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4831
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1936
  • Likes Given: 1
Lawyer -> Federal court -> Past Practices argument re: Soyuz

Not to mention that this kind of ISS restriction makes a good part of the business case for private space stations & private access to same. They can be either US outfits, Russian or whatever - but if not US our govt will have once again screwed us out of another market.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2010 09:26 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?

Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11014
  • Likes Given: 327
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?

Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.

there is the certification method for those with less flight experience.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 766
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?

Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.

Cause you know, those ULA schmucks have no experience launching billion dollar satellites... ;-)

Though I'm guessing you're probably referring more to the capsule side?  I have to agree with some of the other questioners--are these standards that any vehicle NASA has designed or used, ever met in their entirety?  I wonder if SLS/MPCV will be held to the same standards.

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?

Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.

Cause you know, those ULA schmucks have no experience launching billion dollar satellites... ;-)

Though I'm guessing you're probably referring more to the capsule side?  I have to agree with some of the other questioners--are these standards that any vehicle NASA has designed or used, ever met in their entirety?  I wonder if SLS/MPCV will be held to the same standards.

~Jon

I love it how so many want to see an instant conspiracy and cry foul.  While Jorge clearly was not talking about ULA as you theorized, everything does not always have to be about them either. 

Clearly too many requirements can be a problem and something will likely have to be done about this.  As for NASA vehicle requirements, specifically the STS since it is really the only vehicle at this point, you should try to check out NSTS 07700 sometime. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 766
I love it how so many want to see an instant conspiracy and cry foul.

And I love your ability to read stuff into what I wrote that wasn't there.  It's truly impressive.  Just for the record, I personally think Wayne Hale's point--that this is more well-intentioned bureaucrats than some intentionally malicious anti-commercial-space effort. 

Quote
While Jorge clearly was not talking about ULA as you theorized, everything does not always have to be about them either.

My point there (which was meant as a bit of friendly ribbing--I've known Jorge over the internets for almost half my life now) was that a lot of these companies, including Orbital and ULA have actually demonstrated prove track records of success in at least some parts of the commercial crew delivery parts--notice I followed up by pointing out that he was probably talking about the capsules.  And I admit that nobody in the US (including NASA) has a demonstrated a recent track record of success with crewed capsules.  I just agree with Wayne, that something's gotta give.

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I love it how so many want to see an instant conspiracy and cry foul.

And I love your ability to read stuff into what I wrote that wasn't there.  It's truly impressive.  Just for the record, I personally think Wayne Hale's point--that this is more well-intentioned bureaucrats than some intentionally malicious anti-commercial-space effort. 

Quote
While Jorge clearly was not talking about ULA as you theorized, everything does not always have to be about them either.

My point there (which was meant as a bit of friendly ribbing--I've known Jorge over the internets for almost half my life now) was that a lot of these companies, including Orbital and ULA have actually demonstrated prove track records of success in at least some parts of the commercial crew delivery parts--notice I followed up by pointing out that he was probably talking about the capsules.  And I admit that nobody in the US (including NASA) has a demonstrated a recent track record of success with crewed capsules.  I just agree with Wayne, that something's gotta give.

~Jon

Jon, you are the one who said you have to "agree with some of the other questioners".  Given this thread is 1 page long and the "other questioners" along your lines of thinking are saying what they are saying, then I believe it was appropriate for me to comment as I did. 

Thank you for commenting and clarifying you do not believe this to be a malicious anti-commercial effort.  Yet, you did throw MPCV/SLS into the mix too, possibly to imply a potential double standard so I will also assume that was not your intent. 

I'm also glad to know you and Jorge are internet buddies and that you agree with Wayne. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2249
  • Likes Given: 766
Jon, you are the one who said you have to "agree with some of the other questioners".  Given this thread is 1 page long and the "other questioners" along your lines of thinking are saying what they are saying, then I believe it was appropriate for me to comment as I did. 

You know what, OV, that's fair.  I had just gotten through reading discussion about this on several of the blogs as well as this, and I wasn't clear which questioners I was referring to.  My apologies for being a snarky pain in the neck.

Quote
Thank you for commenting and clarifying you do not believe this to be a malicious anti-commercial effort.  Yet, you did throw MPCV/SLS into the mix too, possibly to imply a potential double standard so I will also assume that was not your intent.

The MPCV/SLS comment was meant less as a belief in an intentionally malicious effort to use a double standard against commercial crew as a comment that as I understand it, NASA has often come up with "human rating" rules that were strict enough that all of their vehicles have had to fly with waivers to those rules.  If NASA (non-maliciously) came up with ridiculous rules for commercial crew, do you think they would hold their own systems to the same standards?  History, at least as I understand it, would suggest otherwise.  But maybe I'm wrong?

Quote
I'm also glad to know you and Jorge are internet buddies and that you agree with Wayne. 

:-)  I don't know if Jorge would call me an internet buddy. 

As for the other comment, you're not the only reader of NSF you know.  I do try to find common ground with people when I can, even if they're fun to argue with.

~Jon

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Wayne Hale makes a really interesting point in his blog post about NASA's Launch Services program:
Quote
When Frank Bauer and I proposed a new model of doing business to the agency leaders, we patterned it on the NASA Launch Services organization which acquires expendable launch vehicles for scientific satellites.  NLS has much less oversight and far fewer requirements than usual NASA programs because the providers have a proven track record of success launching rockets for the DoD or for commercial users.  This model appeared to us to be the way to allow commercial entities to provide safe but much more cost effective space flight transportation.

Any thoughts on whether NASA Launch Services would be a good model for commercial crew?

Perhaps once a few commercial providers meet the condition I highlighted.

Cause you know, those ULA schmucks have no experience launching billion dollar satellites... ;-)

Though I'm guessing you're probably referring more to the capsule side?

Absolutely... and I thought that was obvious enough that I did not say so explicitly.
JRF

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148


http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/

Doesn't look very promising if commercial was looking for reduced requirements and reduced paperwork costs!

Sigh. Is NASA -intentionally- trying to destroy its future?

Hmm, I'm being reminded of how poorly sarcasm transmits over the internet. Just to be clear, I don't -actually- think NASA is intentionally trying to destroy its future. It just seems that way sometimes.

Regarding NASA Launch Services, what's the certification process like? To what extent could that process be applied to commercial crew? How should launches of the rocket without a capsule and launches of the same rocket with a capsule contribute to the track record for certification purposes?
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 12:32 AM by Andy USA »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 165
So NASA determines the Human rating requirements for crew transport to and from the ISS. 

What about a private station like Bigelow's?  Would this be the FAA?  Could a commercial company, say Boeing, decide that it isn't interested in the ISS and try to get certification for providing crew services to and from private stations?
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11014
  • Likes Given: 327
So NASA determines the Human rating requirements for crew transport to and from the ISS. 

What about a private station like Bigelow's?  Would this be the FAA?  Could a commercial company, say Boeing, decide that it isn't interested in the ISS and try to get certification for providing crew services to and from private stations?

NASA determines the Human rating requirements for crew transport to and from the ISS for NASA astronauts and no one else.

FAA jurisdiction is commercial spacecraft.  Certification isn't required for commercial spaceflight.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2010 11:27 AM by Jim »

Tags: