CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[oiorionsbelt]

SpaceX have repeatedly said that that F9 meets all published NASA human rating standards.

[rcoppola]

SpaceX have repeatedly said that that F9 meets all published NASA human rating standards.

Yes, I know they've said that. But the key word is published, which is why they qualified their answer with it. As they should. But I remember at some point last year, that NASA was behind in clearly communicating further standards. And that each participant was supposed to get additional clarification on standards, so they can do their final proposals. So I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what they were and if F9 was still on target to meet them.

[Go4TLI]

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.

Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?

There are but the general philosophy behind many of them are out dated.  One of the key requirements has to do with traceability and configuration management. 

While traceability is important in today's world with the influx of counterfeit EEE parts, having "paper" all the way down to the ore that was pulled from the ground is overkill. 

Some of the original requirements came from the pipeline for downlisted telemetry was only so large and certain parameters were deemed more important and needed to be monitored over others, thereby driving what was required.  That is essentially a moot point today as the pipeline for telemetry can host many parameters without much burden. 

[rcoppola]

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.

Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?

There are but the general philosophy behind many of them are out dated.  One of the key requirements has to do with traceability and configuration management. 

While traceability is important in today's world with the influx of counterfeit EEE parts, having "paper" all the way down to the ore that was pulled from the ground is overkill. 

Some of the original requirements came from the pipeline for downlisted telemetry was only so large and certain parameters were deemed more important and needed to be monitored over others, thereby driving what was required.  That is essentially a moot point today as the pipeline for telemetry can host many parameters without much burden.

See now, that's really interesting insight and the kind of response I was looking for. Thanks for that. I'd love to somehow see NASA's updated thinking on this and how each participant proposes to approach them. Maybe some day.

[yg1968]

NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

[rcoppola]

NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.

[Lars_J]

NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.

It's not like "certified" is any better. Because you have to be certified (presumably) to meet a some standard. Which puts us right back in the same boat.

I agree with Go4TLI that the term of little use. In reality and our history, the term "human rated" has in practice just meant "as safe as we can make it".

[Go4TLI]

NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.

It's not like "certified" is any better. Because you have to be certified (presumably) to meet a some standard. Which puts us right back in the same boat.

I agree with Go4TLI that the term of little use. In reality and our history, the term "human rated" has in practice just meant "as safe as we can make it".

But "certifications" are all the rage in industry today.  From various ISO certs, other technical organizations, etc. 

The difference in the requirements document is that it gives a one-stop-shop for what is needed for said certification, as opposed to various out-dated documents that leave too many things questionable. 

If you look at the doc, it is based on a more sound philosophy.   

[Elmar Moelzer]

I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.

Still wrong.  COTS was funding development of launch vehicles and cargo deliver spacecraft via SAA and it was not funding cargo services.   Services for a commercially operated space station could be done like launch services (NLS) and cargo service (CRS) contracts.

So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?
Anyway, I am sure baldusi was using the COTS example broadly and was not intending to mean "exactly like it".
I think it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Jim]

So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?

No and no.  COTS vehicles were not designed to any NASA requirements.   If they are to be commercial, then let them funded themselves.

[WmThomas]

Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

[Jim]

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

Not true, if CCtCap is just to deliver astronauts to the ISS, a service, whether Spacex is ready sooner than the others has no bearing on the matter.  There is no "funding", there is just paying for the services rendered.  It all depends on what is contained in the proposals that is submitted by the 3 companieson who NASA will select.

[Lurker Steve]

NASA probably won't be able to allow any of the vendors to make "certification" flights to the ISS before late 2016 / 2017 either. Everything depends on when the new docking adapter gets up to the ISS and is installed. It may be that the first flight of a crew vehicle to the ISS won't be used for crew rotation, although they do need to ensure that each vehicle can survive up to 6 months on orbit.

[manboy]

Everything depends on when the new docking adapter gets up to the ISS and is installed.

Last I heard IDA-1 is planned to be delivered in April 2015 on SpX-7.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/

[joek]

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

Not true, if CCtCap is just to deliver astronauts to the ISS, a service, whether Spacex is ready sooner than the others has no bearing on the matter.  There is no "funding", there is just paying for the services rendered.  It all depends on what is contained in the proposals that is submitted by the 3 companieson who NASA will select.

But CCtCap is not just about delivering astronauts to the ISS.

CCtCap is primarily about certification, not buying ISS crew transportation services, although the CCtCap award will also include a minimum of two and up to six ISS crew flights or "post-certification missions".  The ISS crew transportation services contract is separate from, and comes after, CCtCap.

CCtCap price evaluation is based on: (1) the price for certification, which includes all DDT&E needed to get to certification, including at least one crewed flight to the ISS (not a crew rotation mission); and (2) the price of two crew service missions in alternate years.

All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.

[yg1968]

Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

That was just speculation and not very good one either. It would seem unlikely that SpaceX would get penalized for being more advanced than the others companies. The criteria that are set out in CCtCap do not suggest that this is a criteria that would be considered by NASA. Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.

[joek]

Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.

If SpaceX's price is lower than competitors, it is definitely to their favor.  The price  portion of the CCtCap selection evaluation is the most significant; the lower the price the better.

[R.Simko]

Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

That was just speculation and not very good one either. It would seem unlikely that SpaceX would get penalized for being more advanced than the others companies. The criteria that are set out in CCtCap do not suggest that this is a criteria that would be considered by NASA. Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.

Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge?  If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?

For example:
1.  Cost 40%
2.  Date ready 20%

Thanks.

[yg1968]

Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge?  If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?

For example:
1.  Cost 40%
2.  Date ready 20%

Thanks.

See Section M of the attached document (pages 158 to 168). The table of contents summarizes the criteria that will be used and are as follows:

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ........................................................ 158
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL............................... 158
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR........................................................................................ 159
I. Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance Subfactor.....................................................................160
II. Management Approach Subfactor ...163
III. Small Business Utilization Subfactor .................................................................................................165
M.3 PRICE FACTOR ... 166
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.......................................................................................... 167

See also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

[ChrisWilson68]

Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.

In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket.  SLS is expensive not just because it's big.