Comments Sought: White Paper on Integrated Ops Framework for Commercial Space

[OpsAnalyst]

Greetings NSF-ers -

I'm spending some of my spare time supporting the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee's Space Transportation Operations Working Group (COMSTAC STOWG), and recently wrote a statement supporting a systems-based approach to development of an integrated operations framework for commercial spaceflight in the U.S. (quite the mouthful!). 

The white paper is really just a one-pager intended to float some concepts in order to get the dialogue going.  It's just been distributed within COMSTAC but as the author I'd like to open it up for inputs from the broader community.

You can find the paper and a better description of the background on my blog at http://marylynnedittmar.com  (You can also find a brief bio for me there, in case you're quite understandably wondering who the heck I am!) It's most efficient for me to take comments directly to the website - and hopefully a discussion will ensue that may drive out even better ideas.  I'm taking comments until January 28, at which point I'll wrap them up and forward them to the COMSTAC STOWG along with my own. 

This is a rare chance to participate in shaping the dialogue for a critically-important component of a national commercial spaceflight industry.  Your inputs are greatly appreciated!

Mary Lynne Dittmar, Ph.D.

[jryodabobs]

Folks, this is a serious effort to impact the future. You can help. Please visit the good doctor's website (linked above), read the brief set of suggestions she has put together, and help her by providing ideas for inclusion - or exclusion, as the case may be.

[OpsAnalyst]

Folks, this is a serious effort to impact the future. You can help. Please visit the good doctor's website (linked above), read the brief set of suggestions she has put together, and help her by providing ideas for inclusion - or exclusion, as the case may be.

Thank you Bob, appreciate the bump (and the call to action!)

[kraisee]

Thanks for sharing this with the NSF community.   This is a very valuable opportunity.

I have a question:

Given the radically different approaches of, say, Space-X (Falcon-9/Dragon, to Orbit) as opposed to Virgin Galactic (White Knight 2/Space Ship 2, sub-Orbital), what is the intent behind creating a single integrated Ops Framework for all?


And I also have a concern:

The commercial space flight world is a highly politically charged one, as is much of the space community.   If precautions are not taken early, such an Ops Framework could be used as a tool to politically limit any new and innovative operations that have approaches which to not fit in an existing pigeon-hole.

IMHO, Specific provision needs to be made to allow non-standard approaches to be fully developed, tested and proven without interference, and then to proceed by assessing them on a case-by-case basis -- ultimately even leading to additions/revisions to the Ops Framework itself.

Ross.

[scienceguy]

If a spaceflight to the moon or Mars has to be aborted halfway, should the craft have enough propellant to get back or should it be mandated that there be a refueling station(s) at point(s) in between? For trips to Mars, I imagine we can have at least 4 such stations orbiting the sun in between Earth and Mars.

Also, if the moon or Mars is the destination, should we have to make sure that there enough water, food and oxygen at the destination before the crew even takes off from Earth?

[Robotbeat]

If a spaceflight to the moon or Mars has to be aborted halfway, should the craft have enough propellant to get back or should it be mandated that there be a refueling station(s) at point(s) in between? For trips to Mars, I imagine we can have at least 4 such stations orbiting the sun in between Earth and Mars.

Also, if the moon or Mars is the destination, should we have to make sure that there enough water, food and oxygen at the destination before the crew even takes off from Earth?

For Mars, celestial mechanics basically says that you are basically going to take almost as long if you abort or if you just go ahead with the mission. To shorten the time by a significant amount would require a ridiculous amount of propellant. You're looking at hundreds of days no matter what once you do the departure burn.

EDIT: This may not be entirely true in all cases for electric propulsion, which spends a lot of time thrusting and has much higher delta-v reserves. But with chemical and nuclear thermal, once you've done the departure burn, you're basically committed to the mission.

[Wayne Hale]

I'll make a couple of comments here and then go to the author's site for more detailed comments.

First of all, this identifies a real need - integrated, comprehensive spaceflight operations requirements for both sub-orbital and orbital operations including FAA and NASA.  Currently such an integrated set of requirements does not exist.

Second, NASA is in the process of establishing operational requirements for orbital spacecraft (the so-called "1150" document) which may be released in draft form within a few weeks.  However, this does not incorporation operations for sub-orbital vehicles nor will it likely draw from aviation or the FAA. 

This type of piece-part, non-integrated patchwork of requirements and regulations will stymie the development of an industry.  My kudos to the author(s) for pointing out the existing situation and proposing an outline of how to alleviate this "job killing" situation.

[OpsAnalyst]

I'll make a couple of comments here and then go to the author's site for more detailed comments.

First of all, this identifies a real need - integrated, comprehensive spaceflight operations requirements for both sub-orbital and orbital operations including FAA and NASA.  Currently such an integrated set of requirements does not exist.

Second, NASA is in the process of establishing operational requirements for orbital spacecraft (the so-called "1150" document) which may be released in draft form within a few weeks.  However, this does not incorporation operations for sub-orbital vehicles nor will it likely draw from aviation or the FAA. 

This type of piece-part, non-integrated patchwork of requirements and regulations will stymie the development of an industry.  My kudos to the author(s) for pointing out the existing situation and proposing an outline of how to alleviate this "job killing" situation.

Thanks, Wayne; I appreciate that input and look forward to reading more.  I hope others will take note and make comments; it is an opportunity to (at the very least) raise awareness of the issues.