Author Topic: CLV/CEV Q and A thread  (Read 21259 times)

Online Chris Bergin

CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« on: 07/25/2006 12:04 PM »
Some people have noted they wish to have a resourse that holds key information that explains the aforementioned vehicles in a Q and A style (like the Shuttle Q and A).

While these vehicles are still a concept, with their baselines changing all the time, we'll see how this thread develops.

Remember, this is for the current designs and to see how they've developed, look at the threads such as CEV Particulars (now into the mid 30,000 on pages views)  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=493&start=1 etc.

However, for those of you that find those threads convoluted and a little blinding, this thread is for you.

Let's see how it works.

Offline PlanetStorm

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • England
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #1 on: 07/26/2006 08:21 AM »
Well, I will be happy to kick off!

The development of the CEV and CLV is being done very much in the public view and I find the whole process fascinating, but also very confusing. So my first questions, before the techinicalities of how the CEV/CLV will actually work, is about the process being followed in the design/development of these vehicles. So I wonder if anyone could clarify any of the following? (I know that there are various answers to different bits spread though many threads, but I thought this might be the place to really nail them)

1. Who (i.e., which bits of NASA) is actually doing the current design work on the various components?

2. What is the design process? By which I mean what governs how many design cycles, their timescales, and who decides if top level requirements have to change?

3. How are the changes we are seeing in the NASA design being fed back to the potential contractors, and what degree of "flow" is there back from the potential contractors into the NASA design?

4. At what stages do the various engineering reviews take place, what is their format, and who is involved?

5. When LM or NG finally take over the detailed design, how much freedom will they have to alter the template arrived at through the design cycles going on now? What will there be left for them to actually do?

6. How much of this entire process is common to other projects (e.g., OSP), and how much will be common to the CaLV?

I hope that the answers to these questions might help to assess the significance of the current engineering difficulties with the CLV design, and might put some perspective on the apparently radical changes that have occurred to the design of the CEV and CLV since ESAS.



 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #2 on: 07/26/2006 11:53 AM »
1.  MSFC CLV with help from GEC,  JSC CEV with help from GRC.  KSC ground ops.  They will eventually have contractors involved
2.  Look up NASA System engineering handbook.  # of DAC's is up to the project.  T HQ decides on level I requirements.
3. No flow back to CEV contractors at this point, unless it is a change to the RFP.  They are in the middle of competition.    For the things yet to be competed, RFI are the instrument and studies contracts.
4.  SRR, SDR, PDR, CDr, DCR. (system eng hb).  big meetings. contractors and NASA and invited guests
5.  Some detail design, but they are to produce the vehicle
6.  std process (system eng hb)

Offline hancider

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #3 on: 07/26/2006 03:20 PM »
Hi everyone been here a while haven't posted much though.

I was wondering after all these development costs have been asborbed and CEV/CLV has been in operation for a while.  Do you think that this system will be more efficient and cost effective for getting people into space as much as say the Soyuz is for the Russians.  It seems to me that it has the ingredients to become a viable evolving spacecraft design with the simpler design than the space shuttle and modularity of SM & CM which should allow for easier upgrades than the shuttle but I was just wondering what people that actually knew something about spaceflight and spacecraft think about this.
It seems to me that if we can find a cheaper way of manned space access then we could be able to do more things in space when we get there.  And I mean not only going to the moon and beyond but also in LEO too. Anyways any of your thoughts will be appreciated.

Offline Bruhn

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #4 on: 07/26/2006 06:05 PM »
Quote
PlanetStorm - 26/7/2006  3:08 AM

Well, I will be happy to kick off!

The development of the CEV and CLV is being done very much in the public view and I find the whole process fascinating, but also very confusing. So my first questions, before the techinicalities of how the CEV/CLV will actually work, is about the process being followed in the design/development of these vehicles. So I wonder if anyone could clarify any of the following? (I know that there are various answers to different bits spread though many threads, but I thought this might be the place to really nail them)

1. Who (i.e., which bits of NASA) is actually doing the current design work on the various components?

2. What is the design process? By which I mean what governs how many design cycles, their timescales, and who decides if top level requirements have to change?

3. How are the changes we are seeing in the NASA design being fed back to the potential contractors, and what degree of "flow" is there back from the potential contractors into the NASA design?

4. At what stages do the various engineering reviews take place, what is their format, and who is involved?

5. When LM or NG finally take over the detailed design, how much freedom will they have to alter the template arrived at through the design cycles going on now? What will there be left for them to actually do?

6. How much of this entire process is common to other projects (e.g., OSP), and how much will be common to the CaLV?

I hope that the answers to these questions might help to assess the significance of the current engineering difficulties with the CLV design, and might put some perspective on the apparently radical changes that have occurred to the design of the CEV and CLV since ESAS.

To answer 1), 3), and 5) in regards to the Upper Stage (US).  MSFC is responsible for the design with help from GRC, LaRC, and KSC doing some design work through Technical Task Agreements (TTA).  At this point in time, there are no contractors since the RFP hasn't even been released yet.  There has been 1 RFI released.  Once a contractor is selected (lets just say LM wins the contract since "LM" is easy to type), then a LM manager becomes part of the project.  Each IPT will also have a LM manager.  For example, the MPS IPT will be lead by the WBS manager (MSFC/project), the work package manager (MSFC/engineering), and a LM manager.  Basically a triumvirate.

MSFC designs the US up to a certain maturity point (CDR I think) with input from LM once the contract is awarded.  Then, the entire design is handed over to LM and MSFC moves into more of an oversight role.  Its up to LM to verify the US design meets the requirements.  And obviously they manufacture the hardware.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
RE: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #5 on: 07/26/2006 06:41 PM »
Quote
Bruhn - 26/7/2006  1:52 PM
 Once a contractor is selected (lets just say LM wins the contract since "LM" is easy to type), then a LM manager becomes part of the project.  Each IPT will also have a LM manager.  For example, the MPS IPT will be lead by the WBS manager (MSFC/project), the work package manager (MSFC/engineering), and a LM manager.  Basically a triumvirate.

MSFC designs the US up to a certain maturity point (CDR I think) with input from LM once the contract is awarded.  Then, the entire design is handed over to LM and MSFC moves into more of an oversight role.  Its up to LM to verify the US design meets the requirements.  And obviously they manufacture the hardware.

This is also known as "The MFSC roadmap to kill a program".  

Triumvirate?  There are no clear lines of authority.  To many prople with their fingers in the pie.   Need to streamline the organization and not create a work program

MSFC needs to derived the requirements and then get out of the way, only using INSIGHT to verify requirements are being met.

Offline Propforce

  • Sky is NOT the limit !!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #6 on: 07/26/2006 09:47 PM »
Quote
Jim - 26/7/2006  11:28 AM

Quote
Bruhn - 26/7/2006  1:52 PM
 Once a contractor is selected (lets just say LM wins the contract since "LM" is easy to type), then a LM manager becomes part of the project.  Each IPT will also have a LM manager.  For example, the MPS IPT will be lead by the WBS manager (MSFC/project), the work package manager (MSFC/engineering), and a LM manager.  Basically a triumvirate.

MSFC designs the US up to a certain maturity point (CDR I think) with input from LM once the contract is awarded.  Then, the entire design is handed over to LM and MSFC moves into more of an oversight role.  Its up to LM to verify the US design meets the requirements.  And obviously they manufacture the hardware.

This is also known as "The MFSC roadmap to kill a program".  

Triumvirate?  There are no clear lines of authority.  To many prople with their fingers in the pie.   Need to streamline the organization and not create a work program

MSFC needs to derived the requirements and then get out of the way, only using INSIGHT to verify requirements are being met.


Ha ha ha...  :) I apologize for laughing but I do find humor in Jim's sacarsm !!  

This is a classic symptom of "throw the problem over-the-wall" mentality at NASA !!!  Here's one scenario of what's wrong with this approach.  By the time MSFC reaches the CDR level of design, all the "mistakes" are built-in, so they hand it over to (say) LM and then MSFC can blame LM for missing schedule and cost targets, while LM spends all the time and man-power to "un-do" the mistakes MSFC made, e.g., fix my FUBAR design but stick to my cost & schedule milestones !!!

The question should be

1) WHO is reviewing the HQ level 1 requirements?
2) WHO is reviewing MSFC's design at
   - Conceptual level
   - SRR level
   - SDR level
   - PDR level
and finally at CDR level ???????

While I realize MSFC maybe inviting the industry to provide feedback (to the DAC documents, for example), WHERE's the accountability of getting the design right?  

As you get more detail into a design, the more expensive (time & cost) it is to "un-do" the mistakes.

Oh, one more thing.  While I know this is not possible, but I would love to read the "sole-source justification" of why MSFC is doing the CLV design !!!  
 :)


Offline Framis

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #7 on: 07/28/2006 02:19 AM »
3. How are the changes we are seeing in the NASA design being fed back to the potential contractors, and what degree of "flow" is there back from the potential contractors into the NASA design?

They aren't - the contractors were given requirements, not designs. The requirements sent to the contractors were fixed a good while ago.

5. When LM or NG finally take over the detailed design, how much freedom will they have to alter the template arrived at through the design cycles going on now? What will there be left for them to actually do?

Supposedly, the contractor will be in charge of the design, except for a few subsystems, where NASA will lead the design team. NASA is to provide the requirements, not a total design.


Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #8 on: 07/28/2006 03:05 AM »
Lest we forget how we got here.

In 2003 NASA planned to acquire the CEV in the style of United States Department of Defense procurements, by first conducting the FAST fly-off competition, and by designing the CEV ships in a series of "spirals." (From Wikipedia)

On 4 September 2004, NASA announced selection of eight contractors for initial Crew Exploration Vehicle studies. (See here for more details on the CEV proposals http://astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm)

In April 2005 Dr Griffin is appointed Administrator of NASA and the Spiral approach and all the contractor proposals are dropped and the ESAS was formed. The reasoning was that some congressmen had expressed concern that there would be an unacceptable gap in US manned space capability and that a direct approach would get the CEV completed sooner than 2014.

Some things to think about:
Many of the Spiral 1 proposals used the EELV launch vehicles.
Current expectations are that the currently proposed CEV may not fly until 2014.

My opinion is that if we had followed the initial process of using proven procurement methods we would have a CEV using EELV launchers. We would not have GAO investigations (well actually we probably would have but about something else). NASA elected to go in-house and ended up with yet another massively expensive boondoggle. I would very much like to see NASA admit that they screwed up and return to the original process before the entire VSE is killed.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4924
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #9 on: 07/28/2006 03:34 AM »
accountability and MSFC cannot be used in the same post.. please edit...  
OH.. how I would love to see a Congressional investigation as to "sole-source justification"  and oversight at MFSC.. open the books guys... Enron would be a walk in the park... Want a manned space program?.. Clean up the program...
accountability is key... then I cannot complain.. its not my tax dollars.. mine have been spent on "un-accountability" in the media game, CIDA and its buddies

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #10 on: 07/28/2006 11:31 AM »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 27/7/2006  10:52 PM
My opinion is that if we had followed the initial process of using proven procurement methods we would have a CEV using EELV launchers. We would not have GAO investigations (well actually we probably would have but about something else). NASA elected to go in-house and ended up with yet another massively expensive boondoggle. I would very much like to see NASA admit that they screwed up and return to the original process before the entire VSE is killed.

Proven procurement methods are being used.  NASA isn't doing anything different or out of the ordinary.  Actually the spiral method is out of the ordinary.  The CEV is not in house, only the CLV is.   The GAO issue isn't with the procurement method, it is with timing and scope of the contract.  In fact, the same contract and contractors from the spiral method is still being used, just the scope of phase 2 was changed.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #11 on: 07/28/2006 11:35 AM »
Quote
Avron - 27/7/2006  11:21 PM
.  
OH.. how I would love to see a Congressional investigation as to "sole-source justification"  and oversight at MFSC

There is no such a thing as sole source wrt a gov't agency.  NASA and MSFC are allowed to perform work in house, there is nothing that bans it.  GSFC and JPL build their own spacecraft etc.    The issue is does MSFC have the expertise.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #12 on: 07/28/2006 03:41 PM »
Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  6:18 AM

Proven procurement methods are being used.  NASA isn't doing anything different or out of the ordinary.  

NASA procurement methods are being used not general industry standard methods. NASA isn't doing anything different from what they have done in the past that is the problem.

Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  6:18 AM
Actually the spiral method is out of the ordinary.  

For NASA

Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  6:18 AM
The CEV is not in house, only the CLV is.

Bull! Only five of the eleven CEVs proposed under the initial process were Apollo style capsules and of those only two were even vaguely like NASA's current CEV. LM's CEV was the one pictured in my profile pic (on the left) and LM was informed that they would have to change to an Apollo style capsule to be considered. Once NASA dumped the original process they dictated what shape, size, and weight the capsule would be and they continue to redefine it. That sounds like an in-house design to me.

Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  6:18 AM
The GAO issue isn't with the procurement method, it is with timing and scope of the contract.
 True

Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  6:18 AM
In fact, the same contract and contractors from the spiral method is still being used, just the scope of phase 2 was changed.

Two of the eight contractors remaining after the mid-term review (B and LM what a suprise), the other six were simply dismissed. After expending 240 million dollars on the studies all of the results were tossed in the trash, and NASA is doing it their way. Remember that the contractors were making proposals for the entire VSE not simply the CEV.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #13 on: 07/28/2006 04:01 PM »
NASA is using standard gov't practices.  They can't go outside of the FAR.   commercial 'industry" practices are not available to  NASA.  NASA has to stay within the law.

Spiral has been use limitedly in the DOD.  But it is for large procurements with high units numbers, where incremental upgradescan be introduced over the years in production lots and older versions retro fitted.  It is not for procuments of  5-10 units.

CEV "design" is not inhouse.  Design  is one thing. Requirements definition is another.  USAF and Navy do the same thing for aircraft.  The Navy specifing the size of an aircraft so it fits on a carrier, is no different that dictating the use of the outer moldline of the CEV so all the aero and entry data from Apollo can be used and so that no new testing and qualitification is required, saving money.  Additionally, the elimination of mision modules saved more money.   What is wrong with defining a weight, aircraft have weight requirements.  It is needed so that an LV can be procured.

2 of 8 remain?  That is called downselecting.  Plus Boeing didn't make the cut, NG did.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #14 on: 07/28/2006 04:28 PM »
They were not downselected. The entire procurment process was dropped and the six month optional contracts were never excercised. Once again remember that the initial contracts were for the entire VSE.

NASA went with the design that they wanted based on their AES, ALSS, LEP, LESA, FLO, Lunox, and HLR studies. None of the original CEV designs looked like the current NASA designed CEV until NASA told the designers what they wanted and then lo and behold everyone was designing Apollo capsules.

Personally I liked Raytheon's http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Raytheon.pdf designed to only use existing EELVs.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32243
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10898
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #15 on: 07/28/2006 04:30 PM »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 28/7/2006  12:15 PM

NASA went with the design that they wanted based on their AES, ALSS, LEP, LESA, FLO, Lunox, and HLR studies. None of the original CEV designs looked like the current NASA designed CEV until NASA told the designers what they wanted and then lo and behold everyone was designing Apollo capsules.

and what is wrong with that?  But that isn't a design, it is a concept.  Sizing and selecting a shape is not designing.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #16 on: 07/28/2006 04:43 PM »
All those programs were rejected as being to expensive?

Won't fit on a EELV?

Requires that NASA develop in-house launch vehicles?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Propforce

  • Sky is NOT the limit !!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #17 on: 07/28/2006 04:56 PM »
Quote
Jim - 28/7/2006  4:22 AM
There is no such a thing as sole source wrt a gov't agency. .....

It was a sarcasm.  


Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #18 on: 07/28/2006 06:49 PM »
Let’s put it another way. The EASA defines the CEV and furthermore defines NASA’s implementation of the VSE. It defines the “1.5”, the EOR/LOR-Polar, the CLV, the CaLV, and ultimately it is based on all those old expensive in-house studies/programs.

But of the eleven studies by the contractors only four came up with EOR/LOR and only one of those selected Polar. Five liked L1 (including Northrop Grumman and Boeing) and one liked Direct. The others had either LOR or EOR.

Furthermore seven of the contractors selected either a Soyuz style ship or added a mission module to give the crews more living space and reduce the size of the reentry vehicle.

The preferred launch vehicle for most was an ELV and/or HLV between 15-70T and most used a single launch vehicle. All of these would be purchased from civilian businesses, not as a build to suit, but as a standard contract for multiple standard vehicles.

Of course all of that was NIH.

But the two real kickers in NASA’s implementation of the VSE is that all of the studies suggested the creation of infrastructure to support access to and support of the moon base and eventual support of the Mars mission, NASA’s does not. While it is more than footprints and flags it is not much more. The moon base is sketchy at best with little or no long-term support and does not seem to provide any support for the Mars mission at all. Secondly the creation of the infrastructure would create private business opportunities for other companies, expanding America’s space capabilities. Instead NASA’s implementation of the VSE gives us two expensive government owned launch vehicles (one with no apparent application beyond VSE) and little business opportunity beyond the dead ended ISS support missions.

I don’t think the American people or Congress is going to buy this. When NASA created the Space Shuttle most of America’s rocket companies went out of business or were marginalized since the government was going to save a bunch of money using the shuttle to orbit all its satellites. That didn’t happen and eventually the EELV program was developed as well as the ELVs needed for private and government programs. America’s private rocket industry is still recovering from that mistake and developing in-house rockets is not the way to solve the issue. Congress and the American people made clear to NASA that business as usual is not acceptable when they mandated the Commercial Space Act and reemphasized it with COTS.

NASA needs to get out of the rocket business and into the sustainable exploration business. If they don’t they may find themselves out of business period.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CLV/CEV Q and A thread
« Reply #19 on: 07/28/2006 08:14 PM »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 28/7/2006  1:36 PM

But of the eleven studies by the contractors only four came up with EOR/LOR and only one of those selected Polar. Five liked L1 (including Northrop Grumman and Boeing) and one liked Direct. The others had either LOR or EOR.
I had heard from at least one of these contractors that they would have selected E-M L2 rendezvous if the return trip had not been constrained to <5 days in the groundrules.

Tags: