CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Rocket Science]

I think that "graphic" belongs in the "NASA Waste" thread... nuff said...

[joek]

The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?

Yes, as the CCiCap milestones (and funding) were based on where the contenders were at the time of the CCiCap awards, and where NASA felt they needed to be as a result of CCiCap:
Boeing -- System critical design review.*
SpaceX -- Integrated critical design review.*
SNC -- Significant progress toward completion of critical design.


* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

[QuantumG]

* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?

[docmordrid]

My question is if the "AtlasV HR" has enough software, avionics and physical differences to at least partially reset its success clock? Has it actually flown in anything but simulation?

[joek]

* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?

Not sure, but I think your sense is probably correct.  My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"

[erioladastra]

* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).

[erioladastra]

My question is if the "AtlasV HR" has enough software, avionics and physical differences to at least partially reset its success clock? Has it actually flown in anything but simulation?

Not really.  You start with the past as a basis and then carefully analyze the new stuff.  The new stuff is almost exclusively in the abort system which is additional, not modification of exisiting.  So you really have to prove/test/analyze that.  And some of that system is heritage as well.

[erioladastra]

At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.

Correct, 2 will be at that level.  No others will be close.

[Garrett]

My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"

Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).

So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?

[erioladastra]

My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"

Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).

So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?

Well, I shoudl have been more clear.  It is a bit more complicated.  While Boeing's CDR is a paid milestone it fits intoa  complicated Boeing process (I think they use a system of Gates), which is equivalent to NASA's ICDR.  So even though the system is the paid, they will complete CCiCAP at the same level as SpaceX.  Of course there will be some differences and there is always some judgement call by NASA ("well this area is a little behind, this area is a little bit ahead...") it should be about right as best as can be told in this complicated process.

[Lurker Steve]

At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.

Correct, 2 will be at that level.  No others will be close.

Well, there is really only 1 other than really matters. Assuming SNC completes all of their milestones, how much more work do you think there is to get to the same CDR level as the other vendors ? Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

[ChrisWilson68]

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?

[joek]

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".

[ChrisWilson68]

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".

That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.

A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?

[joek]

That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.

Probably.  IIRC the original plan was to subsequently outfit the CCDev2 ETA for the CCiCap test flights, although SNC apparently has another ETA that might be used.

A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?

Right.  The current SNC CCiCap milestones don't provide for any powered test flights (only ground test of the main propulsion and RCS systems, among other things), let alone a flight abort test.

However, there are also no CCiCap milestones for CST-100 powered test flights.  The presence or absence of such should not necessarily be  interpreted as to whether one or another vehicle is closer to CDR.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?

AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.

[ChrisWilson68]

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?

AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.

You cut out the quote I was replying to.  Here it is:

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.

They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

[Lurker Steve]

That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.

A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?

Lockheed is building another "Test Article" for them. I don't know if the second is supposed to be called a "Flight Test Article", or just another more robust ETA. The second vehicle will have capability for testing return from space, which the first one did not.

NASA paid out on a CC-DEV2 milestone. I'm sure there may be more flight and/or landing test milestones as part of the current CCiCAP program.

[Lurker Steve]

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

How many flights are the other vendors planning before a crewed flight to the ISS, which I assume NASA will pay for ?

Pad abort test does not require a launch vehicle, just the proper interface structure. This is where we get to see if those hybrid engines have enough oomph to get Dream Chaser successfully away from the LV and let it turn and land on a nearby runway.

They need the LV for the in-flight abort scenario, if they need to demonstrate it to the FAA / NASA.

Maybe one more LV for a "normal" test flight that lasts a day or two in orbit.

Do they need more flights than this ?