Author Topic: Draft CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements  (Read 23458 times)

Offline Gravity Ray

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Well suddenly neilh's "sarcasm" about NASA intentionally destroying its own future becomes much more relevant. If NASA puts the commercial launchers like Boeing in a position that they say "forget NASA" lets just launch for other countries to some commercial Space Station, then all NASA has managed to do is make itself irrelevant. No?

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 2
Hum, if I remember correctly both Orbital and SpaceX are taking advantage of onramps to the NASA Launch Services program. Further, the entire COTS/CRS program was patterned after the NLS program so the kinds of requirements that these programs have should provide a good baseline for evaluating this Draft proposal.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

~Jon

Again, try to research NSTS-07700, like all 32 or whatever volumes.  See how that dovetails into OVEI specifications, OMRSD requirements and various volumes there, SODB constraints, LCCs, etc. 

I don't think its fair to say NASA is loose on requirements and that what's good for commercial is below NASA.  Sure it's possible to take waivers, and even makes practical sense to do so at times.

All that said, too many and too perscriptive requirements will kill everything.  I personally like the OSP level 1 requirements and think something like that is apporpriate for something like commercial that will be led by various companies, designs, etc.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2010 11:45 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9593
  • Liked: 353
  • Likes Given: 462
Can we assume that Lockheed must meet all of these requirements for Zombie Orion, as well, but the government (ie, we) will pay the costs of that work? Can we print enough dollars to pay for meeting those requirements?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 459
  • Likes Given: 3667
Can we print enough dollars to pay for meeting those requirements?

There seems to be no end to that, so I guess one could say YES. :)
(smily face but in a concerned manner)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Can we assume that Lockheed must meet all of these requirements for Zombie Orion, as well, but the government (ie, we) will pay the costs of that work? Can we print enough dollars to pay for meeting those requirements?


Lets also be fair and not jump off the deep end.  The requirements are "draft".  They are not final.  You have not seen them presumably.

While Wayne did well to take a shot across the bow, the IG is looking at it, etc these are not set in stone yet either. 
« Last Edit: 11/17/2010 02:20 AM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Wayne Hale posted a follow-up today:

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/trying-to-clean-up-a-mess/

Lots of really fascinating stuff in the post, but here's his recommendation from the end:
Quote
So, what is my recommendation?  Simple.  Do what the Launch Services Program does:  require that providers HAVE standards and follow them – don’t make them pick particular processes or standards, let the flexible, nimble, [your adjective here] commercial firms pick what suits their business best.  As long as they have standards and stick to them – that is what we should require.
...
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  A good system can be devised, examples exist.  Human spaceflight is important to our nation and to the world.  Whether or not commercial firms can actually succeed is still open; but NASA and the FAA must walk a careful tightrope of ensuring safety while not killing the enterprise with over regulation.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 0
Can we assume that Lockheed must meet all of these requirements for Zombie Orion, as well, but the government (ie, we) will pay the costs of that work? Can we print enough dollars to pay for meeting those requirements?


According to Wayne Hale:

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/trying-to-clean-up-a-mess/

Quote
Now I have re-read it and have some additional thoughts.  It is clear that this is a vast scaling down from the requirements that say, Ares-1 and Orion had.
JRF

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4291
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 255
I read the story NASA does need to clean up the bureaucratic red tape all that paper work should not be needed.

Gemini only had two dozen pages of requirements yet was one of the safest vehicles NASA ever flew.

It does seem like there are some people within NASA who do not want commercial crew to succeed.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 02:18 AM by Patchouli »

Offline Gravity Ray

  • Member
  • Posts: 45
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I read the story NASA does need to clean up the bureaucratic red tape all that paper work should not be needed.

Gemini only had two dozen pages of requirements yet was one of the safest vehicles NASA ever flew.

It does seem like there are some people within NASA who do not want commercial crew to succeed.


I don’t know. It does seem that way. I just can’t bring myself to say there is malice. It’s just standard operating procedure for our government right now to be much more bureaucratic than it needs to be. It’s not just NASA, its all of our government. I really wish/hope that the people at the upper leadership levels of NASA will move to make the requirements safe but streamlined.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797
From the CCDev-2 Questions and Answers:

Quote
Background: Requirement 3.3.1.5 states “The CTS shall provide an overall abort effectiveness of 0.95 (TBC) for all single abort events along the nominal and dispersed ascent trajectory profile.”
95% Abort Effectiveness seems to be a rather aggressive requirement given the fact that NASA’s own calculations for the Ares I (which was suppose to be one of the safest crew vehicles NASA had ever designed) showed that this vehicle had an abort effectiveness of about 80% to 85%. Enclosed is a transcript from one of the recent Augustine Committee public hearings where one of NASA’s safety & reliability experts (highlighted in the document) specifically says that “95% effectiveness is a very difficult thing to achieve” – the transcript is available at www.nasa.gov/doc/378830main_Huntsville_Transcript_part4b.doc

Question: If one of NASA’s own experts in this area has already stated publically that a 95% abort effectiveness is very difficult to achieve, is this requirement reasonable to be placed on commercial crew providers? Moreover, requirement 3.2.1.2 states “The mean LOC risk for any ISS mission ascent phase shall be no greater than 1 in 1000” so since the mean LOC risk is simply the probability of launch vehicle failure that ends the mission (also called Loss-of-Mission or LOM Risk) multiplied by 1 – abort effectiveness, why not let the commercial crew providers determine how best to meet the 1 in 1000 LOC risk regardless of how effective the abort portion of this equation is?

Answer: The requirement documents referenced in the Announcement are in draft form and are intended to inform participants on the development of NASA’s crew transportation certification requirements.  NASA will continue to openly develop these requirements for eventual use in development and use in an ISS crew transportation system.  NASA is not requiring compliance as part of CCDev 2 but is informing industry as early as possible the considerations being given by NASA as part of crew rating space systems.

See:
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev2/Questions%20and%20Answers%20Round%202%20final.docx
« Last Edit: 12/02/2010 05:55 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Wayne Hale

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 2
On Friday, Dec 10, NASA released an announcement about the full plan of requirements documents that Commercial Human Spaceflight Providers must comply with.  You can read that announcement at:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/commercial/cctscr.html

There will be 5 requirements documents apparently.  And in the announcement is a link to the overall management requirements document (a 6th document) here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

Apparently in January all the drafts will be released for industry comment.  I wonder if anybody will comment on them?  Besides me, that is.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6073
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2075
  • Likes Given: 711
On Friday, Dec 10, NASA released an announcement about the full plan of requirements documents that Commercial Human Spaceflight Providers must comply with.  You can read that announcement at:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/commercial/cctscr.html

There will be 5 requirements documents apparently.  And in the announcement is a link to the overall management requirements document (a 6th document) here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

Apparently in January all the drafts will be released for industry comment.  I wonder if anybody will comment on them?  Besides me, that is.

I think most of us here on NSF are looking forward to your comments.  Not being a manned spaceflight guy, I'd probably miss a lot of the implications of subtleties in the rules (even if I had the time to read through 6 volumes of rules--which I don't). 

Thanks Wayne!  We all appreciate your insights in these matters.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797
On Friday, Dec 10, NASA released an announcement about the full plan of requirements documents that Commercial Human Spaceflight Providers must comply with.  You can read that announcement at:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/commercial/cctscr.html

There will be 5 requirements documents apparently.  And in the announcement is a link to the overall management requirements document (a 6th document) here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

Apparently in January all the drafts will be released for industry comment.  I wonder if anybody will comment on them?  Besides me, that is.


Here are some relevant quotes from the document on page 12 and 13:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

Quote
5.2.2 The CCTS shall safely execute the Loss of Crew (LOC) requirements specific to the NASA Design Reference Mission (DRM). The Programs shall determine and document the LOC risk when DRMs are specified. The following are current:

a. The LOC probability distribution for the ascent phase of a 210 day ISS mission shall have a
mean value no greater than 1 in 1000
b. The LOC probability distribution for the entry phase of a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 1000
c. The LOC probability distribution for a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 270

5.2.3 The CCTS shall limit the Loss of Mission (LOM) risk for the specified NASA DRMs. The Programs shall determine and document the LOM risk when DRMs are specified. The following are current:

a. The LOM probability distribution for a 210 day ISS mission shall have a mean value no greater than 1 in 55
b. A spacecraft failure that requires the vehicle to enter earlier than the pre-launch planned end of mission timeframe shall be considered a loss of mission

Rationale: These LOC and LOM requirements are flown down from the NASA ESMD Exploration Architecture Requirements Document (EARD) and are consistent with NASA’s defined goals and thresholds for crewed vehicles. The LOC values are part of the overall certification process for the commercial launch vehicle and spacecraft and establish a basis for decision-making relative to safety enhancing features in the design including failure tolerance.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2010 02:01 PM by yg1968 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10408
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 4
Will there be a specific procedure published, that everyone will have to comply with when determining these LOC/LOM numbers?

As we learned during the Ares-I project, it was pretty easy for L1 and L2 management to manipulate the process in order to make the LOM/LOC numbers say anything they wanted.

So I see these particular numbers as thoroughly "fluid" without some very open and clear published methods of quantification that everyone can measure, ahead of time.

In short, what's to stop someone saying "Here's my new rocket & spacecraft and here is our evidence that they meet all of NASA's LOM/LOC targets -- just as long as you calculate them my way" ?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2010 03:31 PM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27331
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7267
  • Likes Given: 4988
Will there be a specific procedure published, that everyone will have to comply with when determining these LOC/LOM numbers?

As we learned during the Ares-I project, it was pretty easy for L1 and L2 management to manipulate the process in order to make the LOM/LOC numbers say anything they wanted.

So I see these particular numbers as thoroughly "fluid" without some very open and clear published methods of quantification that everyone can measure, ahead of time.

In short, what's to stop someone saying "Here's my new rocket & spacecraft and here is our evidence that they meet all of NASA's LOM/LOC targets -- just as long as you calculate them my way" ?

Ross.
Quite right.
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 baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 4500
In short, what's to stop someone saying "Here's my new rocket & spacecraft and here is our evidence that they meet all of NASA's LOM/LOC targets -- just as long as you calculate them my way" ?
Quite right.
You have one of those problems that you can't really solve. You either use statistics methods over a frozen design (and thus you can only calculate after some amount of flights (5 to 30, depending on your confidence level) or you extrapolate from previous designs, in which case you can have the Ares I situation.
The main problem is that a model that had problems in the first launches, but were corrected might be more robust than a paper model based on existing technology but redesigned from the ground up. Ditto for the design, manufacturing and launch services crew. I'm sure the NPO Energia people will check their tank sensors next time  ::)
I've seen statistics manipulated this way in all kinds of regulation ways. For example, to calculate the cost of the telephone network, they used data from when the "central switch" was human operators switching cables, and applied it to the fiber optic + IP network. So the extrapolation from Ares I is childs game (so were the amounts of dollars and jobs in game).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9291
  • Liked: 1239
  • Likes Given: 797
« Last Edit: 08/16/2011 03:13 PM by yg1968 »

Tags: