SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

[wannamoonbase]

Are the space suits an internal SpaceX goal or required by contract?

I had assumed that NASA would want to use their own suits.

[starsilk]

Are the space suits an internal SpaceX goal or required by contract?

I had assumed that NASA would want to use their own suits.

suits are matched to the capsule, same for Starliner. they are purpose built to match up with seats, ECLS etc.

[meberbs]

If I remember right, from the source selection documentation, the spacesuits are part of the contract formed out of SpaceX's proposal, but NASA didn't particularly like that SpaceX included them in their bid, and this was listed as a detriment to their proposal. Since it was an integral part of the bid though, NASA's only other option would have been to not select SpaceX.

In other words, they are not originally a NASA imposed requirement, but they are now required to be done, since SpaceX isn't integrating the Dragon 2 with NASA suits per the contract.

[the_other_Doug]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

I know, from several interviews, that Elon is personally involved in the suit design process.  I think he sees the suit design as something that will be a big part of the SpaceX crewed spaceflight "brand," and wants it to represent his vision.

It will be quite interesting to see what SpaceX actually comes up with for final suit design.  I guarantee you that, if Musk has any say in the matter (and he does), it will not feature that "carrying a load in my diaper" look that the Russian Sokol launch/entry suits have.  Musk has spoken repeatedly and specifically to that point...

[mme]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

I know, from several interviews, that Elon is personally involved in the suit design process.  I think he sees the suit design as something that will be a big part of the SpaceX crewed spaceflight "brand," and wants it to represent his vision.

It will be quite interesting to see what SpaceX actually comes up with for final suit design.  I guarantee you that, if Musk has any say in the matter (and he does), it will not feature that "carrying a load in my diaper" look that the Russian Sokol launch/entry suits have.  Musk has spoken repeatedly and specifically to that point...

I think it's more than just branding for his vision.  SpaceX wants to send humans other places than the ISS for NASA.  They'll need spacesuits so they better learn how to make them.

[whitelancer64]

Yeah -- hasn't Boeing selected a variant of the Shuttle launch/entry suit for Starliner?  Sure to be easily approved by NASA, I would think.

<snip>

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be closely derived from the ACES, it's being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

[joek]

There is CCiCap-CCtCap mix-and-match in that presentation, and a couple new milestones not previously seen...

CCiCap milestones; should not be listed as CCtCap:
- Pad Abort Test (complete May-2015)
- In-Flight Abort Test (milestone date?)

New CCtCap milestones since last report:
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review (complete Dec-2015)
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2) (milestone date?)

I have not included dCDR2 in the chart as I don't have any dates for it.

[joek]

I can explain the mystery of the colors. The light colored (possibly white?) are NASA required milestones - the dCDR2, FTCR, ORR, and CR. The lavender are SpaceX milestones. The light blue are flight tests.

Careful.  They are all required milestones as jointly agreed to by the provider and NASA and to which both are contractually obligated.

NASA explicitly required only three milestones per the CCtCap RFP: Certification Baseline Review (CBR); Design Certification Review (DCR); and "one or more interim milestones...representing work culminating in a significant design review between CBR and the first DCR...".  All of those roll up into one contract line item (CLIN) DDTE/Certification CLIN-001 (if you don't fulfill that CLIN, you don't get certified).

Those "one or more interim milestones" were required by the RFP to be proposed by the provider as part of the performance work statement (PWS).  If NASA felt the vendor's proposal was insufficient, NASA may have pushed back and said "we want something more between X and Y".

In short, instead of NASA specifying and requiring a laundry list of CCtCap milestones, NASA defined a couple anchor milestones and left it up to the providers to fill in the rest.  Which IMHO was good as it allowed the greatest possible freedom to providers in their approach and plan.  Which is also why the SpaceX and Boeing milestones are so different and difficult to compare.

edit: Ah, I see where you probably got "required"; those others appear to be associated with the crew test flight post-DCR.  I should annotate those in the chart to distinguish between the three types of milestones.  Now I gotta go back and reconcile them again.  But thanks for pointing it out.

[deruch]

There is CCiCap-CCtCap mix-and-match in that presentation, and a couple new milestones not previously seen...

CCiCap milestones; should not be listed as CCtCap:
- Pad Abort Test (complete May-2015)
- In-Flight Abort Test (milestone date?)

New CCtCap milestones since last report:
- Post Certification Mission 1 Information Review (complete Dec-2015)
- Delta Critical Design Review 2 (dCDR2) (milestone date?)

I have not included dCDR2 in the chart as I don't have any dates for it.

Nice chart.  SpaceX's Critical Design Review that you have listed as added, is actually left over from CCiCap.  That was the milestone that they had split into like 5 different pieces (13-A,B,C,...).  They had one last part outstanding and finally finished it.  That's why it doesn't show up in the original CCtCap list.  It isn't a new milestone, but an old one. 

[joek]

Nice chart.  SpaceX's Critical Design Review that you have listed as added, is actually left over from CCiCap.  That was the milestone that they had split into like 5 different pieces (13-A,B,C,...).  They had one last part outstanding and finally finished it.  That's why it doesn't show up in the original CCtCap list.  It isn't a new milestone, but an old one.

Thanks.  That info is from Gerstenmaier's McCallister's NAC presentation; he (unlike some others) is usually precise and careful to not mix CCtCap, CCiCap, etc.  If you have a credible reference that this refers to a CCiCap milestone, thanks in advance and I'll remove it.

edit: On second thought, should probably simply note that milestone as a possible CCiCap leftover (potentially referenced accidentally in CCtCap presentations), pending clarification from a credible source.

[yg1968]

Joek,

I think that you are right. Delta CDR in this context is a CCtCap milestone. A CCiCap milestone (13-e) with a somewhat similar name was completed on December 15, 2015. But it has a slightly different name. It's called "Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review" (not Delta CDR).

See pages 5 and 6 of this NAC Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

[joek]

Joek,

I think that you are right. Delta CDR in this context is a CCtCap milestone. A CCiCap milestone (13-e) with a similar name was completed on December 15, 2015. But it has a slightly different name. It's called "Delta Crew Vehicle Critical Design Review" (not Delta CDR).

See pages 5 and 6 of this NAC Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/4-CCP-Status-McAlister.pdf

Thanks.  Oooh... just noticed some other dates that should be updated.  Why oh why can't NASA produce consistent and comparable reports on a regular basis in an automation-friendly form?  (Never mind, rhetorical question, I know the answer, just me grumbling.)  And [grumble] Keeping track of this and divining dates and milestones from those charts makes my head hurt. [/grumble]

[Roy_H]

Great chart, joek, thanks for the contribution and updates. 

[rockets4life97]

Updated chart courtesy of Jeff Foust on twitter.

Two milestones aren't listed which could mean they were completed:
- Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) Integrated Test
- Validation Propulsion Module Testing

Could also mean nothing since this chart has less milestones in general than previous lists.

[yg1968]

Some SpaceX news on CCtCap:

McAlister: expect to formally award 2nd post-certification comm’l crew mission to SpaceX “real soon” (1st awarded last Nov; Boeing has 2)

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757945934168719360

McAlister: surprised SpaceX decided to develop their own spacesuits in-house, but they’ve done a real good job, on 3rd or 4th prototype now.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757946881724944390

McAlister: the crewed test flights Boeing and SpaceX will fly will dock to the ISS for an unspecified period, likely “some number of weeks”.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757947789632339968

McAlister: when SpaceX completed delta CDR 2 in Aug or early Sept, will be “turning the corner” in locking down design.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757953578472398848

McAlister: we’re getting more comfortable with SpaceX’s use of densified propellants on F9, but not there yet.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757956481551433728

[enzo]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing? And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

[Comga]

Regarding this tweet:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726217758229168129

you going to test dragon 2 propulsive landing from earth orbit before Mars attempt ?

@elonmusk: yes, several times

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing?
And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Otherwise these "several" tests would be cost prohibitive except with reused cores and Dragons. (but that is for another thread)

(my emphasis)
The "large volume of hydrazine" HAS TO "be permitted at ISS" because every mission that gets to the ISS will, by definition, not have aborted, and the fuel for the abort will still be on board Dragon 2.  That's the "magic" of powered landings.  The fuel is loaded in any case.  The only "cost" is carrying it from the upper limit of the abort range to orbit. 

[Lars-J]

Any insight on whether this can be done with the uncrewed test flight? I.e., will it involve cargo return which would preclude testing? And would the large volume of hydrazine be permitted at ISS?

Shuttle probably carried far more of it than Dragon 2 ever would. And all visiting vehicles to ISS carry some load of storable propellant.

[GabrielP]

The "several tests" are likely to include (possibly consist mainly of) powered splashdowns at sea, similar to how the F9 first stage experimental landings started, perhaps parachute-assisted as well.

Of course there's still some risk of something going awry resulting in the capsule taking a bigger hit than the usual parachute splashdown, but would that be low enough for NASA to accept with their cargo (or even astronauts) on board?

[JamesH65]

The "several tests" are likely to include (possibly consist mainly of) powered splashdowns at sea, similar to how the F9 first stage experimental landings started, perhaps parachute-assisted as well.

Of course there's still some risk of something going awry resulting in the capsule taking a bigger hit than the usual parachute splashdown, but would that be low enough for NASA to accept with their cargo (or even astronauts) on board?

They have a barge they could use, if the early test dragons don't have legs, they could just put a big crush zone to absorb any landing speed. Assuming their accuracy is good enough, which I presume it will be.