SpaceX F9 / Dragon 2 : CRS2 SpX-21 - Mission Updates : Dec - Jan (2020/21)

[Elthiryel]

According to Next Spaceflight, booster 1058.4 is going to be used for this mission.

It previously supported three missions:
Crew Demo-2 (May 2020)
ANASIS-II (July 2020)
Starlink-13 (October 2020)

Source: https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/108

It's a bit surprising for me, as the booster is apparently still in the Port Canaveral and to date there has been no flight for NASA with any booster used more than once.

If a date of November 22 holds, it would be a new booster turnaround record of around 47 days. The record is currently held by the same booster (51d 02h 08m, Crew Demo-2 -> ANASIS-II).

[klod]

I think that it is just a false assumption.

[gongora]

If a date of November 22 holds

this one is scheduled late November or early December in the last NASA update.

[Elthiryel]

I think that it is just a false assumption.

Maybe, I don’t know what Michael’s sources are. But I don’t remember a single launch when his website was wrong about the booster assignments.

[klod]

I think that it is just a false assumption.

Maybe, I don’t know what Michael’s sources are. But I don’t remember a single launch when his website was wrong about the booster assignments.

All previous launches for NASA on used boosters were on new boosters from their LV. Only once for IFA SpaceX used different booster. And now we have situation were NASA would allow them to use booster for 4th flight and in a record turnaround time. I have some doubs that NASA are willing to do experiments on such launches. But I would be glad if I am wrong.

[AndrewRG10]

I think that it is just a false assumption.

Maybe, I don’t know what Michael’s sources are. But I don’t remember a single launch when his website was wrong about the booster assignments.

All previous launches for NASA on used boosters were on new boosters from their LV. Only once for IFA SpaceX used different booster. And now we have situation were NASA would allow them to use booster for 4th flight and in a record turnaround time. I have some doubs that NASA are willing to do experiments on such launches. But I would be glad if I am wrong.

You're missing a few things. The reason NASA only used NASA boosters is because the original CRS1 contract forbade reusing capsules or boosters. It just adjusted due to booster availability issues under the condition it was NASA boosters. NASA has used non-NASA boosters such as on Grace-FO in 2018.

And all in all, it's hardly related to CRS-21. And I can't remember a time Michale Baylor got the booster assignment wrong, there is no reason to think he got it wrong this time.

[jpo234]

NASA has used non-NASA boosters such as on Grace-FO in 2018.

The GRACE-FO launch was purchased by the German partner. So that's not strictly NASA using a non-NASA booster.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Next-Generation Airlock Prepped for SpaceX CRS-21 Launch

The first commercially funded airlock for the International Space Station is ready for its journey to space. On Saturday, Oct. 10, teams moved the Nanoracks Bishop Airlock to SpaceX’s processing facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Two days later, it was packed in the Dragon spacecraft’s trunk for its ride to the orbiting laboratory.

The airlock will provide payload hosting, robotics testing, and satellite deployment, and also will serve as an outside toolbox for crew members conducting spacewalks.

The Bishop Airlock is launching on SpaceX’s 21st commercial resupply services (CRS-21) mission to the space station. This will be the first flight of SpaceX’s upgraded cargo version of Dragon, which can carry more science payloads to and from the space station.

The pressurized capsule will carry a variety of research including studies on the effects of microgravity on cardiovascular cells, how space conditions affect the interaction between microbes and minerals, and a technology demonstration of a blood analysis tool in space. CRS-21 is scheduled to launch aboard a Falcon 9 rocket from Kennedy’s Launch Complex 39A. Teams are targeting late November or early December for liftoff.

Author James Cawley   Posted on October 16, 2020

https://blogs.nasa.gov/kennedy/2020/10/16/next-generation-airlock-prepped-for-spacex-crs-21-launch/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1319696284631093248

The first launch of SpaceX's upgraded Cargo Dragon spacecraft, the CRS-21 mission to the ISS for @NASA, is scheduled for no earlier than December.

[SMS]

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1319707917885595648

[scr00chy]

I was looking up the mass of Bishop Airlock and while Gunter's Page says the mass is 325 kg, Houston Chronicle says 2,491 pounds (1,129 kg) and ESA website says 1,060 kg.

[cohberg]

A data point for 1059kg for Bishop

[gongora]

That's interesting as the NASA OIG noted a reduction in external trunk payload capability (800kg on page 12) for D2

Don't believe every number you see in those reports.

[cohberg]

Don't believe every number you see in those reports.

If Bishop is indeed ~1059kg, I agree that mass is clearly that is in excess of 800kg and would invalidate that particular statement in the report.

Do you have other data points where the OIG was factually incorrect? Would kinda defeat the purpose an org that is supposed to independently fact find.

[gongora]

I have seen other instances of incorrect details in various government documents, but I really don't feel like looking back for them today. 

I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing they may have gotten a target number for pressurized upmass and a target number for total upmass, and just subtracted one from the other, when in reality you can trade off between pressurized and unpressurized upmass.  I'm also a little suspicious of those numbers because the upmass and downmass numbers are the same.  The downmass numbers are limited by the parachutes, I think there is probably more wiggle room on the upmass numbers.

[smoliarm]

Don't believe every number you see in those reports.

If Bishop is indeed ~1059kg, I agree that mass is clearly that is in excess of 800kg and would invalidate that particular statement in the report.

Do you have other data points where the OIG was factually incorrect? Would kinda defeat the purpose an org that is supposed to independently fact find.

1.
"Nobody's perfect", "everybody can make mistakes, especially with numbers"  - these are Laws of Nature.
OIG is not exempt from these laws.
2.
Any textbook of reference database contain some amount of mistakes. And using your kind of logic one can say that "it defeats the purpose".
Nevertheless, textbooks do exist - and they do their job - with all the errors within

On your request:
if memory serves me right, some OIG report concerning Crew Dragon had something like 230 ft as height of DRAGON spacecraft. Which is obviously a mistake, 230 ft is height of Falcon 9 WITH Dragon on top.

[kdhilliard]

Our manifest thread states Sea recovery for this mission's booster, B1058.4.  Do we know that to be the case -- that these Cargo Dragon 2 flights will not be RTLS?

If so, is that due to an increased payload (capsule + cargo) mass?  Or is it due to a desire to fly the same flattened trajectory as with Crew Dragon 2 since the more a cargo mission resembles a crew mission the more each cargo flight experience contributes to crew mission assurance?

Edited to add:
I see we had this from last month over in the Mission Paperwork thread:

Mission 1410, NET Nov. 8 from Florida, ASDS landing around the Starlink area 32° 35' 34" N 76° 2' 21" W
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies/1441-EX-ST-2020

The new application 1489-EX-ST-2020 for SpX CRS-21 Dragon comms and recovery ops shares the same mission number, 1410.

So ASDS.
(Though as far as I know, neither NASA nor SpaceX have publicly confirmed that SpX/CRS2 missions will be ASDS.)

[Alexphysics]

Our manifest thread states Sea recovery for this mission's booster, B1058.4.  Do we know that to be the case -- that these Cargo Dragon 2 flights will not be RTLS?

If so, is that due to an increased payload (capsule + cargo) mass?  Or is it due to a desire to fly the same flattened trajectory as with Crew Dragon 2 since the more a cargo mission resembles a crew mission the more each cargo flight experience contributes to crew mission assurance.

Mass. Dragon 2 is a heavy capsule

[ZachS09]

Our manifest thread states Sea recovery for this mission's booster, B1058.4.  Do we know that to be the case -- that these Cargo Dragon 2 flights will not be RTLS?

If so, is that due to an increased payload (capsule + cargo) mass?  Or is it due to a desire to fly the same flattened trajectory as with Crew Dragon 2 since the more a cargo mission resembles a crew mission the more each cargo flight experience contributes to crew mission assurance.

Mass. Dragon 2 is a heavy capsule

Around 12.5 tons.

[ZachS09]

Per an earlier post I made in the "SpaceX launches most mass to orbit Q1 2020" thread, I attached a document file from Orbiter 2016 that gave the Dragon 1 spacecraft mass (5,902 kilograms without cargo).

However, on that same simulator, the mass figures for the Cargo Dragon addon are way off given the official numbers stated by NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/top-10-things-to-know-for-nasa-s-spacex-demo-2-return