There is also this document which doesn't seem to have been updated since December 2010:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/504982main_CCTSCR_Dec-08_Basic_Web.pdf
The launch of the next rotation mission can occur prior to the departure of the current increment crew working on the ISS, resulting in a handover period where two commercial spacecraft would be docked to the ISS for approximately 7-10 days. If the Commercial Partner has received NASA approval to fly non-NASA crew to the ISS, the CTS will need to provide food, water, clothing, and other logistics for these crewmembers for the docked timeframe, since NASA does not generally pre-position these supplies on the ISS.
I find the window requirements interesting: "3.10.15.1 The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases.""3.10.15.2 The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases."I assume this means windshield-type windows, similar to Gemini, Apollo and Orion/MPCV.Soyuz uses a periscope, right? I guess that won't cut it for CCP. CST-100 has this feature baselined (one "forward window"), not sure how Dreamchaser does this docking tail-first. Blue Origin, who knows? As for SpaceX Dragon, haven't seen this in any available documents or concept art, seems like a non-trival change to Dragon's mold-line.
So we will see some nice changes to Dragon in future ;-)
Quote from: apace on 08/20/2011 02:48 pmSo we will see some nice changes to Dragon in future ;-)Sounds like unnecessary changes to me. Can anyone explain what's the point of this requirement?
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/20/2011 08:06 pmWhy the heck would they exclude a hatch window?If you open the hatch in flight, you cannot longer use the window to see through ;-) Haha.
Quote from: apace on 08/20/2011 08:29 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/20/2011 08:06 pmWhy the heck would they exclude a hatch window?If you open the hatch in flight, you cannot longer use the window to see through ;-) Haha.Wouldn't the hatch be even easier to see through, then?
So any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?
Quote from: apace on 08/20/2011 08:03 pmSo any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?Assuming that a Gemini-like window is what the requirement dictates, I see a problem. The walls aren't steep enough.
This requirement (if set in stone) problem is even worse for Dreamchaser, since it will "back into" it's docking.
On Dragon it could be solved by adding a small window (or two) around the docking ring - there might be room for it since the IDSS(?) is smaller than CBM.
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/20/2011 09:25 pmThis requirement (if set in stone) problem is even worse for Dreamchaser, since it will "back into" it's docking.Rear view mirror
Quote from: apace on 08/20/2011 08:03 pmSo any idea about the additional windows for Dragon?Assuming that a Gemini-like window is what the requirement dictates, I see a problem. The walls aren't steep enough. Or am I wrong?
I find the window requirements interesting: "3.10.15.1 The spacecraft shall have windows excluding hatch windows for piloting tasks for crew use during all flight phases.""3.10.15.2 The windows shall provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support crew-piloting tasks during all flight phases."
Looks like the pilot clique of the Astronaut office is deciding to throw some last grenades to the CCDEV participants, before they head out the door.Hopefully these are not final requirements.
This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it.
Quote from: Prober on 08/21/2011 12:37 am This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it. Bologna. Space-X has 8 Dragons in various states of completion, & claim they can kick out another one every 6 to 8 weeks. This means they've finalized the design.
Even if that is correct, it's cargo Dragon. Crew Dragon cannot be anywhere close to finalized yet.
I'm reminded of the scene from "The Right Stuff" when Ed Harris is arguing with the german designers over the Mercury capsule. Ol' Guss, "Where's the window?"
ChefPat, you are wrong. The crew Dragons will have many differences, even if the heat shield, pressure vessel, and minor systems are mostly the same.The addition of the Super Draco's for LAS/landing is one example, which cause the propellant and thrusters to move, and will even change the outer moldline slightly ( http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/spacex-dragon.jpg ) . And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different. The Dragon design is far from finalized. Even the Cargo Dragon's are evolving. (umbilicals moved, windows removed, and more) And they will probably keep evolving. A frozen design is a relatively foreign concept to SpaceX at this stage.Perhaps the Cargo Dragon will have some of the new features carried over eventually, to streamline production. But there will still be differences.
SpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.
Rationale: Because of the criticality of piloting tasks to the success of the mission and safety of the crew during all mission phases, windows must be a part of the spacecraft design. The human-centered design process is to be used when designing windows to support expected crew piloting tasks.
Rationale: Fixed equipment, such as window instrumentation, hardware, or a condensation prevention system, that would obscure the field-of- view from the normal crew viewing position may interfere with piloting, observation, and photography tasks. Examples of piloting hardware that are exempted from this requirement are Head’s Up Displays (HUD) or other devices used for piloting tasks. For detailed design considerations for inboard and outboard window view obscuration exclusion zones, consult Section 8.6.3.3 and 8.6.3.4 in JSC/SP-2010-3407 Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH).
There is no problem. Look at the rationale (especially the second one):
Quote from: Prober on 08/21/2011 12:37 am This should be no prob for this program as its so early into it. .Bologna. Space-X has 8 Dragons in various states of completion, & claim they can kick out another one every 6 to 8 weeks. This means they've finalized the design.They won't be able to change it without great cost. A big overrun in other words.
There's a problem, because current crewed Dragon drawings show no windows in front of the pilots, and that's a requirement.
There is no problem.
Look at the rationale (especially the second one):
This doesn't seem like a hard to solve problem. But maybe it is for some.
The "unobstructed fields-of-view" refers to the crew being able to see the window, not the station they are docking with.
Window fields-of-view for expected crew piloting tasks shall be verified by analysis and test. The analysis shall identify activities/tasks requiring visual information from outside of the spacecraft and include 3-D virtual simulations of operational scenarios depicting the interior and exterior of the vehicle. The verification shall be considered successful when the analysis shows that the windows provide the unobstructed fields-of-view necessary to support expected crew piloting tasks and the test shows that these tasks can be accomplished in the 3-D virtual simulation by trained crew personnel wearing any equipment required for flight.
And to switch a docking collar instead of a berthing one, most of the top of the pressure vessel will be different.
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...
kinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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...And NASA will say that they have Orion, which meets all of their requirements including a wide field-of-view navigation widow tested to withstand boot kicks. And it will be ready to fly at about the $10B mark.
Why the heck would they exclude a hatch window?Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not?
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.
Quote from: Tony Ostinato on 08/21/2011 11:54 pmkinda like how on the star trek enterprise you had to leave the bridge and walk down a hall to get to a window.Or maybe like the shuttle... Is ISS docking nominally controlled from the forward or aft flight deck controls?
Quote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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.
Quote from: Jorge on 08/22/2011 01:15 amQuote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?
Quote from: manboy on 08/22/2011 01:23 amQuote from: Jorge on 08/22/2011 01:15 amQuote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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...You probably won't hear anything from SNC, either. Dreamchaser can accommodate an aft flight station with window.Have you seen Dream Chaser's rear tunnel?Not personally.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/21/2011 06:16 amSpaceX isn't the only one that is likely quite far in finalizing their initial crewed vehicle design. The others, especially SNC and Boeing, must be far enough along that this is going to increase their costs.And this is exactly why changing the contracting structure to give NASA more ability to change requirements halfway is a bad idea, IMO.Then won't get a contract from NASA. NASA isn't changing requirements halfway. NASA hasn't even started the procurement for CCP.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 03:29 amIn 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
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.
Quote from: Lars_J on 08/22/2011 04:09 amThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Jorge on 08/22/2011 04:24 amQuote from: Lars_J on 08/22/2011 04:09 amThe 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?
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/22/2011 04:30 amThat's why you install redundant cameras on independent circuits. How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
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.
Quote from: docmordrid on 08/22/2011 04:37 amWhy 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:
How are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/22/2011 04:33 amHow are you going to fit multiple cameras in front of the hatch window?Use beam splitting optics.
QuoteQuote from: apace on 08/21/2011 11:58 pmAt 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.
Quote from: cosmicvoid on 08/22/2011 05:37 amQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/22/2011 04:33 amHow 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!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 06:05 amQuote from: cosmicvoid on 08/22/2011 05:37 amQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/22/2011 04:33 amHow 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.
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.)
Happy digging. Let us know what you find.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/22/2011 03:46 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 03:29 amIn 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 04:00 amHave 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 toHow 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"
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/22/2011 04:19 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 08/22/2011 04:00 amHave 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 toHow 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.
Quote from: Comga on 08/22/2011 06:43 amIIRC 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.
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.
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".Thanks to the OP for the files.VRRE327
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2011 03:29 amThis thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".Thanks to the OP for the files.VRRE327CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding
Quote from: Jim on 08/23/2011 09:12 amQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2011 03:29 amThis thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".Thanks to the OP for the files.VRRE327CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA fundingYes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.
I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100. Oh well! More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2011 04:46 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/23/2011 09:12 amQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2011 03:29 amThis thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".Thanks to the OP for the files.VRRE327CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA fundingYes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100. Oh well! More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.
Think the dream Chaser would be dead as well. Don't want to speak for Jim, but think he is chating about the Atlas V funding from NASA?
This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2011 03:29 amThis thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".In short, let's cut everyone some slack as this is a complex calculus and still a work in progress. I hope and expect all parties are trying to do the right thing (at least as they see it), that economic imperatives will ultimately prevail, and that we'll eventually come to a reasonable solution.* Similar dynamics have been noted in the US nuclear power and other high-risk industries, and the differences between the US and other countries' approaches to regulation and liability.
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
Quote from: DaveH62 on 08/24/2011 04:18 amWe are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Worth saying twice.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 08/24/2011 11:56 pmQuote from: DaveH62 on 08/24/2011 04:18 amWe are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Worth saying twice.I think this overly optimistic. If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase. NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically. it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press. I would hope so but...
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/25/2011 01:42 amQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 08/24/2011 11:56 pmQuote from: DaveH62 on 08/24/2011 04:18 amWe are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Worth saying twice.I think this overly optimistic. If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase. NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically. it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press. I would hope so but...The point is, NASA has the funding. They have a commercial entity that is going to supply the ISS 12 times over the next 3 years. With the most precious cargo being the crew and station itself, why new rules for manned capsules? If the Dragon supply capsule can connect to the ISS without a window, it can connect without a window for manned missions. Why should they have to meet specs that only match the Orion and CTS, if they can meet their reliability and safety through an equivalent design methodology. These are procurement policies designed to protect incumbents, even if that is not the intention. The story is, we have done it this way, so we have to do it this way, forever. There will never be funding for BEO human exploration if everything has to be Shuttle or Apollo era methodology, and worse, technology. Redundant cameras that can prove 99.999% reliability is adequate. Have a stand down procedure if 4 cameras don't work at the same time, but does it really have to be a window? The shuttle didn't have a window and Soyuz doesn't have a window.
JorgeOk if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates? Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?
JorgeOk if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates?
Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?
Quote from: DaveH62 on 08/25/2011 04:15 amJorgeI don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".I thought electronic avionics were added around 2000, and they switched to all digital displays for piloting the Shuttle. Perhaps not for docking though.
JorgeI don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".
Quote from: Jorge on 08/25/2011 04:25 amI don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".I thought electronic avionics were added around 2000, and they switched to all digital displays for piloting the Shuttle. Perhaps not for docking though.
I don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2011 03:29 amThis thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".Indeed; what a silly requirement.In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?Modern cameras are so cheap and light that it's lighter (and safer!) to just put on a bunch of redundant cameras on the vehicle...
Maybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up".
Quote from: corrodedNut on 08/26/2011 02:52 amMaybe I'm all wrong, and someone can explain why hatch windows are only good for seeing the close-out crew give you the "thumbs up". They aren't forward facing
Indeed; what a silly requirement.In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?
Quote from: simonbp on 08/25/2011 07:44 pmIndeed; what a silly requirement.In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?Yes, just like the lack of a LAS use on Apollo showed that including it as a requirement on shuttle as silly.....Just because a safety system was not needed previously does not mean it is silly or frivolous at all.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2011 03:25 amQuote from: simonbp on 08/25/2011 07:44 pmIndeed; what a silly requirement.In the entire history of ISS (and Shuttle-Mir), did an orbiter ever dock solely by eye? Indeed, has any US vehicle performed such a maneuver since ASTP?Yes, just like the lack of a LAS use on Apollo showed that including it as a requirement on shuttle as silly.....Just because a safety system was not needed previously does not mean it is silly or frivolous at all.Just because the word "safety" is used doesn't mean it's actually essential for safety. NASA can make it so that every single bolt must have a stack of pages written about it a foot thick. In the name of safety. If they choose.
Just because the word "safety" is used doesn't mean it's actually essential for safety. NASA can make it so that every single bolt must have a stack of pages written about it a foot thick. In the name of safety. If they choose.
...Just because the almighty SpaceX does not have a window does not mean it is not needed.
Of course not. And just because NASA has "always done it that way" does not mean it's necessarily the only way it can be done or even the safest.As Jorge said, a periscope (or something like it) would probably meet the intent of the requirement, if not the word. That's what I'm concerned about: the way the safety "requirement" is worded becoming more important than the actual safeness inferred by such a feature. The possibility that equivalently-safe ways of doing the same thing will be excluded because of red-tape instead of sound systems engineering reasons. There has to be flexibility on the exact way of accomplishing equivalent levels of safety or commercial crew will not be affordable or on schedule.It'd be ironic if a Soyuz-type approach (i.e. periscope) not being allowed for commercial crew leads to delays causing NASA to continue to be reliant on Soyuz. Ironic, not surprising.
I agree with you on the periscope, but still disagree on the intent. When one is near a large, delicate, and expensive spacecraft like ISS passive ability to back out will be needed, whether it is a periscope or window. I am sure NASA will include a periscope if asked, but I reject the notion that the requirement is frivolous, again NASA has much more experience with docking than commercial.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/26/2011 02:08 pmOf course not. And just because NASA has "always done it that way" does not mean it's necessarily the only way it can be done or even the safest.As Jorge said, a periscope (or something like it) would probably meet the intent of the requirement, if not the word. That's what I'm concerned about: the way the safety "requirement" is worded becoming more important than the actual safeness inferred by such a feature. The possibility that equivalently-safe ways of doing the same thing will be excluded because of red-tape instead of sound systems engineering reasons. There has to be flexibility on the exact way of accomplishing equivalent levels of safety or commercial crew will not be affordable or on schedule.It'd be ironic if a Soyuz-type approach (i.e. periscope) not being allowed for commercial crew leads to delays causing NASA to continue to be reliant on Soyuz. Ironic, not surprising.I agree with you on the periscope, but still disagree on the intent. When one is near a large, delicate, and expensive spacecraft like ISS passive ability to back out will be needed, whether it is a periscope or window....
As has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2011 01:16 pmAs has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place. Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.
Quote from: simonbp on 08/26/2011 04:03 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2011 01:16 pmAs has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place. Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.Cameras are not neccessarily better. Yes, cameras *may* have less mass, but you trade that against power and data transfer for the camera plus an extra crew display. So you might not be less mess and you are trading against critical items like power and increasing the complexity of the system (which means cost, risk) etc.
Yeah, the trade could go different ways. But don't you think it should be up to the commercial crew provider to find the most cost-and-performance-optimal solution that meets the required level of safety?
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/26/2011 05:29 pmQuote from: simonbp on 08/26/2011 04:03 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/26/2011 01:16 pmAs has already been stated before, there were real concrete reasons for needing a window in the docking process in the first place. Except there isn't. As I said, cameras are small and cheap, so you can put four fully redundant cameras, each with its own separate string to the control panel, and it would still have less than 1/10 the mass impact on the vehicle as forward-looking window. And frankly, if they loose any major sensors during flight, docking will be aborted anyways, regardless of any windows.Cameras are not neccessarily better. Yes, cameras *may* have less mass, but you trade that against power and data transfer for the camera plus an extra crew display. So you might not be less mess and you are trading against critical items like power and increasing the complexity of the system (which means cost, risk) etc.Yeah, the trade could go different ways. But don't you think it should be up to the commercial crew provider to find the most cost-and-performance-optimal solution that meets the required level of safety?
After examination of multiple DRMs and requirement documents, high-level driving requirements were determine to be:- The avionics architecture shall be human-rateable,- The avionics architecture shall, at a minimum, be fail-operational after one arbitrary fault,- The avionics architecture shall, at a minimum, be fail-safe (for abort initiation) after a second arbitrary fault,- The avionics architecture shall be highly reliable to meet Loss of Crew (LOC) and Loss of Mission (LOM) for various NASA missions.
Reliability analysis showed all architectures except one were at a reliability level of least0.9999 for short duration (i.e. 24 hour, preflight plus time to orbit) reliability but variedsignificantly (0.3576 to 0.6669) if a longer duration (i.e. 9 month, departure stage forMars DRM) was needed. For all architectures, the flight computers were the largestcontributor to failure. Reliability analysis assumed all architectures to be 1-fault tolerantby design but the number of 2-fault cases varied from 21 to 160 depending on thechosen architecture. The reliability of the architectures is related directly to the level ofcross-strapping in the various architectures.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/20/2011 08:06 pmWhy the heck would they exclude a hatch window?Does NASA want an affordable commercial crew program, or not? It does NOT mean there is no hatch window....
They mean the hatch window does not count for the purposes of this requirement.
QuoteThey mean the hatch window does not count for the purposes of this requirement. And why the heck not?
Maybe the hatch windows don't count since MPCV was already made that way?
Quote from: DaveH62 on 09/02/2011 07:30 pmMaybe the hatch windows don't count since MPCV was already made that way? Maybe indirectly but it couldn't be justified simply on the grounds that MPCV just happens to be built that way.I expect MPCV and CST-100 have windows in the places they do because there are/were NASA requirements they had to satisfy for the original CxP/OSP/whatever programs. Those requirements probably fall under the "crew health and safety" or "mission safety and success" categories.NASA attempting to now relax those classes of requirements for CCP could be extremely difficult, and would likely fuel the "commercial isn't safe" crowd.
Part of the challenge with long term planning horizons, is the ability to create alternate scenarios based on opinion, rather than designs facts. It is very hard to prove that a camera system could be 99.999% reliable. It is not a solid state solution, like a window, so it can malfunction. A camera should provide better visibility and provide more functional value, but it could have issues. That said, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where adequate redundancy could not be built in to provide at least 5 9s. It also seems likely that an event that would damage cameras, camera wiring, or associated computers taking the video feed, would impact either windows or the avionics of the ship as a whole. If something smashed a camera outside the ship, then that would be safer than something smashing a window. You could still turn around and go home.
Significant changes to 1130 requirements- Manual Control - Abort Effectiveness- Mission Duration- Loss of Crew/Loss of Mission- Health and Medical Requirements- Emergency Entry- Failure Tolerance
•Updated the following mission and system capabilities:–Support multiple back-to-back launch opportunities in a two week period in order to accomplish a single mission
•Updated phasing time consistent with CCT-REQ-1130–The CTS spacecraft will nominally be capable of transporting NASA crew to the ISS within 24 hours of launch
Quote•Updated the following mission and system capabilities:–Support multiple back-to-back launch opportunities in a two week period in order to accomplish a single missionThis means that if it has to scrub a launch it has to be able to recycle within two weeks?
Quote•Updated phasing time consistent with CCT-REQ-1130–The CTS spacecraft will nominally be capable of transporting NASA crew to the ISS within 24 hours of launchThis means that it has to have the capability of a fast mission, but might elect a slower orbital profile for better performance?
- 24 hours is a “design point” to accommodate ISS phasing- Rationale addresses Industry recommendation to allow operational flexibility in mission-to-mission rendezvous timeline
My impression from reading is that they are pointing to a taxi model. Does that seems right or I am reading too much between the lines?
Quote from: baldusi on 10/04/2011 09:23 pmMy impression from reading is that they are pointing to a taxi model. Does that seems right or I am reading too much between the lines?It seems more like a rental car model to me. With a taxi, the driver and vehicle typically don't stay with you for the duration once you reach your destination (it also appears NASA crew will be driving).
"No mention of windows."Updated to be two (or meet the intent) class A science windows with no electronic observation for piloting or blockage of windows. So got mught tighter. However, likely to change.
Does anyone know if there's a requirement for the CCP vehicles to be able to dock automatically? I could have sworn I saw it before but I can't find it now.
Even in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. Failure is not an option
Quote from: Prober on 07/11/2012 03:51 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. Failure is not an optionYeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/12/2012 04:23 pmQuote from: Prober on 07/11/2012 03:51 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amEven in space, people will get the best view they can. If SpaceX can mockup a high quality video system with a very wide field of view that isn't possible with the viewport and a head-mounted display, they may win some converts. Windows are heavy and expensive, and occasionally leak or become dirty. If the electronics fail the vehicle will be unflyable window or no window.Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. Failure is not an optionYeah, that sounds like a good option instead of a big ol' window. But even so, if ALL electronics on board are dead, then you aren't going to be maneuvering. (Though if you're already reentering when all the electronics fail, you should be fine, since I believe there's a planned manual release for the parachutes... though ballistic mode would be kind of exciting...)Window space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect. Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.
wait this is almost too funny "It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified." If three spacecraft have great windows for operations and one spacecraft needs a scope that should not be taken into account?
If a proposer's vehicle has a quality or characteristic that exists but is not a NASA requirement or part of the selection criteria, it has no bearing when it comes to the competition, nor does providing a service that exceeds the requirements, unless the amount of excess performance is a selection criteria.
If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take? or to ask a different wayIs there a storage/upmass requirement?
3.1.3.1 The CTS shall transport 100 kilograms (220.5 lbm) of ISS Program specified pressurized cargo to the ISS during a single launch.a. This system shall provide a total of 0.227 cubic meters (8 cubic feet) (TBC) of pressurized cargo stowage volume to accommodate standard ISS cargo and crew bags.b. 0.1135 cubic meters (four cubic feet) (TBC) of the 0.227 cubic meters (eight cubic foot) (TBC) volume shall accommodate a single ISS cargo item of dimensions TBD x TBD x TBD (TBC).3.1.3.2 The CTS shall return 100 kilograms (220.5 lbm) of ISS Program specified pressurized cargo to the designated landing site(s) during a single entry. The volume requirements in 3.1.3.1 part A and B shall apply for cargo return3.1.3.5 The spacecraft shall transport an additional 100 kg (220.5 lbm) of cargo in any seat location that is not occupied by crewmembers. The spacecraft crew compartment design shall accommodate the volume, mass, and mounting accommodations required to carry this additional cargo.
Quote from: Jim on 07/13/2012 12:43 amIf a proposer's vehicle has a quality or characteristic that exists but is not a NASA requirement or part of the selection criteria, it has no bearing when it comes to the competition, nor does providing a service that exceeds the requirements, unless the amount of excess performance is a selection criteria. Whatever.. the primary consideration of the last round was how much of their own money the sucker.. err "partner".. is willing to put in. If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won
Boeing, Space X, and Sierra Nevada have all confirmed to Flightglobal/Ascend that, none of their vessels has a toilet. [...]The Commercial Crew system contenders now admit that this was a design oversight. A senior executive at SpaceX explained that the firm is now rethinking its toilet strategy on the Dragon capsule, especially in light of likely operations to and from the International Space Station. "Currently it (Dragon) does not have a toilet, but you obviously have to consider that when you put crew on, and there are a lot of different concepts we're looking at...anything from diapers to an actual system," said the executive before adding: "Now NASA requires an actual system, because right now they want the ability to go on, potentially, a three-day approach to (the) station."
Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?
QuoteBoeing, Space X, and Sierra Nevada have all confirmed to Flightglobal/Ascend that, none of their vessels has a toilet. [...]"Currently it (Dragon) does not have a toilet, but you obviously have to consider that when you put crew on, and there are a lot of different concepts we're looking at...anything from diapers to an actual system," said the executive before adding: "Now NASA requires an actual system, because right now they want the ability to go on, potentially, a three-day approach to (the) station."
Boeing, Space X, and Sierra Nevada have all confirmed to Flightglobal/Ascend that, none of their vessels has a toilet. [...]"Currently it (Dragon) does not have a toilet, but you obviously have to consider that when you put crew on, and there are a lot of different concepts we're looking at...anything from diapers to an actual system," said the executive before adding: "Now NASA requires an actual system, because right now they want the ability to go on, potentially, a three-day approach to (the) station."
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/13/2012 02:01 amSpeaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?
Final milestone of an orbital crewed demonstration flightMission Duration: Minimum of 3 days on-orbit
The chosen spacecraft must demonstrate it can serve as a 24-hour safe haven during an emergency in space and be able to stay docked to the station for at least 210 days.
Quote from: Prober on 07/12/2012 08:01 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amWindow space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect. Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.You seem to be confused about where DreamChaser's windows are.
Quote from: vulture4 on 07/11/2012 01:47 amWindow space might hurt the Dragon in the downselect. Both the Libery, Boeing and DC have a ton of window space.
ASAP member Mr. Bryan O‟Connor observed that there were a couple of interesting briefings, including one on how they dealt with a problematic technical requirement—manual flight control. Human rating requirements specify that manual control be available wherever it is appropriate. They had to examine this requirement carefully to see if it made sense to keep manual control as a capability for the commercial vehicles. As a result, this particular requirement may be modified significantly for this program. Orion is looking at the same requirement.
Interesting that people think it would have been safer to land on autopilot. We studied that extensively and there were several issues with the implementation of the shuttle autopilot and the supporting ground navigation aids. Every shuttle landing was manually controlled and they were all successful . . .
Buran's autonomous landing was extremely accurate, but made use of significant help from some extremely powerful radio beacons.
Quote from: baldusi on 04/04/2013 03:20 pmBuran's autonomous landing was extremely accurate, but made use of significant help from some extremely powerful radio beacons.Not to get into a whole semantic thing... but that's not what we used to call autonomous.
FWIW, a revision of CCT-REQ-1130, "ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document" showed up on NTRS recently:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170001943(Attached here, as well.)
Request for Information for Future Commercial LEO Destinations – Requirements and Standards:https://sam.gov/opp/ee10afc4b56c454391b80bd93a16f3a0/viewhttps://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1708202595930489228Attached is Draft CLDP REQ-1130 and a related matrix document.