Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements

[joek]

Let's also not forget that while some of the requirements may at first blush appear egregious or dubious, ISS is central to the program, and by extension the concerns of the international partners.

I have no idea what influence the IP's have had on the requirements, but something to keep in mind is that there are stakeholders other than NASA and the commercial providers, in particular those who will likely have crew riding on these vehicles, and even those who likely won't (e.g., Russia) but who still have a substantial interest.¹

As Wayne Hale stated, "CCT-REQ-1130 is a step in the right direction, but is hardly revolutionary".  This is largely uncharted territory for everyone, and as long as we're going in the right direction I remain optimistic. YMMV.


¹ E.g., incorporated by reference in the CCT requirements is SSP 50808 Intentional Space Station (ISS) to Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Interface Requirements Document (IRD), which I've been told is well over 400 pages, and the result of joint efforts between commercial providers, NASA, and by extension the IP's.

[RocketEconomist327]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

[Comga]

IIRC someone named Richard Speck on this forum discussed his <1g space qualified camera.  You can fit a dozen around the edge of that window and still look out the center, or mount them outside as suggested.

I learned from NSF that the Saturn V used fiber optics to bring images of its F1 engines to cameras. These aren't even new clever ideas.

But these are not "Mark 0 eyeballs" on the target.

A half-silvered mirror could easily allow "Mark 0 eyeballs on the target" in parallel with a couple of cameras. At very least with a periscope-like setup.

Thank you, but I could come up with a dozen other vision solutions, and have designed several.  That's not the point.  These are alternate solutions to one requirement that will probably be disallowed.  Even if an offeror slogs through getting an exemption, there will be more rules just like it.  It will never end.

Here I agree with RS327.  SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC could be flying while NASA tut-tuts, neglecting that "Better is the enemy of good enough."   

[Jim]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

[A_M_Swallow]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

[joek]

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Maybe that will be true eventually, but as Boeing has stated, they can't close the business case without NASA.

[Prober]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Think the dream Chaser would be dead as well.   Don't want to speak for Jim, but think he is chating about the Atlas V funding from NASA?
 

[A_M_Swallow]

Think the dream Chaser would be dead as well.   Don't want to speak for Jim, but think he is chating about the Atlas V funding from NASA?
 

Ah!  That is why people are writing about the Ares I, to keep the price of manrating Atlas V down.

It is not too late for NASA to have an extra round of COTS in FY12.  In a competitive bidding session Boeing may have to go up against say Taurus 3 from OSC.

[joek]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

I hope and expect that if/when Bigelow (or whoever) and commercial transport providers are the rule and NASA is not the only customer, the landscape will change.  But that will take time.  I don't want to drag this into an OT discussion of US liability and tort law, but something to consider in this nascent phase of commercial space transportation...

NASA detailing requirements--no matter how excessive or inane some may appear--offer a certain amount of liability cover to providers... "NASA wanted it that way, NASA knows best, and we did it their way.  If you want to sue, sue NASA because we have all the required boxes checked and signed by NASA."  Not a guarantee you won't be targeted, but any provider who has an exception or waiver largely forfeits any potential cover.^*

Or NASA could, as some suggest, simply provide a few pages of high level guidance or intent with the implied caveat that "If you screw up, don't look at us, as it will be entirely your a** on the line" (and maybe we'll get there some day).  So you're commercial provider X, what option would you choose?  Obviously it's not black-and-white and there are tradeoffs more complex than those simplistic portrayals suggest.

In short, let's cut everyone some slack as this is a complex calculus and still a work in progress.  I hope and expect all parties are trying to do the right thing (at least as they see it), that economic imperatives will ultimately prevail, and that we'll eventually come to a reasonable solution.


^* Similar dynamics have been noted in the US nuclear power and other high-risk industries, and the differences between the US and other countries' approaches to regulation and liability.

[erioladastra]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

Thanks to the OP for the files.

VR
RE327

CST-100 is not going to fly without NASA funding

Yes, all indications are that Boeing will stop the program if the "anchor tenant" NASA stops funding of CCDev and CST-100 in particular therby indicating that NASA is not going to buy rides to the ISS on CST-100. Without a high probability that NASA will buy rides Boeing has little incentive to go forward.

I would have thought that Bigelow Aerospace would be "anchor tenant" for the CST-100.  Oh well!  More sales for Dragon and Dream Chaser.

Bigelow is comitted - to anyone who can provide him transportation first.

[Norm Hartnett]

What concerns me more than any one specific requirement is the sheer tonnage of documentation required. I doubt that there is a launch vehicle on the planet that could lift this load. While this isn't a concern for the big boys who've been playing the NASA game for years and who have a staff of clerks, lawyers, and others as required it certainly is for companies like SpaceX who are lean and mean. Hiring all these paper-shufflers just keeps adding to the bottom line while reducing design and manufacturing flexibility.

Same old game, same old results (or lack there of).

[DaveH62]

This thread just further validates my opinion that the sooner we get CST-100 and Biglow going NASA will still be worrying about window placement, fiber optics, and "piloting".

In short, let's cut everyone some slack as this is a complex calculus and still a work in progress.  I hope and expect all parties are trying to do the right thing (at least as they see it), that economic imperatives will ultimately prevail, and that we'll eventually come to a reasonable solution.


^* Similar dynamics have been noted in the US nuclear power and other high-risk industries, and the differences between the US and other countries' approaches to regulation and liability.

I agree that this shouldn't be personal, but it is these procurement details that create 10 billion dollar projects that are farther from completion when they are cancelled then when they start (Ares). These are the processes that create $900 toilet seats and an F35 jet that cost $135 million each as a "cost effective update" to the expensive (less expensive) F22.
Should NASA write high level requirements, and create milestones to prove the efficacy of the design and engineering, of course. NASA should also be a trailblazer for DOD though in developing intelligent effective new options for more rapid development cycles and more cost effective solutions.
Every time NASA adds requirements, they add time to the development cycle. Every time they add time to the development cycle, they increase the risk to that project being cancelled by parochial congressional interests and fickle administrations not willing to go to the mattresses for any NASA program. NASA overestimates everyone patience and thinks Joe Schmoe cares as much this stuff as everyone reading this forum. In my youth I could not imagine anyone not sharing my passion for a return to the moon, or a human on mars in my lifetime, but we are a small minority.
For better or worse, NASA's role to the average American is equal to its status within our budget (.5%). NASA has to add value and maximize its options and ROI. That .5% is not going up without results, and results are not to be found in procurement policies designed to protect incumbent contractors and legacy technologies. I sincerely hope NASA's budget does go up over the next decade and things change versus the prior 40 years, but reading this thread it is hard not to worry that policy will win at the cost of results.
We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt its possible without a few people getting personal.

[Norm Hartnett]

We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

[erioladastra]

We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...

[DaveH62]

We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...

The point is, NASA has the funding. They have a commercial entity that is going to supply the ISS 12 times over the next 3 years. With the most precious cargo being the crew and station itself, why new rules for manned capsules? If the Dragon supply capsule can connect to the ISS without a window, it can connect without a window for manned missions. Why should they have to meet specs that only match the Orion and CTS, if they can meet their reliability and safety through an equivalent design methodology. These are procurement policies designed to protect incumbents, even if that is not the intention. The story is, we have done it this way, so we have to do it this way, forever. There will never be funding for BEO human exploration if everything has to be Shuttle or Apollo era methodology, and worse, technology. Redundant cameras that can prove 99.999% reliability  is adequate. Have a stand down procedure if 4 cameras don't work at the same time, but does it really have to be a window? The shuttle didn't have a window and Soyuz doesn't have a window.
NASA should be driving procurement policies that DOD could use to drive down development costs, not instituting the most conservative processes available. SAA contracting has allowed NASA to get a resupply system in place to replace the Shuttle for 5% of the cost of the Ares program, and for another 5-10% of the actual SLS costs, can have 2 more man rated systems within 3 years. NASA could put a man on the moon with the savings from SLS, and dropping no compete cost plus contracts now and get it on the moon before SLS could launch a single person (at 1billion per astronaut, not counting development costs).

[Jorge]

We are so close to having 2 or 3 cost effective manned options for accessing the ISS, but we seem to be ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Worth saying twice.

I think this overly optimistic.  If funding is good (big if), NASA can continue 2 companies in the next phase.  NASA would liek to keep 2 all the way but this is very unlikely unless the funding profile changes dramatically.  it is not clear to me yet that without NASA funding anyone will really press.  I would hope so but...

The point is, NASA has the funding. They have a commercial entity that is going to supply the ISS 12 times over the next 3 years. With the most precious cargo being the crew and station itself, why new rules for manned capsules? If the Dragon supply capsule can connect to the ISS without a window, it can connect without a window for manned missions. Why should they have to meet specs that only match the Orion and CTS, if they can meet their reliability and safety through an equivalent design methodology. These are procurement policies designed to protect incumbents, even if that is not the intention. The story is, we have done it this way, so we have to do it this way, forever. There will never be funding for BEO human exploration if everything has to be Shuttle or Apollo era methodology, and worse, technology. Redundant cameras that can prove 99.999% reliability  is adequate. Have a stand down procedure if 4 cameras don't work at the same time, but does it really have to be a window? The shuttle didn't have a window and Soyuz doesn't have a window.

Incorrect. The shuttle had four windows with a view of docking; Soyuz had one forward porthole.

[DaveH62]

Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates? Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

[pathfinder_01]

Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates? Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

I could be wrong cause I saw this diagram back in the 8oies but the shuttle has some flight controls towards the back where the robot arm controls are. 

[Jorge]

Jorge
Ok if wrong, but did the shuttle pilot have a window? I thought it was a two person operation and the pilot did not have a window, at least after the flight system updates?

For ascent/entry, the CDR had windows 1, 2, and 3 and the PLT had windows 4, 5, and 6.

For rendezvous and docking, windows 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the aft crew station had a direct view of docking.  It was not the primary flight cue (the centerline camera was) but it was available for flying a backout in the event of camera failure.

I don't know what you mean by "flight system updates".

Re Soyuz, did it have a portal meeting the new specs, or would it require a redesign?

The orbital module has a forward-facing cupola window, and the descent module has a periscope. Not sure if the periscope meets the letter of the specs, but I think it meets the intent.