Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 / Dragon 2 : SpX-DM1 : April, 2018 : General Thread  (Read 65236 times)

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Kathy: We're working with them to lay out everything that has to happen.  If you have an issue now, it impacts those dates.  We're working aggressively, but as PM, I want to give them ops to make trades based on what they learn from schedule.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Q from Marcia: Will uncrewed missions dock?

A: Yes.

Follow-up: Will there be cargo on those?

A: We'll be working through some level of cargo on both vehicles.  We won't be flying out most expensive cargo, but checking out cargo capabilities on these un-crewed test flights is a good idea.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Q from Irene Klotz: When does decision have to be made to take those extra Soyuz seats from Boeing if CCP isn't ready on current timelines.

A: CCP owes the agency the best schedules and data about risk to schedules to make best decision.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Long discussion about how payments work for final milestones.  Basically, "It's complicated."

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Proposed U.S. FY 2018 budget is of no concern to CCP.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
What work remains to cert abort systems and human-rating both LVs.

A: Already worked through V&V plan for cert for transport and abort systems.  Right now, working through final model results that come through in testing to close the requirements.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Q: What might be thing that keeps you up at night?  What are biggest challenges?

A: What you don't know you don't know yet.

Online Chris Bergin

Q from Marcia Dunn: Timelines for uncrewed and crewed?

Kathy: Contracts state end of 2017 for uncrewed for SpaceX and late-2nd quarter '18 for crewed.  Lots of work left on this.  Will work over next few months to finalize scheduled.

For Boeing, May for uncrewed and August for crew.

So the issue with saying out loud to the media about DM-1 being 2018, per the planning documentation, is the contract language, but she answered it the right way to cover the bases. Also explains the way Jon Cowart recently answered it in an interview.

Worth adding the Eric Berger comment for more context:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/869891198869098496
They've already acknowledged the slip to 2018. But you can rest assured their dates today will be too optimistic.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Q from me: What's the current the LOC gap - current number?  Final aim and how that's changed since initial benchmarks?

A: History... after STS-107, what was LOC number for Shuttle.  It was 1/100.  At same time, ppl were pulling together the CCP numbers.  NASA wanted to get to 10x better than Shuttle.  We've learned a lot over the last 10 years working with the requirement.  Lots learned with Orion, where they learned that 1/1,000 was not credible.  We learned the doing probabilistic assessment required understanding and giving value to LOC elements.  And that's very very difficult.  AT beginning of CCP, there were questions about what was needed and how to make trades.

We chose to use the LOC number as one part of a suite of tools for all sorts of safety requirements... with safety review process compared to performance requirements like oxygen % in cabin and ability to get crew out of capsule in 90 secs.

So as we've working, we've been working to get all of that and the rankings for the contributors to LOC as a way to focus on highest risk items to program. But what's become obvious is that the data sets to run assessments on that we simply don't have.  The certainty bars were high, but as we dug down, we realized that aiming for a number wasn't enough, we had to understand what those numbers were telling us. 

NOW, we starting to understand that that LOC gap given as requirement is going to VERY HARD to meet.  Don't know where we'll end up.  But from agency standpoint, where there are differences in the numbers, we're learning and are happy.

Number might not match, but process and numbers and safety processes are exactly where I want them to be.

I'm very happy that we want through the whole list and as a joint team said "There's nothing we would change in the vehicle designs to change where the LOC number is right now."


Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
Q: What are the milestones coming up?  And where are high-alt aborts currently scheduled?

A: CCP contracts DID NOT mandate uncrewed test flights.  That's something that Spx and Boeing wanted to do on top of the CCP contract requirements.

High alt abort tests.  Each provider developed their own schedule.  Spx's contracted abort was the pad abort a few years ago.  Their in-flight abort test is not required by the contract but something they wanted to do as part of the SAA w/ NASA.  What the abort tests will do is validate that the assessments work. 

Boeing is different.  They will do full-up pad abort test NET 1st Q of 2018.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2017 01:31 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5533
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 2222
  • Likes Given: 365
James Dean: When do you expect to chose who goes first?

A: Not ready yet.  Gerst has trained me well.  "No decision before it's time."  Healthy competition going on here.  Depends on who's ready and when.  We get through an uncrewed demo, and if there's a problem, things have to change.  We're simultaneously preparing for the worst AND the best.  We don't want to hold back a provided that's ready to go.

Dean: How does spacing of flight works?

A: For operational, once we see where they are, we'll figure it out.  Ideally, we'd like six-month rotations. Big struggle right now is making sure we're ready with both, and then figuring out the rotation dance of the manifest.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2017 01:33 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Hg

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
I wonder if NASA will insist that IDA3 has arrived at the ISS and properly installed, so that any visiting commercial vehicle has a backup docking port for attachment, before this SpX-DM1 flight is allowed to launch.  As this flight (or Boeing's first uncrewed test flight) will be the first usage of the new docking standard in space, they may be wary. 
I believe I've heard that the IDA3 is penciled in for launch on SpaceX flight CRS-12, and that the best guess for CRS-12 is 'late 2017'.  After that, IDA3 has to be manually mounted to its PMA by EVAing astronauts.  Probably a new set of astronauts will need to be trained in this EVA before then.   If all this is true, doesn't it suggest that this mission is more likely to launch around December 2017, and the rest of the Commercial Crew Program will follow in 2018? 

I hope NASA will allow SpaceX and Boeing to start flights while only IDA2 is operational.

Now that 18 months have passed since we first discussed the issue above in this thread, perhaps it's time to update the question.  According to the information available publicly (Kirk Shireman, ISS program manager in August 2016, Gunther's Space Page, etc) the IDA3 is manifested to fly on CRS-16 in August 2018.  This DM1 mission is now scheduled around April 2018.  Clearly the redundancy of an attached IDA3 would be desirable from NASA's standpoint for manned missions and the original plan was for both IDAs to be present for docking (not berthing) missions.  To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence.  Will they allow DM1 to proceed?  Perhaps they are counting on further slips to DM1.  There is also some talk made public of moving IDA3's deployment up to February's CRS-14 launch, if it becomes available in time. 

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • United States
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 41
...  To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence. ...

Has NASA declared an unwillingness to launch without a backup port? or is this just conjecture?

Do crewed launches always have a backup docking port?

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 188
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 61
It seems that just one port should be good enough for uncrewed demo missions, to me.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7359
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3083
  • Likes Given: 904
...  To my knowledge, NASA has not declared its willingness to allow docking prior to IDA3's presence. ...

Has NASA declared an unwillingness to launch without a backup port? or is this just conjecture?

Do crewed launches always have a backup docking port?
During the space shuttle period USOS didn't have an active backup docking port for the shuttle. In case the primary docking port failed it would have required swapping out an entire PMA to have the backup docking port available for the space shuttle.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 403
During the space shuttle period USOS didn't have an active backup docking port for the shuttle. In case the primary docking port failed it would have required swapping out an entire PMA to have the backup docking port available for the space shuttle.
Yes, but you know full well that the rules NASA wrote for itself during the Shuttle years no longer apply now that somebody else is making the transport.  For a variety of reasons.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline Hg

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented.  That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact.  That it is important to them is an assumption on my part.  It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • United States
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 41
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented.  That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact.  That it is important to them is an assumption on my part.  It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.

Found this to essentially document what you said:
https://www.theverge.com/2016/7/13/12172822/nasa-docking-adapter-spacex-boeing-commercial-crew

Quote
station managers are trying to ensure that two adapters will be installed and ready before Commercial Crew flights begin
...
It’s not required to have both IDAs on orbit prior to the launch of the first Commercial Crew test flight," Shireman told The Verge during a press conference. "But we are actively monitoring the schedules of the Commercial Crew vehicles. We’re planning to launch on SpaceX 16, or a little earlier if we have to.

So it seems NASA wants (wanted) both in place before launch but it's not required.

And if I remember correctly, (though I can't find the source right now), NASA wanted two adapters so they can have overlapping crew exchanges (launch a new crew before the previous crew leaves), that means there would not be a backup docking port available.

So it seems they only wanted two available ports initially before they establish experience/confidence in the new IDA ports, not as a long term need.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • US
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 1048
NASA's preferences for redundancy are well documented.  That their original program design and management plan intended to have the 2 IDA installed before manned flights occurred is a fact.  That it is important to them is an assumption on my part.  It could be that NASA only cares because they want to park two visiting vehicles simultaneously eventually.

Found this in a NASA OIG document released today:
Quote
The most significant item lost during the SPX-7 mishap was a Docking Adapter necessary to support
upcoming commercial crew missions. Although NASA had planned to have two adapters installed on the
Station before the first “crewed” commercial crew demonstration mission scheduled for June 2018, it is
now likely there will be only one installed in time for this mission. Having only one adapter means that a
commercial crew vehicle will not be able to dock with the ISS if technical issues arise with the single
available docking port. ISS Program officials told us they plan to have the second adapter installed
before regular commercial crew rotations begin in late 2018.

That sounds like the second adapter should still be flown up around CRS-16.

(Those dates for the test mission and first crew rotation obviously aren't going to happen.)
« Last Edit: 11/06/2017 07:53 PM by gongora »

Tags: