Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements  (Read 76078 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
I haven't seen these posted before (at least a collection).  They contain some interesting bits, and while I've posted some excerpts in various threads, but I've undoubtedly missed some important parts.  There's quite a lot to consume, and B.2 and B.4 is where I've spent most of my attention up to this point.

A. CCP Requirements Workshop home page. These are mostly a synopsis of the requirements docs (below).
Oct 4, 2011 Workshop:
1. Requirements Presentation
May 24, 2011 Workshop:
1. CCP Introduction
2. Implementation Approach, Insight/Oversight Methodology, Certification
3. Safety Review Process, Evaluation of Technical Standards, and Ops Concepts and Practices
4. Key Driving Requirements
See also the Program Forum home page which contains some requirements-related docs.

B. CCP Requirements Documents.1
1. CCT-PLN-1100 - Crew Transportation Plan, DRAFT 3.0, April 28, 2011
2. CCT-DRM-1110 - Crew Transportation System Design Reference Missions, DRAFT 4.0, May 4, 2011
3. CCT-PLN-1120 - Crew Transportation Technical Management Processes, DRAFT 1.0, May 5, 2011
4. CCT-REQ-1130 - ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document, DRAFT 3.0, April 29, 2011
5. CCT-STD-1140 - Crew Transportation Technical Standards and Design Evaluation Criteria, DRAFT 4.0 April 29, 2011
6. CCT-STD-1150 - Crew Transportation Operations Standards, DRAFT 4.0, May 5, 2011

C. Related
1. ESMD-CCTSCR-12.10 Commercial Crew Transportation System Certification Requirements for NASA Low Earth Orbit Missions, Dec 8 2010  (Still relevant?  Not referenced by any of the CCT requirement docs above.)

Happy digging.  Let us know what you find.


1 Also attached as pdf's as all the originals are Word.

edit: Add ESMD-CCTSCR-12.10 per yg1968's comment below.
Update requirements workshop links.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2011 08:37 PM by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #1 on: 08/19/2011 05:59 PM »
There is also this document which doesn't seem to have been updated since December 2010:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/commercial/cctscr.html

There is also this prior thread on the CCT-REQ-1130:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23304.30
« Last Edit: 08/19/2011 06:01 PM by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #2 on: 08/20/2011 12:25 AM »
There is also this document which doesn't seem to have been updated since December 2010:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf

Thanks very much for the reminder; added to the list.  As noted, not sure if it's still in effect or relevant as it's not referenced by any of the other docs.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 12:25 AM by joek »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #3 on: 08/20/2011 07:29 AM »
I thought this was interesting.

Quote from: CCT-DRM-1110-146207-OTHER-001-002.pdf
The launch of the next rotation mission can occur prior to the departure of the current increment crew working on the ISS, resulting in a handover period where two commercial spacecraft would be docked to the ISS for approximately 7-10 days. If the Commercial Partner has received NASA approval to fly non-NASA crew to the ISS, the CTS will need to provide food, water, clothing, and other logistics for these crewmembers for the docked timeframe, since NASA does not generally pre-position these supplies on the ISS.

Which means typically there will be a minimum of 11 crew members present on ISS during the handover.

EDIT: What's really cool is that CCT-REQ-1130-146207-DRAFT-001-001.pdf lists the pressure suit requirements near the end.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 08:50 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #4 on: 08/20/2011 02:43 PM »
I find the window requirements interesting:

"3.10.15.1 The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases."

"3.10.15.2 The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases."

I assume this means windshield-type windows, similar to Gemini, Apollo and Orion/MPCV.

Soyuz uses a periscope, right? I guess that won't cut it for CCP. CST-100 has this feature baselined (one "forward window"), not sure how Dreamchaser does this docking tail-first. Blue Origin, who knows? As for SpaceX Dragon, haven't seen this in any available documents or concept art, seems like a non-trival change to Dragon's mold-line.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 02:46 PM by corrodedNut »

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #5 on: 08/20/2011 02:48 PM »
I find the window requirements interesting:

"3.10.15.1 The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases."

"3.10.15.2 The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases."

I assume this means windshield-type windows, similar to Gemini, Apollo and Orion/MPCV.

Soyuz uses a periscope, right? I guess that won't cut it for CCP. CST-100 has this feature baselined (one "forward window"), not sure how Dreamchaser does this docking tail-first. Blue Origin, who knows? As for SpaceX Dragon, haven't seen this in any available documents or concept art, seems like a non-trival change to Dragon's mold-line.

So we will see some nice changes to Dragon in future ;-)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #6 on: 08/20/2011 03:08 PM »
So we will see some nice changes to Dragon in future ;-)

Sounds like unnecessary changes to me. Can anyone explain what's the point of this requirement?
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #7 on: 08/20/2011 04:21 PM »
So we will see some nice changes to Dragon in future ;-)

Sounds like unnecessary changes to me. Can anyone explain what's the point of this requirement?

Strictly coming from astronauts who insist that they be able to pilot the craft and that the only way to pilot is to directly see out the window.  Even witht he vehicles that have windows the pilots are neccesarily in front of and will be using some camera support regardless.

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #8 on: 08/20/2011 08:03 PM »
So any idea about the additional windows for Dragon? If I look at the latest animations I see no port-facing windows, only the ones we know already. Or can SpaceX waive this requirements away?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #9 on: 08/20/2011 08:06 PM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?
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 apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #10 on: 08/20/2011 08:29 PM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

If you open the hatch in flight, you cannot longer use the window to see through ;-) Haha.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #11 on: 08/20/2011 08:32 PM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

If you open the hatch in flight, you cannot longer use the window to see through ;-) Haha.
Wouldn't the hatch be even easier to see through, then? ;)
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 apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #12 on: 08/20/2011 08:48 PM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

If you open the hatch in flight, you cannot longer use the window to see through ;-) Haha.
Wouldn't the hatch be even easier to see through, then? ;)

That was my intention ;-)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #13 on: 08/20/2011 09:13 PM »
So any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?

Assuming that a Gemini-like window is what the requirement dictates, I see a problem. The walls aren't steep enough. Or am I wrong? The only way I see this working is if they put a bigger window on the side, tilt the pilot seat back and fly Dragon sideways somehow (i.e. waste time and therefore money, by making it operate in a completely ridiculous manner).
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 03:36 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #14 on: 08/20/2011 09:25 PM »
So any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?
Assuming that a Gemini-like window is what the requirement dictates, I see a problem. The walls aren't steep enough.

What about a window in the NDS? Or around it? As the NDS should be smaller in diameter than the CBM, there should be space available.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #15 on: 08/20/2011 09:25 PM »
This requirement (if set in stone) problem is even worse for Dreamchaser, since it will "back into" it's docking.

On Dragon it could be solved by adding a small window (or two) around the docking ring - there might be room for it since the IDSS(?) is smaller than CBM.

This would be similar to the front observation window on Soyuz. (can be seen here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/08/article-2000582-0C40949300000578-747_472x610.jpg ) But I'm not sure it is used during docking.


« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 09:40 PM by Lars_J »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #16 on: 08/20/2011 09:50 PM »
This requirement (if set in stone) problem is even worse for Dreamchaser, since it will "back into" it's docking.

Rear view mirror :P

Edit to add:
On Dragon it could be solved by adding a small window (or two) around the docking ring - there might be room for it since the IDSS(?) is smaller than CBM.

I figure you also have to think about alignment with the pilot's head and whether it will be sufficient to provide "unobstructed fields-of-view" (whatever that means). Honestly I don't know the ergonomics surrounding this, it's up to the engineers to say if this is feasible and/or desirable.
« Last Edit: 08/20/2011 10:19 PM by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #17 on: 08/20/2011 10:02 PM »
This requirement (if set in stone) problem is even worse for Dreamchaser, since it will "back into" it's docking.
Rear view mirror :P

Perhaps we can get a few for cheap from Nascar...

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #18 on: 08/20/2011 10:36 PM »
So any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?
Assuming that a Gemini-like window is what the requirement dictates, I see a problem. The walls aren't steep enough. Or am I wrong?

I'd guess it's possible but given the current mold like would require significant indents with consequent reduction in internal volume, and repositioning some of the crew from what's shown in that image.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #19 on: 08/20/2011 11:34 PM »
I find the window requirements interesting:

"3.10.15.1 The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases."

"3.10.15.2 The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases."
This sure sounds like a show stopper to me.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #20 on: 08/20/2011 11:40 PM »
Looks like the pilot clique of the Astronaut office is deciding to throw some last grenades to the CCDEV participants, before they head out the door.

Hopefully these are not final requirements.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #21 on: 08/21/2011 12:37 AM »
Looks like the pilot clique of the Astronaut office is deciding to throw some last grenades to the CCDEV participants, before they head out the door.

Hopefully these are not final requirements.


This is the way NASA operates on some programs.  Like changes along the way are not new.   Why are some programs way over in cost over runs?
 
This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #22 on: 08/21/2011 03:04 AM »

This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it.
.
Bologna. Space-X has 8 Dragons in various states of completion, & claim they can kick out another one every 6 to 8 weeks. This means they've finalized the design.
They won't be able to change it without great cost. A big overrun in other words.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3238
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #23 on: 08/21/2011 03:34 AM »

This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it.
Bologna. Space-X has 8 Dragons in various states of completion, & claim they can kick out another one every 6 to 8 weeks. This means they've finalized the design.
Even if that is correct, it's cargo Dragon. Crew Dragon cannot be anywhere close to finalized yet.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #24 on: 08/21/2011 04:09 AM »
Even if that is correct, it's cargo Dragon. Crew Dragon cannot be anywhere close to finalized yet.
Again, Bologna!!! (or Mortadella if you prefer!!!)
Cargo & Crew versions will be the same damned ship. The differences will be on the inside, not the outside. Including the outer mold line.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #25 on: 08/21/2011 04:33 AM »
ChefPat, you are wrong. The crew Dragons will have many differences, even if the heat shield, pressure vessel, and minor systems are mostly the same.

The addition of the Super Draco's for LAS/landing is one example, which cause the propellant and thrusters to move, and will even change the outer moldline slightly ( http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/spacex-dragon.jpg ) . And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different.

The Dragon design is far from finalized. Even the Cargo Dragon's are evolving. (umbilicals moved, windows removed, and more) And they will probably keep evolving. A frozen design is a relatively foreign concept to SpaceX at this stage.

Perhaps the Cargo Dragon will have some of the new features carried over eventually, to streamline production. But there will still be differences.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2011 04:35 AM by Lars_J »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #26 on: 08/21/2011 05:54 AM »
The spec needs to be modified to allow for stereoscopic remote cameras and a stereo video headset. Stereoscopic remote vision is good and reliable enough now to do robotic telesurgery from across the freakin' planet complete with force-feedback, so these Luddite fly-boys need to catch up.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2011 06:11 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #27 on: 08/21/2011 06:16 AM »
SpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.

And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.
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 TimL

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Sailor Tim
  • Tidal mudflats of Virginia
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #28 on: 08/21/2011 11:29 AM »
I'm reminded of the scene from "The Right Stuff" when Ed Harris is arguing with the german designers over the Mercury capsule. Ol' Guss, "Where's the window?"
:)
"Well if we get lost, we'll just pull in someplace and ask for directions"

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #29 on: 08/21/2011 11:49 AM »
I'm reminded of the scene from "The Right Stuff" when Ed Harris is arguing with the german designers over the Mercury capsule. Ol' Guss, "Where's the window?"
:)

Where you flight you need no windows ;-)

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 121
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #30 on: 08/21/2011 12:46 PM »
ChefPat, you are wrong. The crew Dragons will have many differences, even if the heat shield, pressure vessel, and minor systems are mostly the same.

The addition of the Super Draco's for LAS/landing is one example, which cause the propellant and thrusters to move, and will even change the outer moldline slightly ( http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/spacex-dragon.jpg ) . And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different.

The Dragon design is far from finalized. Even the Cargo Dragon's are evolving. (umbilicals moved, windows removed, and more) And they will probably keep evolving. A frozen design is a relatively foreign concept to SpaceX at this stage.

Perhaps the Cargo Dragon will have some of the new features carried over eventually, to streamline production. But there will still be differences.
I'll concede the outer mold line as that can be & almost certainly will be changed with propulsive landing. But, that was probably already factored in. After all, the frame for a Ford Falcon & a Mustang were the same for years too. ;)
The pressure vessel though, is not a minor system & can't just be changed from it's current shape so a pilot can fly by looking out the window. It's not necessary either. The system they have planned is bold, but it eliminates the need to look out the damned window.
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #31 on: 08/21/2011 01:03 PM »
I'm sure SpaceX has a solution for this and the other requirements in this documents (was nice to read it, for example about water testing and quality ;-)

This autumn we should have the CCDEV2 milestone with the crewed Dragon mockup, there we should see the solution for this problem.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #32 on: 08/21/2011 01:37 PM »
SpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.

And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.

Then won't get a contract from NASA. 

NASA isn't changing requirements halfway.  NASA hasn't even started the procurement for CCP.

Offline arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #33 on: 08/21/2011 01:39 PM »
There is no problem. Look at the rationale (especially the second one):

The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases.
Quote
Rationale:  Because of the criticality of piloting tasks to the success of the mission and safety of the crew during all mission phases, windows must be a part of the spacecraft design.  The human-centered design process is to be used when designing windows to support expected crew piloting tasks.
The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases.
Quote
Rationale:  Fixed equipment, such as window instrumentation, hardware, or a condensation prevention system, that would obscure the field-of- view from the normal crew viewing position may interfere with piloting, observation, and photography tasks.  Examples of piloting hardware that are exempted from this requirement are Head’s Up Displays (HUD) or other devices used for piloting tasks.  For detailed design considerations for inboard and outboard window view obscuration exclusion zones, consult Section 8.6.3.3 and 8.6.3.4 in JSC/SP-2010-3407 Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH).

The "unobstructed fields-of-view" refers to the crew being able to see the window, not the station they are docking with.

Regards

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #34 on: 08/21/2011 02:20 PM »
There is no problem. Look at the rationale (especially the second one):

There's a problem, because current crewed Dragon drawings show no windows in front of the pilots, and that's a requirement.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #35 on: 08/21/2011 05:58 PM »

This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it.
.
Bologna. Space-X has 8 Dragons in various states of completion, & claim they can kick out another one every 6 to 8 weeks. This means they've finalized the design.
They won't be able to change it without great cost. A big overrun in other words.

Chop suey.   Keep in mind Dragon is in a "TEST" mode.  There is no "final design" yet.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #36 on: 08/21/2011 06:45 PM »
There's a problem, because current crewed Dragon drawings show no windows in front of the pilots, and that's a requirement.

What do you mean with "in front of"? Since that term is not in the requirements.

It talks about "unobstructed fields-of-view" towards a window: you have to be able to see through the window. And there are exemptions (basicly all stuff that is needed by Asrtonauts for flying). This doesn't seem like a hard to solve problem. But maybe it is for some.

Anyway. The idea that Dreamchaser does not fullfil this requirement, because it can't see the station, is not correct. That's what I wanted to point out.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #37 on: 08/21/2011 08:08 PM »
There is no problem.

Except that they might end up pushing an unnecessary requirement on the contractors.

Quote
Look at the rationale (especially the second one):

Erioladastra's explanation is more believable. The things you cited as rationale boil down to:

1 - there must be a window for piloting (which is just an assertion, not a justification).

2 - the pilots have to be able to see through this window (obviously, otherwise it would be completely useless, as opposed to mostly useless).

Quote
This doesn't seem like a hard to solve problem. But maybe it is for some.

It certainly might turn out to be a hard, time consuming and costly problem to solve, one which has no good reason for existing in the first place on top of that.
« Last Edit: 08/21/2011 08:09 PM by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #38 on: 08/21/2011 08:19 PM »
It's not a problem unless you make it one.

Get creative!
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #39 on: 08/21/2011 10:25 PM »
The "unobstructed fields-of-view" refers to the crew being able to see the window, not the station they are docking with.

See also 4.3.10.15 Test and Verification, Windows:
Quote
Window fields-of-view for expected crew piloting tasks shall be verified by analysis and test.  The analysis shall identify activities/tasks requiring visual information from outside of the spacecraft and include 3-D virtual simulations of operational scenarios depicting the interior and exterior of the vehicle.  The verification shall be considered successful when the analysis shows that the windows provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support expected crew piloting tasks and the test shows that these tasks can be accomplished in the 3-D virtual simulation by trained crew personnel wearing any equipment required for flight.

I expect docking and undocking are among those "crew piloting tasks" that require "visual information from outside the spacecraft".  However, as others have suggested, that doesn't necessarily mean those tasks must be accomplished with the pilot looking through a window while sitting in their normal pilot crew seat.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #40 on: 08/21/2011 11:50 PM »
This will be a big problem.

On an engineering effort for a system that would have ridden in Orion, part of the requirements was JSC-62550, Strength Design and Verification Criteria for Glass, Ceramics and Windows in Human Space Flight Applications (I just found this through a Google Search.)  It goes on and on, including paragraphs telling you how to apply the document when the document does not apply.   This is based on their extensive track record of having designed a successful manned spaceflight vehicle in the 1970's.

Eventually a group from NASA tested one of the widows in a standardized manner completely consistent with the document but wholly inappropriate.

So you start with the astronauts demanding a window for eyes-on piloting. Then you add things like testing the window by driving a metal spike into it, ostensibly to be sure an astronaut can't break it with his spacesuited foot.  It goes on and on from there.

I agree with docmordrid and disagree with arnezami: The requirement is for a view of the target vehicle , and anything else the astronauts decide they need to see.

I agree with Lars_J: A pair of stereo cameras would be more than adequate.  In fact, a series of <1cm HD cameras, as described years ago in these forums, would allow for selectable hyper-stereo, better than naked eye.

And Robotbeat: "Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?"   NASA is not monolithic.  Some groups within NASA do.  Others have other agendas, and they are not all bad agendas.  The sad part is that any number of groups will have effective veto power by injecting requirements, well intended or not.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Tony Ostinato

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #41 on: 08/21/2011 11:54 PM »
kinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.




Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #42 on: 08/21/2011 11:58 PM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #43 on: 08/22/2011 12:00 AM »
And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different.
I believe the docking collar would be attached to the berthing collar, at least that's what SpaceX's website seems to infer.

« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:51 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #44 on: 08/22/2011 12:43 AM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

And NASA will say that they have Orion, which meets all of their requirements including a wide field-of-view navigation widow tested to withstand boot kicks. And it will be ready to fly at about the $10B mark. 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #45 on: 08/22/2011 01:15 AM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

SpaceX might, anyway.

You won't hear any complaints from Boeing. The CST-100 design has a forward window that meets the requirement.

You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
JRF

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #46 on: 08/22/2011 01:18 AM »
kinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.

Or maybe like the shuttle... Is ISS docking nominally controlled from the forward or aft flight deck controls?

At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

Something of a prisoner's dilemma there.  Only takes one to say "yes" and if the requirement stands as-is, CST-100 (or Orion) would appear to have the advantage.

At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...
And NASA will say that they have Orion, which meets all of their requirements including a wide field-of-view navigation widow tested to withstand boot kicks. And it will be ready to fly at about the $10B mark. 

That's a rather depressing thought.  But it's not over and no conclusive evidence that SpaceX or SNC can't come up with a solution.


edit: And per Jorge's post above, sounds like SNC has a solution.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 01:19 AM by joek »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #47 on: 08/22/2011 01:18 AM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?

They don't - not sure where you think they do.  Hatch window might meant the intent depending.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #48 on: 08/22/2011 01:23 AM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...
You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #49 on: 08/22/2011 01:41 AM »
kinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.

Or maybe like the shuttle... Is ISS docking nominally controlled from the forward or aft flight deck controls?

The aft.

Quote
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

Something of a prisoner's dilemma there.  Only takes one to say "yes" and if the requirement stands as-is, CST-100 (or Orion) would appear to have the advantage.

Especially when one, and possibly two, of them have a technical solution in-hand.
JRF

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #50 on: 08/22/2011 01:42 AM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...
You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?

Not personally.
JRF

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #51 on: 08/22/2011 03:21 AM »
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...
You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?

Not personally.

This seems to be the public image that so far best lets us estimate the Dreamchaser rear tunnel dimensions. (see attached) I'm not sure how tall Ms. Garver is (she is the one exiting the tunnel), but is someone willing to take a stab at seeing if there is room for a docking ring and a work station window next to each other? (but we should also note that the rear opening flares open in a way that may not be done on a flight article - note how the top mold line is straight until it expands at the exit)

Even better, does anyone know the exact diameter if the rear section of the tunnel?
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 03:24 AM by Lars_J »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #52 on: 08/22/2011 03:29 AM »
SpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.

And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.

Then won't get a contract from NASA. 

NASA isn't changing requirements halfway.  NASA hasn't even started the procurement for CCP.
I understand that. NASA has the stronger negotiating position, clearly. I just don't think they need anything to strengthen their hand further, that's all. In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.

I understand also that NASA hasn't made up their mind yet on all the details for CCP.

I think I jumped to the conclusion that this specific requirement is really not vital to the capability (one of my assumptions was that Soyuz doesn't have anything like this requirement/capability... is that correct?), and thus represents an area where the cost/benefit analysis can be skewed. I still feel like it isn't a vital requirement, but there's not a heck of a lot of basis for that. Is this a really vital requirement or not? Does the standard vehicle for ISS (i.e. Soyuz) have this requirement/capability?



I guess the reason this frustrates me so much is that requirements like this can punish those who have tried to get a head start and do a lot of work on their own (at company expense) toward pursuing commercial crew capability. I feel like such behavior should be encouraged, not punished. Of course, you can end up with a few dead-ends like this, but I just think that it'd be better for everyone if NASA were able to work with this and adapt their requirements for the sake of expediency and budget, especially if Soyuz is no better in this respect.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 03:34 AM by Robotbeat »
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

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #53 on: 08/22/2011 03:46 AM »
In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.

Have you ever heard the rule of commerce, that the customer is always right? 

Indeed NASA has every right to request a requirement that they deem necessary, as they have had a decade of ISS experience plus more with Mir.  If you deem that overly conservative, think of how expensive ISS is and how much of a stake NASA has in the program.  So if a couple of vehicles cannot meet the requirement, then NASA has every right to exclude them to protect its investment. 

However, it will be interesting to see whether or not a periscope could be defined as a "window" since it is basically light reflected from a window. Seems like an easy solution. 
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #54 on: 08/22/2011 04:00 AM »
In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.

Have you ever heard the rule of commerce, that the customer is always right? 

Indeed NASA has every right to request a requirement that they deem necessary, as they have had a decade of ISS experience plus more with Mir.  If you deem that overly conservative, think of how expensive ISS is and how much of a stake NASA has in the program.  So if a couple of vehicles cannot meet the requirement, then NASA has every right to exclude them to protect its investment. 

However, it will be interesting to see whether or not a periscope could be defined as a "window" since it is basically light reflected from a window. Seems like an easy solution. 
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to.

EDIT:For clarification: I'm still seeking confirmation or denial about whether or not this window thing is an actually important requirement. My statement above is in the case that it is a burdensome but unnecessary requirement.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:02 AM by Robotbeat »
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 HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #55 on: 08/22/2011 04:08 AM »
The "problem" is easy to resolve.

You use a hand-held controller and float over to the window that is in the forward facing hatch.  Soyuz already has a small hand-held controller. 

(I couldn't find an on-line photo, but essentially we're talking about a wired device the size of a paperback book.)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #56 on: 08/22/2011 04:09 AM »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:10 AM by Lars_J »

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #57 on: 08/22/2011 04:19 AM »
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to

How many of these companies have experience with docking?  Answer is none with the exception of Boeing, who is including windows.  The logic of the window seems to be the use of a HHL like shuttle, which requires a two man crew (ie HHL operator and the person manning the stick) and would imagine the hatch window will be used as the centerline camera.  Both are just like shuttle operation, and therefore the requirements are just like shuttle.

Soyuz uses the autonomous Kurs system, as well as the manual mode through the periscope and forward docking camera as well as laser range finder.  Seems just like the commercial requirements.  Commercial also had input, but dont dismiss the experience of NASA as "frivolous"
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #58 on: 08/22/2011 04:24 AM »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

You're not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails, the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
JRF

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #59 on: 08/22/2011 04:26 AM »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

No the real irony is that you might be able to stick a fork in Commercial Crew.  Commercial Crew = Ares 1
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #60 on: 08/22/2011 04:30 AM »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

You're not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails, the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
What does Shuttle do if the fly-by-wire system fails? Trick question, it doesn't. Shuttle has redundancies built into the fly-by-wire system so that never happens.

I wonder if NASA could be flexible enough to allow a similar level of redundancy in the camera system so that a window isn't an absolute requirement but can be replaced with a system of comparable reliability (somehow).

In your understanding, Jorge, would a periscope satisfy the CCP window requirement?
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 docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #61 on: 08/22/2011 04:30 AM »
You're  not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails,  the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:32 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #62 on: 08/22/2011 04:33 AM »
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.

How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:34 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #63 on: 08/22/2011 04:34 AM »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

You're not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails, the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
What does Shuttle do if the fly-by-wire system fails? Trick question, it doesn't. Shuttle has redundancies built into the fly-by-wire system so that never happens.

I wonder if NASA could be flexible enough to allow a similar level of redundancy in the camera system so that a window isn't an absolute requirement but can be replaced with a system of comparable reliability (somehow).

In your understanding, Jorge, would a periscope satisfy the CCP window requirement?

As written, I'm not sure.
JRF

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #64 on: 08/22/2011 04:36 AM »
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.

How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?

Can be a problem. Shuttle could only fit one, so procedure if the camera failed <250 ft was to stop, backout using the COAS view out the window,  install the backup camera, then resume approach.

Orion had a much smaller camera, but also had two VNS units sharing the hatch window, so same problem - crew would have to swap out cameras prior to resuming approach.
JRF

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #65 on: 08/22/2011 04:37 AM »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.  Looks like there's several inches there.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:42 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #66 on: 08/22/2011 04:39 AM »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.

To line up with the bulls-eye on the PMA hatch:

Edit: Probably also want a standard way for astronauts to train to dock.


« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:50 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #67 on: 08/22/2011 04:49 AM »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.

To line up with the bulls-eye on the PMA hatch:

Right. An off-centerline camera requires an off-centerline target. This was looked at for shuttle-Mir (specifically, using the existing Soyuz/Buran targets on Kristall, which were both off-centerline). NASA determined that angular misalignment at the camera/target line-of-sight resulted in lateral misalignment at the interface, and this resulted in reduced capture probability due to the tight APAS capture envelope. This is also an issue for LIDS/NDS. It's not generally an issue with probe/drogue interfaces, which have wider capture envelopes.
JRF

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #68 on: 08/22/2011 04:50 AM »
AT least for Dragon, looks like SpaceX could install windows/periscope on the forward structure that could satisfy the requirement, especially since the NDS will be much smaller in diameter than the CBM:
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:50 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline cosmicvoid

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Seattle 'ish
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #69 on: 08/22/2011 05:37 AM »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.
Infiinity or bust.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #70 on: 08/22/2011 05:46 AM »
Or fiberoptics like the robotic surgery units I mentioned. The lens and fiberoptic cables can be put anywhere they'll fit and the cameras at the other end, where ever.
DM

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #71 on: 08/22/2011 06:05 AM »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!
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 Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #72 on: 08/22/2011 06:34 AM »
Quote
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

Something of a prisoner's dilemma there.  Only takes one to say "yes" and if the requirement stands as-is, CST-100 (or Orion) would appear to have the advantage.

Especially when one, and possibly two, of them have a technical solution in-hand.

But that's a solution to this one specific requirement.
What is the limit on the number of this kind of requirement?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #73 on: 08/22/2011 06:43 AM »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!

IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #74 on: 08/22/2011 06:56 AM »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!

IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.
A half-silvered mirror could easily allow "Mark 0 eyeballs on the target" in parallel with a couple of cameras. At very least with a periscope-like setup.
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

Online corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #75 on: 08/22/2011 01:14 PM »
The "problem" is easy to resolve.

You use a hand-held controller and float over to the window that is in the forward facing hatch.  Soyuz already has a small hand-held controller. 

(I couldn't find an on-line photo, but essentially we're talking about a wired device the size of a paperback book.)

This is exactly the approach I assumed SpaceX would take (seems applicable to Dreamchaser as well), since windows "on all sealable hatches" are required anyway.

The problem is in how the requirement is interpreted; does "The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases" mean:

1-you can't use hatch windows for piloting tasks

or

2-hatch windows are excluded from these requirements

I have a feeling the intent is #1, or else why would they bother with it at all?

Thankfully, this is draft. Taking the "excluding hatch windows" language out seem like the easiest way to solve this problem.

Happy digging.  Let us know what you find.

I've only skimmed it, and I'm sure they're more pit-falls and quagmires to be found.

BTW, was this the same draft document that Wayne Hale described as "mind-numbing" in his blog? Because I'm starting to feel a little numb.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #76 on: 08/22/2011 03:41 PM »
In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.

Have you ever heard the rule of commerce, that the customer is always right? 

Indeed NASA has every right to request a requirement that they deem necessary, as they have had a decade of ISS experience plus more with Mir.  If you deem that overly conservative, think of how expensive ISS is and how much of a stake NASA has in the program.  So if a couple of vehicles cannot meet the requirement, then NASA has every right to exclude them to protect its investment. 

However, it will be interesting to see whether or not a periscope could be defined as a "window" since it is basically light reflected from a window. Seems like an easy solution. 
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to.

EDIT:For clarification: I'm still seeking confirmation or denial about whether or not this window thing is an actually important requirement. My statement above is in the case that it is a burdensome but unnecessary requirement.

We run into this every day. Each of our customers operates their business a little differently than the others, even though they all provide the same basic service to their customers. They have optimized, or so they believe, their business processes in order to be most efficient, and least cost. If we want them to use our software on their equipment, we have to be flexible enough so they don't need to make major changes to their business operation. After all, they know how to run their business better than we do. If our software can't support their business process, they will find software from a vendor that can.

SpaceX has enough former astronauts on board. You would think that they would have given their input to the design team in this area.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 03:43 PM by Lurker Steve »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #77 on: 08/22/2011 11:46 PM »
BTW, was this the same draft document that Wayne Hale described as "mind-numbing" in his blog? Because I'm starting to feel a little numb.

Yes, Wayne Hale commented on an earlier draft (don't know what's changed since).  Note he pulled back a bit in his second post.
The coming train wreck for Commercial Human Spaceflight, Nov 14 2010
Trying to clean up a mess, Nov 17 2010

As yg1968 mentioned earlier, Hale's posts are also discussed in this NSF thread:
Draft CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements

While I agree it can be a bit numbing, note that of the 67 "Applicable Documents", alternative documentation "allowed" applies to 46, and "not allowed" applies to 21 (no idea how they compare in terms of complexity or volume).

This will be a big problem.

On an engineering effort for a system that would have ridden in Orion, part of the requirements was JSC-62550, Strength Design and Verification Criteria for Glass, Ceramics and Windows in Human Space Flight Applications (I just found this through a Google Search.)  It goes on and on, including paragraphs telling you how to apply the document when the document does not apply.   This is based on their extensive track record of having designed a successful manned spaceflight vehicle in the 1970's.

Point taken.  However, in this case it appears to be overly pessimistic.  Note that JSC-62550 is one of those "alternative allowed" documents, not all sections apply, and "components shall meet the intent of the requirements".

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #78 on: 08/23/2011 01:03 AM »
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to

How many of these companies have experience with docking?  Answer is none with the exception of Boeing, who is including windows.  The logic of the window seems to be the use of a HHL like shuttle, which requires a two man crew (ie HHL operator and the person manning the stick) and would imagine the hatch window will be used as the centerline camera.  Both are just like shuttle operation, and therefore the requirements are just like shuttle.

Soyuz uses the autonomous Kurs system, as well as the manual mode through the periscope and forward docking camera as well as laser range finder.  Seems just like the commercial requirements.  Commercial also had input, but dont dismiss the experience of NASA as "frivolous"

Actually, several thoughts here.  First, these are only draft requirements and NASA is listening to input from the commercial companies.  If no one complains or takes issue with the window requirement nothing will definitely change.  Second, many if not all the companies are planning automated rendezvous.  If you want manual, you can do it just as fine with cameras or other devices.  So it is a valid debate on teh use of a window.  This is clearly an emotional item from pilots even though these vehicles will be far more like a video game then a jet.   Third, let's face it - there will be no company that will satisfy ever single requirement.  Some wil have to be waived by NASA.  Some the company will say "ok, this is what the model comes with, if you want tail fins, that costs extra - are you happy to pay X million more?"   As far as I can tell this requirement is not a big deal for the companies, but we will see.  Hopefully that is true because it does drive costs/design.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #79 on: 08/23/2011 02:29 AM »
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to

How many of these companies have experience with docking?  Answer is none with the exception of Boeing, who is including windows.  The logic of the window seems to be the use of a HHL like shuttle, which requires a two man crew (ie HHL operator and the person manning the stick) and would imagine the hatch window will be used as the centerline camera.  Both are just like shuttle operation, and therefore the requirements are just like shuttle.

Soyuz uses the autonomous Kurs system, as well as the manual mode through the periscope and forward docking camera as well as laser range finder.  Seems just like the commercial requirements.  Commercial also had input, but dont dismiss the experience of NASA as "frivolous"

Actually, several thoughts here.  First, these are only draft requirements and NASA is listening to input from the commercial companies.  If no one complains or takes issue with the window requirement nothing will definitely change.  Second, many if not all the companies are planning automated rendezvous.  If you want manual, you can do it just as fine with cameras or other devices.  So it is a valid debate on teh use of a window.  This is clearly an emotional item from pilots even though these vehicles will be far more like a video game then a jet.   Third, let's face it - there will be no company that will satisfy ever single requirement.  Some wil have to be waived by NASA.  Some the company will say "ok, this is what the model comes with, if you want tail fins, that costs extra - are you happy to pay X million more?"   As far as I can tell this requirement is not a big deal for the companies, but we will see.  Hopefully that is true because it does drive costs/design.

On most competitions, the competitors are graded on how they met the requirements. The company with the highest score gets the contract. Perhaps the cost per mission is one of the inputs in the grading process, but they can only be graded on the solution they submit. SpaceX needs to be careful of increasing the costs passed along to NASA and other customers, since they have to compete with the Boeing / Dreamchaser / Blue Origin teams. While the other teams currently use a more expensive launcher, they may find ways to bring their costs in line with SpaceX. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #80 on: 08/23/2011 02:37 AM »
Let's also not forget that while some of the requirements may at first blush appear egregious or dubious, ISS is central to the program, and by extension the concerns of the international partners.

I have no idea what influence the IP's have had on the requirements, but something to keep in mind is that there are stakeholders other than NASA and the commercial providers, in particular those who will likely have crew riding on these vehicles, and even those who likely won't (e.g., Russia) but who still have a substantial interest.1

As Wayne Hale stated, "CCT-REQ-1130 is a step in the right direction, but is hardly revolutionary".  This is largely uncharted territory for everyone, and as long as we're going in the right direction I remain optimistic. YMMV.


1 E.g., incorporated by reference in the CCT requirements is SSP 50808 Intentional Space Station (ISS) to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Interface Requirements Document (IRD), which I've been told is well over 400 pages, and the result of joint efforts between commercial providers, NASA, and by extension the IP's.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #81 on: 08/23/2011 03:29 AM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3937
  • Liked: 1250
  • Likes Given: 1057
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #82 on: 08/23/2011 04:10 AM »


IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.
A half-silvered mirror could easily allow "Mark 0 eyeballs on the target" in parallel with a couple of cameras. At very least with a periscope-like setup.

Thank you, but I could come up with a dozen other vision solutions, and have designed several.  That's not the point.  These are alternate solutions to one requirement that will probably be disallowed.  Even if an offeror slogs through getting an exemption, there will be more rules just like it.  It will never end.

Here I agree with RS327.  SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC could be flying while NASA tut-tuts, neglecting that "Better is the enemy of good enough."   
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #83 on: 08/23/2011 09:12 AM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3199
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #84 on: 08/23/2011 04:46 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #85 on: 08/23/2011 09:49 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #86 on: 08/23/2011 10:00 PM »
I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Maybe that will be true eventually, but as Boeing has stated, they can't close the business case without NASA.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #87 on: 08/23/2011 10:14 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Think the dream Chaser would be dead as well.   Don't want to speak for Jim, but think he is chating about the Atlas V funding from NASA?
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8182
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #88 on: 08/23/2011 10:50 PM »

Think the dream Chaser would be dead as well.   Don't want to speak for Jim, but think he is chating about the Atlas V funding from NASA?
 

Ah!  That is why people are writing about the Ares I, to keep the price of manrating Atlas V down.

It is not too late for NASA to have an extra round of COTS in FY12.  In a competitive bidding session Boeing may have to go up against say Taurus 3 from OSC.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #89 on: 08/23/2011 11:03 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

I hope and expect that if/when Bigelow (or whoever) and commercial transport providers are the rule and NASA is not the only customer, the landscape will change.  But that will take time.  I don't want to drag this into an OT discussion of US liability and tort law, but something to consider in this nascent phase of commercial space transportation...

NASA detailing requirements--no matter how excessive or inane some may appear--offer a certain amount of liability cover to providers... "NASA wanted it that way, NASA knows best, and we did it their way.  If you want to sue, sue NASA because we have all the required boxes checked and signed by NASA."  Not a guarantee you won't be targeted, but any provider who has an exception or waiver largely forfeits any potential cover.*

Or NASA could, as some suggest, simply provide a few pages of high level guidance or intent with the implied caveat that "If you screw up, don't look at us, as it will be entirely your a** on the line" (and maybe we'll get there some day).  So you're commercial provider X, what option would you choose?  Obviously it's not black-and-white and there are tradeoffs more complex than those simplistic portrayals suggest.

In short, let's cut everyone some slack as this is a complex calculus and still a work in progress.  I hope and expect all parties are trying to do the right thing (at least as they see it), that economic imperatives will ultimately prevail, and that we'll eventually come to a reasonable solution.


* Similar dynamics have been noted in the US nuclear power and other high-risk industries, and the differences between the US and other countries' approaches to regulation and liability.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #90 on: 08/24/2011 01:15 AM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Bigelow is comitted - to anyone who can provide him transportation first.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #91 on: 08/24/2011 04:03 AM »
What concerns me more than any one specific requirement is the sheer tonnage of documentation required. I doubt that there is a launch vehicle on the planet that could lift this load. While this isn't a concern for the big boys who've been playing the NASA game for years and who have a staff of clerks, lawyers, and others as required it certainly is for companies like SpaceX who are lean and mean. Hiring all these paper-shufflers just keeps adding to the bottom line while reducing design and manufacturing flexibility.

Same old game, same old results (or lack there of).
“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 DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #92 on: 08/24/2011 04:18 AM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

In short, let's cut everyone some slack as this is a complex calculus and still a work in progress.  I hope and expect all parties are trying to do the right thing (at least as they see it), that economic imperatives will ultimately prevail, and that we'll eventually come to a reasonable solution.


* Similar dynamics have been noted in the US nuclear power and other high-risk industries, and the differences between the US and other countries' approaches to regulation and liability.

I agree that this shouldn't be personal, but it is these procurement details that create 10 billion dollar projects that are farther from completion when they are cancelled then when they start (Ares). These are the processes that create $900 toilet seats and an F35 jet that cost $135 million each as a "cost effective update" to the expensive (less expensive) F22.
Should NASA write high level requirements, and create milestones to prove the efficacy of the design and engineering, of course. NASA should also be a trailblazer for DOD though in developing intelligent effective new options for more rapid development cycles and more cost effective solutions.
Every time NASA adds requirements, they add time to the development cycle. Every time they add time to the development cycle, they increase the risk to that project being cancelled by parochial congressional interests and fickle administrations not willing to go to the mattresses for any NASA program. NASA overestimates everyone patience and thinks Joe Schmoe cares as much this stuff as everyone reading this forum. In my youth I could not imagine anyone not sharing my passion for a return to the moon, or a human on mars in my lifetime, but we are a small minority.
For better or worse, NASA's role to the average American is equal to its status within our budget (.5%). NASA has to add value and maximize its options and ROI. That .5% is not going up without results, and results are not to be found in procurement policies designed to protect incumbent contractors and legacy technologies. I sincerely hope NASA's budget does go up over the next decade and things change versus the prior 40 years, but reading this thread it is hard not to worry that policy will win at the cost of results.
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt its possible without a few people getting personal.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #93 on: 08/24/2011 11:56 PM »
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.
« Last Edit: 08/25/2011 12:01 AM by Norm Hartnett »
“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 erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #94 on: 08/25/2011 01:42 AM »
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #95 on: 08/25/2011 03:42 AM »
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...
The point is, NASA has the funding. They have a commercial entity that is going to supply the ISS 12 times over the next 3 years. With the most precious cargo being the crew and station itself, why new rules for manned capsules? If the Dragon supply capsule can connect to the ISS without a window, it can connect without a window for manned missions. Why should they have to meet specs that only match the Orion and CTS, if they can meet their reliability and safety through an equivalent design methodology. These are procurement policies designed to protect incumbents, even if that is not the intention. The story is, we have done it this way, so we have to do it this way, forever. There will never be funding for BEO human exploration if everything has to be Shuttle or Apollo era methodology, and worse, technology. Redundant cameras that can prove 99.999% reliability  is adequate. Have a stand down procedure if 4 cameras don't work at the same time, but does it really have to be a window? The shuttle didn't have a window and Soyuz doesn't have a window.
NASA should be driving procurement policies that DOD could use to drive down development costs, not instituting the most conservative processes available. SAA contracting has allowed NASA to get a resupply system in place to replace the Shuttle for 5% of the cost of the Ares program, and for another 5-10% of the actual SLS costs, can have 2 more man rated systems within 3 years. NASA could put a man on the moon with the savings from SLS, and dropping no compete cost plus contracts now and get it on the moon before SLS could launch a single person (at 1billion per astronaut, not counting development costs).

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #96 on: 08/25/2011 03:50 AM »
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...
The point is, NASA has the funding. They have a commercial entity that is going to supply the ISS 12 times over the next 3 years. With the most precious cargo being the crew and station itself, why new rules for manned capsules? If the Dragon supply capsule can connect to the ISS without a window, it can connect without a window for manned missions. Why should they have to meet specs that only match the Orion and CTS, if they can meet their reliability and safety through an equivalent design methodology. These are procurement policies designed to protect incumbents, even if that is not the intention. The story is, we have done it this way, so we have to do it this way, forever. There will never be funding for BEO human exploration if everything has to be Shuttle or Apollo era methodology, and worse, technology. Redundant cameras that can prove 99.999% reliability  is adequate. Have a stand down procedure if 4 cameras don't work at the same time, but does it really have to be a window? The shuttle didn't have a window and Soyuz doesn't have a window.

Incorrect. The shuttle had four windows with a view of docking; Soyuz had one forward porthole.
JRF

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #97 on: 08/25/2011 04:15 AM »
Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates? Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #98 on: 08/25/2011 04:23 AM »
Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates? Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

I could be wrong cause I saw this diagram back in the 8oies but the shuttle has some flight controls towards the back where the robot arm controls are. 

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #99 on: 08/25/2011 04:25 AM »
Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates?

For ascent/entry, the CDR had windows 1, 2, and 3 and the PLT had windows 4, 5, and 6.

For rendezvous and docking, windows 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the aft crew station had a direct view of docking.  It was not the primary flight cue (the centerline camera was) but it was available for flying a backout in the event of camera failure.

I don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".

Quote
Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

The orbital module has a forward-facing cupola window, and the descent module has a periscope. Not sure if the periscope meets the letter of the specs, but I think it meets the intent.
JRF

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #100 on: 08/25/2011 04:16 PM »
Jorge


I don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".

I thought electronic avionics were added around 2000, and they switched to all digital displays for piloting the Shuttle. Perhaps not for docking though.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6179
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #101 on: 08/25/2011 04:32 PM »
I don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".
I thought electronic avionics were added around 2000, and they switched to all digital displays for piloting the Shuttle. Perhaps not for docking though.

The digital displays replaced the CRTs and steam gauges, not the windows.
« Last Edit: 08/25/2011 04:32 PM by Jorge »
JRF

Offline simonbp

Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #102 on: 08/25/2011 07:44 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Indeed; what a silly requirement.

In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?

Modern cameras are so cheap and light that it's lighter (and safer!) to just put on a bunch of redundant cameras on the vehicle...
« Last Edit: 08/25/2011 07:47 PM by simonbp »

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #103 on: 08/25/2011 08:07 PM »
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Indeed; what a silly requirement.

In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?

Modern cameras are so cheap and light that it's lighter (and safer!) to just put on a bunch of redundant cameras on the vehicle...
I think the larger issue is not camera versus window. Obviously you can see better with a camera properly located on the docking ports in the front of the capsule. An HD camera will provide a much better view of the docking process than any window, unless the hatch is translucent.
The issue is that procurement and design polices that are driven by legacy development systems and do not allow for building on new tools and systems, you will always favor incumbents, slow development cycles and costly and late products.
If anyone has an exception to this rule I would be fascinated to know more.

Online corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #104 on: 08/26/2011 02:52 AM »
I don't have problem with requiring windows, cameras can break, this is space flight after all, "$hit happens".

The problem I have is with the exclusion of hatch windows.  What about being in a hatch makes a window unsuitable for piloting tasks?  The Soyuz "forward porthole" looks hardly bigger than a hatch window, and I suspect that if it wasn't for the nature of the probe-and-drogue mechanism there would be a centerline hatch window instead, and it would be used for "piloting tasks'' in a similar fashion.

Maybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up".
« Last Edit: 08/26/2011 02:53 AM by corrodedNut »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #105 on: 08/26/2011 03:00 AM »

Maybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up".

They aren't forward facing

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #106 on: 08/26/2011 03:02 AM »

Maybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up".

They aren't forward facing

The hatch window in the iLIDS would be. 

Online corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #107 on: 08/26/2011 03:10 AM »

Maybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up".

They aren't forward facing

Yeah, I was getting a little cute with that line. Ditto what HMXHMX said, cause "3.10.14.7 The CTS shall provide a window on all sealable hatches..."

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #108 on: 08/26/2011 03:25 AM »

Indeed; what a silly requirement.

In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?

Yes, just like the lack of a LAS use on Apollo showed that including it as a requirement on shuttle as silly.....

Just because a safety system was not needed previously does not mean it is silly or frivolous at all.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #109 on: 08/26/2011 04:39 AM »

Indeed; what a silly requirement.

In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?

Yes, just like the lack of a LAS use on Apollo showed that including it as a requirement on shuttle as silly.....

Just because a safety system was not needed previously does not mean it is silly or frivolous at all.
Just because the word "safety" is used doesn't mean it's actually essential for safety. NASA can make it so that every single bolt must have a stack of pages written about it a foot thick. In the name of safety. If they choose.
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 manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #110 on: 08/26/2011 08:28 AM »

Indeed; what a silly requirement.

In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?

Yes, just like the lack of a LAS use on Apollo showed that including it as a requirement on shuttle as silly.....

Just because a safety system was not needed previously does not mean it is silly or frivolous at all.
Just because the word "safety" is used doesn't mean it's actually essential for safety. NASA can make it so that every single bolt must have a stack of pages written about it a foot thick. In the name of safety. If they choose.
Or a poorly thought out safety requirement could doom the crew, as with Apollo 1.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #111 on: 08/26/2011 01:16 PM »
Just because the word "safety" is used doesn't mean it's actually essential for safety. NASA can make it so that every single bolt must have a stack of pages written about it a foot thick. In the name of safety. If they choose.

As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.

Just because the almighty SpaceX does not have a window does not mean it is not needed.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #112 on: 08/26/2011 02:08 PM »
...
Just because the almighty SpaceX does not have a window does not mean it is not needed.
Of course not. And just because NASA has "always done it that way" does not mean it's necessarily the only way it can be done or even the safest.

As Jorge said, a periscope (or something like it) would probably meet the intent of the requirement, if not the word. That's what I'm concerned about: the way the safety "requirement" is worded becoming more important than the actual safeness inferred by such a feature. The possibility that equivalently-safe ways of doing the same thing will be excluded because of red-tape instead of sound systems engineering reasons. There has to be flexibility on the exact way of accomplishing equivalent levels of safety or commercial crew will not be affordable or on schedule.

It'd be ironic if a Soyuz-type approach (i.e. periscope) not being allowed for commercial crew leads to delays causing NASA to continue to be reliant on Soyuz. Ironic, not surprising.
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

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #113 on: 08/26/2011 02:27 PM »
Of course not. And just because NASA has "always done it that way" does not mean it's necessarily the only way it can be done or even the safest.

As Jorge said, a periscope (or something like it) would probably meet the intent of the requirement, if not the word. That's what I'm concerned about: the way the safety "requirement" is worded becoming more important than the actual safeness inferred by such a feature. The possibility that equivalently-safe ways of doing the same thing will be excluded because of red-tape instead of sound systems engineering reasons. There has to be flexibility on the exact way of accomplishing equivalent levels of safety or commercial crew will not be affordable or on schedule.

It'd be ironic if a Soyuz-type approach (i.e. periscope) not being allowed for commercial crew leads to delays causing NASA to continue to be reliant on Soyuz. Ironic, not surprising.

I agree with you on the periscope, but still disagree on the intent.  When one is near a large, delicate, and expensive spacecraft like ISS passive ability to back out will be needed, whether it is a periscope or window.  I am sure NASA will include a periscope if asked, but I reject the notion that the requirement is frivolous, again NASA has much more experience with docking than commercial.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #114 on: 08/26/2011 02:44 PM »
I agree with you on the periscope, but still disagree on the intent.  When one is near a large, delicate, and expensive spacecraft like ISS passive ability to back out will be needed, whether it is a periscope or window.  I am sure NASA will include a periscope if asked, but I reject the notion that the requirement is frivolous, again NASA has much more experience with docking than commercial.

I think the problem is not if this is a security requirement or not, but more an example as you can write the rules. You can write it like "for docking, there need two or more redundant system to check the approach", or you can write as it's done and to specify every detail.

I clicked a little bit trough the documents and I had the impression, that NASA allows not a lot of different engineering ideas but rule what they want to have and how they want to have it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #115 on: 08/26/2011 03:57 PM »
Of course not. And just because NASA has "always done it that way" does not mean it's necessarily the only way it can be done or even the safest.

As Jorge said, a periscope (or something like it) would probably meet the intent of the requirement, if not the word. That's what I'm concerned about: the way the safety "requirement" is worded becoming more important than the actual safeness inferred by such a feature. The possibility that equivalently-safe ways of doing the same thing will be excluded because of red-tape instead of sound systems engineering reasons. There has to be flexibility on the exact way of accomplishing equivalent levels of safety or commercial crew will not be affordable or on schedule.

It'd be ironic if a Soyuz-type approach (i.e. periscope) not being allowed for commercial crew leads to delays causing NASA to continue to be reliant on Soyuz. Ironic, not surprising.

I agree with you on the periscope, but still disagree on the intent.  When one is near a large, delicate, and expensive spacecraft like ISS passive ability to back out will be needed, whether it is a periscope or window.
...
I'm not sure if passive is really needed. An equivalently reliable backup of any type (as long as it's equivalently reliable) should be allowed. After all, you can hardly use the thrusters if all power is lost!

But I certainly agree that there should be a reliable backup to the primary, whether it's video or not. If it were me doing the designing, I'd probably include a way to get "Mark 0 eyeballs" on it (i.e. I'd use "passive" as you mention it). But that's the point: I should be open to, even encouraging, the idea that the commercial crew providers will think of better ways to do something than I would. That's almost the whole point of commercial crew, from a certain perspective.

If alternatives can be shown to be just as good, that should be allowed, and not just as a waiver (IMHO).
« Last Edit: 08/26/2011 04:24 PM by Robotbeat »
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 simonbp

Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #116 on: 08/26/2011 04:03 PM »
As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.

Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.

This not a real engineering requirement driven by an actual failure mode. This is a luddite requirement imposed by a pilot-astronaut who thinks he know how to do engineering better than professionals. And I'm sorry, but NASA isn't who I trust when it comes to real safety requirements. They have sadly (and fatally) proved that several times in the past.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #117 on: 08/26/2011 05:29 PM »
As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.

Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.


Cameras are not neccessarily better.  Yes, cameras *may* have less mass, but you trade that against power and data transfer for the camera plus an extra crew display.  So you might not be less mess and you are trading against critical items like power and increasing the complexity of the system (which means cost, risk) etc.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #118 on: 08/26/2011 05:39 PM »
As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.

Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.


Cameras are not neccessarily better.  Yes, cameras *may* have less mass, but you trade that against power and data transfer for the camera plus an extra crew display.  So you might not be less mess and you are trading against critical items like power and increasing the complexity of the system (which means cost, risk) etc.
Yeah, the trade could go different ways. But don't you think it should be up to the commercial crew provider to find the most cost-and-performance-optimal solution that meets the required level of safety?
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 simonbp

Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #119 on: 08/26/2011 07:37 PM »
Yeah, the trade could go different ways. But don't you think it should be up to the commercial crew provider to find the most cost-and-performance-optimal solution that meets the required level of safety?

Precisely. The requirements should be about defining safety, not the particular implementation. Wanye Hale hit the nail on the head.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2011 07:38 PM by simonbp »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4325
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #120 on: 08/27/2011 02:12 AM »
Not to mention that the mass of a docking camera display today could mean anything from steroscopic LCD/OLED goggles to something akin to a stowable iPad with a heavier case. Not exactly the mass game-breaker an old-school display would be.
« Last Edit: 08/27/2011 02:13 AM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #121 on: 08/27/2011 08:57 PM »
As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.

Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.


Cameras are not neccessarily better.  Yes, cameras *may* have less mass, but you trade that against power and data transfer for the camera plus an extra crew display.  So you might not be less mess and you are trading against critical items like power and increasing the complexity of the system (which means cost, risk) etc.
Yeah, the trade could go different ways. But don't you think it should be up to the commercial crew provider to find the most cost-and-performance-optimal solution that meets the required level of safety?

Absolutely agree.  However, there are a few items like windows, pressure suits (probably) etc that will be required, regardless of merit.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3199
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #122 on: 08/28/2011 05:50 PM »
In another thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26552.0

A NASA study for man rated LV avionics shows some interesting things about the reliability factors and driving items that the LV and crew vehicle must be able to achieve. This study would also have implications for Commercial Crew, since it represents NASA’s opinion on the reliability capability of computerized avionics archetectures.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110014793_2011015526.pdf

Quote
After examination of multiple DRMs and requirement documents, high-level driving requirements were determine to be:
-   The avionics architecture shall be human-rateable,
-   The avionics architecture shall, at a minimum, be fail-operational after one arbitrary fault,
-   The avionics architecture shall, at a minimum, be fail-safe (for abort initiation) after a second arbitrary fault,
-   The avionics architecture shall be highly reliable to meet Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) for various NASA missions.

This is a fairly good summary of the driving concerns for the requirements in a nutshell what NASA is looking for. If your LV or crew vehicle doesn’t meet these NASA will probably down select you.

Quote
Reliability analysis showed all architectures except one were at a reliability level of least
0.9999 for short duration (i.e. 24 hour, preflight plus time to orbit) reliability but varied
significantly (0.3576 to 0.6669) if a longer duration (i.e. 9 month, departure stage for
Mars DRM) was needed. For all architectures, the flight computers were the largest
contributor to failure. Reliability analysis assumed all architectures to be 1-fault tolerant
by design but the number of 2-fault cases varied from 21 to 160 depending on the
chosen architecture. The reliability of the architectures is related directly to the level of
cross-strapping in the various architectures.

NASA will probably use some of this data to specify reliability values for the computerized architectures for LV’s and spacecraft.

From the standpoint of LV’s does anyone know more details of the F9 triple redundant avionics architecture so to determine what NASA considers its relative reliability is?

How about the Atlas V avionics?

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #123 on: 08/28/2011 07:28 PM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?
They mean the hatch window does not count for the purposes of this requirement.   It does NOT mean there is no hatch window.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #124 on: 08/29/2011 04:17 AM »
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?

Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?
It does NOT mean there is no hatch window....
I know.
Quote
They mean the hatch window does not count for the purposes of this requirement. 
And why the heck not?
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 arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #125 on: 08/29/2011 05:03 AM »
Quote
They mean the hatch window does not count for the purposes of this requirement. 
And why the heck not?

Maybe this is a convoluted way of saying the spacecraft needs at least two windows?

1) You need a hatch
2) You need a window in every hatch
3) You need at least one window (not counting hatch-windows)
--> ergo: you need at least two windows.

Or do they mean the docking port "hatch"? Since just before docking you can't see (the rest of) the station because you're looking at the docking port of the station?

Not sure why hatch windows don't count for this requirement.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #126 on: 09/02/2011 07:30 PM »
Maybe the hatch windows don't count since MPCV was already made that way?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #127 on: 09/02/2011 09:24 PM »
Maybe the hatch windows don't count since MPCV was already made that way?

Maybe indirectly but it couldn't be justified simply on the grounds that MPCV just happens to be built that way.

I expect MPCV and CST-100 have windows in the places they do because there are/were NASA requirements they had to satisfy for the original CxP/OSP/whatever programs.  Those requirements probably fall under the "crew health and safety" or "mission safety and success" categories.

NASA attempting to now relax those classes of requirements for CCP could be extremely difficult, and would likely fuel the "commercial isn't safe" crowd.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #128 on: 09/02/2011 10:33 PM »
Maybe the hatch windows don't count since MPCV was already made that way?

Maybe indirectly but it couldn't be justified simply on the grounds that MPCV just happens to be built that way.

I expect MPCV and CST-100 have windows in the places they do because there are/were NASA requirements they had to satisfy for the original CxP/OSP/whatever programs.  Those requirements probably fall under the "crew health and safety" or "mission safety and success" categories.

NASA attempting to now relax those classes of requirements for CCP could be extremely difficult, and would likely fuel the "commercial isn't safe" crowd.

Part of the challenge with long term planning horizons, is the ability to create alternate scenarios based on opinion, rather than designs facts. It is very hard to prove that a camera system could be 99.999% reliable. It is not a solid state solution, like a window, so it can malfunction. A camera should provide better visibility and provide more functional value, but it could have issues.
That said, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where adequate redundancy could not be built in to provide at least 5 9s. It also seems likely that an event that would damage cameras, camera wiring, or associated computers taking the video feed, would impact either windows or the avionics of the ship as a whole. If something smashed a camera outside the ship, then that would be safer than something smashing a window. You could still turn around and go home.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #129 on: 09/02/2011 11:20 PM »
Part of the challenge with long term planning horizons, is the ability to create alternate scenarios based on opinion, rather than designs facts. It is very hard to prove that a camera system could be 99.999% reliable. It is not a solid state solution, like a window, so it can malfunction. A camera should provide better visibility and provide more functional value, but it could have issues.
That said, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where adequate redundancy could not be built in to provide at least 5 9s. It also seems likely that an event that would damage cameras, camera wiring, or associated computers taking the video feed, would impact either windows or the avionics of the ship as a whole. If something smashed a camera outside the ship, then that would be safer than something smashing a window. You could still turn around and go home.

True, but let's not miss the forest for the trees.  The fact remains that NASA has previously established specific requirements related to crew and mission safety, and requires certification to those requirements.  Even if the intent can be met by alternate means, it may be politically infeasible, and would at minimum require the NASA Astronaut Office to change their requirements.

There is a fundamental difference between the NASA approach (certification) and the FAA's current approach (licensing).  The FAA entertained a certification approach--essentially modifying FAR's to include commercial spaceflight--which was wholey rejected by commercial providers years ago.  There is a significant difference in approaches depending on whether you're viewing through NASA's lens or the "purely commercial" FAA lens.  NASA is primarily concerned with ensuring crew safety and the ability to safely and reliably accomplish a specific mission.  The FAA is primarily concerned with public safety (less with crew safety, and little or no concern with "mission").

What NASA, the FAA and providers are trying to work towards is a common set of criteria that doesn't impose overly-burdensome NASA-specific requirements on providers that makes it difficult or impossible for those providers to cost-effectively translate their offerings to the commercial sector, while still ensuring NASA's and FAA's objectives are met.  The debate on which approach is appropriate and at what point in time to apply "licensing" or "certification" goes back over 10 years.1

If a provider says "that NASA-specific requirement makes our offering infeasible and not cost-effective for use by other commercial customers", then we have a problem.  Until then (and as I've suggested before), everyone--NASA, FAA, and commercial providers--are still working to figure this out, so let's cut them some slack.


1 If you want the gory details, see the archives of the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting minutes and presentations.

edit: clarify NASA and FAA objectives.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2011 01:09 AM by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #130 on: 09/17/2011 07:13 AM »
Per the Sep 16 2011 CCP Forum...

Final requirements release expected end Nov 2011 with RFP by end of 2011.  Unfortunately details om the updated requirements are behind a NASA/FBO firewall and there isn't much more publicly available than what's in the presentation:
Quote
Significant changes to 1130 requirements
- Manual Control   
- Abort Effectiveness
- Mission Duration
- Loss of Crew/Loss of Mission
- Health and Medical Requirements
- Emergency Entry
- Failure Tolerance
No mention of windows.

If you're interested in contracting issues (e.g., SAA vs. FAR), it's worth viewing the webcast (link above) and the July 20 2011 forum feedback and responses (here and here), the OMB whitepaper (here), and the NASA IG report (here).

Please direct comments related to SAA vs. FAR to this thread (would like to keep this thread focused on requirements).
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 07:36 AM by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #131 on: 10/04/2011 08:48 PM »
The Oct 4 CCP Requirements Workshop presentation has been posted (warning pptx; pdf attached).

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #132 on: 10/04/2011 09:05 PM »
Quote
•Updated the following mission and system capabilities:
–Support multiple back-to-back launch opportunities in a two week period in order to accomplish a single mission
This means that if it has to scrub a launch it has to be able to recycle within two weeks?

Quote
•Updated phasing time consistent with CCT-REQ-1130
–The CTS spacecraft will nominally be capable of transporting NASA crew to the ISS within 24 hours of launch
This means that it has to have the capability of a fast mission, but might elect a slower orbital profile for better performance?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #133 on: 10/04/2011 09:23 PM »
My impression from reading is that they are pointing to a taxi model. Does that seems right or I am reading too much between the lines?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #134 on: 10/04/2011 10:24 PM »
Quote
•Updated the following mission and system capabilities:
–Support multiple back-to-back launch opportunities in a two week period in order to accomplish a single mission
This means that if it has to scrub a launch it has to be able to recycle within two weeks?
I believe the requirement still holds to support multiple launch attempts on "consecutive calendar days" in CCT-REQ-1130 sec 3.1.4.2 or "back-to-back" as they say in the presentation, which would imply ~24hr turnaround after a scrub.  I'm not sure, but assume that "two week period" update both provides a time limit as to how long the provider is required to maintain launch readiness, and formalizes the rationale given in CCT-REQ-1130 sec 3.1.4.3(?).

Quote from: baldusi
Quote
•Updated phasing time consistent with CCT-REQ-1130
–The CTS spacecraft will nominally be capable of transporting NASA crew to the ISS within 24 hours of launch
This means that it has to have the capability of a fast mission, but might elect a slower orbital profile for better performance?
That appears to be the case, based on the rationale (presentation pg 44):
Quote
- 24 hours is a “design point” to accommodate ISS phasing
- Rationale addresses Industry recommendation to allow operational flexibility in mission-to-mission rendezvous timeline

My impression from reading is that they are pointing to a taxi model. Does that seems right or I am reading too much between the lines?
It seems more like a rental car model to me.  With a taxi, the driver and vehicle typically don't stay with you for the duration once you reach your destination (it also appears NASA crew will be driving).

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #135 on: 10/04/2011 10:36 PM »
My impression from reading is that they are pointing to a taxi model. Does that seems right or I am reading too much between the lines?
It seems more like a rental car model to me.  With a taxi, the driver and vehicle typically don't stay with you for the duration once you reach your destination (it also appears NASA crew will be driving).
Yes, but it also happens that the service provider is in charge of the crew from staging area on. And the same for almost every nominal return case. Only to be accompanied by NASA's medical personnel. Thus, the big fear that it would become commercial only in name, seems not to be the case.
What I understood by car rental, was that NASA would be in charge of the launch ops. This doesn't seems to be the case. It seems more like everything except the pilot (and that's not clear one way or another), is provided and managed by the service provider. A very good development, if you ask me.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #136 on: 10/05/2011 08:32 PM »
"No mention of windows."

Updated to be two (or meet the intent) class A science windows with no electronic observation for piloting or blockage of windows.  So got mught tighter.  However, likely to change.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #137 on: 10/05/2011 08:44 PM »
"No mention of windows."

Updated to be two (or meet the intent) class A science windows with no electronic observation for piloting or blockage of windows.  So got mught tighter.  However, likely to change.
Why did it change to become tighter?
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #138 on: 10/19/2011 02:22 PM »
The popular mechanics article on the commercial crew development procurement method is also relevant to this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27108.0
« Last Edit: 10/19/2011 02:22 PM by yg1968 »

Offline arnezami

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #139 on: 01/24/2012 03:41 AM »
Here is a pic of the window in the hatch.

http://www.spacex.com/panorama/index.html


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #140 on: 02/07/2012 09:20 PM »
Here is a presentation from July 26, 2011 on this topic:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=107
« Last Edit: 02/07/2012 09:27 PM by yg1968 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #141 on: 02/24/2012 12:29 PM »
Does anyone know if there's a requirement for the CCP vehicles to be able to dock automatically? I could have sworn I saw it before but I can't find it now.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #142 on: 02/24/2012 10:27 PM »
Does anyone know if there's a requirement for the CCP vehicles to be able to dock automatically? I could have sworn I saw it before but I can't find it now.

Critical phases are supposed to be autonomous.  The issue though is all the companies, I believe, are automated docking and NASA is requiring manual capability as well.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #143 on: 07/11/2012 01:47 AM »
Robert Ballard, the undersea explorer, was on the support ship when two scientists in the Alvin, a research sub, descended to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and discovered an entire ecosystem that was totally unexpected and unique. Ballard and the surace crew were transfixed as the images unfolded on video displays. Then he glanced at a display showing the interior of the submarine. The two crewmen ween't looking out the portholes, as he had expected. Instead they were getting a better view- on a video monitor showing exactly the same scene as the ones on the surface.

Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #144 on: 07/11/2012 03:51 PM »
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #145 on: 07/12/2012 03:31 PM »
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take?

or to ask a different way

Is there a storage/upmass requirement?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #146 on: 07/12/2012 04:23 PM »
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)
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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #147 on: 07/12/2012 08:01 PM »
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)

Window space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect.  Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #148 on: 07/12/2012 10:25 PM »
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)

Window space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect.  Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.

It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified.

And I still think we're all giving too much credit to "Liberty"'s chances, probably because we're being polite to a fault. If we're really, brutally honest, we would realize it's a kludge on a kludge by a company without experience in being the prime for either launch vehicles or spacecraft. Unsafe (because LV is totally new), overly complicated (MLAS? Composite capsule structure?), and will be later than any of the other competitors. Not to mention more expensive.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 10:25 PM by Robotbeat »
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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #149 on: 07/12/2012 10:58 PM »
 ;D wait this is almost too funny
 
"It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified."
 
If three spacecraft have great windows for operations and one spacecraft needs a scope that should not be taken into account?
 

 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8030
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2219
  • Likes Given: 5198
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #150 on: 07/12/2012 11:00 PM »
;D wait this is almost too funny
 
"It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified."
 
If three spacecraft have great windows for operations and one spacecraft needs a scope that should not be taken into account?
 

 
Here, hold my beer… I’ll get my Sawzall… ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #151 on: 07/13/2012 12:43 AM »
;D wait this is almost too funny
 
"It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified."
 
If three spacecraft have great windows for operations and one spacecraft needs a scope that should not be taken into account?
 

Yes.

It depends on the requirements and selection criteria.  If the scope meets the requirements just as good as windows then there is nothing to take into account and it is not a discriminator.

If a proposer's vehicle has a quality or characteristic that exists but is not a NASA requirement or part of the selection criteria, it has no bearing when it comes to the competition, nor does providing a service that exceeds the requirements, unless the amount of excess performance is a selection criteria.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 12:47 AM by Jim »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #152 on: 07/13/2012 12:47 AM »
If a proposer's vehicle has a quality or characteristic that exists but is not a NASA requirement or part of the selection criteria, it has no bearing when it comes to the competition, nor does providing a service that exceeds the requirements, unless the amount of excess performance is a selection criteria.

Whatever.. the primary consideration of the last round was how much of their own money the sucker.. err "partner".. is willing to put in. If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won :)

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #153 on: 07/13/2012 12:50 AM »
If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won

 it wasn't really that "excellent"
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 12:50 AM by Jim »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #154 on: 07/13/2012 01:28 AM »
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take?
or to ask a different way
Is there a storage/upmass requirement?

Quote from: NASA CCT-REQ-1130 DRAFT 3.0  April 29, 2011
3.1.3.1   The CTS shall transport 100 kilograms (220.5 lbm) of ISS Program specified pressurized cargo to the ISS during a single launch.
a.   This system shall provide a total of 0.227 cubic meters (8 cubic feet) (TBC) of pressurized cargo stowage volume to accommodate standard ISS cargo and crew bags.
b.   0.1135 cubic meters (four cubic feet) (TBC) of the 0.227 cubic meters (eight cubic foot) (TBC) volume shall accommodate a single ISS cargo item of dimensions TBD x TBD x TBD (TBC).

3.1.3.2   The CTS shall return 100 kilograms (220.5 lbm) of ISS Program specified pressurized cargo to the designated landing site(s) during a single entry.  The volume requirements in 3.1.3.1 part A and B shall apply for cargo return

3.1.3.5   The spacecraft shall transport an additional 100 kg (220.5 lbm) of cargo in any seat location that is not occupied by crewmembers.  The spacecraft crew compartment design shall accommodate the volume, mass, and mounting accommodations required to carry this additional cargo. 

edit: p.s. Note the above is a bit dated; haven't seen anything more recent that is putlic.  Anyone else?
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 01:44 AM by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #155 on: 07/13/2012 01:32 AM »
If a proposer's vehicle has a quality or characteristic that exists but is not a NASA requirement or part of the selection criteria, it has no bearing when it comes to the competition, nor does providing a service that exceeds the requirements, unless the amount of excess performance is a selection criteria.
Whatever.. the primary consideration of the last round was how much of their own money the sucker.. err "partner".. is willing to put in. If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won :)

Yes, but again be careful not to confuse the CCDev-1, CCDev-2 and CCiCap "rounds" and their associated selection criteria with CTS requirements (the subject of this thread) -- as in those requirements which will be evaluated against and levied as part of a CTS competition and contract award.  CCDev and CCiCap have no such "requirements" as they are not acquisition contracts.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #156 on: 07/13/2012 02:01 AM »
Speaking of requirements, how about having a requirement for a toilet?

There was actually an article/blog on this topic, a couple of months ago:

Quote
Boeing, Space X, and Sierra Nevada have all confirmed to Flightglobal/Ascend that, none of their vessels has a toilet. [...]

The Commercial Crew system contenders now admit that this was a design oversight.  A senior executive at SpaceX explained that the firm is now rethinking its toilet strategy on the Dragon capsule, especially in light of likely operations to and from the International Space Station.
 
"Currently it (Dragon) does not have a toilet, but you obviously have to consider that when you put crew on, and there are a lot of different concepts we're looking at...anything from diapers to an actual system,"  said the executive before adding: "Now NASA requires an actual system, because right now they want the ability to go on, potentially, a three-day approach to (the) station."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2012/05/which-commercial-crew-spacecra.html
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 01:56 PM by yg1968 »

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22328
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #157 on: 07/13/2012 03:23 AM »
Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?


Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #158 on: 07/13/2012 03:51 AM »
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport  and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)

Window space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect.  Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.

You seem to be confused about where DreamChaser's windows are.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 04:03 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2782
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 328
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #159 on: 07/13/2012 03:52 AM »
Quote
Boeing, Space X, and Sierra Nevada have all confirmed to Flightglobal/Ascend that, none of their vessels has a toilet. [...]
"Currently it (Dragon) does not have a toilet, but you obviously have to consider that when you put crew on, and there are a lot of different concepts we're looking at...anything from diapers to an actual system,"  said the executive before adding: "Now NASA requires an actual system, because right now they want the ability to go on, potentially, a three-day approach to (the) station."

Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?
Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?

I'd think so... or something similar?  Interesting...

The "three-day approach" mentined in the article seems new.  Last publicly stated requirement (Oct-2011 CCIDC workshop) was for 24-hr launch-to-dock which included "Protecting for 24 hours rendezvous delay that includes two additional docking attempts beyond nominal".  (Total in-craft ~73 hrs, but that incldued allowed for ~6-18 hr contingency for safe haven while docked to ISS, and ~12 hr contingency for de-orbit waive-off out of the total of ~73 hrs.)

Anyone know what might have happened to cause that 24-hr launch-to-dock contingency to change to 72-hr?  Or are they simply stating that the spacecraft has to provide for autonomous crew support for up to 72 hrs total duration from launch-to-land (which wouldn't appear to be a big change)?  Or what?
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 04:46 AM by joek »

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #160 on: 07/13/2012 10:27 AM »
I don't know, but I don't think it's the latter - I've heard mention "three-day ISS approach" several times, which sounds specific.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #161 on: 07/13/2012 02:02 PM »
For the CCCiCap optional milestones, the first crewed test flight must be 3 days in-orbit:

Quote
Final milestone of an orbital crewed demonstration flight
Mission Duration: Minimum of 3 days on-orbit
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649836main_4_Mango_NACPresentation_4-24-12_508.pdf

I noticed in this document the following requirements. I don't know if they are new:

Quote
The chosen spacecraft must demonstrate it can serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space and be able to stay docked to the station for at least 210 days.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660622main_2012.06.18_CCP.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 02:35 PM by yg1968 »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #162 on: 07/13/2012 02:39 PM »
I don't recall the "safe haven" but the 210 days has been consistent with previous documents.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #163 on: 07/13/2012 02:52 PM »

Window space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect.  Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.

You seem to be confused about where DreamChaser's windows are.

Not confused, just forgot....but you have a point. 
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 02:53 PM by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #164 on: 03/29/2013 05:13 PM »
Quote
ASAP member Mr. Bryan O‟Connor observed that there were a couple of interesting briefings, including one on how they dealt with a problematic technical requirement—manual flight control. Human rating requirements specify that manual control be available wherever it is appropriate. They had to examine this requirement carefully to see if it made sense to keep manual
control as a capability for the commercial vehicles. As a result, this particular requirement may be modified significantly for this program. Orion is looking at the same requirement.

See page 3 of this document:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_1st-Qtr-2013.pdf

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #165 on: 04/03/2013 06:23 PM »
The Shuttle would have been safer to land on autopilot - but what pilot would give up the chance to hand fly it? This requirement, like the one that the NASA personnel wear suits, is irrational and increases cost.

Offline Wayne Hale

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #166 on: 04/03/2013 06:59 PM »
Interesting that people think it would have been safer to land on autopilot.  We studied that extensively and there were several issues with the implementation of the shuttle autopilot and the supporting ground navigation aids.  Every shuttle landing was manually controlled and they were all successful . . .

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #167 on: 04/04/2013 03:20 PM »
Interesting that people think it would have been safer to land on autopilot.  We studied that extensively and there were several issues with the implementation of the shuttle autopilot and the supporting ground navigation aids.  Every shuttle landing was manually controlled and they were all successful . . .
Buran's autonomous landing was extremely accurate, but made use of significant help from some extremely powerful radio beacons. This basically meant that it could land in just two places in the world autonomously.
But autonomous landing was a fundamental requirement of developing the system. They didn't expected to launch or land with crew until the fifth of so fight. The second flight was supposed to autonomously dock with Mir (that's why Shuttle got the APAS, it was already there). And the third would get an APAS capable Soyuz to dock with it in space to simulate a crew rescue mission.
Besides, I guess they calculated that actually taking a crew for all missions was more dangerous than necessary and more expensive for the payload, since you'd have to man rate it.
And seeing how Dream Chaser/Dragon/CST-100/Orion are designed to do the first missions autonomously, I think that it is a very reasonable requirement.
I'm not stating that autonomous landing is safer than piloted one. Just that having it is a necessity for a safe development program. And a plus if you don't actually need a crew (like cargo runs).

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #168 on: 04/04/2013 10:09 PM »
Buran's autonomous landing was extremely accurate, but made use of significant help from some extremely powerful radio beacons.

Not to get into a whole semantic thing... but that's not what we used to call autonomous. :)
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #169 on: 04/04/2013 10:15 PM »
The control is autonomous, the sensing isn't. Better?
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: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #170 on: 04/04/2013 11:44 PM »
Buran's autonomous landing was extremely accurate, but made use of significant help from some extremely powerful radio beacons.

Not to get into a whole semantic thing... but that's not what we used to call autonomous. :)

Radio beacons are just that. Beacons.  Those beacons were used from just after atmospheric interface. Not even like an ILS implementation. Remember that they couldn't count on GLONASS yet. What would it take for you to consider it autonomous? That it read a map and look at the terrain features to get its bearings?
Even Wayne Hale said that the issue was the ground navigational aids.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9171
  • Liked: 1179
  • Likes Given: 779
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #171 on: 03/06/2017 02:02 PM »
This post is also relevant to this thread:

FWIW, a revision of CCT-REQ-1130, "ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document" showed up on NTRS recently:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170001943

(Attached here, as well.)

Here is the attached document (i.e., version 2016 of CCT-REQ-1130):
« Last Edit: 03/07/2017 12:09 AM by yg1968 »

Tags: