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).
Quote from: rcoppola on 05/16/2013 09:53 pmAs 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 lifeboatT=5 - Flight 2, pilot and passengers. Vehicle returns with pilots, passengers stay behindT=180 - Flight 3, pilot and passengers, Flight 2 passengers and flight 3 pilot return in flight 1 vehicle, flight 3 vehicle the new lifeboatT=360 - Flight 4, pilot and passengers. Flight 3 passengers and flight 4 pilot return in flight 3 vehicle, flight 4 vehicle is the new lifeboatAnd so on (T is in days)Needs two docking ports though...
As for the Life-boat requirement. That doesn't work with the Taxi option.
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 05/17/2013 10:00 pmThe 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.
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. )
The comm'l crew certification phase 2 contract award is planned for July 2014.
Mike L-A: need to spend comm'l crew $ in the most efficient way you can; do that by exercising optional CCiCap milestones. #spacetechexpo
Reisman [of SpaceX]: concerned if comm'l crew goes back to traditional contracting, lose key strengths of program; our biggest concern. #spacetechexpo
SpaceX and Boeing say comm'l crew full funding important, but 1 variable along with schedule and "rules of engagement". #spacetechexpo
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/336896502247092225QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/21/2013 05:34 pmIt 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/336896502247092225QuoteThe 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.
once the CCiCap base period is over, NASA is free to downselect at that point in time.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/22/2013 02:44 amonce 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.
"Garrett Reisman: we believe we can do first Dragon flight test with crew on board in mid-2015; part of optional CCiCap milestones."
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_foustThat'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.