Author Topic: CCDev/CCP updates  (Read 73830 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
CCDev/CCP updates
« on: 09/18/2011 01:36 am »
CCDev and Commercial Crew Program (CCP) thread for updates which are not vendor specific or not covered by other threads (see below), including NASA, FAA and Congressional activities related to CCDev/CCP.

NASA links
NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo (C3PO) home page (not much there)
NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP) home page
In particlar, see the CCP Forum page.

FAA links
Office of Commercial Space Transportation home page
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) home page
In particular, see the COMSTAC Meeting Minutes Archive and COMSTAC Presentations Archive

NSF articles
NASA oversight of CCDev-2 Partners reveals progress milestones

NSF threads
Commercial Crew IDC Draft RFP anouncement (draft RFP discussion; NASA docs here)
Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements (requirements discussion)
Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement (contracting discussion)

CCDev-2 SAA's
SNC1, Blue Origin1, Boeing1, SpaceX1, ULA2, ATK2
Amendments:
Boeing, SNC

1 Funded
2 Unfunded

edit: clarify thread scope.
edit: add rfp announcement and rfp doc links.
edit: add CCDev SAA links.
« Last Edit: 09/25/2011 02:37 am by joek »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #1 on: 09/18/2011 01:40 am »
Excellent idea for a thread, and very nicely constructed!
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #2 on: 09/18/2011 08:04 pm »
Going through the latest CCP forum presentation, the notional schedule (see below) appeared to be different than previous iterations, so I went through the archives to check.  While that schedule is still notional there's an obvious pattern...

Projected start of commercial crew service, source and publication date (newest to oldest; all dates calendar years:
2017 Q1 -- NASA CCP presentation, Sep 2011 (see below)
2016 Q4 -- NASA CCP presentation, Jul 2011
2016 Q41 -- NASA IG report, Jun 2011
2015 Q42 -- NASA FY2012 Summary Budget Breifing, Feb 2011
2015 Q3 -- OMB report, May 2010


1 States "late 2016"; notes Soyuz seats purchased through end of 2015 (final Soyuz crew return planned June 2016).
2 Shows two commercial crew flights/yr starting in FY2016 = CY2015 Q4 earliest.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #3 on: 09/18/2011 09:40 pm »
Going through the latest CCP forum presentation, the notional schedule (see below) appeared to be different than previous iterations, so I went through the archives to check.  While that schedule is still notional there's an obvious pattern...

Projected start of commercial crew service, source and publication date (newest to oldest; all dates calendar years:
2017 Q1 -- NASA CCP presentation, Sep 2011 (see below)
2016 Q4 -- NASA CCP presentation, Jul 2011
2016 Q41 -- NASA IG report, Jun 2011
2015 Q42 -- NASA FY2012 Summary Budget Breifing, Feb 2011
2015 Q3 -- OMB report, May 2010


1 States "late 2016"; notes Soyuz seats purchased through end of 2015 (final Soyuz crew return planned June 2016).
2 Shows two commercial crew flights/yr starting in FY2016 = CY2015 Q4 earliest.



it will come down to funding.  Several companies say they can make 2015.  Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017.  ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready.  But based heavily on funding.  Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while.  NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #4 on: 09/18/2011 10:22 pm »
it will come down to funding.  Several companies say they can make 2015.  Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017.  ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready.  But based heavily on funding.  Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while.  NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical.

Agree funding is likely to have a significant impact on availability, and it is desireable to maintain a competitive environment for as long as possible.*

For the record, based on CCDev-2 SAA's:
SNC -- No date (redacted)
Boeing --  Early 2015 for "first crew test flight"; no date shown for ISS crew flights.
SpaceX -- Early 2014 "crew demo flight"; late 2014 "ISS crew flight"


* Among other things, maintaining multiple providers and adequate price competition eliminates the need to meet the FAR cost accounting standards (CAS) and certified cost/price reporting requirements.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2011 10:25 pm by joek »

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #5 on: 09/18/2011 10:36 pm »
it will come down to funding.  Several companies say they can make 2015.  Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017.  ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready.  But based heavily on funding.  Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while.  NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical.

Agree funding is likely to have a significant impact on availability, and it is desireable to maintain a competitive environment for as long as possible.*

For the record, based on CCDev-2 SAA's:
SNC -- No date (redacted)
Boeing --  Early 2015 for "first crew test flight"; no date shown for ISS crew flights.
SpaceX -- Early 2014 "crew demo flight"; late 2014 "ISS crew flight"


* Among other things, maintaining multiple providers and adequate price competition eliminates the need to meet the FAR cost accounting standards (CAS) and certified cost/price reporting requirements.

I wonder about the funding profile needed by Boeing and spacex to reach their IOC.  I also what the funding profile would be for a slip for 1 year...

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #6 on: 09/18/2011 11:09 pm »
I wonder about the funding profile needed by Boeing and spacex to reach their IOC.  I also what the funding profile would be for a slip for 1 year...

Hard to tell as there's very little visibility into the details.  What we do know is that something significant appears to have changed late-2010 to mid-2011.  The primary suspect appears to be funding, and NASA and CCDev participants have expressed more than a little concern...

Quote
“I can tell you that if that number holds for the next year [House $312M funding], it’s going to be very challenging for us to maintain multiple partners, to maintain the type of progress we’ve made, and meet a goal to fly folks in the mid part of the decade,” Jett said. “At some point we’re going to have to spend more than a couple hundred million dollars a year.”
CCDev contracting and funding concerns, New Space Journal, July 2011

Quote
Regarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in  the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However,  the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”
Boeing on test pilots, FAR-vs-SAA, and more, New Space Journal, August 2011
« Last Edit: 09/18/2011 11:21 pm by joek »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #7 on: 09/19/2011 03:02 am »
Quote
Regarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in  the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However,  the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”
Boeing on test pilots, FAR-vs-SAA, and more, New Space Journal, August 2011

Should note Senate/s version has $500 million right now:

Quote
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk today applauded a Senate committee's approval of $500 million in NASA funding next year to help develop commercial crew taxis for trips to the International Space Station.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110915/BREAKINGNEWS/309160016/SpaceX-applauds-Senate-funding-privatized-space-program
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 03:03 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #8 on: 09/19/2011 03:39 am »
So, is it safe to say $500 million isn't that close to the $850 million that Boeing thinks is "in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful"?
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 joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #9 on: 09/19/2011 04:00 am »
To expand on Ronsmytheiii's post...

The current Senate language provides for $307M, with up to $500M, subject to conditions...
Quote
Commercial Crew. — The Committee has provided $500,000,000 for commercial crew activities, the same as the authorized level. This funding shall be available to continue and competitively expand the number of participants and the activities of the Commercial Crew Development [CCDEV] program in order to reduce risk, develop technologies and lead to other advancements that will help determine most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of commercial crew services.

Of the amount included for commercial crew development activities, $307,400,000 shall be available on October 1, 2011. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2011 level for commercial crew development. An additional $192,600,000 of commercial crew funding will become available after the NASA Administrator has certified, in writing, that NASA has: (1) published the notifications to implement acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system, also known as the space launch system [SLS], authorized in section 302 of Public Law 111–267 and (2) begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of SLS. This certification may not be delegated and will assure the Committee that NASA is committed to all elements of the balanced human spaceflight program authorized in Public Law 111–267. The Committee understands that NASA will be providing more information on the acquisition strategy for SLS in the coming weeks.

The current House language provides for no more than $312M...
Quote
Commercial crew. — For commercial crew development activities, the Committee recommends $312,000,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2011. The Committee preserved funds for this activity to reduce the risk of relying solely on Russia for ISS access and to address the need for the United States to establish a domestic means of access to low Earth orbit. The sizable increase proposed in the budget request, however, was premature given the still-undefined acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Development Round 3 (CCDev 3) awards and the uncertainty behind assumptions about pricing, schedule, market demand, flight opportunities and other economic factors that are essentially unknowable at this time.

Given the likely decrease in the number of CCDev 3 awards that will be made at this funding level relative to the request, NASA is encouraged to make use of unfunded Space Act Agreements to maximize the number of commercial partners who stay engaged with the program and remain in contention for an eventual service contract.  For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

What we'll actually end up with is still anyone's guess, but likely nowhere near the $850M requested.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 05:13 am by joek »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #10 on: 09/19/2011 04:10 am »
Sounds like their holding the funding for Commercial Crew hostage.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #11 on: 09/19/2011 04:16 am »
Well a lower budget will mean a few things:

1.  Less providers:  probably deselect to two. Personally dont see it as a loss, as there really is not a flight rate for ISS to support more (ie two crew flights a year)

2.  Sticking with lowest cost option for infrastructure.  Unless funds are switched to LC-39 modernization will probably mean sticking with LC-40/1 for crew launch.

3.  Liberty gets the axe.  No development funds for new LV's, minimal for existing LV modifications (ie probably not Delta IV)

4.  Schedule slips

So its not the greatest outcome, but it could be worse.

Offline hektor

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Liked: 1193
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #12 on: 09/19/2011 01:19 pm »
Q1 2017

Sooner than later they will have to officially endorse the extension of ISS beyond FY2020 for the whole thing to make sense.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #13 on: 09/19/2011 03:24 pm »
Well a lower budget will mean a few things:

1.  Less providers:  probably deselect to two. Personally dont see it as a loss, as there really is not a flight rate for ISS to support more (ie two crew flights a year)

2.  Sticking with lowest cost option for infrastructure.  Unless funds are switched to LC-39 modernization will probably mean sticking with LC-40/1 for crew launch.

3.  Liberty gets the axe.  No development funds for new LV's, minimal for existing LV modifications (ie probably not Delta IV)

4.  Schedule slips

So its not the greatest outcome, but it could be worse.

2) was already a good idea
3) was already a given, for the most part (next phase is for an integrated service/capability, not for individual components... launch vehicles don't fit that very well)

But when commercial crew comes in a little later than hoped for, remember that Congress imposed this constraint on NASA HSF.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 03:25 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 clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #14 on: 09/19/2011 03:37 pm »
At what point do we pay more for Soyuz seats than we would have otherwise paid to just pay for and complete the CCDev program?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #15 on: 09/19/2011 11:28 pm »
At what point do we pay more for Soyuz seats than we would have otherwise paid to just pay for and complete the CCDev program?

Some time between 2020-2024 depending on when you start adding up the Soyuz seat costs (2010 or 2016), the number of seats/yr starting in 2016 (six or eight), and assuming the current Soyuz $/seat trend holds past 2015, and that the $4250M CCDev total is a reasonable estimate (5yr @$850M/yr).

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #16 on: 09/19/2011 11:29 pm »
Just in case anyone missed it, the big news is the draft RFP for the integrated design (IDC) phase; see thread:
NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones.

Please see that thread for draft RFP discussion (updated the OP page to ref that thread).
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 11:48 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #17 on: 09/26/2011 01:19 am »
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:
Quote
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.

On page 16:
Quote
The original version of the recommendation was entitled: Spaceflight Participant Policy for ISS. The original version of the recommendation itself was: NASA should establish a policy for spaceflight participants to fly to ISS on U.S. commercial vehicles. The first draft of the Major Reasons for the Recommendation read: This policy will incentivize CCDev participants to invest in the development of commercial transportation to LEO, expecting additional return on their investment by flying tourists to the ISS. The Draft Consequences of No Action was: Absent such a policy, all spaceflight participant activity will be to the Russian side of the ISS, hence depriving U.S. commercial companies of ISS spaceflight participant revenue and decreasing commercial investment in the development of the transportation to ISS for NASA crews.

Because commercial cargo is already going to ISS, that part was to be deleted. It was also agreed that the word “tourists” should be changed to “space flight participants” throughout, in which case the consequence of no action would be the missed opportunity for revenue and commercial work. With Committee members in agreement about the general concept, this recommendation was to be developed more fully outside of the meeting.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:54 am by yg1968 »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #18 on: 09/26/2011 04:47 am »
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:
Quote
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Well, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS.  With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.


Edit: Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals.  AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:10 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #19 on: 09/26/2011 08:04 am »
Two CCP flights per year: "Flight rate is too low to even support one supplier economically, let alone two."

Four CCP flights per year: "Unacceptable disruption to microgravity environment, also how dare NASA sell excess seats to space tourists."

Can't win, huh.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #20 on: 09/26/2011 09:23 am »
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:
Quote
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Well, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS.  With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.
At least Commercial Crew will be using a low impact docking system unlike Progress, Soyuz, ATV and Shuttle. Do berthing vehicles (HTV and COTS) really disturb the micro-gravity that much?

On page 11:
Quote
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf
Just curious but is it possible for the ISS to support 17 people for short durations (3 on Soyuz, 7 per Commercial Crew vehicle), or at least more the current 13 person record?
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 11:13 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Space Pete

Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #21 on: 09/26/2011 12:55 pm »
Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves three slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

The USOS will be going to three crewmembers once commercial crew comes online. If one International Partner astronaut is included, that makes four USOS crewmembers, plus one pilot (so five altogether), on one flight.

Quote
[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals.  AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]

Agree completely - ISS is not a hotel for billionaires, I can't believe space tourism on ISS is being seriously considered.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:14 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #22 on: 09/26/2011 01:07 pm »
Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

The USOS will be going to 3 crewmembers once commercial crew comes online. If one International Partner astronaut is included, that makes 4 USOS crewmembers, plus a pilot, on one flight.

Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:10 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #23 on: 09/26/2011 01:11 pm »
What about indirect handovers as is done today? One vehicle every 3 months carrying 2 crew-members?

And who said the remaining seats will be tourists? NASA might want short-duration crew-members coming up for special tasks such as EVAs so expedition crews don't have to focus on that during training.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:14 pm by arkaska »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #24 on: 09/26/2011 01:13 pm »
Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 
That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline Space Pete

Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #25 on: 09/26/2011 01:14 pm »
Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 

I've heard (unofficially) that the six month stay of ISS crewmembers may be reduced once commercial crew comes online. Also, don't forget that NASA is responsible for the transport of International Partner astronauts to and from the ISS, and so they will have to be factored into the equation.

Also, does the "eight crew rotations per year" mean eight crewmembers, or eight sets of crewmembers?

If we're talking about sets, then if four USOS crewmembers are rotated every three months, that makes four commercial flights a year, and eight crew rotations per year (four sets of USOS crews going up, and four sets of USOS crews going down).
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:16 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #26 on: 09/26/2011 01:15 pm »
That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #27 on: 09/26/2011 01:21 pm »
That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's true -- I was assuming that some of the excess seats might be utilised by IP in addition to the NASA obligation.

Another consideration to bear in mind is that excess crewmembers will likely be replaced by cargo mass rather than sold for space tourism purposes.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #28 on: 09/26/2011 01:27 pm »
I've heard (unofficially) that the six month stay of ISS crewmembers may be reduced once commercial crew comes online. Also, don't forget that NASA is responsible for the transport of International Partner astronauts to and from the ISS, and so they will have to be factored into the equation.

Also, does the "eight crew rotations per year" mean eight crewmembers, or eight sets of crewmembers?

If we're talking about sets, then if four USOS crewmembers are rotated every three months, that makes four commercial flights a year, and eight crew rotations per year (four sets of USOS crews going up, and four sets of USOS crews going down).

In that case, then there goes Mars expedition equivalents. Again, sacrificing quality ISS research to artificially increase flight rate.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:28 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #29 on: 09/26/2011 01:33 pm »

In that case, then there goes Mars expedition equivalents. Again, sacrificing quality ISS research to artificially increase flight rate.

I don't agree at all. Shorter missions means the crew-members can be better trained for the experiments going on during those 3 months. It could also help shorten the training period.

Mars missions are to far away in the future for the need to simulate them on ISS at this time.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #30 on: 09/26/2011 01:53 pm »
That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.
I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's true -- I was assuming that some of the excess seats might be utilised by IP in addition to the NASA obligation.

Another consideration to bear in mind is that excess crewmembers will likely be replaced by cargo mass rather than sold for space tourism purposes.

The current requirement is for transportation of up to 4 crew/flight.  The rationale given is to increase ISS USOS crew size to 4, which include USOS IP's.1

There is also a requirement for up to 100kg of cargo in place of each unused seat (beyond other in-vehicle cargo requirements which total ~220kg IIRC).

Beyond that NASA doesn't specify what excess seats may be used for other than if more than 4 people are transported, the vehicle must provide for all their consumables for the duration of their stay at ISS.


1 See the links/docs in thread Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements; for the short form, see Requirements Workshop Session 4: Key Driving Requirements
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 01:57 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #31 on: 09/26/2011 02:47 pm »
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:
Quote
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.


http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Well, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS.  With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.


Edit: Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals.  AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]

I am not sure that NASA wants seven people on each flight. They seem to prefer four people per flight and the extra seats could be used for cargo.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 02:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #32 on: 09/26/2011 04:45 pm »
How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #33 on: 09/26/2011 05:52 pm »
There would be 4 launches according to the document that I linked above.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #34 on: 09/26/2011 07:20 pm »
There would be 4 launches according to the document that I linked above.
I was trying to stress the point that if they decide to only go commercial (thus, not flying with the Russians), less than four flights would leave very little time for hand over and have little time for familiarization, thus increasing risk and complicating full station utilization. It was directed to those that said that four flights was only made as a "subsidy" to the commercial companies.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #35 on: 09/26/2011 08:20 pm »
Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 08:21 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #36 on: 09/26/2011 08:28 pm »
Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

That was always the plan.  The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three.  Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #37 on: 09/27/2011 01:52 am »
Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

That was always the plan.  The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three.  Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.

Correct - direct versus indirect is still being worked.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #38 on: 09/27/2011 01:55 am »
How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

For years when we just had 3 crew that is how it worked.  The Soyuz docked. there was handover for about 8-9 days and then undocking.  Yeah, it is tight and very busy.  Not ideal but what we are dealing with.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #39 on: 09/27/2011 02:49 pm »
How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

For years when we just had 3 crew that is how it worked.  The Soyuz docked. there was handover for about 8-9 days and then undocking.  Yeah, it is tight and very busy.  Not ideal but what we are dealing with.

Yes, but then there's the Soyuz that came in the middle, that has been aboard for three months and will be for another three. So it was more like sending two, then one, then swapping the two, then swapping the one, etc. They used to leverage the Russian launches. Once they use US crew vehicles, and if they only launch US paid crew on US supplied vehicles, the only way to replicate that system is with four crew launches per year. One might argue that you should do some bartering with the russians (swapping places), and only do two launches. I would say that four launches would allow fully US redundant systems, AND allow for four crew USOS, with enough overlapping. It would also sort of completely separate the RS and USS from a crew access POV.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2011 02:50 pm by baldusi »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #40 on: 09/27/2011 02:56 pm »
There's a second option to four launches, that might be interesting to study further. There's always the discussion of using a Taxi model, or a rented vehicle model. And there's the issue, that if you use two different vehicles, you'd have to cross train the pilots for both LV for use as CEV.
What if NASA contracts one supplier in a rented vehicle model, and uses that capsule as CEV exclusively, while the other supplier acts only in a Taxi model?
It would allow to have a single CEV training for the crew, and save a bit on the second supplier side since they would only contract for the crew transport service. And they could gain experience with both models. If I had to make a decision I would push really hard for this dual model.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #41 on: 09/28/2011 06:12 pm »
Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

That was always the plan.  The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three.  Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.

Correct - direct versus indirect is still being worked.

you use the words "direct" and "indirect" in a way that there is implied meaning. I am unfamiliar. Can someone expound on this?

I guess I am also having trouble following this thread in general. I read the meeting notes from Ames. I guess it requires a certain amount of knowledge of how things were done in the past in order to interpret how they will be done in the future. So what I know is that for the past few years, crew rotations on ISS have been done with Soyuz. In the past, on occasion, a crew member would be rotated by STS. I'm not sure how that worked, in that an Astronaut would be lofted by a Soyuz for what would normally be a 6 month stint and somewhere halfway would be rotated by STS with another Astronaut would would be brought home by that same Soyuz?

Are Cosmonauts and Astronauts that are brought up with a Soyuz flight, for the last few years at least, usually brought down by that same craft? It is my understanding, that yes.

So if there are now going to be four CC flights a year that rotate two Astronauts each, do each of those flights stay up there attached to the ISS while those two Astronauts are aboard? So those two to five extra seats may now be taken up by additional cargo?

I've read that those seats may be taken up by others, such as pilots or other short term visitors. So their CCv must supply their food, okay. Is that the thing that limits how long they can stay? Do they return in the same craft that brought them up? Is there therefor some other CC craft  that stays attached (as a lifeboat) for the two Astronauts that are staying on board?

Will the Soyuz still fly about 4 times a year, bringing three people for six months stays each?
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #42 on: 09/29/2011 05:30 pm »
Just tweeted:
@NASAKennedy NASA Kennedy / KSC
"SpaceX has just completed a review of the components they will use on their launch abort system. A milestone for #CCP round 2 development."

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #43 on: 09/29/2011 06:09 pm »
direct handover is when a new crew arrives to station before the old one leaves, so there would be an overlap in the case of a nominal expedition of 9 people (six previous, 3 new crew) before the returning crew left.  what is done today is indirect handover, where the old crew (3 people) undocks and then returns to earth, and then the new crew launches to join the other three already up there. 

Direct was the way expedition crews were transferred when station was three crew, but now with six it has switched to indirect.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2011 06:10 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #44 on: 09/30/2011 01:17 am »


you use the words "direct" and "indirect" in a way that there is implied meaning. I am unfamiliar. Can someone expound on this?

I guess I am also having trouble following this thread in general. I read the meeting notes from Ames. I guess it requires a certain amount of knowledge of how things were done in the past in order to interpret how they will be done in the future. So what I know is that for the past few years, crew rotations on ISS have been done with Soyuz. In the past, on occasion, a crew member would be rotated by STS. I'm not sure how that worked, in that an Astronaut would be lofted by a Soyuz for what would normally be a 6 month stint and somewhere halfway would be rotated by STS with another Astronaut would would be brought home by that same Soyuz?

Are Cosmonauts and Astronauts that are brought up with a Soyuz flight, for the last few years at least, usually brought down by that same craft? It is my understanding, that yes.

So if there are now going to be four CC flights a year that rotate two Astronauts each, do each of those flights stay up there attached to the ISS while those two Astronauts are aboard? So those two to five extra seats may now be taken up by additional cargo?

I've read that those seats may be taken up by others, such as pilots or other short term visitors. So their CCv must supply their food, okay. Is that the thing that limits how long they can stay? Do they return in the same craft that brought them up? Is there therefor some other CC craft  that stays attached (as a lifeboat) for the two Astronauts that are staying on board?

Will the Soyuz still fly about 4 times a year, bringing three people for six months stays each?
[/quote]

Good questions.  I see someone answered the direct/indirect.  For a period we did rotate 1 crew member sometimes on the shuttle.  A crewmember might go up or down on a shuttle or up or down on the Soyuz (thought I can'te recall if we did all permutations - getting old :)).  If they went up on a shuttle, a special seat liner was brought up and inserted in their designated Soyuz so they could return at any time.  Sometimes we swapped seat liners for different crews.  For example, Suni Williams was part of Increment 15, and then she was replaced by Clay Anderson who was then swapped by Dan Tani.  It was an augmentantion plan that was very complcaited.

CCs will only go twice a year most likely.  The 3-4 crew will go up and stay for their increment and then come home.  It is unlikely paying passengers will go up on these flights since to not have them stay means extra launches which it is unlikely the ISS would pay for (or your seat prices would be too high).  Could change but I suspect the extra seats on ISS will be cargo.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #45 on: 09/30/2011 11:37 am »
It might be worth adding that in the beginning (pre-STS-107) crew rotations was done entirely with Shuttle with Soyuz as an emergency return vehicle.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #46 on: 09/30/2011 11:31 pm »
It might be worth adding that in the beginning (pre-STS-107) crew rotations was done entirely with Shuttle with Soyuz as an emergency return vehicle.

Except Expedition 1 (went up on Soyuz  ;))

However there were Soyuz taxi flights, which was the beginning of space tourism.  Basically a crew would fly up with a new soyuz, and after a short stay would return with the old one.  Soyuz was still required for crew stays, not really sure why expedition crews had to go up on shuttle besides good old nationalism. 

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #47 on: 10/01/2011 05:05 am »
It might be worth adding that in the beginning (pre-STS-107) crew rotations was done entirely with Shuttle with Soyuz as an emergency return vehicle.

Except Expedition 1 (went up on Soyuz  ;))

However there were Soyuz taxi flights, which was the beginning of space tourism.  Basically a crew would fly up with a new soyuz, and after a short stay would return with the old one.  Soyuz was still required for crew stays, not really sure why expedition crews had to go up on shuttle besides good old nationalism. 

During pre-107 ISS assembly, expedition crews trained for assembly tasks and therefore it made sense to tie the start and end of their expeditions to shuttle flights.

The post-107 move of station crew rotation to Soyuz drastically limited the roles that expedition crews could fill on the remaining assembly flights and shifted more of the burden to the shuttle crews, due to the probability that shuttle launches would slip out past the end of the ISS expedition originally trained for the tasks.

Nationalism had nothing to do with it.
JRF

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #48 on: 10/04/2011 07:18 pm »
thanks for the answers. that cleared some things up for me.

Any ideas then what the Russians will do with Soyuz once the CCDev/CCP flights are up and running? Will two Soyuz, when the time comes, bring up three cosmonauts each for six month stays, for about four flights a year?

If they knock it down to just one soyuz with three at a time, does that open up an extra Russian docking spot? The Soyuz crews could then do "direct" handovers or that makes room for another Progress if need be?
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #49 on: 10/04/2011 07:44 pm »
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #50 on: 10/04/2011 08:06 pm »
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.

ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:

However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2011 08:09 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #51 on: 10/04/2011 09:12 pm »
- CCP Oct 4 Requirements Workshop Presentation, see here.
- CCP Oct 4 IDC Pre-solicitation Conference presentation, see here.


edit: move to appropriate threads.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2011 09:22 pm by joek »

Offline arkaska

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3042
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #52 on: 10/04/2011 09:47 pm »
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.

ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:

However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.


Well if you had read the post below mine you would have found out that the question was not about short duration.

majormajor42 wrote:
Quote
Will two Soyuz, when the time comes, bring up three cosmonauts each for six month stays, for about four flights a year?

And 4 Soyuz flights a year with three cosmonauts equals 6 cosmonauts onboard all the time, something the life-support can not handle...
« Last Edit: 10/04/2011 09:52 pm by arkaska »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #53 on: 10/23/2011 09:02 pm »

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • France
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #54 on: 10/23/2011 09:38 pm »
Third CCDev update from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdf

So, SpaceX are expected to have LAS hardware by start of Q2-2012, just 6 months after LAS preliminary design review? Am I reading this right?
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #55 on: 10/23/2011 09:42 pm »
Third CCDev update from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdf

So, SpaceX are expected to have LAS hardware by start of Q2-2012, just 6 months after LAS preliminary design review? Am I reading this right?
6 to 7 months

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #56 on: 10/23/2011 09:45 pm »
Third CCDev update from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdf

Thanks for the update!   Looks like everyone has tracked well to original milestone dates so far.  Altho Boeing's are redacted in the original SAA, based on the amendment appear to be projected to still be on track.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #57 on: 10/23/2011 09:48 pm »
Third CCDev update from NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdf

Thanks for the update!   Looks like everyone has tracked well to original milestone dates so far.  Altho Boeing's are redacted in the original SAA, based on the amendment appear to be projected to still be on track.
YW, although if it wasn't me, it would be someone else!

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #58 on: 10/23/2011 10:20 pm »
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.

ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:

However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.

But since there's intended to be two docking ports for Commercial Crew than why would this problem exist?
« Last Edit: 10/23/2011 10:24 pm 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: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #59 on: 10/23/2011 11:32 pm »
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.
ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:

However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.

But since there's intended to be two docking ports for Commercial Crew than why would this problem exist?


I believe the concern is not docking ports, but ISS life support for additional crew during handover if crew ISS stay overlaps; in particular, given that the ISS's life support appears to be limited to 7 for extended periods (?).  Given the objective of increasing USOS crew to 4, and assuming crew overlap, that could be as many as 11 (4+4+3) for the USOS; as many as 10 (3+3+4) for the ROS; or as many as 14 (4+4+3+3) for both.

However, I would hope and expect that ISS operations takes such considerations into account when scheduling crew rotations.  Exactly what those considerations/limits are is probably a question better addressed by the guru's in the ISS section.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #60 on: 10/24/2011 11:30 pm »
Some interesting bits from the Oct 14 COMSTAC meeting.   Unfortunately the meeting minutes haven't yet been posted.

However, there's an interesting presentation from Phil McAlister on how CCP is significantly different.  We've heard much of this before in general terms, but he offers some specifics and some interesting comparisons with other programs.

A couple items from Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Key Paradigm Changes*
Quote
CCP requirements will be controlled by NASA at a higher level than traditional programs
- Lower level requirements controlled by the commercial partner, with NASA having insight
- Allows the commercial partner to accelerate decision-making and control costs
Level 1 - Agency requirements (provide transportation for ISS)
Level 2 - Program requirements (integrated system performance requirements and interfaces)

Prior to initiating the acquisition of integrated design contract(s), all CCP Level 1 and 2 requirements will be defined.
- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”

CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification
- CCP has approximately 5% of the number of Shuttle requirements
- Commercial Crew requirements deal with safety of all mission phases, whereas Commercial Cargo (COTS) deals only with ISS interfaces
[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]


* pdf attached for the pptx averse.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2011 11:31 pm by joek »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #61 on: 10/25/2011 05:58 am »
- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”
...
CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification
...
[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]

This sounds good to me!
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Online jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21708
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 8560
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #62 on: 10/25/2011 08:11 pm »
MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-221

NASA RELEASES THIRD STATUS REPORT ON COMMERCIAL PARTNER PROGRESS

WASHINGTON -- NASA's industry partners continue to meet their
established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation
capabilities that will ferry U.S. astronauts to and from the
International Space Station, reducing the amount of time America has
to depend on Russia for launch services. NASA has outlined an
ambitious program moving forward that relies on U.S. private industry
to assume transportation of cargo and crew to the International Space
Station, while the agency focuses on deep space exploration.

NASA has posted the third status report on its Commercial Crew
Development 2 (CCDev2) program to the agency's Commercial Space
Transportation website. The report highlights the progress and
accomplishments for the agency's commercial spaceflight development
efforts. The bi-monthly report is targeted toward non-technical
stakeholders and the American public, to keep them informed of NASA's
achievements in regaining human spaceflight leadership through
American-made access to space.

"There is a lot happening in NASA's commercial crew and cargo programs
and we want to make sure the public and our stakeholders are informed
about the progress industry is making," said Phil McAlister, NASA's
director of commercial spaceflight development. "It's exciting to see
these spaceflight concepts move forward."

NASA's Commercial Crew Development program is investing financial and
technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to
develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective space
transportation capabilities.

For the report and more information about CCDev2, visit:


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial   
Jacques :-)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #63 on: 10/25/2011 09:02 pm »
One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #64 on: 10/25/2011 09:05 pm »
One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Correct.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #65 on: 10/26/2011 12:10 am »
One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Yes, see this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26839.0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #66 on: 10/26/2011 12:36 am »
One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).
Yes, see this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26839.0

Can you clarify?  At that time, several optional milestones were added via SAA amendments, but not all were funded/approved.  From the SAA amendments, Sep 2011 (emphasis original, based on Boeing and SNC SAA amendments)...
Quote
Availability of Funds:

Funds are not presently available for Milesones X, Y an Z of this agreement.  Obligations of the Government and XXX under this Agreement are contingent on the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for Agreement purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until fuinds are made available to the Agreement Office for this Agreement until the Partner receives notices of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Agreement Officer.  Completion dates listed in this agreement for Milestones X, Y and Z are valid onliy if XXX is notified in writing by October 30, 2011 that appropriated funds payable for Agreement purposes are available.  Any delay in notification beyond October 30, 2011 will result in comparable delays in completion of Milestones X, Y and Z to be calculated and applied to milestones as follows.  ...
This would appear to be the first confirmation we've had that all of those optional milestones have been funded/approved?  Or did I miss something?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #67 on: 10/26/2011 01:27 am »
I misunderstodd you question in my first post. But I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

Quote
Bolden also announced Monday at a speech to the Air Force Association's 2011 Air and Space Conference that NASA will fund optional milestones pre-negotiated as part of some of the original CCDev2 Space Act Agreements (SAA) to help accelerate development.

NASA amended Sierra Nevada Corp.'s SAA to include four optional milestones for a total of $25.6 million, bringing the potential value of Sierra Nevada's SAA to $105.6 million, if all milestones are completed successfully.

NASA also amended Boeing's SAA to include three optional milestones for a total of $20.6 million, bringing the potential value of Boeing's SAA to $112.9 million, if all milestones are reached.

« Last Edit: 10/26/2011 01:46 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #68 on: 10/26/2011 02:00 am »
I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

That's also how I interpreted the language... NASA wanted to set the groundwork for moving forward on optional milestones as early as possible, but funding was still TBD.  Understood the optional milestones are in the original SAA's (all are more-or-less the same, specifically, Appendix 2(b) CCDev2 Optional Performance Milestones and Success Criteria).  Of note, Boeng's, SNC's and Blue Origin's (but not SpaceX's) original SAA's included optional milestones; NASA chose to exercise some (but not all) of Boeing's and SNC's, but none of Blue Origin's.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2011 02:02 am by joek »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #69 on: 10/26/2011 01:24 pm »
I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

That's also how I interpreted the language... NASA wanted to set the groundwork for moving forward on optional milestones as early as possible, but funding was still TBD.  Understood the optional milestones are in the original SAA's (all are more-or-less the same, specifically, Appendix 2(b) CCDev2 Optional Performance Milestones and Success Criteria).  Of note, Boeng's, SNC's and Blue Origin's (but not SpaceX's) original SAA's included optional milestones; NASA chose to exercise some (but not all) of Boeing's and SNC's, but none of Blue Origin's.

The optional milestones are now secured.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #70 on: 10/26/2011 03:08 pm »
Apparently, an unfounded SSA has been signed with the US subsidiary of Excalibur Almaz.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/26/excalibur-almaz-signs-unfunded-saa-with-nasa-on-ccdev/

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #71 on: 10/26/2011 03:36 pm »
Apparently, an unfounded SSA has been signed with the US subsidiary of Excalibur Almaz.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/26/excalibur-almaz-signs-unfunded-saa-with-nasa-on-ccdev/

What the (#%&*(? Do they really expect to get *anything* useful out of them? They just collect old Soviet hardware and don't do much with it. And aren't they UK based?

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)
« Last Edit: 10/26/2011 03:37 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #72 on: 10/26/2011 03:38 pm »
What the (#%&*(? Do they really expect to get *anything* useful out of them? They just collect old Soviet hardware and don't do much with it. And aren't they UK based?

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

They do remind me a lot of Interorbital. They're based on the Isle of Man.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #73 on: 10/26/2011 07:26 pm »
{snip}

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

Since NASA does not pay the firm any money unfunded SSA's are very cheap.  If only 1 in 100 comes in the other 99 in 100 can simply be ignored.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #74 on: 10/26/2011 10:13 pm »
{snip}

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

Since NASA does not pay the firm any money unfunded SSA's are very cheap.  If only 1 in 100 comes in the other 99 in 100 can simply be ignored.
It still costs them their own people's time, and generates a lot of spending on accounting and oversight. If they have people that can't be let go and don't have projects to assign them to, then it might be a good uses of resources. Given current situation, it might be this case. At least it might give some green troop some experience, or show them some un usual approach.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #75 on: 10/26/2011 10:22 pm »
It might also preclude law suits about bias etc.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #76 on: 10/29/2011 06:42 pm »
It might also preclude law suits about bias etc.

Yes; IIRC "without bias" was in the verbiage, although unfortunately I can't find the reference at the moment (in some NASA, GAO, OMB, ... report).

As successive CCDev rounds are specifically not down-selects (including IDC Phase 1, aka CCDev-3), NASA has to allow non-awardees to continue to participate in the process so as not to unduly favor previous awardees; unfunded SAA's are the vehicle.  (Could also be other forms of SAA's, but as far as I know, none have been executed for CCDev.)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #77 on: 11/24/2011 03:07 pm »
This is an interesting interview with Ed Mango on the safety requirements for commercial crew:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Certified-Safe.html?c=y&page=1

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #78 on: 12/16/2011 09:19 pm »
Current CCDEV-2 Milestone Schedules for all commercial partners (shows milestones, completion or expected completion dates & milestone funding) - updated December 9, 2011.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/610830main_CCDev2_Public_20111209_508.pdf

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #79 on: 12/16/2011 09:29 pm »
Current CCDEV-2 Milestone Schedules for all commercial partners (shows milestones, completion or expected completion dates & milestone funding) - updated December 9, 2011.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/610830main_CCDev2_Public_20111209_508.pdf
Thanks for the update. ;)
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: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #80 on: 01/01/2012 05:14 pm »
« Last Edit: 01/01/2012 05:15 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #81 on: 01/23/2012 11:54 pm »
The third round of CCDev will be called the Commercial Crew integrated Capability(CCiCap). See this link for details:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #82 on: 01/24/2012 12:02 am »
CCCP eh?  The jokes write themselves.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1022
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #83 on: 01/24/2012 10:45 am »
Is round 3 going to use SAA's afterall?
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #84 on: 01/24/2012 10:51 am »
Is round 3 going to use SAA's afterall?

Yes: NASA intends to solicit proposals from U.S. space industry participants to mature the design and development of an integrated CTS which includes spacecraft, launch vehicle, ground and mission systems. Selected CCiCap participants will receive funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs) under NASA’s Other Transactions Authority within the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20113. NASA intends to select a portfolio of multiple CCiCap SAAs that best meet the CCiCap goals within the available funding.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #85 on: 01/31/2012 12:20 am »
ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #86 on: 01/31/2012 01:56 am »
ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Yes and I believe they also say something about the use of SAA that results in an increase in risk.  This has not been demonstrated.  In fact, so far the only SAA where this could apply is COTS and this has been significant in that the milestones actually  reduce the level of financial risk that NASA is exposed to.  Wrt other forms of risk, i.e. human or cargo, this also has not been demonstrated nor has the case even been argued.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #87 on: 02/01/2012 12:49 am »
ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Yes and I believe they also say something about the use of SAA that results in an increase in risk.  This has not been demonstrated.  In fact, so far the only SAA where this could apply is COTS and this has been significant in that the milestones actually  reduce the level of financial risk that NASA is exposed to.  Wrt other forms of risk, i.e. human or cargo, this also has not been demonstrated nor has the case even been argued.

But no actual cargo or human missions have actually been successfully launched yet.  Hence there is risk that the SAAs will succeed.  Even one successful launch would not mean vindication.  I am not trying to downplay SAAs but this is the very definition of risk - there is no guarantee NASA's needs will be met yet.  Hopefully, but not yet.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #88 on: 02/01/2012 06:38 pm »
Interesting report, and interesting read on the discussion of FAR vs SAA.

From the ASAP report, it sounds like at least someone is trying to tell Congress we are putting ourselves in a very bad position, with Soyuz being unreliable, and Congress not adequately funding commercial, the risk of early ISS de-orbit is rising. They also note mission failure at 1 in 55, but based on the last 18 months of Soyuz, that risk also seems to be increasing.

"it appears to the ASAP that the fiscal year (FY) 2012 funding level approved by Congress, which was less than half of what was requested by the Administration, will not allow commercial crew transportation
to the ISS by 2016. In fact, if the new funding level continues into the future, it is the ASAP’s belief that the program is in jeopardy, thus extending the current lack of a U.S. human spaceflight capability and
resulting in no alternative to reliance on Russia to obtain access to the ISS....
Alternatively, terminating the development program would result in continued reliance on the Russian Soyuz, a system with an
uncertain long-term future.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #89 on: 02/01/2012 06:44 pm »
It is interesting that so much of this is playing out exactly as we all predicted.  That's truly too bad.  And quite sad. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #90 on: 02/02/2012 06:36 pm »
ATLAS V update from NASA Commercial Space Transportation site

One of NASA's industry partners, United Launch Alliance (ULA), successfully completed two milestones that could eventually lead toward the certification of its Atlas V launch vehicle for human spaceflight.

In December, ULA conducted a series of detailed reviews that reflected the culmination of efforts involving technical experts and representatives from NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

“ULA gave us an invaluable opportunity to get to know its Atlas V systems and subsystems through our unfunded partnership,” said Commercial Crew Program Manager Ed Mango. “And we are happy to share our knowledge and expectations to keeping our crews safe."

The first review was a Tailored System Requirements Review (TSRR), which looked at how the existing, flight-proven Atlas V rocket could meet the intent of NASA's human spaceflight certification requirements. The team paid particular emphasis to requirements traceability, verification and certification planning.

"The TSRR was the result of an extensive effort with NASA and our commercial spacecraft partners during which we cooperatively reviewed the details of the Atlas V design, analyses and operations," said George Sowers, ULA's vice president of business development and advanced programs. "This was the first time that we were able to share detailed Atlas V design and flight data with NASA human spaceflight experts."

The second review was a Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) Review, which evaluated safety-critical launch vehicle systems. This included the details of existing failure modes and effects analyses data, ULA’s probabilistic risk assessment approach for CCP, explosion modeling analyses, system hazard analyses and fault coverage assessments. The PSA leveraged similar data developed in support of Atlas V launches of critical NASA missions including New Horizons, Juno and the Mars Science Laboratory.

"The PSA provided a firm foundation to show how the demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V offers significant benefits toward meeting NASA's stringent crew safety requirements," Sowers said. "We received invaluable insight from NASA's Commercial Crew Program while allowing us to provide the details behind the reliability and robustness of the Atlas V design."

Three of the four current NASA Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) partners have selected Atlas V as their launch vehicle.

All of NASA’s industry partners continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities that will ferry U.S. astronauts to and from the International Space Station reducing the amount of time America is without its own system.

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #91 on: 02/07/2012 11:59 pm »
Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

The only disappointment is the crawl pace.  Surely commercial and NASA can get it done more quickly.  I know, I know, space is hard, blah blah blah but we're not inventing anything new here.  It's been done and is still being done today so why is it all snail pace.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #92 on: 02/08/2012 12:23 am »
Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

There is an active discussion on this latest solicitation round in the NASA Plans for Commercial Crew Development - Dec. 15, 2011 (starting at the linked post) if you want to see what NSF members made of it  :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg858988#msg858988

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #93 on: 02/09/2012 12:52 am »
Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

There is an active discussion on this latest solicitation round in the NASA Plans for Commercial Crew Development - Dec. 15, 2011 (starting at the linked post) if you want to see what NSF members made of it  :)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg858988#msg858988

Thanks.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #94 on: 02/17/2012 06:45 pm »

The latest CCDev2 Milestone Schedule is posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/623706main_CCDev2_Public_20120216_508.pdf

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #95 on: 02/17/2012 08:39 pm »
When I compare Boeing's LAS milestones (4, 10a/10b, 13) with SpaceX's LAS milestones (Basically the entire funded portion of the CCDev 2 schedule), doesn't it appear that Boeing ends up closer to having a completed LAS at the end ?

I don't see any items on the SpaceX list that relate to Emergency Detection, integration with the OMS engines, GNC software etc...
It sounds like there is still so much work to get done.



Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #96 on: 02/17/2012 09:29 pm »
Compared to the schedule published on 16th August 2011

Sierra Nevada are running about 4 weeks late

Boeing are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule)

SpaceX are about on time (perhaps 1-2 weeks late)

Blue Origin are about 3 months behind schedule.

ULA are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule).


Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #97 on: 02/17/2012 10:49 pm »
Compared to the schedule published on 16th August 2011

Sierra Nevada are running about 4 weeks late

Boeing are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule)

SpaceX are about on time (perhaps 1-2 weeks late)

Blue Origin are about 3 months behind schedule.

ULA are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule).



I understand the desire to try and line that up that way but you really can't do that.  Optional milestones have been added, some things were juggled. 

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Liked: 1190
  • Likes Given: 2685
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #98 on: 02/20/2012 12:26 am »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #99 on: 02/20/2012 12:34 am »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

Also are they planning to use the NDS or a Russian docking port?

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #100 on: 02/20/2012 12:53 am »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

Also are they planning to use the NDS or a Russian docking port?
If its a Commercial Crew vehicle than its required to use NDS.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #101 on: 03/01/2012 05:38 pm »
New Promo video:

http://go.nasa.gov/AxyX5W


Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #102 on: 03/01/2012 07:08 pm »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #103 on: 03/01/2012 09:14 pm »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 :o

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #104 on: 03/01/2012 09:45 pm »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 :o

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.
I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.
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 beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #105 on: 03/02/2012 06:51 am »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 :o

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.
I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.

Depends on the timeline I expect.  Should Falcon get a number (say 6) successive successful flights then they'd probably be in the running as a serious contender.  Should they strike trouble then they'd be out.   So far I'd say they're 2 for 2.  I'd say it's reasonably safe to include these 'test' flights since they were successful. 
Guess someone will say I can't have it both ways however why not?  If one's successful then it could be luck.  Two then a greater probability that it's less luck, and more good design, engineering and management.  So the longer the run of success, the better.  Six probably means they've got most critical things right and it'll be some process or mgt hitch that brings them undone. 
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #106 on: 03/02/2012 01:47 pm »
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 :o

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.
I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.

This is an update of a Russian vehicle design, being developed on the Isle of Man, right ? Why would they choose a US Launch vehicle, ? I'm betting on them using a Russian rocket.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #107 on: 03/02/2012 02:14 pm »
Why would they choose a US Launch vehicle, ?


Because they are vying for a CCP contract.  That is the topic of this thread, for which there would be no discussion of Excalibur Almaz if they were not using a US launch vehicle.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #108 on: 03/02/2012 04:34 pm »
Because they are vying for a CCP contract.  That is the topic of this thread, for which there would be no discussion of Excalibur Almaz if they were not using a US launch vehicle.

Would a US spacecraft on top of a non-US launcher be allowed? I know that doesn't apply in this case, but I'm wondering if there's a preference for the launch vehicle to be US-based rather than the spacecraft.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #109 on: 03/02/2012 05:27 pm »
Excalibur Almaz is such an extreme long shot, so I'm not sure what point there is for them to 'pick' a LV.

They are not going to fly anyway. IMO.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #110 on: 03/04/2012 10:47 pm »
Here is a couple of interesting points that were made in the recent Questions and Answers for CCiCap:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-001-001.pdf
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-002-001.pdf

Quote
[Question] 36. To what extent will NASA enable the emergence/sustenance of a commercial market by allowing non-NASA (i.e. private citizen) visitation to the ISS-US element? (e.g. emulate the Russian’s position with commercial flyers aboard Soyuz taxi flights?

Answer: The current NASA crew transportation plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participants to visit the International Space Station. NASA is focused on working with its international partners to support the Expedition crews on orbit and to maximize the science and research activities aboard the Station. Even though NASA’s current plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participant transportation to the International Space Station, NASA is investigating the regulations and requirements that would apply if commercial spaceflight participants were to visit the International Space Station.

Quote
[Question] 37. In the budget brief yesterday, the NASA administration stated that the next phase would be a full and open competition (in approximately 21 months). Is this consistent with your plans for the option period and transition in to the services period?

Answer: The certification phase, anticipated to begin in 21 months is a notional contractual activity independent from the CCiCap SAA. NASA anticipates this certification activity to be a full and open competition. NASA is aware that this certification activity may overlap with the CCiCap option period.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38
« Last Edit: 03/04/2012 11:38 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #111 on: 03/04/2012 11:18 pm »
Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:
« Last Edit: 03/04/2012 11:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #112 on: 03/05/2012 04:36 pm »
Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.



Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #113 on: 03/05/2012 05:41 pm »
Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.





If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

Edit:typo
« Last Edit: 03/05/2012 05:42 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #114 on: 03/05/2012 08:10 pm »

If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is now easy to understand politically.  It is a beauty contest.  Which states get the money?

Also depending on the size of the budget Congress allocates will it be 2 states or 4?

Using the information from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626566main_2012.02.28_CCP.pdf

Under a future contract Florida will probably launch the rockets.  Under CCP NASA needs to pay for the development of both launch vehicles and spacecraft.  Where will they be made?

Listing the state containing the company's head office.

Alliant Techsystems Inc (ATK) - Promontory, UT
Blue Origin - Kent, WA
Excalibur Almaz Inc. - Houston, TX
Sierra Nevada Corp. - Centennial, CO
Space Exploration Tech. (SpaceX) - Hawthorne, CA
The Boeing Co. - Houston, TX
United launch Alliance - Englewood, CO

On this page is a NASA video parading the beauties.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #115 on: 03/05/2012 08:21 pm »
Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.





If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

Edit:typo

nasa wants to make multiple 300-500M awards.  talking base period here, not even messing with their optional 400m/yr.

can't do that with reduced funding.  you're looking at changing the schedule(s) for the providers, the milestones themselves, the number of providers, number of awards, etc.  (i guess you can throw acq method in there as well, although i imagine that will outgrow its usefulness in the near future)

if it was as you say, then you wouldn't have program and agency reps indicating otherwise.

they are playing chicken with congress over the funding.  "give us the money, or else".  so much so that they are publishing the plan, and the plan only works as it should with the 800m funding in 13 AND 14.  (which is my point, its no longer about just 13 funding, its 13 AND 14)

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

this is probably the reason why we/nasa are asking for a prioritized list of milestones and associated funding from the providers in their CCiCap proposals:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-001-001.pdf

see questions 6 and 17.  heck it even states there, "should the amount be less than proposed...".  that's their attempt to hedge against reduced funding - get a prioritized list from the competitors, so the agency can try to deal with reduced funding.

“Just one test fight is going to be a couple of hundred million dollars, probably. So that’s your whole year’s funding, right? So it doesn’t really make sense at that kind of funding level. If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program,” he said.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #116 on: 03/05/2012 08:44 pm »
They're saying $300-$400M per award over two years. So $150-$200M/yr per award. Clearly they only need ~$500M/yr for two providers - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #117 on: 03/05/2012 08:47 pm »
- counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).


And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #118 on: 03/05/2012 09:03 pm »
{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #119 on: 03/05/2012 09:12 pm »
CCiCap also inludes most of the FY2012 funding.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #120 on: 03/05/2012 09:14 pm »
{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

There is ZERO chance of another round of stimulus spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit, remember ?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #121 on: 03/05/2012 09:24 pm »
- counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).


And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

If my math is correct, $269.3M was awarded for CCDev-2. Since $306M was awarded for commercial crew in FY 2011, this means that about $36.7M in FY2011 went to the Commercial Crew Program Office in FY 2011. This seems reasonable to me. 

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #122 on: 03/05/2012 09:29 pm »
{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

interesting point, that did not cross my mind.

others will have to excuse me, but i read the following:

Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple awards

Each award will be in the range of $300-$500M.
Multiple awards are planned.
Base period ends May 2014.

If you only get $400M/year, you can do one award, per year.

Based on their range, time table, assuming a $400m/yr budget, NASA will have enough to make two awards.

Which is why I called attention to the Q&A, and the request for proposal that clearly indicates NASA wants a prioritized list of milestones and requested funding. 

The hedging has begun. 

Same point I raised in other threads:  if the $400m/year continues, then the entire program looks to re-evaled.  at that point it seems nwo.  could descope, defer, downselect, etc.

edit to add:  and under a CR, the problem gets worse since it's incremental funding.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2012 09:35 pm by BeanEstimator »
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #123 on: 03/05/2012 09:39 pm »
And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

According to Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people.

And from the CCP Forum in Feb:

Quote
It's important to understand that in iCap and this year, FY12, 75% of the funds from our budget for CCP this year are being used to support iCap. I think there were some misquotes earlier. I want to make sure that's clear - 75% of the funds from this fiscal year are being used to support iCap.

So yeah, some extra funding there.


He actually meant that the other 25% was for the extra optional milestones under CCDev-2 and 75% was for CCiCap.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2012 09:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #124 on: 03/05/2012 11:40 pm »
I am also usually anti-bureaucracy but I am not convinced that the commercial crew program office is bloated.  Ed Mango partly explained what they do. It seems like that they do a lot. For example, they provide services through unfunded SAA (e.g. with ULA). They worked on establishing commercial crew safety requirements. They also work with commercial companies through MOUs, etc. Most commercial crew companies have praised the work that they have done. 
« Last Edit: 03/06/2012 12:25 am by Chris Bergin »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #125 on: 03/06/2012 01:16 am »
There is ZERO chance of another round of stimulus spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit, remember ?


Trying and succeeding are different words.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #126 on: 03/06/2012 01:37 am »
They're saying $300-$400M per award over two years. So $150-$200M/yr per award. Clearly they only need ~$500M/yr for two providers - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).


No, you are reading it incorrectly.  They are targeting 300-500M per partner per year.  Some estimates show about $1.2B to get a vehicle flying.  Could maybe be scraping the low end of that in 2015 depending on funding.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #127 on: 03/06/2012 01:38 am »
I am also usually anti-bureaucracy but I am not convinced that the commercial crew program office is bloated.  Ed Mango partly explained what they do. It seems like that they do a lot. For example, they provide services through unfunded SAA (e.g. with ULA). They worked on establishing commercial crew safety requirements. They also work with commercial companies through MOUs, etc. Most commercial crew companies have praised the work that they have done. 

I think there are less than 120 FTE in the program at the peak (something like 75-80 now).  And many of those are part time brains. 

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #128 on: 03/06/2012 02:04 am »
No, you are reading it incorrectly.  They are targeting 300-500M per partner per year.  Some estimates show about $1.2B to get a vehicle flying.  Could maybe be scraping the low end of that in 2015 depending on funding.

No, it isn't.

Quote
Ed Mango: And it's also good to note on that page - I forgot exactly what page that was - but there are some apples and oranges here. The first period is three to five hundred million over those 21 months. So, that includes multiple fiscal years. The second profile also includes multiple fiscal years. However, it's a different set of parameters during that time. So, you've got to look at three to five hundred is for that total amount. That's not per year in the base period.

The base period is three to five hundred for those 21 months. That is not three to five hundred in FY12, FY13, FY14 or anything like that. It's - they will be awarded three to five hundred for that 21-month period and then we'll manage how we get those funds over that period of time. Does that answer part of your question?

(my emphasis) .. from the Feb CCP forum transcript.

« Last Edit: 03/06/2012 02:05 am by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #129 on: 03/07/2012 03:38 pm »
“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #130 on: 03/07/2012 03:58 pm »
“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.

Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

« Last Edit: 03/07/2012 03:59 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #131 on: 03/08/2012 02:50 am »
“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.
Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

That was a different context. McAlister meant that if they only get $300 to $400 million a year for commercial crew from Congress, the program cannot work. Ed Mango was saying that each company that wins under CCiCap will get $300-$500 million for 21 months for CCiCap.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #132 on: 03/08/2012 03:13 am »
Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants. :)

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #133 on: 03/08/2012 03:24 am »
Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants. :)



Only while undergoing development.
The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership.
For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.
If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.
Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #134 on: 03/08/2012 03:29 am »
That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #135 on: 03/08/2012 04:17 am »

Only while undergoing development.
The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership.
For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.
If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.
Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.

Which means that a commercial spacestation needs launching in 4 to 6 years time.

Life critical parts of the spacestation that need to work continuously for several years need to undergo service life testing to ensure that they can work for at least 2 years and have a reasonable mean time between failure.

This includes the ECLSS, heat management and power management.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 04:19 am by A_M_Swallow »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #136 on: 03/08/2012 02:52 pm »
That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.


Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1.  Clearly they don't liek the idea.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #137 on: 03/08/2012 02:55 pm »
That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.


Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1.  Clearly they don't liek the idea.
You're using the plural. There's only one Senator Hutchison, as far as I'm aware. ;)
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: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #138 on: 03/08/2012 03:09 pm »
Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants. :)

I am not sure that it works that way. I think that you can get all of the money from FY 2012, FY2013 and FY2014 for commercial crew (less what is needed for the commercial crew office). I don't think that you need to prorate it over 21 months like you did. 

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that they will choose 3 companies for the CCiCap base period and will down select to 2 providers for the optional milestones period. 
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 03:13 pm by yg1968 »

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #139 on: 03/08/2012 03:12 pm »
“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.
Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

That was a different context. McAlister meant that if they only get $300 to $400 million a year for commercial crew from Congress, the program cannot work. Ed Mango was saying that each company that wins under CCiCap will get $300-$500 million for 21 months for CCiCap.

this is the only context i care about.  especially in light of the testimony yesterday.  granted the house has never been a fan, but i didn't see a whole lotta support for cc.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #140 on: 03/08/2012 03:17 pm »
That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.


Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1.  Clearly they don't liek the idea.

She didn't say that NASA should have only one. She asked why NASA wasn't making a down selection as she thinks that there are currently too many.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 05:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #141 on: 03/08/2012 04:55 pm »
Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants. :)



Only while undergoing development.
The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership.
For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.
If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.
Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.

All of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ?
One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #142 on: 03/08/2012 05:14 pm »

All of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ?
One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride.


The issue is the market isn't there

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #143 on: 03/08/2012 06:26 pm »

All of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ?
One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride.


The issue is the market isn't there

Jim is correct that at $50M there is no market. The highest price a space tourist has paid to date has been $35M and that was 3 years ago. At $20M-$35M (SpaceX Crew Dragon prices) the market is ~ 0.6 to 0.75 tourists per year based on history. To fill a single flight with six tourist passengers would mean at best only one flight every 8 years.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #144 on: 03/08/2012 07:28 pm »

All of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ?
One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride.


The issue is the market isn't there

Jim is correct that at $50M there is no market. The highest price a space tourist has paid to date has been $35M and that was 3 years ago. At $20M-$35M (SpaceX Crew Dragon prices) the market is ~ 0.6 to 0.75 tourists per year based on history. To fill a single flight with six tourist passengers would mean at best only one flight every 8 years.

I am not sure that you can say that. The Russians sold all of the seats that they could sell. So it is very much possible that they could have sold even more seats than they did. There is also some relunctance for American space tourists to take six months off to train in Russia (eventhough they usually enjoy their stay in Russia).

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #145 on: 03/08/2012 09:05 pm »
Even I don't think you could get $50M/seat from space tourists without going to the ISS. Obviously the only way to find out is to go find people with that kind of money and try to sell the seats, but none of us have that option here.

Now, $5M/seat, that's totally doable.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #146 on: 03/08/2012 11:38 pm »
Now, $5M/seat, that's totally doable.
Do you mean without ISS? 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #147 on: 03/08/2012 11:46 pm »
I mean only that people would pay $5M/seat for orbital flights that do not visit the ISS. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #148 on: 03/09/2012 02:53 pm »
Yeah, I'd agree you could find customers for $5 million non-ISS flights.

VG is charging $200,000 ($0.2 million) for 5-minute suborbital flights and already has deposits for around 430 seats. It's reasonable to expect some fraction of those 430 to pay 25 times more for a several-day orbital flight.

Question is, can any of the CCDEV companies actually pull off $5 million per seat?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #149 on: 03/09/2012 04:23 pm »
Yeah, I'd agree you could find customers for $5 million non-ISS flights.

VG is charging $200,000 ($0.2 million) for 5-minute suborbital flights and already has deposits for around 430 seats. It's reasonable to expect some fraction of those 430 to pay 25 times more for a several-day orbital flight.

Question is, can any of the CCDEV companies actually pull off $5 million per seat?
The question is for how long. Let's say that you make a reusable vehicle like the Dream Chaser, but one that's 1.5 times bigger in each dimension. It should weight something like 40tonnes. And you might be able to cram 20 pax on it. And let's assume that on a Falcon Heavy you could sell that for 200M total. That's still 10M per pax. And it would be a sardine can.
If they go to LEO each orbit is something like 90 minutes. So you could do two orbits, or three hours. But there would be like traveling on tourist on a plane, only without gravity. There would be even less windows, and I doubt you could cram a toilet in it. I just don't see a way to reach 5M/pax unless you had a reusable FH, too.
But do your numbers the other way around. 6 pax on a Dragon. That's 30M. Could you have a fully reusable system for 6 pax for just 30M? Seems very very hard.
Let's try 15, that's 75M. That's the cost I would expect from a fully reusable Dragon/Falcon 9 (roughly, 50% cost reduction from the expected 132M). Problem is, you can't put that many on a Dragon. Let's say 30 pax. That's 150M. Could you do a fully reusable system for 150M that can cram 30pax? If you assume 2m³ per pax that's 60m³ of cargo volume. That's, roughly, a 3.65m x 8m cylinder if you assume 20cm of wall thickness.
Now, take the Airbus A320. It has a fuselage of 4m, and a cabin width of 3.7m. The seat pitch is 0.81m and seats six per row on tourist. So, if you could have an interior of 3.7m and 8.1m of seat space, that would allow to seat 60 pax. Let's say the width would be 4.2m (25cm walls), let's add 1m to the cabin's length for margin, and let's assume a hemisphere on the front (for a blunt cone entry design and pilot cabin), plus another 5.3m on the back for the Service Module. That would be (2.1m+1m+8.1m+5.3m) 16.5m long and 4.2m wide craft, very similar to the Space/T concept for CCDev, but scaled bigger. To get an idea, it would be just like ISS's Destiny, but twice as long. And the Space Shuttle cargo bay was 4.6 m by 18.3 m.
How much should that weight? Well, totally WAG, let's say 40 tonnes. The Shuttle Orbiter was 68 without the SSME. This is half as long and has no wings. And it would be rated for a very little time in space.
So you have 60 pax per 5M, that's 300M, and you could launch on a Falcon Heavy (non reusable). If the FH is 150M, you have another 150M for the reusable spacecraft and operations in general. Let's say we buy this arguments. How many passengers per year do you think you could get for 5M/pax? You'd need at least 60. And then the fixed costs of the infrastructure just for such a vehicle would get into your costs. And I don't think you can get enough total revenue with less than 60 pax for a fully reusable system to be worth it.
So, if you make it too small, you can't get enough total amount to actually launch something. If you get too big, you need too many passengers per year. And I think those sizes overlap. In other words, there's not a viable middle point.  If you get into the 30 to 40 pax you are into the 150M to 200M per launch revenue, which could barely pay just for a FH.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2012 04:27 pm by baldusi »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: CCDev/CCP updates
« Reply #150 on: 03/09/2012 10:07 pm »
No longer an update thread. Locked.

A new thread will be created later.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0