Register here

Author Topic: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative  (Read 16564 times)

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2010, 06:16:37 pm »
"Air-capture is a strategy that has been implemented many times in the past, but never done at weights as high as a capsule," Gold said.

Midair capture was used by the military during World War II to recover gliders and during the 1960s to catch film canisters dropped from Corona spy satellites orbiting overhead.

The KH-9 satellite recovery vehicle, used up to 1985, apparently had a gross weight of 2000 pounds and really jerked the recovery aircraft, a C-130.  That engineering data is undoubtedly still classified.  I don't think it makes sense for crew, or for weights higher than 2000 pounds.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 673
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2010, 06:58:32 pm »

No,for Orion lite the reentry is with air capture

 http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html



The Bigelow Boeing spacecraft is not Orion lite

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 01:17:24 am »
Artist's impressions of the Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace capsule concept for the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/

There are some recent images of the Boeing capsule at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2010/09/15/GA2010091505170.html (a selection of them attached).

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2010, 11:54:36 am »
Thanks! They show it on a Falcon 9 and Atlas V and even on a Delta IV with a few solids. The latter thing is probably some artistic licence. If things like this were started in 2005, they might be quite close to flight status.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2010, 07:53:08 am »
Here's an interesting piece by Wayne Hale, I'll cut to the chase:

Quote from: http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/
Now NASA has released a draft (dated Oct. 8, 2010) of its requirements CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements.  I’d like for you to read it but it is behind NASA’s IT firewall and you must have an ID and password to access it.  I have read it and I’m disappointed.  The document runs a mind-numbing 260 pages of densely spaced requirements.  Most disappointing, on pages 7 to 11 is a table of 74 additional requirements documents which must be followed, in whole or in part.  Taken all together, there are thousands of requirement statements referenced in this document.  And for every one NASA will require a potential commercial space flight provider to document, prove, and verify with massive amounts of paperwork and/or electronic forms.  This, folks is the old way of doing business.  This is one of the major reasons why spaceflight is as costly as it is.

[...]

NASA must change or this effort will fail.  I am reminded that the US Military’s requirements for its first airplane ran 2 and ˝ pages; and the requirements for the NASA’s Gemini capsule ran about two dozen pages.  Simple, straightforward requirements and the flexibility to use good industry based standards could allow commercial space flight to be as successful as those programs or the NASA Launch Services program.  But we are not on that path.

I guess not a surprise, but if it pans out that way IMHO a huge missed opportunity :(

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2010, 08:53:36 am »
Not a surprise.  The paperwork is indeed excessive. 

That said, I can also guarantee you that there are a lot of issues that commercial providers will never consider unless NASA requires them.  A month or so ago somebody sent me a document concerning abort options for an Orion sent to a 52 degree orbit.  Turns out that the abort options are horrible because of the risk of dumping a crew in the North Atlantic a thousand miles from recovery forces and during a storm.  This really limits the weather constraints (you gotta have good weather all along the launch path) and increases the rescue forces requirements.  He thought it was a really tough set of options, but also added the comment "I bet SpaceX has no idea about things like this).

The overriding question is how much NASA oversight/insight is necessary, and can NASA reduce excessive oversight/insight to achieve that level?  There are those who say that NASA should have almost no oversight/insight, and that commercial companies will "self-police" because they don't want to risk losing their business in event of an accident.  I think that's balderdash, since companies regularly cut safety corners that can wreck their businesses and there's no reason to believe that space is any different at all.  (The common response is to use the analogy of commercial aviation, which is very safe.  But that analogy falls apart once you consider the maturity of the industry, the amount of regulation imposed upon it, and a number of examples, like ValueJet, where companies cut corners and people died.)

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2010, 01:36:55 pm »
The overriding question is how much NASA oversight/insight is necessary, and can NASA reduce excessive oversight/insight to achieve that level?

I think it's a good question. But safety can be done in many ways, and some of the solutions might be overspecified.

I agree that there's a large wealth of information that the "have done it repeatably" human spaceflight organizations and contractors have. Then again, we shouldn't think of it as some NASA pixie dust magic.

Landing in the North Atlantic is one of the classic issues of abort, even I have heard about. I don't assume it's a good example of "SpaceX surely hasn't thought about this!".

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2010, 02:33:24 pm »
We mustn't forget Challenger and Columbia. Safety is as much cultural as it is what's written in the requirements, or on a checklist.

The overriding question is how much NASA oversight/insight is necessary, and can NASA reduce excessive oversight/insight to achieve that level?

I think it's a good question. But safety can be done in many ways, and some of the solutions might be overspecified.

Over specification can not only preclude innovation but can also lead to a box ticking mentality (eg "we've met all the requirements it must be safe") rather than a more critical approach that properly analyses what is being done. The safety culture in some other industries has been changing and moving away from the more prescriptive/tightly defined (usually) process-based standards to standards that are less constraining but which require more explicit safety justification of whatever approach is taken.

I agree that there's a large wealth of information that the "have done it repeatably" human spaceflight organizations and contractors have.

Yes this is a difficult balance. Freeing up suppliers whilst ensuring that mistakes aren't repeated and vital issues are not overlooked. Effective oversight/insight is clearly vital. I agree with blackstar that there will be companies that cut corners otherwise (sometimes without even realising the potential impact of doing so).

I think one key thing is focussing as far as practicable on the desired end results rather than the means of achieving them. Of course a desired end result at one level looks like a means of achieving an end result at the next level up! So much easier said than done ...

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2010, 08:30:44 pm »
I think one key thing is focussing as far as practicable on the desired end results rather than the means of achieving them. Of course a desired end result at one level looks like a means of achieving an end result at the next level up! So much easier said than done ...

This is a classic systems engineering issue--in other words, the solution is not found in specifications or rules, but in the experience of the people doing the job who understand how changing one thing can affect something else that seems to have no connection at all to it.


Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2010, 04:20:59 am »
Quote
That said, I can also guarantee you that there are a lot of issues that commercial providers will never consider unless NASA requires them.  A month or so ago somebody sent me a document concerning abort options for an Orion sent to a 52 degree orbit.  Turns out that the abort options are horrible because of the risk of dumping a crew in the North Atlantic a thousand miles from recovery forces and during a storm.  This really limits the weather constraints (you gotta have good weather all along the launch path) and increases the rescue forces requirements.  He thought it was a really tough set of options, but also added the comment "I bet SpaceX has no idea about things like this).

Was surprised about this detail, too. I thought Apollo did not cared about that 30 years ago (because-they-took-more-risk-at-the-time), and I was wrong.
Apollo did his best to avoid high inclination launches, and when forced (ASTP, Skylab), well, the big SPS engine is the back was to be used to literally  "jump" over the Northern Atlantic and land farther, in Europe and beyond. CCDev capsules obviously have no big engines on the service module to push them away from the dreaded Atlantic ocean  ::) What, no one thought about this problem ?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 04:23:52 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2010, 05:19:33 am »
Landing in the North Atlantic is one of the classic issues of abort, even I have heard about. I don't assume it's a good example of "SpaceX surely hasn't thought about this!".

Wanna bet?  To date, SpaceX has only been dealing with the options for unmanned landing off the coast of California, within sight of land.  Their recovery force requirements are very simple.  I'd bet that they have barely thought about abort options for crewed launch, let alone downstream issues like launch weather constraints along the flight path, or recovery force requirements along the flight path.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2010, 01:16:34 pm »
Landing in the North Atlantic is one of the classic issues of abort, even I have heard about. I don't assume it's a good example of "SpaceX surely hasn't thought about this!".

Wanna bet?  To date, SpaceX has only been dealing with the options for unmanned landing off the coast of California, within sight of land.  Their recovery force requirements are very simple.  I'd bet that they have barely thought about abort options for crewed launch, let alone downstream issues like launch weather constraints along the flight path, or recovery force requirements along the flight path.

I could bet on it, though I'm not 100% sure of it, but it would be a good way of getting some money. Of course agreeing on some reasonable terms is probably impossible, how does one define "SpaceX has thought about issue X".

To me the existence of the problem is a pretty trivial matter. SpaceX employ astronauts that have flown to the ISS so they probably know the land paths of high inclinations and might have even trained for North Atlantic scenarios.

Of course, at this point they are concentrating a lot on just building something that works in much more rudimentary ways. For example they haven't demonstrated stuff that survives re-entry into any location yet. Better yet, even relatively short time functioning spacecraft. I think these things are much higher on the worry list at this point.


Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1622
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2010, 01:31:01 pm »
Of course, at this point they are concentrating a lot on just building something that works in much more rudimentary ways. For example they haven't demonstrated stuff that survives re-entry into any location yet. Better yet, even relatively short time functioning spacecraft. I think these things are much higher on the worry list at this point.

Which is my point--they haven't thought about downstream stuff.  But my other point is that when you have firms that have never done stuff like this before, and which are relatively small to boot, you cannot DEPEND that they will consider the necessary safety requirements.  You cannot simply give them a one-page list of requirements and then bet the human spaceflight program on the hope that they'll remember to accomplish all the other stuff.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9402
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2010, 10:56:44 am »
From theworacle via YouTube:
Quote
Boeing video animation of the CST-100 crew transportation vehicle being designed with Bigelow Aerospace under NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. The seven-crew CST-100 is bigger than the Apollo capsule, but smaller than NASA's Orion, and is designed to be launched by a range of rockets incoluding Atlas IV, Delta V and Falcon 9.Video shows the capsule operating with Bigelow's planned inflatable-module Orbital Space Complex.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2010, 08:01:19 am »
Wayne has posted up a follow-up blog - http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/trying-to-clean-up-a-mess/ - regretting posting the original one ... (because it's being misrepresented/misinterpreted). He's also refined his views of the NASA requirements documents, although still thinks NASA has a long way to go.