Author Topic: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)  (Read 469164 times)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6460
  • Liked: 4567
  • Likes Given: 5105
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #980 on: 05/23/2018 01:20 pm »
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?

The details in this image are being discussed actively in the Dragon 2 thread.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #981 on: 05/23/2018 11:18 pm »
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.
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?!  ???
non zero chance.  Not a big chance but non zero.

Harley Davidson almost tore down their very first "factory" because no one remembered what that old shed out back behind the new plant was for...
LEGO doesn't have a copy of every set they ever sold, and had to go to the collector marketplace to get some to fill in gaps.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Swedish chef

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #982 on: 05/24/2018 08:15 am »
Quote
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.

Translated article
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/8kbgvj/alain_charmeau_chief_of_ariane_group_the/dz6f2pw/

Original source in German
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html
« Last Edit: 05/24/2018 08:17 am by Swedish chef »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #983 on: 06/22/2018 06:25 am »
After seeing the updates on CRS-16, I'm quite impressed with the manifest flexibility for external cargo that NASA and SpaceX have been demonstrating on CRS launches over the last year and a half.  Probably also helps that there is a significant pent up demand for those slots now. 

Mission/LaunchOriginal ManifestIntermediate ManifestFlown/Current ManifestNotes
CRS-13ASIM, TSIS, MISSEE-FFTSIS, SDS, MISSE-FFTSIS, SDSASIM swapped with SDS of CRS-14; MISSE-FF manifested but not ready in time to fly
CRS-14(IDA-3) or (RRM3, SDS, PFCS)RRM3, ASIM, PFCSMISSE-FF, ASIM, PFCSRRM3 not ready or bumped for tardy MISSE-FF?
CRS-15ECOSTRESS, RRM3(2), MISSE-FF(2)ECOSTRESS + ?ECOSTRESS, LEENot sure if actually 2 facilities or just second flight opportunities kept on schedule; replacing LEEs on ISS, ground spare added
CRS-16(IDA-3) or (RRM3, SDS, PFCS)IDA-3RRM3, GEDI, +FRAM?IDA-3 swapped with GEDI from CRS-18;  RRM3 remanifested from CRS-14

[Manifest Sources]:
Original- November 2016 https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/11/spacex-external-cargo-20th-revealed/
Intermediate- Personal log sourced from various ISS FPIP charts in NAC presentations and mission UPDATES threads
Flown/Current- Personal log, SpaceX Log Thread, and relevant mission UPDATE threads
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10183
  • US
  • Liked: 13845
  • Likes Given: 5915
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #984 on: 06/22/2018 02:20 pm »

Mission/LaunchOriginal ManifestIntermediate ManifestFlown/Current ManifestNotes
CRS-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.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2018 02:21 pm by gongora »

Offline YEGLego

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #985 on: 06/26/2018 07:18 pm »
From reddit user /u/Zee2, a close up of the on-display F9 B1019's legs. Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/8u2mfp/extreme_closeup_shot_of_b1019s_rev1_landing_leg/

Offline tyrred

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 920
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 20558
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #986 on: 06/29/2018 07:01 am »
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?

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #987 on: 06/29/2018 01:49 pm »
GEDI and RRM3 would fill the trunk, no room for another FRAM.

That's mainly a copy/paste artefact.  When GEDI was originally manifested on CRS-18, I had it as GEDI + FRAM.  Then just moved the whole bit to CRS-16 --where RRM3 already was-- without checking on sizes.  Thanks for the correction.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #988 on: 06/29/2018 09:48 pm »
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?

You are correct.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9670
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #989 on: 07/03/2018 01:14 am »
With the 10 year anniversary of the first successful Falcon 1 launch coming up in September, I viewed this old launch webcast video today.

After the short promo video, at T-14:42, they cut to two SpaceX people doing the launch webcast.

The one on the left is clearly Max Vozoff, the guy who first publicly announced the Raptor engine project at an AIAA conference in 2008, then announced as a second-stage hydrolox engine research project.

But who is the woman on the video on the right?  She tee's up the first question to Max, but then later, off camera, seems to be a participant in the launch sequence team time and procedure callouts. 


Edited:  [Mods:  feel free to move.  I searched to find a Falcon 1 thread and was unable to find one.]
« Last Edit: 07/03/2018 01:21 am by Llian Rhydderch »
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6333
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4204
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #990 on: 07/03/2018 02:48 am »
Diane Murphy?

Business Wire...
« Last Edit: 07/03/2018 02:49 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9670
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #991 on: 07/03/2018 04:24 am »
Thanks, docm!  Yes, Diane Murphy is definitely the one in that

So that means Musk/SpaceX did webcasts with a communications person and a senior biz dev person before SpaceX went to the current, seemingly long-term stable, practice of having engineers and lower-level mission managers et al doing the job.

Seems she stayed at SpaceX only 7 months.  LinkedIn has this in her profile:

Quote
Vice President, Marketing/Communications
Company NameSpaceX
Dates Employed Jul 2008 – Jan 2009  Employment Duration 7 mos
Recruited 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.


Edited to add context from her LinkedIn page.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2018 11:07 pm by Llian Rhydderch »
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 968
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #992 on: 07/11/2018 04:45 pm »
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..
« Last Edit: 07/11/2018 04:48 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #993 on: 07/11/2018 11:13 pm »
Is it possible that static fires will count toward the five events?  In which case, the static fire before the crewed launch would be magic number 5.
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..

Online RobW

Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #994 on: 07/11/2018 11:25 pm »
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?
Science fiction writer, spaceflight blogger, and unrepentant technological optimist.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8853
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10187
  • Likes Given: 11916
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #995 on: 07/11/2018 11:58 pm »
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

Elsewhere in that GAO report there was the following:

Quote
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.

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?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #996 on: 07/12/2018 09:31 am »
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

Elsewhere in that GAO report there was the following:

Quote
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.

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?

Maybe the analysis is considering potential delays driven by NASA-side issues whereas the contractors are proposing schedules that only consider their internal issues.  So, e.g. delays from getting approvals of variances from NASA or in final reviews when the program office is going to get a lot of paperwork filed all around the same time may not be factored into the partner timelines. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #997 on: 07/12/2018 10:23 am »
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?

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.)
« Last Edit: 07/12/2018 10:24 am by woods170 »

Offline SDSmith

  • Danny Smith
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Sugar Hill
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #998 on: 07/12/2018 10:51 am »
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?

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?

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: General Falcon and Dragon discussion (Thread 14)
« Reply #999 on: 07/12/2018 11:00 am »
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?

In principle, it could have a small payload, and dump it anywhere.
Or, it could even go all the way to LEO, then do a 5.5km/s retroburn to test entry stuff if that was interesting.
Or even perhaps if they're feeling bold, fly it to Mr Steven as the fuel runs out.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1