Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Go4TLI]

yg1968 - That was under FAR part 35

And its not about verification of requirements, or forced requirements. 

What NASA can't do is CHANGE requirements without negotiations from the company. 

It is exactly about ultimately being able to verify requirements, otherwise there is no point in having the

NASA in this case coordinate any changes to requirements with all potential providers just as potential providers coordinate proposed changes back to NASA for consideration and evaluation. Historically NASA doesn't develop requirements in a vacuum and there is always ultimately coordination with the offerers or the contractors

[Go4TLI]

Yes they can and they have, hence the volumes of requirements currently out there.  What they cannot do under an SAA is verify compliance, i.e. paperwork.  This takes me directly to the situation I described above.  NASA still has insight to all of it. 

Adherence to those requirements can not be stipulated in an SAA (never mind compliance verification).  It is not legal for NASA to do so.  Hence the absence of such verbiage in CCiCap, CCDev-1, CCDev-2, or COTS.

This is essentially what I have been saying. However the requirements are known.  The potential providers know full well what they are and should be integrating those into the designs or at the very least working with NASA as to why they don't make sense.

With vehicles in development, testing being performed and most at or past PDR, ignoring those now will be expensive and time consuming later. The system engineering process is fairly logical where one step builds off another taking one ultimately to system and vehicle certification, which would be the foundation for NASA cert and the paperwork required to verify compliance via the FAR

[joek]

With vehicles in development, testing being performed and most at or past PDR, ignoring those now will be expensive and time consuming later. The system engineering process is fairly logical where one step builds off another taking one ultimately to system and vehicle certification, which would be the foundation for NASA cert and the paperwork required to verify compliance via the FAR

I think it is a given that the intent of the CCiCap contenders is a CTS contract, and it is in everyone's interest that they and NASA work together to ensure the program goals and necessarily NASA's requirements are met.  SAA's are a good vehicle for accomplishing much of that work, and the ideal is that as much is done with SAA's as possible.

Enter Wolf et. al. effectively demanding guarantees that money be spent only and specifically on meeting NASA's ISS crew transportation requirements--and hurry up already.  Those guarantees can be provided only through FAR-based contracts.  Throw in other budget and time pressures, and work that might have been performed under SAA's gets shifted to FAR contracts, and which now must occur sooner than later.

Agree that those factors do not fundamentally alter the systems engineering process, but they certainly will have a significant impact on how the work gets done, the timing, and the cost; possibly the order of some work; and very likely accelerate down-select for the CTS contract competition.

All of which is a long-winded attempt to unwind what started this with "why people are trying to place everything into categories".

[yg1968]

I hope that the transition from SAAs to FAR is made at a point that makes sense. For example, SAAs should continue until at least the first uncrewed flight in my opinion.

[Go4TLI]

I hope that the transition from SAAs to FAR is made at a point that makes sense. For example, SAAs should continue until at least the first uncrewed flight in my opinion.

But what is the rationale for that?  All SAA's do is remove some of the overhead and allow flexibility with the company doing the work. As I've tried to state repeatedly the engineering process is what it is, and while there is variation in the way it is executed from company to company, it follows a pretty logical path

The risk here is for NASA and the government providing the funding and that is something that they have to trade and mitigate within the bounds they feel acceptable. By the time of the first flight, even uncrewed, the vehicle is what it is. To say after it's finished that is when "certification" of NASA requirements will happen is quite likely a non-starter. People should be happy SAA's have gone this long

[BrightLight]

I think the CCDev candidates should be able to build under SAA until a working prototype is demonstrated in orbit. Was the SpaceX Dragon-cargo built under FAR () when it was berthed to the ISS? I'm not sure if a crewed vehicle has to be under FAR controls when it docks to ISS but it makes sense that an operational system be under FAR.

[Prober]

As a research tool A fly off (NASA style) should be done.

1)   NASA has plenty of empty rooms
2)   All mockups of the current entrants must setup a display for inspection
3)   Anyone (only) current, past or future from the astronaut corps can participate in confidentially or open as they wish.
4)   Two documents will be filled out:
A)   Q&A each astronaut can fill out for each entrant
B)   Closed ballot box 1st choice, 2nd choice 3rd choice.
5)   Information should be compiled into reports and made public.
A)   Compiled Q&A for each of the entrants provided to improve their product. Full Compiled (all entrants) kept confidential by NASA for review until announment of winners.
B)   Closed ballot results are made public after the final count.

NASA is not a democracy, and Astronauts are not the experts in this field.  It would be like letting pilots pick the aircrafts DOD buys.

Goals from this program get input from the “Pilots”.

Those who flew on both the Shuttle and Soyuz would have great experience to bring to this process.

I didn’t say that the vote would be binding.   It should however give direction.
Should also bring a much better focus to the program without Congress, NASA management and Politics in general.   

As many have said this is a new program, ok prove it.

[BrightLight]

I hope that the transition from SAAs to FAR is made at a point that makes sense. For example, SAAs should continue until at least the first uncrewed flight in my opinion.

But what is the rationale for that?  All SAA's do is remove some of the overhead and allow flexibility with the company doing the work. As I've tried to state repeatedly the engineering process is what it is, and while there is variation in the way it is executed from company to company, it follows a pretty logical path

The risk here is for NASA and the government providing the funding and that is something that they have to trade and mitigate within the bounds they feel acceptable. By the time of the first flight, even uncrewed, the vehicle is what it is. To say after it's finished that is when "certification" of NASA requirements will happen is quite likely a non-starter. People should be happy SAA's have gone this long

It has been my experience that building under FAR, in my case part 135, requires more external oversight, documentation and certification then under less rigid build requirements like SAA.  The additional overhead adds cost, sometimes substantially - this has little to do with the engineering of the systems and more to do with the deployment of a operational package, this is why the SAA approach is appreciated - less management burden during development when changes and modifications need to be made as fast and cheaply as possible.

[yg1968]

By the time of the first flight, even uncrewed, the vehicle is what it is. To say after it's finished that is when "certification" of NASA requirements will happen is quite likely a non-starter. People should be happy SAA's have gone this long

The Commercial Crew Office stated that it was possible (and even likely) that the CCiCap optional milestones and the certification phase could overlap. Both could start around May 2014.

[Prober]

By the time of the first flight, even uncrewed, the vehicle is what it is. To say after it's finished that is when "certification" of NASA requirements will happen is quite likely a non-starter. People should be happy SAA's have gone this long

The Commercial Crew Office stated that it was possible (and even likely) that the CCiCap optional milestones and the certification phase could overlap. Both could start around May 2014.

sorry if i get blunt, but your talking 2014 and paperwork.

The congress wants a few companies picked and get the process closer to 2016 launch to the ISS.

[joek]

I think the CCDev candidates should be able to build under SAA until a working prototype is demonstrated in orbit. Was the SpaceX Dragon-cargo built under FAR () when it was berthed to the ISS? I'm not sure if a crewed vehicle has to be under FAR controls when it docks to ISS but it makes sense that an operational system be under FAR.

The COTS-2/3 Dragon was under the COTS SAA, not FAR.  It had to satisfy the same nominal requirements as any ISS visiting vehicle.  An ISS visiting crewed vehicle does not have to be under "FAR controls"; that an ISS visit is mentioned in the CCiCap solicitation as a possible option.

Note that NASA did not levy those ISS visiting vehicle requirements as part of the COTS SAA.  COTS simply required demonstrations, which could (but not required to) include a visit to the ISS.  If a visit to the ISS was chosen--just as with the use of any government facility--users have to obey the rules (meet the requirements).  E.g., NASA does not require you test your engines at Stennis, but if you choose to do so, you have to meet all the legal, safety, etc. requirements.


p.s. Unfortunately, "should" appears to have left the building.

[yg1968]

By the time of the first flight, even uncrewed, the vehicle is what it is. To say after it's finished that is when "certification" of NASA requirements will happen is quite likely a non-starter. People should be happy SAA's have gone this long

The Commercial Crew Office stated that it was possible (and even likely) that the CCiCap optional milestones and the certification phase could overlap. Both could start around May 2014.

sorry if i get blunt, but your talking 2014 and paperwork.

The congress wants a few companies picked and get the process closer to 2016 launch to the ISS.

I am not sure that I understand your post, the certification and CCiCap optional milestones would start around May 2014 but the process likely won't end until 2016 or 2017.

[Jim]

Goals from this program get input from the “Pilots”.

As many have said this is a new program, ok prove it.

Already is being done, no need to "prove it"

[rmencos]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I just wish the Dream Chaser completed its drop test soon.  Best to leave the decision makers with a warm and fuzzy.

For those of you on the East coast during this heat wave - stay thirsty my friends.

[docmordrid]

Better a heat wave that's due to end in a couple days than another freakin' derecho.

[Go4TLI]

The drop test is scheduled for the not too distant future. The good news here is that their are plans actively being worked toward and not a lull based on continued funding

[baldusi]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but trust me. It's extremely interesting.

[Prober]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but thrust me. It's extremely interesting.

shameless plug:  Yes L2 is worth the investment.

[erioladastra]

The drop test is scheduled for the not too distant future. The good news here is that their are plans actively being worked toward and not a lull based on continued funding

That is a paper schedule...

[A_M_Swallow]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.