Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 48447 times)

Online neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Liked: 33
  • 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/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6768
  • Liked: 238
« Last Edit: 06/23/2010 05:00 AM by yg1968 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4062
  • Liked: 159
  • "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 --

Online MP99

  • Armchair rocket scientist.
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5652
  • Liked: 187
  • 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

Online neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Liked: 33
  • 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/

Online neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2361
  • Liked: 33
  • Pasadena, CA
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline manboy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Liked: 45
  • 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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6768
  • Liked: 238
« Last Edit: 08/20/2010 03:15 PM by yg1968 »


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6768
  • Liked: 238

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18034
  • Liked: 960
  • Minnesota
Here is an update on the private space race:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/the-private-space-race
I found this line encouraging:
Quote
“No single commercial system will represent the critical path,” says Garver.
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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4062
  • Liked: 159
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
On page 41 of S.3729, Section 403(b)(1) says:
Quote
HUMAN RATING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements to guide the design of commercially-developed crew transportation capabilities, which requirements shall be at least equivalent to proven requirements for crew transportation in use as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

Can anyone knowledgeably expand on what those guidelines will likely include?
-- sdsds --

Offline jryodabobs

  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 0
  • Houston
On page 41 of S.3729, Section 403(b)(1) says:
Quote
HUMAN RATING REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements to guide the design of commercially-developed crew transportation capabilities, which requirements shall be at least equivalent to proven requirements for crew transportation in use as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
Can anyone knowledgeably expand on what those guidelines will likely include?
Not sure what knowledgeable means in this context, since those who actually know aren't allowed to say. However, there is public information that there are about 30 technical requirements contained in the document. That is about the same number as are in the most recent version used to govern NASA spacecraft development (and which was used for Constellation). Logic says that NASA's commercial requirements for carrying NASA crew won't be much different from those in NPR 8705.2 rev B. But we all know that logic doesn't always apply in this real world.

I'm anxious to see what they actually say.

Bob S.



Tags: