CCDev/CCP updates

[manboy]

Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:

The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Well, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS.  With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.

At least Commercial Crew will be using a low impact docking system unlike Progress, Soyuz, ATV and Shuttle. Do berthing vehicles (HTV and COTS) really disturb the micro-gravity that much?

On page 11:

The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Just curious but is it possible for the ISS to support 17 people for short durations (3 on Soyuz, 7 per Commercial Crew vehicle), or at least more the current 13 person record?

[Space Pete]

Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves three slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

The USOS will be going to three crewmembers once commercial crew comes online. If one International Partner astronaut is included, that makes four USOS crewmembers, plus one pilot (so five altogether), on one flight.

[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals.  AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]

Agree completely - ISS is not a hotel for billionaires, I can't believe space tourism on ISS is being seriously considered.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

The USOS will be going to 3 crewmembers once commercial crew comes online. If one International Partner astronaut is included, that makes 4 USOS crewmembers, plus a pilot, on one flight.

Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 

[arkaska]

What about indirect handovers as is done today? One vehicle every 3 months carrying 2 crew-members?

And who said the remaining seats will be tourists? NASA might want short-duration crew-members coming up for special tasks such as EVAs so expedition crews don't have to focus on that during training.

[peter-b]

Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 

That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

[Space Pete]

Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew.  There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate. 

I've heard (unofficially) that the six month stay of ISS crewmembers may be reduced once commercial crew comes online. Also, don't forget that NASA is responsible for the transport of International Partner astronauts to and from the ISS, and so they will have to be factored into the equation.

Also, does the "eight crew rotations per year" mean eight crewmembers, or eight sets of crewmembers?

If we're talking about sets, then if four USOS crewmembers are rotated every three months, that makes four commercial flights a year, and eight crew rotations per year (four sets of USOS crews going up, and four sets of USOS crews going down).

[arkaska]

That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

[peter-b]

That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's true -- I was assuming that some of the excess seats might be utilised by IP in addition to the NASA obligation.

Another consideration to bear in mind is that excess crewmembers will likely be replaced by cargo mass rather than sold for space tourism purposes.

[Ronsmytheiii]

I've heard (unofficially) that the six month stay of ISS crewmembers may be reduced once commercial crew comes online. Also, don't forget that NASA is responsible for the transport of International Partner astronauts to and from the ISS, and so they will have to be factored into the equation.

Also, does the "eight crew rotations per year" mean eight crewmembers, or eight sets of crewmembers?

If we're talking about sets, then if four USOS crewmembers are rotated every three months, that makes four commercial flights a year, and eight crew rotations per year (four sets of USOS crews going up, and four sets of USOS crews going down).

In that case, then there goes Mars expedition equivalents. Again, sacrificing quality ISS research to artificially increase flight rate.

[arkaska]

In that case, then there goes Mars expedition equivalents. Again, sacrificing quality ISS research to artificially increase flight rate.

I don't agree at all. Shorter missions means the crew-members can be better trained for the experiments going on during those 3 months. It could also help shorten the training period.

Mars missions are to far away in the future for the need to simulate them on ISS at this time.

[joek]

That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.

I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's true -- I was assuming that some of the excess seats might be utilised by IP in addition to the NASA obligation.

Another consideration to bear in mind is that excess crewmembers will likely be replaced by cargo mass rather than sold for space tourism purposes.

The current requirement is for transportation of up to 4 crew/flight.  The rationale given is to increase ISS USOS crew size to 4, which include USOS IP's.¹

There is also a requirement for up to 100kg of cargo in place of each unused seat (beyond other in-vehicle cargo requirements which total ~220kg IIRC).

Beyond that NASA doesn't specify what excess seats may be used for other than if more than 4 people are transported, the vehicle must provide for all their consumables for the duration of their stay at ISS.


¹ See the links/docs in thread Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements; for the short form, see Requirements Workshop Session 4: Key Driving Requirements

[yg1968]

Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.

On page 11:

The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

Well, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS.  With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.


Edit: Also only two slots for USOS crew?  Really?  even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.

[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals.  AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]

I am not sure that NASA wants seven people on each flight. They seem to prefer four people per flight and the extra seats could be used for cargo.

[baldusi]

How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

[yg1968]

There would be 4 launches according to the document that I linked above.

[baldusi]

There would be 4 launches according to the document that I linked above.

I was trying to stress the point that if they decide to only go commercial (thus, not flying with the Russians), less than four flights would leave very little time for hand over and have little time for familiarization, thus increasing risk and complicating full station utilization. It was directed to those that said that four flights was only made as a "subsidy" to the commercial companies.

[sdsds]

Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

[Namechange User]

Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

That was always the plan.  The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three.  Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.

[erioladastra]

Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3?  This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?

That was always the plan.  The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three.  Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.

Correct - direct versus indirect is still being worked.

[erioladastra]

How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

For years when we just had 3 crew that is how it worked.  The Soyuz docked. there was handover for about 8-9 days and then undocking.  Yeah, it is tight and very busy.  Not ideal but what we are dealing with.

[baldusi]

How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.
The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.

For years when we just had 3 crew that is how it worked.  The Soyuz docked. there was handover for about 8-9 days and then undocking.  Yeah, it is tight and very busy.  Not ideal but what we are dealing with.

Yes, but then there's the Soyuz that came in the middle, that has been aboard for three months and will be for another three. So it was more like sending two, then one, then swapping the two, then swapping the one, etc. They used to leverage the Russian launches. Once they use US crew vehicles, and if they only launch US paid crew on US supplied vehicles, the only way to replicate that system is with four crew launches per year. One might argue that you should do some bartering with the russians (swapping places), and only do two launches. I would say that four launches would allow fully US redundant systems, AND allow for four crew USOS, with enough overlapping. It would also sort of completely separate the RS and USS from a crew access POV.