Author Topic: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification  (Read 20839 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Second article for the site from Yves-A. Grondin - and it's another great one!

Lots of informative information in this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mcalister-discusses-commercial-crew-certification/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #1 on: 05/16/2013 04:05 pm »
Nice article, well done Mr. Grondin.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #2 on: 05/16/2013 04:10 pm »
Here are the slides that went with McAlister's NAC presentation. But most of the information that he gave were verbal (and thus not actually on the slides) but are in the article:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/742926main_20130419_heoc_mcalisiter%20=TAGGED.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/library/nac/index.html

See also the Booz-Allen report on the evaluation of the costs of commercial crew:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/741617main_CCP-ICA-DRD-2e-Public-Releaseable-Final-Report-3-5-13-508.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/16/2013 04:37 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #3 on: 05/16/2013 04:29 pm »
Interesting article. Seems like a lot paperwork to get these companies flying.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #4 on: 05/16/2013 04:47 pm »
Thanks YG for the citations, The Booz-Allen report is very insightful, its a shame no numbers are associated with it.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #5 on: 05/16/2013 05:41 pm »
It seems to me that NASA should be deciding on whether the Taxi or Rental model works better for them, rather than leaving that to the vendors.

It just seems like these guys are running the program by the seat of their pants, without much of a long term vision on how it's all supposed to work.

Offline bulkmail

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #6 on: 05/16/2013 06:03 pm »
Every two months a "60 day report" appears at the CCiCap website http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html

10.18.12
12.13.12
02.25.13

April 2013 passed, any idea why there is no new report? Did they change the website or what?

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #7 on: 05/16/2013 07:42 pm »
It just seems like these guys are running the program by the seat of their pants, without much of a long term vision on how it's all supposed to work.

Sounds like every project I've ever done for a single customer.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 2138
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #8 on: 05/16/2013 08:07 pm »
It seems to me that NASA should be deciding on whether the Taxi or Rental model works better for them, rather than leaving that to the vendors.

It just seems like these guys are running the program by the seat of their pants, without much of a long term vision on how it's all supposed to work.

Would the taxi driver be one of the four crew-members (per launch) or a fifth? If the latter do the ISS environmental control systems have enough capacity to handle the extra crew-member? Are there enough ISS tasks that don't require much training to give the taxi driver something useful to do on orbit?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #9 on: 05/16/2013 09:03 pm »
It seems to me that NASA should be deciding on whether the Taxi or Rental model works better for them, rather than leaving that to the vendors.

It just seems like these guys are running the program by the seat of their pants, without much of a long term vision on how it's all supposed to work.

Would the taxi driver be one of the four crew-members (per launch) or a fifth? If the latter do the ISS environmental control systems have enough capacity to handle the extra crew-member? Are there enough ISS tasks that don't require much training to give the taxi driver something useful to do on orbit?

A "taxi" doesn't stick around after it drops off it's fare.
I don't see howthe taxi model is compatible with the requirement to also serve as a lifeboat, unless NASA intends a separate purchase of a lifeboat craft, which seems crazy to me.

The only thing these guys know for sure, is it's going to cost lots of money, they don't want to down-select, and there is no guaranteed need after 2020. but, if they don't get their 4.8 Billion dollars, commerical crew might not be ready until after 2020...

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #10 on: 05/16/2013 09:38 pm »
It seems to me that NASA should be deciding on whether the Taxi or Rental model works better for them, rather than leaving that to the vendors.

It just seems like these guys are running the program by the seat of their pants, without much of a long term vision on how it's all supposed to work.

"Wow, this project is well managed, our long term vision is clear, and we know how everything is supposed to work... also we're on time and on budget" 
    -- said no project manager EVER.


A "taxi" doesn't stick around after it drops off it's fare.
I don't see howthe taxi model is compatible with the requirement to also serve as a lifeboat, unless NASA intends a separate purchase of a lifeboat craft, which seems crazy to me.

The only thing these guys know for sure, is it's going to cost lots of money, they don't want to down-select, and there is no guaranteed need after 2020. but, if they don't get their 4.8 Billion dollars, commerical crew might not be ready until after 2020...

Doesn't seem crazy to me to buy a lifeboat separately. Especially if the craft can be automated, or you do some clever rotations to get started. The problem is lack of places to dock.

They laid out a pretty good case for not downselecting, IMHO, and if there ever was a program that needed to be fully funded, it's this one. Cut SLS or something if you have to. (never happen)
« Last Edit: 05/16/2013 09:39 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8746
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #11 on: 05/16/2013 09:40 pm »
Nice article! I'll hazard a guess and say that both Boeing and SpaceX will offer the "rental" model for their vehicles. I believe that it will be fairly easy to teach astronauts who already know the mechanics of spaceflight and operate things like the robotic arms to manage a modern capsule. I'm not as sure about SNC's offering because of its runway landings, but many of the NASA astronauts are pilots. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #12 on: 05/16/2013 09:53 pm »
I would think SpaceX would offer Taxi Vs Rental based on the prices associated with each option as well as future non-NASA mission planning.

Is it more future assuring to have their own Dragonaut pilots?
Can they up-charge enough to make the Taxi more optimum to the bottom line? Does the Taxi option save them on any requirements and/or development costs?

As for the Life-boat requirement. That doesn't work with the Taxi option.

Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #13 on: 05/16/2013 09:54 pm »
Nice article! I'll hazard a guess and say that both Boeing and SpaceX will offer the "rental" model for their vehicles. I believe that it will be fairly easy to teach astronauts who already know the mechanics of spaceflight and operate things like the robotic arms to manage a modern capsule. I'm not as sure about SNC's offering because of its runway landings, but many of the NASA astronauts are pilots. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

I'd love to see the "security deposit" required :) More seriously, WOULD there be such a clause, if a NASA astronaut caused a crackup, would NASA be liable?

As for the Life-boat requirement. That doesn't work with the Taxi option.

Without clever staging and multiple vehicles.

T=0    - Flight 1, pilot only. Stays a few days. Vehicle is the lifeboat
T=5    - Flight 2, pilot and passengers. Vehicle returns with pilots, passengers stay behind
T=180 - Flight 3, pilot and passengers, Flight 2 passengers and flight 3 pilot return in flight 1 vehicle, flight 3 vehicle the new lifeboat
T=360 - Flight 4, pilot and passengers. Flight 3 passengers and flight 4 pilot return in flight 3 vehicle, flight 4 vehicle is the new lifeboat

And so on (T is in days)

Needs two docking ports though...
« Last Edit: 05/16/2013 09:58 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #14 on: 05/16/2013 11:34 pm »
"He mentioned that NASA has not yet decided whether it will extend the Crew Resupply Service (CRS) contract to Orbital and SpaceX after 2016, or if it will allow new entrants such as SNC or Boeing to compete for new cargo contracts after the current CRS expires in 2016."

This I find very intriguing.

It's a way for the other CCiCAP vendors other than Spacex to spread their costs (which was an obvious tactic from day 1 IMHO) and potentially lowers costs. This is probably more important to Boeing as their "other business" plan was IIRC described as "weak" in a NASA assessment and they have given something of an impression that "If we don't get picked we'll pick up our marbles and go home."

I'm guessing that NASA would be planning to do some kind of "learning curve" on what they would be prepared to pay assuming existing vendors are more familiar with their operations (and their costs) than when they bid with no hardware built. Likewise I'd hope they'd aim for any new entrants to meet the lower price target (otherwise what would be the point of having them?).

I think it's pretty clear that competition has been a key part of getting here as quickly as the providers have. Cetainly some in NASA get that idea. Time will tell if it's a widespread notion.

I think it's also clear that continued funding limitations are slowing them down a lot.

One interesting question. They talk of a public/private partnership. A lot of work is done under cost plus and FAR25 but what other options exist under Fed Acquisition Regs?

I hope the ultimate result does stay Firm Fixed Price.


MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #15 on: 05/17/2013 02:50 am »
Thanks YG for the citations, The Booz-Allen report is very insightful, its a shame no numbers are associated with it.

Thanks Brightlight, Jason Davis and Chris B. for the compliments. The numbers were purposely omitted from the report because they are considered proprietary.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 02:51 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #16 on: 05/17/2013 03:05 am »
Not that this is new news, but it bares repeating:

The commercial crew program as we know it (Space Act Agreements, NASA mostly hands off, etc) ends after May 2014. Although "optional milestones" could be exercised by NASA, it's more than likely they won't be. In any case, the only optional milestones that the public has been allowed to know about (all the rest were redacted) are test flights, which we've been told cannot be funded under SAAs.

Unlike the commercial cargo program, which stuck to SAAs all the way up to actual cargo delivery (SpaceX delivered cargo under an SAA, Orbital Sciences is still operating under SAA), the commercial crew program will switch to a FAR-based contract before actual services begin.

This is such a fundamental change in the program that it's absurd to keep calling it the same name.

Quote from: Phil McAlister
We want the philosophy to remain the same. We still want industry to own (their crew transportation system). We still want some form of fixed price arrangement.

Famous last words.

Time will tell.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #17 on: 05/17/2013 05:22 am »
...what is the real reason that Congress wants the switch to FAR, when SAA worked quite well for commercial cargo?
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 QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #18 on: 05/17/2013 05:31 am »
It's the commercial crew office that wants to switch to FAR. I believe they're responding to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel claim that SAAs don't provide NASA with sufficient insight (or was it oversight?) to ensure safety.

I figured that after the last attempt to switch to FAR resulted in an outright mutiny that they'd learn the lesson and reserve that for the "acquisition" - like COTS/CRS - but it seems the pressure is still there to give NASA more control in the development process (than SAAs can provide).
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #19 on: 05/17/2013 07:54 am »


As for the Life-boat requirement. That doesn't work with the Taxi option.



You can also just dock one craft and leave in another with the taxi model..the only limit is that such operation isn't friendly to having multiple types of craft.  i.e. Not a problem for a pilot to arrive and leave on an dream chaser....problem if you need to arrive or leave with a different craft.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #20 on: 05/17/2013 08:11 am »
It's the commercial crew office that wants to switch to FAR. I believe they're responding to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel claim that SAAs don't provide NASA with sufficient insight (or was it oversight?) to ensure safety.

I figured that after the last attempt to switch to FAR resulted in an outright mutiny that they'd learn the lesson and reserve that for the "acquisition" - like COTS/CRS - but it seems the pressure is still there to give NASA more control in the development process (than SAAs can provide).

Put an engineer together with a lawyer and get them to write a milestone that requires say the performing of a specified set of tests, watched by a NASA inspector and the test report delivered.  In practice that may require more than milestone.  Make achieving this milestone a clause in the "acquisition" FAR contract.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #21 on: 05/17/2013 01:35 pm »
It's the commercial crew office that wants to switch to FAR. I believe they're responding to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel claim that SAAs don't provide NASA with sufficient insight (or was it oversight?) to ensure safety.

I figured that after the last attempt to switch to FAR resulted in an outright mutiny that they'd learn the lesson and reserve that for the "acquisition" - like COTS/CRS - but it seems the pressure is still there to give NASA more control in the development process (than SAAs can provide).

I thought it was the oversight committees that are pushing for the switch to FAR contracts. I believe NASA in on one of the CBO's watch lists specifically related to contracts and acquistions.  I seem to remember a paragraph or two about past contracting issues in one of the draft authorization or appropriations bills.

Offline miguel

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #22 on: 05/17/2013 09:23 pm »
As for the Life-boat requirement. That doesn't work with the Taxi option.

Without clever staging and multiple vehicles.

T=0    - Flight 1, pilot only. Stays a few days. Vehicle is the lifeboat
T=5    - Flight 2, pilot and passengers. Vehicle returns with pilots, passengers stay behind
T=180 - Flight 3, pilot and passengers, Flight 2 passengers and flight 3 pilot return in flight 1 vehicle, flight 3 vehicle the new lifeboat
T=360 - Flight 4, pilot and passengers. Flight 3 passengers and flight 4 pilot return in flight 3 vehicle, flight 4 vehicle is the new lifeboat

And so on (T is in days)

Needs two docking ports though...

Flight 1, carries pilot and sheep, returns with pilot
Flight 2, carries pilot and cabbage, returns with pilot and sheep
Flight 3, carries pilot and wolf...

Seriously, this depends on the capabilities to fly safely with one pilot only without backup, to return to earth with an untrained crew and to launch the first two missions fast enough from the same pad (supposing that there's only one adapted for each manned Falcon or Atlas).

I don't think that you can add a requirement for lifeboat capability late in the design.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #23 on: 05/17/2013 09:31 pm »

Seriously, this depends on the capabilities to fly safely with one pilot only without backup, to return to earth with an untrained crew and to launch the first two missions fast enough from the same pad (supposing that there's only one adapted for each manned Falcon or Atlas).

5 days was notional, the actual delay would be whatever's needed. And if you can't fly with just one pilot then where I said pilot, change it to say "two pilots"

I think the bigger wrinkle is what if you want to alternate vehicles (this assumes the downselect to one doesn't happen) as Pathfinder_01 mentions...

I don't think that you can add a requirement for lifeboat capability late in the design.

Is this requirement being added, or is it one that you and I were not aware of earlier but has been there all along? I don't know. But NASA has WANTED lifeboat capability all along. ISS has it now with two Soyuz.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 09:31 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline miguel

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #24 on: 05/17/2013 09:44 pm »
Is this requirement being added, or is it one that you and I were not aware of earlier but has been there all along? I don't know. But NASA has WANTED lifeboat capability all along. ISS has it now with two Soyuz.

That's what I mean, either the requirement is there or not, which largely determines if the taxi is possible.

Early in the ISS program a lifeboat was foreseen, but launched by the shuttle. It's much more complicated now.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #25 on: 05/17/2013 10:00 pm »

Seriously, this depends on the capabilities to fly safely with one pilot only without backup, to return to earth with an untrained crew and to launch the first two missions fast enough from the same pad (supposing that there's only one adapted for each manned Falcon or Atlas).

I don't think that you can add a requirement for lifeboat capability late in the design.

The requirement has been around for a long time (soon after the idea for Orion as lifeboat was dropped.). The requirement is that the craft be able to stay in space docked at the ISS for 6 months. The CCREW craft are also mostly planning for ability to go to the ISS or space without crew. If you have those capabilities then acting as a lifeboat is easy.

The only problem with the taxi model is logistics when different CCREW craft are at the station.

Soyuz became the lifeboat because the shuttle didn't have the ability to stay months in space.  The shuttle could drop off crew(i.e. rotate the crew) but it couldn't stay.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 10:03 pm by pathfinder_01 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #26 on: 05/17/2013 10:06 pm »
Take into consideration if a couple of year long stays would make it easier. You can go up and down with upto six (or even seven) crews, but you need at most four. Also in the role of safe heaven it could take six or seven. Thus, they can do a lot of shuffling.

Offline miguel

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #27 on: 05/17/2013 10:28 pm »
The only problem with the taxi model is logistics when different CCREW craft are at the station.

Soyuz became the lifeboat because the shuttle didn't have the ability to stay months in space.  The shuttle could drop off crew(i.e. rotate the crew) but it couldn't stay.

The whole lifeboat thing doesn't make much sense unless the taxi model is used. You can as well return the crew in the spacecraft where they arrived.

In the X38 concept the Shuttle would carry a lifeboat that would stay attached, allowing a bigger crew to stay at the ISS between shuttles. At the end I guess that Soyuz made more sense economically. It might be the same now.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #28 on: 05/18/2013 06:00 am »
The only problem with the taxi model is logistics when different CCREW craft are at the station.

Soyuz became the lifeboat because the shuttle didn't have the ability to stay months in space.  The shuttle could drop off crew(i.e. rotate the crew) but it couldn't stay.

The whole lifeboat thing doesn't make much sense unless the taxi model is used. You can as well return the crew in the spacecraft where they arrived.

In the X38 concept the Shuttle would carry a lifeboat that would stay attached, allowing a bigger crew to stay at the ISS between shuttles. At the end I guess that Soyuz made more sense economically. It might be the same now.

Not quite.

Shuttle could not serve as lifeboat because it cannot stay in space 6 months. It only has 2 week or so in space. Shuttle is powered by fuel cells and when the loh/lox runs out..no power. Not to mention all the other systems that were not made to go into space long term. Hence the need for a lifeboat for any US space station. The shuttle could rotate crew, it just couldn’t hang around.

ISS was over budget so the Bush Administration scaled it back cancelling the lifeboat (and the US habitation module). They decided to purchase Soyuz instead. Soyuz limits the crew to 6 because it can only hold 3 people. Soyuz also took on the role of carrying crew to the ISS due at first to the Shuttle’s scheduling problems (i.e.  Some part or module arrives needs more time on the ground holding up a flight but holding up a flight could leave someone stuck on the ISS) and latter due it‘s retirement. The CCREW have to hold atleast 4, so the crew can increase with them and the ISS was designed for 7. 

Soyuz can't support a crew 2 weeks like the shuttle but unlike the shuttle it can be stored for months till needed.

What the lifeboat requirement means is that these craft need to be able to stay in space 6 months like Soyuz. They also might need to have the capability of being able to autoland(can not remember at the moment).  Spacecraft need to be designed to do that.

Even lunar Apollo had to be modified to stay in space at Skylab (i.e. Skylab charged a battery that powered the return trip because the fuel cells would not be able to last 3 months).

Now serving as the lifeboat could favor the rental model but that isn’t set in stone (i.e. you could just say send the CCREW craft automatically carrying cargo and have it serve as a lifeboat.  Or you could rotate craft if they are of the same type. )
« Last Edit: 05/18/2013 06:05 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #29 on: 05/18/2013 10:03 am »
Now serving as the lifeboat could favor the rental model but that isn’t set in stone (i.e. you could just say send the CCREW craft automatically carrying cargo and have it serve as a lifeboat.  Or you could rotate craft if they are of the same type. )

Interesting idea. We know that Dragon and Cygnus can be brought in by ISS crew but will that capability be included with crewed Dragon? It sounds like a good thing to retain for use in emergency

More generally is that a CCiCAP requirement or is the default that whoever wins will always come up with at least a pilot on board?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #30 on: 05/21/2013 05:34 pm »
It seems that phase 2 of certification has been pushed to July 2014 (it was previously planned for May 2014).

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336896502247092225

Quote
The comm'l crew certification phase 2 contract award is planned for July 2014.

This may not be a bad thing as it could imply that some of the early optional CCiCap milestones will be exercised.
« Last Edit: 05/21/2013 05:43 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #31 on: 05/21/2013 05:40 pm »
Lopez Alegria from the CSF suggests that the optional milestones should be exercised:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336893031393415168

Quote
Mike L-A: need to spend comm'l crew $ in the most efficient way you can; do that by exercising optional CCiCap milestones. #spacetechexpo
« Last Edit: 05/21/2013 05:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #32 on: 05/21/2013 06:47 pm »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336915342922231808

Quote
Reisman [of SpaceX]: concerned if comm'l crew goes back to traditional contracting, lose key strengths of program; our biggest concern. #spacetechexpo

Someone had to say it...

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336931413620310017

Quote
SpaceX and Boeing say comm'l crew full funding important, but 1 variable along with schedule and "rules of engagement". #spacetechexpo
« Last Edit: 05/21/2013 08:39 pm by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #33 on: 05/21/2013 10:44 pm »
It's hard to care about the optional CCiCap milestones being exercised when we don't know what they are.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #34 on: 05/22/2013 01:27 am »
It seems that phase 2 of certification has been pushed to July 2014 (it was previously planned for May 2014).

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336896502247092225

Quote
The comm'l crew certification phase 2 contract award is planned for July 2014.

This may not be a bad thing as it could imply that some of the early optional CCiCap milestones will be exercised.

It is not a good thing.  The optional milestones will be the first ones under a FAR contract in phase 2.  If NASA is exercising the optional it means that either Congress or NASA is treading water and dragging things out.  The companies need and want firm commitments to start the real work.  And you can bet if they are talking July it will be August.  The longer you keep 2.5 around the later we fly to ISS.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #35 on: 05/22/2013 02:44 am »
It seems that phase 2 of certification has been pushed to July 2014 (it was previously planned for May 2014).

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/336896502247092225

Quote
The comm'l crew certification phase 2 contract award is planned for July 2014.

This may not be a bad thing as it could imply that some of the early optional CCiCap milestones will be exercised.

It is not a good thing.  The optional milestones will be the first ones under a FAR contract in phase 2.  If NASA is exercising the optional it means that either Congress or NASA is treading water and dragging things out.  The companies need and want firm commitments to start the real work.  And you can bet if they are talking July it will be August.  The longer you keep 2.5 around the later we fly to ISS.

The optional milestones don't have to be exercised for all companies. In the past, NASA has exercised optional milestones for CCDev-2 for some companies (Boeing and SNC) but not for all of them (Blue Origin's optional milestones were not funded; SpaceX didn't have any optional milestones under CCDev-2).

Besides, once the CCiCap base period is over, NASA is free to downselect at that point in time. It doesn't have to wait for certification to downselect.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 02:53 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #36 on: 05/22/2013 02:54 am »
once the CCiCap base period is over, NASA is free to downselect at that point in time.

We keep using that word, even though the commercial crew office has explicitly said they won't be doing a downselect; every phase is an open competition where new partners have a chance to join.

Of course, I don't believe this for a second, but it's wrong to say they're free to downselect.

Last I heard, they were still talking about taking multiple partners through certification, but only one crew services contract would be awarded.



Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #37 on: 05/22/2013 03:00 am »
once the CCiCap base period is over, NASA is free to downselect at that point in time.

We keep using that word, even though the commercial crew office has explicitly said they won't be doing a downselect; every phase is an open competition where new partners have a chance to join.

Of course, I don't believe this for a second, but it's wrong to say they're free to downselect.

Last I heard, they were still talking about taking multiple partners through certification, but only one crew services contract would be awarded.

NASA intends to ideally have two (or 1.5) in the certification phase. It's not a downselection in the sense that it's a new competition and new entrants are allowed to apply. But for CPC, the only companies that applied were SNC, Boeing and SpaceX. So it would be difficult for new entrants to win a phase two certification award at this point. But the optional milestones are really optional and they are not a package deal.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 03:08 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #38 on: 05/22/2013 03:20 am »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
"Garrett Reisman: we believe we can do first Dragon flight test with crew on board in mid-2015; part of optional CCiCap milestones."

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust

That's conflicting information.. maybe the crew test flights are back on the table?

More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #39 on: 05/22/2013 03:48 am »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
"Garrett Reisman: we believe we can do first Dragon flight test with crew on board in mid-2015; part of optional CCiCap milestones."

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust

That's conflicting information.. maybe the crew test flights are back on the table?

More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.

I wonder if they'd fly anyway.  They're not looking for NASA crew.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #40 on: 05/22/2013 12:56 pm »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
"Garrett Reisman: we believe we can do first Dragon flight test with crew on board in mid-2015; part of optional CCiCap milestones."

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust

That's conflicting information.. maybe the crew test flights are back on the table?

More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.


That is assuming the optional milestones are picked up for a crewed flight (which NASA does not intend to do). The timeline under FAR is not available given that phase 2 of certification has not yet been awarded (or competed). Reisman also stated that SpaceX would prefer to continue under SAAs. If commercial crew is not fully funded in FY 2014, it is conceivable that SAAs will continue a while longer.

Although NASA has said that that crewed flights would not be under SAAs, it made no promise concerning uncrewed flights. I am hoping that NASA will continue the optional milestones for two companies until they each fly an uncrewed flight. 
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 01:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #41 on: 05/22/2013 01:03 pm »
Quote from: Jeff Foust
"Garrett Reisman: we believe we can do first Dragon flight test with crew on board in mid-2015; part of optional CCiCap milestones."

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust

That's conflicting information.. maybe the crew test flights are back on the table?

More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.


That is assuming the optional milestones are picked up (which NASA does not intend to do). The timeline under FAR is not available given that phase 2 of certification has not been awarded. Reisman also stated that SpaceX would prefer to continue under SAAs. If commercial crew is not fully funded in FY 2014, it is conceivable that SAAs will continue a while longer.

Although NASA said that that crewed flights would not be under SAAs, it made no promise concerning uncrewed flights. I am hoping that NASA will continue the optional milestones for two companies until they each fly an uncrewed flight. 

Even if NASA doesn't fund it, I'm willing to bet we will see SpaceX do a crewed test flight. They will need to prove their capsule for commercial customers.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #42 on: 05/22/2013 01:17 pm »
SpaceX would rather get paid for it. I am not sure why they would do a free test flight when NASA is willing to pay for it. They are apparently the favorites even if there is a downselection to one.
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 01:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #43 on: 05/22/2013 01:25 pm »
SpaceX would rather get paid for it. I am not sure why they would do a free test flight when NASA is willing to pay for it. They are apparently the favorites even if there is a downselection to one.

Of course they would, but I think they are going to run into a timing issue. Especially if Bigelow manages to keep on schedule with the BA330.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #44 on: 05/22/2013 01:38 pm »
once the CCiCap base period is over, NASA is free to downselect at that point in time.

We keep using that word, even though the commercial crew office has explicitly said they won't be doing a downselect; every phase is an open competition where new partners have a chance to join.

Of course, I don't believe this for a second, but it's wrong to say they're free to downselect.

Last I heard, they were still talking about taking multiple partners through certification, but only one crew services contract would be awarded.





Since they have already started with the "Certification Products" contracts, as a list of separate items from the CCiCAP contracts, I don't see how a new vendor could sneak in.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #45 on: 05/22/2013 04:32 pm »
More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.
I wonder if they'd fly anyway.  They're not looking for NASA crew.

Wonder if they could sell seats to defray cost? :) (if they go without NASA paying)
« Last Edit: 05/22/2013 04:32 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #46 on: 05/22/2013 08:31 pm »
More likely is he's just speaking from the SpaceX perspective.. they'll be ready, but NASA is unlikely to pay for it.
I wonder if they'd fly anyway.  They're not looking for NASA crew.

Wonder if they could sell seats to defray cost? :) (if they go without NASA paying)
Possible, but this raises the question would they be allowed to berth at the ISS and if so for how long?
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #47 on: 05/22/2013 11:08 pm »
Since they have already started with the "Certification Products" contracts, as a list of separate items from the CCiCAP contracts, I don't see how a new vendor could sneak in.

Me either, but the commercial crew office has specifically said it is possible and balked on the use of "downselect".
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #48 on: 05/24/2013 02:55 am »
Since they have already started with the "Certification Products" contracts, as a list of separate items from the CCiCAP contracts, I don't see how a new vendor could sneak in.
Me either, but the commercial crew office has specifically said it is possible and balked on the use of "downselect".

Legally NASA is required to allow anyone to bid on Certification Phase 2; use of "downselect" contravenes that requirement.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #49 on: 05/26/2013 01:00 pm »
Space companies warn against excessive government oversight of their industry:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_23292340/space-companies-warn-against-excessive-government-oversight-their
« Last Edit: 05/26/2013 01:01 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: McAlister Discusses Commercial Crew Certification
« Reply #50 on: 06/09/2013 02:16 pm »
Here are the minutes of the April 18th NAC meeting which include the presentation on which the article is based:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752301main_2013_April%2018_HEOC%20Minutes.pdf

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1