COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[A_M_Swallow]

Honestly if a rocket is safe enough to put a gigabuck spysat on, can't we maybe just add LAS and risk it? The astros are in more danger driving to the mall in Houston.

Possibly, but quality inspectors and regulators like things in writing.  Separating the capsule from the launch vehicle (LV).

CCDev machines will be civilian passenger vehicles, so the FAA is the standards body.  The LV man-rating requirements probably should specify things like the maximum acceleration, vibration and rotation.  The standards for the propellant and connectors may also need specifying.  Experimental conditions such as maximum wind speed should be specified or at least the manufactures rules enforced.  Delaying the launch if the pre-launch temperature goes below 0^o C or possibly -60^o C may be important.

If the capsule (plus other payloads) and the LV are being made by different companies then the interface between them should be controlled by an independent third party.

[infocat13]

Hopefully they will allow companies to use existing rockets (ie some company simply does spacecraft design while ULA concentrates on manrating an LV)  not sure that Lockheed or Boeing would make such a craft, perhaps spacecraft designers like Space Systems/Loral would design the spacecraft (or perhaps Orbital could launch a manned derivative of Cygnus on an EELV)  My point is that the competition should not seek to develop a new LV, instead it should foster US commercial manned spacecraft development.

the comment above is right on..
Augustine commission stated $ 5 billion for Orion on a EELV, another $5 billion for a safe COTS D
the later produces yet another gap
doing both and..............
a big rocket  to save center jobs priceless

[Jim]

1/  The LV man-rating requirements probably should specify things like the maximum acceleration, vibration and rotation.

2/   The standards for the propellant and connectors may also need specifying.

3/ .   Experimental conditions such as maximum wind speed should be specified or at least the manufactures rules enforced.  Delaying the launch if the pre-launch temperature goes below 0^o C or possibly -60^o C may be important.

4. If the capsule (plus other payloads) and the LV are being made by different companies then the interface between them should be controlled by an independent third party.

quality inspectors and regulators don't enter into the picture

1. Those are the least of the manrating issues.  Most launch vehicles as is can carry crew.  Man rating has to do with the abort systems and avionics to interface with it.  Also reliability is another more important aspect.

2.  That is not manrating but standard integration for no matter what the spacecraft is (whether it carries crew or not)

3.  That is integration again and not manrating

4.  Totally wrong and off base.  The payloads and LV are always made by different companies. There is no need for a 3rd party to enter in the process.  Even if they were done by the same corporation, it was different companies within the corp and they were from different background and histories.    Launch vehicles determine most of the interfaces and spacecraft conform to them.

[HMXHMX]

Honestly if a rocket is safe enough to put a gigabuck spysat on, can't we maybe just add LAS and risk it? The astros are in more danger driving to the mall in Houston.

Possibly, but quality inspectors and regulators like things in writing.  Separating the capsule from the launch vehicle (LV).

CCDev machines will be civilian passenger vehicles, so the FAA is the standards body.  The LV man-rating requirements probably should specify things like the maximum acceleration, vibration and rotation.  The standards for the propellant and connectors may also need specifying.  Experimental conditions such as maximum wind speed should be specified or at least the manufactures rules enforced.  Delaying the launch if the pre-launch temperature goes below 0^o C or possibly -60^o C may be important.

If the capsule (plus other payloads) and the LV are being made by different companies then the interface between them should be controlled by an independent third party.

FAA-AST has no jurisdiction over the safety of the LV or the capsule as it relates to mission success or crew safety.  They only have jurisdiction over the risk to "uninvolved" third parties.  If the flight is for NASA, carrying NASA crew (vs. third parties) NASA safety will be involved to whatever level the contract with the operator calls, but if there is no NASA crew on board, the capsule operator will be largely free to employ any standard (or none) that they wish.

[A_M_Swallow]

FAA-AST has no jurisdiction over the safety of the LV or the capsule as it relates to mission success or crew safety.  They only have jurisdiction over the risk to "uninvolved" third parties.  If the flight is for NASA, carrying NASA crew (vs. third parties) NASA safety will be involved to whatever level the contract with the operator calls, but if there is no NASA crew on board, the capsule operator will be largely free to employ any standard (or none) that they wish.

Not having a standard will not last for long.  The moment you start officially man-rating anything the appropriate regulatory comes in, even if it does not want to.  The trigger will probably to be an accident.  Since the regulator is unlikely to be the Food and Drug Administration it is the FAA.  If there are no official rules the company can always write its own.

[Jim]

The moment you start officially man-rating anything the appropriate regulatory comes in,

There is no such thing as officially man-rating.  Man-rating is a NASA term

[HMXHMX]

FAA-AST has no jurisdiction over the safety of the LV or the capsule as it relates to mission success or crew safety.  They only have jurisdiction over the risk to "uninvolved" third parties.  If the flight is for NASA, carrying NASA crew (vs. third parties) NASA safety will be involved to whatever level the contract with the operator calls, but if there is no NASA crew on board, the capsule operator will be largely free to employ any standard (or none) that they wish.

Not having a standard will not last for long.  The moment you start officially man-rating anything the appropriate regulatory comes in, even if it does not want to.  The trigger will probably to be an accident.  Since the regulator is unlikely to be the Food and Drug Administration it is the FAA.  If there are no official rules the company can always write its own.

Under US law, there is no official regulatory authority until the Congress acts.  Currently, there is no law that regulates human spaceflight to orbit safety for the crew.  (Suborbital flight is a different matter, sort of.)  This is not to say AST won't seek authority – I'm fairly sure they will – but until the Congress acts, which may be years not the future, it is not illegal to fly humans.

I'd favor leaving it this way for the next decade to allow the industry to develop, but others will have different views, of that I am sure.

For a little while at least, we still live under the principle that "...that which is not forbidden is permitted."  Won't last, of course.  ;(

[sdsds]

So in terms of commercial manned spaceflight to LEO, here are some possibilities...

SpaceX Dragon on Falcon 9
Boeing/Bigelow "orion lite" on Atlas V
Spacedev Dreamchaser on Atlas V
Lockmart winged RLV on something, possibly Atlas V?

That's in addition to Orion (on Ares V/Jupiter, DIVH), plus of course Soyuz and Shenzhou.

Am I leaving out anything?

Crewed Cygnus on Taurus II.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html

[robertross]

Maybe somebody can shed some light on this...

I tried finding it on Goddard's site, but no luck, so I have to post a rival site's entry:

http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33054

NASA Solicitation: Deiling Increase on the Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport Contract at Wallops Flight Facility for Launch Site Services

This key statement has commercial to ISS written all over it:

"VCSFA/MARS maintains the only specialized expertise and capability to build and operate existing launch infrastructure such as ground processing and launch pad activities, capable of satisfying small/medium launch vehicle requirements at Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia to meet the critical schedule for current and upcoming missions. The schedule is very compressed due to the impending shutdown of Space Transportation System (STS) operations by NASA. The first launch requirement drives the first use of these facilities to occur in late 2010 which is in stark contrast with the time it would take for another entity to establish parallel spaceport operations at WFF (estimated by NASA at 3-5 years, because of multi-agency licensing, environmental studies, technical/infrastructure interfaces, etc)."

[A_M_Swallow]

1/  The LV man-rating requirements probably should specify things like the maximum acceleration, vibration and rotation.

2/   The standards for the propellant and connectors may also need specifying.

3/ .   Experimental conditions such as maximum wind speed should be specified or at least the manufactures rules enforced.  Delaying the launch if the pre-launch temperature goes below 0^o C or possibly -60^o C may be important.

4. If the capsule (plus other payloads) and the LV are being made by different companies then the interface between them should be controlled by an independent third party.

quality inspectors and regulators don't enter into the picture

This is a public transport system - quality inspectors and regulators own you from now on.

1. Those are the least of the manrating issues.  Most launch vehicles as is can carry crew.  Man rating has to do with the abort systems and avionics to interface with it.  Also reliability is another more important aspect.

Passenger ergonomics are important.  They may be the same as for a 747 but they are still there.  Where the LV cannot meet the standards of a 747, say due to high acceleration, then that definitely has to be specified.  It is quite normal for the cargo carrying rules to be a subset of the passenger rules.  Many machines have extra rules for human safety the engine monitoring system just being the communication cord for a LV.  As for reliability LOM is similar for cargo and manned flights; LOC is primary the capsule's job rather than the LV.  Unfortunately with a MTBF of less than 1 hour both are low.

2.  That is not manrating but standard integration for no matter what the spacecraft is (whether it carries crew or not)

3.  That is integration again and not manrating

Integration frequently involves testing against a standard.  See the one for civilian airline fuel
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/91/091/00000600.pdf

4.  Totally wrong and off base.  The payloads and LV are always made by different companies. There is no need for a 3rd party to enter in the process.  Even if they were done by the same corporation, it was different companies within the corp and they were from different background and histories.    Launch vehicles determine most of the interfaces and spacecraft conform to them.

This poor practice has survived because NASA and DoD have had control of both sides of the interface.  This is coming to an end.
For example the list of International Standards Organisation Standards for containers
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=46564

The LV manufacture may still write most of the standard but it will have to obtain permission to change it.  I am sure that you can think of examples within NASA of why this became normal practice outside of NASA.

[Antares]

Any time something starts with "NASA Solicitation" or any other federal procurement, fedbizopps is the best place to find it:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4241a5dc3b752f6106bafc62316d4cb7&tab=core&tabmode=list&cck=1&au=&ck=

[Freddie]

For RobertRoss...

NASA publicly posted the announcement of Solicitation No. NNG09WA08C for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport contract ceiling increase on the traditional websites customarily used.

The Federal Business Opportunities government website carried the notice at...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4241a5dc3b752f6106bafc62316d4cb7&tab=core&_cview=0

...while it was also listed on the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Business Opportunities webpage at...

http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=51#138949

...with more specific details therein at...

http://nais.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=138949 .

[robertross]

Thanks to both of you.

Thinking about it last night...maybe this has more to do with payloads of opportunity than ISS re-supply, IE: Cubesats, and the like.

[Jim]

Thanks to both of you.
Thinking about it last night...maybe this has more to do with payloads of opportunity than ISS re-supply, IE: Cubesats, and the like.

No, this just has to do with "extending" the contract (increasing the  ceiling) of the organization that runs Wallops for NASA.    If NASA can't extend the contract, then it will have to be re competed.   A new contractor would have the typical startup hiccups, this might impact the support to OSC for Taurus II.  That is the ISS angle.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I'd just like to get something cleared up, if I could. 

Up to this point, I had been assuming that CCDev was essentially the same thing as the COTS-D competition - to get commercial developers to produce alternate crew access systems for LEO.  However, I have seen some things of late that challenge that.  For instance, I saw a comment that stated that SpaceX are building the LAS for the CCDev vehicle.  Given the number of companies earlier named by Boeing as all being involved in their own proposal, it seems that it is a major colaborative effort.

With this in mind, is CCDev a multi-contractor program to develop a single commercial crewed vehicle as an alternate to Orion/Ares-I? Or am I reading too much into that comment and SpaceX are merely sub-contracting on one of the competing bids to crewed Dragon?

[robertross]

Thanks to both of you.
Thinking about it last night...maybe this has more to do with payloads of opportunity than ISS re-supply, IE: Cubesats, and the like.

No, this just has to do with "extending" the contract (increasing the  ceiling) of the organization that runs Wallops for NASA.    If NASA can't extend the contract, then it will have to be re competed.   A new contractor would have the typical startup hiccups, this might impact the support to OSC for Taurus II.  That is the ISS angle.

Thanks Jim. Makes sense now.

[Jim]

I'd just like to get something cleared up, if I could. 

Up to this point, I had been assuming that CCDev was essentially the same thing as the COTS-D competition - to get commercial developers to produce alternate crew access systems for LEO.  However, I have seen some things of late that challenge that.  For instance, I saw a comment that stated that SpaceX are building the LAS for the CCDev vehicle. 

With this in mind, is CCDev a multi-contractor program to develop a single commercial crewed vehicle as an alternate to Orion/Ares-I? Or am I reading too much into that comment and SpaceX are merely sub-contracting on one of the competing bids to crewed Dragon?

No, there is no such thing as a CCDev vehicle.   CCDev does not provide a vehicle.   CCDev enables companies to provide a vehicle.
Like funding Spacex LAS is a great example.  What follows is conjecture, but the money also could be use to fund Dream chaser/Atlas integration studies or maybe Boeing early design work on a capsule.    This is how  CCDev is to work.

[Jim]

1/  The LV man-rating requirements probably should specify things like the maximum acceleration, vibration and rotation.

2/   The standards for the propellant and connectors may also need specifying.

3/ .   Experimental conditions such as maximum wind speed should be specified or at least the manufactures rules enforced.  Delaying the launch if the pre-launch temperature goes below 0^o C or possibly -60^o C may be important.

4. If the capsule (plus other payloads) and the LV are being made by different companies then the interface between them should be controlled by an independent third party.

quality inspectors and regulators don't enter into the picture

This is a public transport system - quality inspectors and regulators own you from now on.

1. Those are the least of the manrating issues.  Most launch vehicles as is can carry crew.  Man rating has to do with the abort systems and avionics to interface with it.  Also reliability is another more important aspect.

Passenger ergonomics are important.  They may be the same as for a 747 but they are still there.  Where the LV cannot meet the standards of a 747, say due to high acceleration, then that definitely has to be specified.  It is quite normal for the cargo carrying rules to be a subset of the passenger rules.  Many machines have extra rules for human safety the engine monitoring system just being the communication cord for a LV.  As for reliability LOM is similar for cargo and manned flights; LOC is primary the capsule's job rather than the LV.  Unfortunately with a MTBF of less than 1 hour both are low.

2.  That is not manrating but standard integration for no matter what the spacecraft is (whether it carries crew or not)

3.  That is integration again and not manrating

Integration frequently involves testing against a standard.  See the one for civilian airline fuel
http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/91/091/00000600.pdf

4.  Totally wrong and off base.  The payloads and LV are always made by different companies. There is no need for a 3rd party to enter in the process.  Even if they were done by the same corporation, it was different companies within the corp and they were from different background and histories.    Launch vehicles determine most of the interfaces and spacecraft conform to them.

This poor practice has survived because NASA and DoD have had control of both sides of the interface.  This is coming to an end.
For example the list of International Standards Organisation Standards for containers
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=46564

The LV manufacture may still write most of the standard but it will have to obtain permission to change it.  I am sure that you can think of examples within NASA of why this became normal practice outside of NASA.

  Obviously the poster has no insight or knowledge of the processes involved nor is he in a position to make such statements.  Each point is either incorrect or makes the wrong assumptions.

[yg1968]

Ben,

The description in the August 10 Solliciation announcement is fairly large and can therefore cover various activities:

The purpose of this activity is to provide funding to assist viable commercial entities in the development of system concepts, key technologies, and capabilities that could ultimately be used in commercial crew human space transportation systems.  This development work must show, within the timeframe of the agreement, significant progress on long lead capabilities, technologies and commercial crew risk mitigation tasks in order to accelerate the development of their commercial crew space transportation concept.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/sol.cgi?acqid=136839

[Ben the Space Brit]

Jim, yg1968,

Yes I understand now.  CCDev is essentially federal funding to assist in the development of commercial crew vehicles.  SpaceX has applied for support to develop their LAS (something for which they have been asking for government support for some time, IIRC).  My misunderstanding  was that I thought that CCDev was a RFP for complete commercial crew vehicles for a NASA contract like CRS.  I couldn't understand why so many companies were listed as applicants and only for parts of various products.