Prior to ISS retirement, NASA intends to release a competitive procurement under the Federal Acquisition Regulation of services in LEO, which would include certification by NASA of the transportation and accommodations of United States Government (USG) crew, cargo, and payloads on CLD. Under Phase 2, NASA intends to purchase an end-to-end CLD service providing an overlap and orderly transition of activities from the ISS. [...]NASA seeks to purchase an end-to-end CLD service that provides safe, reliable, and cost-effective access, occupancy, and usage of CLD where NASA is one of many customers. This end-to-end CLD service includes launch, transportation, delivery, and transfer of USG crew, cargo, and payloads to and from the CLD where a nominal mission includes two USG crew members safely occupying CLD for a designated mission.
The CLD service will provide a minimum of two USG astronauts per nominal mission/increment. Procuring service for more or fewer USG crew members may be of interest for some missions.The CLD service will provide a nominal NASA mission duration of 6 months based on CLD transportation plans. A capability for mission durations as short as one month and as long as one year is desirable.
The CLD service will include transit to and from CLD for USG astronauts. Transportation services for USG astronauts will be required to be certified under the Commercial Crew Program utilizing the same certification processes utilized for NASA commercial crew transportation.
5.4 Redundancy of Transportation ServiceSpecifying or preferring that multiple crew transportation services be available for each CLD is understood to be a significant driver on the CLD architecture and operations (i.e., number, specification, and locations of CLD ports). NASA desires to continue to encourage multiple U.S. commercial transportation providers to strengthen the competitive market in the commercial LEO economy. If NASA only procures service from one CLD provider who only has one certified transportation provider, or if NASA procures service from multiple CLD providers who select the same transportation provider, competition in the transportation market would falter.
Yesterday's press conference:
• CLD refers to an independent, free-flying facility operating in an orbit selected by the participant. CLD is envisioned to be executed in two main phases:• Phase 1 – A period of formulation and design by private industry, in coordination with NASA, of CLD capabilities determined to be most suitable for potential Government and private sector customer needs•NASA competed and is executing three Funded Space Act Agreements with Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman and one contract with Axiom Space; Participants are expected to achieve at least a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) level of maturity or better during Phase 1•NASA competed and is executed a contract with Axiom Space for the development of a commercial segment on ISS capable of becoming a free flyer post ISS•Additionally, NASA providing limited support for the development of concepts to industry partners not awarded
•Between Phase 1 and Phase 2, an interim Certification Products Contract (CPC) is planned to begin the process of ensuring integrated CLDs will meet agency safety requirements and standards•CPC is envisioned to promote the delivery, technical interchange and NASA disposition of early lifecycle certification products•CPC will enable early discussion and review of certification products relative to NASA requirements• The contract scope includes all work associated with the delivery and disposition support for four Contract Line Item Deliverables (CLINs), including technical interchange and background data support •CLIN 1 --Alternate Standards •CLIN 2 --Hazard Reports •CLIN 3 –Verification & Validation Plan •CLIN 4 --Certification Plan
• Phase 2 –A competitive procurement by NASA of services in LEO which would include certification by NASA of the transportation and accommodations of NASA crew and payloads on CLD• In Phase 2, NASA would seek to purchase via a FAR-based acquisition an end-to-end CLD service including: •Transportation to/from and accommodation of NASA crew on CLD; •Transportation of NASA payloads to CLD; •Transportation of samples, materials, and crew equipment to CLD and return to Earth; and •Disposal of waste and payloads no longer required by NASA• This end-to-end service approach is subject to change based upon Phase-1 results
• NASA CLDP will provide a certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) package to NASA Administrator indicating that the destination and supporting systems meet human ratings and is safe to occupy for the expected mission duration.• NASA CCP will provide a certification of Flight Readiness (CoFR) package to NASA Administrator indicating that the transportation system meets human ratings and is safe for the planned missions to transport and return of NASA astronauts.
NASA defines CLD services as the end-to-end space system that includes but not limited to: •In-space Spacecraft; •The transportation to and from the CLD certified by the CCP; •The CLD ground supporting systems (i.e., Mission Control, training facilities, etc.); and •All associated operations.
Extravehicular Activity –• NASA is not currently planning to provide spacesuits, servicing hardware, and airlock module or other resources needed to perform an [...] EVA.• NASA Assumes that external payload requirements will be met robotically.• If EVA services are provided, NASA may procure those services to continue research and USG astronaut EVA training to maintain EVA proficiency for future NASA deep space/lunar missions.
Redundancy of Transportation Service –• Specifying or preferring that multiple crew transportation services be available for each CLD is understood to be a significant driver on the CLD architecture and operations (i.e., # and location)• NASA is interested in feedback on requirements that provide for crew rescue options and increase survivability.
One way to potentially reduce the cost of owning a space station is to return it to Earth every couple of years for maintenance. For example a SpaceX Starship could probably be used this way. Is NASA's pending LEO station procurement flexible enough to allow this?
Quote from: deltaV on 06/09/2022 10:51 pmOne way to potentially reduce the cost of owning a space station is to return it to Earth every couple of years for maintenance. For example a SpaceX Starship could probably be used this way. Is NASA's pending LEO station procurement flexible enough to allow this?It would mean the halting of in-orbit operations for however long the Starship-station is on the ground, though.
That's not a problem, since you can have several such Starships. The problem is experiments that take longer than the mission time and that cannot be interrupted. For that, you need a small piece of the lab to stay in space. A solution is to make each such lab a small non-independent station that stays in space and as swaps to a new Starship at the end of the old Starship's mission. If the little lab has two docking ports it can connect to the new Starship before disconnecting from the old one to maintain electrical and environmental services.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/09/2022 11:49 pmThat's not a problem, since you can have several such Starships. The problem is experiments that take longer than the mission time and that cannot be interrupted. For that, you need a small piece of the lab to stay in space. A solution is to make each such lab a small non-independent station that stays in space and as swaps to a new Starship at the end of the old Starship's mission. If the little lab has two docking ports it can connect to the new Starship before disconnecting from the old one to maintain electrical and environmental services.For experiments that fit through a docking hatch you can just have the new starship dock directly with the old starship and have someone move the experiments over. My guess is that experiments that need to last years and can't be transferred are too rare and/or unimportant to worry about.
Quote from: punder on 01/23/2022 07:14 pmQuote from: RonM on 01/23/2022 06:43 pmThe problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?The ultimate purpose of Starship is to carry large crews on months-long voyages to Mars. So SpaceX has to develop long duration power and life support as a matter of course.Some experiments, such as AMS, ASIM, and long-term exposure platforms, are operated for several years. A dedicated space station allowing relatively cheap access to orbit for experiments is a valuable resource. Flying Starship is good for short-term experiments such as six months to a year but that leaves out some options.Starship is not the answer to everything.
Quote from: RonM on 01/23/2022 06:43 pmThe problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?The ultimate purpose of Starship is to carry large crews on months-long voyages to Mars. So SpaceX has to develop long duration power and life support as a matter of course.
The problem with using StarShip as a space station is what about long duration experiments?
At a July 21 meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, members said they were concerned that commercial stations whose development is being supported by NASA were unlikely to be ready in time before the ISS is retired at the end of the decade, and that those efforts suffered from insufficient budgets.Those plans, called Commercial Leo Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations by NASA, “are on a precarious trajectory to realization on a schedule and within the projected resources needed to maintain a NASA LEO presence,” said Patricia Sanders, chair of the panel. “This is an area of concern for us.”<snip>Amy Donahue, a member of the panel, said that NASA plans to issue formal requirements for its use of those stations only in late 2024. “There is very little margin for ensuring a continuous U.S. presence in LEO is maintained” given the planned ISS retirement in 2030, she said.
Is this Northrop Grumman space station page new? The video within was uploaded this past week.There's no info that jumps out to me, but there are some new renders in here, showing an initial one-module configuration and a final configuration with a presumably-notional inflatable module added.https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/commercial-space-station/
Both NASA and companies working on commercial stations shrugged off those warnings during a panel at the ISS Research and Development Conference July 27. “Our number-one goal is a continuous human presence,” said Angela Hart, CLD program manager at NASA.The companies with CLD awards are moving quickly, she said. “The frameworks of these agreements are set up to allow them to run quickly, to run a lot faster than our normal typical development, and we are absolutely seeing that.”She suggested that OIG and ASAP erred by comparing the commercial space station development with more traditional government programs. The companies involved are motivated to be first, she argued. “Because of those motivations and the differences of this framework, you’re going to see a different kind of development that you just can’t compare to a typical government program development, which is what OIG and ASAP are doing.”
Quote from: kdhilliard on 08/25/2022 09:23 pm15:14Joey Roulette - [...] Also, any plans to certify Vulcan for Starliner?Mark Nappi:"I'll start with the second half first. We are certainly looking at the launch vehicle integration for when we run out of Atlases after PCM-6. So yes, that is actively in work. Our teams are working with the launch vehicle providers for that, and we'll be having to make a decision probably sometime early next year on what we're going to go do as moving forward." 31:09Stephen Clark: Is Boeing still a launch vehicle agnostic spacecraft, and is Boeing really looking at other providers than ULA?Mark Nappi: Yes, Boeing is looking at different options; it's just part of the business. Yes, Starliner is launch vehicle agnostic, but not easily so given the need for different adapters and launch operations with different providers.Interesting that Boeing is looking to choose, early next year, another LV as a successor to Atlas V. There is no rush for this decision. Regardless of which LV they choose, because it is a new commercial crew transportation system, both the LV and the spacecraft will have to be (re-)certified. The most likely scenario is that the new LV and spacecraft would be certified as part the Commercial LEO Destinations program. The Commercial LEO Destinations program (in collaboration with the Commercial Crew Program) has yet to come out with certifications requirements.
15:14Joey Roulette - [...] Also, any plans to certify Vulcan for Starliner?Mark Nappi:"I'll start with the second half first. We are certainly looking at the launch vehicle integration for when we run out of Atlases after PCM-6. So yes, that is actively in work. Our teams are working with the launch vehicle providers for that, and we'll be having to make a decision probably sometime early next year on what we're going to go do as moving forward." 31:09Stephen Clark: Is Boeing still a launch vehicle agnostic spacecraft, and is Boeing really looking at other providers than ULA?Mark Nappi: Yes, Boeing is looking at different options; it's just part of the business. Yes, Starliner is launch vehicle agnostic, but not easily so given the need for different adapters and launch operations with different providers.