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.
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.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven 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
Quote from: Prober on 07/11/2012 03:51 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven 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 optionYeah, 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...)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/12/2012 04:23 pmQuote from: Prober on 07/11/2012 03:51 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven 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 optionYeah, 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.
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?
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.
If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take? or to ask a different wayIs there a storage/upmass requirement?
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 return3.1.3.5 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.
Quote from: Jim on 07/13/2012 12:43 amIf 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
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."
Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?
QuoteBoeing, 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."
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."
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/13/2012 02:01 amSpeaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?