CCDev - NASA Commercial Crew Development

[LRV_75]

Один он уже сделал.

Я говорю про то, что еще будет в этом году

[Salo]

Посмотрел по ссылке. Вот как Вы сами думаете, в этом году Маск сделает 5 пусков?

Не сделает. Сделает два: первый - комби бывших N2 и N3, второй - для MDA, фактически испытательный пуск для обтекателя. Ну может быть если очень напряжется, то 29-го Декабря первый CRS, но думаю, что вряд ли. А Orbcomm пойдет вместе с ним.

И где он на MSDB?
http://msdb.gsfc.nasa.gov/launches.php

[Pol]

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=889933635

June 13, 2011

Boeing.. Spatial Quarters Queued Up (Spacecraft)

The first steps have now occurred for this new space transport system...

Boeing [NYSE], on May 19th, completed the Delta System Definition Review (SDR) of the company's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 space capsule design. The milestone follows NASA's award of a Commercial Crew Development Phase 2 (CCDev2) contract to Boeing in April. The daylong review included representatives from NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and independent consultants. They examined the changes made to the CST-100 design since the initial SDR, which was conducted in October under the original CCDev agreement.

Boeing engineers reviewed major spacecraft subsystems -- including structures, thermal, electrical, propulsion, life support, software and avionics -- as part of the Delta SDR, and reached agreement during the review on a single integrated, consolidated baseline design. The Boeing team also was able to show strong alignment between the current design and NASA's draft Commercial Crew Program Requirements. The Delta SDR enables a common understanding of the design baseline as the team progresses toward a system-level Preliminary Design Review (PDR), which will further mature the system design and ensure it meets all requirements. Under the second round of NASA's Commercial Crew Development Space Act Agreement, Boeing expects to complete its System PDR no later than early spring 2012.

Boeing is preparing to gather performance data on the spacecraft's launch abort system and service module fuel tank; evaluate vehicle ascent performance in wind tunnel testing; and build on earlier landing air bag and parachute demonstrations with more in-depth investigations. With firm requirements and adequate funding, Boeing plans to conduct test flights in 2014 and 2015 to support operations beginning in 2015. Boeing's Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) includes the CST-100 spacecraft, launch services and ground systems. The CST-100 is a reusable capsule-shaped spacecraft that has a crew module and service module. The CST-100 relies on proven materials and subsystem technologies and can transport up to seven people, or a combination of people and cargo. The CCTS will provide safe, affordable access to the International Space Station and other destinations in low Earth orbit, and will enable NASA to focus on deep space exploration missions. In addition to its support to NASA, Boeing also plans to supply the CST-100 to Bigelow Aerospace for that company's inflatable space station. Boeing will also work with Space Adventures to sell unused seats.

Artistic rendition of Boeing's CST-100 spacecraft

[Петр Зайцев]

Странно это, я видел флоучарт с вводом в строй в 2016-м. Неужели сдвинули влево? Неслыханно.

[Димитър]

Boeing plans to conduct test flights in 2014 and 2015 to support operations beginning in 2015.

Странно это, я видел флоучарт с вводом в строй в 2016-м. Неужели сдвинули влево? Неслыханно.

Странно? Конкуренты в спину дышат!  
А ето хорошо, однако.

[pkl]

Возможно, понимают, что если "Драгон" залетает, это корыто никому не нужно будет и даром. 3 ПКК - многовато даже для Америки.

[SpaceR]

Думаю, три или четыре. Но для первых запусков новой ракеты и корабля, для относительно недавно созданной небольшой фирмы это ну очень не плохо.

Да, я сравниваю с нашими теперешними темпами.

А я говорю, что ОДИН. Вот и посмотрим  :wink:

Да тут и большинство форумчан, кто в теме насчет обещаний и дел Маска, скажут что один (ну, кроме прошедшего).
И если вдруг он запустит до Рождества ещё два (3 в сумме за 2011г), то все весьма  удивятся. А про большее количество и речи не идёт.

[чайник17]

Опять этот странный спор. Там же английским по белому написано:
*Target date indicates hardware arrival at launch site
То есть, если Маск изготовит 5 F9, привезёт на мыс и положит на склад рядочком, он в полном объёме выполнит взятые на себя капиталистические обязательства. Пусков никто не обещал. И даже software можно в этом году не заливать.  

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/15/nasa-ula-to-announce-new-ccdev-agreement-on-monday/

NASA, ULA to Announce New CCDev Agreement on Monday[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on July 15, 2011, at 1:23 pm
in CCDev, NASA, News and United Launch Alliance


United Launch Alliance's configurations for launch commercial crew vehicles on Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles. (Credit: ULA)

NASA PR – NASA and United Launch Alliance (ULA) managers will hold a news conference on Monday, July 18, at ULA headquarters in Centennial, Colo., to announce a new Commercial Crew Development agreement.

The news conference will begin at 11 a.m. MDT in the first floor conference center.

The briefing participants are:

– Ed Mango, NASA Commercial Crew Development program manager
– Dan Collins, chief operating officer, ULA
– Dr. George Sowers, vice president, ULA business development[/size]

[Salo]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/18/AW_07_18_2011_p68-000001.xml&headline=What%20Next%20For%20U.S.%20Human%20Spaceflight?&next=0

What Next For U.S. Human Spaceflight?[/size]

Jul 16, 2011
 
By Frank Morring, Jr.
Washington

Once the smoke clears from the three-year debate over U.S. space policy ushered in by the return of a Democratic administration to the White House, NASA's human-spaceflight activities will look a lot like those planned and started under the preceding Republican administration.

As was the case then, astronauts will fly to the International Space Station (ISS) on Russian Soyuz vehicles while they wait for a new capsule/launch vehicle combination that owes more in basic design and operation to Apollo and its predecessors than to the space shuttle. And NASA will be working on a heavy-lift rocket comparable to the Saturn V, hopeful that it will take humans beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) someday.

Perhaps the biggest difference in the old approach and the new will be the time lost while the politicians and contractors sorted out the details. And only time will tell if the new approach is faster—and cheaper, as NASA's leaders promise.

The initial operational capability of the Constellation program's Orion/Ares I crew-launch stack endorsed by former President George W. Bush was a moving target. Its ambitious schedule slipped as the inevitable technical issues arose without adequate funding to fix them.

To date, the commercial replacements for Orion/Ares I favored by President Barack Obama have not hit major technical challenges like the thrust-oscillation issue that slowed Ares I. But that could be because they have not gotten far enough along in development to run into real trouble. Like Constellation, they are working to optimistic time lines, but they started later.

After Obama took office in 2009, his space-policy team surprised Congress with a budget request that terminated the Constellation program outright, including both the Ares I crew launcher and the planned Ares V heavy-lifter. The new plan handed to the private sector the job of transporting cargo and crew to the ISS. The budget request, delivered without preamble or detail to lawmakers accustomed to a more collaborative approach to working with the executive branch, triggered a strong negative reaction from senators and representatives.

Among them were influential members such as Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) with serious constituent interests in maintaining the publicly backed jobs Constellation provided, and other members from both parties who had given their good-faith endorsement to the old program.

The 2011 NASA budget request, and the administration's ham-handed approach to dealing with the negative congressional reaction, added to the "gap" in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities that already was an issue on Capitol Hill. The dispute culminated in the compromise NASA Authorization Act of 2010, a three-year measure enacted and signed by Obama in December 2010. Under the legislative process, funding would be covered in a separate appropriation.

The reauthorization legislation essentially called for a shift of funds from the open-ended technology-development program NASA wants to fast-track development of a heavy-lift rocket able to launch 130 metric tons. The technology program, part of Obama's original request, is designed to advance readiness levels for a wide range of technologies that will be needed to send humans on exploration missions beyond LEO. The heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) and a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) derived from Constellation's Orion capsule are intended to place enough hardware into LEO to move beyond it.

That is pretty much where the government side of human spaceflight remains today. Funding for the authorization act lagged as Congress fought out larger issues before handling fiscal 2011 appropriations in a series of continuing resolutions that essentially maintained spending at fiscal 2010 levels. As a result, the Constellation program was not officially terminated until June 10.

Today NASA spaceflight chief William Gerstenmaier's main concern is transporting enough cargo to the ISS to sustain a six-person crew. He cannot do it with anything flying after the shuttle, so he pushed hard for the STS-135 mission on Atlantis that is now under way to carry one final load of supplies to the ISS and buy time for the commercial companies to finish their cargo carriers.

Right now it looks like Space Exploration Technologies Inc. (SpaceX) has the best chance of doing that with its Falcon 9/Dragon cargo variant. The idiosyncratic private startup has used the dot-com deep pockets and business savvy of founder Elon Musk—plus the lion's share of NASA's $500 million Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) effort to establish a space-transportation industry—to orbit a Dragon from Cape Canaveral and recover it off the California coast.

That was a private-sector first. But SpaceX's finances and the exact technical status of its vehicles remain hidden from view. The public-sector Ares I and Orion developments were more transparent until Obama terminated them as "unsustainable," in the words of the outside panel headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine commissioned by Obama to study the issue. That transparency left the projects open to criticism, not all of it constructive or even objective.

There's a little more visibility into Orbital Sciences Corp.'s (OSC) effort to combine the COTS seed money with its own technical skills and funding, and those of an international array of subcontractors, to develop the Taurus II/Cygnus combination for cargo deliveries to the ISS. A team that includes 50-60 Ukrainian engineers and technicians is laboring at Wallops Flight Facility, Va., to meld the Ukrainian-built main stage with surplus NK-33 Russian rocket engines; an ATK solid-fuel upper stage; a capsule built in Turin, Italy; and an Orbital-built service module into a vehicle that can fly from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island, Va.

Like SpaceX, the company had planned to meet its COTS milestone and deliver cargo this year. But an acceptance-test fire caused by a fuel leak in the plumbing feeding a flight-ready AJ26 engine, as Aerojet designates the NK-33s it has modified, has thrown that schedule into doubt (AW&ST June 27, p. 42).

Gerstenmaier intends the final shuttle mission to deliver enough supplies to avoid reducing the station crew size before Dragon and Cygnus begin cargo deliveries. But cargo is only part of the story. NASA also is funneling seed money into commercial human-rated spacecraft that it hopes eventually will reduce the need for U.S., European, Canadian and Japanese astronauts to reach the station on the Soyuz capsules.

Under the second round of its Commercial Crew Development (CCDev-2) program, the agency has distributed $269.3 million to help add maturity to concepts for private spacecraft to carry astronauts to the ISS. Boeing was the big winner in CCDev-2, awarded $92.3 million on top of the $18 million it received in last year's CCDev-1 competition. Sierra Nevada Corp., last year's top winner, will get $80 million to go with the $20 million it received in 2010.

SpaceX will receive another $75 million to develop a launch abort system and other hardware so the Dragon capsule can carry crew. Blue Origin, the secretive startup organized by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, will receive $22 million to continue work on its vertical-takeoff-and-landing spacecraft.

Boeing is building a capsule designated the CST-100, which would use batteries rather than solar arrays for power on quick trips to the space station. Plans call for enough power storage in the CST-100 service module to enable two docking attempts, and the capsule is being designed to stay at the station for as long as seven months as a lifeboat once it is connected to the station grid.

SpaceX is using its CCDev-1 award to develop a side-mounted pusher-type launch abort system and begin designing crew accommodations for a human-rated Dragon. OSC, NASA's other commercial cargo-delivery provider, decided not to pursue human flight when its reusable spaceplane design did not pass muster in CCDev-2.

NASA is continuing to invest in Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser lifting-body vehicle as a potential replacement for the shuttle's runway-landing capability. The composite spaceplane is based on NASA's HL-20 experimental vehicle, derived from the Russian BOR-4 test vehicle that flew in space four times.

Blue Origin plans to advance its otherwise unnamed "Space Vehicle" by using the CCDev-2 funding to complete "key system trades," work with NASA's Ames Research Center to design the vehicle's thermal protection system and conduct the reviews necessary to generate, in the words of its CCDev-2 proposal, "a baseline definition architecture and system requirements."

Work on the four spacecraft with the CCDev-2 funding is just starting. Blue Origin and SpaceX have held "kickoff meetings" on spending the new federal money, according to a NASA progress report. Boeing completed a system definition review on May 19, NASA says, and Sierra Nevada met its systems requirements review milestone by delivering 10 documents June 1, including its human-rating plan.

By comparison, the MPCV that NASA started as the Orion crew exploration vehicle under Constellation is the most advanced crew carrier in the lineup. Lockheed Martin kept working on Orion after Obama called for cancellation of Constellation under appropriations language that prohibited NASA from terminating the program and its contracts.

According to NASA Program Manager Mark Geyer, Orion has cost the government $5 billion to date. With its portion of that money, Lockheed Martin has built and pressure-tested the initial Orion development vehicle and moved it from its fabrication facility at the Michoud plant in New Orleans to the Lockheed Martin spacecraft factory near Denver for acoustic and other ground tests. It has also developed a telescoped flight-test program using existing launch vehicles that it says could see the vehicle ready to carry crews of four to orbit in 2016. But NASA is slowing that plan to bring Orion development into sync with the heavy-lift SLS Congress has ordered NASA to build (AW&ST May 30, p. 30).

Thus, none of the planned human spacecraft has a human-rated launch vehicle to carry it to space. Boeing has yet to pick a launch vehicle for its CST-100, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin plan to use the Atlas V and SpaceX will use its Falcon 9.

Meanwhile, Congress and NASA continue to spar over how fast the agency is moving on the heavy-lift rocket ordered in the reauthorization act. Administrator Charles Bolden insists NASA cannot meet its 2016 congressional deadline, no matter how much money Congress appropriates for the task, while lawmakers like Hutchison and Nelson insist that the law is the law. Sen. John D. Rockefeller, 4th, (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, used a subpoena threat to pry loose permission for his staff to see preliminary versions of the SLS reference design, but only if they visited agency headquarters to do so.

That design, selected by Bolden on June 14 and forwarded to the White House for final approval, calls for a heavy-lift rocket that uses liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen for main- and upper-stage propulsion. Early versions of the rocket would use three surplus space shuttle main engines (SSME) each to power the main stage and the J-2X upper-stage engine started under Constellation for the upper stage. For added thrust during liftoff and early ascent, the vehicle would use a variant of the solid-fuel booster rockets that performed the same task for the space shuttle.

Once the 15 SSMEs in NASA's stockpile are expended, the plan calls for a shift to the reusable RS25E variant that Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne has proposed. To "evolve" toward the 130-metric-ton capability, and satisfy Shelby and the senators from California with some potential jobs for their constituents, the plan would hold a competition for kerosene-fueled strap-on boosters as more powerful replacements for the shuttle-derived solids.

Aerojet says it already is working in California on an upgraded version of the 340,000-lb.-thrust AJ26 that would generate about 500,000 lb. of thrust at sea level and has entered an agreement with Teledyne Brown Engineering to build the hardware in Huntsville, Ala.

To put it mildly, that work is in its early stages. As technicians at Kennedy Space Center prepare the space shuttle orbiters for transfer to museums in Virginia, California and—once Atlantis lands—just outside the KSC gates, the U.S. human spaceflight program is arguably less defined than it was in November 2008, when the national election upended it.

Inevitably that will change, as test flights and on-going political negotiations play out for good or ill. The gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability continues, with less technical clarity on how it will be closed.

As Atlantis cranks out the final orbits of the shuttle decades, we explore what comes next in the U.S. space program and offer expert commentaries on the value of the shuttle in bringing the U.S. this far. NASA Shuttle Program Manager John Shannon outlines what the money and lives spent on this "incredible learning tool" have given the space program. Michael Griffin, who planned for the shuttle retirement as NASA administrator, discusses why it is time to move on. [/size]

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/18/ula-nasa-ccdev-announcement-live-blogging/

ULA-NASA CCDev Announcement — Live Blogging[/size]

Posted by Doug Messier
on July 18, 2011, at 10:17 am
in CCDev, NASA, News and United Launch Alliance

11:01 a.m. Here we go....

Chris Chavez — ULA Communications
Ed Mango, NASA Commercial Crew Development program manager
Dr. George Sowers, vice president, ULA business development

George Sowers

– very busy week and year at ULA — 52 consecutive launches — latest one a GPS satellite on Saturday
– five science launches this year — capped off by Mars Science Lab....

Details:

an unfunded Space Act Agreement to collect technical information from ULA on the use of Atlas V for commercial crew....NASA will provide feedback on human space mission requirements.....

Unfunded SAA — both sides will make own contributions, no funds from NASA to ULA or from ULA to NASA

program will last through the end of the year...

ULA putting a significant amount of money into it....potential for a lot of jobs at various ULA sites in Colorado, Alabama and Florida depending upon what happens in Washington......CCDev program....

Mango:

NASA will be creating a team on its side to work on the project....create an integrated team...

NASA team will include 30 engineers, 4-6 full-time....contributions from Marshall, Ames, KSC and JSC....

QUESTIONS:

Will ULA have a certified rocket by the end of the process?

Mango: No. We will have a sense of the risks and requirements involved in using Atlas. Need certification of the entire system.

Can emergency detection system be used for Delta IV and other rockets?

Sowers: As part of this agreement, will continue development of the emergency detection system. NASA and Lockheed Martin are considering Delta IV for Orion launches both unmanned and with crews.

Mango:  Want to have two systems certified to fly to ISS by the middle of the decade.

How much modification is required to Atlas V?

Sowers: Mods to the Atlas V are pretty minimal. The major one involves the emergency detection system, which was funded under CCDev 1.

Other modifications are at the launch site for emergency egress in the event of an emergency.

Will you stay with RD-180? Produce it in United States?

Sowers: For initial commercial crew, would go with same RD-180 Russian supplied engine that has worked successfully in previous flights.

Is this the same work you wanted to do on CCDev 2?

Sowers: It's a subset of that amount. Will not go into as much depth.

How long is the agreement?

Mango: Work will take six to nine months.

How long will certification take?

Mango: Will be longer than the CCDev 1 (one year) and less than 2 to 3 years. Depends upon what proposals are provided by companies.

Sowers: NASA's certification will be on the full system level — rocket, spacecraft, etc.

What does Atlas V bring to the table?

Sowers: We feel that demonstrated reliability is critically important. We've learned the hard way that analyses have a difficult time assessing the rigors of the flight environment. Need to fly. Having 26 successful missions under our belt means that we have a reliable vehicle that can be used for crew.

Mango: Flight history is very important. You think you are safe but then you have to look under the rock to make sure you won't get caught.

 What version of Atlas? And why Delta IV?

Sowers: Atlas V is choice of commercial crew industry. Would use lower end of the Atlas V performance.

When would it be ready to launch humans?

Sowers: We believe that Atlas V can be ready by the time any spacecraft can be ready. Within 3 or 4 years.

Mango: Middle of the decade is the goal. That's a bit of a soft target.

What type of analysis will it be?

Sowers: Don't need to do more testing on the launch vehicle since it's flown 26 times. Will review the testing that has been done on the Atlas V and the flight history and comparing it to NASA's human flight requirements.

What is vaule of NASA's contribution to agreement?

Mango: Thirty individuals involved, about 4-6 full time. Engineers at Marshall, JSC, KSC and Ames.

How would Atlas V certification help with Delta IV certification?

Would need to go through a similar process with the Delta IV. Being considered for an unmanned flight of MPCV. Would not need human certification for that flight.

What's the next step?

Mango: CCDev 2 is focused on spacecraft development. CCDev 3 that will start next year will be an integrated process involving rockets and spacecraft analyzing missions and flights.[/size]

[Salo]

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110718-ula-support-commercial-crew-efforts.html

Mon, 18 July, 2011
ULA To Support Commercial Crew Efforts[/size]
By Dan Leone

    WASHINGTON — United Launch Alliance (ULA) will support NASA efforts to assess the potential of the company's Atlas 5 rocket for launching astronaut crews bound for the international space station under a partnership agreement with the space agency announced July 18.

    In a press release, ULA, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin Joint venture, characterized the arrangement as an unfunded Space Act Agreement under which NASA will collect technical data on the Atlas 5 to assess its feasibility for launching crew-carrying space vehicles.

    ULA was not among the companies that in April were awarded NASA funding under a second round of contracts designed to nurture the development of privately operated astronaut transportation services. The Commercial Crew Development (CCDev-2) awards went to companies designing crew-carrying spacecraft rather than rockets.

    ULA's agreement with NASA "will look at the Atlas 5 to understand its design risks, its capabilities, how it can be used within the context of flying our NASA crew, and maturing ULA's designs for the Emergency Detection System (EDS) and launch vehicle processing and launch architectures under a crewed configuration," Ed Mango, NASA's Commercial Crew Program manager, said in the press release.

    "We believe this effort will demonstrate to NASA that our systems are compliant with NASA requirements for human spaceflight," George Sowers, ULA's vice president of business development, said in the release.

    The Atlas 5 is one of the two main vehicles offered by ULA to launch U.S. government payloads. ULA also offers the Delta 4 rocket, which is similar in capability to the Atlas 5 but has yet to be ordered by NASA, and the smaller Delta 2, which is out of production and bound for retirement.

    Boeing Co., which won $92.3 million in CCDev-2 funding, is working on the CST-100 capsule that could be used to bring astronauts to the international space station, and to fly fee-paying tourists into space. Other recipients of CCDev-2 funding are Sierra Nevada Corp., which received $80 million to continue developing its seven-person Dream Chaser space plane; Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which received $75 million for work on a crew-carrying version of its Dragon cargo capsule; and Blue Origin, which received $22 million.

    The Atlas 5 and the Delta 4 are the only U.S. rockets in operation today that could launch the crew vehicles that Boeing and Sierra Nevada are working on. Neither company has officially selected a launch vehicle for its proposed astronaut taxi.

    In 2009, ULA got $50 million under NASA's CCDev-1 program, funding for which was made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. According to industry sources, ULA used those funds to design an EDS, an important safety feature and that is considered necessary before a rocket can be used to launch astronaut crews.[/size]

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/18/nasa-ula-enter-partnership-on-atlas-v-commercial-crew/

NASA, ULA Enter Partnership on Atlas V Commercial Crew[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on July 18, 2011, at 12:56 pm
in CCDev, NASA and United Launch Alliance

ULA's Atlas V

NASA PR — DENVER — Through a new agreement, United Launch Alliance (ULA) will provide technical information to NASA about using the Atlas V rocket to launch astronauts into space. The announcement was made Monday at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

"I am truly excited about the addition of ULA to NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program team," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "Having ULA on board may speed the development of a commercial crew transportation system for the International Space Station, allowing NASA to concentrate its resources on exploring beyond low Earth orbit."

NASA and ULA's unfunded Space Act Agreement (SAA) requires ULA to provide data on the Atlas V, a flight-proven expendable launch vehicle used by NASA and the Department of Defense for critical space missions.

NASA will share its human spaceflight experience with ULA to advance crew transportation system capabilities and the draft human certification requirements. ULA will provide NASA feedback about those requirements, including providing input on the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of NASA's proposed certification approach.

"This unfunded SAA will look at the Atlas V to understand its design risks, its capabilities, how it can be used within the context of flying our NASA crew and maturing ULA's designs for the Emergency Detection System and launch vehicle processing and launch architectures under a crewed configuration," said Ed Mango, NASA's Commercial Crew Program manager.

The majority of the work will be completed by the end of this year. As part of the agreement, NASA will:

– participate in milestone and technical review briefings and provide technical feedback on milestone completion
– assist in identification of risks and possible mitigation strategies

ULA will:

– continue to advance the Atlas V CTS concept, including design maturation and analyses
– conduct ULA program reviews as planned
– perform a Design Equivalency Review
– develop Hazard Analyses unique for human spaceflight
– develop a Probabilistic Risk Assessment
– document an Atlas V CTS certification baseline
– conduct Systems Requirements Review

"We believe this effort will demonstrate to NASA that our systems are fully compliant with NASA requirements for human spaceflight," said George Sowers, ULA's vice president of business development. "ULA looks forward to continued work with NASA to develop a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability providing safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and return from low Earth orbit and the International Space Station."

In 2010, NASA awarded $6.7 million to ULA to accompany its own $1.3 million investment to develop an Emergency Detection System prototype test bed. The EDS will monitor critical launch vehicle and spacecraft systems and issue status, warning and abort commands to crew during their mission to low Earth orbit. EDS is the sole significant element necessary for flight safety to meet the requirements to certify ULA's launch vehicles for human spaceflight.[/size]

[Salo]

"Мы с Тамарой ходим парой - санитары мы с Тамарой!" (с) Агния Барто.

Боинговский CST-100 ( и не только) будут запускать локхидовским Atlas-V, а локхидовский Orion - боинговской Delta-IV.  

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/22/massive-brewing-over-nasa-changes-to-ccdev-contracting/

Massive Fight Brewing Over NASA Changes to CCDev Contracting[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on July 22, 2011, at 4:34 pm

NASA wants to change its contracting process for the future rounds of the Commercial Crew Development program, a development that has a lot of commercial crew proponents up in arms. First, the details from Space News:

    Breaking from the strategy it used in the first two rounds of its commercial crew development (CCDev) program, NASA said it intends to use a traditional procurement process governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations to fund its contribution to the next phases of work on privately owned human spaceflight systems.

    NASA awarded Space Act Agreements (SAA) for the first and second phases of CCDev. Under those arrangements, companies developing launch or crew transportation systems are paid upon meeting self-imposed milestones developed with NASA input.

    But NASA said SAAs may not be suitable for the next phase of commercial crew development because the agency wants that effort to yield an integrated transportation system, comprising a rocket and a crew-carrying vehicle, that NASA would then certify as safe for ferrying astronauts to the international space station.

    As part of the certification process, NASA would have to dictate some safety design requirements to its industry partners. NASA does not have that authority under the SAA framework, according to former astronaut Brent Jett, deputy program manager for the agency's commercial crew program.

And now, this reaction from Charles Lurio in today's edition of The Lurio Report:

    Update, July 21 – 'Commercial Crew' Fatal Management Error Imminent

    At a forum on 20 July, NASA revealed its plans to indeed control the program tightly and fatally after CCDev 2.  The scope apparently went beyond the worst I'd anticipated in my June 28 issue ("Intervention Required _Now_ to Save 'Commercial Crew'  From 'Death by Management'").

    From Blue Origin to SpaceX to Bigelow Aerospace and others, industry firms and entities were stunned.  Only two weeks (to August 3) are allowed for formal responses, but twitter feeds from the meeting indicated the strength of their initial protests.

    It seems that the NASA proposals are based on an inverted world where the Space Act Agreements (SAAs) used during the COTS program are suddenly legally questionable, where their accomplishments may not have really been accomplishments, and where rules that didn't and can't exist have suddenly become holy writ.  Such weasel words are a flimsy tissue attempting to cover up a retreat to NASA's traditional FAR contracting, the same procedures that gave us standing armies from factory floor through operations and costs that can never go down.  It makes plausible speculation that this has been engineered by traditional NASA sectors and contractors in revenge for COTS's SAAs showing just how overpriced they've been.

    The basic justification is, of course, perpetuation of the "magical thinking" that only NASA can create "safe" human spaceflight; the thesis that the Harry Potter books are nonfiction is plausible by comparison.

    NASA is counting on OMB and other higher elements of the Executive Branch being so distracted by larger national issues that they can be "played the fool" and taken in by this, rather than overriding it.  If that happens or if NASA doesn't change plans on its own, I think that commercial crew beyond the present CCDev phase should be defunded rather than turn into another farce.

    (Footnote: Evidently officials, management, and other groups within the Agency are each pointing at the other as responsible for "requiring" a retreat back to costly traditions.  A perfectly illogical circle, but one that's also hanging together.)

This will be a battle royale. I can't help thinking that CCDev is going to be a constant battle right up to time of the first launch or the moment it collapses into a giant scrap heap.[/size]

[Потусторонний]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8647257/Nasa-reaches-agreement-to-send-commercial-rocket-to-ISS.html

НАСА планирует использовать Atkas-V для пилотируемых полетов, поскольку начиная с 2002г 100% пусков были удачными.

Several companies competing to partner with Nasa to build a successor to the space shuttle – like Sierra Nevada Corp. and Blue Origin – have already chosen the Atlas V to launch future commercial payloads

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/07/28/newspace-2011-orbital-spaceflight-and-beyond/

NewSpace 2011: Orbital Spaceflight and Beyond[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on July 28, 2011, at 11:23 am


A Boeing CST-100 crew module docks at a Bigelow Aerospace space station. (Credit: Boeing)

Moderator:

    Dennis Stone: Manager, Program Integration, NASA Commercial Crew and Cargo Program

Panel:

    Brent Jett — Deputy Manager, NASA CCDev (JSC)
    Garrett Reisman — Project Manager for CCDev 2, SpaceX
    Mark Sirangelo — Chairman, Sierra Nevada Space Systems
    Gerard Szatkowski — SmallSat Project Manager, United Launch Alliance

 Brent Jett
NASA CCDev

    There is a lot of angst in the community concerning contracting setup for CCDev 3 and beyond
    Agrees with Lori Garver comment — keep our feet to the fire
    Some people feel that Space Act Agreement is the ONLY way to do commercial crew; others feel that a cost-plus contract is the only way to assure crew and mission safety
    lawyers are telling them what the can and can't do
    Committed to minimizing overhead, using fixed payments and incentives, etc.
    The key to being successful is not the type of contracting agreement used
    The key is to control requirements, costs, etc.
    What we really need is money and support from Congress and the Executive Branch. We know we have it from the Executive Branch, but support in Congress depends upon who you talk to
    House Markup bill — flat at $312 million — only about 1/10 of amount spent on SLS and Orion Multiple Crew Vehicle
    If that number holds, it will be very challenging to maintain multiple partners and reach goal of flying people by mid-2010s
    "At some point we're going to have to spend more than a couple of hundred million per year" to get to orbital flights
    Partners (Sierra Nevada, Boeing, etc.) want to fly quicker than NASA has the money to spend — NASA budget for commercial crew is a limiting factor.

 Garrett Reisman
SpaceX

    The buzz around STS-135 launch (final shuttle flight) was all doomy and gloomy
    Believes we're on the edge of a golden age for space marked by commercial innovation
    if we F-up the commercial crew effort, then all that doomy and gloomy stuff will be true
    need to find a way to make it work or the U.S. will no longer be a human space-faring nation
    House bill ($312 million for commercial crew) is less than 2 percent of NASA's total budget — for people worried about U.S. leadership in space, why not provide more funds?
    NASA and industry are communicating on requirements and contracting matters — confident that they will find a way forward — need to find the funds for it
    We have the technology to do this
    When he first went to SpaceX, was "blown away" by the capability the company has to produce rockets
    SpaceX had conceptual design review on escape system just two days ago. Will have a PDR in September.
    Our vice presidents are purely technical, leading an incredibly enthusiastic group of young engineers who are having the time of their lives

Mark Sirangelo
Sierra Nevada Space Systems

    The House bill ($312 million for commercial crew) was actually a good thing — last year they tried to zero out the budget entirely....
    now have a floor of $312 million and a ceiling of $850 million (President's budget)
    Confident that they will get there...
    His view is that the issues concerning contracting methods will be resolved
    NASA is our partner — we are privileged to be given funding to go do this
    Bigger issue — making sure we have enough money to make this happen

Gerard Szatkowski
United Launch Alliance

    Need to human rate the Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles
    We don't see this as a great technology problem, it's straight forward engineering
    ULA Rideshare Capabilities — secondary payloads program for low-cost access to space
    can do suborbital, orbital and Earth escape (lunar-type) missions

QUESTIONS

Q. Govt. is the primary customer and investor for COTS, CCDev, anchor tenancy, etc. How do we get from that to a more fully-commercial environment in LEO?

Szatkowski: Lowering the recurring costs. Producing payloads that are already contained so get costs down for ULA.

Reisman:  It is a partnership. NASA is a great source of expertise in knowing what to do and what not to do. COTS is working great. This is happening. It's very cost effective.  SpaceX has spent $800 million total since it was founded. With business as usual, would cost a lot more. For Falcon 9, would have cost $4 billion with traditional methods.

Brent Jett: NASA needs to set requirements but not get too much into design. Another key: other destinations in LEO. Bigelow has private space station plans. Partnerships on destinations in Earth orbit would be crucial.

Q: What are plans for recruiting commercial astronauts?

Reisman: My boss at SpaceX was my boss at NASA — astronaut Ken Bowersox. (Reisman is an ex-astronaut, too). Need to work out who will do initial flights. Will it be NASA astronauts? SpaceX astros? A combination of both? Those questions are still open now.

Sirangelo:  Agreed with Reisman on most of what he said. One model: take a page from the maritime industry.  Commercial companies take ships around the world, but there is a harbor master that bring the ships into port. Could be a mixed system blending NASA and private industry. Private companies launch vehicle, NASA docks it.

Q: Difference in paperwork, complexity between Space Act Agreements and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) contract?

Sirangelo:  Under FAR, the complexities of joint partnership investments could become a problem. Thinks that can be worked out. Other issue: when NASA asks for a change in the vehicle. Need to be analyzed carefully. Where does the money come from under a fixed-price contract?  Other issue is time and cost of paying personnel.

One option: do CCDev 3 under Space Act Agreement leading to the final round being done under FAR.

Reisman:  We want to continue successful Space Act Agreement of fixed-price, milestone based program done for COTS and CCDev 1 and 2. There are a lot of accounting issues under FAR. NASA has said it would provide an exemption to cost accounting. Need to hire a lot of extra accountants. Big culture change at SpaceX; our people don't fill out time cards. That saves us several man-days per person. Space Act Agreement might have a dozen requirements in that area; FAR might have 50. Need to hire people to make sure you are in compliance.

Made all of these concerns known to NASA people, who are working very hard to accommodate them.

Jett:  Can provide an exemption to cost accounting and work on other requirements. An SAA could meet the requirements for moving forward. However, if it doesn't, then we will try to develop the most flexible approach to meet NASA's needs and limit overhead and make the program feasible.[/size]

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/09/15/musk-applauds-senates-approval-of-500-million-for-commercial-crew/#more-29678

Musk Applauds Senate's Approval of $500 Million for Commercial Crew[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on September 15, 2011, at 2:28 pm


SpacX Founder Elon Musk

Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and Chief Technology Officer, issued the following statement:

"The United States needs alternatives for carrying American astronauts, and we need them as soon as possible," said SpaceX CEO and chief rocket designer Elon Musk. "The investments made by this legislation will accelerate efforts to return America to launching astronauts and reduce our dependency on Russia. With the failure of the Soyuz booster last month, this effort is more important than ever.

"NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program is the most fiscally responsible means to rapidly advance human spaceflight. It has protected taxpayer dollars with fixed-price, pay-for-performance contracts. It fosters competition that forces companies to compete on reliability, capability and cost. And it leverages private investment – making taxpayer dollars go further.

"SpaceX applauds Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison and the Members of the Subcommittee for recognizing the value of the program. With the support of Congress, American companies will soon be able to end the flow of tax dollars to Russia and instead invest in high-tech American jobs."

Editor's Note: The Senate's bill is $350 million less than the $850 million requested by the Obama Administration. It is higher than the House spending bill, which leaves spending flat at $312 million. Those numbers will have to be reconciled in conference committee, but it's unlikely the CCDev budget will rise above a half billion dollars next year.

Musk's view appears to be that this is sufficient, although other NewSpace supporters are likely to vehemently disagree.  I'm disappointed that after forcing NASA to build a massive heavy lift vehicle that the Senate couldn't find extra money to fund CCDev at or at least near what the space agency says it needs. Especially after the recent Soyuz launch exposed the vulnerability of relying on a single crew launch system. That would have been a good bargain, but it was not to be.

It's a bit too early to fully evaluate the impact of the Senate's decision. Officials from CCDev companies have said that any cuts in the proposed CCDev budgets could lengthen development times and raise overall costs down the road. That could endanger efforts to get commercial crew up and running by the middle of the decade.

Boeing, for example, is projecting the first test flight of its CST-100 vehicle in 2015, with an operational flight in 2016.  Other companies are projecting flights earlier, contingent upon sufficient funding. Any delays mean paying the Russians some $63 million per seat (or more) to send our astronauts to the International Space Station. And it leaves ISS dependent solely upon the Soyuz.

The other possible impact is that NASA funds fewer systems than it might otherwise support with a larger budget. NASA is looking for at least two systems to fund to completion to give it options.  My guess is the space agency will stick with at least two but might not be able to fund three.

One thing to keep in mind: it's not unusual to ask for a larger budget and expect Congress to provide less, especially in the current fiscal climate.  So, NASA was probably expecting to run the program on less money, although perhaps not this much less.[/size]

[Космос-3794]

NASA объявило предварительный запрос на предложения в рамках программы пилотируемых коммерческих транспортных систем. Запрос очерчивает контуры контракта в рамках которого будет осуществляться дальнейшее финансирование программы. Названный Integrated Design Contract (IDC), договор стоимостью $1.61 млрд будет действовать в период с июля 2012 до апреля 2014.
Одновременно также объявлено о дополнениях к контрактам в рамках программы CCDev2  - Sierra Nevada Corp. получит дополнительно $25.6 млн (общая стоимость контракта составит $105.6 млн.), Boeing получит дополнительно  $20.6 млн. (общая стоимость -  $112.9 млн.)

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_11-312_CCDEV_Announ.html

[Salo]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/09/20/nasa-to-abandon-goal-of-funding-multiple-commercial-crew-systems/

NASA to Abandon Goal of Funding Multiple Commercial Crew Systems[/size]
Posted by Doug Messier
on September 20, 2011, at 11:06 am

Congressional stinginess with NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) budget is forcing the space agency to abandon a key goal of the effort: to obtain multiple, redundant access to low Earth orbit with price competition between providers.

According to the CCDev draft request for proposal released yesterday, NASA will ultimately select only one system to fund to completion:

    The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection. [my emphasis added]

The space agency is currently funding four companies to build spacecraft: Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX. The first three companies plan to use United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rocket to launch their spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX would use its own Falcon 9 booster. NASA's goal had been to fund at least two fully integrated rocket-spacecraft systems to full completion.

The key issue appears to be funding: while the Obama Administration has proposed spending $850 million on CCDev in FY 2012, the Senate would provide $500 million while the House has proposed $312 million.  Congress has been much more enthusiastic about funding the Space Launch System and Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, which will receive around $3 billion next year.

The issue affects not only NASA but also private space station operators such as Bigelow Aerospace who want multiple options and competition in launching crews and cargo. Bigelow plans to launch two space stations into orbit by the end of the decade if commercial transport options become available. The company will need more than 20 launches per year of cargo and crew to support its facilities.[/size]