If this is in the wrong place, or has been answered before please move. But looking at the flight hardware for Dragon 2 in the testing chamber, I have a question. Did the retractable nose cone get deleted along with propulsive landing and the landing legs?
Quote from: abaddon on 05/22/2018 09:57 pmQuote from: maxdefolsch on 05/22/2018 04:30 pmYes, as I explained to the moderator who moved my thread here, it was less me asking if you had more information about the cores than on the subreddit wiki, and more me wondering if it was possible to try to reach out to SpaceX / Elon Musk directly and get noticed so that we can ask for the missing information. As I said, I got no answer in both email and Twitter, but I'm also a random nobody, and I was hoping something coming from this community could have more weight.SpaceX might actually not have that information or the information might not be readily accessible even internally. Or maybe the numbers don't really exist at all except as backdated/presumed, even internally.You really think SpaceX doesn't know the serial numbers of the boosters they built?!
Quote from: maxdefolsch on 05/22/2018 04:30 pmYes, as I explained to the moderator who moved my thread here, it was less me asking if you had more information about the cores than on the subreddit wiki, and more me wondering if it was possible to try to reach out to SpaceX / Elon Musk directly and get noticed so that we can ask for the missing information. As I said, I got no answer in both email and Twitter, but I'm also a random nobody, and I was hoping something coming from this community could have more weight.SpaceX might actually not have that information or the information might not be readily accessible even internally. Or maybe the numbers don't really exist at all except as backdated/presumed, even internally.
Yes, as I explained to the moderator who moved my thread here, it was less me asking if you had more information about the cores than on the subreddit wiki, and more me wondering if it was possible to try to reach out to SpaceX / Elon Musk directly and get noticed so that we can ask for the missing information. As I said, I got no answer in both email and Twitter, but I'm also a random nobody, and I was hoping something coming from this community could have more weight.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Meanwhile, SpaceX is cheaper.Charmeau: Excuse me, but this is not correct. You have to ask yourself why SpaceX is charging the US government 100 million dollar per launch, but launches for European customers are much cheaper. Why do they do that?SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because this way they can offer launches cheaper for commercial customers - like the german government.Charmeau: They do that to kick Europe out of space. The public and the politicians should know that. It is about the question, if Europe will still be active in space tomorrow. Our US friends do not really support this. I will immediately subscribe contracts with European governments for 100 million dollars per launch. This is the price, SpaceX is charging their own government. But if the German government insists to buy launches as cheap as possible, our US competitor benefits from that.
Mission/LaunchOriginal ManifestIntermediate ManifestFlown/Current ManifestNotesCRS-16(IDA-3) or (RRM3, SDS, PFCS)IDA-3RRM3, GEDI, +FRAM?IDA-3 swapped with GEDI from CRS-18; RRM3 remanifested from CRS-14
GEDI and RRM3 would fill the trunk, no room for another FRAM.
Forgive me if this question has been answered before... Before the solar arrays are deployed, why does the dragon trunk appear to be attached asymmetric with respect to falcon and dragon radial symmetry? When the solar arrays are deployed, it appears axially symmetric. Is this due to the solar arrays being stowed with the same "handedness" of deployment apparatus?
Vice President, Marketing/CommunicationsCompany NameSpaceXDates Employed Jul 2008 – Jan 2009 Employment Duration 7 mosRecruited by Founder/CEO/CTO to establish marketing/communications department and raise visibility of company to support winning of $1.6 billion NASA contract to resupply International Space Station. Award won in December 2008. Ran media relations, events, exhibits, multi-media campaigns, website content and design, advertising and promotions, employee communications, company Intranet and Internet, and community affairs.
As confirmed in the latest GAO report, looks like they'll be using a Block-V with the COPV V2 for the Abort test. SpaceX is using the Abort Test as one of 5 Fuel loadings to prove out Load-n-Go. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf"...SpaceX agreed to demonstrate the loading process five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration prior to the crewed flight test. The five events include the uncrewed flight test and the in-flight abort test."Which means at least 3 of these fueling demonstrations will be for ComSats and possibly CRS-16. Regardless, I haven't heard of any B5s having been shipped for testing w/ the COPV V2 yet..
As confirmed in the latest GAO report, looks like they'll be using a Block-V with the COPV V2 for the Abort test. SpaceX is using the Abort Test as one of 5 Fuel loadings to prove out Load-n-Go. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdf
Both contractors have notified NASA that their certification milestones have slipped to January 2019 for Boeing and February 2019 for SpaceX, but the Commercial Crew Program’s schedule risk analysis indicates more delays are likely. This analysis identifies a range for each contractor, with an earliest and latest possible completion date, as well as an average. In April 2018, the program’s schedule risk analysis found there was zero percent chance that either contractor would achieve its current proposed certification milestone. The analysis’s average certification date was December 2019 for Boeing and January 2020 for SpaceX.
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/11/2018 04:45 pmAs confirmed in the latest GAO report, looks like they'll be using a Block-V with the COPV V2 for the Abort test. SpaceX is using the Abort Test as one of 5 Fuel loadings to prove out Load-n-Go. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693035.pdfElsewhere in that GAO report there was the following:QuoteBoth contractors have notified NASA that their certification milestones have slipped to January 2019 for Boeing and February 2019 for SpaceX, but the Commercial Crew Program’s schedule risk analysis indicates more delays are likely. This analysis identifies a range for each contractor, with an earliest and latest possible completion date, as well as an average. In April 2018, the program’s schedule risk analysis found there was zero percent chance that either contractor would achieve its current proposed certification milestone. The analysis’s average certification date was December 2019 for Boeing and January 2020 for SpaceX.That is a significant difference, and I'm not sure I understand how the risk analysis came up with such a dramatic slip. Maybe it's a worst case analysis?
For the inflight abort test to count as a fuelling demo, it would have to have a functional upper stage. Have we seen evidence before now that SpaceX planned to fly the abort with an upper stage?
Quote from: RobW on 07/11/2018 11:25 pmFor the inflight abort test to count as a fuelling demo, it would have to have a functional upper stage. Have we seen evidence before now that SpaceX planned to fly the abort with an upper stage?This. I don't think a partial vehicle (booster only) would count as one of "five times from the launch site in the final crew configuration".The fact that the in-flight abort test is specifically mentioned as one of those five times is pretty much solid proof IMO that the in-flight abort test will fly with a full-up and active upper stage. It would in fact be the right thing to do given that during launch the entire stack is controlled from the avionics tower, which is located on top of the second stage.(The booster stage avionics for booster return and landing do not take over until after S1/S2 separation.)
So the process will be Abort, capsule separates, 2nd stage separates from the booster, then the 1st stage attempts a RTLS? If the 2nd stage is fully fueled. What would they do it with it? Self destruct the stage as a test?