Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements  (Read 139752 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #60 on: 08/22/2011 04:30 am »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

You're not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails, the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
What does Shuttle do if the fly-by-wire system fails? Trick question, it doesn't. Shuttle has redundancies built into the fly-by-wire system so that never happens.

I wonder if NASA could be flexible enough to allow a similar level of redundancy in the camera system so that a window isn't an absolute requirement but can be replaced with a system of comparable reliability (somehow).

In your understanding, Jorge, would a periscope satisfy the CCP window requirement?
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 docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #61 on: 08/22/2011 04:30 am »
You're  not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails,  the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:32 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #62 on: 08/22/2011 04:33 am »
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.

How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:34 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #63 on: 08/22/2011 04:34 am »
The great irony in all of this is of course that in the vehicle that NASA has the most docking experience in - Shuttle - the person who pilots the docking is *not* looking out the window - he/she is looking at computer monitors, where the center-line video feed also is displayed.

(unless I am mistaken)

Dockings just aren't performed with the unaided Mark 0 eyeball.

You're not mistaken, but you are missing the point that if the camera fails, the pilot can fly a backout using the window view.
What does Shuttle do if the fly-by-wire system fails? Trick question, it doesn't. Shuttle has redundancies built into the fly-by-wire system so that never happens.

I wonder if NASA could be flexible enough to allow a similar level of redundancy in the camera system so that a window isn't an absolute requirement but can be replaced with a system of comparable reliability (somehow).

In your understanding, Jorge, would a periscope satisfy the CCP window requirement?

As written, I'm not sure.
JRF

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #64 on: 08/22/2011 04:36 am »
That's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits.

How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?

Can be a problem. Shuttle could only fit one, so procedure if the camera failed <250 ft was to stop, backout using the COAS view out the window,  install the backup camera, then resume approach.

Orion had a much smaller camera, but also had two VNS units sharing the hatch window, so same problem - crew would have to swap out cameras prior to resuming approach.
JRF

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #65 on: 08/22/2011 04:37 am »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.  Looks like there's several inches there.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:42 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #66 on: 08/22/2011 04:39 am »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.

To line up with the bulls-eye on the PMA hatch:

Edit: Probably also want a standard way for astronauts to train to dock.


« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:50 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #67 on: 08/22/2011 04:49 am »
Why would you put them at hatch window?

Put them at the top where it angles from the side walls to the adapter, with the view in line with the docking interface.

To line up with the bulls-eye on the PMA hatch:

Right. An off-centerline camera requires an off-centerline target. This was looked at for shuttle-Mir (specifically, using the existing Soyuz/Buran targets on Kristall, which were both off-centerline). NASA determined that angular misalignment at the camera/target line-of-sight resulted in lateral misalignment at the interface, and this resulted in reduced capture probability due to the tight APAS capture envelope. This is also an issue for LIDS/NDS. It's not generally an issue with probe/drogue interfaces, which have wider capture envelopes.
JRF

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #68 on: 08/22/2011 04:50 am »
AT least for Dragon, looks like SpaceX could install windows/periscope on the forward structure that could satisfy the requirement, especially since the NDS will be much smaller in diameter than the CBM:
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 04:50 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline cosmicvoid

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 154
  • Seattle 'ish
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #69 on: 08/22/2011 05:37 am »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.
Infiinity or bust.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #70 on: 08/22/2011 05:46 am »
Or fiberoptics like the robotic surgery units I mentioned. The lens and fiberoptic cables can be put anywhere they'll fit and the cameras at the other end, where ever.
DM

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #71 on: 08/22/2011 06:05 am »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!
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 Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #72 on: 08/22/2011 06:34 am »
Quote
At the end, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX can go to NASA and tell them, change your rules or you will have no crewed vehicles from us...

Something of a prisoner's dilemma there.  Only takes one to say "yes" and if the requirement stands as-is, CST-100 (or Orion) would appear to have the advantage.

Especially when one, and possibly two, of them have a technical solution in-hand.

But that's a solution to this one specific requirement.
What is the limit on the number of this kind of requirement?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #73 on: 08/22/2011 06:43 am »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!

IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #74 on: 08/22/2011 06:56 am »
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Use beam splitting optics.

Very simple but clever answer. And so obvious once it is brought up!

IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.
A half-silvered mirror could easily allow "Mark 0 eyeballs on the target" in parallel with a couple of cameras. At very least with a periscope-like setup.
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 corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 216
  • Likes Given: 133
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #75 on: 08/22/2011 01:14 pm »
The "problem" is easy to resolve.

You use a hand-held controller and float over to the window that is in the forward facing hatch.  Soyuz already has a small hand-held controller. 

(I couldn't find an on-line photo, but essentially we're talking about a wired device the size of a paperback book.)

This is exactly the approach I assumed SpaceX would take (seems applicable to Dreamchaser as well), since windows "on all sealable hatches" are required anyway.

The problem is in how the requirement is interpreted; does "The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases" mean:

1-you can't use hatch windows for piloting tasks

or

2-hatch windows are excluded from these requirements

I have a feeling the intent is #1, or else why would they bother with it at all?

Thankfully, this is draft. Taking the "excluding hatch windows" language out seem like the easiest way to solve this problem.

Happy digging.  Let us know what you find.

I've only skimmed it, and I'm sure they're more pit-falls and quagmires to be found.

BTW, was this the same draft document that Wayne Hale described as "mind-numbing" in his blog? Because I'm starting to feel a little numb.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #76 on: 08/22/2011 03:41 pm »
In my opinion, there must be push-back from the people actually directly designing and building (etc) the vehicle, or it won't be cost-effective. If the negotiating position is too strong for one of the parties, a considerably-non-optimal solution results.

Have you ever heard the rule of commerce, that the customer is always right? 

Indeed NASA has every right to request a requirement that they deem necessary, as they have had a decade of ISS experience plus more with Mir.  If you deem that overly conservative, think of how expensive ISS is and how much of a stake NASA has in the program.  So if a couple of vehicles cannot meet the requirement, then NASA has every right to exclude them to protect its investment. 

However, it will be interesting to see whether or not a periscope could be defined as a "window" since it is basically light reflected from a window. Seems like an easy solution. 
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to.

EDIT:For clarification: I'm still seeking confirmation or denial about whether or not this window thing is an actually important requirement. My statement above is in the case that it is a burdensome but unnecessary requirement.

We run into this every day. Each of our customers operates their business a little differently than the others, even though they all provide the same basic service to their customers. They have optimized, or so they believe, their business processes in order to be most efficient, and least cost. If we want them to use our software on their equipment, we have to be flexible enough so they don't need to make major changes to their business operation. After all, they know how to run their business better than we do. If our software can't support their business process, they will find software from a vendor that can.

SpaceX has enough former astronauts on board. You would think that they would have given their input to the design team in this area.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2011 03:43 pm by Lurker Steve »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #77 on: 08/22/2011 11:46 pm »
BTW, was this the same draft document that Wayne Hale described as "mind-numbing" in his blog? Because I'm starting to feel a little numb.

Yes, Wayne Hale commented on an earlier draft (don't know what's changed since).  Note he pulled back a bit in his second post.
The coming train wreck for Commercial Human Spaceflight, Nov 14 2010
Trying to clean up a mess, Nov 17 2010

As yg1968 mentioned earlier, Hale's posts are also discussed in this NSF thread:
Draft CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements

While I agree it can be a bit numbing, note that of the 67 "Applicable Documents", alternative documentation "allowed" applies to 46, and "not allowed" applies to 21 (no idea how they compare in terms of complexity or volume).

This will be a big problem.

On an engineering effort for a system that would have ridden in Orion, part of the requirements was JSC-62550, Strength Design and Verification Criteria for Glass, Ceramics and Windows in Human Space Flight Applications (I just found this through a Google Search.)  It goes on and on, including paragraphs telling you how to apply the document when the document does not apply.   This is based on their extensive track record of having designed a successful manned spaceflight vehicle in the 1970's.

Point taken.  However, in this case it appears to be overly pessimistic.  Note that JSC-62550 is one of those "alternative allowed" documents, not all sections apply, and "components shall meet the intent of the requirements".

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #78 on: 08/23/2011 01:03 am »
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to

How many of these companies have experience with docking?  Answer is none with the exception of Boeing, who is including windows.  The logic of the window seems to be the use of a HHL like shuttle, which requires a two man crew (ie HHL operator and the person manning the stick) and would imagine the hatch window will be used as the centerline camera.  Both are just like shuttle operation, and therefore the requirements are just like shuttle.

Soyuz uses the autonomous Kurs system, as well as the manual mode through the periscope and forward docking camera as well as laser range finder.  Seems just like the commercial requirements.  Commercial also had input, but dont dismiss the experience of NASA as "frivolous"

Actually, several thoughts here.  First, these are only draft requirements and NASA is listening to input from the commercial companies.  If no one complains or takes issue with the window requirement nothing will definitely change.  Second, many if not all the companies are planning automated rendezvous.  If you want manual, you can do it just as fine with cameras or other devices.  So it is a valid debate on teh use of a window.  This is clearly an emotional item from pilots even though these vehicles will be far more like a video game then a jet.   Third, let's face it - there will be no company that will satisfy ever single requirement.  Some wil have to be waived by NASA.  Some the company will say "ok, this is what the model comes with, if you want tail fins, that costs extra - are you happy to pay X million more?"   As far as I can tell this requirement is not a big deal for the companies, but we will see.  Hopefully that is true because it does drive costs/design.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #79 on: 08/23/2011 02:29 am »
Have you ever worked with over-demanding customers with stupid requirements which come only from their preferred solution and are not really needed for their given application? I have. Multiple times.

They usually end up with something that is multiple times more expensive but no more superior than the alternatives (and often times inferior in areas which really matter). I know, I know, it's anecdote, but that's reality. The customer has every legal right to shoot themselves in the foot if they want to

How many of these companies have experience with docking?  Answer is none with the exception of Boeing, who is including windows.  The logic of the window seems to be the use of a HHL like shuttle, which requires a two man crew (ie HHL operator and the person manning the stick) and would imagine the hatch window will be used as the centerline camera.  Both are just like shuttle operation, and therefore the requirements are just like shuttle.

Soyuz uses the autonomous Kurs system, as well as the manual mode through the periscope and forward docking camera as well as laser range finder.  Seems just like the commercial requirements.  Commercial also had input, but dont dismiss the experience of NASA as "frivolous"

Actually, several thoughts here.  First, these are only draft requirements and NASA is listening to input from the commercial companies.  If no one complains or takes issue with the window requirement nothing will definitely change.  Second, many if not all the companies are planning automated rendezvous.  If you want manual, you can do it just as fine with cameras or other devices.  So it is a valid debate on teh use of a window.  This is clearly an emotional item from pilots even though these vehicles will be far more like a video game then a jet.   Third, let's face it - there will be no company that will satisfy ever single requirement.  Some wil have to be waived by NASA.  Some the company will say "ok, this is what the model comes with, if you want tail fins, that costs extra - are you happy to pay X million more?"   As far as I can tell this requirement is not a big deal for the companies, but we will see.  Hopefully that is true because it does drive costs/design.

On most competitions, the competitors are graded on how they met the requirements. The company with the highest score gets the contract. Perhaps the cost per mission is one of the inputs in the grading process, but they can only be graded on the solution they submit. SpaceX needs to be careful of increasing the costs passed along to NASA and other customers, since they have to compete with the Boeing / Dreamchaser / Blue Origin teams. While the other teams currently use a more expensive launcher, they may find ways to bring their costs in line with SpaceX. 

Tags:
 

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