Author Topic: 7 Years For a Capsule?  (Read 12138 times)

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
7 Years For a Capsule?
« on: 09/01/2006 07:13 pm »
3.9 Billion and seven years, coupled with a 4 years lapse in human spaceflight capabilty in order to get Orion ready so that it can visit ISS a few times before 2016 (maybe). Is Orion that complicated? STS didn't take this long to get operational and that included the launch vehicle. This does not include the LSAM costs or Ares I development costs.

Anyone know what gives? The more I think about it, the less I can understand how it can possibly take that much time to build this thing.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #1 on: 09/01/2006 07:28 pm »
In addtion to the all design, analyses and documents required, this is the hardware they get (taken from the SOW)

b)   NASA will lead, and the Contractor shall participate in, the development of detailed requirements for the CEV Avionics Integration Lab (CAIL).  
c)   The Contractor shall perform requirements development (with NASA participation and concurrence), design, integration, delivery of EPS generation/storage/distribution/control equipment, verification, validation, qualification, and certification for a CEV Exploration EPS Testbed (EEST).  
i)   The Contractor shall deliver the following:
o   CAIL
o   EEST
j)   The Contractor shall deliver the following:
o   2 Flight Spacecraft
?   1A:  Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
?   1B:  Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250
o   2 Additional Production CEVs with requirements as defined in Section 10.0, Flight Test
?   RRF-2:  Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
?   RRF-3:  Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o   1 Additional Production LAS
?   LAS-4:  Refurbished Crew Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o   Structural Test Article (used for structural verification static and dynamic testing) Note: The Structural Test Article shall be delivered to NASA after the Contractor completes the structural test program.
o   Flight Spares (1 ship set (i.e., 1 copy of every line replaceable unit)) (IDIQ)
o   Flight hardware and software (source code, executables, and build procedures) deliveries  (1 ship set (i.e., 1 copy of every line replaceable unit))
o   Three ship sets of flight equivalent C&DH hardware and one ship set of flight equivalent D&C hardware (for the trainer)
o   CEV emulators (including target processor and flight software) for interface testing, as required in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2
9.2   Ground Support Equipment
Examples of the types of GSE to be provided by the Contractor include:
o   Lifting Devices – Contractor to provide lifting slings and adapters from Hydraset down to spacecraft elements/components
o   Fluid and Gases Servicing Systems – Contractor to provide spacecraft interfacing connections
o   Command, Control and Monitoring System – Contractor to provide CEV standalone Command, Control and Monitoring System
o   Facility Infrastructure Systems – Contractor to provide spacecraft specialty systems (Spacecraft specific special electrical power supplies, data handling, etc.)
o   Access stands – Contractor to provide internal access equipment
o   Special tools – Contractor to provide spacecraft specific special tools and ancillary equipment (LRU installation and removal devices and tools, inspection tools, )
o   Special Test equipment – Contractor to provide special test equipment (Cabin Leak test equipment, Data bus test equipment, etc.)
t)   The Contractor shall provide initial spares, concurrent with the delivery of the GSE end items and in accordance with the provisioning procedures in DRD CEV-T-011, Integrated Logistics Support Plan, and DRD CEV-T-012, Logistics Support Analysis, for all Contractor-provided GSE. (IDIQ)
10.1.1   Flight Test Article Requirements
m)   The Contractor shall deliver the following:
o   3 Abort Flight Test Articles
?   LAS-1: FTA1 Crew Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
?   LAS-2: FTA2 Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250;  LAS + DD250
?   LAS-3: FTA2 Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250;  LAS + DD250
o   1 Risk Reduction Flight (RRF) Flight Test Article
?   RRF-1: FTA2 Crew Module + DD250; Service Module + DD250; LAS + DD250
o   Flight Spares
?   LAS (Qty 1)
o   Flight software (source code, executables, and build procedures)

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2922
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #2 on: 09/01/2006 07:33 pm »
You have a very good point I never thought about. Has me kinda scratching my head too. The only thing is maybe becuase it is being developed with 3 purposes in mind. (moon mars and iss) not sure though

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #3 on: 09/01/2006 07:49 pm »
Also the money is stretched out.  Don't get enough early on.   Still have to fund STS and ISS concurrently with the CEV development

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #4 on: 09/01/2006 10:39 pm »
How did it go?  Fast, reliable, cheap; pick two.  (We all know which two Dan Goldin got when he asked for all three)

There's no point in having a CEV before there's a CLV, and CLV is supposed to come out in 2014.  Probably that schedule set the pace for CEV.  Lockheed said they could have it out in 2013 if NASA wants.

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #5 on: 09/01/2006 11:18 pm »
Quote
bad_astra - 1/9/2006  12:00 PM

3.9 Billion and seven years, coupled with a 4 years lapse in human spaceflight capabilty in order to get Orion ready so that it can visit ISS a few times before 2016 (maybe). Is Orion that complicated? STS didn't take this long to get operational and that included the launch vehicle. This does not include the LSAM costs or Ares I development costs.

Anyone know what gives? The more I think about it, the less I can understand how it can possibly take that much time to build this thing.

You're right, STS didn't take seven years from configuration and contractor awards to first space flight....it took NINE. (1972-1981.) This included a nearly SIX YEAR hiatus in American manned space flight (ASTP, July 1975-STS-1, APRIL 1981).

If anything the timelines for Orion are a bit optimistic. But if anybody can pull it off it's Lockheed.
"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2006 03:37 am »
Quote
josh_simonson - 1/9/2006  5:26 PM

How did it go?  Fast, reliable, cheap; pick two

That's a fallacy
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #7 on: 09/02/2006 04:03 am »
Quote
bad_astra - 1/9/2006  10:24 PM

Quote
josh_simonson - 1/9/2006  5:26 PM

How did it go?  Fast, reliable, cheap; pick two

That's a fallacy

Not a fallacy. The trials and tribulations of Space-X from concept to where they are today are a good example.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #8 on: 09/02/2006 12:51 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 1/9/2006  8:50 PM

Not a fallacy. The trials and tribulations of Space-X from concept to where they are today are a good example.

Really? I mean how can can you draw "reliability" from one launch, the first launch of all the hardware (and software!) on the rocket? If the next two launches fail, they'd have a problem, but as of now they're still doing good...

Simon ;)

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #9 on: 09/02/2006 01:46 pm »
I would not say SpaceX is fast.. it has been a long time now since the first test flight.. I also think the demands of the client of the CEV are a lot more work intesive in terms of analysis, than what could have been done in the 70's, and along with that all the documentation and reviews.. In the 70's we did not have this world of Politically Correct, and that in itself is very expensive and time consuming.. Go fever is a no-no in todays world, so we see go-slow, do it right processes with NET and "working hard" concepts that lead to a much lower tollerance for errors and lack of responsability per person, but a sharing of these to a team - thus larger teams... longer times needed..

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #10 on: 09/02/2006 03:13 pm »
The three elements of any project are:
1) Scope (what you are delivering)

2) Resources (money, people and everything needed to produce the deliverable)

3) Quality (how good your deliverable is)

The one item that is not up for debate is quality.  It has to work and work well, after all this could be taking people to the ISS, Moon and Mars for 30+ years, so get it right.  (But I caution on overkill, there are still two other components)

Jim's messages above cover the other two items.  Scope and resources.  With ISS and STS sucking up the lions share of NASA funding for the next 4 years there is only so much available for CEV and CLV development.

No question the CEV and CLV could be accelerated if more money was available, but its not and won't be.  

Myself, I have been following NASA and space exploration (and the white elephant ISS) for a very long time.  4 years till the Shuttle retires is a cake walk compared to the ISS delays and CEV has the benefit of be able to go somewhere, other than doing laps.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #11 on: 09/02/2006 08:50 pm »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 2/9/2006  11:00 AM

The three elements of any project are:
1) Scope (what you are delivering)

2) Resources (money, people and everything needed to produce the deliverable)

3) Quality (how good your deliverable is)
.


4) Methodology

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #12 on: 09/02/2006 08:53 pm »
It's amazing what a healthy budget can get you.  Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were pretty much done with all within a time period of about 15 years.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #13 on: 09/02/2006 09:27 pm »
Yep, healthy budgets sure are nice.  Didn't NASA peak at 6% of the Federal Budget during Apollo?  What are we now, like 0.6%?  I can dream about a space program that is 6% of current budget levels, can't I?  Let me count the things I would do....

Back to reality, I do believe the long time frame is due to low funding levels, especially early on.  It is very frustrating to me, but at the same time, I am grateful that it is even being done at all.
Scott

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #14 on: 09/03/2006 12:08 am »
NASA FY2007 budget is 1.93% of the federal budget.

But today there's a lot of scientific research done by NASA (non aero/space related) which they didn't do at that time.

The manned space program in total is more like 1%, and the CEV/CLV development program is about 0.2%.   And that's all what we've got to work with until STS is retired.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
RE: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #15 on: 09/03/2006 03:28 am »
1.93%, are you sure?  I thought it was going to be half that.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #16 on: 09/03/2006 03:47 am »
Quote
kraisee - 2/9/2006  7:55 PM

But today there's a lot of scientific research done by NASA (non aero/space related) which they didn't do at that time.

Ross.

Not true.  NASA does very little science that does not involve a flight project.   It did spend more back in the 60's on non flight projects

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #17 on: 09/03/2006 06:42 am »
Quote
Avron - 2/9/2006  2:33 PM

I also think the demands of the client of the CEV are a lot more work intesive in terms of analysis, than what could have been done in the 70's, and along with that all the documentation and reviews..
This is something western engineers learnt from the Japanese. There is a cultural tendency in the West when dealing with big projects to get on and start building something quickly, so that it can be demonstrated that things are happening. The problem is that unforeseen design and other problems often meant that work had to be re-done, even dismantled first, and this causes delay and expense.

The Japanese approach was to analyse and plan the whole thing in much more detail. This minimised such problems (and reduced the overall time and expense), but it did mean that there was a long lead time when nothing much 'appeared' to be happening (but when building did start it went quickly and smoothly).

We're getting this now amongst observers of this program. Cries of 'nothing is happening' or impatient questions as to when things 'will start happening', by which they mean metal being cut! (I feel it too! :)  But design is the most important stage.)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #18 on: 09/03/2006 08:07 am »
Actually, having spoken with the manager for the Ares-I U/S recently there is a huge amount of real-world stuff going on behind closed doors.

I just wish NASA would show off some of this "real work" because I think it would actually help stop that sort of thing from happening.   I mean, they've got their own damn TV station where they should be thoroughly promoting this stuff, and yet it goes to waste every day of the week.

NASA TV is such a pathetic promotional job from a country who is the uncontended superpower of the promotion world.

Sad, very sad.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #19 on: 09/03/2006 10:22 am »
It is because it would take time away from the actual workers to supply the info to PAO.  It is bad enough during launch campaigns.  Also, since most projects go thru DAC cycles, it would give the public the wrong impression about the changes that occur daily and between the cycles.

And other than a few of us that are on sites like this, the info doesn't do anything for Joe Lunchpail.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #20 on: 09/03/2006 03:43 pm »
Quote
This is something western engineers learnt from the Japanese.

Except when it comes to manned space programs.  ;)
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Marsin2010

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 72
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: 7 Years For a Capsule?
« Reply #21 on: 09/03/2006 04:01 pm »
I don't know where Ross got the above number but the NASA budget for fiscal 2007 is 0.7% of the federal budget.  That is quoting Mike Griffin in a February speech.

Jim

Tags:
 

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