CCiCap - Commercial Crew Integrated Capability

[Sam Grey]

pnetmon пишет:

Sam Grey пишет:

pnetmon пишет:
а где вначале нашли документ или тему по нему?

Сорри, не понял вопроса. Лично я вначале увидел это в твиттере Джеймса Дина, репортера из Флорида Тудей.

 https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/563719372657926144

Правильно поняли, хотел узнать откуда узнали вы. Спасибо

у кого-то будет праздник: янки снова платят за место....

интересно будет с российской стороны выступление некоторых деятелей с нежеланием заключать контракт на доставку или очень большое повышение цены... что может привести к увеличению выделяемых денег на американские коммерческие корабли в принимаемом бюджете на 16 год, а потом на 17...

Посмотрим еще. Местные СМИ часто с запозданием на подобное реагируют, надо сначала чтобы кто-то из людей в теме растолковал им, что это всё означает. Вон, на сертификацию Фалкона военными посмотрите, как тему раздули - Сенатор Маккейн кулаком стучит, будущий министр обороны специально публику заверяет, что, мол, он-то уж точно никаких проволочек не допустит, Сэм Гривз (трехзвездный генерал, между прочим) раз в неделю специально по вопросу сертификации встречается с Илоном и Гвинн Шотвелл. И все это только чтоб Спейсам дать возможность в будущем поучаствовать в конкурсе на запуски военных спутников.  

А тут вообще бомба - столько времени кричали, что Роскосмос им руки крутит в плане цены, Рогозин грозит батутом, Дрим Чейсер пришлось зарубить, только чтоб к 18 году успеть и т.д., и вот, нате вам...

[testest2]

Sam Grey пишет:
Просто для "страховки" как-то дороговато, если только не договорятся, что Роскосмос взамен шестерых космонавтов на Драконе/СТС потом отправит.

Скорее всего именно так, но без опций с SLS. Шесть человек на "Союзах"в 2018/2019 в обмен на шесть человек на "Драконах" или CST когда начнется их эксплуатация. Просто страховка.

Sam Grey пишет:
Дрим Чейсер пришлось зарубить, только чтоб к 18 году успеть

Да бросьте, с самого начала было известно, что контракт получат только две компании.

[Sam Grey]

testest пишет:
Да бросьте, с самого начала было известно, что контракт получат только две компании.

Конечно две.  Я про то, что во время рассмотрения предложений, способность предоставить готовый корабль к четко определенному сроку считалось ничуть не менее важным чем стоимость.  Вот, смотрите (пардон за оригинал, но гугл переводчик должен передать суть):

For Sierra Nevada, the board noted "schedule risk from system complexity and lack of maturity" as one of four technical weaknesses in that company's proposal. Gerstenmaier, in his review of the board's analysis in the statement, stated Sierra Nevada had yet to make a decision on the main propulsion system for its Dream Chaser vehicle. "This is evidence of an evolving design that will lead to schedule risk and uncertainty," he wrote.

Gerstenmaier appeared less worried about schedule issues with Boeing and SpaceX. His confidence in Boeing, he said, was based on both its technical plan as well as its past performance on other spaceflight programs, including the space shuttle and the ISS. "This increases my confidence that Boeing has a solid plan and will be able to complete the development of their system to NASA's standards within the needed timeframe," he said.

He was skeptical SpaceX would be able to complete NASA certification of its Dragon spacecraft by mid-2017, as the company proposed, citing the likelihood of slips in earlier phases in development. "These early slips could result in longer and more significant impacts to completing certification," he wrote.

http://spacenews.com/documents-show-how-boeing-and-spacex-won-commercial-crew-amid-schedule-concerns/#sthash.vOdfvHIV.dpuf

[triage]

а тут писали еще январе, получается новость про 2018 год не очень-очень горячая

 http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/28/nasa-expects-continued-use-of-soyuz-in-era-of-commercial-spaceships/
At the Monday news briefing, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made it clear he does not want to buy seats from the Russians if he doesn't have to.

"I don't ever want to have to write another check to Roscosmos after 2017, hopefully," he said.

But NASA's current contract for Soyuz seats does not cover 2018 and Suffredini said in a Jan. 15 interview that seats aboard the Russian spacecraft must be reserved three years in advance. Given uncertainty in the commercial crew schedule, NASA may be forced to buy more seats despite Bolden's vow to stop writing checks.

Right now, our big challenge is with the uncertainty in the schedule, how do you make sure you're ready for whatever's going to happen?" Suffredini said. "And then in all that mix is making sure we have enough seats purchased from our Russian colleagues in time. So I have to tell them, which is reasonable, three years in advance whether I want seats."

[triage]

интересно, если вдуматься в

But NASA's current contract for Soyuz seats does not cover 2018 and Suffredini said in a Jan. 15 interview that seats aboard the Russian spacecraft must be reserved three years in advance.

в 2016 году НАСА будет опять покупать места, уже на 2019-2020 год?
т.к. коммерческие не летают или у кораблей нету нескольких полетов доказывающих их большую надежность и отсутствие трудноустранимых "детских болезней".

[SFN]

по сравнению с затратами на СиСИкэп покупка мест для их подстраховки сущие копейки.

[triage]

а сколько в год должны летать эти корабли, сколько астронавтов в год должно посетить станцию.... не в количестве астронавтов конечно дело.
в графике запусков http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum14/topic9573/message1335974/#message1335974 опубликованы только транспортники

[SFN]

pnetmon пишет:
а сколько в год должны летать эти корабли, сколько астронавтов в год должно посетить станцию.... не в количестве астронавтов конечно дело.
в графике запусков http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum14/topic9573/message1335974/#message1335974 опубликованы только транспортники

эти корабли два раза в год по 4 человека (3 астронавта и 1 космонавт). Экипаж МКС по т.н. соглашению Черномырдина-Гора составляет 3 чела на РС МКС и 4 чела на американском сегменте.

[Sam Grey]

SFN пишет:

pnetmon пишет:
а сколько в год должны летать эти корабли, сколько астронавтов в год должно посетить станцию.... не в количестве астронавтов конечно дело.
в графике запусков http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum14/topic9573/message1335974/#message1335974 опубликованы только транспортники

эти корабли два раза в год по 4 человека (3 астронавта и 1 космонавт). Экипаж МКС по т.н. соглашению Черномырдина-Гора составляет 3 чела на РС МКС и 4 чела на американском сегменте.

Интересно, в чем смысл планирующегося обмена в будущем (космонавты на Драконах/СТС, астронавты на Союзах), если Союз вмещает как раз троих, а новые американские капсулы - четверых? С точки зрения хотя бы логистики это вдвойне странно, при таком долгом подготовительном цикле на Союзах и при том, что кресла на нем индивидуальные?

Почему просто не отправлять людей из каждой страны на их национальных кораблях?

[Ну-и-ну]

Смысл - пересменка, когда только один корабль пристыкован. В это время хочется иметь на станции "представителя".

[triage]

SFN пишет:

pnetmon пишет:
а сколько в год должны летать эти корабли, сколько астронавтов в год должно посетить станцию.... не в количестве астронавтов конечно дело.
в графике запусков http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum14/topic9573/message1335974/#message1335974 опубликованы только транспортники

эти корабли два раза в год по 4 человека (3 астронавта и 1 космонавт). Экипаж МКС по т.н. соглашению Черномырдина-Гора составляет 3 чела на РС МКС и 4 чела на американском сегменте.

к МКС летали шаттлы - и в момент посещения шаттла на МКС вместе с экипажем шаттла было никак не 3+4 человека
шаттл к МКС летал больше чем 2 раза в год....  то есть два раза в год для смены экипажа отпадает, можно чаще посещать.
а сколько было максимум людей на МКС?
при посещении шаттлом экипаж шаттла находился большую часть времени и "спал+естественные потребности" на шаттле?

[triage]

pnetmon пишет:
а сколько в год должны летать эти корабли, сколько астронавтов в год должно посетить станцию.... не в количестве астронавтов конечно дело.

из английской вики... 
 http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/nasa-chooses-american-companies-to-transport-us-astronauts-to-international/#.VNhylPnGovk

The contracts include at least one crewed flight test per company with at least one NASA astronaut aboard to verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, as well as validate all its systems perform as expected. Once each company's test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station. These spacecraft also will serve as a lifeboat for astronauts aboard the station.

 http://spacenews.com/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions/

The contracts also include at least two and as many as six operational flights per company to the ISS, each carrying four astronauts, once NASA certifies each company's vehicle. Each flight will also be able to transport 100 kilograms of cargo to and from the station.

если 6 миссий одной компании на три года 18,19,20, то как пишет SFN получается каждый корабль два раза в год. и в год НАСА имеет 4 пилотируемых запуска к МКС.

[Salo]

http://spacenews.com/commercial-crew-companies-continue-to-compete-after-contracts/

Commercial Crew Companies Continue To Compete after Contracts
by Jeff Foust — March 6, 2015

Garrett Reisman, director of crew operations for SpaceX, and John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of commercial programs at Boeing Space Exploration, politely sparred with one another at a Feb. 27 House Science space subcommittee hearing. Credit: SpaceX/Boeing/SpaceNews  
 
WASHINGTON — Nearly six months after winning high-profile NASA contracts, the two companies developing commercial crew transportation systems are still in some sense competing with each other, playing up their strengths and highlighting the other's perceived weaknesses.
At a U.S. House Science space subcommittee hearing on NASA's commercial crew program Feb. 27, representatives of Boeing and SpaceX politely sparred with each other about which company was in the best position to meet NASA's goal of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station by the end of 2017.
 
ULA Atlas 5 rocket. Credit: NASA/Glenn Benson

Much of that debate focused on the companies' choices of launch vehicles for their crewed spacecraft: Boeing's use of the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 versus SpaceX's Falcon 9.
"The Falcon 9 is, in our opinion, the best way for the U.S. to wean itself off its Russian dependency," said Garrett Reisman, director of crew operations for SpaceX, noting that unlike the Atlas 5 and its Russian-built main engine, the Falcon 9 is "100 percent American-made."
Reisman argued that the Falcon 9, which performed its 16th launch March 1, is catching up in experience to the veteran Atlas 5, which has flown 52 times to date. "By the time in 2017 when we strap somebody in, we'll be well over 50 missions," he said.
John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of commercial programs at Boeing Space Exploration of Houston, responded with some skepticism about that flight rate. "As Dr. Reisman mentions, they expect to be over 50 missions by the time the [commercial crew] launch services are provided," he said, "which would be a significant increase in their schedule reliability to be able to achieve that number of missions."
Mulholland also pointed out Falcon 9 had gone through "different design changes," including the introduction of the Falcon 9 v1.1 in 2013 and plans to increase the thrust of the Falcon 9's first-stage engines starting later this year. "So it will be interesting to see the stability and scale as they perform" that increased number of launches, he said.
The different values of the contracts also became a topic for debate at the hearing. Boeing's contract is worth $4.2 billion, compared with SpaceX's $2.6 billion, assuming all options for later operational flights are exercised. One subcommittee member, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), asked about that apparent disparity.

SpaceX Falcon 9. Credit: SpaceX

"There is a difference in approach," Mulholland responded. "I think the only objective evidence is the NASA evaluation from the source selection board." That board's report, he said, contained "many instances of statements about the increasing confidence that NASA has in the Boeing plan because of the detailed understanding of the certification requirements."
He compared that with SpaceX, which he said "did not demonstrate as good an understanding of the certification products or have effective systems for the development of these key products."
Reisman countered that the technical difference between the two companies' proposals was not that large. "If you look in detail at the source selection official's statement, it was neck-and-neck when it came to technical and mission suitability," he said. "There was a 7 percent difference in the scores that were awarded, but there was a 70 percent difference in price."
In data released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in January, SpaceX received 457 of 525 points in the technical evaluation of its commercial crew proposal, while Boeing received 488 points, or about 7 percent higher than SpaceX. Boeing's proposal price, excluding the flight services included in the NASA contract value, was $3.01 billion, about 70 percent higher than the $1.75 billion price offered by SpaceX.
Reisman said the price difference was caused in large part by difference in maturity between SpaceX's Dragon v2 vehicle and Boeing's CST-100. "We're so much ahead in terms of development of the vehicle," he said, citing SpaceX's experience with the cargo version of Dragon currently in service. "We had a lot of runway behind us, and at the same time we're also very efficient."
While Mulholland and Reisman debated their relative strengths and weaknesses, the two left room for potential future collaboration. Mulholland noted that Boeing has had discussions in the past with SpaceX about the technical compatibility of the CST-100 with the Falcon 9 as a backup to the Atlas 5. "We were not given a bid for the Falcon 9 in this previous phase of the proposal, but we've had discussions with SpaceX," he said.
"We have had some discussion" about using Falcon 9 for the CST-100, Reisman agreed, but added that any decisions about bidding were "above my pay grade."
"I don't get a commission, so I can't sell you one of those today," Reisman told Mulholland.

[Александр Ч.]

Неожиданно:

RuScience ‏@riascience  37 мин.37 минут назад

Нижняя палата Конгресса вчера урезала частные пилотируемые полеты в новом бюджете @NASA. «Придется дальше полагаться на Россию» (глава НАСА)

[triage]

 http://www.vox.com/2015/5/20/8631225/nasa-budget-house
House Republicans want NASA to focus on studying other planets, not Earth
On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee approved a 2016 spending bill that could play a big role in shaping NASA's activities for the next several years.
....
The Senate still has to pass its own version of the bill, and that version could differ substantially.
....
When it comes to NASA's human spaceflight programs — which ultimately eat up more of the agency's budget than science — the bill allocated about $200 million more than Obama's proposal.
The biggest bump is the extra $493 million the bill would devote to NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), a gigantic rocket currently in development that the agency wants to eventually use for a human mission to Mars. There've been some doubts that NASA would be able to complete SLS given current levels of funding, so this is good news for the program. Funding for the Orion capsule, which would be paired with SLS as part of a Mars mission, is the same as in Obama's request.
On the other hand, the bill dictates a $244 million cut to NASA's Commercial Crew Program — a partnership between NASA and private companies that will see SpaceXand Boeing begin to ferry astronauts up to the Space Station and back starting in 2017.
This program was intended to allow NASA to delegate the relatively routine transport to and from low Earth orbit to private companies, in order to focus on a more ambitious mission to Mars. But NASA has previously said that cuts to this program will force it to renegotiate existing contracts with SpaceX and Boeing, and could mean substantial delays.
....

 http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2015/0519-the-house-proposes-big-increases-to-planetary-sls-cuts-to-earth-science-and-commercial-crew.html
...
Commercial Crew funded below NASA's request
The $1 billion for Commercial Crew provided in this bill would be the most Congress has ever approved for this program, but it is $246 million below what the White House and NASA requested for 2016. NASA has stated several times that providing anything less than their requested amount would delay the program and require them to renegotiate their contracts with SpaceX and Boeing.

слова Болдена про деньги посылаемые в Москву
http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2015/05/19/investing-in-our-journey-to-mars/

[Александр Ч.]

pnetmon пишет:

Нижняя палата Конгресса вчера урезала частные пилотируемые полеты в новом бюджете @NASA .

это как частные пилотируемые полеты в бюджете НАСА ?

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/20/8631225/nasa-budget-house
House Republicans want NASA to focus on studying other planets, not Earth
.....
When it comes to NASA's human spaceflight programs — which ultimately eat up more of the agency's budget than science — the bill allocated about $200 million more than Obama's proposal.
The biggest bump is the extra $493 million the bill would devote to NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), a gigantic rocket currently in development that the agency wants to eventually use for a human mission to Mars . There've been some doubts that NASA would be able to complete SLS given current levels of funding, so this is good news for the program. Funding for the Orion capsule , which would be paired with SLS as part of a Mars mission, is the same as in Obama's request.
On the other hand, the bill dictates a $244 million cut to NASA's Commercial Crew Program — a partnership between NASA and private companies that will see SpaceX and Boeing begin to ferry astronauts up to the Space Station and back starting in 2017.
This program was intended to allow NASA to delegate the relatively routine transport to and from low Earth orbit to private companies, in order to focus on a more ambitious mission to Mars. But NASA has previously said that cuts to this program will force it to renegotiate existing contracts with SpaceX and Boeing, and could mean substantial delays.
....

Вольный перевод: С другой стороны законопроект диктует $244млн сокращение программы ( NASA's Commercial Crew Program) - партнерство между НАСА и частными компаниями, в котором виделись SpaceX и Boeing начинавшие доставку астронавтов на космическую станцию и обратно с 2017г.

[triage]

как-то неожиданно для себя узнал

 http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-selects-four-astronauts-to-fly-commercial-crew-missions
....Boeing and SpaceX were sel ected for the final phase of the program, Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP), last fall. Their contracts with NASA require them to fly at least one crewed flight test with at least one NASA astronaut to the ISS to verify that the system can launch, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the ISS. To meet that requirement, the companies must provide the requisite training for the crews.

SpaceX founder, CEO and lead designer Elon Musk said last summer that SpaceX does not plan to have any astronauts of its own and only astronauts sel ected by NASA will fly to the ISS on Crew Dragon. (NASA is responsible for getting not only its own astronauts, but those of the non-Russian ISS partners -- Japan, Canada and Europe -- to and from the ISS under the Intergovernmental Agreement that governs the program.)  Boeing's John Elbon, vice president and general manager for space exploration, said in April that Boeing plans to fly one NASA astronaut and one Boeing test pilot on its test flight....

пишут что Маск в мае-июне 2014 года заявил что при первом испытательном полете к МКС не будет испытателя от его компании.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/first-crewed-dragon-flight-to-orbit-will-carry-nasa-astronauts
Some of the companies competing for the commercial crew contract have indicated that initial orbital crewed flights may involve one crewperson fr om the company and another fr om NASA. Musk said tonight that SpaceX has no astronauts and the first crewed flight would be with NASA astronauts only. When asked when the first crewed flight would take place, therefore, Musk said that was NASA's call since it is the customer. He said little training is needed to fly aboard Dragon since it is entirely automated, including docking.

И стало более непонятно с 4 выбранными астронавтами НАСА. Считал на один корабль есть основной и дублирующий астронавт от НАСА. Тогда при полете двух астронавтов НАСА на Драконе, кто резервные? Ведь к первому полету они,наверное, тренируются под определенный корабль.

[Lanista]

[Nilk]

Прикольная картинка, а кто знает, почему изначально Орион белым был: на картинках и дроп тестах, а когда полетел в испытательный полет был уже черный и после этого его стали рисовать только черным?

[Salo]

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/626105107181117441

Stephen Clark ‏@StephenClark1  
 
Gerst: With SLS/Orion and two commercial crew ships, we're in the most intense period of human spaceflight development in our history.

12:01 - 28 июля 2015 г.