Author Topic: Commercial Crew providers making "significant progress" toward first flights  (Read 14567 times)


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7074
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2622
  • Likes Given: 777
Status and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders :)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/
Chris and Chris G: excellent article, as always. Keep up the good work.

However, I'm annoyed about the remarks by Dr. Patricia Sanders quoted below:

Quote
“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results.  They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.

“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”

It is another fine example of ASAP trying to stifle progress by expecting agile parties to adapt old-style rigidity.
Very disappointing and one of the many reasons why I don't take ASAP for serious. Their stressing of safety is extreme, to the point that no manned spaceflight would be practically possible, if providers were to adhere to all of their recommendations.

Online Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 625
Status and update article by Chris Gebhardt, and use of Nathan Koga's sexy L2 renders :)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/commercial-crew-providers-significant-progress-flights/
Chris and Chris G: excellent article, as always. Keep up the good work.

However, I'm annoyed about the remarks by Dr. Patricia Sanders quoted below:

Quote
“The other provider has placed a value on agility and rapid problem solving with beneficial results.  They are also showing signs of evolving to reconcile their approach with the benefits and need for discipline and control.

“However, they need to ensure that the evolution reflects an inherent desire to adopt the tenets of systems engineering.”

It is another fine example of ASAP trying to stifle progress by expecting agile parties to adapt old-style rigidity.
Very disappointing and one of the many reasons why I don't take ASAP for serious. Their stressing of safety is extreme, to the point that no manned spaceflight would be practically possible, if providers were to adhere to all of their recommendations.

ASAPs desired crew vehicle for trips to space

 ;)

Online intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 173
I still don't understand the increased MMOD risk levels. Despite ~315 human flights and thousands of hours on orbit without even a close call to an MMOD LOC, why is it suddenly a huge risk and the responsibility of the CC providers. Shuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.

I admit that I don't know how much protection is on the ISS modules, Shuttle Orbiter, Soyuz, etc. compared to what is on CST and Dragon. The new pressure vessels should be at least up to snuff compared to previous craft and some fraction of the protection the ISS modules have, but I have a hard time believing such protection levels weren't already planned.

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 298
Humor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard?  Thanks.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3616
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2417
  • Likes Given: 790
Is the MMOD issue that increasing amounts of debris is increasing risk? If so then experience with shuttle may have limited value for future risk assessment.


Online Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 267
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 625
Gwynne Shotwell confirmed SpX Demo-1 is currently planned to happen in 2018 in recent interview (June 22, 2017 on The Space Show).

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 841
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 291
1. My guess, the Soyuz would not meet these standards.

2. The shuttle data is a great baseline.

IMO.

Online whitelancer64

I still don't understand the increased MMOD risk levels. Despite ~315 human flights and thousands of hours on orbit without even a close call to an MMOD LOC, why is it suddenly a huge risk and the responsibility of the CC providers. Shuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.

I admit that I don't know how much protection is on the ISS modules, Shuttle Orbiter, Soyuz, etc. compared to what is on CST and Dragon. The new pressure vessels should be at least up to snuff compared to previous craft and some fraction of the protection the ISS modules have, but I have a hard time believing such protection levels weren't already planned.

Actually, there have been close calls with MMOD strikes.

The worst I know of was to STS-118, a hit to a radiator. The entry measured 8.1 mm by 6.4 mm, but the exit hole through the radiator’s backside facesheet measured 14 mm by 14 mm. It was centimeters away from the main coolant loop. A hit to the coolant loop would have caused loss of mission, NASA protocols would have called for an immediate deorbiting of the Shuttle.

Had that hit been to a window, the crew could have perished.

Also, this is not a sudden issue. It was a problem for the Shuttle as well. And the ISS has had multiple visible hits to radiators and solar arrays. We are fortunate that the MMOD shielding on the modules is performing well, but there are thousands of tiny hits to every module on the ISS.

The MMOD risk is high not because people have died, but because if there is a significant MMOD hit to a critical area or system, the vehicle will be lost and / or people will die.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online whitelancer64

Is the MMOD issue that increasing amounts of debris is increasing risk? If so then experience with shuttle may have limited value for future risk assessment.

This is one of the reasons why there are MMOD models that produce conflicting results.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • California
  • Liked: 2561
  • Likes Given: 1566
Humor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard?  Thanks.

It does not. Not even close.

Humor a space enthusiast with no aerospace background, how would Soyuz measure up to this standard?  Thanks.

It does not. Not even close.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=E&classic=YES&bibcode=2012ESASP.699E..32L&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdf

Correct. However, it's not like there's much a choice for the time being, as we all know.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 8
Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.

Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.

Yes. It's scheduled between DM-1 and DM-2.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43197.msg1692793#msg1692793

Online ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 1533
  • Likes Given: 278
Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.

They're not doing it anymore.  Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May.  In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.

Online intrepidpursuit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 173
Shuttle flew 134 missions with it's especially fragile heat shield exposed to space and had no major MMOD incidents unless you consider a coolant loop puncture to be a "near miss" for LOC.

Actually, there have been close calls with MMOD strikes.

The worst I know of was to STS-118, a hit to a radiator. The entry measured 8.1 mm by 6.4 mm, but the exit hole through the radiator’s backside facesheet measured 14 mm by 14 mm. It was centimeters away from the main coolant loop. A hit to the coolant loop would have caused loss of mission, NASA protocols would have called for an immediate deorbiting of the Shuttle.

Had that hit been to a window, the crew could have perished.

My understanding of that event is different. It was a near miss for loss of mission as you say, but it was because it hit one of the most sensitive parts of the orbiter. I was under the impression a similar window hit wouldn't have caused a breach. Loss of mission is radically different than loss of crew.

Online whitelancer64

Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.

They're not doing it anymore.  Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May.  In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.

One provider, SpaceX. Boeing was never going to do an in-flight abort.

And it seems we have a conflict in sources saying different things. 5 days ago, Shotwell said in-flight abort is still happening.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline rockets4life97

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 87
Is SpaceX still planning on doing an in-flight abort test or was that plan scrapped? I haven't heard much about that test in quite some time.

They're not doing it anymore.  Kathy Lueders talked about this to the media in late-May.  In-flight abort test is not mandated by the CCtCap contracts; it was something extra the two providers aimed to do.

I thought Shotwell confirmed that the in-flight abort is scheduled for H1 2018 on The Space Show interview recently. I remember her saying all 3 missions (DM-1, inflight abort, and DM-2) were scheduled for H1 2018.

Online Navier–Stokes

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 1145
I thought Shotwell confirmed that the in-flight abort is scheduled for H1 2018 on The Space Show interview recently. I remember her saying all 3 missions (DM-1, inflight abort, and DM-2) were scheduled for H1 2018.
The question and answer are at 48:15. She was quite unambiguous about the in-flight abort test, a little less certain about all three being scheduled for H1 2018.
« Last Edit: 06/27/2017 10:20 PM by Navier–Stokes »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2043
  • Likes Given: 2432
Is the MMOD issue that increasing amounts of debris is increasing risk? If so then experience with shuttle may have limited value for future risk assessment.

This is one of the reasons why there are MMOD models that produce conflicting results.

No doubt there are micro-meteorids that are natural, because Earth is constantly being struck by debris from our solar system (and maybe beyond). But do we know what the ratio of human-made debris would be that is of concern? For instance, is it a 50% chance that human-made debris would be the cause of MMOD, or something higher or lower?

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much of an issue this will be when we're doing lunar orbital operations, or when we're at Mars (especially when we have space stations in those locations).
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags: