Коммерческий орбитальный корабль НПОмаш / Excalibur Almaz

[David Lee Rickman]

The nearly complete station Excalibur Almaz purchased is neither OPS-5 or OPS-6. It was to have been an unmanned Almaz satellite.

Документация, которая сопровождает эти два объекта, идентифицирует их как 0205 и 0206.

Thank you, Anatoly. This is very useful information.

According to Polychenko OPS-5 would have been №0105. We know that Almaz T was №0303. So does anyone know what №0205 and №0206 represent? All visual indications are that №0205 would have been unmanned. But these are curious model numbers. Could these represent man tended stations (automated stations visited by cosmonauts only for repairs and resupply)?

Best Always,

David L. Rickman

[Anatoly Zak]

According to Polychenko OPS-5 would have been №0105. We know that Almaz T was №0303. So does anyone know what №0205 and №0206 represent? All visual indications are that №0205 would have been unmanned. But these are curious model numbers. Could these represent man tended stations (automated stations visited by cosmonauts only for repairs and resupply)?

Переходная камера для экипажа на месте у обоих, однако стыковочный узел на 0205-м отсутствует. Похоже, возможна переделка из посещаемого аппарата в непилотируемый,... что не расходится с существующими воспоминаниями.

[Anatoly Zak]

It was to have been an unmanned Almaz satellite.

Вот здесь положил фото "смотрового" (viewing) иллюминатора, в то время как имеются окна для оптических приборов:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_0205.html

Корпус от 206-ой станции, имеет переходные люки на обоих сторонах, смотровые иллюминаторы и люк для ВКД:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_0206.html

[Bell]

Интересно, что расскажут.
А еще интереснее - что покажут...

Предлагаемая конфигурация:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_excalibur.html

Анатолий, а там масштаб не перепутан? Люди какие-то маленькие

[Anatoly Zak]

Интересно, что расскажут.
А еще интереснее - что покажут...

Предлагаемая конфигурация:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_excalibur.html

Анатолий, а там масштаб не перепутан? Люди какие-то маленькие

"Концептуально" уменьшены.

[Bell]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

[frigate]

Почему НАСА не выделило финансирование по программе CCDev-2 компании Excalibur Almaz Incorporated:
Selection Statement For Commercial Crew Development Round 2 18 Apr 2011

For the Technical Approach evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence of Yellow.
Strengths included
- leveraging of an existing crew vehicle structure;
- landing concept offers significant operational capability;
- processes for identifying, evaluating, and documenting risks during CCDev 2 and for the overall program;
- effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure.
Weaknesses included
- insufficient detail on breadth and depth of engineering and manufacturing experience;
- insufficient data on heritage hardware pedigree;
- insufficient information on quantity of hardware and relationship to flight/test plans;
- insufficient information on the integration of systems;
- insufficient information on proposed launch abort system;
- failure to address development risks for certain component development; - some proposed tasks not shown to advance a CTS capability;
- failure to map key development risks to proposed milestones;
- insufficient detail to assess applicability and adaptability of legacy design to commercial crew;
- lack of understanding of NASA's draft human certification requirements or industry equivalent;
- safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones;
- inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence rating of Yellow.
No strengths were identified.
Weaknesses included
- inadequate information about acquisition of hardware, relationship to supplier, and projected revenues;
- unclear source of CCDev 2 investment;
- lack of information about the total amount of funding needed for development of capability;
- insufficient detail to show that stated resources are in place;
- insufficient information about experience with suppliers and teaming arrangements;
- insufficient information on INKSNA compliance.

There are five Level of Confidence color ratings:

Blue: Very High Level of Confidence -The proposal section is very highly effective and there is a very high likelihood of successful execution.

Green: High Level of Confidence -The proposal section is highly effective and there is at least a high likelihood of successful execution.

White: Moderate Level of Confidence -The proposal section is moderately effective and there is at least a moderate likelihood of successful execution.

Yellow: Low Level of Confidence -The proposal section has low effectiveness or there is a low likelihood of successful execution.

Red: Very Low Level of Confidence -The proposal section has very low effectiveness or there is a very low likelihood of successful execution.

[David Lee Rickman]

Почему НАСА не выделило финансирование по программе CCDev-2 компании Excalibur Almaz Incorporated:
Selection Statement For Commercial Crew Development Round 2 18 Apr 2011

For the Technical Approach evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence of Yellow.
Strengths included
- leveraging of an existing crew vehicle structure;
- landing concept offers significant operational capability;
- processes for identifying, evaluating, and documenting risks during CCDev 2 and for the overall program;
- effective and integrated S&MA organizational structure.
Weaknesses included
- insufficient detail on breadth and depth of engineering and manufacturing experience;
- insufficient data on heritage hardware pedigree;
- insufficient information on quantity of hardware and relationship to flight/test plans;
- insufficient information on the integration of systems;
- insufficient information on proposed launch abort system;
- failure to address development risks for certain component development; - some proposed tasks not shown to advance a CTS capability;
- failure to map key development risks to proposed milestones;
- insufficient detail to assess applicability and adaptability of legacy design to commercial crew;
- lack of understanding of NASA's draft human certification requirements or industry equivalent;
- safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones;
- inadequate definition of performance milestone success criteria.

For the Business Information evaluation, EAI received a level of confidence rating of Yellow.
No strengths were identified.
Weaknesses included
- inadequate information about acquisition of hardware, relationship to supplier, and projected revenues;
- unclear source of CCDev 2 investment;
- lack of information about the total amount of funding needed for development of capability;
- insufficient detail to show that stated resources are in place;
- insufficient information about experience with suppliers and teaming arrangements;
- insufficient information on INKSNA compliance.

There are five Level of Confidence color ratings:

Blue: Very High Level of Confidence -The proposal section is very highly effective and there is a very high likelihood of successful execution.

Green: High Level of Confidence -The proposal section is highly effective and there is at least a high likelihood of successful execution.

White: Moderate Level of Confidence -The proposal section is moderately effective and there is at least a moderate likelihood of successful execution.

Yellow: Low Level of Confidence -The proposal section has low effectiveness or there is a low likelihood of successful execution.

Red: Very Low Level of Confidence -The proposal section has very low effectiveness or there is a very low likelihood of successful execution.

The final ratings were somewhat different:

Excalibur Almaz Incorporated [EAI]

For the Technical Approach evaluation, the level of confidence rating changed from Yellow to White. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating an understanding of NASA's draft human certification requirements. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for insufficient detail on breadth and depth of engineering and manufacturing experience; insufficient data on heritage hardware pedigree; insufficient information on the integration of systems; and safety & mission assurance processes to reduce risks not appropriately associated with proposed performance milestones or design review milestones.

For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence rating remained Yellow. No new strengths were identified. All weaknesses were fully addressed, except for weaknesses related to inadequate information about acquisition of hardware, relationship to supplier, and projected revenues; insufficient detail that stated resources are in place; and unclear source of CCDev 2 investment.

Excalibur Almaz's proposal leveraged an existing crew vehicle structure from the heritage Almaz program which has a long test history; increasing confidence that the concept will accelerate commercial CTS capabilities. It was an innovative and unique approach, and the proposal provided a comprehensive description of their process to evaluate and document overall program/vehicle risks. However, the Excalibur Almaz proposal was the lowest rated proposal of the eight companies selected for due diligence and it was the only one that received a yellow rating (for Business Considerations). In addition, there was a consistent theme in many of the proposal's weaknesses, which was that the proposal lacked sufficient detail to determine crucial aspects of the CTS concept's technical, business, and safety content. For example, there was a lack of detail regarding the team's engineering and manufacturing experience to fabricate and operate the Almaz vehicle, lack of detail about integration of the vehicle, lack of detail about acquisition of the hardware, and lack of detail about the resources needed for the CCDev 2 work. I felt this lack of detail increased the risk for enabling a commercial CTS capability. This fact, in conjunction with the relatively lower ratings, led me to not select Excalibur Almaz for award.

I'd say that's not too bad for a company which was not seeking funding from NASA.

Best Regards,

David L. Rickman

[tonyq]

Sorry for the English!

Today a visited the Excalibur Almaz hanger at Jurby, Isle of Man for a media event hosted by Col. Valery Tokarev.

I am not an engineering specialist - my main interest is in astronauts and cosmonauts, so sorry if I did not photograph all the things people wanted to see.

Because I was there as a representative of 'Spaceflight' magazine I must give them first viewing of most of my 70+ photos, but I am happy to post a few here as a preview.

I was very surprised that we were allowed inside the most complete module and to take any photographs that we wanted.

[Anatoly Zak]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

Надо спросить их художников и редакторов. :wink:

[m-s Gelezniak]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

Надо спросить их художников и редакторов. :wink:

Придание значимости...

[David Lee Rickman]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

Надо спросить их художников и редакторов. :wink:

If they are still around. The base art is quite old.  The man floating above the window originally was standing in front of an open storage compartment in the TKS.

Best,

David L. Rickman

[David Lee Rickman]

It is interesting that the chamber designed for the release of the KSI film capsule has been entirely removed from both of the stations.

Regards,

David L. Rickman

[KVV]

Tony - thank you very much!

[ааа]

Tony - thank you very much!

Присоединяюсь.

[ааа]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

Надо спросить их художников и редакторов. :wink:

Чтобы микрокосмонавт мог пролезть через переходной микротуннель из ВА.

[David Lee Rickman]

It was to have been an unmanned Almaz satellite.

Вот здесь положил фото "смотрового" (viewing) иллюминатора, в то время как имеются окна для оптических приборов:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_0205.html

Корпус от 206-ой станции, имеет переходные люки на обоих сторонах, смотровые иллюминаторы и люк для ВКД:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/almaz_0206.html

I have been going through a heap of records and photographs, and as far as I can find every Almaz hull, regardless of its final configuration (manned or unmanned) was manufactured after the same pattern. Every base hull had the opening in the front (originally designed for access to the VA), and every hull had the same openings for windows, scientific equipment, etc.

Just because the stations that Excalibur Almaz purchased each have one porthole equipped with an illuminator does not indicate that the station was intended to be manned. This may have been done for the benefit of Excalibur Almaz.

I do not believe that whether or not these were to have been manned, unmanned, or man tended stations can not be determined by what is available at this time. The only thing I can conclude for certain is that the exterior design of 0205 is identical to the exterior design of the unmanned Almaz satellites, and that the manufacturing numbers are not like those of either the manned or unmanned stations. I can also reiterate that there were two nozzles on the front of 0205 connected to the four tanks and these nozzles have been removed.

I think this needs further investigation before any conclusions can be reached.

Respectfully yours,

David L. Rickman

[ronatu]

В 1,5 раза? Зачем?

Надо спросить их художников и редакторов. :wink:

Если бы в 1.5.... :wink:

[zyxman]

Если бы в 1.5.... :wink:

Ну есть два варианта - либо в Пи раз либо в Е раз. В данный момент времени актуальнее Пи

[David Lee Rickman]

One item which favors the idea that these were intended to be manned station, while simultaneously bringing into question the true age of these hulls is located in station 0206:



The object directly in front of the camera is the bottom housing of an AGAT camera.



That is VERY interesting!

There is also a structural difference between these two stations that makes me wonder if these were actually manufactured in sequence (as the numbers would suggest).  I'm going to keep this question to myself for the moment, but I will say that it's something that stuck out the first time I saw it, and it also associated with 0206. :wink:

Best,

David L. Rickman