Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 51654 times)

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Liked: 0
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Seems to me he misunderstands the mission for Orion - it is to provide a stand by rescue/return docked to the station, so it does need long term endurance.

The key phrase is "docked to the station".  Any space taxi, Orion-derived or not, would only have to be able to operate autonomously for a few hours.  That does (as Oberg points out) drastically simplify many of the onboard systems.

Offline JayP

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 0
Seems to me he misunderstands the mission for Orion - it is to provide a stand by rescue/return docked to the station, so it does need long term endurance.

Read the article again,

"The plan to reshape the Orion spaceship as a standby rescue vehicle for station crews has profound implications for the requirements of the commercial taxi and its cost. This strategy means the taxis won't have to last for six months "parked" in space, like Russia's Soyuz spaceships. The simplification of the taxiís mission will allow its hardware to be significantly less expensive to build and to validate."

He is not talking about the design of Orion, but about the design of the comercial crew taxi.


Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21864
  • Liked: 58
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//


Capsules would still need to use docking equipment in an emergency, especially if direct handover is used. Also, what happens to the commercial craft when ISS is eventually deorbited.... by 2020 Node1/Zarya will be over twenty years old and couldn't go on for ever,yet you will have a transportation system utterly dependent on the station for any mission objectives?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19213
  • Liked: 1766
  • Minnesota
Interesting article on commercial space taxis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36678222/ns/technology_and_science-space//


Capsules would still need to use docking equipment in an emergency, especially if direct handover is used. Also, what happens to the commercial craft when ISS is eventually deorbited.... by 2020 Node1/Zarya will be over twenty years old and couldn't go on for ever,yet you will have a transportation system utterly dependent on the station for any mission objectives?
Bigelow is one answer (and if successful, will probably have more traffic from a crew taxi than ISS). Not a sure thing, but nothing is in this business. Besides, many experts DO think extending ISS beyond 2020 is a good idea.
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 Zond

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 20
Progress reports of the CCDEV work for the first quarter of 2010 from the recovery.gov website.

Blue Origin:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=90717&AwardType=Grants
Quote
In the first calendar quarter of 2010, Blue Origin performed detailed planning for the project, performed design activities to accomplish project objectives, ordered long-lead material from vendors, and prepared a kick-off meeting for NASA project management staff. This kick-off meeting occurred in the first week of the second calendar quarter of 2010.

Boeing/Bigelow Aerospace:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=99382&AwardType=Grants
Quote
CCDev program progressing as planned. Completed first 11 SAA milestones on or ahead of schedule (30% of program milestones) and conducted a successful SRR with numerous comments on the rapid maturity of the existing design during this quarter. Demonstration tasks kicked off and are progressing well, and several significant procurements placed. One demo task has potential for later schedule impacts due to delayed procurements that are currently being assessed. System Development Plan - Completed SRR products package and kick off review completed. RID acceptance period closed and RID closure and closure plans prepared for RID review board. Abort System Hardware Demonstration - Issued UCA to initiate Aerojet work while contract development is completed. Long lead material purchases have been issued by Aerojet. CM Pressure Shell Demonstration - Test requirements defined & coordinated with test facility. Test article design complete. Material procurements initiated . Developed process plans and fabrication details to support production readiness review. Completed and released data sets for all fabricated components. Completed finite element structural analysis. Developed initial pressure and structural test setups. Completed design review at Parker Seal in San Diego. Initiated procurement for all machined parts.

Paragon Space development corporation:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=89751&AwardType=Grants
Quote
An internal Kick-Off Meeting was held on 2/12/10. The signed SAA and Amendment 1 were received on 2/19/10. On 3/1/10 Paragon requested that NASA waive rights to inventions made under the SAA to Paragon. Long-lead item procurement times for the Engineering Development Unit (EDU) were identified on 2/24/10. A detailed ECLSS driving requirements questionnaire was generated and submitted to 8 vehicle developers, 3 of which are current CCDev SAA partners. Six completed surveys were returned and 4 follow-up meetings were conducted. Design and Development Books for all subsystems and the top-level assembly were created to record development through PDR and EDU testing. A meeting with NASA was held on 3/9/10 to discus various topics (e.g. project status, Commercial Advisory Team utilization, intellectual property rights, human rating certification, NASA input to driving requirements, etc.) The following deliverables were completed as part of the Customer Requirements Review (CRR): 1-Concept of Operations, 2-System Specification, 3-Interface Requirements Document (included in System Spec), 4-Draft Subsystem Specifications, 5-Draft Human Rating Certification Package. These were submitted to NASA for review on 3/24/10. The content of the IRD was included in the System Specification. Paragon conducted our CRR on 3/31/10 at our Tucson, AZ facility with NASA representative in attendance. To complete the milestone, actions were levied to breakout the Interface Requirements as a separate document and update the other program documents with input received from NASA. The final CRR data package was delivered to NASA on 4/7/10 to close out the milestone. Overall project completion (measured as % completed) is 29%. The System Design Review (SDR) is scheduled to start 4/19/10. Work continues in the next quarter to mature the design and produce SDR and PDR data products. EDU development continues with procurement of additional long lead items and test facility preparations.

Sierra Nevada corporation
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=90258&AwardType=Grants
Quote
The Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program got off to a good start in the 1st quarter of 2010. The program was started by SNC conducting an internal team kickoff meeting held at the SNC facility in Louisville, CO. This was followed by an external kickoff meeting held with the key team companies. On March 18, a Program Implementation Plan Review was conducted with NASA at SNC?s Louisville facility. This review successfully completed the 1st Milestone for the program. All of SNC?s external team members were put under initial Letters of Contract in the 1st quarter. Finalization of these contracts will occur in the 2nd quarter. Initial SOW?s are in place for all SNC external team members. These will also be finalized in the 2nd quarter. Work has started in all task areas under the CCDev Space Act Agreement. In addition, SNC Louisville, CO facility modifications were started to allow expansion of the SNC CCDev team. Employment offers were extended and accepted by several engineers to fill new CCDev staff positions, and transfers were initiated for some SNC personnel to move to the Louisville site.

United launch Alliance
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=89244&AwardType=Grants
Quote
On March 19, 2010, ULA received the signed copy of the NASA authorized Space Act Agreement Amendment 1 that provided the program with direction to commence work on the subject SAA. NASA authorized the period of performance through December 2010. ULA held a successful kickoff on the 25th of March, which included material to meet the Milestone 1: EDS Demonstration Project Kick-off Meeting Success Criteria: Conduct Kickoff to Present Program Expectations, Program Plan & Identify Staffing Resources. As such, we submitted our first notification for completion of Milestone 1 (of 4) for NASA to approve. EDS Demonstration: Development of the requirements for the prototype testbed for the Emergency Detection System (EDS) for the Commercial Crew Development program is underway, including development of the process for selection of the preliminary set of prototype demonstration candidates. Additional candidates are being pursued through solicitation of input from the various potential crew spacecraft providers including Sierra Nevada, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blue Origin, HMX, and Orbital. In addition we asked them to identify any unique situations that maybe of interest for one or two more scenarios demonstration within the SIL capability as currently configured. We are also solicited top level interface requirements using a process similar to development of the Standard Interface Specification developed under EELV. This effort may culminate in a working session with the potential SC providers to negotiate the interface requirements for the potential crewed spacecraft configurations.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 87
  • Perth, Western Australia
Anyone have any idea how many of the CCDEV alternatives would fit on which boosters or is it too early to say?

For example, SpaceX Dragon isn't in the CCDEV but the F9 LV will more than likely be available by the end of the CCDEV program. 

Are any of the alternatives slated for the F9 or other LVs?

Cheers
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23927
  • Liked: 2172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Anyone have any idea how many of the CCDEV alternatives would fit on which boosters or is it too early to say?



First, what are the CCDEV alternatives ?

CCDev is not a spacecraft program.  More of the awards were for systems vs spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2010 11:31 AM by Jim »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6023
  • Liked: 148
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
First, what are the CCDEV alternatives ?

This is one of the big problems I've notice on threads on this particular issue (and related ones of crewed space access).  What the heck do we call this? As Jim points out, CCDev is basically a subsidy program for developing various systems.  COTS-D is in a kind of implementational purgatory and doesn't really relate to the proposed commercial crew launch program at all.  What do you call this?

FWIW, I usually call it 'CCT' - 'Commercial Crew Transport'.  However, that isn't a formal name so I usually have to define it the first time that I use it in a post.  :-\
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9470
  • Liked: 756
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
First, what are the CCDEV alternatives ?

This is one of the big problems I've notice on threads on this particular issue (and related ones of crewed space access).  What the heck do we call this? As Jim points out, CCDev is basically a subsidy program for developing various systems.  COTS-D is in a kind of implementational purgatory and doesn't really relate to the proposed commercial crew launch program at all.  What do you call this?

FWIW, I usually call it 'CCT' - 'Commercial Crew Transport'.  However, that isn't a formal name so I usually have to define it the first time that I use it in a post.  :-\

Unless I miss my guess, the only "program" out there which actually authorizes a commercial "manned" spacecraft to be built and flown using federal money is COTS-D. But until that option is exercised, even it won't make federal funds available for a manned spacecraft. All other "authorizations" only fund "studies" and "PowerPoint presentations". None of the companies in possession of such authorizations are allowed to actually build anything with those federal dollars, just perform studies on how they would do it.

Having said that, commercial companies of any flavor are, of course, free to spend their own money to develop and field such a spacecraft. But to date, only Elon Musk has shown enough guts to actually put his money where his mouth is wrt human spacecraft and go bend metal. The cargo Dragon is redundantly designed from the beginning to be a manned spacecraft and he is on record as saying that it will fly with crew, with or without federal money. Federal money just makes it happen sooner.

SpaceX is going to Mars, without NASA permission. Heresy! :)
« Last Edit: 05/12/2010 01:13 PM by clongton »
Chuck

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7328
  • Liked: 442
Anyone have any idea how many of the CCDEV alternatives would fit on which boosters or is it too early to say?

For example, SpaceX Dragon isn't in the CCDEV but the F9 LV will more than likely be available by the end of the CCDEV program. 

Are any of the alternatives slated for the F9 or other LVs?

Cheers

Well, Boeing said that its capsule could fit multiple rockets including the Falcon 9.

The President of Spacex in her interview on the SpaceShow said that Dragon could fit on other rockets but she said that it then becomes a matter of system integration. 

See this link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18936.msg581654#msg581654
« Last Edit: 05/12/2010 03:12 PM by yg1968 »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Liked: 36
  • Pasadena, CA
The Commercial Crew Transportation RFI was released today, along with the document for the Commercial Human-Rating Plan::

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/solicitations.do?method=init&stack=push
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId={85357053-E659-E2DE-C7AE-BB14600C2E96}&path=init

(the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions RFI also came out today)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7328
  • Liked: 442
« Last Edit: 06/23/2010 05:00 AM by yg1968 »

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • Liked: 262
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
1- Here is the Space Act Agreement for CCDev for Boeing:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf

Note the large amount of material redacted from "Appendix 2: Performance Milestones and Success Criteria".
-- sdsds --

Offline MP99

  • Armchair rocket scientist.
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
  • Liked: 284
  • UK
The Commercial Crew Transportation RFI was released today, along with the document for the Commercial Human-Rating Plan::

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/solicitations.do?method=init&stack=push
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId={85357053-E659-E2DE-C7AE-BB14600C2E96}&path=init

(the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions RFI also came out today)

From the RFI:-

Quote
In a multiphase strategy, the program would help to spur the innovation and development of new spacecraft and launch vehicles...

Would HR'ing of an EELV count as a "new" launch vehicle?

Hoping that this wouldn't be a disadvantage to any subsequent ULA proposal.

cheers, Martin

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Liked: 36
  • Pasadena, CA
1- Here is the Space Act Agreement for CCDev for Boeing:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf

2- The one for Paragon:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444143main_NNJ10TA03S_paragon_saa.pdf

3- The one for Sierra Nevada:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444145main_NNJ10TA03S_sierra_saa.pdf

4- The one for ULA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/463224main_United%20Launch%20Alliance%20and%20Amendment.pdf

All of them are posted here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/index.html

P.S. Blue Origin's Space Act Agreement seems not to have yet been posted by NASA.

Thanks!

Skimming through, it seems like this is what's expected from each of the companies by later this year in order for them to get the full milestone payments:

Sierra Nevada ($20M): construction of Dream Chaser engineering test article, software development, development and testing of N2O/Ethane RCS, wind tunnel tests

Boeing/Bigelow ($18M): trade study and down-select between pusher-type and tractor-style LAS, system definition review, Abort System Hardware Demonstration Test, Base Heat Shield Fabrication Demonstration, Avionics Systems Integration Facility demonstration, CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration, Landing System Demonstration (drop test and water uprighting test), Life Support Air Revitalization demonstration, AR&D hardware/software demonstration, Crew Module Mockup demonstration. It also explicitly mentions that the capsule is designed for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9 launch vehicles

ULA ($6.7M): design and demonstration of Emergency Detection System for Atlas V and Delta IV

Blue Origin ($3.7M): ? (previous reports indicated construction of composite capsule and tests related to push-based escape system)

Paragon ($1.7M): development and testing of Air Revitalization System engineering development unit
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
  • Liked: 36
  • Pasadena, CA
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline manboy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Liked: 58
  • United States
1- Here is the Space Act Agreement for CCDev for Boeing:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444144main_NNJ10TA03S_boeing_saa.pdf

2- The one for Paragon:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444143main_NNJ10TA03S_paragon_saa.pdf

3- The one for Sierra Nevada:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/444145main_NNJ10TA03S_sierra_saa.pdf

4- The one for ULA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/463224main_United%20Launch%20Alliance%20and%20Amendment.pdf

All of them are posted here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/contracts/index.html

P.S. Blue Origin's Space Act Agreement seems not to have yet been posted by NASA.
Sierra Nevada ($20M): construction of Dream Chaser engineering test article, software development, development and testing of N2O/Ethane RCS, wind tunnel tests
:) After a very stressful day this made me happy.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2010 04:35 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7328
  • Liked: 442
« Last Edit: 08/20/2010 03:15 PM by yg1968 »


Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7328
  • Liked: 442

Tags: