CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[AnalogMan]

Latest 60 day report has just been posted on the NASA website:

› Commercial Spaceflight - 60 Day Report, Issue 8 (PDF)
› CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF - 8/15/12)

Eighth issue, with articles on the CCiCap partners announcement, the near-completion of all CCDev2 milestones, Orbital's progress toward the Antares test flight for the COTS program, and the announcement of the Certification Products Contract (CPC).

[yg1968]

There is some information on the price of the CCiCap optional milestones in the Hearing Charter:

In addition to the funds shown above, the three companies selected for CCiCap submitted optional milestones, that include such big ticket items as launch and landing simulations, spacecraft qualification testing, crew escape system pad abort tests, purchasing launch vehicles necessary for demonstration flights, and crewed orbital test flights. The optional milestones have aggregate total cost estimates in the range of $4.5 Billion, more than four times greater than the costs assumed for the CCiCap base period (2012-2014).

See page 4:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/images/HHRG-112-%20SY-20120914-SD001.pdf

See the post above. The CCiCap optional milestones are more expensive than I expected.

[baldusi]

That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.

[yg1968]

That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.

Yeah. That's a good point about the cost of crew access tower, etc. For the Atlas V, these amounts are likely counted in double since Boeing can't assume that DC will share the payment of these costs and vis-versa (in other words, each company must assume that the other one will have been downselected in 2014).

[Prober]

Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??

[Jim]

Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??

it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract

[vulture4]

That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.

Yeah. That's a good point about the cost of crew access tower, etc. For the Atlas V, these amounts are likely counted in double since Boeing can't assume that DC will share the payment of these costs and vis-versa (in other words, each company must assume that the other one will have been downselected in 2014).

ULA may supply the access tower for both vehicles, saving a lot of duplication and potential design interference. There might be slight differences in the hatch locaton but a typical swingarm access system would be flexible enough for both.

[Prober]

Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??

it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract

confused, your saying NASA might relax its standards?

[AnalogMan]

Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??

it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract

confused, your saying NASA might relax its standards?

NASA-STD-5012 (Strength and Life Assessment Requirements for Liquid Fueled Space Propulsion System Engines) is not mandatory under CCDEV or CCiCap Space Act agreements.  However, it is an applicable standard in the following documents:

CCT-STD-1140 Crew Transportation Technical Standards and Design Evaluation Criteria
CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation Certification and Services Requirements Document

Both of these are indirectly referenced in the CCiCap Announcement document as follows:

"This activity is expected to result in significant maturation of commercial CTS capabilities and significant progress towards an orbital crewed demonstration flight of these systems with consideration given to potential customers’ standards (e.g. NASA’s 1100 series and SSP 50808 and industry standards)."

And also:

"3.2     Base Period Goals
For the base period, to be concluded no later than May 31, 2014, NASA’s goals are for Participants to:
[...]
3.  Establish the criteria and plans for the Participants’ certification of the system for the orbital crewed demonstration flight, which considers potential customer standards (e.g. NASA’s 1100 series, SSP 50808 and industry equivalents)."

The upcoming Certification Products Contract (CPC) does call up CCT-STD-1140 and CCT-REQ-1130 as applicable documents -  which means that successful participants must meet the intent of NASA-STD-5012 either directly, or through alternative standards that can be shown to satisfy “meet the intent of” requirements.  The alternative standards clause in the model contract specifically calls up CCT-REQ-1130 Section 3.9 which lists NASA-STD-5012 as a requirement.

[Prober]

thx for the info....more like what info I was looking for.

[yg1968]

There is some info about CST-100, Dragon Rider and CST-100 here:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/ispcs-2012-afternoon-session-part-2.html
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/ispcs-2012-thurs-morning-session-part-2.html

Here is an interesting article on IP rights under CCiCap:
http://ipinspace.com/2012/10/17/ccicap-space-act-agreements-keep-your-ip-rights-if-you-want-to/

[AnalogMan]

Latest NASA Commercial Spaceflight 60-day Report (October 18, 2012) has been published.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698604main_October_2012_60_Day_Report.pdf

• Update on milestones for all three CCiCap participants
• Article about re-usability of all three spacecraft

EDIT: Also a couple of presentations/poster dating from September:

• Commercial Spaceflight Status Briefing, September 2012
• Commercial Crew Program Status, NAC Commercial Space Committee, September 18, 2012
• New Commercial Crew Program Partners poster (9 MB)

[AnalogMan]

Latest NASA Commercial Spaceflight 60-day Report (Issue 10, December 2012) has been published.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713805main_December_2012_60_Day_Report2.pdf

CCiCap milestones completed:

Boeing             3 of 19
SpaceX            3 of 14
Sierra Nevada   2 of 9

Also a couple of presentations have been posted (first one we already know about):

› Presentation for NASA Advisory Council’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee, November 15, 2012 (PDF)
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012

[docmordrid]

Of note concerning SpaceX's SuperDraco -

To date, the SuperDraco engines have undergone 58 hot-fire tests for a total run time of about 117 seconds. According to SpaceX Project Manager Garrett Reisman, “The SuperDraco development and test effort is indicating that this newly designed engine will surpass our original requirements."

[MP99]

› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed. Basically getting a head-start on the post-CCiCap certification phase.

Contract Objective - Begin early, critical certification work to meet NASA Crew Transportation System (CTS) requirements

Procurement summary
– Multiple firm fixed price contract awards
– Individual awards capped at a maximum of $10M each
– Phase 1 Period of Performance: 15 months, awarded Dec 2012

Limited Scope
– Submittal and discussion of specific early lifecycle certification products
    – Alternate Standards
    – Hazard Analyses/Reports
    – Verification & Validation Plan
    – Certification Plan
– Begin the process of ISS visiting vehicle integration
– No design/development work funded through CPC

Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

cheers, Martin

[AnalogMan]

› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

Awards for the "Certification Products Contract" were recently announced (December 10) - we even have a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30583.0

CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525

[MP99]

› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

Awards for the "Certification Products Contract" were recently announced (December 10) - we even have a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30583.0

CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525

Thanks. I'd either become unsubscribed from that sub-forum, or Chris has been having another play and reorg'd them again. 

cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

[mlindner]

There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

Unless I'm missing the legalese here, this is just re-stating what has already been stated, which is that NASA will not fly NASA astronauts on commercial crew vehicles during the SAA period. If I am reading what they said correctly then there is nothing preventing the companies from flying their own people into space, correct?

[QuantumG]

Why does the press act like the ASAP has any influence over the NASA administration or in any way represents them?

NASA regularly ignores ASAP and their "recommendations".