CCDev/CCP updates

[yg1968]

A December 12th update:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc.com/45587364

[yg1968]

The third round of CCDev will be called the Commercial Crew integrated Capability(CCiCap). See this link for details:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=230715a3035c3af460f542da1ad80562&tab=core&_cview=0

[QuantumG]

CCCP eh?  The jokes write themselves.

[ChefPat]

Is round 3 going to use SAA's afterall?

[apace]

Is round 3 going to use SAA's afterall?

Yes: NASA intends to solicit proposals from U.S. space industry participants to mature the design and development of an integrated CTS which includes spacecraft, launch vehicle, ground and mission systems. Selected CCiCap participants will receive funded Space Act Agreements (SAAs) under NASA’s Other Transactions Authority within the National Aeronautics and Space Act, 51 U.S.C. 20113. NASA intends to select a portfolio of multiple CCiCap SAAs that best meet the CCiCap goals within the available funding.

[yg1968]

ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

[beancounter]

ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Yes and I believe they also say something about the use of SAA that results in an increase in risk.  This has not been demonstrated.  In fact, so far the only SAA where this could apply is COTS and this has been significant in that the milestones actually  reduce the level of financial risk that NASA is exposed to.  Wrt other forms of risk, i.e. human or cargo, this also has not been demonstrated nor has the case even been argued.

[erioladastra]

ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

Yes and I believe they also say something about the use of SAA that results in an increase in risk.  This has not been demonstrated.  In fact, so far the only SAA where this could apply is COTS and this has been significant in that the milestones actually  reduce the level of financial risk that NASA is exposed to.  Wrt other forms of risk, i.e. human or cargo, this also has not been demonstrated nor has the case even been argued.

But no actual cargo or human missions have actually been successfully launched yet.  Hence there is risk that the SAAs will succeed.  Even one successful launch would not mean vindication.  I am not trying to downplay SAAs but this is the very definition of risk - there is no guarantee NASA's needs will be met yet.  Hopefully, but not yet.

[DaveH62]

Interesting report, and interesting read on the discussion of FAR vs SAA.

From the ASAP report, it sounds like at least someone is trying to tell Congress we are putting ourselves in a very bad position, with Soyuz being unreliable, and Congress not adequately funding commercial, the risk of early ISS de-orbit is rising. They also note mission failure at 1 in 55, but based on the last 18 months of Soyuz, that risk also seems to be increasing.

"it appears to the ASAP that the fiscal year (FY) 2012 funding level approved by Congress, which was less than half of what was requested by the Administration, will not allow commercial crew transportation
to the ISS by 2016. In fact, if the new funding level continues into the future, it is the ASAP’s belief that the program is in jeopardy, thus extending the current lack of a U.S. human spaceflight capability and
resulting in no alternative to reliance on Russia to obtain access to the ISS....
Alternatively, terminating the development program would result in continued reliance on the Russian Soyuz, a system with an
uncertain long-term future.

[Namechange User]

It is interesting that so much of this is playing out exactly as we all predicted.  That's truly too bad.  And quite sad. 

[BrightLight]

ATLAS V update from NASA Commercial Space Transportation site

One of NASA's industry partners, United Launch Alliance (ULA), successfully completed two milestones that could eventually lead toward the certification of its Atlas V launch vehicle for human spaceflight.

In December, ULA conducted a series of detailed reviews that reflected the culmination of efforts involving technical experts and representatives from NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

“ULA gave us an invaluable opportunity to get to know its Atlas V systems and subsystems through our unfunded partnership,” said Commercial Crew Program Manager Ed Mango. “And we are happy to share our knowledge and expectations to keeping our crews safe."

The first review was a Tailored System Requirements Review (TSRR), which looked at how the existing, flight-proven Atlas V rocket could meet the intent of NASA's human spaceflight certification requirements. The team paid particular emphasis to requirements traceability, verification and certification planning.

"The TSRR was the result of an extensive effort with NASA and our commercial spacecraft partners during which we cooperatively reviewed the details of the Atlas V design, analyses and operations," said George Sowers, ULA's vice president of business development and advanced programs. "This was the first time that we were able to share detailed Atlas V design and flight data with NASA human spaceflight experts."

The second review was a Probabilistic Safety Analysis (PSA) Review, which evaluated safety-critical launch vehicle systems. This included the details of existing failure modes and effects analyses data, ULA’s probabilistic risk assessment approach for CCP, explosion modeling analyses, system hazard analyses and fault coverage assessments. The PSA leveraged similar data developed in support of Atlas V launches of critical NASA missions including New Horizons, Juno and the Mars Science Laboratory.

"The PSA provided a firm foundation to show how the demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V offers significant benefits toward meeting NASA's stringent crew safety requirements," Sowers said. "We received invaluable insight from NASA's Commercial Crew Program while allowing us to provide the details behind the reliability and robustness of the Atlas V design."

Three of the four current NASA Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) partners have selected Atlas V as their launch vehicle.

All of NASA’s industry partners continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities that will ferry U.S. astronauts to and from the International Space Station reducing the amount of time America is without its own system.

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/commercialcrew

[beancounter]

Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

The only disappointment is the crawl pace.  Surely commercial and NASA can get it done more quickly.  I know, I know, space is hard, blah blah blah but we're not inventing anything new here.  It's been done and is still being done today so why is it all snail pace.

[AnalogMan]

Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

There is an active discussion on this latest solicitation round in the NASA Plans for Commercial Crew Development - Dec. 15, 2011 (starting at the linked post) if you want to see what NSF members made of it 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg858988#msg858988

[beancounter]

Found this article this morning.  Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html

There is an active discussion on this latest solicitation round in the NASA Plans for Commercial Crew Development - Dec. 15, 2011 (starting at the linked post) if you want to see what NSF members made of it 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg858988#msg858988

Thanks.

[Blackjax]

The latest CCDev2 Milestone Schedule is posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/623706main_CCDev2_Public_20120216_508.pdf

[Lurker Steve]

When I compare Boeing's LAS milestones (4, 10a/10b, 13) with SpaceX's LAS milestones (Basically the entire funded portion of the CCDev 2 schedule), doesn't it appear that Boeing ends up closer to having a completed LAS at the end ?

I don't see any items on the SpaceX list that relate to Emergency Detection, integration with the OMS engines, GNC software etc...
It sounds like there is still so much work to get done.

[MikeAtkinson]

Compared to the schedule published on 16th August 2011

Sierra Nevada are running about 4 weeks late

Boeing are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule)

SpaceX are about on time (perhaps 1-2 weeks late)

Blue Origin are about 3 months behind schedule.

ULA are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule).

[erioladastra]

Compared to the schedule published on 16th August 2011

Sierra Nevada are running about 4 weeks late

Boeing are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule)

SpaceX are about on time (perhaps 1-2 weeks late)

Blue Origin are about 3 months behind schedule.

ULA are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule).

I understand the desire to try and line that up that way but you really can't do that.  Optional milestones have been added, some things were juggled. 

[oiorionsbelt]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

[A_M_Swallow]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

Also are they planning to use the NDS or a Russian docking port?