Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements  (Read 139781 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #140 on: 02/07/2012 09:20 pm »
Here is a presentation from July 26, 2011 on this topic:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=107
« Last Edit: 02/07/2012 09:27 pm by yg1968 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #141 on: 02/24/2012 12:29 pm »
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.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #142 on: 02/24/2012 10:27 pm »
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.

Critical phases are supposed to be autonomous.  The issue though is all the companies, I believe, are automated docking and NASA is requiring manual capability as well.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #143 on: 07/11/2012 01:47 am »
Robert Ballard, the undersea explorer, was on the support ship when two scientists in the Alvin, a research sub, descended to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and discovered an entire ecosystem that was totally unexpected and unique. Ballard and the surace crew were transfixed as the images unfolded on video displays. Then he glanced at a display showing the interior of the submarine. The two crewmen ween't looking out the portholes, as he had expected. Instead they were getting a better view- on a video monitor showing exactly the same scene as the ones on the surface.

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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #144 on: 07/11/2012 03:51 pm »
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.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #145 on: 07/12/2012 03:31 pm »
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take?

or to ask a different way

Is there a storage/upmass requirement?

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #146 on: 07/12/2012 04:23 pm »
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.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, 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...)
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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #147 on: 07/12/2012 08:01 pm »
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.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, 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.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #148 on: 07/12/2012 10:25 pm »
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.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, 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.

It'd be a dumb way to select between the competitors, IMHO. If it is such a big deal, it can be modified.

And I still think we're all giving too much credit to "Liberty"'s chances, probably because we're being polite to a fault. If we're really, brutally honest, we would realize it's a kludge on a kludge by a company without experience in being the prime for either launch vehicles or spacecraft. Unsafe (because LV is totally new), overly complicated (MLAS? Composite capsule structure?), and will be later than any of the other competitors. Not to mention more expensive.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2012 10:25 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #149 on: 07/12/2012 10:58 pm »
 ;D 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?
 

 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #150 on: 07/12/2012 11:00 pm »
;D 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?
 

 
Here, hold my beer… I’ll get my Sawzall… ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #151 on: 07/13/2012 12:43 am »
;D 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?
 

Yes.

It depends on the requirements and selection criteria.  If the scope meets the requirements just as good as windows then there is nothing to take into account and it is not a discriminator.

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.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 12:47 am by Jim »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #152 on: 07/13/2012 12:47 am »
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.

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 :)

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #153 on: 07/13/2012 12:50 am »
If technical excellence is what actually mattered, HMXHMX would have won

 it wasn't really that "excellent"
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 12:50 am by Jim »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #154 on: 07/13/2012 01:28 am »
Anything in the requirements on how much upmass each member of the crew needs to take?
or to ask a different way
Is there a storage/upmass requirement?

Quote from: NASA CCT-REQ-1130 DRAFT 3.0  April 29, 2011
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 return

3.1.3.5   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. 

edit: p.s. Note the above is a bit dated; haven't seen anything more recent that is putlic.  Anyone else?
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 01:44 am by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #155 on: 07/13/2012 01:32 am »
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.
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 :)

Yes, but again be careful not to confuse the CCDev-1, CCDev-2 and CCiCap "rounds" and their associated selection criteria with CTS requirements (the subject of this thread) -- as in those requirements which will be evaluated against and levied as part of a CTS competition and contract award.  CCDev and CCiCap have no such "requirements" as they are not acquisition contracts.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #156 on: 07/13/2012 02:01 am »
Speaking of requirements, how about having a requirement for a toilet?

There was actually an article/blog on this topic, a couple of months ago:

Quote
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."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2012/05/which-commercial-crew-spacecra.html
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 01:56 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #157 on: 07/13/2012 03:23 am »
Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?


Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #158 on: 07/13/2012 03:51 am »
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.

Only if they have some type of backup like a Soyuz type periscope. 
Failure is not an option
Yeah, 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.

You seem to be confused about where DreamChaser's windows are.
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 04:03 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements
« Reply #159 on: 07/13/2012 03:52 am »
Quote
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."

Speaking of requirements How about having a requirement for a toilet?
Wouldn't Apollo bags Suffice?

I'd think so... or something similar?  Interesting...

The "three-day approach" mentined in the article seems new.  Last publicly stated requirement (Oct-2011 CCIDC workshop) was for 24-hr launch-to-dock which included "Protecting for 24 hours rendezvous delay that includes two additional docking attempts beyond nominal".  (Total in-craft ~73 hrs, but that incldued allowed for ~6-18 hr contingency for safe haven while docked to ISS, and ~12 hr contingency for de-orbit waive-off out of the total of ~73 hrs.)

Anyone know what might have happened to cause that 24-hr launch-to-dock contingency to change to 72-hr?  Or are they simply stating that the spacecraft has to provide for autonomous crew support for up to 72 hrs total duration from launch-to-land (which wouldn't appear to be a big change)?  Or what?
« Last Edit: 07/13/2012 04:46 am by joek »

Tags:
 

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